Sitting of 2 September 1886

MINUTES.
PRIVATE BILL (by Order)—Considered as amended—Portsmouth and Hayling Railway, debate adjourned.
PUBLIC BILL—Second Reading—Secret Service (Repeal)*[41].

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  PORTSMOUTH AND HAYLING RAILWAY BILL (by Order).

    CONSIDERATION.
    Bill, as amended, considered.
    Amendments made.
    Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended (Queen's Consent signified).
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Sir Charles Forster.)
    MR. J. E. ELLIS: Before this Bill passes beyond the control of the House, the House will do well to receive some assurance from the promoters that it does not in any way touch common lands. I should be the last to impose any obstacle in the
    1062
    way of the Bill passing; but considering what took place on the 11th of May last with respect to the Hayling Common, and that the House took the very strong step of refusing to confirm a Provisional Order, I think it is desirable we should know whether this Bill in any way touches, not only Hayling Common, but any other Common in the neighbourhood.
    MR. KIMBER: I have not received any instructions upon the point. Perhaps it would be well to put the Bill down for tomorrow.
    MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member oppose the third reading of the Bill?
    MR. J. E. ELLIS: I do until that assurance is given.
    Debate adjourned till Tomorrow.

  QUESTIONS.

    POOR LAW (IRELAND)—BANTRY BOARD OF GUARDIANS.
    MR. GILHOOLYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is true that the Chairman of the Bantry Board of Guardians, at the recent meetings of the Board, refused to receive notices of motion relating to eviction notices which may be served on the relieving officer of the Bantry Union; whether, according to Article twelve of the General Regulations for the Governing of Poor Law Boards, it is the duty of the Chairman to receive such notices; if the Local Government Board for Ireland are aware of his refusal to do so; and, whether they will issue a sealed order to compel him to act in future in accordance with the General Regulations referred to?
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir MICHEAL HICKS-BEACH: It is a fact that the Chairman of the Bantry Board of Guardians refused to receive the notice mentioned. The Local Government Board think that it should properly have been received under Article 13 of the General Regulations, and they have intimated this opinion to the Guardians. At the same time, they do not think the circumstances would warrant them in issuing a sealed Order as suggested, and I believe there is a legal remedy open to any person aggrieved.
    MR. GILHOOLY:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that about three weeks since the Local Government Board intimated their opinion to the Guardians, and that the Chairman refused to receive notices?
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: It may be so.
    MR. M. HEALYasked if the right hon. Gentleman would say what the legal remedy was?
    [No reply.]

    ARMY (CLOTHING DEPARTMENT)—CLOTH FOR ARMY UNIFORMS.
    MR. HOOPERasked the Surveyor General of Ordnance, What are the steps that will in future be taken to inform manufacturers in Ireland periodically of the desire of the Government to receive tenders for the supply of cloth for Army uniforms?
    THE SURVEYOR GENERAL (Mr. NORTHCOTE): The exigencies of the Service necessitate the adoption of patterns of cloth which are not made by the trade generally, and hitherto have been supplied by Yorkshire and West of England firms, who have facilities for the production of these special cloths. If any Irish firm desires to take up this special manufacture, I have to say that I have given directions that patterns of the cloths shall be at once forwarded to Dublin, where they can be inspected. Advertisements of the War Office requirements will also be inserted in some of the principal Irish newspapers; and if an apparently satisfactory tender is received a trial order will probably be given.
    MR. HOOPERasked whether, in the distribution of the advertisements amongst the Irish newspapers, the claims of those newspapers representing popular opinion would be considered?
    [No reply.]

    SUGAR BOUNTIES (ABOLITION)—AN INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE.
    MR. TOMLINSONasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether Her Majesty's Government would be favourable to the early assembling of an International Conference, with a view to the total abolition, by Treaty, of all bounties on the export of sugar?
    THE SECRETARY (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): I can only reply to my hon. Friend in the same sense in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer replied to a similar Question which was asked on Monday last.

    THE PATENT OFFICE—THE COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY.
    MR. TOMLINSONasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether it is intended to take up the inquiry set on foot by the late Government into the working of the Patent Office; and, whether the inquiry will deal with the administration of the Acts relating to Trade Marks and Copyright of Design?
    THE SECRETARY (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): The Committee appointed to inquire into the duties, organization, and arrangements of the Patent Office have concluded their investigations, and the Board of Trade are awaiting their Report, which has been delayed owing to the Dissolution. The Board of Trade trust that the Committee may be induced to extend their investigation into the Trade Marks and Designs Department of the Patent Office.

    POST OFFICE—TELEGRAPH CLERKS— SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCES.
    MR. O'HEA(for Mr. P. J.POWER)asked the Postmaster General, Whether it is a fact that telegraph clerks withdrawn from the Belfast Post Office for relief duty at other offices in the Northern District, are only granted a subsistence allowance of 3s. per day; and, whether clerks withdrawn from the other offices in the same District, for the same purpose, are granted 2s. per day; and, if so, under what authority is the surveyor, Mr. Walter Ahearn, authorised to make the distinction, and to over-ride the specific instructions of the Postmaster General, issued in the official circular of the 19th June, 1883, which regulates the rate of allowance to clerks employed on relief duty, and states that when so employed they are to receive at the rate of 5s. per day?
    THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): I have to inform the hon. Member,

    1065
    in reply to his Question, that the Circular of the. 19th of June, 1883, to which he refers, prescribes that an extra allowance, not exceeding 5s. a day for subsistence, may be granted to sorting clerks and telegraphists in the United Kingdom when detached from one office to another for the purpose of giving assistance in times of pressure. It is found that the cost of living at some places is greater than in others, and it is desirable to give a certain latitude to the head of a district to fix the allowance within a maximum according to the circumstances of the case. The duty is voluntary, and there are plenty of applicants.

    ARMY MEDICAL DEPARTMENT—THE ANNUAL REPORTS.
    DR. FARQUHARSONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he is aware that considerable dissatisfaction exists in the Army Medical Department by recent changes in the publication of the annual value of Statistical, Sanitary, and Medical Reports; whether it is the case that, for several years past, instead of a single copy of each Annual Report, two copies of each have been printed, one in a blue paper cover with, and one in a yellow paper cover without, the Special Reports by Army Medical Officers; the copy without the Appendix of Special Reports has been presented to Parliament and has been purchasable, the price being marked upon it; the copy with the Special Reports has not had a price marked on it, and has not been obtainable by purchase; and, whether he will consider the advisability of returning to the original form of publication, which was suggested by the Royal Sanitary Commissioners as stimulating professional zeal by inducing medical officers to make observations of a record in the departmental volume?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. W. H. SMITH), in reply, said, the present form of publication of the Army Medical Reports was approved on the recommendation of a Committee on Official Statistics. No expressions of dissatisfaction in regard to it have reached the War Office. It was held to be sufficient to include the Report by Departmental officers in the Departmental volume which is supplied to station hospitals for the use of medical
    1066
    officers doing duty in those hospitals. He would consider whether there would be any objection to placing the Departmental volume on sale.

    PORT OF DUBLIN—THE GREAT EASTERN STEAMSHIP.
    MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether it is true that objections have been raised by the Port and Harbour Commissioners of Dublin to a proposal for sending the Great Eastern Steamship to that city; whether he is aware that there is a sufficient depth of water for the vessel, and that inquiries made on the spot show that she can be berthed in the port with safety, and without interference with the ordinary traffic; and, whether he is aware that the municipal and port authorities of harbours on the French coast have not only expressed their gratification at the proposal for sending the ship to those places, but have also offered, at their own charge, to provide all proper facilities for her reception?
    THE SECRETARY (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): I have no knowledge of the circumstances referred to, nor have the Board of Trade any control over Harbour Authorities in such a matter.

    CRIMINAL LAW—EXCESSIVE SENTENCE—CASE OF GEORGE PARISH.
    MR. ISAACSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been drawn to the sentence passed at the Dartford Petty Sessions on Saturday last on George Parish of six weeks' hard labour for taking five pieces of wood from a field belonging to William Moore for the purpose of lighting a fire to cook some food; and, whether, having regard to the fact that the police knew nothing against his character previously, he will be prepared to advise a remission of the sentence?
    MR. SHIRLEYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the sentence of six weeks' hard labour, passed by the Dartford petty sessional bench, on a man named George Parish, on Saturday August 28, for taking a few sticks from a field to light a fire with in order to

    1067
    cook some food; and, whether he will consider this case in connection with the case of Abigail Bird, who was sentenced to a month's hard labour by the same bench for a similar offence on Saturday April 10th of the present year, and which case was brought under the notice of the Home Secretary in the House of Commons on April 15th?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): It is not quite correct to say, as stated in the Question of the hon. Member for Doncaster, that the prisoner was convicted "of taking a few sticks from a field." The stolen wood consisted of five new pieces, of 5 feet each in length, which had been specially prepared and taken to the spot for the purpose of erecting a fence. The prisoner was one of a company of hop-pickers employed in the district. A. strong Bench of Magistrates, including a Queen's Counsel, were of opinion that an adequate punishment was necessary in order to protect the neighbourhood from continual depredations of this nature. But this morning I have received a letter from Mr. Moore, the owner of the wood, stating that he considers the offence a trivial one, and that he is anxious for the immediate release of the man. Under these circumstances, I think that a week's imprisonment, of which several days have already elapsed, would have been considered by the magistrates themselves sufficient punishment, and I have given directions for the prisoner's release at the end of the week.

    CUSTOMS SERVICE—PORT OF BELFAST.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is true that officers in the Customs Service, known as boatmen, stationed at the Port of Belfast, are called upon to be on duty from sixteen to twenty hours at a time; whether complaints regarding the excessive length of these hours have been frequently made, and if resignations have been sent in solely in consequence thereof; and, if it would be possible to alter the rules and regulations of the service with regard to the hours of labour?
    THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON), in reply, said, the rule with regard to Customs service with re-
    1068
    gard to boatmen was that they were liable to duty for the whole of each alternate day; but they were only employed when actually required. Ample opportunities for meals and rest were given, and there had been no complaints in Belfast, except in the case of one man who was appointed in February this year, and who left in July. There was no difficulty in getting any number of qualified men on the present conditions, and he saw no reason for making any change.

    ADMIRALTY—CONTRACTS FOR PORK AND BUTTER.
    MR. P.M'DONALDasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If his attention has been drawn to the Return, No. 228, dated 24th June 1885, by which it appears that large contracts for salt pork and preserved butter, both staple articles of Irish production, have been entered into with foreigners during the past seven years; and, if the Lords of the Admiralty will in future invite tenders from Irish merchants for these supplies to the Navy, and, quality and price considered, will give a preference to the home producers?
    THE SECRETARY (Mr. FORWOOD): In reply to the first portion of the Question of the hon. Member for Sligo, contracts for salt pork have only been entered into with foreigners in cases where, after advertisement, the tenders received from foreign firms have shown a material advantage to the Public Service when compared with those sent in by houses established in the United Kingdom. As regards the second part of the Question, the Admiralty intend to continue, when requiring supplies of pork, their system of advertising in Irish papers; and, as promised by the First Lord of the Admiralty, in reply to a Question put to him on Tuesday, will give to tenders that are at all equal a preference to the home producer. Butter is only purchased for use on board the troopships, and then only after a careful examination of the samples and prices, which are obtained from firms in Ireland as well as elsewhere.

    IRISH CHURCH ACT—RELIEF OF GLEBE PURCHASERS.
    MR. M. J. KENNYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord

    1069
    Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Government contemplate introducing during the present Session a Bill for the relief of glebe purchasers under the Irish Church. Act, whose position was described by his predecessor as "a particularly sad one;" and, if so, how soon will the Bill be introduced?
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH), in reply, said, there was an express provision for the relief of glebe purchasers introduced into the Land Purchase Act of last year. He understood, from the Question of the hon. Member, that some further relief was required. He was not able to give any assurance on the subject, and could not undertake any legislation on it now.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked if the right hon. Gentleman would consider the propriety of extending the time of payment?
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he believed that that was precisely what was contemplated by the Bill of last Session.

    EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—EVICTIONS AT GARRISON, CO. FERMANAGH.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is true, as stated by "One of the Doomed," in The Fermanagh Reporter of 26th August, that—
    "Half a score of evictions were carried out, ten or twelve days ago, on the property of the Marquis of Ely, at Garrison, county Fermanagh;"
    and, whether, in view of the fact that a large number of the tenants of the Marquis of Ely were evicted in the county of Wexford also, the Government will exercise some influence to prevent this nobleman's agent from carrying out these evictions?
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): It is reported in The Fermanagh Reporter that evictions took place on Lord Ely's estate, in the county Fermanagh, on the 14th of last month. All the persons evicted were re-admitted as caretakers, pending redemption. I suppose the other evictions referred to by the hon. Member were those about which he asked me a Question the other day. I have nothing to add to the answer I
    1070
    then gave. There appears to me to be no room for any action of the Government in the matter.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: But the right hon. Gentleman then stated that the evicted people were forced by the local branch of the National League to go into the poorhouse. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is no local branch of the National League, and that his statement has caused considerable indignation in the district?
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: When I saw the Question on the Paper I directed further inquiries to be made, the result of which I shall know in a day, and, of course, if I was wrong I shall say so.

    INDIA (MADRAS)—OFFICIAL SCANDALS.
    MR. BLANEasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the attention of Government has been drawn to the repeated occurrence of official scandals in Madras during the last five years; and, whether an independent inquiry will be made into the now current Crole-Sullivan scandal, which, during the past six months, has been commented on by the whole Indian press, Native and European?
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): The careful attention of the Secretary of State is always given to every occurrence of an official character which takes place at Madras, or any other place in British India. The case of Mr. Crole has been fully inquired into by the late Secretary of State in Council, and that of Mr. Sullivan is now under consideration.

    INDIA (MADRAS)—THE LATE PRINCESS OF TANJORE.
    MR. BIGGARasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is a fact that the late Princess of Tanjore adopted a son, with the consent of the Government of India; whether it is a fact that the rule laid down by the Indian Government regarding stipends to the Tanjore family, is that, upon the death of any stipendiary, the descendant or relation should receive a moiety of the stipend; whether it is a fact that the late Princess of Tanjore had a stipend of 3,000 rupees per month, and to state upon what ground the adopted son should not be allowed, a

    1071
    moiety of the stipend; whether it is a fact that Mr. Kavanagh memorialised the Indian Government for an allowance adequate to maintain and educate the adopted son of the late Princess of Tanjore; and, whether, at the present time, the adopted son is in an abject state of poverty?
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): The Government of India did not consent to the adoption of a son by the late Princess of Tanjore. There is no such rule applicable to female members of the Tanjore family as that stated in the Question. The late Princess of Tanjore had a stipend for life of 3,000 rupees a month. There was no ground for continuing any part of it to the adopted son. Mr. Kavanagh did memorialize the Indian Government for an allowance for the adopted son. The Secretary of State has no information as to the present circumstances of the adopted son.

    POST OFFICE—MAILS IN SUTHERLAND.
    MR. MACDONALD CAMERON (Wick, &c.)asked the Postmaster General, Whether a Petition has recently been received by the Postmaster General from the inhabitants of the parishes of Dornoch and Creich, in the county of Sutherland, praying that a mail gig be run between Dornoch and Bonar Bridge, as being more expeditious and convenient than the two rural postmen now employed in carrying letters; and, whether it is the intention of the postal authorities to acquiesce in the petitioners' prayer?
    THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): A Petition was received several months ago, and was answered to the effect that the establishment of a mail car service between Dornoch and Bonar Bridge would involve greater expense than the circumstances of the case justified, and that unless the Memorialists were prepared to enter into a guarantee for the increased expenditure their wishes could not be acceded to. No more recent Memorial had been received.

    FISHERY BOARD (SCOTLAND)— MEMORIAL OF FISHERY OFFICERS.
    MR. MACDONALD CAMERON (Wick, &c.)asked the Secretary for
    1072
    Scotland, Whether it is true that the Scotch fishery officers memorialized the Fishery Board for an increase of pay and travelling allowances, in consequence of greatly increased duties; and, if so, whether the Board refused to entertain the said Memorial: whether, in addition, a deputation of fishery officers was received by the Board, and a promise given them that their grievances would receive early attention; and, whether the Fishery Board have taken any steps for the amelioration of the condition of the officers?
    THE SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR), in reply, said, he had inquired into this matter, but had not yet received an answer. If the hon. Gentleman would put down the Question for a subsequent day he should be glad to answer it.

    ARMY CANTEENS (IRELAND).
    MR. HOOPERasked the Secretary of State for War, If he can inform the House of the number of Army canteens in Ireland for the supplying of which the Junior Army and Navy Stores still hold contracts; and, of the total number of Army canteens in that Country?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. W. H. SMITH): There are no Returns at the War Office which gives the information asked in the first part of the Question. The number of canteens in Ireland is 46.

    ARMY (ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT)—CAVALRY SWORDS, PATTERN 1884.
    MAJOR RASCHasked the Surveyor General of Ordnance, If he would explain why all the cavalry saddles, pattern 1884, have been recalled; have any reports upon them been received by commanding officers; what is the name of the inspector who passed the saddles; where are the saddles now, and can an order be obtained to inspect them; and, in the case of an experimental issue, is it the custom of the Department to pay the contractors before the result of the experiment is known?
    THE SURVEYOR GENERAL (Mr. NORTHCOTE): These saddles have been recalled, not on account of bad manufacture, but of faulty pattern. The pattern was approved upon the

    1073
    Report of a Committee of Cavalry officers, to whom the matter was referred. Reports have been received from Commanding Officers to whom the saddles were issued. These Reports were carefully considered, and it was decided that the design was not satisfactory. As the fault of the saddle is in the design rather than the manufacture, the Inspector is not to blame. The greater part of the saddles are now at Woolwich for alteration, and the hon. and gallant Member shall have all facilities if he wishes to inspect them. The contract having been made in the usual way, on a provisionally approved pattern, the contractor was entitled to his money when he had passed the supplies.

    POST OFFICE—TELEPHONE COMPANIES.
    MR. DWYER GRAYasked the Postmaster General, Whether he has refused to several Telephone Companies permission to open public call offices at Railway stations; whether his attention has been drawn to the declarations made in the House by his predecessor, the late Mr. Fawcett, on the 22nd May 1884, that—
    "Nothing was further from his desire than to do anything that was unfair to, or severe upon, the Telephone Companies, or anything that was likely to strangle them. He was anxious that the public should obtain a supply of telephone communication, either through private enterprise or through the Post Office, according to which could supply it to the public most efficiently and on the most reasonable terms,"
    and that—
    "in safeguarding the public revenue he had been, and should continue to be, most scrupulously careful not to throw any unnecessary impediment in the way of the development of private enterprise;"
    and, whether it is the fact that the Post Office Department neither open telephone call offices themselves at Railway stations, over the lines of which they possess exclusive wayleaves, nor will permit the Companies to do so, although the latter are willing to pay for the privilege?
    THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): I have to state that I find the attention of the Department was called, in April last, to a statement of the Managing Director of the United Telephone Company, that
    1074
    the Company had made arrangements with certain Railway Companies to open telephone exchanges at all their stations. Thereupon, a letter was addressed to the United Telephone Company, pointing out that such arrangements could not be carried out without the special consent of the Postmaster General, the right of transacting telegraph business at the stations in question having been purchased by the State. The Company replied that their Chairman, Vice Chairman, and Managing Director, would come to the Post Office on an early date to discuss the matter. They have not yet done so; and, meanwhile, the Department has not allowed any call office to be established at railway stations. I have to add that if these gentlemen lay their views before the Post Office they will be carefully considered.
    MR. DWYER GRAYasked, if the right hon. Gentleman was aware that application had been made for permission to open a call office at Bray, near Dublin, and that it was peremptorily refused?
    MR. RAIKESsaid, that matter had been brought under his notice, and he could only say that the application was made by a Company subsidiary to this United Telephone Company, and therefore it could not be entertained, at all events in the absence of any movement of the United Telephone Company in the matter.
    MR. DWYER GRAYasked, if he understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that if the views of the United Telephone Company were brought before him in the way suggested they would be considered?
    MR. RAIKES: Certainly.

    EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—THE BANTRY BOARD OF GUARDIANS.
    MR. GILHOOLYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If evictions have been recently carried out on the property of the Earl of Bantry and of Mr. W. S. Bird; if the relieving officer of the Bantry Union was present at these evictions; if Mr. F. W. Payne, Chairman of the Bantry Board of Guardians, is agent to the Earl of Bantry; if Mr. W. S. Bird is Deputy Vice Chairman of the Bantry Board of Guardians; whether both those gentlemen voted with the majority against a motion requesting

    1075
    the relieving officer of the Bantry Union to place all notices of evictions served on him in his official capacity before the Bantry Board of Guardians; and, whether the Local Government Board for Ireland will compel the Guardians of the Bantry Union to require the relieving officer to place all notices of eviction served on him before the Bantry Board of Guardians?
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH), in reply, said, two evictions had taken place, as stated in the Question, on the properties mentioned. The relieving officer of the Bantry Union was not present at the evictions, nor was he under any obligation to be so. Mr. Payne, Chairman of the Bantry Board of Guardians, was not now agent for the Earl of Bantry; but Mr. Bird occupied the position mentioned in the Question. Both gentlemen voted with the majority against a motion requesting the relieving officer to place all notices of eviction served on him before the Board of Guardians. There did not appear to be any legal obligation on the Guardians to require the relieving officer to do so. At the same time, the Local Government Board thought it would be right to do so, and they had so informed the Guardians.

    HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES (ENGLAND) ACT, 1885—SITE OF COLDBATH FIELDS PRISON.
    MR. J. ROWLANDSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, What steps are being taken to carry out the provisions of the Housing of the Working Classes (England) Act, by erecting dwellings on the site of the House of Correction, Coldbath Fields?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): The Housing of the Working Classes (England) Act, 1885, as amended in Committee of this House, contains no provisions (such as was contained in the original Bill) for the erection of dwellings on the site of Coldbath Fields Prison. The Home Department have taken the only steps in their power. They have offered the site (as they were bound to do under the Prisons Act, 1877) to the County Justices, who have declined to purchase it. They have since
    1076
    offered to sell the site to the Metropolitan Board of Works, who have also refused to purchase. It now rests with the Home Secretary to sell this site as best he can; and in so doing I shall endeavour, if possible, to make arrangements under which the land may be utilized for the benefit of the labouring classes, either by the erection of dwellings or the creation of open spaces.

    IRELAND (SOUTH-WESTERN DISTRICT)— CLARE (SIR REDVERS BULLER).
    MR. JORDANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can state the reasons for including the county of Clare in the district placed under the civil authority of General Sir Redvers Buller?
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): The record of outrages in county Clare is not so bad as in county Kerry; but the condition of the county is very far from satisfactory, owing to the existence of much intimidation and of secret societies, and in forming this new district it was thought advisable to include Clare within it.

    PALACE OF WESTMINSTER—ELECTRICAL COMMUNICATION IN THE HOUSE.
    CAPTAIN COTTONasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether anything has been considered with regard to electrical communication to different parts of the House, as promised on the 11th March last; and, if nothing has been yet considered, whether he can undertake to provide some such system of communication during the forthcoming Recess?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON)(who replied) said: In the unavoidable absence of my right hon. and learned Friend, I beg to say that this matter has been under the consideration of the Office of Works since March last, and that some difficulties which arose had not yet been overcome when the recent change of Government took place. The present First Commissioner will carefully consider the matter, and will endeavour, during the Recess, to provide hon. Members with the facilities which they desire.

    ARMY—SMALL ARMS—THE SWORDS OF THE 2ND DRAGOON GUARDS.
    CAPTAIN COTTONasked the Surveyor General of the Ordnance, Whether his attention has been drawn to a paragraph in The St. James's Gazette of Saturday last, relative to the issue of new swords to the 2nd Dragoon Guards preparatory to their departure for India, and stating in effect that the sword seemed to be made of "tin," and that the commanding officer himself tested them in the riding school by "cutting at the Turk's head," and that as a result sword after sword flew to pieces; and further, if the above be true, from what manufactory the swords in question were procured, and what steps are being taken to provide the regiment with an efficient weapon?
    THE SURVEYOR GENERAL (Mr. NORTHCOTE): As far as I know there is no foundation for the statement referred to. Prior to its embarkation the regiment received a complete equipment of new swords made in the Government factory at Enfield, as to which no complaint of any kind has reached the War Office. If anything of the nature of the occurrence mentioned in the hon. Member's Question had taken place it would have been the duty of the Commanding Officer to report it.

    WAR DEPARTMENT—NAVAL ORDNANCE—THE "COLLINGWOOD" GUN.
    COLONEL HUGHES-HALLETTasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is intended to chase-hoop the guns of the Collingwood pattern, which, according to the statement of the late Secretary of State for War, were fourteen in number; whether it is intended to chase-hoop all other guns in the Service of a similar pattern from six inches diameter of bore upwards; whether the chase-hooping is to be performed by means of several isolated hoops shrunk on or by means of one continuous hoop or jacket; whether the cost of the chase-hooping will not be about £25,000, if it does not exceed that sum; and, whether this expense would not have been saved the Country if the Ordnance Committee had acted on the letter addressed to that Committee by Mr. William Anderson in 1884?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. W. H. SMITH): Yes, Sir; it is intended to chase-hoop the guns of the Collingwood pattern, as was stated by my Predecessor in this House on the 31st of May last. A detail of the guns proposed to be chase-hooped is given in the Report of the special Committee, which was laid on the Table on Tuesday. The chase-hooping is to be performed by means of a series of hoops in close contact being shrunk on. £25,000 is the sum estimated. There is no reason for the presumption in the last paragraph of the hon. and gallant Member's Question.

    REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1884—UNPAID EXTRA REMUNERATION.
    MR. B. KELLYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is a fact that, under the Representation of the People Act, a considerable sum was allocated for the remuneration of the various persons to whom additional work was given, with a view to having the registers properly made out, and various such persons, notably the rate collectors in several unions, discharged such extra work without having received any remuneration whatever for their additional and efficiently rendered services?
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH), in reply, said, there was no reason to suppose that the money which was voted by Parliament last year for this purpose was not equitably distributed, or that any persons having proper claims on it were overlooked; but if the hon. Member knew of any case, or would give him any information on the subject, he would have it inquired into.

    COURT OF BANKRUPTCY (IRELAND)—COMPOUNDING DEBTORS.
    MR. M. HEALYasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the complaints of Irish traders generally as to the great inconvenience arising from the practice common in the case of compounding debtors of making their composition notes payable at their own residence; and, whether there is anything to prevent a Rule of Court being made compelling debtors carrying compositions

    1079
    under the protection of the Court or after bankruptcy, to domicile their composition notes at a bank or other convenient place?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES): I have not heard of the complaints referred to; and as arrangements under the protection of the Court on compositions after bankruptcy can only be carried with the consent of the majority of creditors, the latter have it in their power to insist on composition notes being drawn in the form that is most convenient in the particular case. Under such circumstances, a Rule of Court on the subject would be inconvenient and out of place.

    LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—MUNSTER WINTER ASSIZES.
    MR. M. HEALYasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether it is the fact that the Winter Assizes for the Munster Assize County have been held in the City of Cork every year except one since the Winter Assizes Act was passed in 1877; whether, in the other provinces, a similar practice of confining the Winter Assizes to one city prevails; whether it is the fact that an additional county (Tipperary) has now been added to the four already included in the Cork Winter Assize County; whether his attention has been called to the repeated complaints of the jurors of the City of Cork as to their being summoned year after year to try prisoners from nearly the whole of Munster, and to the recent resolution of the Cork Chamber of Commerce and Shipping on the subject; and, whether it is proposed to hold the Munster Winter Assizes in Cork this year?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES): In consequence of the city of Cork being so much the most convenient place for holding the Southern Winter Assizes, which, on the last occasion, included county Tipperary, they have been uniformly held there. Neither the same reason nor the same practice exists in any other Province. I have read the Resolution of the Cork Chamber of Commerce and Shipping on the subject, and I have no doubt that the jurors feel the work irksome. I am sure, however, that they will be still as willing as they have been hitherto to perform the duties im-
    1080
    posed on them by the State for the public interest.
    MR. M. HEALY: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has not answered the last portion of the Question.
    MR. HOLMES: I have more than once said that at the present time it would be impossible to make arrangements for the Winter Assizes, because they cannot be well made until the month of November. It is right to say that it seems to me that the same considerations of convenience which existed with regard to Cork last time will probably apply on this occasion also.
    MR. E. HARRINGTONasked, whether it was not the invariable practice at the Winter Assizes to try all the cases from county Kerry at Cork?
    MR. HOLMES: The same rules applied with regard to Kerry cases as with regard to other cases.
    MR. E. HARRINGTONinquired if the right hon. and learned Gentleman was aware that there were four times as many Kerry cases tried at the Cork Winter Assizes as there were at the two Assizes held in the county of Kerry?
    [No reply.]

    THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—MR. MOLONY, R.M., CO. MAYO.
    MR. DILLONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, on Monday, 26th July, at Ballaghaderin, county Mayo, Mr. Molony, Resident Magistrate, in refusing to commit a child to an industrial school, used the following language:—
    "People have no right to be stocking the Country with children unless they are able to support them. If they are not able to rear them they must give up the trade;"
    and, if so, whether he will direct the attention of the Lord Chancellor to the conduct of Mr. Molony?
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): The Resident Magistrate in question informed me that the words which were used had not been accurately reported. He pointed out that the Industrial Schools Act was not intended to relieve parents of the cost of the maintenance of their families on the sole ground of poverty; and he deprecated improvident marriages which led to efforts on the part of parents to get their children maintained at the public cost.

    BOARD OF WORKS (IRELAND)—LOAN FOR A NATIONAL SCHOOL, MILTOWN MALBAY.
    MR. DWYER GRAYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Board of Works have refused to grant a loan to the Rev. Mr. White, parish priest of Miltown Malbay, for the erection of a national school, although the proposed school was approved by the Board of National Education; whether, for many years, the Rev. Mr. White was unable to procure a site for the school owing to the refusal of Lord Leconfield, who owns all the land in the neighbourhood, to give land for the purpose; whether the Rev. Mr. White at last purchased the interest in an agricultural holding, subject to the Land Act, and thus acquired a site; and, on what grounds the refusal was based?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON)(who replied) said, he had no information as to Mr. White's difficulty in getting a site for a school. The reason why a loan could not be made was that a "present tenant" under the Land Act was not an owner within the meaning of the Act under which loans to schools were made. This had been explained to Mr. White. There were several communications.

    ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—DEDUCTIONS FROM PENSIONS.
    SIR THOMAS ESMONDEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, To what purpose the money deducted for past misconduct from the retiring pensions of members of the Royal Irish Constabulary is applied?
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): The Question of the hon. Member appears to be based upon a misapprehension. Men guilty of past misconduct are recommended to the Treasury for lesser rates of pension than the maximum allowable by law. No money becomes thereby available for other uses, as only the required amount is included in the preparation of the Estimates. No deduction is ever made from any authorized pension.

    DUBLIN PORT AND DOCK DUES.
    SIR THOMAS ESMONDEasked the President of the Board of Trade, If the "Port dues" imposed by the Dublin Port and Docks Board on fishing boats from Arklow, Howth, Dungarvan, and other places on the coast of Ireland, can be diminished, so as to allow the fishermen to dispose of their fish at a profit in Dublin?
    THE SECRETARY (Baron HENRY DE WORMS)(who replied) said: From a communication which I have now received from the Dublin Port and Docks Board, it appears that the harbour dues payable at Dublin are fixed by Act of Parliament, which gives them no power to vary or reduce them. The fishing boats referred to by the hon. Member are subject to these dues, which average only 4s. each vessel, for which they have all the benefits of the harbour, with ample quay accommodation.

    MEDICAL ACTS—UNREGISTERED MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS.
    SIR THOMAS ESMONDEasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, Whether it is a fact that there are at present a large number of so-called medical practitioners practising in London whose names do not appear on the Medical Register; and, if it is a fact that several persona have been recently poisoned by them; and, if so, what steps will be taken by the Government in the matter?
    THE VICE PRESIDENT (Sir HENRY HOLLAND): There is no information in the Council Office or with the General Medical Council who have been consulted to support the inferences suggested by the Question. There are, no doubt, many unregistered persons practising in London; but there is nothing to show that they pass themselves off as registered medical practitioners. They would, of course, be subject to prosecution if a patient were to die under their hands. It is not, therefore, thought necessary by the Government to take any steps in the matter, though every attention will be given to any specific cases that are brought under notice.
    DR. TANNERasked whether a list could be prepared of unregistered practitioners by whom people had been, or might have been, poisoned?
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, he would make inquiry; but he did not think it likely that such a list could be furnished.

    INDIAN OFFICIALS IN PRIVATE COMPANIES—SIR DONALD STEWART.
    GENERAL SIR WILLIAM CROSSMANasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is the case that General Sir Donald Stewart, a member of the Indian Council, is also a Director of the "Nordenfelt Guns and Ammunition Company;" and, if so, whether, considering the supply of machine guns and ammunition for the Indian Service may at any time come under the consideration of the Council, Her Majesty's Government have any intention of calling upon Sir Donald Stewart either to resign his official appointment or to divest himself of an interest in the gun making firm?
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): As soon as the Question of the hon. and gallant Member appeared upon the Notice Paper, General Sir Donald Stewart placed himself unreservedly in the hands of the Secretary of State, and has now ceased to be a Director of the "Nordenfelt Guns and Ammunition Company."

    THE TRUCK ACTS—MINES AND WORKS IN SCOTLAND.
    MR. BRADLAUGHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he is aware that the provisions of the Act 1 and 2 Will. 4, c. 37, and amending Acts, are habitually infringed in various mines and works in Scotland; and, if not so aware, whether he will cause inquiries to be made with a view to prevent further breaches of the Law?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): As soon as the hon. Member gave me Notice of his Question I consulted the Chief Inspector of Factories, who informs me that he is not aware that the provisions of the Truck Acts are habitually infringed in various mines and works in Scotland. He will, however, be in Glasgow next week, and I have directed him to make inquiries as to the specific infringements of the Acts as to which the hon. Member has been good enough to give me private information.

    POOR LAW—METROPOLITAN POOR AMENDMENT ACT, 1870—METROPOLLS COMMON POOR FUND.
    MR. BUXTONasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, as the whole question of the Metropolis Common Poor Fund is about to receive his attention, he will agree to refer next Session to a Select Committee the question of the existing inequality of the Poor Rate throughout the Metropolis, with a view to an increase in the grants from the richer to the poorer districts by an extension of the system of the Common Poor Fund?
    MR. PICKERSGILLalso asked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that the poor rate in St. George's-in-the-East amounted to 3s. 5d. in the pound; and, whether the Government would afford him facilities for proceeding with a short Bill to amend the Poor Law Act of 1870?
    THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE), in reply, said, that the whole matter in connection with the Metropolis Common Poor Fund was at present being inquired into by him. He could not make any promise with reference to a Select Committee next Session. After the statement of the Leader of the House as to the Business which would be submitted to it during the current Session, the hon. Member for Bethnal Green would see the impossibility of proceeding with such legislation as he suggested in his Question.

    FISHERY BOARD (SCOTLAND)—BEAM> TRAWLING IN THE MORAY FIRTH.
    MR. ANDERSONasked the Secretary for Scotland, If the Fishery Board for Scotland are now satisfied that damage is done to the fishings in the Moray Firth, and to the nets and lines of the fishermen engaged in such fishings, by beam trawlers; whether the Board will make a bye-law prohibiting beam trawling in the Moray Firth; and, whether he will recommend the Scotch Fishery Board to hold an inquiry for the purpose of ascertaining whether such damage is or is not done by trawlers in the Moray Firth, with a view to prohibiting trawling therein?
    THE SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The Fishery

    1085
    Board inform me that they are not satisfied that damage is done to the fishings in the Moray Firth or elsewhere by beam trawling; but they are engaged in a series of experiments with the view, if possible, of settling the question. They further state that no case of damage to the nets and lines of fishermen engaged in fishing in the Moray Firth has been reported to the Board under the Sea Fisheries Act, 1885, and that any complaints, if made, will be duly attended to. Under these circumstances, the Board, as at present advised, do not intend to make a bye-law as suggested.

    EGYPT—BRITISH TRADE WITH THE SOUDAN.
    MR. JENNINGSasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Government are aware that great losses are inflated upon British traders by the refusal of our Military Forces in Upper Egypt to allow merchandise to pass the frontier; that the markets of the Soudan for cotton and other goods, actually ordered from Lancashire and Cheshire to supply the demands of the Natives, are thus practically closed to our merchants; that these merchants have repeatedly undertaken to submit their goods to the closest examination, in order that no war material may be passed through, but that the customers and the traders are still kept apart by British bayonets; and, whether the Government will issue orders which will have the effect of promptly removing these restrictions?
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSION): Her Majesty's Government are well aware of the loss to British trade owing to the blockade of the Soudan; and in the interest of Egypt, as well as of England, they have been very desirous of re-opening commercial intercourse. The object sought is, of course, the pacification of the country; and we have every reason to believe that the stoppage of trade creates a desire for peace. It has been difficult to ascertain whether that desire has become sufficiently strong; but the question is at this moment under careful consideration, and Her Majesty's Government will procure the removal of the restrictions at the earliest moment at which a beneficial result may appear probable.

    BOARD OF NATIONAL EDUCATION(IRELAND)—RESIGNATION OF DR. NEWELL.
    MR. R. POWERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he will state the exact date of the resignation of Dr. Newell, late Senior Secretary to the Board of National Education?
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): Yes; the Commissioners' Report showed that it was the 16th of January last.

    BOARD OF NATIONAL EDUCATION(IRELAND)—DISMISSAL OF MR. J. G. FITZGERALD,
    MR. R. POWERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, with respect to the case of Mr. J. G. Fitzgerald, late District Inspector under the Board of National Education, any correspondence has taken place between Mr. Trevelyan, when Chief Secretary for Ireland, and the Board of National Education, in reference to a question regarding Mr. Fitzgerald's alleged wrongful dismissal put by an honourable Member in the year 1884; whether, in consequence of a deputation consisting of eight Members of this House having waited, in May 1885, on the then Chief Secretary (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman), to ask for an inquiry into Mr. Fitzgerald's case, any correspondence took place between the Board of National Education and the Chief Secretary; whether, by the Order of the Board of National Education, dated 30th June 1885, all correspondence on the subject of Mr. Fitzgerald's dismissal was ordered to be printed, and a copy furnished to each Commissioner; and, whether the correspondence with the two Chief Secretaries referred to finds no place in the document which was printed; and, if this is so, will he state who is responsible for so important an omission, and will he lay upon the Table a copy of the Board's Order of 30th June 1885, and copies of the correspondence with the two Chief Secretaries, omitted to be printed in compliance with the Order of the Board of National Education?
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): There is no record, as I am informed, in the Commissioners' Office of any such

    1087
    correspondence as that mentioned in the Question. It would be merely in the form of memoranda of information which would be sent to the Chief Secretary for the time being, showing the facts stated; but a copy of it would not be in the hands of the Commissioners. The official Paper containing a copy of the Order of the 13th of June, 1885, has been laid before the House.

    POST OFFICE—FRIENDLY AND BENEFIT SOCIETIES—HEADINGS TO INVOICES.
    SIR ALBERT ROLLITasked the Postmaster General, Whether, having regard to the saving effected for the State by Friendly and Benefit Societies, he sees any objection to the relaxation of the general rule against written matter being inserted in printed circulars intended for the halfpenny post, by permitting a statement of subscriptions in arrear, and other official communications, to be added at the foot of the circular notices summoning lodge and other meetings of such societies?
    MR. SCHWANNasked the Postmaster General, Whether he will not allow invoices containing the definite article and demonstrative pronoun, when printed at the head of invoices, in connection with various stipulations referring to the goods named in said invoices, to be charged at the rate of one halfpenny, when such heading or notice is wholly "printed and is intended for transmission in identical terms to several persons," seeing that it would be permitted were the heading printed on a separate piece of paper and wrapped up with the invoice?
    THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): The definition of documents admissible at the book rate was very carefully considered when the Act of 1870 was passed, and is laid down in a Treasury Warrant issued under that Act. It would not be in my power to make any change in its terms without further reference to the Treasury. I may say that even under the present conditions there is a very large loss of revenue already incurred in this part of the Service. The subject is, therefore, one which requires much closer examination before I can undertake to propose any change. As regards the Question of the
    1088
    hon. Member for Manchester, I have only just received from him a specimen of the invoice to which he refers; and after I have been able to examine it I will let him know whether the document can be allowed to pass at book rate or not.

    LAW AND JUSTICE—IRREGULAR DETENTION AT THE MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.
    MR. CONYBEAREasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been drawn to the following report:—
    "Extraordinary action of a chief warder—Thomas Robert Lesson having been tried at the Middlesex Sessions and acquitted, some time after the verdict of the jury had been recorded, the defendant's counsel informed the court that the defendant was still detained in the cells below for some purpose. Mr. Fletcher: 'Is this so? Send for the chief warder.' The chief warder then came into the dock with Lesson. Mr. Fletcher ordered Lesson to be immediately discharged, and cautioned the warder. The clerk of the court said,' This is not the first time it has happened.' It was understood that Lesson had been detained in the cells in order that a full description should be taken of his person, notwithstanding the fact that the jury had acquitted him;"
    and, whether, if the above report be accurate, he will cause inquiry to be made as to other similar cases, and take such steps to prevent their recurrence, either in the Metropolis or in the Provinces, as he may deem advisable?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I have obtained a Report from the officer who was in charge of the prisoners at the Sessions referred to. He denies that there was any unnecessary delay, or that Lesson was detained in order to take a description of his person, and he states that the prisoner was discharged within 10 minutes of the verdict being given. He also denies that the clerk of the Court made the remark which is imputed to him. I am not aware of any other similar cases; but if the hon. Member will specify them I will do my best to rectify any abuse that may exist.

    ISLANDS OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC— THE NEW HEBRIDES—THE CONVENTION WITH FRANCE, 1878.
    SIR SAMUEL WILSONasked the Secretary of State for the

    1089
    Colonies, Whether he is aware of the breach of the Convention with France, of 1878, regarding the New Hebrides, by the establishment, at Havannah Harbour, Sandwich Islands, on the 1st of June last, by Lieutenant Legrand, of the French man-of-war Dives, of a military post, and of the hoisting of the French flag, the issuing of a proclamation, and the landing of troops on that Island; whether, in view of the feeling in Australia concerning the possible extension of the French convict system in the Western Pacific, the Government are prepared to make such representations to the French Government as will ensure that the terms of the Convention of 1878 may be carried out in future; and, whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the Correspondence between the two Governments on this question, and other Papers relating thereto?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E.STANHOPE): The action of the French officials in the New Hebrides has for some time been under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government, and representations have been made to the French Government which, as we trust, will speedily place matters upon a satisfactory footing. The negotiations, however, not being yet completed, it would not be possible to lay on the Table at the present moment any of the Correspondence relating to this subject.

    PRISONS (IRELAND)—OUTBREAK OF FEVER IN MARYBOROUGH GAOL.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that fever has again broken out in Maryborough Prison; whether, after the outbreak of fever in 1884, water for use within the prison was obtained from the town; and, whether the inmates have now to use the prison water, which is so bad that it has to be boiled and filtered before use?
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): The General Prisons Board state that three cases of fever have recently occurred in Maryborough Prison. The water in 1884 was obtained from out-outside the prison, but not from the town supply. Early last year the water was analyzed by Sir Charles Cameron, and favourably reported on. The re-
    1090
    cent order as to boiling and filtering has been given merely as an additional precaution pending a further analysis both of the water from the supply now in use and that from another source which has been suggested.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked, if the right hon. Gentleman could say whether the fever was due to the defective sanitary arrangements generally in the prison; and, whether the defective arrangements had not already resulted in the death of one of the warders?
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, that one of the warders had died of fever.

    PRISONS (IRELAND)—DISCIPLINE IN MARYBOROUGH GAOL.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he will send an Inspector to Maryborough Prison to inquire into the personal safety of the warders under the system of discipline adopted by the governor, and into the amount of control and guard over the convicts employed outside the prison walls, and also into the escapes and attempts at escape since the convicts were removed to Maryborough?
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): The prison is regularly visited once a month by an Inspector of the Prisons Board, and also at frequent intervals by their Medical Officer, and by a member of the Board. Nothing has come to the knowledge of the Government or of the Board to suggest the necessity for such a further inquiry as is proposed in the Question; but if the hon. Member has any information on the subject, I shall be obliged if he will communicate it to me.
    MR ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I will supply the right hon. Gentleman.

    ARMY (ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT)— THE NEW 68-TON GUN.
    COLONEL HUGHES-HALLETTasked the Surveyor General of the Ordnance, Whether it is true that at the fourth or fifth round fired from the new 68-ton gun at the proof butts at Woolwich, the "liner" of the gun not only receded from its position, but moved round to such a degree that the groove of the "liner" came opposite to and coincided with the projection in the

    1091
    gun, thereby rendering the gun unserviceable?
    THE SURVEYOR GENERAL (Mr. NORTHCOTE): The liner was extended slightly towards the breech, and twisted slightly round, but not so that the groove came opposite to the projections in the gun. The firing was continued until the proof was completed. There was no possibility of the gun sustaining any injury from such a cause, and the gun is perfectly serviceable. I am informed that liners always shift a little.

    POST OFFICE—ATLANTIC MAIL SERVICE FROM GALWAY.
    SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGEasked the Postmaster General, Whether the postal communication between Europe and America would not be quickened by the establishment of an Atlantic mail service from Galway, and by the construction of a submarine tunnel between Scotland and Ireland; and, whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been drawn to the advantage of obtaining, as an alternative to the existing overland route to India, Australasia, and the Far East, an equally expeditious route through British territory, by way of Ireland and British America?
    THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): I do not think that the Galway route for mails to America would be any quicker than that of Queenstown; but I may state that tenders have been invited for the conveyance of mails to America to be sent in to the Post Office on the 1st of next month, and that any tender of a service from Galway will be duly considered with others. Some little time could, doubtless, be saved by means of a submarine tunnel between Scotland and Ireland. The attention of Her Majesty's Government has been drawn to the route viâ Ireland and British America as a possible route for mails to the far East, and the matter is still under consideration.

    WESTERN AUSTRALIA—TREATMENT OF NATIVES.
    MR. CHANNINGasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether his attention has been called to the recently published
    1092
    statements of the Rev. J. B. Gribble and of Mr. D. Carley, of Perth (Western Australia), as to the practical enslavement of Natives in Western Australia; whether he will cause inquiry to be made into the truth of the allegations that Natives are compelled by fraudulent indentures to sign agreements to enter the service of white settlers for specified periods; that they are frequently kidnapped, with a view to being thus "assigned" to settlers; that this "assignment system" is used for obtaining Native women for immoral purposes; that the Natives thus assigned are frequently chained, handcuffed, and subjected to other cruelties, and in many instances have been shot, on attempting to escape from the masters to whom they have thus been fraudulently assigned; and, whether he is in a position to state that, if these statements are substantiated, the Colonial Office will make immediate representations to the Government of Western Australia, with the view to promply secure legal and effectual protection for the Natives?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E STANHOPE): My attention has been called to the recently published statements of the Rev. J. B. Gribble, which had been sent home by the Governor of West Australia. But he adds that in the only alleged case of outrage by a settler against a Native mentioned in those statements as to which he had then received information, it appeared that no white man was concerned in it, and that the offender was duly punished. He was making further inquiry into such other charges as required it; but I ought to add that the subject of outrages by settlers has for some years been the subject of communication with the Governors, and the general result has been to show that there had undoubtedly been exceptional cases of such offences; but that their existence as a system had not been proved. The Governor is fully alive to the importance of the subject, and has reported that he was introducing a Bill under which a Native Board and a system of protectors will be established, and provision will be made to surround the labour engagements of the Natives with every possible precaution. Within the last five minutes I have received a telegram from West Australia which states that the Bill has become law.

    ARMY (ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT)— MANUFACTURE OF SHOT AND SHELL.
    SIR FREDERICK MAPPINasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether cast iron shot and cast iron shell, now manufactured at Woolwich Arsenal, can be purchased from manufacturers in this Country precisely the same in quality as those now supplied at Woolwich; whether he will have tenders issued, to ascertain the prices at which manufacturers will supply cast iron shot and shell to the Arsenal; and, whether, if such prices are less than the cost of making such shell at the Government arsenal, he will take such steps and issue such orders that the time of highly paid officials may be in future better and more profitably employed than at present?
    THE SURVEYOR GENERAL OF ORDNANCE (Mr. NORTHCOTE)(who replied) said: The answer to the first paragraph is Yes. Tenders were issued by public advertisement last year, and orders to a considerable extent were given to the trade. The prices of the tenders accepted were, however, slightly higher than the cost of making at the Royal Laboratory. Further orders will depend upon the requirements of the Service.

    BURMAH—THE CHIEF BOSHWAY.
    MR. HUNTERasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether his attention has been called to the following passage in a recent telegram from The Times correspondent at Mandalay:—
    "Boshway, who now requires a brigade to check him, offered to surrender if his life was spared, this was refused, although, since the conquest of Burmah, Boshway does not appear to have committed any crime except fighting against us. Boshway's brother surrendered under the terms of the Amnesty Proclamation, in similar circumstance, and was sentenced to penal servitude for life;"
    and, whether this information is accurate, and what instructions the Government of India have issued with reference to the treatment of prisoners taken in engagements between Her Majesty's forces and the people of Upper Burmah?
    THE UNDER SECRETARY STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): There is nothing in the official information which has reached the Secretary of State
    1094
    which in any way confirms the statements of The Times Correspondent referred to. All military executions were stopped in Upper Burmah in January last, and prisoners are now dealt with by civil tribunals according to law.

    ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—NUMBERS AND RELIGIOUS COMPOSITION OF THE FORCE.
    MR. HOOPERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What is the total numerical strength of the Royal Irish Constabulary in officers, sergeants, and constables; and, what is the number of Roman Catholics and of Protestants (distinguishing Episcopalians from Presbyterians) in each of these grades respectively, at the present time?
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH)said, the Question only appeared on the Paper that day. He had previously been asked a similar Question by another lion. Member, who had given him Notice of it, and he had asked him to postpone it for a few days. If the hon. Member would postpone his Question until Tuesday he should be able to answer it.

    POOR LAW—RATIONS TO OFFICERS IN THE BETHNAL GREEN UNION.
    MR. PICKERSGILLasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he is aware that in the Bethnal Green Union the actual cost of the rations of the workhouse and the school officers (seven principal and sixty-eight subordinate) is twelve shillings and eightpence per head per week, whereas the amount repaid for these rations to the Bethnal Green Union out of the common fund, according to the scale fixed by the Local Government Board, works out at only seven shillings and fivepence halfpenny per head per week, so that in respect of this expense alone Bethnal Green pays over £1,000 per annum in excess of the sum recouped to it; whether the cost per head of officers rations in the Bethnal Green Union fairly represents their average cost throughout the Metropolis; why, seeing that "The Metropolitan Poor Act, 1870," provides that the term "salaries of officers" shall include the cost of the rations of the officers, differ-

    1095
    ent rules are applied in the two cases, the Local Government Board allowing the full amount of the salaries, but little more than half the average cost of the rations; and, whether Mr. Goschen, who had charge in this House of the Bill of 1870, then stated that "the principle of the Bill was to equalise the rates as far as possible?"
    THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE), in reply, said, he had no reason to doubt the general accuracy of the figures quoted by the hon. Member. He stated the other day that at the time the scale was fixed an inquiry was made and a scale fixed which appeared to the Local Government Board approximately to give an average throughout the Metropolis. The question whether or not the amount which was fixed at present was an adequate amount would form part of the investigation which, as he had stated to the House, he was about to make.

    ARMY—MR. GUSTENBERG, LIEUTENANT, 20TH HUSSARS.
    SIR JOHN SIMONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether inquiry has been made into the circumstances which led to the resignation of his Commission by Mr. Gustenberg, late a Lieutenant of the 20th Hussars?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The General Officer Commanding in Egypt was directed on the 14th of August to make an inquiry into all the circumstances of the case, and I have given directions that the Report when it is received shall be brought under my consideration.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE ESTIMATES.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he could now state in what order the Estimates would be taken?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL): The Government propose to proceed with the Amendment now before the House, and thereafter to proceed with the Estimates—the Army Estimates first, then the Navy and the Civil Service Estimates in their order.

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

      ADJOURNED DEBATE. [ELEVENTH NIGHT.]
      Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment on Motion for an' Address [19th August]—[See page 96.]
      And which Amendment was,
      At the end of the last paragraph, to add the words—"And humbly to represent to Her Majesty that certain circumstances accountable for the recent outbreak, prolongation, and repeated renewals of riots, raids for plunder, and conflicts with the Forces of the Crown, in Belfast, dictate the necessity for the prompt adoption of special measures for the maintenance of social order there, and that the most imperative and urgent of these measures are, the re-establishment of Her Majesty's authority in the district from which the Constabulary Force has been expelled by the rioters, the limitation of all powers of control over the Forces of the Crown, in times of public emergency, and adjudication upon cases of persons charged with offences against social order, to magistrates directly responsible to Her Majesty's Government, and the increase of the local Constabulary Force to such a strength as may enable it to deal with any probable contingency, until Parliament, on consideration of the Report of the Commission of Inquiry, can proceed to the application of adequate permanent measures for the protection of life and property in certain quarters of Belfast."—(Mr. Sexton.)
      Question again proposed, "That those words be there added."
      Debate resumed.

      CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)— THE RIOTS IN BELFAST—REMEDIAL MEASURES.
      MR. P. MCDONALDsaid, he desired to touch as lightly as possible on the occurrences of which so much had been heard, and which were alluded to with the prejudice and want of information shown in the speech, in the previous day's debate, of the hon. Member for North Belfast (Mr. W. Ewart). The hon. Gentleman stated that the lamentable riots in Belfast were due to a desire on the part of the Protestants of that place to enter a protest against the principle of the repeal of the Union. The hon. Gentleman must be very oblivious to the events of the day, and a very careless reader of the newspapers, to have come to such a conclusion. Was the hon. Gentleman not aware that for the last 40 years the ques-

      1097
      tion of the repeal of the Union was not before the country? The hon. Gentleman further enlarged on the hostility of Catholics towards Protestants throughout the country, and to his statements on the subject he begged to give the most unqualified denial. He (Mr. McDonald) defied anyone to point out a single instance where the Catholics of Ireland had in any way interfered with the exercise by the Protestants of their religious duties. As one who knew almost every town in Ireland, he could not call to mind a single case of disagreement between these two religious sections of the people in any matter unconnected with politics. In proof of the truth of his statement, it was hardly necessary to go beyond the House of Commons itself, where on these Benches eight or ten Protestant Irish Members sat in company with their Catholic compatriots. They grasped one another by the hand of friendship and brotherly love, totally regardless of where they bowed the knee on the Sabbath. For Ireland's national objects the question of religious belief was of no consequence whatever. If this wretched sectarian strife of the North, fostered as it was by fanatical preachings for personal or political purposes, be allowed to continue, unquestionably it would long be a blot on the fair fame of Belfast. It was already a disgrace to the town and to the Government which permitted it. The hon. Member for North Belfast said that Catholics in Belfast were not prevented from getting employment in the factories there. It was a fact, however, that in the shipbuilding works of Messrs. Hartland and Wolff there were 6,000 persons employed, of whom there were never more than 200 Catholics. At the time of the outbreak of the riots there were only 28, and even they were compelled to leave out of regard to their personal safety. That was a state of things which no responsible Government should permit. Undue importance should not be attached to Orange processions—they consisted of little more than organized tomfoolery. The hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) had clearly shown that undoubtedly the real cause of the riots was the incitement of the people by two reverend firebrands—the Rev. Dr. Kane and the Rev. "Roaring" Hanna, whose efforts were supplemented by the speeches of the noble Lord the Chancellor of the
      1098
      Exchequer (Lord Randolph Churchill). The noble Lord told the Belfast Orangemen that they must do something that would "rivet the attention of the English democracy." If the Protestants of Ulster were left alone the processions would pass off quietly as mere social recreations; but the incitements of men having influence over them naturally led to deplorable riots such as those that had occurred. The whole of the riotous proceedings was a scandal to civilization, and it was the duty of the Government to have suppressed them at their very inception. The Chancellor of the Exchequer he did not consider the only fomenter. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Joseph Chamberlain) shared in the evil work of inciting to disorder. That Gentleman had written a letter virtually advising the Orangemen not to wait for the passing of a certain law, but to rise in arms. It was not to be wondered at that riots should follow such a course of conduct as this. The local magistracy of Belfast had erred grievously. They had stood by silent and inactive whilst the disorder and riot were raging around them. It had been stated with a great deal of truth that 500 men of the Dublin Metropolitan Police with their batons would soon have stopped the Belfast disturbance. But the police had not been allowed to use their batons, as they had been held back by their officers, possibly with the best intentions; and it was only after the riots had had full swing, the houses of Catholics been wrecked, and the police stoned and besieged in their barracks, that the men had been allowed to defend themselves. In the face of this, an hon. Gentleman had the hardihood of making a suggestion that Belfast should have local police such as they had had in 1864. In that force there had only been one Catholic. He thought that they were not likely to fall back upon the establishment of such a force. He recommended to the Government that they should give Belfast a force such as Dublin had—an impartial mixed force, headed by an independent and impartial officer. He regretted that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had announced his intention of consulting the Mayor and local magistrates of Belfast. The Irish Party thoroughly ap-

      1099
      preciated and recognized the conciliatory manner of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, and they would reciprocate the good feeling. But, in the face of strong evidence to the contrary, they could not admit that the Mayor of Belfast—a public benefactor, no doubt—was utterly innocent of the charges brought against him. If the Government took their information from, and followed the advice of, the Mayor and Magistracy of Belfast, they would soon find themselves in a sea of trouble. He was desirous, like each Member of his Party, for the maintenance of social order, and would again suggest that the Dublin system—which worked well—should be enforced in Belfast. In Dublin two Resident Divisional Magistrates performed the functions of justice, the City Justices not exercising any control, in order to prevent the stain of partiality or any unfairness. With regard to the amount of loss of life and property in Belfast, he was desirous to know on whom the burden of compensation would fall? If it fell on the local rates, were the Catholics — who were the victims of Orange outrages—to pay for being victimized? He would suggest to Belfast the example of the town of Sligo. In Sligo it had happened that when the Catholics had discovered that miscreants of their own creed had injured Protestant property a Catholic fund was raised to make good the damage. This was a worthy example for Belfast to follow. In conclusion, he would ask the right hon, Gentleman the Chief Secretary not to wait for the Report of the Commission of Inquiry, but to at once act upon the suggestion which he had taken the liberty of throwing out with regard to the local magistracy—namely, for the immediate introduction of a magisterial system in Belfast similar to that in Dublin—and, by so doing, take the surest means to stamp out outrage and restore order in that part of Ireland.
      COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid, that this debate on the Address had now lasted a considerable time, and during its course many speeches of varied excellence had been delivered. He thought that when the debate was studied in the country, as no doubt a debate of such importance would be, the value that would be given to the speeches which, had been made would mainly depend upon how much light
      1100
      they threw or how much information they afforded to the British public as to the probability of success that might attend the efforts of Her Majesty's Government to restore law and order in Ireland, and finally to settle the Irish Question. The right hon. Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) said that the question of Ireland was the question of the day; but he might have said of the days—for all days were occupied with the Irish Question. But a smile flickered across the face of the late Prime Minister when he made the remark, and that smile, perhaps, indicated that the Government in undertaking to settle the Irish Question had undertaken a job they would find great difficulty in accomplishing. Ireland had been the question of the hour for many years, a kind of political pons asinorum which Government after Government had set themselves to solve, and instead of the Governments settling the Irish Question, as a rule the Irish Question had settled them. The Government had left nothing to be desired in the statements they had made as to the methods they proposed to adopt to settle this question. Their statements had been clear and distinct, and the majority of the House, of whatever Party, would wish them well in undertaking this difficult and almost insoluble task. The only speech from the Front Opposition Bench which dealt with the whole Irish policy of the Government was that of the right hon. Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt), of whom it was difficult to say what position he held in the House. In the absence of his Leader the right hon. Gentleman was leading the English Separatist Party, and the difficulty in criticizing his speech was to know whether to treat him as a serious politician. The right hon. Gentleman found fault with the method the Government proposed to adopt to restore law and order in Ireland; and the House was now considering the methods the Government proposed to adopt to restore law and order in Belfast. ["Question!"] Surely it was the question to discuss the objections of the right hon. Gentleman to the methods of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman had the rhetorical misfortune to get hold of a sentence that exactly fitted his mouth—he stuck to it like a man; he repeated it 21 times— and the sentence was that "social order

      1101
      is to be treated absolutely by itself;" the words "social order" being occasionally varied by the words "social disorder." The right hon. Gentleman made the discovery that treating social order by itself was a distinguishing characteristic of Tory Government, and he found fault with the Government for proposing to do so, and said that was the difference between Liberal and Tory policies. Personally, he had tried to discover the difference between the policy of the Tory Party and that of the Liberal Party, but had always failed; and, as far as he could make out—until he heard the speech of the right hon. Gentleman—the difference was not in measures, but in the men who were to carry them into effect. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Tories had inscribed on their banners "Social order to be treated absolutely by itself." He supposed the right hon. Gentleman would support the proposal to withdraw the police from Belfast. The right hon. Gentleman said you ought to withdraw the cause before you attempted to deal with the effect. It was stated that bad feeling existed at Belfast as regarded the police, and that the result was that violent and unwarrantable attacks were made upon the members of that body; so that if you withdrew that body, according to the right hon. Gentleman, you would take away the cause of the irritation that had provoked the riots. For half-an-hour the right hon. Gentleman told the House that the Government's policy in Ireland could cot succeed because they proposed to treat social order by itself; and he concluded by faying that the only remedy for the state of Ireland was to grant her a separate Parliament. Since when had the right hon. Gentleman held that opinion? How came it about that in the course of a few months he performed such an astounding political caper? In the month of December he said that the worst possible wish he could offer for his opponents—the Nationalists—was that they might stew in "Parnellite juice."
      MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. and gallant Gentleman is not speaking to the Amendment before the House The question of social order throughout Ireland is not the subject under discussion. The Amendment refers to the special measures to be taken for the
      1102
      maintenance of social order in Belfast.
      COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid, he should proceed to deal with the Amendment. It was moved by the hon. Member (Mr. Sexton), who was not the Member for West Belfast, who was not the Member for South Sligo, but who was a Member of the House of Commons. There was not much in the Amendment. It was merely a peg on which to hang a speech attacking the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Lord Randolph Churchill), himself (Colonel Saunderson), and others. The speech might be divided into two parts. The last part was much the smaller part, and it was devoted to Belfast. The first part was a much larger part. Three-quarters of it was devoted to the outrageous, scandalous, and criminal conduct of the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other Irishmen who held similar views to his (Colonel Saunderson's). According to the hon. Member (Mr. Sexton), they had acted in a manner that was absolutely detestable and criminal. With the permission of the House, he would, first of all, deal with the question of Belfast, and then answer the charges made against himself. His noble Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer could answer for himself, and was well able to fight his own battle. In doing so he (Colonel Saunderson) would ask the indulgence of the House. It might be possible that, in defending himself against the charges that had been made by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sexton) and those who thought with him, he might wander slightly, and travel outside the framework of the Amendment. He was sure, however, that even his opponents would admit that when a Minister of the House had been violently attacked, and his conduct impugned, he had a fair right, at any rate, to try to explain. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Sexton) said that the Ministers of the present Government were the cause of the bloodshed, the crime, and the confusion that existed in Belfast. He (Colonel Saunderson) must say that he thought it a wonderful thing that the hon. Member (Mr. Sexton) did not speak longer on the previous day. He only spoke for two hours. When they came to think that the greater portion, of his speech had been simmering and bubbling inside him since last spring—

      1103
      and no doubt he had devoted some time to adding to and improving it—the only wonder was that he did not speak for a much longer period. He devoted part of his speech to the question of Belfast, and he would deal with that part of it now. The House would see at once that to deal with the question at the present moment was a very difficult one. He had no objection to go into details, and meet objections; but assertions made on one side of the House to be met by counter-assertions on the other side of the House would not enlighten the public mind much. A Public Commission was about to sit which would receive sworn evidence, and he thought it would not be wise for anyone to prejudice the matter. In point of fact, there were trials to take place, and any statement that might be made might have the effect of prejudicing the cases before the Court. The police of Belfast had come in for a considerable share of abuse. He did not wish at all to say anything to the House that would prejudge the question; but, having been in Belfast imimmediately after the riots, and having carefully examined the question as far as he could examine it, he had come to the conclusion that when the Commission of Inquiry sat and took evidence on oath, they would find it clearly shown that a great deal of reckless firing took place at Belfast on the part both of the police and the unfortunate population. The House, however, would take into consideration the state of mind of the people of Belfast, both Roman Catholics and Protestants, at the time the riots took place. They had been excited on the one side to high prospect of attaining Home Rule, and, on the other side, had the prospect of being handed over to the tender mercies of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. The population of Belfast was notoriously an excitable population. He was sorry to say that for many years the Roman Catholic population and the Protestant population of Belfast had, been on anything but good terms. At the same time, the riots that broke out were not altogether attributable to that. No one regretted more deeply than he did these riots, and what had occurred. [Laughter and cries of "Order, order!"] He could quite understand the derision from the other side. But who was answerable
      1104
      for the condition of feeling of the population of Belfast, and their being driven to a condition of political madness? The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sexton) had said that it was the fault of Members on the Ministerial side; but to his (Colonel Saunderson's) mind the riots in Belfast were the bloodstained legacy that had been inherited from the late Government. To his mind, blood had tracked the course of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) from Khartoum to Belfast. But he must say that he considered that the population of Belfast had met with immense provocation. He did not excuse the violence and outrage committed; but, at the same time, he asked the English people to suspend their judgment until they had heard the evidence which would be given on oath, and until the Commission had reported the result of their inquiry. Then, and then only, could the House be able to come to a just and accurate decision. The hon. Member for Sligo mentioned one of the cases of outrage—the case of an old man who was tarred—as a joke, whereas it was about one of the most barbarous and disgraceful outrages. A newspaper of Belfast followed the very bad example, and also called it a practical joke, But the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) spoke of the dynamite explosion at Salford, where life was lost, as a practical joke. The hon. Member (Mr. Sexton) had also referred in terms of disapprobation to Orangemen. He mixed them up with the riots at Belfast. Now, he (Colonel Saunderson) absolutely denied that the Orangemen of Belfast had anything to do with the riots at Belfast. He did not deny that Protestants had something to do with the matter; but the people that were the chief rioters in the Belfast disturbances were what they called "Corner Boys." They were absolutely beyond all control. They were the roughs, such as undoubtedly existed in Belfast and in all other large towns. The Orangemen did all in their power to arrest the riots. The Grand Master of Belfast (Dr. Kane) was a personal friend of his own. He was proud to acknowledge that Dr. Kane was one of his friends, and a very respected one. He issued a manifesto to the Orangemen of Belfast, begging them to do all in their power to promote peace, and, as far as they could, to in-

      1105
      fluence the minds of those outside the Order to arrest the violence and disorder. So much for that accusation. Another point with the hon. Member (Mr. Sexton) appeared to be that Orangemen were in the habit of taking a terrific oath, which oath bound them to exterminate the Roman Catholics. [Mr. HARRIS (Galway, E.): Hear, hear!] The hon. Member, no doubt, believed it, but he had been grossly misinformed. No such oath over existed, or anything in the slightest degree resembling it, and no such oath now had any existence. The very opposite was the case, for every Orange Lodge meeting was opened with prayer. ["Oh, oh!" and laughter.] Hon. Members might laugh if they liked, because they were ignorant, but those who had had the privileges as he had had of a knowledge of Orangeism would know that every Orange Lodge was opened with prayer. [Laughter and cheers.] Well, he thought prayer was not a subject to laugh at. One of the prayers used in Orange Lodges was to the effect that Roman Catholics might be rescued from the errors of their ways. He now turned to the speeches of other hon. Members who had followed on the same side, but less eloquently than the hon. Member (Mr. Sexton). They accused the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer, himself (Colonel Saunderson), and others holding the same opinions, of inciting the people of Ireland to civil war if the Parliament of England did not make the laws to please them.
      MR SEXTON: No, if they made laws to displease them.
      COLONEL SAUNDERSON: Well, that was very much the same. A challenge had been thrown down by hon. Members opposite that they should repeat in that House the language they had employed in Ulster. He would at once take up the challenge of the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon). He would repeat any words that he had ever used in Ireland, and if similar circumstances arose he would use them again. He should now explain the course he and his Friends felt it their duty to take. No one, he hoped, would ever be able to accuse him of saying one thing in Ulster and another in the House of Commons. He and his Friends denied—and he had said it already in that House—they denied that the House of Commons had a right
      1106
      —they did not say that it had not the power, for it could pass any law it pleased—to separate Ireland from England, and hand her over to a foreign Government. Perhaps he would be allowed to show that a foreign Government was in reality what an Irish Parliament sitting in Dublin would be. A very distinguished Irishman—Mr. Davitt—in Chicago recently made use of the following observations about the Home Rule Bill of the late Government. He said—
      "Mr. Gladstone, the English Minister who, in 1881, sent to gaol without trial no fewer than 1,000 members of the Land League, now fathered a Bill which, if successful, would have made those very men—the same ex-suspects—the practical rulers of their country."
      Well, the Loyalists of Ireland objected to be governed by an Administration of gaol-birds. Some people might be persuaded by the clamour of its advocates to grant Home Rule; but the Loyalists absolutely refused to recognize such a Government, or to consent to an Administration being created in Dublin from hon. Gentlemen opposite below the Gangway. At any rate, while they had strength enough in their right hands they would do what they could to prevent such a Government ruling over them. From the Opposition side of the House he and other Members had been arraigned for having directly incited to bloodshed and civil war in Belfast, and he was going to show the House that they as Loyalists were perfectly justified in what they had said, and he would ask the country to judge fairly between them and their accusers. What was going on at the present moment? What was the policy of the hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway? It was not a British policy, but a foreign policy for the dismemberment of the British Empire, a policy paid for and subsidized by foreign money. When he made that statement before he excited a frightful explosion below the Gangway. Hon. Gentlemen seemed to think they had been insulted. Nothing of the kind. He did not object to their being paid if their paymasters thought they were worth it. He was, therefore, perfectly justified in looking on them as foreign delegates paid by foreign money. On the authority of one of the hon. Members below the Gangway, he would show that the Nationalists professed a foreign policy, and that it was promoted by

      1107
      foreign money. He was not in the habit of making random statements, and he would back up what he said by an extract from a speech made by the hon. Member for South Tipperary (Mr. John O'Connor) at a meeting of the Cork National League, just before the Election in 1885. The hon. Member made the following statement:—
      "There was a general impression that the new Members of the Party serving in Parliament were to be paid for their service. They ought to be very cautious, and not rest their hopes too strongly upon this, lest they might not be fulfilled. He (Mr. O'Connor) knew Mr. Parnell's mind on the subject, and he would say that he wanted to return 90 Members of three classes. The first class would be independent Members, who would be able to maintain themselves in London; then the second class would be men who could afford to come to London and vote on special and particular occasions; while the third class would be composed of men of transcendental ability, who would have their expenses paid in London. Mr. Parnell paid these men out of the National League funds raised abroad."
      He (Colonel Saunderson) quoted this in order to substantiate the position he had taken up when he said that he and his Friends would not have these men to reign over them. He submitted that those hon. Gentleman, consisting of the first, second, and third classes, were carrying out a foreign policy. He did not know who were the men of transcendental ability who were paid; but two of them who had lost their seats, especially Mr. William O'Brien and Mr. Healy, were to have places found for them. ["Hear, hear!"] That was a very weak "Hear, hear!" indeed; and perhaps there was a natural jealousy on the Benches opposite of their superior ability. Probably it came from hon. Members who were trembling in their shoes lest they should have to immolate themselves in order to make room for Mr. O'Brien and Mr. Healy. Some hon. Members were able to live in Colorado or Paris out of the funds; but the large proportion of the hon. Gentlemen who formed the Nationalist Party were not considered worth their keep in London. Therefore he consinered that he had made out his case; and when he asserted that the Party opposite was a foreign Party, and that they were paid by foreign money, he thought he did not make a rash assertion.
      MR SPEAKER: Order, order! must inform the hon. and gallant Mem-
      1108
      ber that he is not speaking at all to the question before the House. The hon. and gallant Gentleman must remember that the question before the House has reference to the Belfast riots, and not to the general terms of the Address.
      COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid, he was quite aware of the fact.
      SPEAKER: Then I must call upon the hon. and gallant Member to observe the ruling of the Chair.
      COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I bow to your ruling at once, Sir. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Sexton) had charged him with having incited to civil war.
      MR. SEXTON: Not to civil war, but to rebellion, as I understand it.
      COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid, that he repeated and distinctly stated in Ireland that if the House of Commons passed a law and handed him, and those who thought with him, over to the tender mercies of hon. Gentlemen opposite, on the whole they would be justified in the last resort of appealing to force. He repeated that statement again now in the House of Commons. He most distinctly stated that in his opinion the House of Commons had no right to snap asunder the bonds of union which connected one part of the Empire with the other against the will of a considerable portion of the people of Ireland.
      MR. SEXTON: Mr. Speaker, I rise to Order. I beg to ask you, Sir, whether an hon. Member of this House is in Order in declaring that, in the event of a certain law being passed by this House, he and his followers would be entitled to resort to arms against it?
      MR. SPEAKER: What has fallen from the hon. and gallant Gentleman does not call for my intervention.
      SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I think, Sir, that we ought to know whether an hon. Member is entitled to say that if this House and the Parliament pass a certain law which is disliked by a considerable portion of the people of a country, that those people would be justified in resorting to force? This is a most important question, and it would be as well if both sides of the House were to understand whether such language was permissible.
      THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL)said: I rise, Sir, to a

      1109
      point of Order. I would ask, Sir, whether it is not the practice of this House —a custom dating from time immemorial—when any question is raised on words used by any hon. Member, and to which objection has been taken, whether it is not the proper course that a Motion be made that the words be taken down?
      MR SPEAKER: I desire to point out that the question raised does scarcely refer to Parliamentary Order. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) asks me to say if the words used by the hon. and gallant Gentleman were in Order. The words used by the hon. and gallant Gentleman were that in the event of a certain measure passing he would think it necessary to have recourse to a particular line of action. That is clearly not a point on which I can interfere, because it has nothing whatever to do with the debates in this House.
      COLONEL SAUNDERSONresuming, said, that he absolutely denied that he made use of the words attributed to him by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt). He had stated distinctly that it was only on one point, he believed, that he should feel justified in employing force in a certain contingency, and he believed that hon. Gentlemen opposite would in similar circumstances do the same. [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT: No.] Perhaps not on the present occasion; but then the right hon. Gentleman changed his mind so quickly. The reason he (Colonel Saunderson) employed the language in the House of Commons which he had used in Ireland was because he felt bound, as an honest man, to repeat in the House that which, he had used on the other side of the Channel, and which hon. Gentlemen opposite stated that they saw the disastrous results of in the Belfast riots. He denied this. He was prepared, if need be, to defend his words in that House. He was afraid that he had already detained the House of Commons too long; but be would repeat that he did use those expressions in Ulster and now repeated them here; but he absolutely denied that any words of his, or any of his Friends, had had any effect whatever in influencing the actions of the Belfast mobs. The Belfast mob was not under their control; it acted upon laws of its own. He most earnestly hoped that one result
      1110
      of the action of Her Majesty's Government would be to teach the Belfast mob, whether Protestant or Catholic, that the law must be obeyed in Belfast as in other parts of Ireland. He thanked the House—and especially hon. Gentlemen opposite from Ireland—for the hearing it had accorded him. It was always willing to listen to anyone who could contribute anything to the subject under discussion, and he was tolerably well informed on the unfortunate question under debate; and he could assure the House that although there might be many in Ireland who held views diametically opposed to theirs and in favour of the policy of the right hon. Gentleman the late Prime Minister (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), yet there was a great section of the population in Ireland who were just as loyal and determined to maintain the authority of the Crown and of the law in Ireland as were to be found in any other part of Her Majesty's Empire.
      MR. JOHN MORLEY: I am sure, Sir, that we all regret very much the unkindly circumstances, whatever they were, which brought the speech of the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Saunderson) to what looked something rather like an untimely and premature end. We could all very well understand that the line of argument which the hon. and gallant Member was pursuing could not be very pleasing in the ears of his Leaders, who have persistently since the beginning of the Session—I am sorry to say not always before—urged the discussion of Irish subjects in a tone of moderation and of legality. We cannot quite part company with the hon. and gallant Member without taking note of one very astonishing announcement which he ventured to make on the floor of the British House of Commons. That announcement was nothing less than this—and I, for one, entirely recognize and cordially respect the hon. and gallant Member's courage in making it here, as in Ulster— that if Parliament passed, and the Sovereign assented to, an Act in reference to the government of Ireland which did not commend itself to that portion of the population—[Cries of "No!" and "Yes!"] [Mr. SEXTON: What else?] Well, Sir, I will gladly give the hon. and gallant Member the opportunity of repeating what he did say.
      COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I was speaking of government by a foreign Power. I said, "to hand us over to a foreign Power."
      MR. JOHN MORLEY: That is a mere quibble, I do not care what the object of the Act of Parliament concerned is. What the hon. and gallant Member said was this—that if Parliament passed, and the Sovereign assented to, an Act, whatever its object might be, to which a portion of the population, through its spokesmen, did not approve—[Colonel SAUNDERSON dissented]—I should be honestly anxious not to misrepresent what the hon. and gallant Member said; he has said no more in effect than, what was recommended by the noble Lord. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Hear, hear!] The hon. and gallant Gentleman is popular in the House, and I, for one, should be sorry to see any misfortune befall him. I warn him, however, that the language he has used is the language not of civil war, as he supposes, but the language of a rebel. I do not mean to say that the hon. and gallant Member nourishes thoughts of rebellion in the depths of his heart, but I do say that the course of conduct he has pledged himself to undertake is flat rebellion; and if he ever ventures to make his words good, I am very much afraid that he will meet with the fate and come within the description which he applied to hon. Members below the Gangway—he will become a gaol-bird. Now, I pass from that rather painful episode to a lover of legality like myself to the remarks which the hon. and gallant Member made upon the topic more immediately before the consideration of the House. He began by deprecating statements and counter-statements on the details and circumstances of the recent riots at Belfast. He did not very fairly observe his own canon; but he immediately proceeded to charge the police with reckless firing. I submit to him that that is making a statement which, if representatives of the police were here, they would contradict. That is a matter not only before the Royal Commission, but is one which the Courts of Law will have to determine, and on which the liberties of many of Her Majesty's subjects—and even the liberties of some of these police—may depend. The hon. and gallant Member made two other very extraordinary remarks,
      1112
      the more extraordinary because they were mutually destructive. He said that the real cause of the riots in Belfast was the production of the Home Rule Bill. Then he went on to say that the riots were really the work of the "Corner Boys" of Belfast. Well, then, it comes to this—that the only politicians in Belfast who were so affected by our proposed legislation that they resorted to rioting by way of protest were the "Corner Boys." I leave it to the hon. and gallant Gentleman to reconcile these two statements as best he can. But does the hon. and gallant Member perceive the proposition that really underlies his contention? Why, it comes to this, that we ought not to have brought in our Home Rule Bill because it led to riots in Belfast. The meaning of the hon. and gallant Member is, that although Parliament in its wisdom might think that a measure of self-government for Ireland was expedient on broad, national, and Imperial grounds, yet that they ought not to pass such a measure because it might lead to rioting by the "Corner Boys" of Belfast. In that case what is to become of the supremacy of Parliament? Are mobs in Ireland to be the arbiters of the wisdom of Parliament? That is what the hon. and gallant Member's argument comes to? Supposing that the Nationalist mob in Dublin or Cork were to take the law into their own hands by murderous onslaughts upon the forces of the Crown, would that be a reason why we should bring in a Home Rule Bill? The hon. and gallant Gentleman—quoting a speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt)—said he had been puzzled to know what was the difference between the Liberal and the Tory Party. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has an advantage over some of us, because he has belonged to both Parties; and while I do not doubt that his conversion is sincere, yet he ought not to have forgotten the fact when he commented on the changes of view of some of his hon. Friends. There is one point, at all events, upon which there is no difference between the Liberal Party and the Tory Party in this House, and that is in their resolution to maintain order and to enforce the law. A great deal has been said, not, indeed, in this House, but out of it, in the North of Ireland, as to the want of nerve and

      1113
      energy of the late Government, and as to their vacillation and various other shortcomings. Even more criminal motives than mere weakness have been attributed to them by hon. Members of the House, who are not now present to repeat the statements which they were not ashamed to make in Ulster and elsewhere. Where is the hon. Member for East Belfast (Mr. Johnston)? The hon. Member, on an early night in the Session, in a very short speech—which I expected to hear repeated on a more serious occasion—told us that there was a deliberate conspiracy on the part of the police and others to discredit the fair fame of Belfast and to massacre the Protestants? I think an hon. Gentleman who makes a statement of that kind should be prepared to stand by it, and should not disappear, as the hon. Member has done, without bringing forward any sort of evidence in support of his charge. It is idle sophistry to suggest that the late Government were disqualified from keeping order in Belfast by reason of their views in regard to the present system of government in Ireland. Whatever our views may have been as to the best form of government for Ireland, there never was any doubt in the mind of any Member of the late Executive as to the propriety of keeping order in Belfast or anywhere else. Our policy with respect to the riots was a simple one—it was the same as that which is now being pursued by the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), and it was the same that would have to be pursued by the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) if he were a Chief Minister in his own country. Every Government must do its best to keep the peace and to put down disturbance, and in those respects I do not think that the late Government has done worse than could be expected, taking into consideration all the difficulties with which they had to contend. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has attributed the riots to the Home Rule Bill; but he seems to have forgotten that there were riots in Belfast before the Home Rule Bill was thought of. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, to whose fair and straightforward recognition of what we did I wish to do the fullest justice, did make one little criticism yesterday which I should like to answer. The right hon.
      1114
      Baronet said he was afraid we had not consulted as constantly as was desirable the Local Authorities in Belfast. Now, I would remind the House that Local Authorities in Belfast are not exactly the same as Local Authorities in an English borough of corresponding magnitude and importance. The Corporation is returned by a very restricted franchise, amounting to only some 4,000 electors in a population of 220,000, whereas in England the number of electors would have been from 25,000 to 30,000. There is also an enormous difference between the position of a local magistrate in a town like Belfast, where party feeling and passion has run by tradition to the most violent heights, and the position of magistrates in an English borough, where things are quieter, and the Justices are never so sharply suspected of partizanship and faction. This difference would naturally induce the Executive to hesitate before placing extraordinary power in the hands of the Belfast authorities. I have not a word to say against the honour and uprightness of Sir Edward Harland and his brother magistrates associated with him; but hon. Members opposite will recognize the fact that they belong to the class mainly identified with one set of political interests in the borough. It will be seen, therefore, that it is difficult to give that weight and authority to magistrates who belong to one class and are mainly identified with one sect in the borough, which we should give to our English magistrates rightly. Nobody has proposed to pay much deference to the Local Authorities in Dublin or Cork. We paid as much deference to the Local Authorities of Belfast as you do to those of Dublin. My own confidence in the judgment of the local magistrates was much shaken when, on the first night of my arrival in Dublin, on the occasion of the June riots, a telegram was received at the Castle from the local magistrates of Belfast urging the necessity of withdrawing the extra force of Constabulary. That was in itself a very curious recommendation, and it was made against the advice and counsel of our own responsible, experienced, and efficient officers. There were cases afterwards in which the advice of the magistrates was taken, and the Constabulary were on various occasions, in compliance with their recom-

      1115
      mendations, withdrawn; but I believe in almost every case where that counsel was followed the result to the public order was most disastrous. There was one point of our action for which we were specially reproached and attacked in the Town Councils of Belfast, and that was because we extended the proclamation under the Arms Act against the possession as well as carrying of arms, without previously asking the advice of the local magistrates. But, Sir, that proclamation was issued on the 19th of July, and on the 14th of that month, or five days earlier, there had been a meeting of the local magistrates, who had discussed the proposal for so extending the proclamation. The magistrates, after consultation, deliberately rejected a proposition to recommend the taking of such a step, and therefore we knew perfectly well, without going through what would have been the empty formality of consulting them, what advice they would give. We had to choose between accepting their advice and acting upon the advice of our own responsible officials, the Resident Magistrates stationed at Belfast, the Inspectors of Constabulary, and the Town Inspectors. I think I have now disposed, as well as I am able, of the charge that we neglected the Local Authorities. I should like to assure the House that our officers in Belfast were particularly instructed, by a minute sent to the two Resident Magistrates, that it was the Lord Lieutenant's strong desire that those gentlemen and the Divisional Magistrates should act "in conjunction with the Mayor and Magistrates and with the co-operation of the Military Authorities." I believe that the further this inquiry goes the more absolutely clear will our hands be found to be of any dereliction of duty in this particular respect. I do not suppose that the right hon. Baronet really intended to make any serious charge against us in respect to this point. But there is one other charge more personal to myself upon which I should wish to say a word or two. Yesterday afternoon the right hon. Baronet frankly repudiated, and advised hon. Members to banish from their minds, the thought that I or the Lord Lieutenant had anything to do with drafting Catholic police from certain special districts into Belfast with malevolent designs. Although the right hon
      1116
      Baronet has repudiated it, I am sure that this ludicrous, this grotesque calumny will continue to be repeated, as is clear from the report made by a Mr. Patton, the agent, I think, of the Irish Loyal and Patriotic Union, reproduced in The Times, which, no doubt, will command very wide credence. He states that a permanent official told him that the Protestants were much more enraged with the police than the Catholics; and when he asked him the reason, the official said that it was to a great extent owing to the opinion of the Orangemen—not the "Corner Boys" only—"that Mr. Morley had picked out Catholic police; to go to Belfast to exterminate them." That, he believed, might be described as "the universal belief of the Protestant democracy." I have always heard a great deal of the intelligence of the Belfast community; but, from my own experience of them, I shall have to think that there is with their intelligence a large dose of stupid and malignant credulity. And that credulity is by no means confined to rough and ignorant men. Mr. Reed, the Inspector General of Constabulary, was desired by the right hon. Baronet to go to Belfast. He went, and had an interview with the Mayor and Magistrates. I saw in the papers that he had to assure the magistrates that he had received no orders from the Government as to the selection of the counties from which police were to be drafted into Belfast. I understand that Mr. Reed actually found considerable difficulty in persuading even responsible men like the magistrates of Belfast that I had not ordered Catholic policemen to be drafted into the town to make a sort of Bartholomew massacre in the streets of Belfast. I thought it due to myself that I should say this much in positive denial of any charges so absurd. I hope now we have heard the last of that truly ridiculous statement. We are told more seriously that we ought not to have had any importation of police from the outside, and that the importation of outside police was justly resented. Where were we to get the police from if not from the outside? On the occasion of the July anniversaries, and particularly with the General Election in prospect, there were many districts, especially in the North, where special precautions were needed. In Londonderry, in Armagh, in Omagh,

      1117
      and Portadown, I think, nearly 600 extra police were employed, and we did not think it prudent to weaken the Constabulary force in the North. Where were we to get the extra police from, except from counties outside Ulster? I know it is said that we ought to have resorted exclusively to troops. But is it seriously to be said that, because a portion of the inhabitants of a city do not like the police doing the work of the police, it is the business of the Executive to send troops in their place? I am speaking in the presence of many officers of Her Majesty's Army, and I do not believe there is one who will not bear me out that all experience shows that soldiers are not always the best fitted for police work, and that police work is not well fitted for soldiers. Emergency upon emergency arose in Belfast, and we were bound to resort to troops; but it is ridiculous to contend that the moment the police force of a town is inadequate, you ought at once to employ troops and not constabulary. Where are you going to stop? Supposing the Nationalists in Cork objected to the red coats just as the Protestants in Belfast object to the green coats, what are you going to do? Are you going to give soldiers or police as may be desired, to suit the fastidious preferences of rival mobs? I think all this is a spurious kind of argument, and I apologize for bringing it before the House. The matter has not been referred to in the House; but it has been made use of so much out of the House that I have thought it necessary, however spurious the argument may be, to say something on the matter. Anyone who has read the papers must have seen that the town police were on many occasions treated quite as badly by the mobs in Belfast as the country police. Some of the worst cases of merciless stoning were those in which the victims were the town police. At that fatal affair of the 8th of June, when so many people were killed by the firearms of the police from the Shankill Barracks, there were in the barracks and among the men incriminated a considerable number of the town police. As throwing some light upon the particular frame of mind, not only of the rough classes, but of the more educated in Belfast, I should like to read an extract from a newspaper hostile to the policy of the late Government and to myself, This paper, The
      1118
      Northern Whig, referred to the ridiculous charge that we had imported police to exterminate the Protestants, and said that if this point, that the police were honestly drafted into the town, could only be impressed upon the minds of the Protestant population, it could not but have some effect in calming their irritation. It said that at present they were acting from an erroneous notion, and it might be observed that the outcry was raised, not against the country police only, but against any police force whatever. It went on to say that—
      "It was ridiculous to assume that there would be no more riots in the town if there were no more policemen, and it was extraordinary that men of respectable position and education should encourage such delusions."
      These are difficulties which any Government, whether Conservative or Liberal, will have to deal with in keeping order in Belfast. Then, again, the allegation is made that the police acted hostilely to the mob, and I wish to make an observation with reference to the speech of the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell). The hon. Member went through the story now under examination, and gave the House a great deal of unverified evidence and unsifted allegations with reference to the conduct of the police. Among other things, he made some sort of excuse for the view that the police had acted in a violent manner. The hon. Member endeavoured to show that the chief cause of these riots was the Chief Secretary himself—the unworthy individual who is now addressing the House. The hon. Member is not the only person who has endeavoured to fasten upon me some responsibility for the conduct of the police in consequence of my political views. A friend of the hon. Member, Dr. Kane, in a contribution of some kind he has made somewhere or other, said—
      "The police and the Resident Magistrates easily catch the spirit of the Chief Secretary, especially if there be a touch of Satan in it."
      This is the representative of the meek spirit of the Gospel! He has threatened me once, I believe, with physical and corporeal annihilation if I ever should venture to cross the Boyne. But when a Gentleman in the position of the hon. Member for South Tyrone—
      MR. T. W. RUSSELL: As the right hon. Gentleman has referred

      1119
      to me, I feel bound to say that the only occasion yesterday on which I used the name of the right hon. Gentleman was when I said it was strongly felt that the police believed there would very soon be a change of masters, and that some of them, under the influence of that belief, had resorted to measures which they would not otherwise have adopted. I made no charge, and should be ashamed to make any reflection, upon the right hon. Gentleman.
      MR. JOHN MORLEY: I am quite sure that the hon. Gentleman did not wish to say anything painful to me personally; but the House will observe that what he said just now comes exactly to the very same thing. What the hon. Member said was, that the fact of the Office of Chief Secretary being filled by me, was in itself a source of demoralization to the police and magistrates. ["Hear, hear!" from the Ministerial Benches.] Then the hon. Member does assert that my political opinions were calculated to demoralize the police? [Ministerial cheers.] You cheer that assertion; but I venture to say that there is no responsible official now connected with the Government of Ireland, from the right hon. Baronet (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) downwards, who would say that there is one atom more of demoralization among the police and magistrates today, than there was on the first day I took Office. I felt it to be my business constantly to keep my finger, as it were, on the pulse of the Irish Constabulary, and I lost no opportunity of knowing where there was the slightest sign of demoralization. I always heard that neither in the Royal Irish nor in the Metropolitan Constabulary were to be found any of those results which the hon. Gentleman imputes to my unfortunate presence at Dublin Castle. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that his contention was that the Loyalists of Belfast were justified in attacking the police, because they suspected the police of being the agents of a Government that was in favour of Home Rule. That is a novel doctrine which I hope will not go far. It is shameful to look leniently upon such lawless, wanton, and brutal attacks on the agents of the Queen and the guardians of the peace, as those—whether perpetrated by Protestants or Catholics—simply because they choose to look with disfavour upon
      1120
      the political views of the Chief Secretary of the day. The hon. Gentleman used some language of compliment to the bravery of the Belfast "Corner Boys." I myself should prefer to reserve any compliments for bravery for the police. I should say there is much more bravery in a handful of men putting their backs to a wall and defending themselves, as the police did, than in. thousands of "Corner Boys" or men pouring down upon them with deadly missiles. The bravery was not on the side of the mob, but on the side of the police who resisted them; and I think hon. Gentlemen opposite, in spite of Party differences, will agree with me that it is a mistake to give credit to mobs for breaking the law and for defying the police, and to deny the credit of bravery to men who were doing their duty, under the direction of their superior officers. I have only one more remark to make in vindication of myself. I perceive that another excuse for these riots is found in some language which I am alleged to have used. I see in the report to which reference has been made, that the fierce and bad feelings which began the riots arose from some speech of mine in this House of a hostile and contemptuous character towards the Protestants of Ulster. Now, Sir, that is a pure fabrication. I have now for six years and a-half been writing and speaking, almost without cessation, upon Irish affairs, and I dare say—though I should like to examine a little before I admit it—that things may have been said and written by me which might better have been unsaid and unwritten. But I do affirm without fear of contradiction—that from the day on which I became Chief Secretary down to this hour, neither in the House of Commons, nor anywhere else, have I used a single expression, or allowed a sentiment to escape from me which, in the judgment of any right and fair-minded man, the Protestants of Ulster have the slightest reason to find fault with as offensive or disrespectful to them. How should I use language of that kind? Why should I say one single word that would mark religious difference in Ulster or anywhere else? The whole basis of our policy is, and has been, the hope and the belief that the only chance for Ireland—the only chance of putting an end to these deadly and hateful animosities—is that Irishmen of all creeds, of all

      1121
      ranks, and of all stations, should join in a strong union and a generous co-operation in the noble and beneficent task of raising their own land, and the people who live in it, from the distraction and desolation into which the government of Ireland by this Parliament has so unfortunately allowed her to fall.
      COLONEL WARINGsaid, he would bear in mind the advice of his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), to abstain from any words that might tend to add to the excitement in Belfast. It was to be regretted that the right hon. Gentleman the late Chief Secretary (Mr. John Morley) had not been more careful in that respect in his allusion to his (Colonel Waring's) hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Saunderson), for he had been scarcely so moderate as he might have been in attributing to his hon. and gallant Friend that the language he had used was the language of rebellion. The hon. and gallant Gentleman never did say, nor had he (Colonel Waring) himself ever said, that if the measure of the late Government passed the Protestants of the North of Ireland would be justified in resisting it by force of arms. ["Oh, oh!"] What he did say was that he would not consider himself bound by a Parliament sitting in Dublin; and that if, as the result of its passing, the Party to whom the Government of Ireland was to be handed over should adopt measures which the Protestants of the North considered interfered with the rights and liberties which their forefathers had won for them, the descendants of those forefathers would be justified in resisting them. That was what they had said, still said, and that was what they intended to abide by. The right hon. Gentleman had said that it was curious that any rational persons should suppose that any Parliament would legislate in fear of threats held out by riotous mobs; but, if he (Colonel Waring) recollected rightly, a very strong argument of the right hon. Gentleman, in supporting the Bill lately laid before Parliament, was drawn from the consequences that might be expected from riotous proceedings that had their rise on the other side of the Atlantic. If that was not a proposal to yield to intimidation he was at a loss to know what it meant. As to the riots in Bel-
      1122
      fast, he was glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that he did not believe the Orangemen had caused these riots—
      MR. JOHN MORLEY: I passed no opinion at all upon that point, and I said that I was particularly anxious to pass no opinion upon it.
      COLONEL WARING, continuing, said, he could not see how it could be said, as had frequently been said, that these riots were of constant recurrence in Belfast when there had been no disturbance in the town from 1872 until the present year. As to the accusation against the right hon. Gentleman the late Chief Secretary, that he purposely drafted Roman Catholic police into Belfast for the purpose of menacing the Protestants of that town, he (Colonel Waring) did not believe that there was any foundation for such an allegation; but unfortunate results did arise from the feeling displayed by the policemen who were sent there; and, unless he was much misinformed, circumstances would come out at the judicial inquiry which would probably induce the right hon. Gentleman to change the view he had expressed on that point. In referring to the speech of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Sexton), he (Colonel Waring) would, at the same time, be able to reply to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. P. McDonald) who opened the debate that evening. That hon. Gentleman had apparently been reading a little book entitled What to do with Cold Mutton, for his own speech was simply a rehash of that of the hon. Member for South Sligo or elsewhere. That hon. Gentleman had taken the unusual course of bringing the question forward in the form of an Amendment to the Address, on the ground that it was so urgent that it could not wait a moment; but the hon. Member, in the speech with which he introduced his Amendment, expressed the opinion that no further riots were to be feared in Belfast, because they were only excited by the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the purpose of getting a Conservative Government into power. They had heard a great deal suggested, or rather demanded, in the Amendment about the suppression of the local magistrates in Belfast; but that was precisely what was done by the Resi-

      1123
      dent Magistrate and his advisers. ["No, no!"] Every proceeding that took place in Belfast was at the instigation of the senior Resident Magistrate and his advisers, and Sir Edward Harland and the local magistrates were kept out in the cold until the advent to Office of the present Chief Secretary. The chain of responsibility passed from the Chief Secretary to police officers, and, not as in England, through the magistrate sworn to do justice between man and man; and although such a course of procedure might meet the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite, he unhesitatingly denounced the course that had been taken as un-Constitutional. Passing now to the question of the provocation given for the riots at Belfast, the hon. Gentleman, who introduced the Amendment had alluded to the often-repeated story of an attack upon a Roman Catholic religious house in the neighbourhood of Belfast, on the occasion of Lord Iddesleigh's visit two or three years ago. That statement had been repeatedly contradicted; but he found that when such allegations were made, time after time, in that House, they were likely to make some impression upon English credulity, and that it was necessary, therefore, to contradict them as often as they were made. It was well known, and had been proved over and over again, that the processionists on that occasion offered no violence to anybody or anything, but that a few "Corner Boys" following the procession did throw some stones, which broke a few small windows in the establishment mentioned; but, so far from what occurred having accelerated the death of the Lady Superior, who was lying on her death bed at the time, they had the evidence of the sister who was attending her, given the next day before the Resident Magistrate, to the effect that she did not even hear any noise on the occasion. Attention had been called to very lamentable affairs that took place in Armagh previous to the Rebellion of 1798; and an oath had been read which was supposed to be the oath of the Orange Society, that had been already repeatedly and emphatically denied. Attempts were continually being made to identify the Orange Institution in its earlier days with the illegal Association that went by the name of "Peep-o'-Day Boys," with which it had no connection whatever. That was,
      1124
      undoubtedly, an illegal Association; but, as it was got up against landlordism, he should have thought that it would have had the sympathy of those Irish Members who sat below the Gangway on the Opposition side. Orangemen had nothing whatever to do with the recent riots, and he did not think that the Representatives of Ulster had ever taken credit for the gallantry displayed by the Belfast mob. His friend, Dr. Kane, did his best to prevent the disturbances, and interfered almost at the risk of his life, by facing the muskets of the police, to put an end to them; and the very fact that he was not successful went to prove that Orangemen took no active part in them. As to the tunes played at Ulster demonstrations, and which had been objected to as provocative, he was not much of a musician; but he did know that some of the tunes they played most were those which were accepted and recognized as loyal and patriotic throughout all the rest of the Empire. It had been said that the Loyalists of Ulster ought not to have made demonstrations on days which they were accustomed to treat as anniversaries. Surely a time when they were told that they would soon be treated as aliens and strangers in their own country was not exactly that when they should be asked to forget that on former occasions they had been compelled to use force to protect themselves from violence. The objection of the Loyalists to the meetings held by the other Party was easily understood. These meetings were generally held in localities which the members of Protestant congregations had to traverse on their way to and from their places of worship. The Protestants were compelled to shoulder their way through jeering crowds, and very naturally objected to what they considered a desecration of the Sabbath. With reference to the question of the police, he wished to endorse what had been said of their conduct in the past by the right hon. Gentleman the late Chief Secretary. No doubt it was an admirable Force, and had done its duty on many occasions with courage and vigour; but he feared that for some time past it had been living in a malarious atmosphere; that they had been affected lately by their exposure to the bad climate of the South; and anyone who had been similarly exposed must have experienced

      1125
      the same result. He feared that for the last six years the Force had not been improving, and that the proposals in the House of Commons lately had not been without their effect on it. It could not be said to be wonderful, when hearing that their stewardship might soon be taken from them, that they should try to make friends with the Mammon of unrighteousness. It was now, however, placed under more favourable conditions, and he hoped that it would again do its duty without fear, favour, or affection. He thought, however, that those who were not so well informed as the Members of the House might well look with suspicion, on the recent conduct of the police of Belfast; but he would not say one word to increase the agitation and suspicion in the minds of the people while the inquiry was proceeding. He felt sure that the decision of the Commission which was going to sit in Belfast would be accepted by all parties in the North of Ireland with respect, for they had been assured by the Government that it would do its work well. No special or local knowledge was required in a person to hold the inquiry into the Belfast riots. At present it was composed of four Members, which was an undesirable number, as they might be equally divided in their Report. It would be a great advantage if an Englishman was added. He would, therefore, suggest that it would be better that the Commission should consist of five rather than four Members; and he must express his gratification that the inquiry was to be a searching one, and that the guilty would be punished, for it was well that it should be known that when crime was brought home to any man, neither the colour of his coat nor the position he held would protect him from the consequences.
      MR. CLANCYsaid, the hon. and gallant Gentleman's (Colonel Waring's) explanation of the treasonable boast that had been made was very novel; for in Ulster the statement made over and over again by Orangemen was, that if the Home Rule Bill were to be passed they would rise up and resist it by force of arms. He felt bound to refer to the conduct of the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) in accusing the police in Belfast of having been drunk while on duty, for he thought it was a slander
      1126
      which was effectually refuted when it was made. The hon. Gentleman had been brought by the Resident Magistrate to the barracks where the men were, and forced to admit that he had made a charge utterly and entirely without foundation. Moreover, one would have imagined that, if true, such a grave charge would have been made on the floor of the House of Commons. The hon. Member had, however, taken care not to do that. He (Mr. Clancy) held, with the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton), that the Orange Body had nothing whatever to do with the riots, and he certainly believed that a great many Orangemen regretted them; but he could not agree that the residuum of which they had heard consisted entirely of "Corner Boys" and roughs. He could not admit that the brave fellows who made war on the police and soldiers, and fired on them, were entirely the "Corner Boys" of Belfast. As a proof of that, he would refer hon. Members to the case of Mr. Scott, an ex-Water Commissioner, and to the case of the son of the editor of the leading Orange newspaper, who got six months' imprisonment. That they consisted mainly of "Corner Boys" might be true; but they had their officers in well-clad blackguards, who were respectably connected; and he believed that those latter, and not the persons whom they led, were mainly responsible for the dirty work that was done, and for the havoc that had been produced. The hon. Member for South Tyrone had attempted to defend the Orangemen, who were, he said, attacked when they were marching with a band of music; and he added, that it was not a crime or illegal to play music in the streets. It certainly was not illegal to play music in the streets of Belfast, as it was not illegal to play it anywhere else; but, at the same time, neither was it illegal to light a match in a powder magazine, but it was dangerous; and experience had shown that it was dangerous to play Party tunes in the streets at a time of public excitement. He (Mr. Clancy) said that band playing sometimes led to crime and violence; and whether it was in the Nationalist South, or in the Protestant North, he had no hesitation in saying that it ought to be stopped on both sides. Now, the question in this matter was, what was the Government

      1127
      going to do? He had found no satisfactory answer to this important question in the speech delivered by the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach). The right hon. Gentleman, deprecated lengthened debate on the question, because, he said, it would make the task of restoring order in Ireland more difficult than it was now. That, doubtless, was all very right and proper under ordinary circumstances; but, in the present case, what would really have the effect of making order more difficult to restore in Ireland would be reticence on the part of the Members of the Government, from which it could be deduced that there were certain persons in Belfast privileged to shoot down and trample upon their fellow-citizens; and that because such persons were well-dressed and respectably connected, and, perhaps, had occupied high positions in the State, they ought to be permitted to utter inflammable language likely to lead to riot and disorder. Plain speaking was wanted on this subject. They had not got it yet; and if they did not get it before the debate closed, he had no hesitation in saying that the responsibility of any further rioting which might take place would rest on the heads of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland said—"Wait for the result of the Commission of Inquiry;" but the Commission had not yet began to take evidence. When it had begun, it would not soon end its labours, and it would take a considerable time to consider its Report; and beyond that, even when it had sent in this Report to the Government, a good deal of time would be taken in considering what should be done with it. All this time the houses and lives and property of the people of Belfast would be in daily peril and danger from the outrages of the "Corner Boys," represented in that House by the hon. and gallant Member on the Ministerial Benches. The Irish Members also might have to propose legislation on the subject, and they knew that this legislation might be opposed by some hon. Members. To defend the Catholics of Belfast, the Government ought to take certain steps immediately, and he contended that one of the first of these should be to deprive the Mayor of Belfast and the other borough magistrates of their magisterial
      1128
      functions. Half the blackguardism and all the courage of those "Corner Boys" arose from the confidence they had in the leniency and partizanship of the Mayor and these magistrates, and until these magistrates were removed these disturbances would not cease. He had spoken some words about the Mayor of Belfast on the first night of the Session, for which he was taken to task; but, from all he knew on the subject, he felt bound to say that the Mayor of Belfast was not a person at any time to be retained in the Commission of the Peace, and most certainly not at such times as the present. He wished to ask the Government several questions with regard to Sir Edward Harland and the local magistrates. He regretted that the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland and the Attorney General for Ireland had left the House; but, doubtless, some other Member of the Government would inform them of the questions. Was it or was it not true that the Inspector General (Mr. Read) asked the Mayor of Belfast to join in a Memorial to the Lord Lieutenant for a general warrant to search for arms in the Shankhill Road; and was it true, or was it not true, that the Mayor absolutely refused to join in any such Memorial? He wanted to know, also, whether it was true or not that although the Inspector General (Mr. Read) declared that the marching to and fro, to their work, of hundreds of the Mayor's employés in a body was itself illegal, and advised its discontinuance, that the Mayor absolutely refused to exercise his influence towards stopping these marches? Lastly, he wanted to know whether it was true or not that this Mayor of Belfast had been habitually cheered by the Orange mobs when he appeared amongst them; and that he had not only not resented demonstrations of that kind, as any man in his official position ought to have done, but had actually welcomed it, and shaken hands with the leaders, and hundreds of the rioters? He (Mr. Clancy) maintained that that had been the case, and that the Government was bound to ask the Mayor of Belfast whether that was the case or not. If it was so, he maintained that to keep the Mayor in office any longer was to put a premium on crime, disorder, and outrage in the town. There were other serious questions to which the Government should

      1129
      lend some attention. For example, he wished to know whether it was true or not that when the police had arrested a rioter on the Shankhill Road a borough magistrate named Little came on the scene and insisted on the prisoner being released, with the result that when the constable returned to his duty he was seized and beaten so savagely by the mob that he was still unfit for duty? He also wanted to know whether a magistrate named Ewart, a son of the hon. Member for Belfast, and another magistrate, did not get the police withdrawn from a certain district of Belfast, with the result that the public-house of a widow named O'Haire was immediately sacked? These were the questions to which the Irish Members had a right to demand immediate answers. This question of the magistracy was, to his mind, the chief question to be considered; for the Orange rioters in Belfast had hitherto proceeded in their bloody and murderous work with the knowledge that even if they were caught red-handed in the work they would have the sympathy of the borough Bench. He would like to ask whether the Government intended to make the Proclamation issued by the late Lord Lieutenant a reality, or to keep it a sham? He believed that, up to the present time, only one house in Belfast had been searched for arms, and that the house of a Catholic. After the events of the past month he thought the Government could not but see that it was time to abandon their policy of shilly-shallying and sham, and to show that they really meant it when they said they would establish social order in Belfast.
      SIR JAMES CORRYsaid, he had no intention of trespassing very long upon the attention of the House; but the attack which had been made upon the Mayor of Belfast was of such a nature as to call for a defence at his hands. He knew the Mayor of Belfast, perhaps, a great deal better than anyone in the House, and he could say with truth that a more honourable, or straightforward, or upright man did not exist; and that if hon. Gentlemen who sat below the Gangway opposite had done as much for Ireland as Sir Edward Harland had done the country would be in a very different position to that in which it was at the present day. He was perfectly satisfied that when the investigation was held—and he was glad
      1130
      it was now to be held very shortly—it would be found that the Mayor of Belfast had, in regard to the disturbances, most certainly done his duty faithfully to every section of the inhabitants of the town. He was well aware that prejudice had been excited against Sir Edward Harland, and the firm with which he was connected, because a large number of their workmen were of the Protestant religion; but he wished most emphatically to say that the members of the firm did not inquire into the religious persuasion of any men who entered their employment. [An hon. MEMBER: But their foremen do.] If the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton), who introduced this Amendment yesterday, had lived in Belfast as long as he (Sir James Corry) had done, and had mixed as much with the workmen in the town, he would have been very slow, indeed, to have brought forward such an Amendment at the present time, because he would have known that the people were of a most excitable nature; that their passions were easily inflamed; and that, under circumstances like the present, it was most difficult to preserve order. Yesterday he interrupted the hon. Gentleman when he said the employers of Belfast, especially of the firm of Harland and Wolff, had discharged all the Roman Catholic workmen since these occurrences took place.
      MR. BIGGARbegged leave to say that the hon. Baronet had completely mistaken what the hon. Member for West Belfast had said. What the hon. Gentleman did say was that the Roman Catholic workmen had to leave.
      SIR JAMES CORRY: He said they had been dismissed.
      MR. H. CAMPBELL: He said they had to leave.
      SIR. JAMES CORRY: That they were dismissed from the place. ["No, no!"] Well, the hon. Gentleman would not deny the statement made, that the Corporation of Belfast dismissed all the Roman Catholics that they had in their employment. He (Sir James Corry) had a telegram from the Town Clerk of Belfast, which he desired to read to the House, because it entirely refuted the statement of the hon. Gentleman. The telegram was to this effect—
      "Report of Mr. Sexton's speech last night states that 28 scavengers and carters were dis

      1131
      missed by this Corporation, I am directed to inform you that there is not a word of truth in the statement. Not one Roman Catholic employé was dismissed."
      And he knew, as a matter of fact, that a considerable number of Roman Catholics were employed by Messrs. Harland and Wolff, and that not one Roman Catholic left work at the Island during the riots. In proof of this he would refer hon. Members opposite to Mr. James Ross, one of the Belfast borough magistrates, who went over to the works on the Island for the sole purpose of inquiring into the allegation, and the books of the firm were produced to him, and Mr. Ross was perfectly satisfied that the members of the firm, had done nothing to cause any Roman Catholic in their employ to leave their work. He (Sir James Corry) believed that a few days ago it was stated in The Belfast Morning News that some Roman Catholic had been annoyed at the Island and was obliged to leave his work. Indeed, it was this statement which prompted Mr. Ross to visit the Island. What was stated in The Belfast Morning News really occurred in 1884. The matter was brought under the notice of the members of the firm, who made an investigation, with the result that the men who had committed the outrage upon their fellow-workmen were dismissed, and they were out of work for six months, and before they were allowed to return to work on the Island they were required to pay a fine of £5 each. Such was the way in which the Island works were conducted by the firm which had been so much maligned. So far as he (Sir James Corry) was personally concerned, he never in any intercourse with his workmen asked them what their religion was; and it was only a matter of accident if he knew whether a workman of his was a Roman Catholic or a Protestant. He was perfectly satisfied that the employers generally in Belfast acted on the very same principle that he did. He did not wish to go into the general question of the cause of the riots, because he thought that, now that the matter was to be investigated, it would soon be known who was right and who was wrong; how the riots commenced, who was responsible for their continuance, and whether the police
      1132
      were to blame in what they had done. But he desired to say that when the late Government announced that they were about to issue this Commission, he took the first opportunity that presented itself to him to speak to the right hon. Gentleman the late Chief Secretary. He told that right hon. Gentleman that he was very pleased that the Commission was going to be issued; but he expressed the belief that unless the Commission could take evidence on oath the result would not be satisfactory to any Parliament. He was glad that the present Government had adopted his views, and that the Bill which was now before the House to enable the Commissioners to take evidence on oath would be prosecuted, although it had been blocked by hon. Gentlemen opposite, for what reason he was at a loss to understand. No one deplored these riots and outrages more than he did. He took a very active part in 1872 in endeavouring to suppress the riots then occurring, and he knew that his brother magistrates were equally active; and he thought that when the Commission came to inquire into the matter, if the borough magistrates had adopted the same precautions and displayed the same activity in the recent riots—and he was sure they had done so—as had been shown by their predecessors in 1872, no fault would be found with the action of the magistrates on this occasion. He was also perfectly satisfied that the fault would be found not to be all on one side. With regard to the statement that the only houses broken into were those of Catholics, he would say that he was satisfied mistakes had been committed on both sides; but he did not mean to go into that question now. His only hope was that the investigation would have the effect of putting matters right. Anyhow, it was a serious matter for the people of Belfast to have to pay the cost of the extra police force and the cost of the great damage which had been done to property, not to mention the injury done to business and the trade of the town. He had no sympathy with disorder, and therefore sincerely hoped that they had seen the end of these riots; and he was glad to think that the administration of the law would be carried out firmly by the present Government as well in Belfast as

      1133
      in other parts of Ireland. It was his wish to see the law enforced with equal-handed justice all over Ireland.
      MR. H. CAMPBELLsaid, with reference to the fact that several Catholic workmen had been dismissed from the works of the Mayor of Belfast, that, in addition to one man who was brutally assaulted and compelled to leave his work, five men, whose names he could give, had been compelled to quit their employment. It was, therefore, a matter beyond dispute that these people had been disemployed. It was strange, indeed, to hear from an Opposition Bench praise of the "Corner Boys," who, when they were routed by the Constabulary, took shelter in their houses and fired through portholes. He declared that the Orangemen were mainly responsible for the state of things which had led up to the riots, for prominent men in that body had been inciting the lower order of their followers to deeds of violence for two or three years past. The Proclamation against the possession of firearms, too, had not been obeyed, because the magistrates were Orangemen. Unless the magistracy were reconstituted, they could only anticipate a repetition of the riots. No Catholic could live, or dare live, in the Shankhill Road district, where the rioting was hottest. Beyond that, it had not been contradicted that the bolts and pieces of iron used as missiles were abstracted by the Orange workmen from the workshops of the Chief Magistrate. As long as magistrates were permitted to make fiery speeches inciting to violence the riots would continue. It was, in fact, difficult to believe there was any real desire on the part of the Government to get at the truth by their inquiry. He did not blame the rank and file of the Party; but he blamed the landlords for inciting the Orangemen of the North of Ireland to do deeds of violence. He had known some good Orangemen, but they were of the educated class. The lower class Orangemen were always ready to endorse the incitements of the landlords of the North, and to start forth to slay and murder.
      MR. PINKERTONsaid, that, as a Member from the North of Ireland, he thought it necessary to raise his voice to protest against statements that had been made with reference to his Catholic fellow-countrymen in the
      1134
      North of Ireland. An effort had been made by some speakers to give the question a sectarian view. Hon. Members on that side of the House had scrupulously avoided doing that. The hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton), in his precise and exact statement with reference to the origin of the riots, made every effort to avoid confounding the Orangemen of Belfast with those who originated the riots. The hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) had not followed that example; for he attributed the feeling in Belfast to the want of loyalty in the South, and he said that the policemen in Belfast committed outrages, because they had the freedom of the public-houses. As a Scotchman, the hon. Member was not a fit judge of the aspirations of the Irish people; and it was very remarkable that he, a stranger, should dictate to Irishmen what was necessary for the good of their country. As an Ulsterman, he (Mr. Pinkerton) was ready to bear witness to the good feeling which prevailed, and to the religious tolerance exercised by the Catholics in other parts of Ireland towards their Protestant fellow-countrymen. They had heard a great deal about religious tolerance in Ireland; but it was a well-known fact that in the South and West the strongest passport to the affections of the people was for a man to be a Protestant, and in sympathy with the national aspirations of the people. He witnessed, a short time ago, the demonstration in Dublin in honour of Lord Aberdeen, Her Majesty's Representative; and the next day he saw loyalty, in its most revolting form, in the streets of Belfast. He considered the report of Mr. Patton, published in The Times, perfectly preposterous, and he could not credit the statement that policemen openly boasted of the number of people they had shot. He had seen Protestant policemen firmly suppress disturbances on the 12th of July, and Roman Catholic policemen observe rigid impartiality when the Roman Catholics disturbed the public peace. It would require a person to have lived some time in the North of Ireland to enable them to appreciate the forbearance, the long suffering, and the patient endurance of the Catholics there when the Orange anniversaries came round each year. Every village was covered with flaunting offensive emblems, which were such an out-

      1135
      rage upon good feeling and good taste that they would turn Oscar Wilde green with disgust. In fact, he was himself disgusted at the outrages on good feeling and on good faith which were constantly to be witnessed in the North of Ireland, and he admired the patient endurance with which the Catholics of the North of Ireland submitted to having Orange flags flaunted in their faces. He had heard the "Corner Boys" of Belfast, whom he supposed a kindred feeling had induced the hon. Member for South Tyrone to admire so much, use the vilest and most insulting language to Catholic priests. He challenged any hon. Member to point out where any such conduct had been indulged in by boys in the West or South of Ireland to Protestant ministers. The hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson) stated that he objected to being ruled by hon. Members from Ireland who sat below the Gangway, and had described them as gaol birds. But if the hon. and gallant Gentleman carried out the intention he had stated that evening, it was quite certain that he would soon realize what a plank bed was like. Anyhow, it could not be said to be a very enviable position for the hon. and gallant Gentleman to occupy to be the licensed buffoon of the Party to which he belonged. When he ceased to be a landlord, and had disappeared from the House, there was one place still open to him, and that was the ring of a circus. He would admit that Protestant employers did not discharge their Catholic workmen for their religion; but they did nothing to prevent them being insulted by their Protestant fellow-workmen. He looked forward, however, with the hon. Member for one of the divisions of Dublin, to the time when those sectarian differences would cease; and when the Orangemen were freed from the baneful influences under which they lived at present he hoped to see the National banner of green intermingled with the Orange waving over a united Ireland.
      MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he denied the right of the hon. Gentleman who had last addressed the House to speak for the Protestants of Ireland. The Protestants of Ireland did not wish to be represented in that House by the hon. Member, or any other renegades to their religion. ["Oh, oh!" "Order!" and loud cries of "Withdraw!"]
      DR. COMMINS: I rise to Order, Sir. I wish to know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman is in Order in speaking of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Pinkerton), or any other Member of the House, as a renegade to his religion or anything else?
      MR. SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Gentleman must withdraw that expression. It is un-Parliamentary.
      MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he bowed to the ruling of the Chair, and would withdraw the expression as being un-Parliamentary. He desired to say, however, that the hon. Gentleman opposite, who belonged nominally to the Protestant Party, did not in any way represent those attributes which Irish Protestants held to be closely associated with that particular profession of faith. The hon. Member boasted that he had experienced the generosity of Catholic constituencies in other parts of Ireland. He did not deny that the hon. Member had been elected by a Catholic constituency; but he had failed to secure the support of Protestant constituencies in the North of Ireland, having justly forfeited any claim he might have had to their support. Irish Members sitting on the Ministerial side of the House had been challenged by hon. Gentlemen opposite to deny the subsidizing of Orange Lodges by Irish Protestant Members. As representing a constituency which contained more Orange Lodges than any other in Ireland, he was sure that was not so. He would answer for himself that, previous to the last two Elections, he had not given a single subscription to an Orange Lodge. He thought the debate had lengthened itself out without benefit to the subject-matter, or giving the House any information as to the origin of the riots. In fact, the time of the House had been wasted merely to reproduce in a considerably watered form the speeches of the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) and East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), and that delivered by the hon. Member for North Fermanagh (Mr. H. Campbell) was certainly as dull as ditch water. The hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) had been attacked for defending the bravery of the "Corner Boys" of Belfast. He simply contrasted their bravery with that of the "Moonlighters." That hon. Member

      1137
      had made a personal investigation, and was prepared to stand by the statements that he made; and it was for the benefit of the House that he took part in the debate. His hon. Friend was further accused of having crawled into the House over the heads of Orangemen. On the other hand, he had crawled in over the body of a late Member of the House, and both Parties in the county approved of him. The fact of the hon. Member for West Belfast setting up as the champion of law and order put him in mind of Satan rebuking sin. Dr. Hanna had come under the rebuke of the hon. Gentleman opposite; but the fact was that he had, in company with another Presbyterian clergyman, and at the risk of his life, done what he could to restore law and order. These rev. gentlemen declared that they did not recognize among the rioters any of their congregation; nor, indeed, anyone who was known to them as a Presbyterian. The working men had held meetings in Belfast in support of the Mayor's Proclamation. The riots at Belfast had been greatly deprecated by the Protestant working classes in the town, and especially by the ships' carpenters, who would compare favourably with any class of workmen in any part of the United Kingdom. He did not now, nor at any other time, join in accusing the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-on-Tyne (Mr. John Morley), whose speech had been straightforward enough, of having had an invidious motive in selecting the police force sent to Belfast from other districts of Ireland. Unfortunately, the right hon. Gentleman was not popular in the North of Ireland, and especially in Belfast, where he was regarded with strong dislike, in consequence of his Irish policy and of his tone. The right hon. Gentleman's whole conduct and policy during the discussion of this question, and his manner in the House during the late Parliament to the Representatives of the Union Party from Ulster, were calculated to arouse strong feelings of suspicion and very acute jealousy with regard to any action that he might have taken in Belfast. Unfortunately, the right hon. Gentleman had differed from the local magistrates in Belfast as to the course which ought to have been taken to put a stop to the riots; and, unfortunately for that town and for the
      1138
      right hon. Gentleman himself, the result, where he had so differed from the Local Authority, had not been conducive to the maintenance of law and order, or to the preservation of the peace. There had also, most unfortunately, been a conflict of opinion between the Local Authority and the Stipendiary Magistrates who were sent to Belfast. ["Hear, hear!"] He was glad to receive that cheer from hon. Gentlemen opposite, led by the hon. Member (Mr. Biggar), whose lead in these matters was generally taken. He had strongly protested against what the right hon. Member for Newcastle-on-Tyne had stated, when he said that he was misrepresented through the malignant credulity of the Belfast community. He certainly thought the late Government were taking a great responsibility upon themselves when they deprived the Local Authority of the means of restoring law and order. That was not the place, nor the time, to discuss the action of the Constabulary, which would be reported upon by the Commission; but he was prepared to assert that not only previous to, but since, the late Chief Secretary held Office, that force had been considerably weakened in its moral tone in consequence of the policy which the right hon. Gentleman opposite had proposed should be carried into effect. In conclusion, he desired to express his firm conviction that it would be most disastrous for Ireland if every magistrate who was an Orangeman were to be removed from the Commission of the Peace.
      MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: My Ulster constituency—equally divided almost between Catholics and Protestants—are highly interested in this question of the Belfast riots. There is one real cause for the riots which have taken place in Belfast. The last speaker—the hon. Member for Antrim (Mr. Macartney)—has referred to Protestant Home Rulers as renegades from their religion. I shall not condescend to follow the hon. Tory Member for Antrim through the low and scurrilous depths of language into which he has fallen.
      MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has made use of an improper and un-parliamentary expression, and I hope he will at once withdraw it.
      MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Sir, I will withdraw it most unreservedly.
      MR. SPEAKER: It appears to me that the expression almost demands an apology to the House, and I caution the hon. Member against repeating such language.
      MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I have already withdrawn it; but I assure you, Sir, that there was nothing further from my intention than to transgress your ruling, or to say anything which would place me under the censure of the House. I will not again use the words which I have withdrawn with reference to the hon. Member opposite.
      MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not dealing at all with the Amendment before the House. He has not spoken at all relevant to the subject, and I warn him to be more relevant.
      MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I will do as you wish with the greatest readiness; and again I assure you, Sir, that I have no real intention of doing so. [Laughter.] As soon as I am allowed to proceed free from the interruptions of hon. Members who laugh so heartily I will resume my remarks. I will now proceed with the arguments that I wish to lay before the House. I merely wish to point out that language which accused a co-religionist, without adequate reason shown, of being a renegade to his religion was wanton and improper. I am sure a respectable Protestant or Catholic would not do such a thing. But the hon. utterer of the criticism must be excused, because he is not regarded in any light of importance as a weighty Representative of anything in Ireland or anywhere else. The hon. Member (Mr. Macartney), in his rambling speech, wandered all over the political arena, and it occurred to him to make a defence of the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell); but he did so in a manner that could not have been gratifying to that hon. Gentleman. I am not in political accord with the hon. Member for South Tyrone, for the hon. Member holds no views, politically or religiously, I believe, in unison with myself. I will not even say that the hon. Member's (Mr. Macartney's) speech was "ditch water," although he said that about the speech of one of my hon. Friends. In fact, I will not follow such an ungentlemanly line of argument.
      MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member repeats this language I shall have to
      1140
      take the very severe course of naming him. This is the second time I have called him to Order for using expressions which are highly improper and un-Parliamentary. I will now ask him to express regret to the House for having used the last expression which has fallen from him.
      MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: The expression "ungentlemanly" I unreservedly withdraw, and I would not have used it if I had thought it was un-Parliamentary.
      MR. SPEAKER: I do not consider that the hon. Member has made an apology to the House?
      MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Then, Sir, I will apologize to the House. I had no intention to infringe the Rules at all. The cause of the riots, in my opinion, was not the differences of religion, but the fact that the Orange Society was allowed to insult the Catholic people. There is no parallel between the Orange Society and the National League. The bands of the National League never played a single bar of music which could wound the religious susceptibilities of the Protestants of Ireland. The riots in Ulster were caused by the Orange processions and bands. Tunes were played and songs were sung which were insulting to the religious belief of the Catholic people. One of the tunes was entitled "We'll kick the Pope before us," and the following was one of the verses of a song which was frequently sung outside Catholic churches and in the presence of Catholic priests and laymen:—
      "Slither, slather,
      "Holy Water,
      "Sprinkle the Papishes every one.
      "We will cut them asunder,
      "And make them lie under;
      "The Protestant Boys shall carry the drum."
      It was provocation such as this that had led the Catholic people in Ulster many times to retaliate. I believe, however, that the great bulk of the Protestants in Ulster do not approve these insulting displays. Indeed, I am certain that the respectable Protestants take no part in this persecuting and insulting conduct. The resentment of a portion of the Catholics is against the Orange Society, which is not political in its object, but which spends its time, and uses its money, and plays its tunes in order to insult the Catholics of Ulster. The

      1141
      Royal Commission may get to the bottom of these particular riots; but it will do no good in regard to the permanent pacification of the Province. A stop cannot be put to the disturbances until the Government take some action which will render it illegal for any society to act in a directly offensive and insulting way against people who do not agree with them in religion. Again, I think that the system of unpaid magistrates in Ireland ought to be abolished. The people believe, at present, that the magistrates sympathize with the Orangemen; the administration of the law is in the hands of men who are looked upon as partizans, and, as a consequence, it is regarded lightly. If an impartial official like General Buller had been sent to Belfast, better justice would have been meted out, in the opinion of the people, than by the local officials.
      MR. W. A. MACDONALDsaid, the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) had described the Orange rioters as "Corner Boys;" but that description did not apply to the Islandmen, who appeared to have taken a very active part in the riots. The hon. Member assumed an impartial air; but he had shown that he had no sympathy with national sentiment, and he was afraid the language he had used would considerably injure his influence in Ireland. He spoke of the tolerance of Catholics in Ireland, and said they never heard of a disturbance like that in Belfast, on religious grounds, taking place in Cork. That was to be accounted for—and he spoke as a Protestant—by the fact that the Catholics of Ireland had learned the lesson of toleration. He quoted several instances of this toleration which had come under his notice, and some acts of which he had experience. It was said in the opening of this debate—and he wished to enforce the statement—that there had not been a single house in the Catholic quarter of Belfast belonging to a Protestant injured, and not a single Protestant had been compelled to leave that quarter. Now, that spoke volumes to those who had minds open to understanding. The hon. Member then described the character of the Orangemen, and pointed to the dangerous effect of the so-called religious teaching which Orangemen heard Sunday after Sunday
      1142
      from their religious instructors. He blamed the borough magistrates of Belfast for their conduct in connection with the riots. They took the batons from the police at one time, and deprived them of their arms at another. And if that was the notion the borough magistrates had of maintaining the peace when the town was in a state of rebellion and disturbance, all he could say was that they seemed to have a very strange idea of their duty. With reference to the speech delivered by the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer at Belfast, he thought the main point was to consider the effect upon the minds of the people whom he was addressing, and he was bound to consider what the result would be of stimulating their passions. The noble Lord was not ignorant of Ireland, and had not the excuse of bigotry; for he remembered that when the Duke of Marlborough was Lord Lieutenant of Ireland the noble Lord denounced, in very strong language, the Irish Church Missions to Roman Catholics. What was to be done? They had heard of a Royal Commission to investigate this matter. Well, he thought he knew what this Royal Commission would do. There would be a great many witnesses examined, and when in England all was forgotten about the subject there would be a very elaborate Report, and it would be gravely mentioned that the Commissioners had examined a great deal into the evidence brought before them, and had come to the conclusion that it was quite impossible to say whether Protestants or Catholics were most to blame; and if the Commissioners suggested anything, it would be something that the Government would never carry out. He supported the suggestion that the borough magistrates should be superseded in their power by magistrates directly responsible to the Executive. The suggestion was supported by what had happened in Dublin, where a disturbance was put down in a few hours. In Dublin, however, the magistrates were directly responsible to the Executive, and the police were directly under the authority of Her Majesty's Government; and if the same thing existed in Belfast they would not hear of such disturbances. It was suggested by the Amendment of the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) that the police

      1143
      force should be increased. That was very reasonable in a town which, at any moment, was liable to burst forth into a conflagration. But these were only means of dealing with outward symptoms of that religious bigotry which at present existed in Belfast. One remedy he suggested, as a way to stop these riots and to convert the bigots into good citizens, was to make the country a real self-governing one. The decline of public spirit on the part of the Protestants of Ireland was due to the removal of the centre of political life in that country. Give a centre of political life to Ireland, and men would have something better to do than to squabble about their miserable differences which had kept them so long asunder, and they would take a pride in their country. When he came to this country nothing impressed him so much as this—that, apart from all difference of creed and opinion, there was one thing all agreed in, and that was in the proud consciousness of being Englishmen. Give to Ireland a Government to be proud of; give her a Constitution she would care to maintain; give her something to bind her sons closer together in warm affection, and the result would be that Protestants and Catholics would unite—as they had never united hitherto—to promote the honour and dignity of the nation.
      MR. BIGGAR: I only propose to occupy the time of the House for a few moments, and I should not have risen to take part in the discussion at all if it were not for the fact that I am a native of Belfast, and have probably had a longer residence in the county in which it is situated than any hon. Member, with the exception of the hon. Member for North Belfast (Mr. Ewart). Therefore, in what I am about to say I speak from a long experience, gathered from more than 50 years' acquaintance with the locality; and I am prepared to say, without hesitation, that the real cause of the riots which take place periodically in Belfast is that justice is not honestly administered in that town, and never in my memory has it been. Perhaps I may be allowed to give a few illustrations of the way in which justice is administered by the persons who at present have the management of affairs in Belfast in their hands. Take, first, the Mayor of Belfast—Sir Edward Harland. That gentleman is one of the
      1144
      most extensive jobbers in the town of Belfast. He is Chairman of the Harbour Board, and in that capacity he has made an exceedingly large contract with he Corporation over which he himself presides. Not only that, but he has promoted the passage of a Bill through his House which will involve the Corporation in an expenditure of something like £200,000, and which expenditure will be entirely unproductive as far as the ratepayers of Belfast are concerned. In his capacity of Mayor of Belfast Sir Edward Harland has acted as a gross partizan in connection with these riots. In an early stage of the riots he went into the Protestant district, and after parleying with the rioters entered into confidential relations with them, and upon their representations withdrew the police and threw every obstacle in his power in the way of the proper administration of justice. What was the result? Of course, the rioters wrecked the houses of the Catholics who were unfortunate enough to live in that particular neighbourhood. And what has been the case with regard to the borough magistrates generally? It is notorious that the punishment they have inflicted upon the rioters has been of the most trivial nature. One of the punishments which were enforced years ago in the case of riots was that any person convicted of the offence of using Party language in the public streets should be fined 40 s and costs. Has that penalty been imposed in the present instance? The week after the riots began the borough magistrates let off persons who had been caught rioting, and even committing assaults, with no further punishment than a fine of 10 s., although everybody knows that for the offence of assault a much more severe punishment should be inflicted than for the utterance of mere Party cries. My hon. Friend the Member for North Dublin (Mr. Clancy) referred to the case of Mr. Brown, a magistrate who interfered with a policeman who with great difficulty had apprehended a prisoner in the act of rioting. Mr. Brown insisted that the prisoner should be set free. The policeman let him go, and was subsequently brutally beaten by the mob of rioters into whose hands Mr. Brown was playing. Another magistrate, named Horner, and a son of the hon. Member for North Belfast (Mr. Ewart), withdrew the police from a par-

      1145
      ticular locality in which rioting was going on, with the result that one man's life was lost, a Roman Catholic publican's house was wrecked, and a considerable amount of property was destroyed. Another borough magistrate—a Mr. Bell—ordered the police away from another district, with the result that the house of Mr. McChusky, a Roman Catholic publican, was destroyed. On another occasion, when the police had fired upon a mob who were attacking them, Mr. Lover, a borough magistrate, asked them who ordered the firing? The sergeant in charge said he gave the order; whereupon the magistrate said—"If I had been here when you gave the order I would have put a revolver to your head and would have blown your brains out." That is the sort of assistance the police get from the local magistrates, and it will show the House how the law is administered in Belfast. I may add, with regard to Sir Edward Harland, that it was from his works the iron bolts and nuts were obtained with which the Constabulary were assaulted by the rioters. It is notorious that for weeks after the riots commenced Sir Edward Harland took no steps to interfere with the appropriation of these bolts, although on ordinary occasions there are stringent rules enforced to prevent pilfering. In this instance, however, the men appeared to have been encouraged to commit these offences, and to make use of the property of the Mayor for the purpose of attacking the police. There is only one other instance I will refer to in my desire to show how justice is administered in Belfast, and it is the case of the borough Coroner. This gentleman has proved himself, on more than one occasion, to be a gross partizan so far as the performance of his duty is concerned, and during the recent riots he seems to have gone altogether out of his way, and to have taken the most unprecedented course—namely, that of issuing a warrant for the imprisonment of the policemen who were charged with rioting. It is well known that it is the duty of a Coroner to inquire into the cause of death only, and when prisoners have been arrested the custom is to bring them before the magistrates, who adjudicate upon the case, and not the borough Coroner. This gentleman, however, who is a stupid, prejudiced old man, sent the policemen to prison, and Her Majesty's
      1146
      Government, I am sorry to say, have acted in a different manner from other Governments in Ireland; because instead of attempting to protect the police, as has invariably been the case when public officers have been supposed to commit crimes in the performance of their duty, they have not taken the slightest steps for obtaining the release of the police from the position in which they have been planed. One word more as to the administration of the law with regard to the possession of arms in proclaimed districts. I am very much disposed myself to blame the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for permitting the Proclamation to be a dead letter. As is very well known, the late Government issued a Proclamation against the possession of arms in proclaimed districts; but although Belfast is a proclaimed district no steps were taken to have the law enforced. Up to the present moment Her Majesty's Government have not attempted, in the slightest degree, to enforce the Proclamation. I maintain that both the late and the present Government were to blame for that miscarriage of justice; and if Her Majesty's Advisers want to prove the sincerity of the anxiety they have professed to put down rioting, one of the first things they ought to do is to enforce the Proclamation, and to prevent the use of firearms.
      SIR. WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, I do not propose to enter into the dispute upon the details of the unfortunate occurrences in Belfast. I think that the demand of the Government that that should be left for the inquiry which has been instituted is a fair and reasonable demand, and I should not think of trenching upon it at all. But, Sir, there is a very important question with reference to what has occurred in Belfast, and what may occur elsewhere; and that is to inquire what is the attitude and what are the principles upon which the Executive Government of the Crown regard these matters and are prepared to act with respect to them. With reference to the language employed by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, I will say again, as I have said before, that that language seems to me to be fair, and conciliatory, and just. But then, Sir, I am sorry to say that the Chief Secretary for Ireland is not the sole, nor has he

      1147
      been even the principal, exponent of the, policy of the Government with respect to Ireland. It was inevitable that the language which the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer employed at Belfast and subsequently should come into this discussion. In my opinion, it lies at the root of a great deal that is in the past, and of still more that is in the future. Well, Sir, we have heard the doctrine of an hon. and gallant Gentleman, who seems, in this House, to act the part of Deputy Chief Secretary for Ireland—the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson). He represents, and well represents, the old Party of Orange ascendancy, which has always been the favourite instrument of Tory Governments in Ireland. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle (Mr. John Morley) said that the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh had said no more than the Chancellor of the Exchequer I observed that the noble Lord intimated his acquiescence in that proposition. Now, Sir, what did the noble Lord go to Belfast for, and what did he do? I want to speak on this matter with as little of heat as possible. [An hon. MEMBER: Hear, hear!] I do not know whether the hon. Member desires that I should speak with heat; but if he does I cannot oblige him in that respect. The noble Lord went to Belfast and announced himself—as he was quite entitled to announce himself—as the descendant of the great Duke of Marlborough, and as a blood relation of Castlereagh. [Cries of "Question!"] I do not know anything more to the question than the identification of the policy of the Government with that of Lord Castlereagh. I wish, however, that the language of the noble Lord had been a little more identical with that of Lord Castlereagh—I mean the great Lord Castlereagh. In spite of all the defects of his policy Lord Castlereagh was a man totally incapable of going to Belfast to stir up religious animosity and feuds of race. Lord Castlereagh was a man who, in order to carry the Union, gave pledges to the Catholics, for he knew the necessity of conciliating the Catholics of Ireland—pledges which were most disgracefully and flagitiously broken, and which, if they had been kept, the Union might possibly have had different results from those which ensued. [An
      1148
      hon. MEMBER: No.] That is what lawyers call a negative pregnant. What does that "no" mean? Does the hon. Member mean that the promises were not broken; or if they had been kept, does he mean to deny that the results would have been better for the people? I do not know which of these two propositions it is the hon. Member desires to deny. Well, Sir, having so announced himself, the noble Lord proceeded to make statements which have been quoted, and which I shall not repeat. The importance of it is that, having been brought forward in this debate, there has been no attempt to extenuate that language, and no attempt even to explain it away. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has endeavoured, with more or less success, to explain away a good many things that the noble Lord has said and done; but somehow or other he does not seem to be capable of explaining away the Belfast speech and the Castlereagh incident. He stands by every word of it, and he says that it was entirely justifiable. I do not know whether the adoption of that speech and the principles laid down in it will make the task of governing Ireland—difficult as it is—easier for the Chief Secretary. I admit the difficulty of his position; but that he was obliged to take that speech upon his shoulders was, I must say, to the right hon. Gentleman a great misfortune. What was the object of the noble Lord in going to Belfast? It was to stir up Belfast. Well, there are some places where it is said that it is neither necessary nor desirable to poke up the fire. However, the noble Lord went to Belfast to inquire whether the people were really in earnest, and how far they would go, and he advised them how far they should go. He used one sentence which has not been quoted, but which, in my opinion, contains the pith of what he said. He went, of course, to stir up the people of Belfast against the Home Rule Bill of the late Government. That he was perfectly entitled to do, and I do not desire to be a severe critic of any language which he chose to employ against any measure which he thought mischievous and dangerous and desired to overthrow. That was a perfectly legitimate object. The noble Lord predicted—and in that respect he was a true prophet—that the measure would

      1149
      be defeated. But he went a great deal further than that. It was not at that time certain that it would be defeated, and he contemplated the possibility of its being accepted by the House, and being passed into law by the Commons, by the Lords, and by the Queen.
      "It is right and useful,"
      said the noble Lord,
      "that I should add that if the struggle should continue, and if my conclusions should turn out to be wrong,"
      —meaning with regard to the defeat of the Bill—
      "then I am of opinion that the struggle is not likely to remain within the lines of what we are accustomed to look upon as Constitutional action."
      That is the doctrine of the noble Lord, and it is a doctrine which I think requires to be challenged when propounded and acquiesced in by the responsible Government of the Crown. A measure may be passed, it may receive the assent of all the Estates of the Realm, and it may pass into law, and then the struggle is to continue and is not—
      "To remain within the lines of what we are accustomed to look upon as Constitutional action."
      That was not an occasional or accidental phrase. It was uttered in the month of February. The noble Lord returned to the charge, and developed his doctrine further in a letter addressed to his constituents, which appeared in The Times of the 8th of May. He contemplated the same possibility of the Home Rule Bill passing into law, and in it he said—"Ulster will not be a consenting party."
      THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL): It was not a letter to The Times. The letter was addressed to Mr. Young of Glasgow.
      SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: It was addressed to some gentleman, but it appeared in The Times. If the noble Lord wishes to repudiate it, I will give him every opportunity. The words are somewhat remarkable. The noble Lord, in that letter, said—
      "Ulster will not be a consenting party
      —that is, to an Act of Parliament—
      "Ulster at the proper moment will resort to the supreme arbitrament of force. Ulster will fight and Ulster will be right."
      1150
      Well, Ulster has fought, and I suppose Ulster is right. I do not see any of the patrons and protectors of the Government, the Liberal Unionists, present. I should like to hear their view of this Constitutional doctrine. I should like to know how it commends itself to the historical Whig Party—the doctrine of the people at the proper moment resorting to the arbitrament of force. But I can guess what their view would be. Upon this very letter, in this House, one of the leading and most weighty Members of that Party—my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bury (Sir Henry James)—made some comments. My right hon. and learned Friend said—
      "I venture to speak very freely, whether I please men or not, and I say that we ought, every one of us, to condemn those foolish, those wicked rumours and statements which are made about Ulster—that the minority in Ireland will finally resort to arms, and that they will be right in so doing. Unreservedly I declare that any man who by word or act encourages such an idea is half a traitor. We have seen action taken against unconstitutional Monarchs, and when such action has been successful we have applauded it; but the proposition now, as I understand it, which these misguided men are using in Ulster, is, that if this House should agree to a legislative measure, and if the House of Lords should assent to it, and the Queen should will it, that measure should be resisted by force of arms."—(3 Hansard, [305] 925–6.)
      That is the doctrine propounded in this House tonight by the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson), which was stated by the noble Lord in Ulster, which was repeated in his letter of May 8, and which is repeated again, acquiesced in, and endorsed by the responsible Government of the Queen. [An hon. MEMBER: No.] If the hon. Member was the responsible Government of the Queen I would accept his disclaimer. That is the doctrine—that is the language employed. Now, Sir, this is the comment of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bury (Sir Henry James) upon this language and doctrine—
      "It is said that such physical force would be used by loyal men, and in one sense so it might be. But is it not apparent to everyone that to use arms against a Constitutional Sovereign, acting in accordance with the will of Parliament, and to whom you say you are loyal, is to make treason doubly dyed?"—[Ibid.)
      That, Sir, is the comment at least of one of the Unionist Liberals upon the doctrine of the noble Lord and the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh

      1151
      (Colonel Saunderson). But the noble Lord was not content with the language which, he addressed to the loyal minority in Ireland; he had also language, not of compliment but of taunts, for the Catholic majority of Ireland and for the Nationalist Party. [An hon. MEMBER: Hear, hear!] Yes; the hon. Member shall hear directly, for I am going to read what the noble Lord said. He pointed the moral of this doctrine of force; he gave the obverse of the medal; he condemned the conduct and the policy of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). For what was it that he condemned it? He said at Belfast—
      "Mr. Parnell is pledged to obtain freedom for his Party. On what title do they base their claim? Do they base it upon acts? Do they seek it in action in the field? It was thus that the Italians won their liberty. It was thus the Greeks won theirs. It was thus that the poor mountaineers of Montenegro won their independence. Mr. Parnell's claim is based on Parliamentary action. They are not like the Italians; they are not like the Greeks; they are not like the hardy mountaineers of Montenegro. They have done no acts of heroism. Their action in the field has not been Parliamentary action."
      THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL): May I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman? I assume that the report he is quoting is taken from The Times. [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT: Yes.] Then I wish to inform him that it is altogether a misreport.
      SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I am glad, at least, to have obtained one disavowal from Her Majesty's Government, even though it is a disavowal of the report. But I would beg to remind the noble Lord that he is rather an important person, and when he is said to have used language charging men with want of courage, and commenting upon their want of heroism and want of action in the field, and when he is said to have charged them with basing their claims on Parliamentary action—if that is an incorrect report, why did he not correct it? Sir, considering the manner in which this speech has been canvassed, the length of time during which it has been under the observation of Parties, inflamed as they have been by agitation on both sides in Ireland—if language of that kind was incorrect, why did he not correct it before?
      MR. SEXTON: The report in The Belfast News Letter was the same.
      SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: If the noble Lord tells me he did not say it, I feel bound to accept the statement of the noble Lord. All I say is that it is a misfortune that if it was an incorrect report it was not corrected before. Now, Sir, as to this doctrine of the noble Lord and the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson)—are they so unwise as not to see that it cuts both ways? Do you think that it is safe for one Party to say that if a law be passed which they consider injurious to their interests, a law which, to use the language of the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh, gives them over to a foreign Power—that therefore they will resist it, and resist it by force? But, supposing that there were another Party in Ireland who believed that the law of England was giving over their country to a foreign Power. What is the foreign Power to which, upon the hypothesis of the noble Lord and the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson), the Orangemen of Ulster would be given over? It would be at least a power elected by Irishmen. I do not wish to encourage that language, and still less do I desire to deduce the consequences from it which the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh desires to deduce. But everybody knows that at the time of the passing of the Act of Union the principal men of Ireland denounced it, and denied the right of the Irish Parliament to extinguish the existence of that Parliament. That was the language of Grattan, and of Saaurin, the Attorney General, and of Plunket, the ancestor of the right hon. and distinguished Gentleman who sits on the Benches opposite. They were betrayed into the same error of saying that Parliament had no right to pass the Act of Union, and having no right they must resist it by force. It is quite plain that a doctrine of that kind is one-sided. If you are to allow the persons affected to judge whether Parliament has or has not the right to pass any particular Act, and to judge whether the consequences of that Act are so serious in their effect upon them that they are entitled to take up arms and resist it by force, why that argu-

      1153
      ment will inevitably be employed by other people who have similar objects. And how can you possibly resist? Supposing that a Party in Ireland, not a minority, but the majority, were to say—"We disapprove of your laws; we think you have passed laws which you have no right to pass, which seriously affect our lives, our liberty, and our property, and we deny your right to pass such laws, and will resist them by force." I say that if such language is to be used by any other Party in Ireland than the spokesman of the Orange Party such language is nothing less than the language of treason and the language of rebellion. But I say that it is a very serious thing that this language of treason and rebellion should receive the countenance of the Executive Government—the Government of the Queen. Well, Sir, but what is this Party which takes upon itself to refuse to obey, or would refuse to obey, the behests of Parliament if Parliament should pass a Bill which, as they say, gives them over to a foreign Government. What is this Orange Party to whose prejudices the noble Lord appealed, and whose passions he went to Belfast to inflame? ["No!"] Sir, I say of that Orange Party that it is, and has long been, the curse of Ireland. [Cries of "Question!"] The hon. Member who calls out "Question" does not seem to understand what the question is. The Orange Party I repeat is, and has been, the curse of Ireland. It has done more than any other Body in Ireland to keep alive hatred of race and of religion. It is the representative of the old Protestant ascendancy. [An hon. MEMBER: Hear, hear!] Yes in regard to which the adjective was of very little account. The main force was in the substantive. They cared very little about the Protestantism, but a great deal about the ascendancy. In my opinion, the Orange Society has done more harm in Ireland than all the other secret societies put together. ["Oh!"] Well, I will read what a Protestant Archbishop of Dublin has said of the Orange Society. [Cries of "Question!" and "Order!"] This is the question. Archbishop Whately said—
      "The very name of Orangeman is a sign which is chosen on purpose to keep up the memory of a civil war which every friend of humanity would wish to bury in oblivion. It
      1154
      is doing what among the heathens was reckoned an accursed thing—keeping a trophy in repair."
      It is known that among the Greeks no trophy was allowed to be made of metal; but only of wood, in order that the memory of past feuds might be obliterated. But the Orange Society lives for the express purpose of preventing the memory of past deeds from being buried. It is this government by ascendancy, by Protestant ascendancy, by class ascendancy, by race ascendancy—that has for so many years been the curse of Ireland. It is that which has prevented the great mass of the Irish people from feeling that the English Government was acting in the interests and for the welfare of the people; that they were acting in the spirit of the Orange Societies; and that they were acting by and through, and for a particular section, and that section a minority of the Irish people. Sir, the noble Lord at Belfast appealed to the Orangemen by name to know whether they would, when the occasion arose, be prepared to act like their forefathers in 1798? A more mischievous, a more dangerous, and a more culpable phrase was never employed on such an occasion among such a people and to such an audience. What would be thought of a French statesman who at this day, in a moment of public excitement, was to appeal to the people of Paris, and to ask them whether they were worthy of their forefathers, and whether they were prepared to act like the men of 1793? What were the men of 1798—what were the Orangemen of 1798—whom the noble Lord brings forward as an example, and asks the people of Belfast to imitate? I will read a description of these men of 1798. They are the words of Grattan, and I take them from Froude's History of Ireland. They were men who belonged chiefly to the county represented by the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Colonel Saunderson). Grattan said—
      "It was a persecution, conceived in the bitterness of bigotry, carried on with ferocious barbarity by a banditti which, being of the religion of the State, had committed with the greatest audacity and confidence the most horrid murders, and had proceeded from robbery and massacre to extermination."
      He said—
      "These insurgents, who call themselves Orange Boys, or Protestant Boys, are a banditti

      1155
      of murderers, committing murders in the name of God."
      LORD ALGERNON PERCY: I rise to Order. I wish to know whether the conduct of the Orangemen of 1798 is at all relevant to the Amendment before the House?
      MR. SPEAKER: The Amendment refers to certain precedent circumstances which led up to the riots in Belfast, and it goes on to point out the measures which are necessary for the maintenance of social order. I am bound to say that I do not think a general discussion upon the antecedents of the Orange Party has much connection with the Amendment before the House.
      SIR WILLIAM HABCOURT: Of course, Sir, I shall strictly obey your ruling; but this I will ask you. My charge is that the people of Belfast were invited by the noble Lord to imitate their forefathers, the Orangemen of 1798. I therefore ask you, Sir, whether I am not at liberty to point out to the House what was the meaning of that invitation, how it was understood, and what effect it had upon the riots in Belfast? [Mr. SPEAKER made no reply.] Well, Sir, as I understand, you agree that I am justified in pursuing this line of argument. If I am wrong you will tell me so.
      MR. SPEAKER: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman is justified in that line of argument. [A voice from the Home Rule Benches: "Shame!"] That is a most unjustifiable expression, and if I knew who used it I would take action. [Cries of "Name!"] In the exercise of my duty, I said, when an appeal was made to me, that a discussion of the antecedents of the Orange Society was not pertinent to the Amendment before the House. I say that the Amendment specifically alludes to certain circumstances accountable for the recent riots, and then points out that those circumstances dictate the necessity of special measures being adopted in Belfast; and I do not see that the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman did point to any measures necessary for the rehabilitation of social order in Belfast, or had any special reference to those riots.
      SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Of course, I shall bow absolutely to your ruling. I only wish, Sir, that I had not
      1156
      been called upon to observe upon the language made use of by the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson), which had a general reference to the Orange Society. If you, Sir, rule that the noble Lord's speech at Belfast—["Order!"]
      MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman is now arguing with the Chair. I have already given my opinion, and it was given in accordance with the demand made to the Chair. I expect the right hon. Gentleman to accept it.
      SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I shall absolutely obey your ruling, Sir. My difficulty, however, is to know exactly how I am to discuss this question. The Government appeal to us not to discuss the Amendment particularly in reference to what has taken place in Belfast, and I acquiesced in their view of the matter, because I do not think it is expedient to enter into these matters until the Commission had concluded its inquiry. I certainly did desire—I do not know that I shall be in any way contravening the Speaker's ruling—but I certainly did desire to point out the extreme mischief which has arisen in Belfast from the assumption, as it were, by a small section throughout Ireland, though a large section in Belfast, that they are the special objects of the protection of the English Government, and that they have a right to act upon that view. That, I think, is an extremely dangerous thing; it has led to the disturbances at Belfast, and is likely to lead to disturbances elsewhere. I hope, Sir, although I am not sure, that in following this line of argument I am not going beyond your ruling. The danger of such an assumption and of such a policy was long ago pointed out by Mr. Burke, who said he was afflicted deeply at seeing a small Party in Ireland arrogate to themselves the whole of that Kingdom; that he was more afflicted at seeing that a small faction was able to persuade persons here that in them lay the sole power; and that this strange error, if persevered in, as he was afraid it would be, must obviously ruin both countries. I think there is great wisdom in that sentiment, and I should now really like to elicit from the Government what is to be their course in reference to this matter. Something has been said on

      1157
      the subject of arms. I am afraid that, according to your ruling, Sir, I must not refer to the speech of the noble Lord in Belfast on the subject of arms. But Belfast had been proclaimed, and that Belfast is to a great extent armed cannot be denied. Arms have been used with pernicious and fatal effect; and I should like to know from the Government what measures they are taking, and what measures they intend to take, to disarm Belfast?
      MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman says my ruling was to the effect that he is not entitled to refer to the speech of the noble Lord at Belfast. What I did say was that it was not pertinent to the Amendment before the House to go into the history of the Orange Society.
      SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Then, Sir, I think the position a very difficult one. ["Order!"] I confine myself to the remarks made by the noble Lord in Belfast upon the subject of the Orange Society. What he had said was that he desired the Orangemen of today to do as the Orangemen did in 1798. ["Order!"] I understand that I am entitled to say that—namely, that he desired the Orangemen of today to do what the Orangemen of 1798 had done. ["Order!"] I understood the Speaker to rule that I was entitled to refer to that, which was what the noble Lord, had said in his speech; but you further ruled, Sir—and that ruling I shall obey—that having said that I must not go on—and I shall not go on—to show what the noble Lord meant by that expression—how, in point of fact, the Orangemen of 1798 had acted. ["Order!"] And now I will go to other matters upon which I ask for an expression of the views of the Government. It is quite plain that a great part of the mischief has arisen from the extensive possession of arms by the people of Belfast. It is plain that under the powers of the Proclamation the disarmament of the people can take place. I know all the difficulty there would be in carrying out the process of disarmament; but I think it is of the last importance that we should have some information as to what progress is being made, and what progress is likely to be made, in the disarmament of the unruly people of Belfast. [A laugh.] The hon. Member seems to think that there are
      1158
      no unruly people in Belfast, and he does not seem to be aware that the unruly people in Belfast are armed. My information leads me to both conclusions. That being so, it would be satisfactory to know from the Government what progress has been made in disarmament—how far the aims have been taken away, and how far persons have been punished for being in possession of arms contrary to the law? Well, Sir, no doubt there is an impression that because a certain class of persons choose to call themselves the loyal minority they therefore ought to be allowed to possess arms. I think that the sooner they are disabused of that impression the better. There are persons who say —"We are the loyal minority, and, therefore, we ought to be allowed to carry arms." It would be a very evil precedent, and would have very pernicious consequences, if it were believed throughout Ireland that the loyal minority were allowed to keep arms contrary to the Proclamation, and if endeavours were made to take the arms of people who do not belong to that particular class in other parts of Ireland. It is quite plain that the restoration of order and the maintenance of peace in Ireland will mainly depend on the belief in the impartiality of the Government, and in the way in which the law is administered. Well, Sir, if I am allowed at all to refer to the noble Lord's speech, I should say that it did not convey an impression to the Irish people of strict impartiality as between the different classes of the community of Belfast. I think that is a very moderate way of stating the proposition. I do not think that if the coble Lord had expressed himself on that occasion in a spirit of strict impartiality he would have given satisfaction to his entertainer, the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson). I doubt whether my hon. and gallant Friend, if he will allow me to call him so, with all his excellent qualities, will claim for himself the virtue of impartiality as a distinctive feature of his character. He did not take the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer to Belfast for the purpose of being impartial. He intended him to express a preference—may I be permitted to say a decided preference— for one particular class—I will not name them—for one particular party, for one

      1159
      particular creed, and for one particular section of the community. And the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland says that he entirely accepts that position, and desires to endorse it. I am afraid, however, that that will not convey the impression which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman desires to convey, and upon which I believe he will thoroughly act, of impartiality between all the classes of the community in Ireland. I hope that I have expressed myself in a manner which has neither put me out of Order, or against which any hon. Member can have the slightest reason to object. The virtue of impartiality is a great virtue, hut one very difficult to practise, especially in Belfast. What we should like to know, after the doctrines which have been preached in Belfast, and after the acceptance of those doctrines, is whether they are going to be set up, or whether a totally different doctrine and a totally different spirit is going to animate the Government than was shown in Belfast at the time of the visit of the noble Lord? I think we want a little more assurance on that point from the Government. I do not think it was at all satisfactory, much as there was to approve of in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, to hear one part of it. I must say I heard with regret from the Chief Secretary that he adopted the speech of the noble Lord, and that, as far as I could understand, he was prepared to act upon it. If that is the case, I am quite sure it will not conduce to the peace of Ireland. Therefore, I will hope, after all, that it was only a phrase on the part of the Chief Secretary; that he naturally felt indisposed to disavow the language of his Colleague; and that his conduct will be as little conformable to it as possible.
      Question put.
      The House divided:—Ayes 127;Noes 225:Majority 98.

      AYES.

      Abraham, W. (Limerick, W.)

      Borlase, W. C.

      Bradlaugh, C.

      Allison, R. A.

      Bright, W. L.

      Anderson, C. H.

      Broadhurst, H.

      Atherley-Jones, L.

      Brown, A. L.

      Barry, J.

      Burt, T.

      Biggar, J. G.

      Byrne, G. M.

      Blake, J. A.

      Campbell, H.

      Blake, T.

      Carew, J. L.

      Blane, A.

      Channing, F. A.

      1160

      Clancy, J. J.

      Molloy, B. C.

      Clark, Dr. G. B.

      Montagu, S.

      Commins, A.

      Murphy, W. M.

      Condon, T. J.

      Nolan, Colonel J. P.

      Connolly, L.

      Nolan, J.

      Conway, M.

      O'Brien, J. F. X.

      Conybeare, C. A. V.

      O'Brien, P.

      Corbet, W. J.

      O'Brien, P. J.

      Cossham, H.

      O'Connor, A.

      Cox, J. R.

      O'Connor, J. (Kerry)

      Craig, J.

      O'Connor, J. (Tippry.)

      Crilly, D.

      O'Connor, T. P.

      Dillon, J.

      O'Hanlon, T.

      Dillwyn, L. L.

      O'Hea, P.

      Ellis, J. E.

      O'Kelly, J.

      Ellis, T. E.

      Parnell, C. S.

      Esmonde, Sir T. G.

      Pickard, B.

      Esslemont, P.

      Pickersgill, E. H.

      Fenwick, C.

      Picton, J. A.

      Finucane, J.

      Pinkerton, J.

      Foley, P. J.

      Power, P. J.

      Fox, Dr. J. F.

      Power, R.

      Gilhooly, J.

      Provand, A. D.

      Gill, H. J.

      Pyne, J. D.

      Gill, T. P.

      Quinn, T.

      Gladstone, H.,T.

      Redmond, W. H. K.

      Gray, E. D.

      Reed, Sir E.J.

      Harrington, E.

      Reid, R. T.

      Harris, M.

      Roe, T.

      Hayden, L. P.

      Rountree, J.

      Hayne, C. Seale-

      Rowlands, J.

      Healy, M.

      Schwann, C. E.

      Holden, I.

      Shaw, T.

      Hooper, J.

      Sheehan, J. D.

      Hunter, W. A.

      Sheehy, D.

      Jacoby, J. A.

      Sheil, E.

      Jordan, J.

      Stack, J.

      Kelly, B.

      Stanhope, hon. P.J.

      Kenny, M. J.

      Stepney-Cowell, Sir A. K.

      Labouchere, H.

      Lalor, R.

      Stuart, J.

      Lane, W. J.

      Sullivan, D.

      Leamy, E.

      Sullivan, T. D.

      Lefevre, rt. hn. G. J. S.

      Summers, W.

      Lewis, T. P.

      Sutherland, A.

      M'Arthur, A.

      Swinburne, Sir J

      M'Arthur, W. A.

      Tanner, C. K.

      M'Cartan, M.

      Tuite, J.

      M'Donald, P.

      Wallace, R.

      M'Donald, W. A.

      Watson, T.

      M'Ewan, W.

      Williams, A. J.

      M'Kenna, Sir J. N.

      Williamson, J.

      M'Laren, W. S. B.

      Wright, C.

      Mahony, P.

      TELLERS.

      Mason, S.

      Russell, E. R.

      Mayne, T.

      Sexton, T.

      NOES.

      Addison, J. E. W.

      Bates, Sir E.

      Agg-Gardner, J. T.

      Baumann, A. A.

      Ainslie, W. G.

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

      Ambrose, W.

      Amherst, W. A. T.

      Beach, W. W. B.

      Anstruther, Colonel R. H. L.

      Beadel, W. J.

      Beckett, E. W.

      Anstruther, H. T.

      Bective, Earl of

      Baden-Powell, G. S.

      Bentinck, Lord H. C.

      Bailey, Sir J. R.

      Beresford, Lord C. W. De la Poer

      Balfour, rt. Hon. A. J.

      Balfour, G. W.

      Bethell, Commander G. R.

      Bartley, G. C. T.

      Barttelot, Sir W. B.

      Blundell, Col. H. B. H.

      Bass, H.

      Bond, G. H.

      1161

      Bonsor, H. C. O.

      Giles, A.

      Bristowe, T. L.

      Gilliat, J. S.

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

      Godson, A. F.

      Goldsmid, Sir J.

      Brookfield, Col. A. M.

      Goldsworthy, Major-General W. T.

      Bruce, Lord H.

      Burdett-Coutts, W. L. Ash-B.

      Gorst, Sir J. E.

      Gray, C. W.

      Burghley, Lord

      Greenall, Sir G.

      Caine, W. S.

      Greene, E.

      Caldwell, J.

      Grimston, Viscount

      Campbell, J. A.

      Hamilton, Lord C. J.

      Charrington, S.

      Hamley, Gen. Sir E.B.

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

      Hanbury, R. W.

      Hankey, F. A.

      Clarke, Sir E G.

      Hardcastle, E.

      Cochrane-Baillie, hon. C. W. A. N.

      Havelock-Allan, Sir H. M.

      Coddington, W.

      Heathcote, Capt. J. H. Edwards-

      Coghill, D. H.

      Colomb, Capt. J. C. R.

      Heaton, J. H.

      Commerell, Adml. Sir J. E.

      Herbert, hon S.

      Hill, right hon. Lord A. W.

      Compton, F.

      Cooke, C. W. R.

      Hill, Colonel E. S.

      Corbett, A. C.

      Hoare, S.

      Corry, Sir J. P.

      Holland, rt. hon. Sir H. T.

      Cotton, Capt. E. T. D.

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Holloway, G.

      Crossman, Gen. Sir W.

      Holmes, rt. hon. H.

      Curzon, Viscount

      Hornby, W. H.

      Curzon, hon. G. N.

      Houldsworth, W. H.

      Dalrymple, C.

      Howard, J.

      Davenport, H. T.

      Howard, J. M.

      Davenport, W. B.

      Howorth, H. H.

      Dawnay, Colonel hon. L. P.

      Hozier, J. H. C.

      Hubbard, E.

      De Lisle, E. J. L. M. P.

      Hughes, Colonel E.

      Hughes-Hallett, Col. F. C.

      De Worms, Baron H.

      Dickson, Major A. G.

      Hunt, F.S.

      Dimsdale, Baron R.

      Isaacs, L. H.

      Dorington, Sir J. E.

      Isaacson, F. W.

      Dugdale, J. S.

      Jackson, W. L.

      Duncombe, A.

      James, rt. hon. Sir H.

      Edwards-Moss, T. C.

      Jarvis, A. W.

      Egerton, hn. A. J. F.

      Jennings, L. J.

      Egerton, hon. A. de T.

      Kelly, J. R.

      Elliot, Sir G.

      Kennaway, Sir J. H.

      Ellis, Sir J. W.

      Kenyon, hon. G. T.

      Elton, C. I.

      Kerans, F. H.

      Evelyn, W. J.

      Kimber, H.

      Ewart, W.

      King-Harman, Colonel E. R.

      Eyre, Colonel H.

      Feilden, Lt.-Gen. R. J.

      Knightley, Sir R.

      Fergusson, right hon. Sir J.

      Knowles, L.

      Lafone, A.

      Field, Admiral E.

      Lambert, I. C.

      Fielden, T.

      Lawrance, J. C.

      Finch, G. H.

      Lawrence, W. F.

      Fisher, W. H.

      Lees, E.

      Fitzgerald, R. U. P.

      Legh, T. W.

      Fitz-Wygram, General Sir F. W.

      Lethbridge, Sir R.

      Lewisham, right hon. Viscount

      Fletcher, Sir H.

      Folkestone, right hon. Viscount

      Llewellyn, E. H.

      Long, W. H.

      Forwood, A. B.

      Low, M.

      Fraser, General C. C.

      Lowther, J. W.

      Fulton, J. F.

      Lubbock, Sir J.

      Gedge, S.

      Macartney, W. G. E.

      Gent-Davis, R.

      Macdonald, rt. hon. J. H. A.

      Gibson, J. G.

      1162

      Maclean, F. W.

      Sellar, A. C.

      Maclure, J. W.

      Selwyn, Captain C. W.

      Macnaghten, E.

      Seton-Karr, H.

      Mallock, R.

      Shaw-Stewart, M. H.

      Manners, rt. hon. Lord J. J. R.

      Sidebotham, J. W.

      Sinclair, W. P.

      Matthews, rt. hon. H.

      Smith, rt. hon. W. H.

      Maxwell, Sir H. E.

      Smith-Barry, A. H.

      Mayne, Admiral R. C.

      Spencer, J. E.

      More, R. J.

      Stanhope, rt. hon. E.

      Morrison, W.

      Stanley, E. J.

      Mount, W. G.

      Talbot, J. G.

      Mowbray, rt. hon. Sir J. R,

      Tapling, T.K.

      Taylor, F.

      Mowbray, R. G. C.

      Temple, Sir R.

      Muntz, P. A.

      Theobald, J.

      Murdoch, C. T.

      Tollemache, H. J.

      Noble, W.

      Tomlinson, W. E. M.

      Northcote, hon. H. S.

      Townsend, F.

      Parker, hon. F.

      Tyler, Sir H. W.

      Pearce, W.

      Walsh, hon. A. H. J.

      Penton, Captain F. T.

      Waring, Colonel T.

      Percy, Lord A. M.

      Watson, J.

      Plunkett, hon. J. W.

      Webster, Sir R. E.

      Powell, F. S.

      Webster, R. G.

      Raikes. rt. hon. H. C.

      West, Colonel W. C.

      Rasch, Major F. C.

      Weymouth, Viscount

      Reed, H. B.

      White, J. B.

      Ritchie, rt. hon. C. T.

      Whitmore, C. A.

      Robertson, J. P. B.

      Wilson, Sir S.

      Robinson, B.

      Winn, hon. R.

      Rollit, Sir A. K.

      Wood, N.

      Ross, A. H.

      Wright, H. S.

      Round, J.

      Wroughton, P.

      Royden, T. B.

      Young, C. E. B.

      Russell, T. W.

      Sandys, Lt.-Col. T. M.

      TELLERS.

      Saunderson, Col. E. J.

      Douglas, A. Akers-

      Sclater-Booth, rt. hn. G.

      Walrond, Col. W. H.

      Main Question put, and agreed to.
      Committee appointed, to draw up an Address to be presented to Her Majesty upon the said Resolution:—Colonel KING-HARMAN, Mr. JAMES MACLEAN, Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL, Mr. MATTHEWS, Mr. EDWARD STANHOPE, Lord JOHN MANNERS, Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, Mr. ARTHUR BALFOUR, Sir HENRY HOLLAND, Viscount LEWISHAM, and Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS; Five to be the quorum;—To withdraw immediately:—Queen's Speech referred.

    THE ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO THE QUEEN'S SPEECH—REPORT.
    Report of Address brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Address be read a second time."
    MR. PARNELL: I wish to know whether the Report of the Address can be taken without Notice and without the consent of the House?
    MR. SPEAKER: It is not uncommon that the Report of the Address should be taken immediately the Address has been agreed to.
    MR. PARNELL: But with the general consent of the House? I have never

    1163
    seen that the Report of the Address was taken immediately when any considerable section of the House objected to its being taken without Notice. I should apprehend that the same rule would apply as in the Report stage of a Bill, which requires it to be put down on a separate day if it is opposed by any considerable section of the House.
    MR. SPEAKER: There is no Notice necessary for the Report of the Address. No Notice is ever given of the Report of the Address; it is brought up as a matter of course immediately after the Address is agreed to.
    MR. PARNELL: Then, Sir, I shall move that it be considered at the next Sitting of the House.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Parnell.)
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL): Sir, I certainly think I shall not be making an unreasonable request to the hon. Member for the City of Cork and his Friends in asking that the further proceedings on the Address be taken tonight. The hon. Member is aware that we have now occupied 11 Sittings of the House with the discussion on the Queen's Speech—a length of time which has, however, been exceeded on one or more occasions. When I take into consideration the period of the year, the extreme inconvenience imposed on the great body of the House by the excessive prolongation of our Parliamentary proceedings, I own that I am sanguine that the great majority of the House will support me in the appeal which I now make. The hon. Member for the City of Cork will have observed that the matters on which he was more particularly interested have been discussed with great amplitude and deliberation, and there is no further Amendment upon the Paper which raises any Irish subject of great interest. We have no reason to believe that, up to the present moment, the hon. Member for the City of Cork or his Friends desired now to raise any other question which could not be conveniently raised in this House hereafter; and I do not think I am asking the House to do an unreasonable thing when I say that I adhere to my strong opinion that it is greatly to the convenience of the House and to the ad-
    1164
    vantage of the Public Service that the proceedings on the Report of the Address should be brought to a conclusion tonight.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I would point out that an Amendment upon one stage of the Address grows out of what has taken place at the previous stage, and it is obvious that it was impossible to put down an Amendment on Report. Now, the action of the noble Lord this evening, in declining to give any answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt), has made me think it desirable that there should be an Amendment to the Report of the Address, and that Amendment I propose to put down if the Report be taken at the next Sitting. The Amendment goes to state that the language used by the noble Lord at Belfast was calculated to provoke a breach of the law, and that it ought to be publicly withdrawn in view of the preservation of the peace in Ireland. I cannot suppose that the noble Lord, when his action is directly challenged, will endeavour to evade it by a Parliamentary manœuvre on the Report of the Address this evening; but if he does, I can only tell him that there are Gentlemen in this part of the House who will exhaust every Form of the House in order to prevent it.
    Question put.
    COLONEL COLOMB(seated, and with his hat on): Mr. Speaker, at this moment an hon. Member crossed from the other side of the House and said to me that I had said he was paid for obstructing, and that I was a liar. ["Name, name!"] It was the hon. Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner).
    MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member for Mid Cork made use of any expression of that kind, perhaps he will give some explanation to the House.
    DR. TANNER(seated, and with his hat on): The hon. and gallant Gentleman just now stated in the most offensive way that I was paid for trying to keep up a long discussion on the Address, and I told him distinctly that he was a liar. I should not have made use of such strong language had I not been greatly provoked by the offensive way in which the hon. and gallant Gentleman singled me out.
    MR. SPEAKER: It will be most convenient that the division should proceed, and that the two hon. Gentlemen should attend in their places immediately after the division.
    The House divided:—Ayes 121;Noes 228: Majority 107.—(Div. List, No. 9.)
    MR. SPEAKER: I wish to revert to the incident which, occurred when the division was being taken. The statements of both hon. Members are in possession of the House, and it is therefore for the House to deal with them. I have spoken to both the hon. Members concerned, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman who used the first expression tells me that he did not use it in the sense in which it was understood by the hon. Member. The hon. and gallant Member tells me that he was most unwilling to give pain to the hon. Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner), and has absolutely and without reserve withdrawn the expression. The hon. Member for Mid Cork also, in the most frank and unreserved manner, withdrew the expression which he used. After that explanation the House may, perhaps, think it right that the incident—a very unfortunate incident—should terminate.
    The following is the Entry in the Votes:—
    The House was proceeding to a Division when complaint was made by Captain Colomb, Member for the Bow and Bromley Division of the Tower Hamlets, of offensive words addressed to him by Dr. Tanner, Member for Mid Cork, Mr. Speaker called on Dr. Tanner to explain, who addressed the Chair sitting covered. Thereupon Mr. Speaker recommended the House to proceed with the Division before dealing with the subject of the complaint.
    The House accordingly divided; Ayes 121, Noes 228.
    Mr. Speaker then addressed the House, and said that, as the words complained of had been used in the House, the matter came under his authority; that, while the Division was in progress, both the honourable Members had expressed to him their deep regret at the occurrence, and had unreservedly withdrawn the words that had given offence, and tendered their apologies to each other and the House.
    Original Question again proposed, "That the Address be read a second time."
    MR. JAMES STUART: In the discussion which, has just terminated I must say that I shared the expectation that the noble Lord would have taken the opportunity of vindicating himself. ["Question!"] This is the question directly before the House. Hon. Members are proceeding in this matter in exactly the way desired by the noble Lord—namely, that if his conduct in respect of Belfast was to be challenged it should be done in some direct way. Well, Sir, my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) gives Notice of an Amendment which arises immediately from these circumstances, in the most convenient way in which it can be done—that is to say, on the Report of the Address; and, therefore, as my hon. Friend's action has been, to some extent, called in question, and as the noble Lord's position is, I think, somewhat serious, I shall conclude with a Motion. I think his action in respect of Belfast really calls for some explanation on his part; and as I think it only right that we should allow him, and perhaps some other Members of the Government, to consider the situation, I beg to move the adjournment of the House.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— (Mr. James Stuart.)
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCXEQUER (Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL): It is not necessarily a subject of unmixed regret for myself and my Colleagues and hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House to observe that the chief part in the delay and the arresting of the progress of Public Business is being taken by the prominent Members of the Radical Party. That is a fact of which the country will no doubt take notice. Her Majesty's Government cannot certainly agree to this Motion for the adjournment of the House; and I take this opportunity also of saying that as the Government will distinctly consider that such a Motion as has been given Notice of by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) would be nothing more nor less than a most unprofitable waste of public time, neither I nor any of my Colleagues will be any party to such a waste of time; nor shall we in any way encourage it by taking any part in the discus-

    1167
    sion which the hon. Member may think it right to raise. I am perfectly aware that it is in the power of hon. Members opposite to bring the Public Business of this country to a standstill. At any rate, Her Majesty's Government know their duty, and will struggle to the best of their power against such tactics, and will resist them.
    MR. J. E. ELLIS: My hon. Friend who moved the adjournment, and I, who seconded, are quite willing to accept the responsibility of our actions in this House; but we do not accept the responsibility which the noble Lord has endeavoured to lay upon us—of endeavouring to delay the Business of the House. After the manner in which the language of the noble Lord was characterized by the Leader of the Opposition (Sir William Harcourt) we think that this House has a right to have from the noble Lord some explanation; and as long as the noble Lord chooses to preserve the contemptuous silence which he has adopted, so long may he expect that Members on this side will do what they believe to be their duty in the matter.
    MR. PARNELL: I think, Sir, in view of the past history of the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Lord Randolph Churchill) that it is rather cool of him, to say the least of it, to talk about our bringing the Business of the country to a standstill. It certainly does not lie in his mouth, even if he had some evidence to offer to the House of the truth of his assertion—and he has none—to accuse others of attempting to stop the Business of the country. Now, Sir, it is no question at present of stopping legislation, because we are promised none by the Government. So, therefore, the Business of the country that we are accused of stopping does not consist of legislation. On the contrary, if it had been possible for any portion of the Business of the country to consist of legislation, that legislation would have been stopped by the exertions of the noble Lord. What then, Sir, is the Business that we are stopping—that we are alleged to be stopping? It is the work of voting Supply. Now, none of the Departments are in want of money. [Cries of "Question!"] Votes on Account were given—[Renewed cries of "Question!" and "Order!"]. I am speaking to the Ques-
    1168
    tion as far as I understand it, Mr. Speaker, in plea of another day for the discussion of the Amendment of which. Notice has just been given by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). I say Votes on Account were given by the late Parliament to the public Departments until next October. Therefore, it cannot be pleaded that there is any urgency for the only Public Business that the Government have called us together to transact. So much for the contention that has bean set up by the noble Lord as to stopping the Business of the country. Well, now, I just wish to say another word as to the question of proceeding with the Report of the Address without Notice. I do not in the least, Sir, differ from your ruling; but I will say this—that I have never known any Leader of the House of Commons attempt to proceed with the Report on the Address without Notice, after that course had been objected to by any section, however small, of the Opposition. It has always been held that there might fairly be an interval between the two stages of the Address, in order to give hon. Members time, if they desire it, to raise any further question which might have been brought into more prominent notice in the debates on a previous stage. And this custom has always been recognized by every Leader of the House of Commons. The noble Lord seems to desire to make a new precedent. He was at one time a very ardent upholder of the rights of minorities and freedom of debate; and I would ask him to look back a little on his past, and remember, although he may be in a very proud position tonight at the head of a victorious Party, that, just as wheels turn, so Governments are occasionally upset, and that he may once again be a Member of a minority, and, perhaps, a small minority. He may then desire to have that fair play for minorities which he is certainly now endeavouring to destroy. Is there any particular advantage in going on with this wrangle? The debate on the different Amendments to the Address has occupied a good many days on technical issues. It has taken 11 days; but other debates have taken a greater number of days than that, when less important events have happened in the country than those which preceded the present state of affairs and the present

    1169
    Government coming into power. Really, therefore, I think, in view of the fact that this is the last chance we shall have for raising any question connected with the conduct of the noble Lord, in view of the very grave position of affairs in Belfast, and of the intention of the Government to take all the days of private Members in order to proceed with the Business of Supply, it is not an unreasonable request to make to the noble Lord that he should give another day for the discussion of the very important Amendment to be moved by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). I cannot understand how, with any sense of justice, much less with any common sense, the request can be refused. At all events, it is supported by a large minority; and the invariable result of such a state of things is that the Government has, sooner or later, to give way. I shall venture to hope that the noble Lord will give way sooner rather than later, and allow us all to go home.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 120;Noes 223: Majority 103.—(Div. List, No. 10.)
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. DILLWYN: The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) just now said that within his recollection it had not been the practice of the House to proceed at once with the Report on the Address immediately after the debate. I quite agree with him that it is an inconvenient practice, and it is a course I have never known pursued except by consent. It is a very inconvenient practice, especially when it is obvious that a very large minority of the House are opposed to it. There is another reason why it is desirable that there should be a little time given us between the two stages of the Queen's Speech, and that is because the conduct of the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Lord Randolph Churchill) was called in question, by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt); and according to your ruling, Sir, which took a great many of us, myself amongst the number, very much by surprise— ["Order!"] I do not call your ruling
    1170
    in Question, Sir; I merely say it is a reason why we should have a discussion on the conduct of the noble Lord. That is an important matter, and the country at large will think so as well as this House. It was not discussed in so full a manner as we wished. That is the reason why we think there should be a little more delay. I trust we shall not go on with this wrangle, for, as on similar occasions in the past, I have never known any good come out of them, we cannot expect it now. I venture to hope that the noble Lord will reconsider his decision, and will not go on any further with this wrangle. A great many of us have made up our minds to exhaust every power we possess to secure that the period of time we consider necessary should elapse between the two stages of the Address. I venture now to move that the debate be adjourned.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Dillwyn.)
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL): I quite admit that when the adjournment of the debate has been moved by a very old Member of the House—by a very experienced Member of the House, and by the last Member from whom I should have expected such a Motion, and when it is supported by a minority of 100, it is, of course, useless for the Government—or the majority rather—to continue the struggle. I always understood that one of the most sacred tenets of the Radical Party was that the majority should prevail, and I observe that the indisposition to protract this debate has been confirmed by a majority numbering more than 100 Members. But if, in the face of that majority, the Radical Party are determined to continue their action, which I can only designate as obstructive—
    MR. PARNELL: I rise to Order, Sir. I wish to know whether the noble Lord is entitled to impute a Parliamentary offence to any Member or Party in this House, the offence of obstruction?
    MR. SPEAKER: I have never understood that there was anything un-Parliamentary in attributing that quality to any hon. Member.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I am sorry that the nerves of the hon. Member for the City of Cork are so sensitive. However, I am only going to say that it would be a useless occupation for the House to continue the discussion; and, therefore, the Government will agree to the Motion for the adjournment of the debate.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Before you put that, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say, with reference to the question of a separate Sitting for the consideration of the Report on the Address, that it is perfectly true that there are precedents that can be cited for taking the Report on the Address on the day when it is brought in, yet that that is altogether an exceptional course. The precedents were in 1881 and 1883, and they are especially pointed out by Sir Erskine May as exceptional cases. In 1882, on the Question of adjourning the debate—
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is not rising to a point of Order. The Question before the House is the adjournment of the debate.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Quite so, Sir.
    MR. SPEAKER: The Question before the House now is the adjournment of the debate.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: That is precisely the point to which I wish to address myself. I did not rise to a point of Order. I am perfectly well aware that the Question is the adjournment of the debate, and as to that I say that the Motion for Adjournment is not by any means unusual. If the noble Lord is in Order in imputing obstruction to a Member or section of this House, I am, at least, equally in Order in repelling the insinuation. In the year 1882, after a debate of six nights on the Address, the Report, which might have been taken at the same Sitting, was deferred from the 14th to the 15th of February. The debate on the Report was started by Sir H. Drummond Wolff. That debate, in which a considerable number of the Members of the present Government took part, lasted for another three nights. How, under these circumstances, the charge of obstruction can be made by any hon. or right hon. Gentleman on the Front
    1172
    Bench opposite I cannot understand, and I desire to repel the insinuation.
    Motion agreed to.
    Debate adjourned till Tomorrow.
    House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Standing Orders Committee, nominated.
PUBLIC BILL—Second Reading—Women's Suffrage (12), negatived.
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS—Second Reading—Local Government (Poor Law) (No. 7)*(169); Local Government (County Divisions)* (167); Local Government (Highways)* (168); Local Government (Gas)* (189); Local Government (No. 3)* (170); Local Government (No. 5)* (172); Local Government (No. 6)*(190); Pier and Harbour* (191); Tramways (No. 1)* (192).

NEW PEERS.
The Right Honourable Sir Richard Assheton Cross, G.C.B., having been created Viscount Cross of Broughton-in-Furness in the county Palatine of Lancaster—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
The Right Honourable Sir Frederick Arthur Stanley, G.C.B., having been created Baron Stanley of Preston in the county Palatine of Lancaster—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Appointed: The Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, were named of the Committee:—

Ld. Privy Seal.

V. Eversley.

M. Winchester.

V. Oxenbridge.

M. Bath.

L. de Ros.

Ld. Chamberlain.

L. Clinton.

E. Devon.

L. Saye and Sele.

E. Lindsay.

L. Balfour of Burley.

E. Carnarvon.

L. Boyle.

E. Milltown.

L. Digby.

E. Belmore.

L. Thurlow.

E. Powis.

L. Hopetoun.

E. Verulam.

L. Foxford.

E. Morley.

L. Colchester.

E. Amherst.

L. Silchester.

E. Camperdown.

L. Kintore.

E. Ducie.

L. Sudeley.

E. Sydney.

L. Belper.

E. Wharncliffe.

L. Hartismere.

V. Hawarden.

L. Wolverton.

V. Hutchinson.

L. Sandhurst.

V. Hardinge.

L. Colville of Culross.

WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE BILL.—(No. 12.)
(The Lord Denman.)

SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD DENMAN: It cannot be said this Session, and in your Lordships'

1055
House, that there is not time to discuss any subject which may be brought before your Lordships. My excuse for troubling you at the present time is this—that when the municipal franchise was extended to women this question came only three days before both Houses of Parliament, and then after both Houses were exhausted by the Irish Church Bill. My Lords, I believe there are those who would wish to see this Bill passed in "another place," and then brought to your Lordships with a sort of threat that your Lordships should follow the behests of those who had passed it. I believe that my motives are pure, and that common sense is on the side of this question being advanced. If it were not my misfortune to be so very old, I should not, perhaps, trespass as much as I do on your notice; but, my Lords, for the last five years I have tried to get this Bill passed, unhappily without success. The measure I now recommend to you is a most moderate one, being confined solely to female householders. I represent a lady who has built four or five cottages and who employs three or four labourers, all, no doubt, very intelligent people. She can only talk to these people and to her tenantry about their prospects, and can only tell them that she looks to them to exercise their privilege as voters— according to their consciences of course —for she can set them no example, and can give them no information that they may deem worthy of their consideration, because, from a political point of view, they look down upon a person who has no right to the franchise. At the time all the municipal officers of the country met together at the Mansion House, it was my duty to inquire, as I did of the Mayor of Sheffield, as to the working of the female franchise in connection with Municipal Corporation elections. He held that it was a very unjust thing that women were not admitted before, because if they were outside the municipality they were permitted to vote in relation to such matters as watching, and paving, and lighting; but if they happened to belong to a corporate town they were deprived of these votes. My Lords, two years ago I brought forward this question, and the late Earl Cairns wrote to me with regard to it on the 9th of July—a very eventful and trying period, for it preceded the time which
1056
put an end to all Business, because of the pressure put on Parliament in regard to the Representation of the People Bill. His Lordship wrote to me and said—
"I hear that your Women's Suffrage Bill stands for tomorrow. I take an interest in the question, and should he sorry if anything were to lead to its having an unfavourable reception in the House, but it stands before Lord Houghton's Marriage Bill, and the House will be impatient to come to a division on that Bill before dinner. Might I suggest for your consideration the desirability of postponing the Bill to the next open evening?"
My Lords, nothing there was said about the propriety of bringing the Bill before the House. The difficulty was only the amount of Business standing on the Paper which had to be disposed of before my Bill could be reached, which induced the noble Earl to suggest that I should wait for an open evening. Your Lordships well know that there was no open evening at that time, and I will only say on this point that I have waited for an open evening. I have succeeded in finding opportunities before, and I now avail myself of the present opportunity, for it cannot be contended that this is not an open evening. This is so completely a women's question that I cannot help thinking it ought to precede the question of marriage with a deceased wife's sister. Apropos of that, there was a long argument by Lord Bramwell in The Nineteenth Century on the subject not long ago, and it certainly seems to me that his Lordship's law is not very sound, because he says that if, before the passing of Lord Lyndhurst's Act, a man married again after going through the ceremony of marriage with his deceased wife's sister he ought to have been prosecuted for bigamy. If a man marries a deceased wife's sister and then deserts her he is one of the basest of mankind. The Bill I now propose I would recommend to your Lordships on religious grounds. I maintain that women are to be trusted with the franchise, because they are better than men. They read their Bible more assiduously, and are altogether better living persons. I have three widows, tenants, who hold houses and some little land, and I certainly think they ought not only to have the privilege of voting at municipal elections, but also of voting for our local Members of Parliament according to their appreciation of the characters of those Gentle-

1057
men. We have many examples in the East as well as at home of the virtues and mental capacities of the other sex; and history affords us many instances of gifted and illustrious women. Why should they not be permitted to vote? It is a great privilege to be able to vote; but I believe that if it were conferred upon women a chastening influence would be exerted upon those institutions which are the outcome of strong partizanship—the National League for instance —whilst the Women's Suffrage Association would be gradually superseded and dissolved. The women would join other Associations, where their influence for good would be greatly felt, especially in relation to those questions which more intimately concern their sex. Questions that they are specially interested in would receive greater attention, and would be more frequently brought before the constituencies by candidates, and more often brought before Parliament by Members. I am sure it is better that I should trouble your Lordships with this Bill than that you should sit here always doing nothing. I should be sorry to speculate too much on the matter; but I have no doubt, looking at the pledges which were given at the hustings during the General Election, that if this measure came before the other House it would be carried by a large majority, and surely it would be a gracious thing of your Lordships to disarm opposition, and to give the Bill at once a second reading. I have endeavoured to state my reasons for bringing forward the measure, and all I have to say is that if you pass the Bill now it may save your Lordships from having to listen to me again on the subject. I beg to move that it be now read a second time.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Lord Denman.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY):The Question that I shall have to put to your Lordships is—"That this Bill be now read a second time;" and as I have, unfortunately, to vote against that Question, I wish to say that the emphatic word is the word "now," because it would be impossible to say that it is desirable that the Bill should be introduced for discussion on the 2nd of September. At the same time, I cannot but sympathize very much with what
1058
the noble Lord has said, and I believe the proposal is one upon which your Lordships entertain different opinions. The only reason I address your Lordships at all is that I do not wish to be understood as being against the principle the noble Lord (Lord Denman) advocates. On the contrary, I think it extremely inconvenient that the Bill should be "now" read a second time.
On Question, resolved in the negative.

CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)—THE RIOTS AT BELFAST—RETURN OF CASUALTIES.

  MOTION FOR RETURN.
  EARL DE LA WARE, said, that, in the absence of any official information relative to the recent riots in Belfast, he wished to ask the Government whether they would give a Return of the number of persons killed and wounded in the serious collisions which had taken place between the people and the police in the streets of that city? A Commission had been appointed to inquire into the subject of these riots; but they knew the time that usually elapsed before any Report of a Commission was placed before Parliament; and he hoped, therefore, that Her Majesty's Government would not find it inconvenient to lay the Return which he asked for upon the Table of the House at an early day. There was naturally a feeling that the use of firearms by the police in the streets of a town was somewhat questionable, and especially when the military were at hand, whose training and discipline rendered them more cool and less liable to momentary irritation. Though he should be most unwilling to make any remark which could be interpreted as casting the slightest censure upon such a body of men as the Irish Constabulary, yet he must add that if the accounts which had appeared in the public Press relative to the collisions which had unhappily occurred between the people and the police in the streets of Belfast were correct, the number of persons who had been killed and wounded was very considerable, and possibly larger than circumstances would seem to justify. Among the statements to which he referred there was one which seemed especially to require notice. It was to the effect that on one occasion during the

  1059
  riots the Constabulary fired from their barracks in the town indiscriminately upon a crowd in the street, the consequence being that many innocent persons, including women and children, were killed or wounded. There was another statement to which he desired briefly to call attention. It was the Report of Dr. Foy, surgeon of the Whitworth Hospital, Dublin, prepared, as it seemed, for The Medical Press. In this Report it was stated—
  "The gunshot injuries were of two kinds, those produced by bullets, either from rifles or revolvers, and by buckshot. The bullet wounds were of the usual kind, and, in the majority of cases, terminated fatally. There is abundant evidence in the missiles found in the bodies of the unhappy victims to prove that the bullets used were what is known as 'regulation' size. The revolver wounds were, comparatively speaking, few in number, and, as a rule, did not prove fatal. Buckshot was very largely used; and perhaps I can best explain here that, as a missile, it has very little force.… The greater number of the fatal injuries were inflicted on the head and chest. These injuries, in many instances, resulted from buckshot wounds, the pellets finding an entrance into the brain by the eye, or when fired at very close distances possessing sufficient momentum to penetrate the bony wall.… In some cases the shot was fired so close to the person as to penetrate through several folds of clothing."
  He would not go further into the painful details in this Report, including the deaths of women and children. Among them was one of the mother of several little children standing at the door and lifting a child into the house. The mother was shot dead by a bullet fired from a height. Dr. Foy goes on to say—
  "It is a task of considerable difficulty to form a correct estimate of the number of injuries, as many of the cases went from one practitioner to another.… I have, however, taken pains to analyze all the details supplied to me, and I consider I speak with some accuracy when I give the total number treated as 582, while the number of deaths, as reported by the various gentlemen, may be taken as 34."
  He felt bound to say that this Report bore upon the face of it the desire to state the truth without bias or prejudice. He had only now to ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether the police in Ireland had a discretionary power of charging their carbines with buckshot instead of ball, and of using their firearms without the previous reading of the Riot Act by a civil magistrate; and, also, whether any officers in command
  1060
  of troops had lately been invested with the authority of a civil magistrate?
  Moved, "That there be laid before this House Return of persons killed and wounded in the recent riots at Belfast."— (The Earl De La Warr.)
  EARL CADOGAN (LORD PRIVY SEAL)said that, with
  reference to the first part of the Notice of his noble Friend, he was sorry to say that at present the Government had a Return of 28 deaths as having occurred during the lamentable disturbances at Belfast; but with regard to the list of wounded for which his noble Friend asked, it would be impossible for the Government to provide such a Return. They had at present no means of ascertaining the exact number of wounded who had been admitted to the hospitals at Belfast, or of those who had been treated at their own homes. Under these circumstances, it was impossible that any Return which could be furnished by the Government at present would be in any way reliable. He might, however, remind his noble Friend that a Commission had been issued to inquire into the whole of the circumstances connected with these riots. That Commission suspended its sittings a short time ago; but it had now been strengthened by the addition of a fourth Member, and it was hoped that it would resume its labours before long. When the Commission had reported the Government would be in a better position to ascertain the whole of the facts respecting which his noble Friend asked for information. On the subject of firing upon the people by the police during these riots, he also must plead for some delay before information could be given by the Government. His noble Friend alluded to a Report which he had himself seen, and which had been published in the newspapers, by a private Commission which he understood was sent by the Loyal and Patriotic Union to report on the state of matters in Belfast. Without wishing in any way to impugn the veracity, the bona fides, or the accuracy of the statements contained in that Report, it would, he thought, be understood that it was impossible for the Government to accept statements made by a private Commission of that character in the same unreserved manner in which they would accept those made by the Commission, which, it was hoped, would report before long. The noble Earl

  1061
  must, therefore, excuse him if he declined to enter into the discussion which he had raised on the question of the firing on the people by the police. One question which the noble Earl had asked he thought he could answer—namely, whether the use of buckshot or bullets was discretionary on the part of the police? The discretion in the matter lay not with the police themselves, but with the officers in command of the police, to whom was intrusted the duty of ordering with what charge the rifles should be fired.
  EARL DE LA WARRexplained that the Report referred to was made to The Medical Press, and did not come from the Loyal and Patriotic Union.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Five o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter past Four o'clock.