Sitting of 3 September 1886

MINUTES.
PRIVATE BILL (by Order)—Third Reading—Portsmouth and Hayling Railway*, and passed.
PUBLIC BILL—Committee—Report—Third Reading—Secret Service (Repeal)* [41], and passed.
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS—Report—Considered as amended—Third Reading—Electric Lighting * [278], and passed.
Report—Elementary Education Confirmation (Birmingham) * [272]; Elementary Education Confirmation (London) * [273].

QUESTIONS.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—THE CROSSMAGLEN CONSPIRACY—RELEASE OF THE CONSPIRATORS.
  MR. ALEXANDER BLANEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If Her Majesty's Government will release those men sentenced to terms of penal servitude for the Crossmaglen conspiracy, after having suffered nearly five years' imprisonment, though no person was injured by any action of the said conspirators?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): The cases of these prisoners have been several times considered. Two of them have been released, one three years ago and another last month. The clemency of the Crown was thus exercised in consequence of special circumstances affecting the individual cases. In all the other cases it has been several times decided by more than one Viceroy that the law must take its course.
  MR. ALEXANDER BLANEasked if the right hon. Gentleman was aware that any persons had suffered from the action of those men who had been sent into penal servitude?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I presume that these persons were sentenced for offences against the law.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—CORK UNION —STOWAWAYS FROM LIVERPOOL.
  MR. MAURICE HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the complaints made as to the large number of stowaways from Liverpool (sometimes as many as five per week) landed at Queens-town from the American liners, all of whom being quite destitute become a charge on the rates of the Cork Poor Law Union; and, whether, having regard to the fact that the English Poor Law protects the local rates in converse cases, the Government propose to take any steps to relieve the Cork ratepayers from the burden cast upon them by the state of things in question?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): The attention of the late Chief Secretary was called to this matter; but it did not appear that anything could be done to alter what is complained of without a change in the law. Whether legislation on the subject of settlement should be undertaken is a very large question. It certainly cannot be undertaken now. Perhaps the facts as to Cork are of less gravity than the hon. Member supposes. The inquiries made by the Local Government Board show that out of 484 persons landed at Queenstown in the manner complained of in the last five years, only 14 remain in the workhouse; 200 took their departure the day after their admission, and 150 within a few days.

  ARMY (INDIA)—THE INDIAN MEDICAL SERVICE.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is the case that the recent improvement in the pay and allowances of the Army Medical Service, on the faith of which the former dearth has now given place to an ample supply of highly qualified candidates, does not extend to India; whether, in every other branch of the Military Service, the increased cost of living in India is met by largely increased pay and allowances; whether there is any corresponding increase in the pay or allowances of Army
  1174
  Surgeons serving in India, and whether it is true that they are subjected to many expenses in the discharge of their duties from which other Officers are exempt; and, whether he will cause inquiry to be made as to the facts, with a view to the redressing of any grievance that may exist?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): In 1884, when the home rates of pay of the Army Medical Service were raised, no change was made in the Indian rates of pay, which were considered already adequate. In every branch of the Military Service Indian rates of pay of officers are higher than home rates to meet the increased cost of living in India. The Medical Branch is no exception; the rates of pay in India are higher than at home. I am not aware that Army Surgeons serving in India are subjected to expenses in the discharge of their duties from which other officers are exempt. As the facts of the case are well known it is not intended to make any inquiry into the subject.

  ARMY (ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT)— HIGH OFFICIALS IN PRIVATE FIRMS.
  COLONEL HUGHES-HALLETTasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been called to the judgment of the Lord Chief Justice of England, concurred in by the Hon. Mr. Justice Denman, in the case of "Armstrong and others," v. "Armit and others;" whether his attention has been called to those parts of the said judgment in which—
  "(a.) It has been held that it is a matter of National importance that the representative of a firm interested in the manufacture of ordnance should not have to examine guns on behalf of the Government for our National defences, (b.) That persons should not be allowed to occupy a double capacity, that is to say, that members of the Government Department that has to see that proper guns are supplied should not also be interested in the contracting Company who have obtained from the Government the right, privilege, and profit of manufacturing guns for our National defences;"
  and, whether, in view of the foregoing judicial opinion, he will take steps to prevent manufacturers, or those in any way interested in firms contracting with the Government, from sitting either as members or associated members of the Ordnance or other Committee having

  1175
  for its object the recommendation for adoption in Her Majesty's Service of warlike or other stores supplied by said firms?
  MR. WOODALL: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the Question, it will be convenient to ask him whether his attention has also been called to the fact that the Lord Chief Justice on the same occasion is reported to have spoken of the Ordnance Committee as having "to select particular firms to supply ordnance;" and, whether Lord Coleridge was accurate in assuming that any such function appertained to the Ordnance Committee?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. W. H. SMITH): In answer to the hon. Gentleman opposite, my attention was not drawn to this particular paragraph in the judgment of the Lord Chief Justice; but I have no hesitation in saying that it is no part of the functions of the Ordnance Select Committee to select firms as contractors for the supply of ordnance or any ammunition or materials for the use of the Services. As a matter of fact they have no voice in the matter. I have, of course, seen the reports in the newspapers of the judgments of the Lord Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Denman to which the hon. and gallant Member refers; and I give my cordial assent to the general principles laid down by the learned Judges. They had, however, only a portion of the case before them, on which, as the hon. and gallant Member is aware, a trial is now pending; and it is my duty, therefore, to refrain from expressing any opinion, or of taking any action on the facts so far as they have been ascertained. I shall, however, be prepared to state on Votes 12 and 15 of the Army Estimates the circumstances under which my Predecessors in Office invited the assistance of Sir William Armstrong and Captain Noble, of the Armstrong Company, and Mr. Leece, and subsequently Mr. Gledhill, of the Whitworth Company, in considering designs for guns.

  DISPENSARY DISTRICTS (IRELAND)— CASTLEBAR DISPENSARY.
  MR. DILLON(for Dr. Kenny)asked, the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Why the usual practice of appointing the medical officer of a dis-
  1176
  pensary district in Ireland to take charge of the Constabulary within his district was not followed in the case of Dr. William Jordan, recently appointed to the Castlebar, county Mayo, Dispensary; and, whether it is a fact that Dr. Jordan applied for the position, which had been for many years past held by his predecessor in the dispensary?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH), in reply, said, he was informed that the usual practice was not as stated in the Question. The Inspector General of Constabulary received the names of the medical gentlemen who were available. It was the case that Dr. Jordan applied for the appointment; but the Constabulary Authorities did not consider him the most suitable man for the appointment. He was a very junior practitioner, and, in fact, only received his diploma a few weeks ago.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)— SHOOTING AT THE PERSON—CASE OF DENIS MURPHY.
  MR. GILHOOLYasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, If a bill of indictment against a man named Denis Murphy, for shooting at Mr. William Cotter, with intent to kill, was sent before the Grand Jury of the county Cork at the recent Court of Assize held in the city of Cork; if Murphy had been returned for trial from the Bantry Petty Sessions, at which the resident magistrates adjudicated; if Mr. Cotter positively swore before the grand jury that Murphy fired at him; if another witness swore that he heard Murphy state he intended shooting Mr. Cotter; whether Sergeant Binns made an information to the effect that Murphy admitted having fired the shot from a revolver at the instigation of his brother; if Constable Binns found a revolver at Murphy's house; whether, notwithstanding all this proof against Murphy, the grand jury ignored the bill against him; and, what action the Government intend taking in the matter?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES): A bill of indictment against Denis Murphy for firing at William Cotter with intent to kill was laid before the County Cork Grand Jury at the last Assizes, and was ignored. Murphy had been returned for trial on this charge

  1177
  from Bantry Petty Sessions, and among the depositions was one by Sergeant Binns, in which he swore that Murphy when asked in his own house gave him a revolver, and afterwards on the way to the barracks told him that he had fired the shot against the road or ditch, by direction of his brother Timothy, to frighten Cotter. I do not know, and I am precluded from inquiring, what occurred before the Grand Jury; but having read the depositions, I can conceive that the Grand Jury had good grounds for ignoring the bill. Under these circumstances, I do not intend to take any further action in the matter.
  DR. TANNERinquired whether any Resident Magistrates were sitting at the Petty Sessions at Bantry?
  MR. HOLMESreplied that he believed there was one Resident Magistrate there on the occasion of the man being committed.
  MR. GILHOOLY: There were two.
  MR. HOLMES: Oh! it is quite possible.
  MR. O'HEAasked whether any of the magistrates who adjudicated at the Bantry Petty Sessions were members of the Grand Jury?
  MR. HOLMES: I cannot say.

  RAILWAYS—MIXED TRAINS—CONTINUOUS BRAKES.
  MR. WEBSTERasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether, in view of the fact that mixed trains, composed of passenger and goods carriages, are a source of danger to the public and to those employed by the Railway Companies, from the increased risk in the composition of such trains, of their either breaking loose or the breaking of axles, and also from the difficulty of stopping them conveniently at the platforms, he proposes to make it obligatory on Railway Companies to minimise such danger to the public and the Companies' servants by having continuous brakes fitted on all trains composed of waggons and carriages?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): The Board of Trade have no authority to impose upon Railway Companies the use of any particular form of brake. The matter referred to by the hon. Member is one of much im-
  1178
  portance and of no little difficulty; but I can promise him that the subject shall receive careful consideration.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—NEWRY UNION—POOR RATE FOR THE CAMLOUGH DIVISION.
  MR. ALEXANDER BLANEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If the ratepayers of Camlough Division of the Newry Union complained at the Boardroom of the last made rate for the Camlough Division having been double of last year; and, whether the excess is solely due to the official staff of that Union costing more than the support of the paupers; and if the Government will direct an inquiry?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH), in reply, said, it was a fact that some ratepayers of the Camlough Division of the Newry Union complained at the Board Room of the last made rate for the division having been double that of last year. It appeared, however, to be inevitable. The Local Government Board reported that the expenses of both outdoor and indoor relief were exceptionally large, and that the increase of the rates was not due in any way to the expenses of the official staff, which, including the expenses of two dispensary doctors, amounted to only 2d. in the pound.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—EVICTIONS IN KILKENNY COUNTY.
  MR. CHANCEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, How many persons have been evicted within the last three weeks at Carrigeen, Luffany, and Ballygory, county Kilkenny; at whose suit; and, what was, in each case, the yearly rent, the valuation, the law costs, and the costs of carrying out the evictions?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): One eviction only took place in the time and locality mentioned. It was at the suit of Messrs. Lecky. The yearly rent was £1, and the valuation 15 s. The law costs were £2 10 s. 10 d. The tenant had paid no rent for seven years. Since the eviction he has paid the amount demanded and been reinstated. The

  1179
  amount of the costs incurred by the Constabulary for conveyance, &c. had not yet been ascertained.

  POST OFFICE—POSTAGE OF CIRCULARS.
  SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDasked the Postmaster General, Whether there is any and, if any, what objection to adopting the French system of allowing circulars to be sent in open envelopes at the lower (viz. halfpenny) rate; and, if not, whether he will introduce it?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): I would remind the hon. Member that a similar Question was asked on Tuesday last by the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson). I do not think I can add anything to the reply then given; but if the hon. Gentleman desires I will repeat it.

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (IRELAND)—LIST OF VOTERS— NORTH LEITRIM.
  MR. CONWAYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the alleged irregularities in the way the Parliamentary Lists of Voters have been distributed in Leitrim North by the Clerk of the Peace; whether instructions will be given to the said Clerk of the Peace to substitute the proper lists for the lists of the Kiltyclogher and Kinlough polling stations at present exhibited at the Glenfarne and East Bars Post Offices in the Manorhamilton District; and, whether care will be taken in future to give the electors in their respective polling districts a fair opportunity to examine the Parliamentary Lists of Voters for such districts?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH)was understood to say that the Clerk of the Peace had acted under a misapprehension in the matter, and care would be taken by the officer not to repeat the irregularities.

  THE FRANCHISE ACTS, 1885—EXTRA REMUNERATION TO POOR LAW OFFICIALS.
  MR. MACARTNEYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord
  1180
  Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, having regard to the additional and very onerous duties imposed upon Poor Law officials in Ireland under the Franchise Acts of 1885, and to the great reluctance manifested by Boards of Guardians to vote adequate remuneration in such cases, the Government proposes to make a grant on this account for the present year as was done in 1885?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): The Local Government Board do not find that Boards of Guardians generally are disinclined to afford fair remuneration to the Poor Law officials for the duties in question, and it is not proposed this year to ask Parliament to pass a Vote, as was done in the very exceptional circumstances of last year.

  FISHERIES (SCOTLAND)—THE ROYAL COMMISSION—TRAWLING IN GALWAY BAY.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, since the report of the Commission on Scotch Fisheries relative to trawling, scientific opinion has changed considerably as to the injurious effect of trawling on coast fisheries; if trawling has been put a stop to in different parts of Scotland in consequence; if it is a fact that the Coast Guard Officer in Galway stated in a report that the fishing in Galway Bay has been destroyed by trawling; if it is a fact that the Galway fishermen are very much opposed to trawling; and, if the Government can induce the Fishery Commissioners in Ireland to limit the operations of trawling boats in Galway Bay?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): The Inspectors of Irish Fisheries are not aware that scientific opinion with regard to the injurious effects of trawling has changed as suggested. If the hon. Baronet has any information on the subject, perhaps he will be good enough to communicate it to the Government or to the Inspectors. The by-laws prohibiting trawling on the Scotch Coast are expressly described by the Scotch Inspectors in their last annual Report now before the House as being merely experimental. It is true that the Galway fishermen are opposed to

  1181
  trawling, and that the Coastguard officer at Galway has expressed the opinion that it is injurious; but this officer was produced as a witness at the inquiry recently held at Galway. when the value of his opinion might have been tested. No evidence was given on that occasion which would justify the Inspectors in limiting the operations of trawling boats in Galway Bay.

  POOR LAW (ENGLAND AND WALES)— MARRIED COUPLES IN UNION WORKHOUSES.
  MR. CHARLES GRAYasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether the Local Government Board is assured that in all union workhouses such accommodation is provided that no married couples are separated who, by being over sixty years of age, have the legal right to live together?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): Last November the Local Government Board issued a Circular to Boards of Guardians, calling their attention to the duty devolving upon them under the statutory provisions with reference to the non-separation in the workhouse of husband and wife in certain cases. From the replies that have been received, there would not appear to be that anxious desire which some people think exists on the part of these aged couples to live together. On the contrary, over and over again it is stated that where provision is made it is not availed of. One clerk to a Board reported that in the only instance within his knowledge in which the advantages of association were adopted by an old pair in a certain workhouse they lived together for about a year; but the experiment was not attended with a satisfactory result. They were so constantly quarrelling that after repeated attempts to reconcile them they desired to be placed in the ordinary wards, and they remained there. [An hon. MEMBER: Where was that?] In Camberwell. We have no reason to believe that any cases exist where the accommodation is desired and is not furnished; but if the hon. Gentleman knows of any case, and will inform me of it, I will at once cause inquiries to be made and see that the provisions of the law are fulfilled.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—EVICTIONS AT GWEEDORE, CO. DONEGAL.
  MR. O'HEAasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that, out of the adult male population in the recent Gweedore evictions, a large number of persons have, as an act of charity, been given free passages to England, per steamer from Bunbeg, to enable them to earn at harvesting work money wherewith to redeem the evicted holdings?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): I am informed that during the last few days 130 persons have left Gweedore for the purpose of engaging in harvest work in Scotland. That is usual at this season of the year, and there is no reason to suppose that there is any particular object in view on the present occasion. Some of those persons were amongst the persons recently evicted. I understand that the parish priest lent them money to pay the passages.

  ENGLAND AND THE COLONIES— IMPERIAL FEDERATION—A JOINT COMMITTEE.
  SIR SAMUEL WILSONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the Government have decided to appoint a Committee of both Houses of Parliament to inquire and report upon the question of Imperial Federation between the United Kingdom and her Colonies?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): My hon. Friend will, I am sure, understand that it would be impossible, without risk of misapprehension, to state the views of Her Majesty's Government upon this subject within the limits of an answer to a Question. But at present I can only say that, in accordance with the promise given by the Prime Minister to the deputation at the Colonial Office, the Government have taken this matter into their very careful consideration.

  ROYAL COMMISSION ON ACCIDENTS IN MINES—THE REPORT.
  MR. ARTHUR WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the final Report of the Accidents in Mines

  1183
  Commission is out of print; and, if so, whether the Government will take steps for having an edition printed which will enable the large body of Her Majesty's subjects, who are deeply interested in its contents and recommendations, to have access to them?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): No, Sir; this Report is not yet out of print, there being still about 160 copies left in stock. When this stock is exhausted or much reduced it will be time to consider the advisability of republishing the Report only, without the evidence and illustrations, as a cheap work.

  MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS (SCOTLAND)— CORRUPT PRACTICES—LEGISLATION.
  MR. LACAITAasked the Secretary for Scotland, Whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce, at an early date next Session, a Bill to restrain corrupt practices at municipal elections in Scotland?
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I may remind the hon. Member that in 1884 the proposal of the then Government to extend to Scotland the provisions of the Bill relating to corrupt practices at municipal elections was resisted by some of the Scotch Members; but I will examine into the subject during the Recess, and deal with it according to the result of my inquiries.

  REGISTRATION OF FRIENDLY SOCIETIES—THE REGISTRAR.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLITasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is, as alleged, true, that delays take place in the office of the Registrar of Friendly Societies, in the registration of rules and amendments; what are the causes of such delays, if any, and whether they are removable; and, whether he will cause to be furnished a Return of all registrations of rules or alterations effected or applied for during the last five years, stating, in each case, when the rules or alterations were first lodged for registration, when the registration was or may be expected to be completed, and the causes of any delay?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON), in reply, said, it was not the fact that any avoidable delay took place. If the
  1184
  hon. Gentleman would furnish him with the particulars of any case in which he thought there had been unreasonable delay, he (Mr. Jackson) would make inquiries on the subject.

  FRANCO-CHINESE COMMERCIAL TREATY—PROHIBITION OF OPIUM TRAFFIC BETWEEN TONQUIN AND CHINA.
  MR. HUNTERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, in the Commercial Treaty lately concluded between France and China, to regulate trade between Tonquin and China, the 14th Article provides for the total prohibition of trade in opium between Tonquin and China; and, whether he will lay Copies of the Treaty upon the Table?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): The 14th Article of the Commercial Treaty between France and China engages that neither foreign nor Native opium shall be allowed to be conveyed overland across the frontiers of Tonquin and three Provinces of China named therein for purchase or sale. There will be no objection to lay upon the Table a copy of the Treaty, if the hon. Member chooses to move for it.

  BURMAH—ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE—CAPTAIN ADAMSON.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether his attention has been called to a Memorandum of the Governor General of India, dated 25th February 1886, in which His Excellency recommends "that great pains should betaken to administer justice (in Upper Burmah) in such a manner as will stand the test of searching public criticism;" whether it is true that for months after His Excellency's recommendation Native prisoners in Mandalay were tried by Captain Adamson, an Artillery officer destitute of legal training, privately at his own house, and without right of appeal; whether any record of the evidence was or is kept; whether the system continues in operation; and, whether he has any objection to lay upon the Table of the House a Return showing the number of prisoners tried by Captain Adamson, since February last, who have been shot or hanged, the number of prisoners sentenced by him to transportation and im-

  1185
  prisonment, and the number of thousands of years to which these aggregate sentences amount, and the number of prisoners flogged, with the aggregate number of lashes inflicted?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): I cannot identify the particular Memorandum referred to in the Question; but the words quoted correctly represent the views which the Viceroy has always held on the administration of justice in Upper Burmah. Captain Adamson has been in civil employment in Burmah since 1871. He was seven years an Assistant Magistrate, chiefly stationed at Rangoon; three years Assistant Commissioner, and nearly five years Deputy Commissioner. At the beginning of this year he was selected, in consequence of his long legal training and experience, for the responsible position of Deputy Commissioner at Mandalay. He remained at this post until compelled by illness to quit it. Trials sometimes took place at his private house, because Court accommodation was limited, and other officers were trying cases in the regular Court. Captain Adamson's house was at all times open to the public. Records of the trials were kept. No radical alteration of the system has been made; but the Government of India are now engaged in framing laws and regulations for the government of Upper Burmah. The Secretary of State is making full inquiry into the administration of the Criminal Law in Upper Burmah; but I cannot undertake to lay any Return upon the Table which would appear to give any countenance to the charge against Captain Adamson suggested in the Question. The Government of India have had full confidence in his zeal, integrity, consideration for the people, and desire to do justice.
  DR. CAMERONgave Notice that in consequence of the answer of the hon. and learned Gentleman he would call attention to the subject on the Report of the Address.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)— THE RIOTS AT BELFAST—CYPHER TELEGRAMS.
  LORD HENRY BRUCEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in reference to Belfast riots, Whether im-
  1186
  portant official telegrams might not in future be written in cypher?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): Yes, Sir; official telegrams are frequently sent in cypher.

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—CAPITATION GRANT TO THE VOLUNTEERS.
  MR. ESSLEMONTasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is possible, and if he will so modify the Army or other Estimates as will enable him to increase the Capitation Grant to the Volunteers by ten shillings per man?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. W. H. SMITH)(who replied) said: No, Sir; I must refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the Question of the noble Lord the Member for East Hampshire (Viscount Wolmer) on the 23rd of August. The Returns not being complete, I am unable to come to any decision at present.

  POST OFFICE—COUNTRY TELEGRAMS.
  MR. COCHRANE-BAILLIEasked the Postmaster General, Whether the benefits recently granted to the public by the introduction of a reduced charge for the transmission of telegrams could be further extended to the poorer classes in country districts, by a proportionate reduction of the rates for the porterage of telegrams?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): In reply to my hon. Friend, I have to say that the charge for porterage of telegrams beyond the free delivery is 6d. a-mile under three miles, and I scarcely think it would be possible to offer less to any person engaged to deliver a message. The porterage is paid to the messenger, and does not belong to the Department. The rate for a mounted messenger is, as a rule, 1s. a-mile from the office door; but in some cases owners of horses are willing to take rather less, and the public get the benefit. I do not think the charge excessive for the service rendered.

  ADMIRALTY—FREEING OF HASLAR BRIDGE, PORTSMOUTH.
  SIR SAMUEL WILSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty,

  1187
  Whether the Lords of the Admiralty, on their approaching visit to Portsmouth, will consider the question of freeing the Haslar Bridge, which would be a boon to the relatives and friends of seamen and others in the Royal Navy, who are now required to pay toll in going to and returning from the Royal Naval Hospital?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): We will consider the question of freeing Haslar Bridge during our inspection at Portsmouth; but as it will involve a considerable sum of money I am not sanguine that it can be done.

  AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT—THE ALLOTMENT RETURNS—RETURNS FOR UNIONS AND PARISHES INSTEAD OF BY COUNTIES.
  SIR JOHN DORINGTONasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Whether the materials collected by the Agricultural Department would render it practicable to supplement Tables 3, 4, 5, and 6, of the Allotment Returns just presented to Parliament, by similar Tables giving the same information for each union or parish, instead of for counties only, so as to enable a better opinion to be formed as to the localities in which a deficiency of allotment or garden land for the agricultural labourers may exist; and, whether he would cause such further Tables to be presented to Parliament?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY (Lord JOHN MANNERS): The Statistical Department is now fully engaged in preparing the Agricultural Returns for the year; but I have directed inquiries to be made into the practicability of compiling the information asked for within a reasonable time after those Returns have been issued.

  POST OFFICE—THE GENERAL POST OFFICE—THE CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER.
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked the Postmaster General, Whether recently a telegraph clerk, who had been absent from duty for a week under a medical certificate of sickness, was peremptorily ordered, a few days after a fresh medical certificate had been furnished, to present himself for examination by the chief medical officer
  1188
  of the Post Office; whether he had been advised by his medical attendant to confine himself to the house; whether, on presenting himself as directed, he was told that he was "making a lot of fuss about nothing," and that he must resume his duty on the following Monday; whether he resumed his duty accordingly; whether he was placed on one of the heaviest wires in the Division; and, whether within a fortnight from the day of resuming duty he was dead?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): I have endeavoured to identify the case to which the hon. Member refers, and think he must allude to a telegraphist named Billinghurst, who died on August 9. The circumstances respecting his illness are not stated accurately in the Question. The facts are as follows:—Mr. Billinghurst was absent from duty from July 10 to July 23, on account of deranged liver. He attended to see the medical officer on July 23, said "he was feeling much better," and should be able to resume duty on Monday, July 26, when he took his ordinary circuit in accordance with the duty list. He remained on duty till Saturday, July 31, but consulted the medical officer on July 27, and again an July 30, which was the last occasion on which he saw the medical officer. He did not ask for further leave of absence, but for a change to Dover as soon as could be arranged. On Monday, August 2, he sent a medical certificate stating that he was not fit to attend. On August 5 he was written to to attend to see the medical officer if well enough. He did not attend, but sent a certificate to say he was suffering from fever. On the 9th he was asked to forward a certificate of the nature of the fever. The reply was a certificate stating he died on the 9th of typhoid fever. The words imputed to the medical officer are absolutely denied.
  MR. PICKERSGILLgave Notice that in Committee of Supply he would call attention to this case and also to other cases of alleged misconduct on the part of the chief medical officer of the Post Office.

  PHARMACY ACT, 1868—PRESCRIPTIONS BY CHEMISTS.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDEasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, If the Govern-

  1189
  ment are aware that numbers of chemists in London prescribe medicinally for all sorts of diseases; if it is legal for chemists who have no medical or surgical degree to prescribe and make up medicines, in many of which poisonous drugs are used; and, if the Government will take steps to put an end to this practice, now that proper medical advice can be obtained for small fees?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT (Sir HENRY HOLLAND): The Government have no special information upon the subject referred to in the first part of the Question, though it is very probable that chemists are in the habit of prescribing medicinally to persons coming to their shops. As to the second part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the provisions of the Pharmacy Act, 1868, by which it is made unlawful for persons since 1868, unless registered under that Act, to retail, dispense, or compound the poisons referred to in the Schedule of that Act and in subsequent Resolutions of the Pharmaceutical Society approved by the Privy Council. I have only to add that the Government have under consideration the question of further regulating the sale of poisons.

  THE MAURITIUS—OFFICIAL DISSENSIONS.
  DR. TANNERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether an outbreak of disturbance has invariably attended Mr. Clifford Lloyd's appearance as an official in every position to which he was appointed; whether, in the Island of the Mauritius, an amendment to the Address, expressing confidence in Sir John Pope Hennessy and approval of his past administration, was moved by Sir Virgile Naze, and passed by a majority of the representative Members; and, whether an address of confidence in the Governor, signed by 6,000 of the inhabitants, was sent to and received by the Colonial Office?
  An hon. MEMBER asked whether it was not the fact that Sir John Pope Hennessy got into great difficulties while Governor of Hong Kong?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): I have already informed the House that the position of affairs in the Mauritius being still under consideration, I hoped
  1190
  that I might be permitted, for the present, not to answer Questions calculated to prejudice either party to the dispute. It is, however, only fair that I should say that the unfortunate state of affairs in the Mauritius existed long before Mr. Clifford Lloyd's advent.
  Subsequently,
  DR. TANNERsaid, he felt bound to complain that the Secretary of State for the Colonies had not answered the Question which he had put on the Paper with reference to the relations between Mr. Clifford Lloyd and Sir John Pope Hennessy.
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I cannot think it likely to promote the interests of good government in Mauritius that I should answer these Questions. I must decline to answer Questions which have as their object either to support or attack Sir John Pope Hennessy on the one hand, or Mr. Clifford Lloyd on the other.
  DR. TANNER: Am I to understand that the right hon. Gentleman declines to answer the Question?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I am, of course, in the hands of the House; but as far as I am concerned I entirely decline to answer.

  LIFE INSURANCE COMPANIES—RETURN OF ACCOUNTS.
  DR. CLARKasked the President of the Board of Trade, If he is aware that considerable dissatisfaction exists at the delay in issuing the Return of the Accounts of Life Insurance Companies, as expressed in the various articles in the Insurance Press on the matter; and, if it is possible to issue the Return earlier?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD (Baron HENRY DE WORMS)(who replied) said: The Board of Trade have not received any complaints on the subject of this Question, and their attention had not been called to the notices in the Insurance Press until the Question was placed on the Paper by the hon. Member. Arrangements have been made which will, we hope, insure the presentation of the Life Assurance Returns at an earlier period in future years.

  BURMAH—INUNDATION OF MANDALAY.
  MR. ADDISONasked the Under Secretary of State for

  1191
  India, Whether any further intelligence has been received respecting the inundation of Mandalay; how many lives have been lost; and, what steps have been taken to relieve the destitution occasioned by the accident amongst the native population, and to ascertain the causes of the disaster?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): The Viceroy telegraphed on the 27th August that the floods had fallen six feet. Only 12 bodies have been found, and the District Officer reports that he does not think that more than this number have perished, search having been continued for 10 days. As regards the relief of the destitute, a pound of rice and half-an-anna is given daily to all applicants, who average about 300 a day. There is a great deal of work now going on in the neighbourhood of Mandalay and in other districts, on roads. A Committee has been appointed to investigate the circumstances of the bursting of the embankment. A similar accident occurred in 1877, when the flood was three feet less than on the present occasion.

  REGISTRATION OF PARLIAMENTARY VOTERS—LEGISLATION.
  MR. J. E. ELLISasked the President of the Local Government Board, If the Government intend next Session to introduce a Bill dealing with the present system of registration of Parliamentary Voters?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): I am afraid I cannot give to the hon. Gentleman any undertaking as to the Business of next Session. The Government anticipate that there will be ample time in which to deal with this question before another General Election.

  ADMIRALTY—ROMAN CATHOLIC CHAPLAINS IN TROOPSHIPS.
  MR. M. HEALYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether any, and, if so, what, steps were taken in the matter of providing troop ships with Catholic chaplains, pursuant to the undertaking given by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 27th March 1882; whether it is the fact that the Catholic seamen and marines of the Channel Fleet have no means of attend-
  1192
  ing mass on Sunday unless when in port; whether it frequently happens that the Fleet is not in port on Sunday; whether it is the fact that, when the Catholics on board have no opportunity of attending service on shore, they are required to attend the service of the Protestant chaplain, or whether it is the practice for them to do so; whether it is the fact that there are at present over 400 Catholic seamen and marines on board H.M.S. Agincourt; and, whether the Government will undertake to provide every troop ship having a considerable proportion of Catholics on board with a Catholic chaplain?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): The steps taken were that whenever more than 300 Roman Catholic soldiers were embarked in any of the Indian troopships, a Catholic chaplain should be sent in the ship and the necessary accommodation provided for him. The Catholic seamen and marines of the Channel Fleet have no means of attending mass on Sundays, except when in port. The requirements of the Service frequently necessitate the Fleet being at sea on Sundays. It is not the case that Catholics are required to attend the service of the Protestant chaplain at any time, and it is not the practice for them to do so. The number of Catholics on board the Agincourt at the present time is 127, out of a complement of 883, which is much above the average, Roman Catholics constituting only 10 per cent of the Fleet generally. The Admiralty have not added Roman Catholic chaplains to the complement of troopships, but a cabin will be provided for them when the Secretary of State for War considers it desirable that a Roman Catholic chaplain should accompany the troops.
  MR. M. HEALYsaid, he had not understood the noble Lord to answer that part of the Question which inquired whether it was not the practice to make Roman Catholics attend the services of the Protestant chaplains?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, he had answered that they were not required to attend the services, and it was not the practice to make them do so.
  MR. M. HEALY: Is the noble Lord aware whether it is the practice for them to attend?
  [No reply.]

  ADMIRALTY—ACCESS TO CONFIDENTIAL DESIGNS OF SHIPS.
  COLONEL HUGHES-HALLETTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether it is true, as reported in the American press, that the Secretary of the Navy of the United States recently stated in Congress that, owing to the influence of Messieurs. W. G. Armstrong, Mitchell, and Company (Limited), an agent of the Navy Department of the United States Government had been granted access to the confidential designs of the ships of the British Navy at the Admiralty, in London; and, whether the price paid by the said agent to Messieurs. Armstrong, Mitchell, and Company, for a ship's design, was not £5,000?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): I have to reply to the first part of the Question that the statement referred to is not true. The Naval Attaché of the United States Legation has, on application to the Secretary of the Admiralty, received the sanction of the Board to certain information in connection with the construction of some of Her Majesty's ships being furnished to him, as has been done in the case of the Naval Attachés of other countries on their official application. The Admiralty has no information as to the business transactions of Messrs. Armstrong, Mitchell, and Co. with the Government of the United States. As this is not the first Question put to me imputing either breach of trust or improper conduct to Admiralty officials, I hope that before any further charges of the same kind are made the Member putting the Question will take the trouble of ascertaining whether there is reasonable ground for assuming that there is any truth in the allegations with which he associates his name.

  NAVY—H.M.S. "PHAETON."
  ADMIRAL FIELDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, with reference to the Phaeton at Portsmouth, and the recent several "breaks down" of her machinery, Whether he is satisfied that due caution was observed by those responsible for taking over the engines from the contractors before they were finally accepted; whether the last breaking of one of her pistons and cylinders is due to some inherent me-
  1194
  chanical defect in the engines themselves, and such as no caution on the part of the engineers's staff on board could foresee or guard against; whether, immediately prior to the ship being commissioned, her engine-room staff of officers and stokers were drafted off for service in other ships with the sole exception of the chief engineer, thereby necessitating the appointment of other engineers and men entirely unacquainted with the engines, and depriving the chief engineer of the assistance to which he had been accustomed; whether such action meets with his approval, and whether it may not have contributed to her break down; and, whether the other ships of Phaeton class are engined by the same firm of contractors, and whether any serious complaints have been received in respect of their machinery?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): Due caution was not observed in certain particulars by those responsible for taking over the engines of the Phaeton from the contractors. The several officers concerned have been censured by the Admiralty, and the chief engineer has been removed from the ship. The last accident, whereby one of the cylinders was injured, was caused by the breaking of a piston rod. The rod where broken shows the existence of a defect not previously apparent, but which may have existed for some time. The defect is one which it would be difficult for the engineer staff on board to foresee and guard against, but the subject is being now inquired into. With the exception of the chief engineer, and sometimes one other, there is no engine-room staff actually belonging to a ship of this size until she is put into commission. The staff necessary for the efficient maintenance of the machinery is supplied by the Steam Reserve, and when orders are received to commission the ship the men who have been employed upon her are as far as possible selected to compose her engine-room staff. In the case of the Phaeton the men who had been so employed had, from various causes, been drafted away before the order was received to commission her, with the exception of three stokers who formed part of her staff. None of the accidents that subsequently occurred in the ship can be attributed to this cause. The Leander and Arethusa are of the Phaeton class,

  1195
  and were built and engined by the same contractors, Messrs. Napier, of Glasgow, but no serious complaints have been received in respect of the machinery of these two ships.
  ADMIRAL FIELDasked whether the cylinder of the Phaeton, as well as the piston, had broken?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, there was a crack in one of the cylinders.

  BULGARIA—MESSAGE OF PRINCE ALEXANDER TO THE CZAR.
  SIR RICHARD TEMPLEasked, Whether the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs could tell the House whether the message of Prince Alexander of Bulgaria to the Emperor of Russia and His Imperial Majesty's reply, which had appeared in the newspapers, were authentic?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): We have been informed that some such communications have passed, but we are not in official possession of the documents. The hon. Member will have observed that they were published in the official Gazette at St. Petersburg.

MOTION.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.—RESOLUTION.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL), in rising to move—
  "That the Committees of Supply and Ways and Means, and all stages of the Appropriation Bill, have precedence of other Orders of the Day and the Notices of Motions on every day on which they may be appointed; that the Standing Order, No. 21, relating to Notices on going into Committee of Supply on Monday and Thursday be extended to the other days of the week,"
  said: In proposing this Motion, which has been on the Paper for some days, perhaps the House will allow me to support it with a few preliminary remarks. I am not altogether without hope—though possibly the hope may seem a bold one—that this Motion may be agreed to without a division. The Motion, it will be observed, is in absolute and logical connection with the meeting of Parliament at this time of year. The policy of calling Parliament together
  1196
  at this time of year has been questioned in the course of preceding debates, and it undoubtedly is a policy which is open to argument. There is much to be said both for and against it. Undoubtedly, it involves great personal inconvenience and sacrifice to all hon. Members in this House, and the season of the year is, on many grounds, unsuited to the transaction of Public Business. On the other hand, there are strong reasons why the Government should not have postponed for any considerable length of time obtaining from Parliament the money necessary for the Services during the current year. The course which the Government adopted is exactly analogous to that adopted in 1841. In that year the Government of Lord Melbourne, after a General Election, was defeated on a Vote of Confidence on August 27. The Government resigned on August 30; the Writs for the election of Ministers who had accepted Office were issued on September 8, and Parliament assembled on September 16 for the transaction of indispensable Public Business. Sir Robert Peel then stated that it was the intention of the Government to limit the demand upon Parliament to the transaction of so much of the Business of Supply as had been left over by the outgoing Government, and, after a slight protest from Lord John Russell, that course was agreed to by the House without a division. But not only is our course founded upon the precedent of 1841; it is also, I submit, a strictly Constitutional course. The present Government, when they came into Office, could not feel any certainty that, as a Government, they would possess the confidence of Parliament; and I think that it will be apparent that a Government in that position would not have been acting in accordance with Constitutional precedents in spending during a period of several months large sums of public money. Moreover, we should have been spending large sums of public money in connection with the government of Ireland before one single important Irish Vote had been submitted to Parliament. We might have gone on spending money by means of Votes on Account, and the Irish Representatives would have had no opportunity of controlling the expenditure. That, I think, would not have been a Constitutional course. The

  1197
  hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) remarked last night that there was no Business of importance now before Parliament, and that the necessary Business of Supply might well have been put off until October. I do not think that the hon. Member will maintain that view on reflection. Suppose that Parliament had not been called together until October 1, and suppose that the debate on the Address had occupied the same amount of time which has been occupied recently, the month of October would probably have been almost entirely taken up, and it would have been out of the power of Parliament to deal efficiently with the Supplies of the year, and a further Vote on Account for a large sum of money would have been necessary. But more than that, if that course had been adopted, it would not have been in the power of the Government to proceed with any legislation, because the months of October, November, and December would have been entirely taken up with the consideration by Parliament of the £20,000,000 of Supply remaining to be voted for the Services of the year. The House will see that the margin of time for voting this large sum of money would have been excessively narrow if the assembling of Parliament had been postponed to the month of October. There is another matter which has been made the subject of comment—that the Government, though the Queen's Speech only referred to the Estimates, have in their speeches on the Address considerably enlarged the scope of the debate. I admit that this is a charge which may be brought, whether fairly and reasonably or not I will not say, but if the Government have made an error they have made the error from a cause which almost invariably leads to error—namely, that they have desired to please everybody. We were told by some that it would be highly improper for us to state, with any amount of detail, our policy for Ireland; and again we were told by others that it would be highly improper if we did not state, with a considerable amount of detail, our decided policy for Ireland. Well, we tried to pursue a middle course. We laid before the House, as is usual on the formation of a new Government, the views we entertained on the question of the hour beyond which we could not at present go. Undoubtedly we might have limited our-
  1198
  selves to the actual scope of the Queen's Speech, and have refused to make any communication whatever as to our views on the question of Ireland; but I am bound to say that I think that course would have exposed us to formidable attacks and accusations which it would have been difficult to meet satisfactorily. Now, the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork which he has put down on the Paper indicates that in his opinion the House ought to proceed immediately with legislation for Ireland, either by the Government or on the Motion of private Members in the absence of such action being taken by the Government. I really cannot at all agree with, nor do I think any very large section of hon. Gentlemen opposite will be disposed to agree with that contention. I cannot conceive any policy more likely to bring into contempt the Executive Government and the Imperial Parliament in Ireland than that it should be supposed in Ireland that the Executive Government and the Imperial Parliament are ready, at almost 24 hours' notice, to turn out any quantity of schemes of legislation as a panacea for all the difficulties and grievances of that country. It is more than possible that many of the difficulties with which we have now to contend arise from that principle having been too much neglected; and certainly I was of opinion that when I stated to the House that the Government would ask the House to discourage legislation on the part of private Members at this time of the year, that statement met with general acceptance and approval in the House. It must be obvious to the hon. Member for Cork that what I may call the physical impossibilities of inducing the House of Commons to address itself seriously to large schemes of legislation at this period of the year are insuperable; and I cannot but nope that the hon. Member for Cork on serious reflection will find that there is on that subject not much difference of opinion between himself and Her Majesty's Government, and will be content with raising a discussion on this Motion, which discussion, I admit, he is legitimately entitled to raise. We have pledged ourselves as a Government to produce at the meeting of Parliament next year such schemes of legislation as we may be able to decide upon and mature in the autumn and winter; but

  1199
  I would seriously point out to the House that if the proceedings of this Session were to be greatly protracted, and if the energies of Members and Ministers were to be greatly exhausted by such protracted proceedings, it will obviously become almost impossible for the Government to fulfil that pledge—[Opposition laughter, and "Hear, hear!"]—we do not all possess the iron constitution of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere); few people do—and it will also become very difficult for the Government to summon Parliament as early next year. That is a matter which the House ought seriously to consider, not only in the interests of the Government—I ask no consideration on their behalf—but also in the interests of Parliament as a whole, and in the interests of the country. There is only one more consideration by which I support this Motion. This Motion is intended to wind up, with as much expedition as is reasonable and decent, the Business of the Session, and to allow Members to separate in reasonable time for the annual Recess. I would not, for a moment, wish the House to understand that I am advocating anything like a rapid or slovenly discussion of the Estimates. I have always protested against that, and always shall. I am not asking for anything but that the House will concentrate its attention on the Estimates, and proceed without unreasonable dilatoriness or loss of time. What I would submit to the House is this, and I submit it with all seriousness, that the difficulties which lie in the future before the Government are very great indeed. No one can be more deeply impressed with the magnitude of those difficulties than are my Colleagues and myself, and certainly I see no possibility of arriving at anything like a solution of those difficulties, unless the House and the country are prepared to give a reasonable amount of time during which the Government may take thought for a future so anxious and so grave. But I would also point out that, great as are the difficulties of the Government, the Opposition also are surrounded by great difficulties. It will not be easy for the Opposition, it must be a matter of immense consideration and deliberation for them to decide upon the line of action which may unite their forces, and may bring them into that path by which they may attain the object, and the
  1200
  honourable object, of all Oppositions—to place themselves in the position of governing the country. I imagine that they also will find great difficulty in arriving at a solution of that question, and certainly the element of time will not be against them. But, in the third place, I would add this, that, great as are the difficulties of the Government, considerable as are the difficulties of the Opposition, I think it is not impossible—I say this without wishing to give the slightest offence—that the difficulties of the hon. Member for Cork are great beyond all. Well, Sir, that being so, I submit that the main reason for this Motion is, that the Business of the House be conducted with reasonable expedition, and that all Parties who, in their own light, are animated by one object—namely, that of securing the welfare of the country—may take reasonable time to take stock of their position, and to realize, as far as they can, the prospects of the future. It may be that it will be impossible in the immediate future to avoid great and bitter controversies which may involve the fate of Ministries and the life of Parliament; but, at any rate, it is not imprudent, it is not impolitic, to suggest, before these controversies are finally entered upon, there should be a reasonable period for reflection and calculation, so that whatever the issue of the controversies may be, at any rate it may not be said that Parliament has been precipitate, or hurried, or rash in its conclusions. These are really the reasons—I will venture to call them reasons of high policy—which have induced the Government to make this large demand upon the Privileges of Parliament and the time of the House. It is not put forward in any controversial spirit, or with any desire to take any undue advantage of hon. Members, or to, in any way, hurry the voting of Supplies through the House. It is put forward solely and only in the interests of the House and the public, and because we believe that by this action we shall best secure the general convenience of Parliament at large, and the general safety and security of the interests which, for the time, we have committed to our charge.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Committees of Supply and Ways and Means, and all stages of the Appropriation Bill, have precedence of other Orders of the

  1201
  Day and the Notices of Motions on every day on which they may be appointed."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  MR. DILLONsaid, he thought the Motion of the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Lord Randolph Churchill) at this time of the Session was an unprecedented proceeding, and ought not to be agreed to without great consideration on the part of hon. Members. The noble Lord had wandered back to 1841 in order to find a precedent—the only semblance of a precedent on the matter—but he did not go into the details of that precedent. On that occasion Parliament was dissolved early in August, and the Elections took place in September, and Parliament was called together on the 18th of September.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL): On that occasion Parliament was dissolved on June 26. The Government resigned on August 30.
  MR. DILLONsaid, that, however that might be, the noble Lord did not tell the House whether the Session of 1841 was practically a barren Session. Before he dealt with the character of the Motion he wished to say a few words in reference to the speech in which the noble Lord sought to enforce his views on the House. Not only was the attempted parallel between the two cases no parallel at all, but the noble Lord had misquoted the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell). The noble Lord represented the hon. Member for Cork as having said last night that there was no urgent Business before the House; but what he did say was that there was no legislation before the House, and that the Business for which it was now proposed to take the whole time of the House to the exclusion of all other possible Business was not urgent, since the Government had enough money to carry them on until the 31st of October. The noble Lord had said that the explanations which the Government had given of their Irish policy had been given owing to a desire on their part to try and please all Parties. There certainly had been no apparent desire of this character in anything which the Government had done. The Government had tried to justify the reason why it had not stated its policy in the Speech from the Throne by hinting that the
  1202
  declaration of policy was to be made in speeches in the House. Now that was contrary to the facts. It must have been evident to all that it was impossible for the Government to state their policy and continue to exist, and that the policy of the Government would not be made known unless on compulsion. One of the reasons which had led hon. Members on that side of the House to oppose this Motion arose out of those very explanations for which the noble Lord took credit. Then, considering the course of Business recommended by the Government, he recognized that under certain circumstances, such as the time of the year, the condition of the country and the like, there might be little to say against the Resolution of the noble Lord. But these were not such circumstances as those in which they now found themselves. The conditions of the present situation, so far at least as Ireland was concerned, were of such a character that it was necessary for the noble Lord in the fulfilment of his duty to prove urgency before he could ask the House to pass the Resolution. What was that Resolution? It was a demand for the whole time of the House for Business already provided for, and that Standing Order 21 should be rescinded, and the only reason given for this demand was that hon. Members were tired and wanted to get away for a holiday. The effect of the passing of the second clause would be, as a matter of fact, to prevent the bringing up of grievances before Supply, or the discussion of anything not strictly confined to the Resolution in question. Thus, there would be but one discussion on the Army, one on the Navy, and one on the Civil Service Estimates, and private Members would be deprived of Tuesdays, Wednesday, and Fridays, the days on which other discussions and grievances most important to the public would take place. He contended that there never had been an occasion on which the Irish Members ought to be more jealous in granting the Government money before the expression of their grievances. As to the time of year at which the present Parliament had been called, he could not treat that as an argument for the Resolution. Who was it that urged on the late Government that Parliament should meet at this season of the year? The last Government had

  1203
  wished to postpone the meeting of Parliament until October, but the present Government insisted that a pledge should be given that Parliament would be called together immediately after the Elections. The late Prime Minister the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) had declared that no consideration would induce him to postpone the measures which he considered necessary for the difficulty in Ireland, and in answer to appeals from Irish Members and from Members of the present Government that it would be a dereliction of duty to postpone the Irish Question over next winter. The Conservative Party agreed that the Irish Question was urgent; but now that they were in Office they wanted to postpone it. It was said that a policy for Ireland could not be framed in 24 hours; but those who spoke in this tone reminded one of Rip Van Winkle, and must have forgotten that the Irish Question had been discussed ad nauseam for the past five years. However, though the month of August was not a pleasant one to be in London, yet why did the Government meet in it, for if they had honest intentions to deal with the Irish Question, they could have postponed the meeting of Parliament till October? The Irish Party took care to impress the House that the difficulty in Ireland could not bear to wait, yet in the face of those warnings the present Government decided at any cost—perhaps he might say at a fearful cost—to postpone the evil hour, to summon Parliament in August that Members might be desirous of escaping from London owing to the strain of the season, and thus achieve the postponement of the Irish difficulty to next spring. The noble Lord had made an important statement to-night. It was only now that it had leaked out that the Government intended to meet Parliament in the spring with Irish proposals; and why this determination? A very few nights ago the Government had hoped that the Commission of Inquiry would report at the end of next spring, and stated that the Report would then require immense deliberation and consideration before the Government could come to any definite decision. The Irish Party, from the necessity of their situation, were compelled to continue the discussion, in the hope that the Government would still further mend
  1204
  their hand—in the hope that the Government would give them a policy, perhaps an ad interim and temporary policy, which would bridge over the evils which would surely follow on the continuance of their present attitude. He again reminded the Government that the House had been in possession of full information for years, and that the late Prime Minister in attempting to frame that information into legislation had been repeatedly assailed by the present Government to produce his policy, even a few weeks being grudged him to formulate it. The Irish Party would press the Government for their policy for carrying on the Executive in Ireland during the coming winter. So far as that policy appeared it might be divided into two parts—the first consisting of Irish proposals to be introduced at the beginning of next Session, and the second proposals for tiding over the winter, and carrying on the administration. The Government had practically laid before the House no distinct proposals of remedy for dealing with the immediate emergency in Ireland except the sending of General Buller to Kerry, and the firm administration of the law, and this course was to be pursued in the face of the failure of past experience of the same character. The conditions when the last Government came in were more favourable to an easy rule in Ireland than they were now, and yet at Christmas they had been told that they were face to face with a Coercion Bill. Proposals of policy precisely like those of the Government were carried into effect, and the consequence was that the policy had utterly broken down. Common sense would tell anybody that the pursuit of the same course, under a worse environment, would only end in the same goal of coercion, and that of an aggravated kind. When the Government had entered upon the task of governing Ireland last year they had sent over a Governor who—whatever dispute there might be as to his political views—had undoubtedly ingratiated himself a great deal with the people, and had led them to believe that he had come there to initiate the true policy—a policy of conciliation and concession. Lord Carnarvon had made a most remarkable declaration, which had undoubtedly aroused the hatred and indignation of Irish land-

  1205
  lords, and had encouraged the Irish people to hope and be peaceful. That declaration was a hint to the landlords to exercise their rights with prudence and restraint, and not to embarrass the Government. The consequence of this was that there was a most extraordinary falling off in the number of evictions in Ireland during last winter, a falling off averaging 50 per cent, which he could attribute to nothing but the declaration of Lord Carnarvon. But in the following quarter in 1886 the evictions rose to above their usual average, and this in consequence of a similar policy to that which the Government now intended to pursue—the policy of "no surrender," to use an Irish phrase of provocation—of the encouragement of the landlords, and the promise to them of the armed protection of the law in carrying out evictions. This would give the House the best reason to believe that the coming winter would be one of most dangerous disturbance in Ireland unless something different were done. The pursuance of the present policy would compel the Government, instead of meeting Parliament next spring with remedial measures, to revive coercion. The Irish Party had been accused of wasting time when they impressed on the Government arguments like these. They would, however, by persistent debate, continue still to try and induce the Government to hold out some hope of protection to the Irish tenants during the coming winter, and by so doing attempt their beat to prevent baneful occurrences, and hinder the Government from treading the old fatal path—which, as surely as the sun rose, they were certain to tread—followed so fruitlessly in the past. Would that not be worth a week or a fortnight of debate? If the Irish Members were put down, he could only say that the House would find to the cost of its time and temper that it made a great mistake in allowing the heat of August to make them shut their ears and ignore common sense and reason. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Joseph Chamberlain) enjoyed justly Tory confidence, and even he had stated, on the 9th April last, that the agrarian difficulty was the cause of the recrudescence of crime in Ireland, and that at least that cause should be made force-
  1206
  less for a time, and that the "Truce of God" existing in Ireland might be continued by bringing in a Bill to suspend all eviction for six months, leaving the question of arrears to be settled in connection with any ultimate settlement of the Land Question; and that he would throw upon the Government the duty of lending to the landlords such amounts as might be necessary to keep them out of distress and destitution. It was an extraordinary thing that the right hon. Gentleman should not have stood by that statement of his. Nothing had happened since the 9th of April to lessen the force of that appeal or the strain of the situation; on the contrary, much had occurred to accentuate it; and if the right hon. Gentleman had been justified at that time in the proposal which he had made, he was now bound ten times more strongly to support such a measure. On the 9th of April the people of Ireland had had many causes for suffering in patience which were now taken away from them, and that had been towards the beginning of summer, which was a time when the smallest number of evictions always took place. The appeal which the noble Lord had now made to the House was, in his opinion, a delusive one. The noble Lord had appealed to them to allow hon. Members to go away from that House in order calmly to consider the situation in Ireland. The situation in Ireland could not be calmly considered. Instead of calmly considering a state of things which required present remedy, they would go to their homes, not quietly to ruminate, but to be inflamed with accounts of the results of Irish evictions to such an extent that coercion, not remedy, would be the only consideration. The "Truce of God" spoken of by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham would be broken in Ireland, and the passions of the people would be so inflamed that they would not be in a temper to consider remedial measures. He maintained that the situation in Ireland would not wait; it would not allow them to consider it patiently. It required to be dealt with at present, and if it were not possible to deal with it permanently, it must be dealt with temporarily. Admittedly the winter in Ireland would be a dangerous one, and he strongly recommended the

  1207
  Government to show their earnestness by introducing even a temporary measure for six months. Before sitting down he wished to make a last appeal to the Government—that was that they would consider that the urgency of the case in Ireland was amply sufficient to justify the action he and those acting with him were taking. Further, that they would not give way to impatience—that they would not be deluded into the belief that they could brush aside Ireland and leave it until next spring. Besides, he assured the Government, by setting aside this question, they would be laying up for themselves, in the future, an enormous waste of public time and energy and of the temper of hon. Members of the House, compared with which any discussion just now was the merest child's play. He begged to move the Amendment to the Motion of the noble Lord of which he had given Notice.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House the state of Ireland is such as to require the proposal of remedial measures by the Government, before the time of the House is appropriated solely to the Business of Supply,"—(Mr. Dillon,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Though I agree in a great deal which the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) has said, I do not find myself able to concur in the conclusions at which he has arrived. In all that he has said as to the grave condition of Ireland at this moment I cordially concur. That is the position which this side of the House has taken from the earliest moment of the present year. We urged upon the former Conservative Government the necessity of taking remedial measures for dealing with the matter at once. When the late Government came into power they recognized the necessity of dealing with the Irish Question at once. They felt, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) stated, that one of the chief grounds which induced him to propound the policy for which we are responsible was the impossibility of meeting the coming winter
  1208
  without doing something for the settlement of Ireland. We have always stated, and we now still believe, that it is an unwise and unsafe policy to leave matters in Ireland for the winter without a remedy and without doing anything. We have always believed that there is only one alternative—that is to say, to propose for Ireland at once a policy either of conciliation or a policy of coercion—that one of these two policies will be absolutely necessary, and that it is impossible to avoid them. That is what my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lothian has constantly stated in the course of the last few months. Therefore, there is no doubt we regard the responsibilities of the present Government as of the gravest character in undertaking to meet the coming winter in Ireland without doing anything at all—without propounding such measures for the maintenance of social order as may be necessary. But then the situation of the House is that the Government have the power and the responsibility, and we must consider what, with regard to the public interest, we can do in this matter. Having made our protest against the policy, in view of the coming winter in Ireland, of doing nothing on the part of the Government, we must lay upon them the whole responsibility of the consequences of their action. But I would ask the hon. Member for East Mayo what we can do in this matter, having regard to the responsibility which belongs to the Government—what course can we take? Suppose we reject the Motion of the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Lord Randolph Churchill) and adopt this Amendment we have no power to compel the Government to bring in remedial measures. The majority does not rest with us, and they have determined they will bring forward no measures with reference to Ireland this Session. The hon. Member for East Mayo and others had an opportunity on the Address of bringing forward their views with reference to the condition of Ireland and the dangers in Ireland, and of expressing their opinion as to the impolicy of the course the Government proposed to pursue. What more can they do, supposing the Motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer were rejected? It is true in the ordinary course we might have at our disposal

  1209
  Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Fridays; but the hon. Member for East Mayo must feel—I am sure we all feel—that in dealing with the question of Ireland it is hopeless to expect that we can deal with it by legislation of private Members. It is too large and grave a question to be disposed of in that manner. Nor can we hope to succeed by proceeding in that way. If the hon. Member for East Mayo, or any Member on this side, were to propound some measure opposed by a majority of this House, of course we should have no chance of passing it. The hon. Member might show the necessity and the gravity of the situation; but we have had an opportunity of doing that, and I would point out to the hon. Member that all future opportunities are not gone, because upon the various stages of the Appropriation Bill, before the final control of the money goes out of the hands of the House of Commons, for the purpose of bringing forward the consideration of a question of policy of that kind, the opportunity is given according to the Constitutional practice of the House. I do not see really what we can do to forward the object of the hon. Member, with which to a great extent I sympathize. If I thought we had any resource left of urging upon the Government more strongly than we have hitherto urged the danger of the delay they propose, and the extreme necessity and expediency of, in some form or other, bringing forward measures, there might be some reason for the Amendment. We can hardly ask them to bring forward the measures which they have suggested, because they are measures of which we do not approve. If I saw any way of pressing upon them, with any prospect of success, the expediency of dealing with the great dangers in Ireland, I would support the Amendment of the hon. Member; but I confess I do not see that we should succeed or have any better prospect of success than that which has been already afforded to us upon the Address, or that we may have again, if necessary, upon the Appropriation Bill. I do not see that any Motion to give private Members Wednesdays and Fridays would do any good. The hon. Member has spoken in a manner which is highly deserving of the attention of the House, and his words are deeply
  1210
  deserving the attention and consideration of the Government. But the Government are resolved to do nothing for Ireland till next February, and we are without the power to induce them to do so. Therefore, looking at all the circumstances of the case, to the necessities of the Public Service, and to the time—even if we had the disposal of the time from this until October we could not do anything in the face of the attitude of the Government—I do not myself see what can be gained even from the point of view of the hon. Member for East Mayo by the Amendment, and, as far as I am concerned, I shall support the Motion of the noble Lord.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, he would be one of the greatest sufferers were the Motion of the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Lord Randolph Churchill) adopted, because of the place he held on the Paper—the first place on Wednesday—for an extremely important Bill, not exclusively an Irish Bill, but one affecting the community in general—he referred to the Amendment of the Employers' Liabilities Act. Any such Bill as that ought to receive a fair discussion, and he did not think any of the arguments brought forward by the noble Lord met the case. Were workmen to be shut out from compensation for six months or 12 months because certain hon. Members were anxious for a little relaxation? Hon. Members had not been very long there. They had only been in attendance about three weeks, and he thought they might be able to do something for the good of Ireland and the working classes. They had all had a good deal of relaxation recently—they had all had the excitement of a General Election; and if the noble Lord did not think he would be the better for doing some work which was urgent, he ought surely not to be indisposed to allow private Members to do it. The noble Lord asked the House to deprive Members of the privilege and opportunity of introducing measures, and he thought they could not consent to any such infringement of their rights. He did not quite follow the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt), that they could not force the Government to undertake remedial measures. The Government might not always have a majority in the House. Private Bills might be

  1211
  brought forward or Resolutions which, the Liberal Unionists might feel bound to support. He did not think the Unionist Liberals always would support the Government to prevent radical measures or remedial measures for Ireland being carried. The noble Lord wished to limit their opportunities for bringing those test questions forward, and to that they could not consent. The noble Lord had proposed Commissioners. He did not think these Commissioners were bad in themselves; but what were they going to do for the next five or six months? What did the noble Lord think the people were to think and to do in the interval? If he were to do now even a little, a small portion of what was to be proposed in the grand scheme of the Commissioners—if he would only spend a little of the money now that he intended to do, and bring in a Bill for that purpose, he thought he would not be disappointed. That was quite apropos of the question now being discussed. To a certain extent, the hon. Members of the Government side were muzzled by their position, although he must confess that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson) did not look as if he were muzzled. They, however, who sat upon the Opposition side were free, and why should they not be allowed to bring forward their different Bills, a course of action which ought, to a great extent, relieve the great responsibility of the noble Lord, and it would be for the Government to accept or to reject them?
  MR. J. STUARTsaid, he did not rise to obstruct the Business of the House, but to do what was the duty of every hon. Member—namely, to state the reason why he should vote for the Amendment, and why he trusted that every hon. Member who belonged to the same Party as himself would support it. He was sorry that right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench did not see their way to vote for the Amendment; but he took no exception to the line of argument adopted by the right hon. Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt), whose conduct on the question of Ireland was daily commanding the increasing respect of that portion of the House in which he sat. His own reason for voting for the Amendment was a very simple one. He did not desire to urge
  1212
  upon the Government to bring forward any complete scheme relating to Ireland; but he saw a winter approaching full of promise of trouble, and he desired to obtain from the Government some form of expression of sympathy with those persons who were tenants, and who would suffer the most through the unfortunate troubles. Troubles were ahead in Ireland, and would be imminent when the Coercion Bill which he believed would shortly be proposed from the other side was brought in. It would be at least a comfort to him (Mr. Stuart) to recollect that he freed his conscience by joining with the Irish Members in warning the Government of the danger ahead.
  ME. A. L. BROWNsaid, Scotch Members, and even Scotch Radicals, were not always found siding with the Irish Nationalists, and he hoped hon. Members would pardon him if he asked a few minutes' indulgence while he endeavoured to explain what appeared to many the extraordinary phenomenon of the hon. Member for the Border Burghs supporting the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell). Now, he was glad to intervene, even at this late stage, for this reason—that he saw Liberal Unionists and Unionist newspapers making the charge that the so-called Gladstonian Liberals were becoming ashamed of these Motions. He came quite frequently in contact with Gladstonian Liberals, and he never heard such an extraordinary opinion. Horace said that men easily believed what they wanted to believe; but the only opinion he heard expressed just now by those called Gladstonian Liberals was that the Scotch and the Welsh Radicals would firmly adhere to the Irish Nationalists in the present struggle, and endeavour to keep up the good spirit which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian had awakened within the Irish breast. The Amendment spoke of the urgency of measures for ameliorating the condition of the Irish people. It was on account of that urgency that he was in the British House of Commons. The people of the Border Burghs would never have quarrelled with such a dear political friend (Sir George Trevelyan) as they had had it not been that the condition of the Irish Question was so very urgent. When the Election came round and the candidates presented

  1213
  themselves the people asked the question—"Are you willing to give to the Irish people measures that will ameliorate their condition? Do you recognize, and will you rise to, the urgency of the question, and will you give them an Irish Parliament for the management of purely Irish affairs, because, if you do not, we must get servants who will execute our desires?" This policy of urgency his constituency in the Border Burghs considered so urgent that it caused them to make the great sacrifice to which he had referred—namely, of parting with Sir George Trevelyan. Now, however—when he came there—he found that this policy of urgency was met by what was called a policy of great deliberation, a policy which was presented to them as if it was something new, but which, after all, was a policy with which his constituents and himself were perfectly familiar. With reference to the words in the Address, "measures for ameliorating the condition of the Irish people," he might say that he did not propose to say a single word in regard to any political measure—in regard, that was to say, to Home Rule, though he dared say even that might very well come under the head of urgency. They had been promising and giving the Irish people political measures for the last 86 years, and for 86 years the condition of Ireland had gone steadily back. [Cries of "No!"] He would be glad to be corrected; but such was his reading of Irish history. He would not, however, say a single word on that question. The people of this country thought very strongly in politics, and he thought that the claim put forward by the Government for time to consider the remedy for laws which they admitted were bad and required reform—[Cries of "No!"] Well, he had seen many reports of speeches by Conservative Members, in which it was admitted that something very considerable must be done in the way of reform. He admitted that the claim on the part of the Government for time, so far as the reform of the laws was concerned, was a reasonable claim, and one he did not think the hon. Member for Cork or his followers were inclined to find fault with or dispute. If they had to wait for six, nine, 18, or 24 months until they had a Parliament in College Green, and got it at that time, they might be very well
  1214
  content. But there were some things—not political institutions—which the people of Ireland could not wait for so easily. When the poorest class of people were suffering from cold and hunger it was not so easy to ask them to wait. There were two claims of urgency before the House. One was the claim of the Government that they should have time to consider a Home Rule measure, or a measure of Irish government reform. And the Opposition asked, would the Government in the interval between the present time and the period when they intended to reform laws they admitted to be bad—would the Government give a guarantee in the meantime that these bad laws would not be used to oppress and tyrannize over the poor people of Ireland? Each Party had its clients, and each of them was entitled to state its clients' case. The Government had to plead for the landlords, who, he quite admitted, had not been getting their rents paid as they ought to do; but, on the other hand, they on the Opposition Benches had to plead for the poor people of Ireland, and they were equally entitled with the Government to be listened to. Reference had been made to a speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Joseph Chamberlain) in which he suggested a suspension of evictions. He read the speech of the right hon. Member in which he suggested the suspension of evictions, and the view he (Mr. A. L. Brown) then took of it was, that the right hon. Gentleman was a man with a heart. He (Mr. A. L. Brown) took the same view of the matter; and he could not understand how any man with a heart, having once proposed the Suspension of Evictions Bill, could ever recede from that position. He could understand a great statesman saying political situations could wait; but he could not understand a man who admitted that the condition of the people was so bad as to necessitate a Suspension of Evictions Bill throwing up that proposal. He remembered that when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham came to Scotland he won the hearts of the working men by his proposal to relieve the people of school rates, and to give the crofters not only their pastoral but also their arable land. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman why it was that he was rapidly losing the hearts of

  1215
  the working men? It was because that when the Irish tenants called upon him "for mercy's sake to stay and stick to his proposal to suspend evictions," he turned round and said—"No, the claims of Party will not allow me to do so." He appealed to the Liberal Unionists to reconsider this matter. A very grave responsibility rested on them. They had been boasting how the power really lay in their hands. A very serious state of facts had been brought forward—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is not speaking to the Question of Precedence, which is sought to be given by the Resolution of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  MR. A. L. BROWNsaid, he was very sorry for having transgressed, but he would try to speak to the question of urgency. He appealed to the Government and to the Liberal Unionists, who claimed to hold the position of arbiters, not to turn a deaf ear to the cries and entreaties of the Irish people—who asked that something should be done for them before the winter—and warned them of the grave responsibility which rested upon them if they failed to realize their duty.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he objected to the Motion of the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill) because it trenched very dangerously upon the independence of the Privileges of Parliament. It would establish a precedent of a very sinister character. The noble Lord referred to the precedent of 1841. He submitted that the precedent quoted was one that would not bear the noble Lord out at all. In the year 1841, the Government of Lord Melbourne were defeated on the question of finance, at a time when the whole Kingdom was in a great state of distress, as Ireland now was. The question of the Corn Laws was being debated, and whatever Government were in power were under the necessity of dealing with that matter, as any Government now was under the necessity of dealing with the Irish Question. The noble Lord said Sir Robert Peel adopted the same plan; but Sir Robert Peel did nothing of the kind. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had quoted as much as suited his purpose, and had left out what told on the other side. On the 16th of September, when the Parliament met, Sir Robert Peel proposed to defer a state-
  1216
  ment of the intentions of the Government with regard to re-establishing the equilibrium between Income and Expenditure until the following year, and also to defer other matters; but, so far from obtaining the assent of his opponents to that proposal, he was opposed by Lord John Russell and Lord Palmerston. So strong was the feeling of some hon. Members that the attitude of the Government was unjustifiable, that Mr. Fielden moved that no Supply be granted until after inquiry into the cause of the then existing distress. That was negatived by the obedient majority of the Government; but the debate and the division showed that the unusual precedent was not allowed to pass without Constitutional challenge. He (Mr. A. O'Connor) demurred altogether to the proposal—from a Constitutional point of view—to the establishment of such a precedent as the noble Lord proposed. He denied that the voting of Supplies was the only function of the House. The Houses of Parliament had, as their principal functions, to decide upon and formulate the legislation of the country, to inquire into grievances, and to reform the laws—functions quite as important as the supply of the necessary means of carrying on the administration of the Sovereign. [On this point the hon. Gentleman quoted from recognized Constitutional authorities in support of his contention]. The hon. Member proceeding, said, that the course Government proposed to adopt was in flagrant violence to the spirit of all Constitutional procedure, and it was likely to establish what might hereafter prove a very dangerous precedent, and it ought not to be allowed to pass without some protest at the hands of private Members. With regard to the Amendment, and the urgency of the situation in Ireland, it appeared to him to be a great pity that this House should, in the circumstances, be asked to limit its activity to the voting of Supplies for the Crown, without taking any measure for the relief of distress, the removal of abuse, or the reform of laws, whether in the shape of a Bill introduced by the Government or by a private Member.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH)said, he hoped that the House might now be willing to permit the debate to close. The hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. A. O'Connor) had

  1217
  raised what, in his (Mr. A. O'Connor's) mind, was a very grave Constitutional question. But the point really at issue appeared to be a very narrow one. It was not contended that it would be agreeable to the House, or advantageous to the Public Service of the country, that they should proceed with ordinary legislation at the present time. The only whisper to the contrary was in the case of the hon. Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan), who had a little Bill of his own, for which he had a natural affection as for his own child. Considering the labours they had gone through during the past two years, both in and out of the House, they must all feel that a Recess of the ordinary duration was necessary to enable the House to prosecute to the best advantage the Business they had been elected to do. To proceed with such measures as had been placed on the Notice Paper by private Members, making changes of more or less importance in our laws, or to discuss changes of graver Constitutional importance, would be a thing they ought not to be asked to do, because their performance of it could in no respect be satisfactory to the country. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) had told them that their choice with regard to Irish affairs was between a policy of conciliation and a policy of coercion; and, as he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had gathered from the right hon. Gentleman, he considered the policy of the Government was a policy of do nothing. [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT was understood to express dissent.] He (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) thought the right hon. Gentleman had forgotten that they had no such choice as that. What the right hon. Gentleman called a policy of conciliation was a policy of Constitutional change of the gravest importance, such as he and his Colleagues proposed in the last Parliament. Against that the present Government were pledged as strongly as any Government could be. Neither now nor in February were they at all likely to meet the views of the right hon. Gentleman on this subject. The right hon. Gentleman's other alternative was a policy of coercion. Did he want the Government to bring in a Coercion Bill at once for Ireland? It might be difficult for hon. Gentlemen to be-
  1218
  lieve, but it was none the less true, that the Government were not naturally fond of what was called coercion for Ireland. They would infinitely prefer to maintain order in Ireland through the process of the ordinary law. They were endeavouring to do that now, and they had explained to the House the means by which they proposed to operate. But they had not concealed from the House that if those means should prove insufficient, they might be compelled to have recourse to Parliament for greater powers of the nature which the right hon. Gentleman described. The complaint from hon. Members below the Gangway, including the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), appeared to be that the Government did not at once apply to Parliament to revive powers of this nature.
  MR. DILLONsaid, the complaint was that they did not apply to Parliament for some Bill which would obviate the necessity hereafter to apply for further powers for coercion.
  SIR. MICHAEL HICKS - BEACHsaid, that was a third alternative; but it had not been put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he had not meant to confine the Government to the conciliation involved in the proposals of the late Government. He had referred to a general measure of conciliation.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACHsaid, it was a little difficult to understand what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby did mean. He (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) quite admitted that the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) and his Colleagues, from their point of view, were entitled to blame the Government for not adopting the policy which was in the mind of the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. Dillon); but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby had no right to make such a charge against them because he had found himself unable to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork. The hon. Member for Cork and his Friends below the Gangway were of opinion that, owing to the fall in prices, the tenant farmers in Ireland could not pay even the judicial rents; and what they wished the House to pass was a Bill practically suspending evictions. That narrow

  1219
  point was really the issue between them. The hon. Member for Cork and his Friends asked for no other legislation now. He himself (Mr. Parnell) had said that he did not expect or desire a general revision of the Land Act at this time of the year. All he wished was a measure suspending evictions. He had urged the proposal with all the power of which he was possessed, and was supported by hon. Members around him, and by some who sat opposite, but not by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby. The Government had given the House their reasons for not adopting the proposal of the hon. Member for Cork, and, after full discussion, the matter had been decided against the hon. Gentleman; and yet the refusal to give the Government the time it asked for was based solely on the desire to raise this question again. It was not the fact that hon. Members would not have ample opportunities in the course of the discussion of the Votes in Supply, as well as at different stages of the Appropriation Bill, of bringing forward any matters in which they might take an interest. The Government did not, as his noble Friend (Lord Randolph Churchill) said, shrink from a full and ample discussion of those Votes. But what they did say was that they were, early in September, at a period of the year when it was extremely irksome to the great majority of hon. Members to be compelled to proceed with other than the necessary Business. They had had arduous work during the past few months, and they were entitled to a holiday. The Government asked the House to do that which was necessary for the completion of the ordinary Business of the year, and nothing else. They did not agree with the hon. Member for Cork that there was urgent need for that legislation affecting the question of Irish land which he desired. They deemed that there was reason for inquiry into that matter. [Laughter.] Hon. Members might laugh, but that was their policy. They admitted that there was reason for inquiry, and that inquiry they would undertake at once. They had every reason to anticipate that when next Session came they should be prepared with proposals on that important subject. But if the Government were to do any good with the policy which had been fully placed
  1220
  before the House by his noble Friend, they must have that time to consider their proposals to which every Government was entitled. It was not possible for the Government to go further than they had done at the present time in making proposals for legislation. When the time for doing so came he thought the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby would find that his taunt of a do-nothing policy was—in the circumstances—a very unfair description. For the present the first duty of the Government was to take steps for the proper administration of the affairs of Ireland. They had no more desire—as he had repeatedly stated to the House—than hon. Members opposite that there should be any harshness exercised by landlords towards tenants who were unable to pay their rent; but if tenants are able to pay their rent they ought to be made to do so, and the law of the land ought to be enforced in support of the maintenance of legal obligations. As to the future, the Government had announced their policy. By that policy they should abide. They asked the House now to transact the necessary Business for the year with as great expedition as possible, in order that hon. Members might be relieved from a very irksome duty, and in order that the Government might be able to turn their attention to measures which they hoped would prove of real advantage to Ireland.
  MR. PARNELL: I wish to explain, as the reason why I was not in my place to move the Amendment which stands in my name, that I was under the impression that the discussion upon the hon. Member for Northampton's (Mr. Labouchere's) Motion on the Report of the Address would have been resumed as the first Order. If I had understood that the Motion of the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Lord Randolph Churchill) was to have been brought forward thus early, I should certainly have been in my place to move the Amendment which I have given Notice of in opposition to the Motion of the noble Lord. It certainly was from no discourtesy to the noble Lord or to the House that I was absent. With reference to the Amendment which my hon. Friend the Member for Mayo has moved, I am glad he had the opportunity of moving an Amendment giving

  1221
  effect to the same view as I put forward, and of making a speech in support of it. I propose to make some observations with regard to the Amendment of my hon. Friend, and also with regard to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach). I have also a word or two to say with regard to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt). I wish to say that I do not find fault with the attitude which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby has taken upon this matter. I think it is reasonable that an English Member in his position should perhaps think it better, in all the circumstances of the case, to support the original urgency Motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but we Irish Members are in a very different position. My experience in this House has been, in reference to any gains that we have made, any victories which we have carried, that nothing is got except by constant persistence. The motto of "Try, try, try again" is the best one for the Irish Members to adopt. It has been successful in the case of every movement that we have made during the last 11 years in this House. I can run over very many matters, from the question of the abolition of flogging in the Army to the question of Irish autonomy, in which we have been engaged, and which has been simply brought to the front by a constant persistence, and by an exhibition of a belief, I hope, on our part, in the honesty and justice of the claims we made in this House. As regarded the charge of Obstruction, I think present circumstances showed it to be an absurdity, because I have shown last night that there was really no Business to obstruct. If I had desired to obstruct Public Business or the Government, I should certainly not waste powder and shot on this Session, but would keep it for next Session, when the Government would have brought forward their legislative measures. Of course, we are in this position, and we see that, in the present state of affairs, there is an analogy with that which presented itself at the close of the Session of 1880, when we had brought forward in the beginning of the Session a small Bill which was the foundation of the Compensation for Disturbance Bill. We brought forward that Bill as private Members on a
  1222
  Wednesday, and one of the propositions which the present Government make in this Resolution is to take away the Wednesdays from private Members, so that we may not have the opportunity of doing what we did then. The Government of the day, as the result of the debate on that Bill, promised to introduce a measure of their own. That measure was subsequently introduced in the form of the Compensation for Disturbance Bill, which was carried through all its stages by considerable majorities, and subsequently thrown out by the House of Lords. The present situation is analogous. You have in Ireland a state of affairs more intensified in their probable evil effects than existed even in 1880; consequently the necessity is all the more imperative on our part to urge on the Government the adoption of remedial legislation, and if they refuse to produce anything themselves, that we should produce something on our own account. In the debate on the Address I urged on the Government that they should bring forward a measure in reference to the Irish Land Question. The Government have refused to bring forward such a measure; I now propose to bring forward such a measure myself. I am at present engaged, with the help of some of my hon. Friends, in drafting the measure, and one of my objects in placing the Amendment to the Resolution of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Paper was to save, at all events, one Wednesday from the grasp of the Government for the discussion of that Bill. What I propose will be this. I do not know whether I shall be in Order in sketching the outline of the proposed measure that I submitted to the Government. I have described it in the debate on the Address. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland is mistaken in supposing that in the debate on the Address I only recommended a measure for the suspension of evictions. I have not recommended the suspension of evictions absolutely. I have recommended, in the first place, that power should be given to Irish leaseholders to apply to the Courts to fix a judicial rent. That is a proposal which has been made by two hon. Gentlemen, one a Liberal Unionist and the other a Conservative. Secondly, I recommended that power should be given to the tenants who had their rents

  1223
  fixed prior to a year or two ago to apply to the Courts for a revision on the basis of prices. Thirdly, I recommended that power should be given—as it is given in the Land Act—to the Courts to suspend proceedings in ejectments—not to suspend evictions—on payment, say, of three-fourths of the old or original rent. What I wish to ask the Government is this, and I think that the question is a fair one. It is true, as the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland has said, that hon. Members are here at present at considerable inconvenience. No doubt that is so. The heat of the weather recently has been very great, and hon. Members undoubtedly would very much desire to have a few weeks' holiday and a short respite from their Parliamentary labours. I myself would like it very much, and I sympathize with these feelings very strongly; but, at the same time, I think it is a low ground for the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to base his case upon. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House, if they really thought they could save suffering, starvation, or crime in Ireland by remaining a week, a fortnight, or even a month longer at this period at their work, would not hesitate to make the sacrifice. Recollect that the House at its adjournment will be absent from legislative duties for five months. Five months is a long period to look forward to. A shorter period than that constituted the critical period in 1880. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that the proposals of the Government with regard to Ireland and the Land Question will be ready next February. But what we fear is this—that the passions and irritation of hon. Members of this House, and of the people of England, will have risen so much in the meantime that when that period arrives they will only have a mind for the consideration of one question, and that will be coercion. For myself, I will not allow those golden moments to be lost—moments which may never come again. The Irish Members have no control, neither have the Government control, over the events in Ireland in the coming winter. The right hon. Gentleman need not suppose, by my allusion to the events of 1880, that I am going to head any such agitation as then took place. I do not believe there will be such an agitation;
  1224
  but I believe that the situation of the tenantry of Ireland will be so desperate, so much more terrible, desperate, and critical than it was in those days, that there will be spontaneous movements among them which neither the Irish Members, nor the Government, nor anyone else will be able to control, and which will excite irritation, passion, and indignation in this country against the Irish people, so that politicians and statesmen will lose their balance. What I ask is that the Government should not shut the last door against the last consideration of this question. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby has spoken of the Report stage on the Appropriation Bill, and other stages of the Appropriation Bill, as offering us an opportunity for debate. The stages of the Appropriation Bill will come, I believe, at the end of this Session. I have only to say that that would be too late for our purpose. The time will then have gone by to make any effectual protest. Now is the time for us to try and make any effectual protest we may desire to make. Now is the time for us to state what we think is right and desirable, and to urge our proposals. If the Government will tack to the Resolution—it need not be done by a formal Amendment, a promise will be quite sufficient—an undertaking to afford us sufficient time to allow the definitive judgment of the House of Commons to be taken upon a measure the outlines of which I have not sketched, although I have suggested its nature, in that case I shall be glad to ask my hon. Friend the Member for Mayo, who moved this Amendment, to withdraw it. I believe that, when the House sees the moderate nature and character of the Bill, the measure will be supported by both sides, and the Government will probably think better of their proposal to allow this long weary interval of five mouths to elapse, and to permit a chasm to be thrown between the two countries which it might not be possible for us to fill.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL): I think I should not be paying due respect to the House if I did not offer some words in reply to the observations which have fallen from the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell). I must premise my observations by saying

  1225
  that I altogether dispute the analogy which he has thought fit to draw between the conditions of Ireland in 1880 and those of the present time. The conditions of 1880 were these—that over a very large part of Ireland famine raged; there had been a total failure of crops; and there was great distress, verging on starvation, among many families who, indeed, were only kept from starvation by grants from the State and by the efforts of private charities. [Mr. PARNELL: Not at the end of 1880.] No doubt, the country was recovering from the failure of the potato of 1878 and 1879; but there was immense distress in the country in 1880, and I know that the operations of the Relief Fund started under Viceregal auspices were continued well into 1881. Therefore, I cannot agree with the analogy of the hon. Member for Cork. What I have to say, however, on the part of the Government is, that it always has been, and always will be, so far as I and my Colleagues are concerned, our anxious desire in the arrangement of the Business of Parliament to meet, to the utmost possible extent, the general convenience of the House at large, and to recognize the position of great responsibility occupied by certain persons in opposition to the Government. We recognize that the responsibility of the hon. Member for Cork is, undoubtedly, very great, as great, perhaps, as that of any individual in the House; and I will admit that it is, perhaps, not altogether unreasonable, if the hon. Member for Cork, acting under that great sense of responsibility, and supported by his followers and others in this House, considers it to be his duty, and believes that it can possibly lead to any useful result, to place in detail before the House his views on the Land Question in the form of a Bill—his views of what is necessary to be done in regard to the Land Question in Ireland immediately, that we should admit that those views are undoubtedly worthy of the consideration of the House and of the Government. But this must be clearly understood—that the Government have already deliberately made their announcement to the House in regard to their views on the present state of the Land Question in Ireland; and however much those views may have been misrepresented, and however much they may have been mis-
  1226
  represented and perverted for Party purposes, we stand by them, and we shall neither add to them nor take from them, and we shall not recede from them or alter them in any way as far as the presion Session is concerned. But if the hon. Member for Cork desires for the sake of his own Party, and for the interests of his country generally, to make a fuller and more detailed statement of the manner in which he would deal with the Land Question of Ireland, the Government, without holding out the smallest or slightest expectation that they can in the smallest or slightest degree approach to any kind of agreement with the hon. Member for Cork, would not feel justified in withholding from him the opportunity which he seeks. I will certainly undertake to grant that opportunity on behalf of the Government, expressing, at the same time, a very earnest hope that our action may not be misrepresented and perverted as our former statements have been. Lean only say that if the hon. Member for Cork desires, before the Session closes, at a moment when it may be most convenient to himself and to the House, and when his proposals are prepared, that a special Sitting of the House should be set apart for the exposition and discussion of his proposals, the Government would be prepared to meet him to that extent. But in that case the Government would make an appeal to the hon. Member and his Friends, and to the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir William Harcourt), whose support this evening I am very glad to acknowledge, that this action on the part of the Government should be met in a corresponding spirit, and that hon. Members opposite should not take undue advantage of the great facilities for protracting Business which, undoubtedly, Supply affords; but that, so far as Party responsibility and Party action will admit, they should, on all non-controversial matters of Supply, co-operate with the Government to bring them to an early and a reasonable conclusion. I have, myself, no other desire, except that, as far as possible, we should act in harmony in this House, and I am willing to undergo a certain amount of risk and of misunderstanding in order to attain that most desirable end.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I believe I shall be express-

  1227
  ing the unanimous opinion of those who sit on this side of the House in saying that we notice in the remarks of the noble Lord a spirit with which we entirely sympathize, and which we must regard, and do regard, as extremely re-assuring in a rather serious emergency. The proposal of the hon. Member for Cork was made with such a sense of the gravity of the situation, and in terms so moderate and persuasive, that in all parts of the House I am sure it must have been felt in the highest degree desirable to meet, if possible, the hon. Member's views. The noble Lord has perceived the justice of the hon. Member's position. I think that we all thoroughly understand what the noble Lord has impressed upon us—namely, that in professing his willingness to accede to the proposal of the hon. Member he makes clear the nature of his position, and impresses upon us that he commits himself, his Colleagues, and his followers to no assent whatever, necessarily, to any propositions which the hon. Member may think fit to make. I should say that, whatever the fate of the hon. Member's Bill may be, the fact of such a Bill having been produced on the responsibility of an hon. Member in his position, supported by his followers and others in various parts of the House, and of its having been discussed from various points of view, will in itself be an operation that should conduce to the success of those deliberations which the Government are about to undertake in the autumn. I say this without prejudice to the hope that the Bill may be of such a kind—in view of the emergency that I have always believed with the hon. Member for Cork since the Session began existed in Ireland, and which may possibly be aggravated in the coming months—as may on its merits possibly secure for it a larger degree of assent from the Government than, at present, the noble Lord thinks likely. But of that I will say no more. I only desire to express the sincere satisfaction with which we have the announcement of the noble Lord; and I think we may express our intention, as far as we can, of furthering by every possible means the progress of Public Business.
  MR. DILLONsaid that, in view of the statement which the
  1228
  noble Lord had just made, he begged leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put.
  Ordered, That the Committees of Supply and Ways and Means, and all stages of the Appropriation Bill, have precedence of other Orders of the Day and the Notices of Motions on every day on which they may be appointed.
  Ordered, That the Standing Order, No. 21, relating to Notices on going into Committee of Supply on Monday and Thursday he extended to the other days of the week.—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  THE ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO THE QUEEN'S SPEECH.

    REPORT. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question, "That the Address be read a second time."
    Question put.
    Address read a second time.

    PUBLIC SPEECHES—SPEECHES OF THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER AT BELFAST.—RESOLUTION.
    MR. LABOUCHERE, in rising to move an Amendment, said, he claimed his right on the ground of precedence, as well as of convenience, to move it in the form he was about to do, and he was justified in taking that course, for notwithstanding the direct manner in which, during the debate on the Address, the Belfast speeches of the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been assailed, among others, by his right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt); speaking, notin his private capacity, but as the accredited Representative of the Liberal Party, the noble Lord had thought it consistent with his position, as Leader of the House, to treat all the appeals that had been made to him respecting the language he had used in Belfast with contemptuous silence. In such a case silence was more obstructive than any number of speeches, and, as the result, the Report stage of the Address was not taken last night; and it had become the duty of some Member, if not of every one, on that side of the House to put down an Amendment in order to

    1229
    find out what was the position the noble Lord himself occupied with regard to language used in Ireland. ["Oh, oh!"] What were the circumstances in which that language was used? A Bill was before the House of Commons for the better government of Ireland. Liberals believed that the Bill offered peace, and would give contentment to the people of Ireland; the Conservatives that, if it passed, it would lead to civil war. The Orangemen were fit instruments for the Conservatives in Ireland, and they had always been so in their excessive bigotry and intolerance, and in this particular case they were ready instruments, because the ascendancy which they had so long held in Ireland was threatened. The noble Lord went over to Ireland, and he landed at Lame. When he landed he was received almost in state. A large number of Orangemen marched past the hotel, and the noble Lord was the hero of the grand demonstration after the manner peculiar to the brethren. Amongst the lodges of Orangemen present were the Belfast Invincibles, and the Duke of Abercorn's Invincibles. Amongst the gentlemen who went over with the noble Lord was the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson), and he explained to the brethren why the noble Lord had come. Then the noble Lord made a speech, in which he said that they enjoyed great privileges in the North of Ireland which were worth demonstrating for, and were worth fighting for. At the evening meeting he said he was anxious to ascertain how they proposed to deal with the crisis, what resources they could reckon upon, and what resistance they could give. The statements, he said, made in the Imperial Parliament of the numbers and determination of the Orange Party had been received by the Radicals and Parnellites with jeers and derision, and Mr. Gladstone believed that the Orange Party was played out. Then the noble Lord asked, amid great enthusiasm, whether his audience were the same men as their forefathers were in 1798. Everyone knew what their forefathers were then. According to Mr. Grattan, they were the most disreputable and oppressive banditti that ever existed on the face of the earth. In another speech the noble Lord said that if it should turn out that the Parliament of the
    1230
    United Kingdom was so recreant to its high duties, and the British nation was so besotted as to place them under the domination of an Assembly in Dublin, which must of necessity be a foreign and alien Assembly, he did not hesitate to tell them that in that dark hour there would not be wanting to them those of position and influence in England, who would be willing to cast in their lot and share their fortunes and their fate. On February 22 the noble Lord delivered a speech, a report of which he would quote from The Belfast News Letter. The noble Lord asked what title the Nationalists had to represent the Irish people, and said—
    "Is it by a long sequence of acts, or by any acts done on their behalf? Is it a title earned, by hard fighting in any action upon the fields That was the title of the Italians, the Greek - and the Bulgarians, to independence; that was the title by which the mountaineers of Montenegro freed themselves from Turkey."
    The noble Lord proceeded to say that Mr. Parnell's title to independence was founded only on Parliamentary "action." He (Mr. Labouchere) could not imagine any Minister of State deliberately justifying such a sneer at a large portion of Her Majesty's subjects. The noble Lord sneered at them because they did not break out in open resistance. With absolutely cynical wickedness the noble Lord went to Ireland to proclaim the doctrine and urge the people of Belfast to break out in rebellion if the Home Rule Bill were passed, and then he returned to this country, and he and his Friends stated in the House, and during the Elections, that if the Bill were passed the people would break out in rebellion. Now, what was the meaning of that? It was that the noble Lord wanted a majority from the electors of this country; and so it was that he preached that the Bill, so far from bringing peace, would lead to civil war, with all its horrors. Therefore, the noble Lord first created his argument—and a most iniquitous argument it was—and then he used it for the purposes of himself and his Party. When people played with religious bigotry they played with edged tools, and it was so in this case. Shortly afterwards those persons in Belfast, whose religious animosities and passions had been fanned by the noble Lord, broke out in open riot, the result being

    1231
    that property was destroyed and blood was shed. He did not think anyone doubted, at present, that these riots were begun by the Orangemen. ["Oh, oh!"] No doubt, after a time, the Catholics joined in them; but Catholic, were not frogs, and would not allow themselves to be stoned by their Protestant neighbours. These riots would not have taken place, in all probability, had not their passions been inflamed by the noble Lord; and, therefore, the noble Lord was responsible for every person killed and wounded, and all property destroyed, in Belfast; but the evil did not stop there, for what was worse, his statements had confined the Tory Party to the pledge that the Irish hopes of Home Rule should be blasted. The position in Ireland at the present time was most critical. The cup of what the Irish people considered liberty had been dashed from their lips. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) had told them that they had an absolute right to self-government, and they had been told by the present Government that they were never to have that self-government. The right hon. Member for Mid Lothian also said he could understand their abhorrence of a law which was an alien law, for the defects of that law and rule were enormous. In these circumstances it seemed to him to be most desirable that Her Majesty's Government should not proclaim the wonderful doctrine which had been enunciated by the noble Lord at Belfast. The Irish people had been told by his right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) that they could not pay the judicial rents, and on the division the flower of the Liberal Party voted in favour of the contention of his right hon. Friend. Under those circumstances, it was very serious that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should enunciate his wondrous non-Constitutional doctrine—that if any subjects of Her Majesty considered that a law was unjust to them they had a right to resist by arms that law. It was vain to hope that the efforts of his hon. Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) to quiet the Irish under their present wrongs would be successful if these views were to be enunciated by the noble Lord, and if they were to be regarded as the views of the entire Con-
    1232
    servative Party. Dissentient Liberals did not agree with the noble Lord, and he (Mr. Labouchere) would be glad to know whether the Conservatives agreed with him in regard to this matter. In the last Parliament the noble Lord was exceedingly anxious that this charge might be brought against him, in order that he might reply to it. The noble Lord urged the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian to give a day for the discussion of the Motion of the hon. Member for South Belfast; but the right hon. Gentleman was unable to give a day at that time owing to the pressure of Public Business. Yesterday the charge was made again, not in a direct manner, but incidentally alluded to in the course of a discussion on another Amendment; and the noble Lord declined to rise in his place and state whether he accepted, repudiated, regretted, or apologized for what he had said. The Government intended to ignore that it was officially acknowledged that the judicial rents were too high, and in the face of that and their other conduct they could not wonder if the Irish Chief Secretary's efforts at putting down Irish disturbance would not be successful. The same thing would result if there were no protest, no repudiation of the species of chartered revolt which the noble Lord had been the author of. The main duty of the Government was to maintain law and order, and the reason he (Mr. Labouchere) moved this Amendment was to ascertain whether the Conservative Party agreed with the opinions of the noble Lord, and to give every Gentleman on the Conservative side of the House an opportunity to free himself from the odium cast upon the Conservative Party, by registering his vote in favour of the Amendment. As he had said, in the last Parliament the noble Lord was most anxious to meet the charge brought against him, and he now gave the noble Lord the opportunity he then sought for. If the noble Lord wished judgment to go by default; if he were ashamed of those Belfast words, and did not like to say so; or if he did not desire, as a Minister of the Crown, to humiliate his dignity by endorsing the irresponsible frivolity which characterized him when in Opposition, the noble Lord would sit silent. But if the noble Lord should allow judgment to go

    1233
    by default the House ought not to do so. As law-abiding citizens, who protested against these revolutionary doctrines which rendered all law and order impossible, hon. Members should consider it their duty to register their votes upon the language of the noble Lord, unless he withdrew or expressed regret for it. ["Oh, oh!"] There could' be no doubt that the noble Lord's utterances needed explanation; and that was why he (Mr. Labouchere) gave the House the opportunity of saying whether or not it thought so too, by moving the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
    Amendment proposed,
    To add, at the end of the Address, the words—"And we humbly declare to Your Majesty, that certain language used and published by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in regard to the action which ought to be taken by a certain section of the Irish people, should the Bill for the better Government of Ireland (1886) pass into Law, was calculated to provoke breaches of the Law, and ought to be publicly withdrawn, in view of the preservation of the peace of Ireland."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL): Mr. Speaker—Sir, "Surely in vain is the net spread in the sight of any bird;" and of all the unskilful and clumsy Parliamentary fowlers of whose manœuvres it has been my lot to be a witness, I never met a sorrier practitioner than the hon Member opposite the senior Member for Northampton. In the various snares and arts and wiles with which he distinguished himself in the last Parliament he succeeded only in this—that he made himself the laughing stock of the Parliament and of the public; and he appears to be desirous to add to-night to his already great reputation in that respect. Now, Sir, he invites me, under the cover of quotations from a speech, to re-open the controversy as to the effect of the repeal of the Union. Sir, I flatly decline to respond to his invitation. I did not reply last night to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir William Harcourt), not from any want of courtesy to him, but because I considered, and because I believed, that most of my Friends on this side of the House considered the ques-
    1234
    tion had been amply dealt with by my right hon. Friend and Colleague the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach). My right hon. Friend met the charges that were advanced by the hon. Member for South Sligo (Mr. Sexton). He disputed their value and their accuracy; and he stated that he considered that the speech, under the circumstances of the time, and viewing the circumstances to which it was directed, was a justifiable one. But, Sir, I considered that that perfectly well represented—I know that that perfectly represented—the views of the Government; and I could see no good whatever in myself contributing to the prolongation of a controversy that could only serve to inflame Party passions, which, at the present moment, it is certainly not the desire of the Government to arouse, and the arousing of which cannot possibly serve any public or any useful object. Sir, it is perfectly clear—and this really is my best answer to these accusations, which I make once and for all—it is perfectly clear that if there was a shred of a shadow of a shade of a foundation, or if there was a shade of a shadow of a shred of a foundation, for any one, or any portion, of these charges which have been brought forward so freely and so glibly, it is perfectly certain that I should not now be filling the position which, by the favour of the Sovereign, by the friendship and the confidence of my Colleagues, and by the support of hon. Gentlemen behind me, I have the honour for the time to fill. And this I say, in conclusion—that nobody is better aware of the utter worthlessness and emptiness and preposterous childishness of the accusations which have been brought forward than the hon. Member for Northampton himself.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid, he rose for the purpose of moving an Amendment to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere); and, though he was aware that it might be inconvenient to Her Majesty's Government, yet he thought he should be able to show the House that the extreme gravity of the case warranted him in taking the course he felt it his duty and was about to pursue. There was now a very gloomy prospect of sitting here for four or five weeks longer. ["Oh, oh "] Well,

    1235
    that might not be an attractive prospect to hon. Members who lived in England, Scotland, and Wales; but, from what they were told was the prospective condition of Ireland, it appeared that it would be well for hon. Members who lived in Ireland to take up their permanent abode in the House of Commons. They learned that there was to be in Ireland a condition of crime, outrage, and disorder. But why? The position of Ireland at the present time, so far as he could see, except in one or two localities, was not particularly suggestive of crime. There was little distress, and the position of the majority of the farmers was not altogether unsatisfactory. He intended to call attention to very grave circumstances affecting the honour and dignity of the House in the persons of certain of its Members. With this object he would move an Amendment. ["Oh, oh!"] Well, if hon. Members would look at the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton they would see what he meant. He (Colonel Saunderson) proposed to leave out all the words from the word "used," in the Amendment, to the word "calculated," at the end, and to insert the following words:—
    "By certain Members of this House, and their participation in Conventions held in Foreign Countries in reference to Irish affairs, have given colour to the allegations which have been publicly made and extensively circulated throughout the United Kingdom that such persons are or have been members or associates of the Fenian Brotherhood of the United States, or of the Irish Republican Brotherhood are,"
    He made no accusation—she merely brought the matter forward in order that hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway might have an opportunity of solemnly declaring that they were not and never had been connected with either of the two organizations named. The great question decided at the last Election was an appeal to the people on the question of Home Rule, and it was made under the shadow of a great and honoured name—that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone). But he did not think it likely that the question would ever again be put before the country under the same shadow. It might be made under the shadow of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt); but he did not believe that right hon. Gentleman's
    1236
    shadow would afford it sufficient support. But, under whatever auspices the question came before the country, he was satisfied that the verdict of the people would be even more decided in its condemnation than at the last Election. When Parliament should have been adjourned or prorogued hon. Members opposite would, doubtless, visit the constituencies. What he wanted them to do was to fight the battle in the open day, and to tell the country their real policy. He was ready to fight hon. Members at any time either in the House or outside. He did not mind fighting the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) either in the House or out of it; but he wished to fight the battle in the open day, and before he engaged in war he should like to understand clearly what he was fighting about. The fact was that there appeared to be two policies—one for the House of Commons and one for outside. ["Oh, oh!"] The question had become more serious since the Home Rulers had obtained certain distinguished recruits. The policy of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) had been accepted by the late Prime Minister, and endorsed by the right hon. Member for Derby. According to the right hon. Member for Derby, the policy of the hon. Member for Cork was a policy of Parliamentary action. It was, the right hon. Gentleman said, by such action that he intended to gain his object. Now, a short time ago a Convention was held at Chicago, and a deputation of Irishmen attended, the members of the deputation being Mr. J. Redmond, M.P., Mr. Deasy, M.P., and Mr. W. O'Brien, who had been a Member, and who would probably soon return to the House. These Gentlemen went to America to explain the policy of the hon. Member for Cork. At the Convention, which was summoned with a view to support the Party of the hon. Member and to stimulate the subscribers to its funds, they met a Mr. Finerty, a gentleman of very advanced opinions, who declared that if there was any way by which he could harass and annoy England, and keep her awake at nights, he would favour it. Mr. O'Brien went over and met Mr. Finerty, and said—
    "I am extremely glad to make your acquaintance. I look upon it as a great honour to come to Chicago in such company."

    1237
    Mr. O'Brien was the accredited agent of the hon. Member for Cork, and yet he approached Chicago in company with that tremendous patriot who had used such tremendous language.
    MR. PARNELL: Was Mr. O'Brien present when Mr. Finerty made that speech?
    COLONEL SAUNDERSON: No. I do not wish to misrepresent anybody; but Mr. O'Brien would probably have been informed of what had happened before he arrived. The hon. Member for Cork, no doubt, hoped that when he next made an appeal to the English constituencies for Home Rule for Ireland the masses and working classes would rally round him. But he would like to draw the attention of the working classes to a Constitution drawn up by a committee appointed by the Chicago Convention, consisting of Messrs. Dillon, Redmond, and Deasy, the 5th section of which ran as follows:—
    "To hurt the enemy where he will feel it most, by refusing to purchase any article of English manufacture, and by using all legitimate influence to discourage tradesmen from keeping English manufactures on sale."
    When the British working classes knew that he sent his agents to Chicago to draw up this Constitution, they would not give him the hearty reception he anticipated. The Chicago and Westminster Home Rule policies did not coincide. America was the El Dorado of Irish politicians, where they got those supplies which were necessary. He understood that the advanced party found most of those funds, and amongst them there appeared to be a vision of action more dangerous, more perilous, and more heroic than moving the adjournment of the debate in the House. He took the following from The New York Herald of August 25—
    "Mr. Redmond, M.P., who was introduced to the Chicago Convention by Judge Fitzgerald as the trusted and recognized representative of Mr. Parnell, came there at Mr. Parnell's request and used this language—'The principle underlying the movement for which this Convention is assembled is the unquestioned recognition of the nationality of Ireland. We are working not simply for the removal of grievances, or the amelioration of the material condition of our people. Once again all thoughts of amity with England have been banished from the minds of Irishmen, and to-day we stand face to face with our hereditary foes. I assert here to-day that the government of Ireland by England is an impossibility, and I believe it to be our duty to make it so."
    1238
    These words were used by a Member of that House, the accredited agent and delegate of the hon. Member for Cork. Under those circumstances, he thought he was justified in asking the hon. Member for Cork, in his place, to tell the House and the country which of the two policies he was about to choose, and on which platform he was about to take his stand—that of Chicago or Westminster—to fight. He would also like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-on-Tyne (Mr. John Morley) whether he intended to adopt the policy enunciated in such moderate language by the hon. Member for Cork in the House of Commons, or the policy announced in such terrific tones by the accredited agents sent by the hon. Member for Cork to America? When the English people read the challenge he (Colonel Saunderson) now threw down to the hon. Member for Cork, he hoped they would see that the hon. Member was bound in honour and in all consistency to state in clear and distinct terms which policy he intended to adopt and on which platform he intended to fight. At all events, he would not be able to stand any longer with one foot on the Westminster platform and the other on the Chicago platform. He (Colonel Saunderson) himself had no doubt as to the result of an appeal to the English people. At the last Election they dispelled for ever the illusion that the majority of them were in favour of Home Rule, or that Parliament would safely pass through a Bill for the dismemberment of the Empire. He did not think hon. Members below the Gangway were sorry for the result of the Election. The atmosphere of the House and residence in London must have affected them in the same way that it had affected him, and made him feel that it was the highest honour of his life to sit within those walls. The Bill, too, if it had not been thrown out, would have consigned them permanently to provincial obscurity; whereas now they could fulfil the highest and pleasantest functions of an Irish patriot, by doing their duty and living in London at the expense of other people. The discussion that might take place on his Amendment would probably form the keynote of the speeches during the autumn campaign. Returning to the consideration of the I proceedings of the Chicago Convention,

    1239
    he would point out that the members of it did not altogether agree with Mr. Finerty. Mr. A. Sullivan wound up the proceedings by saying—
    "While Mr. Finerty has given expression to some views with which I will not say I disagree, let us all agree to make a sacrifice that is sometimes more than the sacrifice of our lives, the sacrifice of our self-suppression for the common cause."
    Hence the House would learn that the moderate Party did not disagree with Mr. Finerty, but thought it more convenient that he should not give expression to sentiments that would alienate public opinion in England and open the eyes of the working men in this country, who were loyal to the Crown, to the fact that this Home Rule movement was one which had for its aim the degradation and disintegration of the Empire. He would listen anxiously for the reply of the hon. Member for Cork as to which policy he would adopt. He now desired to call attention to another point—namely, the second part of the Amendment, which dealt with the honour and dignity of the House. A pamphlet had been circulated largely through the country. [An hon. MEMBER: Anonymously.] Yes; anonymously. He said nothing about the truth, or the reverse, of the contents of it; but it was sold everywhere, and had been in circulation for a long time. The circulation of a pamphlet like that, making allegations against the honour of hon. Gentlemen in that House, ought to be at once dealt with by them. That he would leave to the hon. Gentlemen themselves. Those hon. Gentlemen should get up in their places, and declare dearly that they had no connection, and never had any connection or sympathy, with the organizations which he mentioned in his Amendment. The following statement appeared in the pamphlet:—
    "This was the oath I took in the presence of Almighty God—'I solemnly swear allegiance to the Irish Republic, now virtually established, and to take up arms when called upon to defend its independence and integrity, and also swear to yield implicit obedience to my superior officers.'"
    [Cries of "This is all anonymous; who wrote it? "] Hon. Members asked him who wrote it? He could not say who wrote it; but if he could not give the hon. Member the name of the author, he could give him the name of the
    1240
    publisher. The pamphlet went on to say—
    "It may be said I am now betraying that oath. If so, it is because I can no longer hear to see my unfortunate countrymen robbed and ruined by a set of scheming politicians who enjoy snug berths. I have not imitated the example of those distinguished Members of Parliament and Republican brethren."
    Let hon. Members read the names given in the pamphlet. Well, Sir, it is stated that among those who took this oath were Mr. J. O'Kelly—
    MR. PARNELL: I rise to Order, Sir. I wish to know whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman, under cover of reading a pamphlet which he acknowledges to be anonymous and without any authority, is entitled to attack hon. Members of this House, and to charge them with being members of a treasonable conspiracy and with having taken two oaths—one to support this treasonable conspiracy, and the other to support Her Majesty in this House?
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has stated the sources from which he derives his information, and, having regard to any names he mentioned, of course he takes upon himself the responsibility of the course he is adopting. I do not think that I can interfere.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSON: The book I refer to is sold at all the railway stations, and is published at 169, Piccadilly, London, by William Ridgway. It is sold everywhere. I have no responsibility for the book. I do not myself say that any hon. Members of this House have taken this oath; but—
    COLONEL NOLAN: I rise to Order, Sir. The hon. and gallant Gentleman declines to take the responsibility upon himself; but he was proceeding to quote from the book.
    MR. SPEAKER: What I said was that the responsibility rests upon the hon. and gallant Gentleman as a Member of this House, and there is no point of Parliamentary Order upon which I can interfere.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I take the responsibility on myself.
    MR. PARNELL: I rise to a point of Order. [Cries of "Order!"] Do I understand that your ruling, Sir, is to this effect—that the hon. and gallant Member is entitled to accuse other hon. Members of any offence in the way he has, provided he gets some book or

    1241
    some anonymous pamphlet and reads the accusation out of it? Because under those circumstances, if a pamphlet were written accusing the hon. and gallant Member of being a murderer, I should be entitled to come here and read the accusation out.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has given his authority for the statement he is making. The House must judge of the value of that authority for itself. It is not for me to interfere on a point of Order in this instance.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid, if the hon. Member for Cork accused him of murder, on whatever authority, he should be only too glad to have it repeated in that House, so that he might answer the accusation; and he should have thought that hon. Members opposite would have been only too glad to answer the pamphlet. It might be a vile slander for all he knew. It was the duty of any hon. Member to bring forward any such accusation; for if it were true it would unfit a Member from taking a seat in that House. However, he would accede to the wish of the hon. Member for Cork and hon. Members below the Gangway, and not proceed to mention the names.
    MR. PARNELL: I made no request. I simply submitted a point of Order to the Speaker, and the Speaker ruled it against me.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSON: If the hon. Member is afraid—[Cries of "Order!"]
    MR. PARNELL: I am not in the least afraid of anything the hon. and gallant Gentleman may read.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSON: Then, if the hon. Member does not fear, I will read the names. [The hon. and gallant Member then proceeded to give a list of the names of persons who, in the pamphlet, were alleged to have taken the Fenian oath, among thorn being J. J. O'Kelly, William O'Brien, M. Harris, T. P. O'Connor, T. Healy, J. H. M'Carthy, J. Redmond, and W. Redmond.] Some of these men had sworn allegiance to Her Majesty. That was a very serious question. He had entered into the matter because they were now still at the preliminary stage of the great battle that they would have to fight; and he wished to know on what platform the hon. Members opposite intended to fight. They
    1242
    had won the first fall; they wished to take care that they won the second. Let the hon. Member for Cork lay down the platform on which he intended to fight, and they would be always ready to meet him. The hon. and gallant Gentleman concluded by moving his Amendment.
    COLONEL WARINGseconded the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment,
    To leave out from the word "used," to the word "calculated," in order to insert the words "by certain Members of this House, and their participation in Conventions held in Foreign Countries in reference to Irish affairs, have given colour to the allegations which have been publicly made and extensively circulated throughout the United Kingdom that such persons are or have been members or associates of the Fenian Brotherhood of the United States, or of the Irish Republican Brotherhood are,"—(Colonel Saunderson,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL rose, but
    MR. PARNELLrose with him, and said: Mr. Speaker, before the noble Lord addresses the House I wish to consult you first on a point of Order. I wish to direct your attention, Sir, to the ruling which you gave when my Amendment upon the Address was under discussion. When a point of Order was raised in regard to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), that he was not entitled to speak upon the Main Question in the discussion of that Amendment as well as upon the Amendment itself, and that he should confine himself strictly to the Amendment, you ruled that the right hon. Gentleman must confine himself strictly to the Amendment. Now, Sir, what I wish to submit is this—the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson) proposes to leave out certain words from the original Amendment, in order to substitute certain other words; and although it might have been possible, and may be possible, and is possible, to discuss an Amendment which proposes the addition of certain words to the Main Question without reference to the Main Question, it certainly is not possible to discuss an Amendment

    1243
    which proposes to leave out certain words, in order to substitute certain other words, without entering into the merits of the original question, in order to decide the question whether they should be substituted or not. I know of no way in which a discussion could be taken on the merits, if the rule you laid down before is to be applied in this case. It is manifest that on this occasion, when the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Armagh proposes to substitute certain words for certain other words in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), we cannot discuss the question without discussing the merits both of the original Amendment and of the proposed Amendment thereto.
    MR. SPEAKER: In reply to the hon. Gentleman I have to state that I think he is under some misapprehension. My former ruling was that when an Amendment was proposed to the Address the whole subject of the Address was not open for discussion; but the debate must be confined to the specific Amendment proposed. In this case there is an Amendment proposed to be added to the Address; but before that question arises, or rather before the decision of the House can be taken upon it, another Amendment has been made in order to alter the words which it is proposed to add; and clearly, therefore, the Question before the House is the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Northampton, and proposed to be altered by the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh. Therefore, both the question of the speeches of the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Lord Randolph Churchill) and the assertions of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Armagh are now before the House, and both matters may be properly discussed.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL): I think it might be well that I should, without delay, state to the House the course which the Government propose to take on the Amendment moved by the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson). We shall oppose that Amendment, on the ground that we cannot, under any circumstances, concede that it relates to the matter of the Report in reply to the Speech from the
    1244
    Throne. As we conceive that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) is open to the imputation that it would lead to an unprofitable waste of the time of the House, I am bound to say that we think that the further Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh comes under the same category. I am strongly of opinion that the matters dealt with in the pamphlet are not matters such as this House can deal with, but that they ought to be decided in a Court of Law, and that no possible good can arise from any action the House may take. Therefore, when the time comes for the division—which I hope may not be long delayed—we shall take exactly the same course as that which we took with regard to the two Amendments having reference to Burmah. We shall vote "Aye" to the first Question put from the Chair, which will have the effect, if carried, of negativing the second Amendment—that of the hon. and gallant Member, and then we shall vote "No" to the second Question, which will have the effect of negativing the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Northampton.
    MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, that the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson), who had just addressed the House, referred to the Chicago Convention, and had a great deal to say about it. He omitted, however, to state the most important fact connected with that Convention, which was that a resolution was passed declaring that upon the concession to Ireland of a measure of Home Rule such as was proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) there would be an end at once and for ever of the long strife, turmoil, and contention between the two countries. That was a most important omission on the part of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. The hon. and gallant Gentleman stated that the Convention was mainly composed of members of the Fenian Brotherhood. He (Mr. T. D. Sullivan) should like to know what right the hon. and gallant Member had to make any complaints of the Fenian Brotherhood? The Fenian Brotherhood had been disloyal to the British Crown, and had attempted insurrection in Ireland; but,

    1245
    considering the doctrine preached by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Armagh during the late Election, and by the noble Lord the present Leader of the House of Commons, the Fenian Brotherhood had been justified in their action.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I made no complaint against the Fenian Brotherhood.
    MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, that the hon. and gallant Member had referred to the Fenian Brotherhood in America, and everyone knew in what spirit and for what purpose he made the reference. It had been proclaimed on Irish platforms, and within the walls of that House, that because a certain Party in Ireland, who were in a minority, were to be subjected to laws which they said would oppress them and injure them, they would be not only warranted, but bound to have recourse to force, and to resist to the best of their ability the operation of those laws. That principle had been advocated in the House of Commons by right hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial Benches. What right, therefore, had they to attach the name of rebel to the Fenian Brotherhood? They would be rebels themselves, according to their own showing, if they were subjected to one-twentieth part of the grievous wrongs, injuries, and oppressions which the Catholic and Nationalist people of Ireland had had to endure for generation after generation. The hon. and gallant Member challenged the Irish Members to say whether they had sympathy with the Fenian Brotherhood. He (Mr. T. D. Sullivan) would tell the hon. and gallant Gentlemen, although he felt in no wise called upon to do so, that he had sympathy with the Fenian Brotherhood. He did not, however, approve of their methods; and many things that they said and did he believed to be unwise and unjustifiable. These men were his countrymen, who with a feeling of wrong and injury in their hearts, seeing no other chance of obtaining justice for their country, and finding Constitutional action vain and useless, took the wild and the foolish idea into their heads of rising in arms against the power of England and making a struggle for Irish liberty, whether they won or whether they lost. To a certain extent he had a great and high respect for these men; he sympa-
    1246
    thized with them as brave, though unwise men. The hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh had quoted against the Nationalist Members an anonymous pamphlet. Why did not the author of that pamphlet put his name to it, so that they might know what value to attach to his statements? The coward skulked in the dark. The hon. and gallant Member made a great point of the fact that the pamphlet sold largely. No doubt it did; but he might tell the hon. and gallant Member that any pamphlet would sell largely in England if it denounced and abused the Irish people. All caricatures of the Irish people had sold largely in England; but the English people were now beginning to have fairer and juster notions of the Irish people and of their cause. If the hon. and gallant Member would add four or five pages of calumny and slander to the pamphlet and publish a new edition of it, it would have a large additional sale. The hon. and gallant Member said he did not strike below the belt—["Oh, no!"]—but he (Mr. T. D. Sullivan) called it striking below the belt to quote charges from a cowardly and anonymous libeller. The hon. and gallant Member made great professions of being ready to fight anywhere; but that was all swagger and bunkum. Of course, the so-called Loyalists always imagined themselves splendid fellows; but they had been correctly described by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt), in a recent debate, as being, both now and in the past, the curse of the country. They had kept ill-will and animosity seething in Ireland. If the majority in Ireland had been treated as the so-called "Loyal" minority had been treated, there would have been much less disaffection. What the Loyalists were doing was striving to prevent such measures as would give the majority some excuse for being contented with the rule of England. The published Correspondence of the Marquess Cornwallis showed what were the character and conduct in 1798 and 1799 of the Orange Loyalists, whom their descendants were now called upon to emulate. The great difficulty of the Marquess Cornwallis was to restrain the Irish Yeomanry and Militia from plundering the people, burning their houses, and committing other outrages; and he

    1247
    complained that he was charged with lenity by the Loyalist Party because of his efforts to repress these outrages, which threatened to drive the people into rebellion again. He should like to read just a few historical extracts in support of his observations. They would be taken not from the pages of any Catholic or Nationalist historian, but from the published Correspondence of the noble Marquess, who was Lord Lieutenant of Ireland at the period referred to, in the years 1798 and 1799. Soon after his arrival in the country he found it necessary to issue the following document:—
    "GENERAL ORDERS.
    "Ballinamore, August 31, 1798.
    "It is with very great concern that Lord Cornwallis finds himself obliged to call on the general officers and the commanding officers of regiments in particular, and in general on the officers of the Army, to assist him in putting a stop to the licentious conduct of the troops, and in saving the wretched inhabitants from being robbed, and in the most shocking manner ill-treated by those to whom they have a right to look for safety and protection. Lord Cornwallis declares that if he finds the soldiers of any regiment have had opportunities of committing those excesses from the negligence of their officers, he will make those officers answerable for their conduct; and that if any soldiers are caught either in the act of robbery, or with the articles of plunder in their possession, they shall instantly be tried, and immediate execution shall follow their conviction. A Provost Marshal will be appointed, who will with his guard march in the rear of the Army, and who will patrol about the villages and houses in the neighbourhood of the camp."
    Such was the character, such was the behaviour of the men whose conduct the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer asked the Orangemen of Belfast to act up to. Here was another piece of evidence on the subject, drawn from the same source. The Marquess Cornwallis, writing to the Duke of Portland on July 8, 1798, said—
    "The Irish Militia are totally without discipline; contemptible before the enemy when any serious resistance is made to them, but ferocious and cruel in the extreme when any poor wretches, either with or without arms, come within their power; in short, murder appears to be their favourite pastime."
    That was the example which the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer asked the Belfast Orangemen to act up to; and, no doubt, they did their very best to act on his advice. In another letter, bearing date September 30, 1798, the Lord Lieutenant said—
    1248
    "The country is daily becoming more disturbed. Religious animosities increase, and, I am sorry to say, are encouraged by the foolish violence of all the principal persons who have been in the habit of governing this Island; and the Irish Militia, from their repeated misbehaviour in the field and their extreme licentiousness, are fallen into such universal contempt and abhorrence, that when applications are made for the protection of troops it is often requested that Irish Militia may not be sent."
    MR. WEBSTERrose to Order, and asked whether they were discussing the Revolution of 1798 or the Amendments?
    MR. SPEAKER: I do not think the hon. Member (Mr. T. D. Sullivan) is out of Order.
    MR. T. D. SULLIVAN, continuing, said, that he was addressing himself to the Amendments. One of the Amendments before the House had reference to the language used by the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer when addressing the Orangemen of Belfast; he asked them to prove themselves worthy of their forefathers in 1798; and he (Mr. T. D. Sullivan) was showing what was the plain purport and meaning of such language. Of course, the Orangemen in those days, as now, called themselves the Loyal Party; but here is what the Marquess Cornwallis said of the Loyalists of his time in one of his letters to Major General Ross—
    "The greatest difficulty which I experience is to control the violence of our loyal friends, who would, if I did not keep the strictest hand upon them, convert the system of martial law (which God knows is of itself bad enough) into a more violent and intolerable tyranny than that of Robespierre. The vilest informers are hunted out from the prisons to attack, by the most barefaced perjury, the lives of all who are suspected of being, or of having been, disaffected; and, indeed, every Roman Catholic of influence is in great danger."
    He did not like to detain the House by reading further extracts of that character; he had many of them in his hand; but he would read only one or two others for the purpose of making still more clear to the House what sort of memories were appealed to, and what sort of men were held up as models for imitation in the speech of the noble Lord to the Orangemen of Belfast. Here was another letter of the Marquess Cornwallis to his friend Major General Ross. It was dated July 24, 1798—
    "There is no law here, either in town or country, but martial law, and you know enough of that to see all the horrors of it, even in the

    1249
    best administration of it; judge, then, how it must be conducted by Irishmen heated with passion and revenge. But all this is trifling compared to the numberless murders that are hourly committed by our people without any process or examination whatever. The Yeomanry are in the style of the Loyalists in America, only much more numerous and powerful, and a thousand times more ferocious. The Irish Militia, with few officers, and these chiefly of the worst kind, follow closely on the heels of the Yeomanry in murder and every kind of atrocity, and the Fencibles take a share, although much behindhand with the others. … The conversation of the principal persons of the country all tends to encourage this system of blood, and the conversation, even at my table, where you will suppose I do all I can to prevent it, always turns on hanging, shooting, burning, &c, and if a priest has been put to death the greatest joy is expressed by the whole company."
    Again, writing to the Duke of Portland in June, 1798, he gave the following account of the savagery of the troops, both officers and men:—
    "The accounts that you see of the numbers of the enemy destroyed in every action are, I conclude, greatly exaggerated; from my own knowledge of military affairs I am sure that a very small proportion of them only could be killed in battle, and I am much afraid that any man in a brown coat who is found within several miles of the field of action is butchered without discrimination. It shall be one of my first objects to soften the ferocity of our troops, which, I am afraid, in the Irish corps at least, is not confined to the private soldiers."
    Did the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer know what he was talking of when he incited the Belfast Orangemen to show they had in them the spirit of their forefathers as displayed in 1798? It must be assumed that he did; and there could be no doubt of the sense in which the Orangemen understood his words. So ferocious and bloodthirsty was the spirit of the Loyal minority in those days that they made loud complaints of the humane Nobleman who had dared to put a check upon their career of outrage, pillage, and murder. In one of his letters at this time he gave the following account of them:—
    "The principal persons of this country and the Members of both Houses of Parliament are, in general, averse to all acts of clemency. … They would pursue measures that could only terminate in the extirpation of the greater number of the inhabitants, and in the utter destruction of the country. The words Papists and priests are for ever in their mouths, and by their unaccountable policy they would drive four-fifths of the community into irreconcilable rebellion."
    1250
    Again, writing to the Duke of Portland in defence of his alleged leniency towards the unfortunate people, he said—
    "Your Grace may be assured that I shall omit no means in my power to encourage and animate the whole body of Yeomanry to a faithful and active discharge of their duty; but I never can permit them to take advantage of their military situation to pursue their private quarrels and gratify their personal resentments, or to rob and murder, at their discretion, any of their fellow-subjects whom they may think proper, on their own authority, to brand with the name of rebels."
    Here is an extract from another letter of his, defending himself from the terrible charge of too great clemency towards the "rebels"—
    "You write as if you really believe there was any foundation for all the lies and nonsensical clamour about my lenity. On my arrival in this country I put a stop to the burning of houses and murder of the inhabitants by the Yeomanry or any other persons who delighted in that amusement; to the flogging for the purpose of extorting confession, and to the free quarters, which comprehended universal rape and robbery throughout the whole country. If this be a crime, I fully acknowledge my guilt."
    Even after the suppression of the Rebellion he wrote—
    "The ferocity of the Loyalists will not for a long time permit the restoration of perfect tranquillity."
    And he thus expressed his wonder at the folly of the Government in pampering a little faction in Ireland, instead of seeking to make friends of the great body of the people—
    "It has always appeared tome a desperate measure for the British Government to make an irrevocable alliance with a small Party in Ireland—which Party has derived all its consequence from, and is, in fact, entirely dependent upon, the British Government—to wage eternal war against the Papists and Presbyterians of this Kingdom, which two sects, from the fairest calculations, comprise about nine-tenths of the community."
    Well, the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer claimed for the Orangemen of the present day that they were the descendants of those heroes of 1798, and he asked them to show themselves worthy of their sires. They themselves traced their pedigree still further back, and they claimed to be descendants of the victors of the Boyne and "sons of William." But if they were sons of William they must be illegitimate sons, and degenerate sons also. The victors of the Boyne were brave soldiers, drawn from all parts of Europe—Dutchmen,

    1251
    Danes, Norwegians, Englishmen, Frenchmen, and others—and at the close of the campaign nearly all of them went back with King William to England. But there was another class of men at the Boyne, the camp followers, who were more likely to be the progenitors of the rioters of the present day. The Rev. George Story, chaplain to one of King William's regiments, an eye-witness of the scenes which he had described in his narrative of the war, told how they deported themselves at the battle of the Boyne. One of their works was to strip and rob the body of General Walker, the defender of Derry, when he fell in the action. Story says—
    "General Walker, going, as some say, to look after the Duke, was shot a little beyond the river, and stripped immediately; for the Scots-Irish that followed our camp were got through already (i.e., across the river) and took off most of the plunder."
    It had been said that the Orangemen had been taunted in that House with want of courage, and that they felt bound to show they could fight. Well, he had never denied the courage of the Orangemen, and did not want to taunt those whom the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) had called the "Corner Boys" and the "residuum" of Belfast with any want of courage. Ireland did not breed cowards of any Party or class, and he would only say that they were misguided and ignorant men. Sometimes the Orangemen threatened great things, but did nothing, and then, perhaps, they were laughed at. He believed that if a Home Bill had passed there would have been quieter times in Belfast. But he put it to the House, considering the antecedents of these men, considering their prejudices and their passions, and the nature of the memories which were kept ever fresh among them by the incendiary orators of their Party, whether the conduct of the noble Lord, in going among them and addressing to them the language that had been quoted from his speeches in this debate, was not merely reckless and mischievous, but criminal; and he hoped the House would show their condemnation of it by their vote on this Amendment.
    MR. FENWICKsaid, he would not have risen but for the unsatisfactory statement or explanation given by the noble
    1252
    Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Lord Randolph Churchill) of the very inflammatory and exciting character of the language used in his speech at Belfast. He had listened that night, as he invariably listened, to a speech delivered by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson), and all hon. Members would be prepared to admit that the hon. and gallant Member's sallies of wit never failed to amuse, even when his arguments failed to instruct or convince. He, however, felt some regret that the hon. and gallant Gentleman should have deemed it his duty—should have deemed it wise and prudent—to point his argument against hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House by references to which every Scotch and English Member of the House thought the most magnanimous conduct on the part of their Irish brethren, the Representatives at the Chicago Convention in America. It would, no doubt, be interesting to the House to learn whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman had ever on any occasion refused to accept rent from a tenant when he knew it could only be paid by money sent from America. The pointed argument came, he fancied, with questionable grace from the hon. and gallant Gentleman. The language used by the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill) in his speech at Belfast, and especially in the peroration of the speech delivered to his constituents at South Paddington on February 12—the language used on those occasions called for the immediate repudiation and condemnation of every hon. Member of that House. The House was told a few nights since by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Armagh that the recent outbreak of rioting in Belfast was left as a legacy by the late Government to Her Majesty's present Advisers—a legacy, forsooth! from the late Government to their Successors. He (Mr. Fenwick) denied that. The recent outbreak of disturbances in Belfast was due to the immoderate and injudicious language used by the noble Lord the Leader of the House (Lord Randolph Churchill) and by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen of the Tory Party. The noble Lord knew perfectly well the character of the people to whom his language was addressed in that speech at Belfast, and he (Mr. Fenwick) had

    1253
    no hesitation in saying that the language of the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his Friends was used entirely for Party purposes, and with Party aims alone. He had listened, during the short time he had been a Member of the House, to extract after extract taken from speeches of hon. Gentlemen from Ireland representing the Nationalist Party—extracts read by hon. Members opposite; and, indeed, on almost every public platform in the country. Tory orators had endeavoured to fasten the responsibility on the Nationalist Party for causing crimes and outrages in Ireland by the inflammatory speeches they had made outside the House; but had the House heard a single word of repudiation or condemnation from the Tory Party of the language of the noble Lord in Belfast? Indeed, so far from there having been any repudiation from that Party, only on Wednesday afternoon the House had to listen to an attempted justification of those remarks—a justification which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) was not very successful in establishing. If language such as that used by the noble Lord at Belfast came from responsible Advisers of Her Majesty—from Privy Councillors—then could there be surprise that crime and outrage followed very closely in the wake of the deliverance of such incendiary harangues? He would ask the House to listen to a quotation from the closing words of the noble Lord's speech to his constituents in Paddington on February 12 last—
    "I believe,"
    said the noble Lord—referring to his intended visit to Belfast and the message he intended to bear to the electors of that unhappy town—
    "I believe there will be hundreds and thousands of English hearts—aye, and English hands, which, when the moment of trial comes, when the Protestants of Ireland are called on to give in the most practical and convincing form a demonstrative proof of their loyalty to the English Throne—I believe there will be found hundreds and thousands of English hearts and hands beside them, around them, and behind them, co-operating with them. Before the unity of the British Empire is for ever shattered, before the sun of the British Empire has commenced to set, a blow will have to be struck, a blow will be struck, the sound of which shall go into all the world, and the echoes of which shall reverberate to the uttermost corners of the earth."
    1254
    Well, the blow had indeed been struck in Belfast. The inflammatory speech of the noble Lord had been reported by the local Press of Belfast; and the Orangemen of the unhappy town rightly divined the character of the noble Lord's words, and the outrage and crime perpetrated in the town of Belfast were but the necessary outcome of what he had termed the injudicious language used by the noble Lord, by the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh, and the injudicious letters which had been circulated throughout the country by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Joseph Chamberlain). If the House was expected to repudiate and condemn the character of the violent language used by Leaders of the National Party in Ireland—and he held it was the duty of the House to do so—then, in all fairness and justice, they must also offer the strongest protest in their power against, and repudiation of, language such as that uttered by the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was because he believed such language was immediately provocative of the riots and disturbances that had taken place in Belfast, resulting in loss of life and destruction of property, that he, as a Member for an English constituency now uttered the strongest protest in his power against such language as that of the noble Lord.
    MR. WEBSTERsaid, that the outrages and disturbances in Belfast had occurred long after the Home Rule Bill of the late Government had been rejected by the House, and after the result of the General Election had been declared; therefore, it was impossible that they could have been the result of the language used by the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Lord Randolph Churchill), whose remarks at Belfast had referred entirely to the eventuality of the measure being carried. He would ask if the House considered it to be a proper state of affairs that certain hon. Members should receive subsidies from the United States of America? He maintained that it was not right that any persons holding seats in the British House of Commons should do so. The United States had their own business to attend to, and we had ours; there ought to be, therefore, no subsidies given by any alien State to persons in the British Parliament. He

    1255
    could not agree with what the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson)said—thatthe State ought to give aid to the Irish landlords, and as to the desirableness of the British taxpayer coming to their aid. He did not think the British taxpayer would be willing to put his hand in his pocket for such a purpose, unless he had ample security for the interest. He thought that the debate on the Address had caused a very considerable waste of time; and the real question before the House was whether it was not now time to close the discussion upon it, when it was recollected that no fewer than 23 days had already been taken up this year in discussing the Speeches from the Throne. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton had been disapproved beforehand by the electors of the Metropolis, who, having the speeches of the noble Lord in Ulster before them, had sent 49 Conservative Members to that House to support the policy which the noble Lord had enunciated in those speeches. It must be remembered that the Metropolitan Members represented a population of about 3,500,000, whose opinions were at least equal in weight to those of the Nationalists of Ireland.
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the hon. Member was not speaking at all to the Amendment before the House.
    MR. WEBSTERsaid, he would oppose both Amendments, because neither of them was worthy of the consideration of the House; and he trusted, therefore, that the House would quickly come to a decision, and would at once proceed to pass the Order of the Day relating to Her Majesty's Speech, with a view of proceeding with the Business of the nation.
    MR. E. HARRINGTONsaid, he begged to congratulate the hon. Member for East St. Pancras (Mr. Webster) on his maiden effort. Hon. Members opposite who represented Irish constituencies were fighting for a class with whose interests they were identified. The noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Lord Randolph Churchill) had been charged with having incited to disturbance, treason, and rebellion in Ireland, and yet he had not dared to get up and defend his conduct. The noble Lord had deliberately used in Belfast incendiary language which he knew must necessarily lead to disturb-
    1256
    ance. As a consequence Ulster had fought, and he appealed to hon. Members to say whether she had been in the right in doing so. He (Mr. E. Harrington) maintained that the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought either to take the responsibility of his language, or make a decent apology to the House for his incendiary speech. If the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary (Mr. Matthews) was not ashamed of his religion, he should like to see the right hon. Gentleman get up and dissociate himself from one who incited to the persecution of men of the same creed as himself. The hon. and gallant Member for Armagh (Colonel Saunderson) had taunted them with being payees of the Chicago Convention. He (Mr. E. Harrington) believed that the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh had been put up to raise a side issue and draw away attention from the criminal conduct of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Every speech in which the hon. and gallant Member for Armagh made these insinuating attacks on the Nationalist Party, that they were there merely for the exercise of a selfish purpose, for paltry pelf, to sell or betray their country according as they were paid to do, the one or the other was a blow below the belt. But these blows came with ill grace from the descendants of those who betrayed their country and their country's liberties in times gone by. It seemed to him that if a band of men, representing a poor and persecuted country, determined to resign all the purposes of their own lives and to give themselves up wholly and solely to the interests of their country, it was no discredit to them that their countrymen should maintain them. Then it was said that they were poor men, and could not live in London without being paid. It was no disgrace to be poor; but when their position was contrasted with that of the Irish landlords, they could not but ask how they attained their position. Theirs was a blood-stained history, and there was no other country in which the landlords had so ill performed the office of resident gentry. The conspiracy of silence on the Treasury Bench was the conspiracy of guilt, and he had no doubt the country would pass judgment upon the noble Lord, who had allowed it to go by default against him.
    COMMANDER BETHELLsaid, he congratulated the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Lord Randolph Churchill) upon having had the courage to resist the efforts made by hon. Members opposite to draw him into this discussion. With reference to the charge that the noble Lord had incited to riot in Belfast, it was the fact that riots had taken place there long before the noble Lord made his speech, and even long before the Home Rule Bill came into existence. It could not be doubted that the tension of feeling existing in Belfast was the slow accumulation of various causes, nor could it be denied that what had been going on all over Ireland for years had had a great deal to do with it. The noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson) had been found fault with, because they were said to have made rebellious speeches. It could not be maintained that rebellion was wrong under all circumstances. There was sometimes a vindication for it. But if right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the other side thought that the noble Lord and the hon. and gallant Member were "rebels," why did they not arraign them for it and have them tried as such? In the course of these long debates nothing had surprised him more than to see hon. Members below the Gangway rise one after another and denounce in tones of indignation those who had recently, perhaps, taken a leaf out of their own book.
    MR. JORDAN: I desire to make a few remarks upon the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson). The chief part of the observations of the hon. and gallant Member had reference to Fenianism; and by implication the hon. and gallant Member endeavoured, from an anonymous communication, to fasten Fenianism on hon. Members on this side of the House. [Colonel SAUNDERSON: I did nothing of the kind.] I said by implication, and I will give the exact phrase of the hon. and gallant Member. He stated that if hon. Members on these Benches did not belong to such an organization he would give them an opportunity of disavowing their connection with it. Now, I have never been a Fenian myself, and, thank God, I have never been an Orangeman. Nor
    1258
    am I here to advocate the cause of Fenianism, but had I been a Fenian I certainly should not disavow it; and if the charge were pushed further, rather than disavow it, I would affirm my connection with that honourable Society. At any rate, I would infinitely prefer Fenianism to Orangeism. I look upon Fenianism rather as a patriotic and national organization; and whether the Fenians have been misguided or not, they are, in my judgment, much more unselfish than Orangemen. Orangeism is, to a large extent, an appeal to the pockets of certain persons, not only in the ordinary work of the organization, but for the selfish objects of its leaders, to enable them not only to maintain their position, but also to replenish their pockets. I am not now attacking the members of the Orange Society; I am prepared to admit that there are many respectable gentlemen connected with the Orange Association, but; if so, they are respectable gentlemen in spite of the Association to which they belong; because I maintain that Orangeism is inimical to liberty of opinion, to freedom of thought and action, and, hence, to the principles of true Protestantism. I see nothing, except to the advantage of Fenianism, that is different between it and Orangeism. The one is a secret Society, and the other is a secret Society. ["No!"]
    MR. AMBROSE: I rise to Order. I wish to ask you, Sir, whether it is within the Amendment before the House to discuss the relative merits of Fenianism and Orangeism?
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is not out of Order.
    MR. JORDAN: I was saying that one was a secret Society, and the other was a secret Society. One was a Society that was said to encourage private drill, and the other is an organization which resorts to the same practices. It will be in the recollection of the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson) that, speaking at an Orange anniversary meeting at Enniskillen not long ago, the hon. and gallant Member recommended the brethren, who had previously met in secret conclave, to combine, to put on military dress, and to march and drill. [Colonel SAUNDERSON: I did nothing of the kind.] In that case my recollection must be very defective, for I was one of the per-

    1259
    sons in the crowd who listened to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and so charitable were his auditors that when they recognized that there was a person in the assembly who was a Liberal and a Land Leaguer they threatened to beat me. Therefore, I think that Orangeism and Orangemen have nothing whatever to boast of as being superior in any shape or form to the organization of Fenianism and the Fenians—of the two, the Fenian Organization is the more respectable. It did not sail under false colours. It neither sailed under the colours of religion and devotion to God, or loyalty to the Queen; but it stated boldly—"We are dissatisfied with the existing form of Government; we will fight against it." The members of the Fenian Organization did try to fight against the Government, and the only thing which made their efforts discreditable was the want of success which attended their efforts. If they had succeeded there would be no difficulty in regarding them as respectable men. The hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh said that the Irish Members have two policies. I altogether deny the assertion; but if we have two policies that is no novelty in the political world. The hon. and gallant Gentleman himself is an illustration of that. I recollect at one time, when I was much, younger, that we looked upon him—that is to say, the few Liberals there then were in the North of Ireland—looked upon the hon. and gallant Gentleman as our rising hope, and the man we were ready to support against the Tories. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has changed his policy since that day, and now he is one of the most ardent and enthusiastic advocates of a Tory policy the very reverse of that which at one time he advocated. I want to know what is meant by a double policy? The Tory Party in 1866 had one policy in regard to the franchise; but in 1867 they had another. Whenever it has been expedient, the Tory Party have found it very convenient to have a double policy; and it cannot be denied that they have even coquetted very considerably with the Irish Nationalists. It has invariably been their policy to take all the aid and assistance they can get, and there can be very little doubt that if the Election before last had not turned out as it did their policy would have been much more conciliatory towards the Irish
    1260
    Nationalist Members than it has since been. Let me refer the House to a much greater man than any individual Member of the Tory Party—I refer to the Leader of the greatest Party in this House—the Liberal Party—the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone). That right hon. Gentleman has had different policies at different times with regard to coercion. Not many years ago he was altogether in favour of the policy of coercion; but recently he has entirely given up that idea. The Tories have done the same. When they went into Office early in the present year they declared that, in the present state of Ireland, it was absolutely necessary to bring in a Coercion Bill. They have entirely changed that view now, and they are of opinion that coercion is altogether unnecessary. The hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh has stated that the National League in Ireland is supported by American gold. Well, what of that? Gold is the most powerful factor in all political struggles, and it is simply because we have got the gold that we are now able to fight the landlords with their own instruments and with their own tools. The fact that the Organization had money was the very first thing that made me join the Land League. [A laugh.] Allow me to explain, and. I am glad to see hon. Members opposite so happy. I have no wish to transgress the Rules of the House; but I wish to explain that in the North of Ireland, before the Land League established a footing there, there were a few Tenant Eight Associations that were purely local, and they had very little power. They had no combination or organization, and they were unable to do battle with the combined power of landlords and their agents and bailiffs. It was found that every organization of that kind was only short lived because it did not possess the gold. The landlords had all the gold; but by-and-bye America said that if we desired to continue tinue the battle against landlordism the money necessary to carry it on would be placed at our disposal, and it was then that I threw in my lot with the Organization and the Society that gave me the means of fighting the landlords. [A laugh.] I quite understand that laugh. I will come to the point in a moment,

    1261
    and when I have done I do not think that the hon. Members will laugh at me. I threw in my lot with the Organization which had the means of doing battle effectively against the tyranny and oppression of landlordism. I have taken the greatest possible delight in this Organization, because it has been able to procure American gold to assist it in meeting the blank cheques of Dukes and the subscriptions of loyal and patriotic Associations, and all those Associations of Dukes, Lords, and Squires who, as a class, are desirous of doing battle with the masses of the working people of England and Ireland. Another point the hon. and gallant Gentleman made was, that it was a discredit to be in this House at the expense of other people. [Colonel SAUNDERSON: No; I did not.] I beg the hon. and gallant Member's pardon, but I have the words down here on my notes, and he accused the Irish Members of being here at the expense of other people. Well, as far as I am concerned, I deny that accusation altogether. I am not here at the expense of other people. I will not adopt the course that was taken by my hon. Friend (Dr. Tanner) the other night in denying that charge; but I must say that men who have no sense of honour deserve very little consideration. Hon. Gentlemen opposite often talk of their fine sense of honour; but they think very little of hurting the feelings of others. I, for one, altogether repudiate the insinuation that I have been sent here at the expense of other people. But, Mr. Speaker, if it were so, I should think it a credit and an honour to be maintained and supported in this House by the subscriptions which come from America. Recollect that they do not come from foreigners, for I do not call subscriptions that come from my brothers, my uncles, and my friends in America, foreign money, and I should count it an honour to be maintained by subscriptions sent from America out of respect for Ireland, and the National cause, rather than to be maintained in this House by money wrung from misery, poverty, and hate by the Irish landlords from Irish tenants. What are the principal part of hon. Gentlemen in this House supported by? Are they not supported by the money of other people? Who makes the money? Is it not the tenant farmer who makes the
    1262
    money that supports the landlords here? While a certain proportion of it may be fairly and justly due and obtained, the larger part is wrung from the tenants of Ireland, and from the miserable small farmers in that country, who have to deny themselves food, and clothing, and covering in the winter nights in order that the rent may be sent over to London to the Irish landlord, to be spent in England, or on the Continent, in the Holy Land, or elsewhere. Sir, the tenants of Ireland have exhausted every possible moans of making up the rent. Rent is but interest in another form, and I have known many instances in which tenants, to pay rent, robbed merchants and others of both principal and interest; and now the time has come when it is impossible any longer to continue the payment of such rent. There is another point in relation to America. The Irish in America are accused of calling upon the American people to "Boycott" the English manufacturer. [An hon. MEMBER: No!] I certainly understood the allegation to be that at the recent Chicago Convention the American citizens were asked by the Irish Representatives to refuse to take English manufactured goods. Now, I want to know what control the Irish National Party, or even the great English nation itself, can have over the action of the American people? How can we prevent any number of American citizens from meeting in a Convention, or otherwise, and passing any Resolution they choose? I do not see how it is possible for us to interfere, and it certainly would be an impertinence on our part to make any attempt to interfere, with the affairs of a foreign State. My answer to the observations of the hon. and gallant Gentleman is that if an American Convention chooses to pass a Resolution in reference to English manufacturers, we have no more control over them than England had when some of the United States declared their independence. I think I have now referred to the different points on which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has chosen to attack the Irish Party; and as to the Amendment he has moved to the Resolution, I trust that the House will emphatically reject it. I have only one word more to say, and it has reference to the action of the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Belfast. I believe that

    1263
    the course taken by the noble Lord produced a great deal of confusion in the North of Ireland. I know that it has been denied that the action of the noble Lord has had any influence in Belfast and the North of Ireland. Now, let me give an illustration to show the influence which the noble Lord's speech has had. The noble Lord stated in that speech that the Orangemen of Belfast and Ulster had in their own hands the protection of their lives, their liberty, and their property, and on them depended the integrity of the Empire. These two statements so permeated the Orangemen of Belfast and Ulster, that they were quoted at every social and local meeting in the North of Ireland. A short time after the speech was delivered there was a small Orange electioneering tea meeting in the town of Brookborough, County Fermanagh, the county in which I live. One of the members of the Orange fraternity, speaking at that meeting, said—
    "Lord Randolph Churchill has said that on the Orangemen of Belfast and Ulster depends the protection of our lives, our liberties, and our property, and not only so, but upon the Orangemen of Belfast and Ulster depends the integrity of the Empire."
    The speaker added—
    "And we are the boys who will do it."
    —meaning that they were the boys who would fight to maintain the integrity of the Empire. In the same locality, at another tea meeting, a well-known magistrate—Lord Cole—was present; and, animated by the same spirit as the result of the noble Lord's speech, he recommended that the Protestant people of that part of that country should take means to exclude from their service all Roman Catholics, and that they should keep them out of their farms and occupations, and thus rid them out of the country. Another local magistrate in the county of Fermanagh, Mr. Frank Brooke, Tory candidate for South Fermanagh, and who lately so nearly escaped dismissal from the magistracy, advised the Protestants to fight. If such feeling animates the people in the rural districts and in the small villages, is it to be wondered at that the speech of the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer had a much more powerful effect in Belfast itself, where political feeling runs much higher? But the noble Lord ought not properly to
    1264
    bear the entire blame. In my opinion, the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), and the noble Marquess the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington), had something to do with the matter as well. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, during the late Elections and in North Wales, strongly appealed to Protestant bigotry. The noble Marquess the Member for Rossendale also went to Belfast, with the object of inducing the Liberal Protestants of Belfast and of the North of Ireland to efface themselves—to immolate themselves on the Tory altar, and prepare the way for the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The noble Marquess was successful, and as the result of his efforts we have at this moment some of the noble Marquess's following in this House. I need not go further than point to the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell), who sits here as the nominee of the noble Marquess the Member for Rossendale. I must apologize for having detained the House so long, and, in conclusion, I beg to support the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), and to oppose that which has been proposed by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson).
    MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: I do not intend to trespass upon the time of the House for more than a very few minutes. At the same time, I think there is an obvious moral to be drawn from the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for the Holderness Division of Yorkshire (Commander Bethell). If a man of his erudition and attainments should be saturated with the views as to the right of rebellion which emanated from the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer, how much more likely is it that persons belonging to a lower class of society—persons of the type and character of those who are led by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson)—should be induced to take a serious view of the purport of the language which we, on this side of the House, ascribe to the noble Lord? I am far from saying that the debate which has taken place this evening has been productive

    1265
    of much good. I am inclined to think that the results have been far less than those which we had a right to anticipate. It is quite true, Sir, that we do not for one moment imagine that the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) would have brought the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill) to the stool of repentance. We did not expect for one moment that we should be able to produce any reform in the political character of the noble Lord. But, Sir, we did hope, and we had a right to expect, that we should receive something like a distinct repudiation of the meaning attributed to that speech. That repudiation we have, it is true, in part obtained. ["No!"] It is true that in the course of a speech made by the noble Lord yesterday he stated that the sentiment which had been ascribed to him in the report in The Times newspaper was not his sentiment, but was the sentiment of The Times itself. ["No!"] Hon. Members say "No;" but my distinct recollection is this—the noble Lord did state, and stated most emphatically, that the language which was read verbatim from the report in The Times was an inaccurate report. Then, in that sense I say that this debate has not been without result, or rather that the two debates have not been without result. What, however, we do complain of is this—that language of this kind, which has been denounced in no unmeasured terms from the opposite side of the House when applied to Members sitting below the Gangway on this side, has not received one word of blame or one word of condemnation from Members sitting on the other side when applied to the noble Lord. I am inclined to think that the noble Lord will not deny that what he taught at Belfast was that the doctrine of rebellion was justifiable in a certain contingency. That is a proposition which the noble Lord has not ventured to contradict. There are lawyers of eminence sitting on that side of the House, and I would appeal to them, and to those who represent Her Majesty's Government, whether there can be the slightest justification for such language proceeding from any person whatever? What I mean is this—it may well be that the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson), assuming the hypothesis of the noble Lord; assuming that Ireland had been sepa-
    1266
    rated from the United Kingdom by an Act of the dominant State, would be justified in adopting the doctrine of insurrection on the occurrence of such an event. I appeal to hon. Members opposite whether such a view is consistent with any doctrine, either legal or quasi-legal—that is to say moral—[A laugh.] When I use the word "moral" I mean a law which does not have exact and positive sanction, but one which is recognized as Constitutional law; and I appeal to hon. and learned Members opposite to say whether, on the hypothesis of such a case occurring, it would be justifiable on the part of any subject of the Sovereign to foment an insurrection, because the Sovereign had considered it right to part with its sovereignty over a portion of its Dominions. I hope that I have made my proposition clear; but as it may be that I have not succeeded in doing so I will put the point in one sentence. What I mean is this—that the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer would remain a subject of the Queen of England whether this separation were to take place or not; and therefore he could not by any possible means be justified, in the event of a separation being brought about, in inciting to a resistance by force in that part of the Queen's Dominions which might be separated from the Crown. I do not think, however, that it is either right or wise for us on this side of the House to attach the great importance to the speech of the noble Lord which has been attached to it. I do not think the noble Lord fully appreciated, when he uttered the sentiments which have been complained of, the gravity of the language he employed. Is is not of the original sentiments that I am complaining. What I do complain of is that he has not seized the opportunity of making an unqualified withdrawal. Why do I say that I do not so much find fault with the noble Lord in this instance? His speech was delivered under peculiar circumstances. I should not be at all surprised if it turned out to be true that the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson) spoke on the same platform on the same night. [Cries of "He did!"] I should not be surprised if a number of stimulating and invigorating circumstances were brought to the notice of the noble Lord. If I remember rightly the noble Lord felt

    1267
    for the moment that the mantle of an illustrious ancestor had descended upon him, although, probably, it was much too large for him. I have no doubt that the noble Lord felt that he was called upon to fire off some great guns; but what I do say is this—that in the language which was used by the noble Lord the most dangerous part of it is to be found in his peroration, and the peroration, from internal evidence, does not appear to have been carefully prepared. It was a peroration which showed that it was the result of a sudden inspiration, and it was wound up by a quotation from a poem familiar to us from the days of our childhood, as one which we were in the habit of reciting. It may well be that the inhabitants of Belfast—the Protestant inhabitants of Belfast—anticipated the meaning of the noble Lord; and although he only contemplated that there should be a resort to violence if a certain contingency arose, yet they felt that they ought to be wise in time, and anticipated the occasion. Therefore, it is not unjust or unfair for hon. Gentlemen who sit below the Gangway on this side of the House to attribute to the noble Lord that the language of the noble Lord in Belfast, to a considerable extent, was the cause of the outrageous attacks which took place in the streets of that town. I am not surprised at the way in which the question has been treated by the Government. They feel how grave a charge is made against their Leader; they feel that he is afraid to discuss the question, and that he has left it to the back Benches to vindicate his character. Sir, I hope the result of this debate will be to teach the noble Lord to exercise prudence on any future occasion when he may be called upon to address an excited population, and that it will be a lesson hereafter to him not to indulge in violent and intemperate language, the effect of which, in the present strained relations between the two countries and the two Parties in Ireland, it is impossible to contemplate with satisfaction. I trust that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) will be carried to a division, so that we may put on record that we, who represent the Liberals of England, sympathize to the full with the sentiments which have been expressed by the hon. Member, and by those who sit behind him below the Gangway, and in the con-
    1268
    demnation which they have passed upon the language used by a Privy Councillor of the Queen and a high Minister of the Crown.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Mr. Speaker—Sir, I cannot quite understand the language of an hon. Gentleman—the Member for the Holderness Division of Yorkshire (Commander Bethell)—who spoke a few moments ago from the Conservative Benches with that naîveté and good feeling which endear him to the House. The hon. and gallant Gentleman entered into a defence of the sacred right of rebellion. I have no objection to the hon. and gallant Gentleman amusing himself in the House with such exercises. But there is something contradictory in the position of hon. Gentlemen opposite. They start off with eulogies of rebellion, and when they have exhausted themselves in that direction they turn round to these Benches and bring a charge of rebellion against us as one of the foulest and most criminal which can be preferred. Sir, I think it is necessary that I should take notice briefly of the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson). I am surprised that the hon. and gallant Gentleman should think it becoming on his part to introduce into the debates of this House an amount of venom, and passion, and irritation which is usually wanting in our conflicts here. I do not think the hon. and gallant Gentleman was particularly happy in his efforts this evening, because he had scarcely proposed his Amendment when the noble Lord his Leader got up and promptly, and in the most emphatic terms, repudiated it. The hon. and gallant Gentleman claims to be a fair antagonist; but I confess that I am unable to reconcile that claim with the course he has pursued this evening, in having, under cover of an anonymous and slanderous pamphlet, preferred charges against hon. Members sitting upon these Benches, which he would not dare to make on his own responsibility. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has given to this pamphlet a gratuitous advertisement. He says that it is widely circulated. So it is, and I have no doubt that any pamphlet which attacks Ireland is sure of a large circulation at W. H. Smith's bookstall. Let me give the House some idea of the character of the pamphlet upon which the hon. and

    1269
    gallant Gentleman founds his attack. Certainly, if I were anxious to secure the defence of my political reputation and position from the attacks of my political opponents, I should owe a debt of gratitude to the hon. and gallant Gentleman and the author of this pamphlet. I may say that I have been found fault with by my countrymen for the moderation of my views. [A laugh.] They may not be moderate to the hon. Gentleman opposite; but they are to them. Nevertheless, in this pamphlet I have the high honour to be represented as a desperado, and the connecting link between the dynamite party and the Nationalists of Ireland. It is upon a pamphlet of this kind, containing the most grotesque calumnies against the Irish Members, that the hon. and gallant Member founds his attack upon us. As a matter of fact, the only Member of the Irish Party whom I know to have been connected with the Fenian Brotherhood is my hon. Friend the Member for South Mayo (Mr. J. F. X. O'Brien). The association of my hon. Friend with Fenianism is an historic fact. He was fined for it and condemned for it 20 years ago. He suffered the penalty. He is certainly not the man to incite others to rebellion and then skulk in shelter; but, with a manliness and a courage that even the bitterest of his political opponents must admire, he went out into the field, took the responsibility of his acts, regardless of consequences, risked his life, and lost his liberty. It is to the credit of my hon. Friend that, having endeavoured in the past to teach the Irish people that it was only by determined action that they could hope for success, having since undergone the penalty attached to his offence, he should now be able to enter this House, and manfully take part in its debates, conducting himself with a decency of demeanour which hon. Members opposite would do well to imitate. The hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson) has alluded to the fact that the Irish people in America have subscribed large sums of money for the Irish cause in Ireland, and for the support and maintenance of some of the Members of this House. If it be a crime, all I can say is that I, for one, glory in it. I remember some years ago, before the Irish-American movement assumed its present proportions, that an old Member of this
    1270
    House came with an air of great alarm to my late lamented Friend, Mr. A. M. Sullivan, and said—"Mr. Sullivan, is it true that there are Members of the House of Commons who are paid for their Parliamentary services?" Mr. Sullivan replied—"I do not know that I can definitely answer the question; but I have heard that there are two Members who are paid." "Who are they," he asked, with his eyes enlarged at the prospect of having his curiosity gratified. "Well," said Mr. Sullivan, "one was a late lamented Member of this House, the Member for Stafford (Mr. Alexander Macdonald), and the other is my hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt." Now, will anybody desire to maintain that it is a reproach to my hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt), who still possesses a seat in this House, that his services—his great and eminent services to the cause of his fellow-workmen—should receive the recognition of being supported by their voluntary subscriptions? And now let me say a word about these American subscriptions. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson) is very much mistaken if he thinks it is a question we ever desire to shirk whenever we may be brought face to face with it. What is the secret of these subscriptions? They are attributable to two sources—first, the undying love of Ireland which her sons bear towards her in whatever part of the world they may happen to be. I will tell the hon. and gallant Gentleman that if, like me, he had gone to America—if he had passed through the great cities of America, and had met Irish people there, some of them 6,000 miles away from the shores of Ireland, and had seen their aspirations and desires, and the sacrifices they were making for the prosperity and elevation of their native country, I believe that even he and our Orange opponents would have been struck with feelings of admiration by their patriotism and love of Ireland. That is the first reason why these voluntary subscriptions have been made in America. The second reason is this. The money which the Irish-Americans subscribe to the Irish movement at home is the fine which they are willing to pay in order to relieve themselves of the annual tribute which they had to pay to the landlords of Ire-

    1271
    land. Now, Sir, upon this point allow me to read a short extract from the evidence published in the third Report of the Royal Commission to inquire into the Depression of Trade and Industry—a Commission appointed by a Tory Ministry- In the evidence of Mr. Murrough O'Brien, one of the gentlemen connected with the Land Commission in Ireland, in answer to Question 8,551, that gentleman said—
    "It is a common practice for farmers in Ireland to save money in order to send their children to America, not altogether with the object of providing for such children, but incidentally to provide for themselves also; because the children who go to America and do well there send remittances to their friends in Ireland. Various estimates have been made of the amount remitted in that way from America and other foreign countries. Of course, it is impossible to obtain a correct estimate of the amount remitted; but it may be placed, I think, at £1,000,000 a-year."
    Mr. O'Brien was asked—
    "Is it not a matter accepted generally that a large portion of the money thus remitted goes toward the payment of rent? I think," said Mr. O'Brien, "there can be no doubt that a large portion of the money so remitted is applied to the payment of rent."
    I would ask whether the friends of the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh, who are pressing for the payment of rack rents, ever refused any payment towards those rack rents because it came from American dollars sent over by Irish emigrants? Sir, the tragedy of Irish landlordism pursues the Irish race wherever it may go. Like the Nemesis of which the Greeks used to speak, it never stops or falters in its purpose, but carries out that fell purpose with, a power of self-fulfilment that no science can defeat. It pursues the Irish people wheresoever they may go—in the slums of Scotch as well as the English cities. [A laugh.] No doubt, all this is very amusing to the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite. I am not alluding to the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson), for I am glad to say that his good feeling renders him unable to participate in these jeers; but I repeat that Irish landlordism follows the Irish people even into the slums of English and Scotch cities, down in the depths of British mines, into the hotels of America, along the sheep-walks of Australia—wherever you go, you find that Irish men and Irish women are poor, and
    1272
    must remain poor, because they are endeavouring to help their fathers, their mothers, and their brethren at home who are trying to fill the maelstrom of rack rents. Does it lie in the mouths of hon. Gentlemen opposite, who have only been able to maintain their position by the American dollars of Irish servant girls, to turn round and attack hon. Members sitting on these Benches because our people in America have subscribed money in order that they may kill the vulture which has fed upon their vitals. I will now pass to the subject of the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not think the noble Lord, with his experience of the past, can have been very much surprised that the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) should have made his language the subject of a definite Motion. Even reformed rakes, when they get upon the Treasury Bench, must remember the stormy passages of their Parliamentary youth. The noble Lord has always been challenging us to make his speech the subject of a definite Motion. Only the other night the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, thinking that he has done enough in explaining away the language of the noble Lord, has come to the conclusion that a more bellicose attitude is necessary, and has made it a matter of reproach to my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) that he has not had the courage of his convictions, and has not made the action and language of the noble Lord the subject of a definite Motion. And yet, when the challenge is accepted, and the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) shows that he has the courage of his convictions, and brings the language and acts of the noble Lord before the House as the subject of a definite Resolution, the noble Lord runs away. The noble Lord must be aware that he has supplied us with many precedents, and I am sorry to think that it will be our duty to study the speeches of the noble Lord during the next six months with the utmost care, in order to see whether they "point a moral or adorn a tale." On the 6th of February, 1884, the noble Lord, I find, took the serious step of moving the adjournment of the House. Probably the noble Lord may forget the fact. In fact, in those days the noble Lord moved the adjourn-

    1273
    ment of the House so often that he may well fail to remember any particular occasion on which he did so. But it does not require frequent Motions for the adjournment of the House to make a large breach of the decorum usually observed in it, and to task very considerably the patience of this Assembly. Of this, however, there can be no question—that the noble Lord moved the adjournment of the House at least as frequently as any other Member. I do not know whether the noble Lord recollects the particular instance to which I am about to refer or not; but why did he move the adjournment? What was the great cause that induced the noble Lord to adopt this rather extraordinary Parliamentary course? It was that the night before the right hon. Gentleman who is now, I believe, the Governor of the Province of Madras (Mr. Bourke) had made a speech, and that nobody on the opposite side had got up to make a reply. The noble Lord, with all the breadth of language of which he is so great a master, commented upon the scandal, the indecorum, and the indelicacy of allowing an important Member of the Front Opposition Bench to get up and make a speech, and nobody on the Treasury Bench rising to make a reply. Yet last night the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt), who is at present leading the Liberal Party, got up and made a speech directly impugning the conduct of the noble Lord, arraigning his acts, and giving quotations from his speech, in a manner which imperatively called for an answer, and yet the noble Lord sat glued to his seat, and had neither the decorum, nor the politeness and courtesy, in accordance with the immemorial traditions of the House, to rise in his place and to make even an attempt to reply. A direct Motion is now submitted to the House by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), and we challenge a vote. The noble Lord describes the course we take as Obstruction. I accept the noble Lord as a very high authority on Obstruction. In Obstruction he lived, moved, and had his being for many years. Obstruction was the ladder on which he climbed to power. It was the means by which he obtained political position, and, to a large extent, forfeited political reputation. At that time I supported the noble Lord,
    1274
    and I recollect a great deal of what the noble Lord did. We hunted in couples in past years. I myself am very heartily ashamed of the memory; and I hope the noble Lord is too. I have sat with the noble Lord in this House for some years, and I have carefully observed the course he has pursued. I have seen, the noble Lord employ methods in this Assembly which I think even an Irish rebel would shrink from taking. I can remember—who can forget who was in the House at the time—the terrible strain there was when this country and the Empire of Russia were disputing over the Frontier of Afghanistan. Those days were days of anxiety, and in the possible consequence they were only contemplated with horror by every humane and reasonable man. We saw ourselves on the point of being involved in a contest with the most colossal Empire of the world—a contest which would have led to the sacrifice of hundreds of thousands of lives, and have brought about one of the most terrible tragedies in the annals of war. What did the noble Lord, in such circumstances, do? Instead of being impressed by the danger of his country and the imminent prospect of finding her involved in all the horrors of a gigantic war, he stood up night after night, from his seat below the Gangway, and endeavoured, by every means in his power, to embarrass and thwart the Government in their efforts to preserve peace, and to make political profit out of their difficulties. Therefore, I am not surprised at the course which the noble Lord took in Belfast. More than that, Sir; when at last the time came, and the Prime Minister was able to announce, with that perfect consistency and honour, the Government had been able to save the Empire from the horrors of war, the comment of the noble Lord was that it was "terrible news." [Cries of "Question!" and "Order!"]
    COLONEL BROOKFIELD: I rise to Order. I wish to know from you, Sir, whether the remarks which the hon. Gentleman is now making have any reference to the Amendment before the House?
    MR. SPEAKER: I understand that the hon. Member is replying to a charge of Obstruction made against himself and against hon. Members sitting with him, and I must say that he is entitled to

    1275
    reply to that charge. At the same time, the illustration which the hon. Member is employing seems to be somewhat long. I must remind the hon. Member and the House that the subject before us is the speeches of the noble Lord and hon. Members who are impugned in the two Amendments now under discussion.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I must admit that my illustration is somewhat long, and I will not pursue it further. The recollection of the words to which I have alluded is fresh in the public memory; it lives in the public memory, and it is one that will never be forgotten. I am not surprised at the conduct of the noble Lord in Belfast, although I confess that I was surprised when I heard of it first. An hon. Friend of mine told me that the noble Lord had only acted as was to have been expected, having in his early career been so much in our favour. At one time it appeared that there were only two things upon which the noble Lord entertained any strong feeling—namely, his hatred of Jingoism and his sympathy for the National League of Ireland. At length, however, it was said that he had turned so much against us that he had declared his intention of going to Ireland and arousing the Orangemen of the North against us. When I heard that announcement I was so innocent that I believed it impossible. I thought the noble Lord incapable of taking such a course; but I confess now that he more than realized the prophecy. What was the object of the speeches at Belfast delivered by the noble Lord and the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson)? I think I can tell you. Their object was to create as much disturbance in the North of Ireland as would make the English people go away with the idea that Home Rule could not be granted without causing a civil war in Ireland. Those objects were not always openly avowed; but you will find that there was a journalistic revelation of their purport very soon after the delivery of the speeches themselves. On the 10th of August The Times informed its readers that a large share of the responsibility must fall on the mass of Protestants in the North of Ireland; that at that moment they were practically triumphant; that the danger of Home Rule, which would have swept the Protestants of Ulster out of the Dominion of Ireland
    1276
    and placed the Government in the hands of Mr. Parnell and Archbishop Walsh, had passed away; that there could no longer be any mistake about the feeling of the Ulster Protestants; and that it was clear now that their strength consisted in sitting still and waiting for the results—that is to say, that these riots have carried out the purpose of deluding the people of this country into the belief that Home Rule means civil war, and, that having been proved to the satisfaction of the public, murder and plunder might take a rest and sit still, and that the English public might wait. What was the character of these riots? I think they must have been a revelation to English Gentlemen. I do not think that anybody could have supposed it possible that in the 19th century men calling themselves Christians could murder one another in the name of religion. You must go to the Mussulman to find anything like the intolerance, bigotry, and murderous ferocity exhibited in the streets of Belfast, where Orange workmen were found pelting bolts of iron at a poor boy while drowning.
    MR. SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Gentleman that the question of the Belfast riots has already been discussed and decided by a vote of the House.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I will not continue that subject. I was only endeavouring to point out what was the effect of the language of the noble Lord; but I will not pursue the argument further. It was only an illustration of the cruelty and horror of the transactions which the speeches and language of the noble Lord had brought about. In the face of scenes like these, I wonder at the hon. Member who dares to speak of the courage of the Orange rioters of Belfast. I am the more filled with wonder and astonishment at the language which has been used by the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell), who, having denounced the Orange Leaders, now sits on the Liberal Benches in order that he may the better defend the Orange cause. What must have been the effect on the people of Ireland of language and conduct such as that of the noble Lord. The noble Lord goes to Ireland, and the first thing he does is to revive religious bigotry, to stir up the embers of religious hatred, and to give a certain section of the population there to understand that, al-

    1277
    though they may murder and plunder their Catholic fellow-countrymen, the arm and strength of England will be behind them. What more atrocious gospel, more damaging to the honour of England and to the power of both England and Ireland, can be preached? You teach the Irish people that, under certain circumstances, they are perfectly free to plunder and murder, because the strength of England will be behind them while they are doing so. Can you not see that by this method of teaching you are giving every Irishman a reason for hating and detesting your rule, and, if possible, for rebelling against it? We have been lately discussing a good deal—at least, in the papers—the attitude of Russia and Bulgaria; but the very journals which are always talking about the evil results which would attend the establishment of Russian rule in Bulgaria are the first to encourage the noble Lord in a policy of coercing Ireland, and not only of dividing that country, but of actually supporting a portion of her people in rebellion, if a certain state of things should be brought about by legal and Constitutional means. I maintain that any man who propounds a policy like that in Ireland is doing more to make English rule hateful and detested than any rebellion could, and far more than can be done by American dollars. The noble Lord filled the Office of Secretary of State for India only last year. He knows very well that the only defence of our rule in India is that it keeps rival races and sects from cutting each other's throats. And yet, immediately the noble Lord retires from the Office of Secretary of State for India, with the experience he must have acquired of the ferocity of racial and religious differences, he goes to Ireland to reverse the policy of England in India, and to make the people fall foul of each other's throats, when, without his intervention, they would be able to live at peace. Talk about the disintegration and dismemberment of the Empire! Such a policy will best be carried out by fomenting religious animosities and arousing the worst passions of mankind. I think the words and acts of the noble Lord have done more to estrange the people of England and Ireland than almost any occurrence which has taken place within the last few years. The worst enemy of Eng-
    1278
    land in Chicago and elsewhere could not do more to sow the seeds of hatred in Ireland than the language of the noble Lord; and I hope the House to-night by its vote—at least, this side of the House—will show its detestation of such a way of bringing shame, dishonour, and danger upon England.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Main Question put.
    The House divided;—Ayes 119; Noes 202: Majority 83.

    AYES.

    Abraham, W. (Limerick, W.)

    Kelly, B.

    Kenny, M. J.

    Allison, R. A.

    Lalor, R.

    Anderson, C. H.

    Lane, W. J.

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Leamy, E.

    Barran, J.

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

    Barry, J.

    Lyell, L.

    Bickford-Smith, W.

    M'Arthur, W. A.

    Biggar, J. G.

    M'Cartan, M.

    Blake, J. A.

    M'Donald, P.

    Blane, A.

    M'Donald, W. A.

    Borlase, W. C.

    M'Laren, W. S. B.

    Bright, W. L.

    Mahony, P.

    Broadhurst, H.

    Mayne, T.

    Brown, A. L.

    Molloy, B. C.

    Cameron, C.

    Morgan, O. V.

    Campbell, H.

    Morley, rt. hon. J.

    Carew, J. L.

    Morley, A.

    Channing, F. A.

    Murphy, W. M.

    Clancy, J. J.

    Nolan, Colonel J. P.

    Clark, Dr. G. B.

    Nolan, J.

    Commins, A.

    O'Brien, J. F. X.

    Condon, T. J.

    O'Brien, P.

    Connolly, L.

    O'Brien, P. J.

    Conway, M.

    O'Connor, A.

    Conybeare, C. A. V.

    O'Connor, J. (Kerry)

    Corbet, W. J.

    O'Connor, J. (Tippry.)

    Cossham, H.

    O'Hanlon, T.

    Cox, J. R.

    O'Hea, P.

    Craig, J.

    Parnell, C. S.

    Crilly, D.

    Pickard, B.

    Crossley, E.

    Pickersgill, E. H.

    Dillon, J.

    Picton, J. A.

    Ellis, J. E.

    Pinkerton, J.

    Ellis, T. E.

    Portman, hon. E. B.

    Esmonde, Sir T. G.

    Power, P. J.

    Esslemont, P.

    Power, R.

    Fenwick, C.

    Provand, A. D.

    Finucane, J.

    Pyne, J. D.

    Foley, P. J.

    Quinn, T.

    Fox, Dr. J. F.

    Redmond, W. H. K.

    Gilhooly, J.

    Rountree, J.

    Gill, H. J.

    Rowlands, J.

    Gill, T. P.

    Russell, E. R.

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

    Schwann, C. E.

    Sexton, T.

    Harrington, E.

    Shaw, T.

    Harris, M.

    Sheehan, J. D.

    Hayden, L. P.

    Sheehy, D.

    Hayne, C. Seale-

    Sheil, E.

    Healy, M.

    Shirley, W. S.

    Holden, I.

    Stack, J.

    Hooper, J.

    Stanhope, hon. P. J.

    Hunter, W. A.

    Stuart, J.

    Jordan, J.

    Sullivan, D.

    1279

    Sullivan, T. D.

    Williamson, J.

    Summers, W.

    Williamson, S.

    Swinburne, Sir J.

    Wright, C.

    Tanner, C. K.

    Tuite, J.

    TELLERS.

    Wallace, R.

    Labouchere, H.

    Watson, T.

    O'Connor, T. P.

    Williams, A. J.

    NOES.

    Addison, J. E. W.

    Dimsdale, Baron R.

    Agg-Gardner, J. T.

    Dorington, Sir J. E.

    Ainslie, W. G.

    Duncan, Colonel F.

    Ambrose, W.

    Duncombe, A.

    Amherst, W. A. T.

    Egerton, hn. A. J. F.

    Anstruther, Colonel R. H. L.

    Egerton, hon. A. de T.

    Ellis, Sir J. W.

    Ashmead-Bartlett, E.

    Elton, C. I.

    Baden-Powell, G. S.

    Evelyn, W. J.

    Bailey, Sir J. R.

    Ewart, W.

    Balfour, rt. hon. A. J.

    Eyre, Colonel H.

    Balfour, G. W.

    Feilden, Lt.-Gen. R. J.

    Banes, Major G. E.

    Fergusson, right hon. Sir J.

    Barttelot, Sir W. B.

    Bass, H.

    Field, Admiral E.

    Bates, Sir E.

    Finch, G. H.

    Baumann, A. A.

    Fisher, W. H.

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

    Fitzgerald, R. U. P.

    Fletcher, Sir H.

    Beach, W. W. B.

    Folkestone, right hon. Viscount

    Beadel, W. J.

    Beckett, E. W.

    Forwood, A. B.

    Bective, Earl of

    Fraser, General C. C.

    Bentinck, Lord H. C.

    Fulton, J. F.

    Bentinck, W. G. C.

    Gedge, S.

    Beresford, Lord C. W.

    Gent-Davis. R.

    De la Poer

    Gibson, J. G.

    Bethell, Commander G. R.

    Giles, A.

    Gilliat, J. S.

    Blundell, Col. H. B. H.

    Godson, A. F.

    Bond, G. H.

    Goldsworthy, Major-General W. T.

    Bonsor, H. C. O.

    Bristowe, T. L.

    Gorst, Sir J. E.

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

    Gray, C. W.

    Grimston, Viscount

    Brookfield, Col. A. M.

    Hamilton, right hon. Lord G. F.

    Bruce, Lord H.

    Burghley, Lord

    Hamilton, Col. C. E.

    Campbell, J. A.

    Hamley, General Sir E. B.

    Charrington, S.

    Clarke, Sir E. G.

    Hanbury, R. W.

    Coddington, W.

    Hankey, F. A.

    Coghill, D. H.

    Hardcastle, E.

    Colomb, Capt. J. C. R.

    Hardcastle, F.

    Commerell, Adml. Sir J. E.

    Heathcote, Capt. J. H. Edwards-

    Compton, F.

    Heaton, J. H.

    Cooke, C. W. R.

    Herbert, hon. S.

    Corry, Sir J. P.

    Hill, right hon. Lord A. W.

    Cotton, Capt. E. T. D.

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Hill, A. S.

    Grossman, Gen. Sir W.

    Hill, Colonel E. S.

    Cubitt, right hon. G.

    Hoare, S.

    Curzon, Viscount

    Holland, rt. hon. Sir H. T.

    Curzon, hon. G. N.

    Dalrymple, C.

    Holloway, G.

    Davenport, H. T.

    Holmes, rt. hon. H.

    Davenport, W. B.

    Hornby, W. H.

    Dawnay, Colonel hon. L. P.

    Houldsworth, W. H.

    Howard, J. M.

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

    Hozier, J. H. C.

    Hubbard, E.

    De Worms, Baron H.

    Hughes, Colonel E.

    1280

    Hughes - Hallett, Col. F. C.

    Pearce, W.

    Penton, Captain F. T.

    Hunt, F. S.

    Percy, Lord A. M.

    Isaacs, L. H.

    Plunkett, hon. J. W.

    Isaacson, F. W.

    Powell, F. S.

    Jackson, W. L.

    Raikes, rt. hon. H. C.

    Jarvis, A. W.

    Reed, H. B.

    Jennings, L. J.

    Ritchie, rt. hon. C. T.

    Kelly, J. R.

    Robertson, J. P. B.

    Kennaway, Sir J. H.

    Robinson, B.

    Kenyon, hon. G. T.

    Rollit, Sir A. K.

    Kerans, F. H.

    Ross, A. H.

    Kimber, H.

    Round, J.

    King, H. S.

    Russell, Sir G.

    King-Harman, Colonel E. R.

    Russell, T. W.

    Sandys, Lt.-Col. T. M.

    Knowles, L.

    Saunderson, Col. E. J.

    Kynoch, G.

    Selwyn, Captain C. W.

    Lambert, I. C.

    Seton-Karr, H.

    Lawrance, J. C.

    Shaw-Stewart, M. H.

    Lawrence, W. F.

    Sidebotham, J. W.

    Lechmere, Sir E. A. H.

    Smith, rt. hon. W. H.

    Legh, T. W.

    Smith, A.

    Lethbridge, Sir R.

    Smith-Barry, A. H.

    Lewisham, right hon. Viscount

    Spencer, J. E.

    Stanhope, rt. hon. E.

    Llewellyn, E. H.

    Stanley, E. J.

    Long, W. H.

    Talbot, J. G.

    Low, M.

    Tapling, T. K.

    Lowther, J. W.

    Temple, Sir R.

    Macartney, W. G. E.

    Theobald, J.

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

    Tollemache, H. J.

    Tomlinson, W. E. M.

    Maclure, J. W.

    Verdin, R.

    Macnaghten, E.

    Waring, Colonel T.

    Mallock, R.

    Watson, J.

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

    Webster, Sir R. E.

    Webster, R. G.

    Marriott, rt. hn. W. T

    Weymouth, Viscount

    Matthews, rt. hon. H.

    White, J. B.

    Maxwell, Sir H. E.

    Whitmore, C. A.

    Mayne, Admiral R. C.

    Wilson, Sir S.

    More, R. J.

    Wodehouse, E. R.

    Mount, W. G.

    Wood, N.

    Mowbray, rt. hon. Sir J. R.

    Wortley, C. B. Stuart-

    Wright, H. S.

    Mowbray, R. G. C.

    Young, C. E. B.

    Murdoch, C. T.

    Noble, W.

    TELLERS.

    Northcote, hon. H. S.

    Douglas, A. Akers-

    Parker, hon. F.

    Walrond, Col. W. H.

    Bill read the third time, and passed.

  BURMAH—THE BRITISH AUTHORITIES—MILITARY EXECUTIONS— THE PROVOST MARSHAL.

    RESOLUTION.
    DR. CAMERON: After many hours spent in recriminations that may not bear much practical fruit, I feel some reluctance to trespass on the time of the House; but the subject I am about to refer to is of importance in the cause of humanity and good government. This evening I asked a Question regarding the administration of law in Upper Burmah, and the Under Secretary of State for India (Sir John

    1281
    Gorst) returned an answer which I am certain, from the well-known disposition of kindliness which he has always displayed towards subject races, could only have been prompted by imperfect information. I desire to call the attention of the House to this subject, and I therefore avail myself of this the sole opportunity afforded me by the discussion on the Address; and I shall say what I have to say as briefly as possible. The hon. and learned Gentleman could not bring himself to believe the statements embodied in my Question. I should have been equally incredulous as to the truth of the allegations on which I founded my query. In January last a report came to this country that the Provost Marshal in Mandalay was an ardent photographer, and had photographed Native prisoners in the moment of being executed. I asked a Question on the subject, and on the day I asked the Question another report was telegraphed home to the effect that the same Provost Marshal had, in order to extort evidence, had a man blindfolded, drawn up a firing party before him, threatened him with execution, but told him that his life would be spared if he disclosed the particulars of some conspiracy he was supposed to be connected with. The Secretary of State for India stated that he could not conceive the possibility of any British officer acting in such a manner, but he did what, under the circumstances, I think, was most creditable of him—he telegraphed to India for information. He not only telegraphed to the Governor General, but went out of his way and telegraphed to the Chief Commissioner in Upper Burmah. The result was that he received a report to the effect that the charge made against the Provost Marshal of having used the threat of execution as a means to extort evidence was well-founded. A few days afterwards the correspondent of The Times telegraphed home that the investigation that had been ordered into the case was a mere farce, that a number of civilians who had witnessed the photographing at the execution had not been called in, and that an attempt was being made to whitewash the Provost Marshal. He stated that the charge of having tried to extort evidence under threat of execution, it had been attempted to explain away; but that it had been officially
    1282
    reported that a man had been sentenced to death, but had been promised his life if he would only reveal what he knew of a certain conspiracy. But that turned out to be untrue, because the Chief Civil Officer said that no sentence of death could have been carried out unless he had given his consent. Further investigation was ordered by the Viceroy, and all the charges made by The Times correspondent, incredible as they appeared, were substantiated. With the news announcing this fact was also sent the information that the Provost Marshal would be reprimanded, and would be deprived of the promotion he had earned. The Governor General did not think that sufficient punishment, and the Secretary of State agreed with his view. The Provost Marshal was court-martialled, and the result has been that he has been publicly reprimanded, and has had to tender his resignation. The statement contained in my recent Question I made from correspondence I received from a gentleman whom I have every reason to believe well-informed, but who desires, for certain reasons, that his name shall not be disclosed. What he says on the subject is this. That at present a very bad state of things prevails in Mandalay—
    "The Deputy Commissioner of Mandalay is a Captain Adamson, late of the Artillery. He has had no legal training, and possesses but little legal knowledge. He has, however, uncontrolled power. His decisions are not subject either to appeal or review. Captain Adamson tries prisoners in secret at his own house. In such circumstances it is an absolute impossibility for prisoners to produce witnesses in their own defence, or to secure a fair trial. Punishments of terrible severity are inflicted by Captain Adamson. I am convinced that I am within the mark in stating that Captain Adamson has within the last three months inflicted on prisoners sentences of transportation or rigorous imprisonment amounting in the aggregate to 3,000 years, besides which several men were shot and innumerable floggings of frightful severity inflicted. I cannot give the exact figures, as the Government refuse all information."
    COLONEL KING - HARMAN: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I could not catch the name of the writer of this communication. Would the hon. Member kindly repeat it?
    DR. CAMERON: I explained that he gave reasons why he wished his name to remain a secret. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will be patient for a

    1283
    moment, I will give him another authority, and this time I shall be able mention a name. This informant I have quoted says that such feeling as to maladministration has been excited amongst the inhabitants of Mandalay, that it contributes very much to the disaffection that prevails in Upper Burmah. Since I sent in my Question an hon. Member has called my attention to the fact that, in The Times of the 17th of last month, very similar statements were made. The Times' correspondent sends home a letter in which he states, after having referred to the way in which justice is administered—
    "The discontent caused by such a state of affairs is deep and wide-spread, and extends to all classes. The discontent in Mandalay reacts on the whole of Upper Burmah, and encourages the people to resist to the very last."
    He goes on to say that a Mr. Miller, who is assistant manager of the Irrawaddy Flotilla Company, having seen a letter of his in The Times of the 19th of May, had sent him a communication, of which he gives an extract. Mr. Miller, who, as I said, is connected with the management of the Irrawaddy Flotilla Company—and here we have a name for the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel King-Harman)—writes as follows:—
    "It was with considerable interest that I read the Mandalay correspondence in the London Times of the 19th ultimo; and though during our mutual stay in Mandalay you and I saw affairs from two entirely different standpoints, I believe that every paragraph of your letter can safely challenge contradiction."
    He goes on to say that the high-handed and illegal proceedings of the local authorities in Mandalay—
    "Are giving the name of British administration an unsavoury odour in the nostrils of peaceable and law-abiding citizens."
    After giving a number of cases of oppression and extortion on the part of the police, he refers to the administration of justice in Mandalay, and to the manner in which prisoners are tried and convicted, and he quotes the following case:—
    "As an instance of the nature of the evidence on which suspects are condemned, I give you the following:—An elderly man, father of a large family, and universally respected in the quarter where he resides, is accosted in his own house by two men, who request him to read a document which they have brought. He reads half-way through, and sees that it purports to be a revolutionary message from a rebel Prince. He asks the men to go away
    1284
    and not mix him up with such matters. They leave, and are afterwards arrested with the letter on their persons. On being questioned as to the place where they were at last, they mentioned the name and house of the man who had partly read the letter for them. For this crime—and a European police officer, who was present at his trial, has assured me that such was the head and front of his offending—this man has been condemned to five years' rigorous imprisonment."
    Mr. Miller adds that he is aware that this sentence
    "Has shaken the faith of a large and influential section in Mandalay in English justice."
    The Times' correspondent goes on to say—
    "A report has recently obtained wide currency among the Burmese in Mandalay, that prisoners tried before Captain Adamson have been beaten to compel them to give testimony. This report is probably unfounded, but, unfortunately, owing to the manner in which these trials have been conducted, it is impossible to convince the Burmese that the story is false."
    I forgot to mention, when alluding to the case of the old man who was condemned to five years' imprisonment, that The Times' correspondent, referring to the matter, said—
    "Mr. Miller has assured me that he has ascertained from reliable Burmese witnesses, that it lasted only for the 'chewing of a betel'—i.e., less than five minutes."
    The House will observe that a previous letter which appeared in The Times was alluded to. Well, I looked it up, and I found that a long list of cases of maladministration of justice was given. He says that at the time the Viceroy visited Mandalay, the people were smiling and contented, and willing to accept British rule; but that soon after they became discontented. He points out that a large portion of Mandalay was burnt down by incendiaries, and that an order was issued that no house should be rebuilt without the consent of the Deputy Commissioner. Of course, this order made the whole town useless, and it must have occupied the whole of the time of the Deputy Commissioner for months to consider applications, and give permission to people to build houses, and for months there must have been this large population without houses, and unable to build them, and, of course, driven to desperate courses and into disloyalty. It must be evident to the Under Secretary of State for India that any maladministration of justice

    1285
    must have the worst possible effect on the Native mind. The Earl of Dufferin is perfectly well aware of that, and one of his most earnest instructions to the authorities at Mandalay was that justice should be administered with scrupulous care. He says, in his Memorandum dated the 25th of February, 1886—
    "… it is our first duty to protect the peaceable inhabitants of the country from injury and wrong. For some time past martial law, which for a short period was the only alternative, has been superseded by the authority of the civil magistrate."
    He says—
    "I understand that under no circumstances have any penalties been inflicted except at the instance of our civil officers. This rule should be steadily adhered to, and great pains should be taken to administer justice in such a manner as will stand the test of searching public criticism."
    I ask can the administration of law in Mandalay be said to be fairly conducted if it is such as I have described?—if, as was admitted by the Under Secretary of State (Sir John Gorst), it is conducted in the private house of this gentleman who is not a lawyer, and conducted obviously against the law of the country, seeing that that law gives the right of appeal? Can that be said to be an administration of justice
    "In such a manner as will stand the test of searching public criticism?"
    The Times' correspondent, in one of his letters which I have read since I put my Question, says that if the state of things is so bad in Captain Adamson's Court—which is the best conducted—it must be ten thousand times worse in the others. The men who preside over them have no legal training. In some cases he mentions telegraph clerks have been appointed as Judges. In one case he says—[Cries of "Divide!"] If hon. Members are impatient I can postpone these observations until to-morrow by moving the adjournment of the debate. This is a very important matter, and a quarter of an hour will be much better spent over it than in wrangling like a set of old women over the question of who is to blame for wasting time. As I say, The Times' correspondent declares that this Court of Captain Adamson is by far the best conducted in the country. Again and again he repeats the charge that the trials are conducted illegally, and that they are conducted without the
    1286
    right of appeal which was given by the law which came into operation in February last. He says the Burmese police have been taken over wholesale, and he says that many of them are extremely corrupt; in fact, he gives an instance reported in a Rangoon paper where an officer whose pay was 500 rupees a-month in the course of a few months accumulated 5,000 rupees. The grossest corruption prevails, it is said. I do not state any of these things on my own authority. I know nothing about them. ["Hear, hear!"] I say I know nothing about them; but neither did I know anything personally about the charges which I brought against the Provost Marshal, and yet those charges turned out to be true. I maintain that the authority upon which I bring forward these charges of maladministration of justice is quite as good as that upon which I founded my previous accusations. I do not wish to make any charge against Captain Adamson, of whom I know no more than I do about Colonel Hooper. I do not say that the charges against Captain Adamson are by any means as grave as those I had to bring against the other officer I have mentioned. He is a military man, and it will be admitted that the Military Profession is hardly a good school for judicial training. A man whose experience is confined to procedure in courts martial is likely to bring drumhead procedure with him on to the Bench. I invite the hon. and learned Gentleman to demand information from India on this subject, and to see that it is set forth in such a form as will enable us to test the accuracy of the statements made by the correspondent of The Times, whose name I am not in a position to state. It seems that this officer has to dispose of both civil and criminal cases. Let us know how many men have been tried; how many have been shot; let us know how many have been imprisoned, and what were the terms of imprisonment; how many have been flogged, and the number of lashes given; let us know also if there is any confirmation of the story that an old man was sentenced to five years' imprisonment. I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman not to make a defence of this official, but to telegraph to Mandalay for this information. In times past the hon. and learned Gentle-

    1287
    man has been one of the strongest in advocating justice for Native races; and I ask him to do now what he has so often urged upon those in Office—namely, to ask for information.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOE INDIA (Sir JOHN GORST): Sir, I hope the House and the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) will forgive me if I make a very short reply to the Question which has been put on this subject. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that not only is Her Majesty's Government willing to make full inquiry as to the administration of criminal justice in Upper Burmah, but that it was making such inquiries for many weeks before this question came forward. I think the hon. Member ought to bear in mind that to reduce a semi-barbarous country, like Burmah, which has been so long under the rule of a Sovereign like Theebaw, to a condition in which justice is satisfactorily administered, is not a very easy task, and one which requires a great deal of forbearance and prudence. In the answer which I gave to the hon. Member at the beginning of the proceedings this evening, I had no intention, and I know there is no intention on the part of Her Majesty's Government, to shrink from any inquiry into the charges that have been made; but I think it only right to state that Captain Adamson is not only a military man, but an officer of 15 years' standing in the Civil Service of the Indian Government, and that I think he ought to be protected against the vague charges made by the hon. Member and in a letter from The Times' correspondent. Captain Adamson, so far from not having had legal training, was for seven years Assistant Magistrate at Rangoon, and for about eight years he served in a similar position in Lower Burmah; he was selected by the Viceroy, over other officers, as the most fit person, from his knowledge of the language and his training in the duties of a Judge, to hold the very important position of Deputy Commissioner at Mandalay, and in that position he has had to exercise very severe criminal jurisdiction. The hon. Member says there was no appeal allowed in Upper Burmah. Well, Sir, there is no right of appeal there. The Times' correspondent says there was the right of
    1288
    appeal; but my information from the Viceroy is, that at that time the Government of Burmah was despotic; that the only law was the will of the Crown, and that there was no appeal from Criminal Courts during the period of transition.
    DR. CAMERON: I wish to point out that, in February or March, the Indian Code was extended to Upper Burmah, and that in Lower Burmah the right of appeal exists.
    SIR JOHN GORST: The hon. Member is wrong. Until the 26th of February, the country was governed by the will of the Monarch of this country. On that day it was united by Proclamation to British India; but at the same time a Resolution was passed by the Viceroy of India in Council, under the Act of 33 Vict. c. 3, s. 1, which had the effect of preventing the laws of British India from extending to the newly-acquired country. I am quite aware that The Times' correspondent says that there was the right of appeal; but in that respect, as in many others, his statement is quite inaccurate. I do not wish to follow the hon. Member into the various allegations which he has made, and I will not now test the accuracy of Mr. Miller or of The Times' correspondent; if I were to do so, I might make some observations which might show that their authority is not so great as the hon. Member seems to suppose. But I say that no specific case shall be brought before the Secretary of State for India which shall not be inquired into. With regard to the story which Mr. Miller told, of an old man who was committed to prison for five years, I may say that, at present, until names are given, the Chief Commissioner in Upper Burmah is unable to identify the particular case with any case of which he has record; but the hon. Member must bear in mind that since The Times' correspondent wrote there has been no time to communicate with Mandalay, except by telegraph. Finally, I beg to assure the House that Her Majesty's Government are fully alive to the necessity of making the administration of criminal justice in Upper Burmah above all reproach, of subjecting it to searching criticism, and that no effort will be spared to arrive at the truth.
    DR. CLARK: I wish to call the attention of the Lord Advocate

    1289
    (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald) and the Secretary for Scotland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) to the state of affairs in Scotland.
    MR. SPEAKER: I point out that the subject is not relevant to the Question before the House.
    DR. CAMERON: I should have withdrawn my Motion; but, as I think the promise of the hon. and learned Gentleman, is not sufficiently distinct, I feel it my duty to divide the House upon the Question.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 81; Noes 192: Majority 111.—(Div. List, No. 12.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Address."

    LAW AND JUSTICE (SCOTLAND)—ADMINISTRATION.—RESOLUTION.
    DR. CLARK: Sir, I regret that I am compelled to bring some facts before the House on which I propose to move an Amendment regarding the administration of justice in Scotland. I bring these facts before the House because I cannot do it in Committee of Supply, all the Estimates regarding Law and Justice in Scotland being passed. I desire to call the attention of the Lord Advocate and the Secretary for Scotland to past administration, and to bring some cases before them which require to be looked into. The first case I would bring before them is one that occurred in my own county, where four men were kept imprisoned for 66 days, without being tried, for what I believe to have been an imaginary offence, so far as they were concerned. The men have been liberated now and will not be tried. The facts are as follows:—In the middle of December there were two fires—two corn stacks were burnt down in the county—and the Procurator Fiscal called—as is done in Scotland—secretly before him a number of individuals. The offence, as I say, was burning down two stacks, and the following is an example of the questions that were asked these prisoners—these men who suffered 66 days' imprisonment without being tried, and were only liberated when I called the attention of the Lord Advocate to the case, and was going to move the ad-
    1290
    journment of the House to bring the case before the House—then the Lord Advocate wired down to the Fiscal to either try these men or liberate them, and this Fiscal, knowing that the trial would be a trial of himself, preferred in March to liberate the men, though they had been in prison from the month of December. These men have never been tried. Two of them were the only support of an aged mother, who, during their imprisonment, suffered very cruelly; and the families of the other two also suffered. The following, I say, is an example of the questions aske din private of the accused:—
    "You are accused of burning down corn stacks. How many political meetings have you attended?
    "Answer: Four.
    "Have you attended any private political meetings?
    "Answer: None.
    "Did Dr. Clark promise you anything?
    "Answer: No.
    "Did he promise you three acres and cow for your vote?
    "Answer: No.
    "Were you, James Stephens, engaged in taking the horses from Dr. Clark's carriage on the way to the school-house?"
    [Cries of "Order"] I perhaps may have to give hon. Gentlemen an opportunity of going through the Lobbies again.
    MR. SPEAKER: Will the hon. Gentleman pursue his remarks?
    DR. CLARK: The question was put—
    "Were you, James Stephens, engaged in taking the horses from Dr. Clark's carriage on the way to the school-house?
    "Answer: Yes.
    "And did you help to put the piper in the carriage?
    "Answer: I did.
    "Were your boys there?
    "Answer: They were.
    "Did Dr. Clark pay you well for it?
    "Answer: I never received any payment for it."
    These are a few of the questions that were put to the men who were accused of burning down two corn stacks, and they are very pertinent to the Question, as the House will see. The result was that the men have suffered over two months' imprisonment. They are now at home, and there is now another individual about to be tried, and that is the Procurator Fiscal. I trust that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate will cause an investigation

    1291
    into this case, and some of the other cases to which his attention will be drawn. I may say that the Procurator Fiscal is, of course, a factor and agent for a large landed proprietor in the county, on whose land there is a stone quarry, the men employed at which have their wages calculated every three months—the month after the third month they are paid, after an amount is deducted for the meal and corn and other things they have received. These latter facts will be information to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary, who was going to investigate our truck system in Scotland. I may point out that the quarry is worked by gentlemen, one of whom is a member of a firm of practising solicitors in Thurso, and that the son of that gentleman's partner in the legal firm was my opponent at the last Election. That is the reason these men were questioned in the way I have described. Since these men were released a subscription has been got up for them in the county, and of the subscribers I am glad to say I have been one. This Procurator Fiscal also flew at higher game. There is a respectable man in Thurso who has served Her Majesty for 30 years and has retired with the rank of Surgeon General. He committed the crime of being chairman of my committee in a certain district, and he was also brought before the Fiscal and insulted by him. But if the Government inquire into all these facts they will find that these corn stacks were insured a few days before the fire, and investigation amongst the farm servants who built these stacks will elicit the fact that they were put up damp, and were neither fit for man nor beast. And they will probably find that the amount paid by the Insurance Company as the value of the stacks was much more than they would have realized if taken into market. This Procurator Fiscal took the opportunity of bullying this gentleman I nave mentioned, and of keeping James Stephens, who was my deputy chairman in that district, and his son, in prison for 66 days. I hope there will be another trial in regard to this matter. The late Lord Advocate (Mr. J. B. Balfour) ordered that these men should either be released or tried. I trust that the Government will bring about a trial, so that we may know what
    1292
    the facts of the case are. I should also like to call the attention of the Government to the conduct of a Sheriff and a Fiscal in a neighbouring town, and I would also express a desire that these gentlemen should be tried. They have been tried before the Court of Session, and the judgment of the Sheriff has been overturned. I would call attention to the summing-up of the Judge, who condemned a friend of mine, a venerable clergyman, for whom I have great respect, to four days' imprisonment. This gentleman was sent to prison, thrust into a cell, and compelled to wear prison garb. And for what? Why, according to the summing-up of the Judge, the Rev. Mr. Arnold had criminally committed this offence—he had addressed questions at a political meeting which were never in the slightest degree invited. This was at a meeting where a Conservative gentleman was wooing the constituency, a gentleman who had got a very good hearing, although three-fourths of the meeting were Liberals. This gentleman was asking questions; but a few people who were there, especially the local Tory leader, refused to allow him, and put him down and accused him of rioting. A Tory Procurator Fiscal and a Tory Judge, instead of trying the members of their own Party, who unwarrantably interfered with this gentleman in the exercise of his undoubted right to put questions at the meeting, made an unfortunate victim of this gentleman and sentenced him to four days' imprisonment. What, I say, was the summing up of this Judge—this Arcadian Judge? He said this rev. gentleman had put questions which were never in the slightest degree invited; and I daresay hon. Members opposite have found during their election campaigns that questions have been put to them which have never been in the slightest degree invited. But, unfortunately, hon. Members have not had Judges in their districts prepared to send people to prison for putting such questions—for "heckling," as we call it in Scotland. The Judge said one of the questions this rev. gentleman had put was—"Are you going to support the obstructive Conservatives?" And he (the Judge) had said no Member in the House of Commons would allow himself to be called an Obstructive, and there was no Mem-

    1293
    ber who would not feel insulted if asked, when putting up for a constituency, whether he was going to support the obstructive Conservatives. In fact, said the Judge, it was very offensive; and he went on to say that the next question was precisely in the same tone, and was also meant to be offensive, for it was—"Are you to represent us or misrepresent us?" The Judge held that the asking of such a question was a direct insult, and that the observation could not be regarded as a question. He further stated that the result of the conduct of this rev. gentleman was to put a stop to the meeting, because, instead of putting questions, he had exercised the privilege by saying insulting things, or otherwise saying what he must have known was calculated to be insulting to those who were holding the meeting. As I say, this rev. gentleman was sentenced to four days' imprisonment; but the sentence, on an appeal to the Court of Session, was overturned, and the conduct of this Judge—this honest Judge, who was not at all a partizan—was characterized as it ought to be characterized. I desire to bring another case before the House. [Cries of "Divide!"] I will now bring two cases before the House for the sake of the hon. and gallant Colonel opposite who interrupts me. The first has reference to a well-known Sheriff, whose conduct has already been twice brought before the House. I am going to bring to light some new facts with regard to him. Probably we shall very soon have marines and gunboats in the Isle of Skye; the man who has been demanding them is Sheriff Ivory, of Inverness, to whom I am now referring. I submit that in the Isle of Skye things are not what they ought to be, and that there is a reckless spirit growing up amongst the people; but one of the factors producing that state of things is the conduct of Sheriff Ivory and other Sheriffs of the county. I have four affidavits here—I will not trouble the House by reading them—but they are made by four respectable gentlemen, or rather by three gentlemen and a lady. I know them all. One of the gentlemen is the postmaster at Portree, which is the capital of Skye; another is a large merchant in that town; another is his clerk; one is a carpenter and boatbuilder of the fawn; and a clothier and draper, who happened to be in the post office
    1294
    when the Sheriff entered and began to bully the lady who was acting as post office clerk, and to demand that she should commit a crime. He would commit a crime and wanted another to aid him. How can you expect, when the Chief Judge of a county commits crime with impunity, entering people's houses for the purpose, and when evidence to that effect is brought before the Lord Advocate and nothing is done, in fact, that the criminal is screened—how, I say, can you expect that the people of Skye will have much respect for the operation of the Civil Law there? This Sheriff had an impression that one of the lawyers there, who was a Sheriff Clerk Deputy, was favourable to the crofter cause; and he thought that some telegrams sent to Portree would be useful in establishing a case against this gentleman; and he wanted to compel this lady of whom I have spoken to hand him over the telegrams, and when the postmaster came in he tried the same thing on with him. That is a crime—we in Scotland call it a crime—for committing which a man is liable to be imprisoned for two years. The law against telegrams being made known had been violated, and when my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) called the attention of the House to the affidavits I have mentioned, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the late Lord Advocate (Mr. J. B. Balfour) said the Sheriff told a different story. Now, we had the sworn evidence of the postmaster, a clerk, and of two tradesmen who were in the office at the time, and yet the late Lord Advocate thought it was of no importance because the Sheriff had told a different story. But since the Sheriff told his story we have got official evidence of the man's crime in the Report he has made to the Commissioners of Supply of the county. In that Report the Sheriff publishes to the world the telegrams which he illegally obtained. I am sorry to say that he was aided and abetted by a Post Office official named Leatham, who ought also to be severely punished. We have got these facts in the evidence of witnesses, and we have got them demonstrated by the official Report which has been laid on the Table of the House, and which has been brought before the Crown Authorities. There is, therefore, no doubt that Sheriff

    1295
    Ivory committed this crime; but I suppose we shall be told again that after all this Sheriff is universally respected. I should like to know how it can be expected that anyone will respect Sheriff Ivory after his conduct in this matter? I hope the authorities will try Sheriff Ivory also for the crimes he has committed. Unfortunately, the laws in Scotland are different to those in England and Ireland. We would save the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) the trouble of investigating these matters if we could have a criminal trial as we could have in England. While the right hon. Gentleman shields criminals—
    MR. SPEAKER: The expression the hon. Gentleman has used is not a proper one to use in this House, and he must withdraw it.
    DR. CLARK: I beg to withdraw the expression, and to apologize for using it. May I also call attention to the conduct of my own Sheriff?
    MR. ISAACSON: Mr. Speaker, will you allow me to ask you whether the hon. Member is permitted to waste the time of the House by relating what appears to me matters which have nothing to do with the Address?
    MR. SPEAKER: I have no power to interfere.
    DR. CLARK: I desire, Mr. Speaker, to bring to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman what I believe to be illegal acts on the part of the Sheriff of Caithness. I may have been mistaken, but I was always under the impression that under the 51st clause of the Ballot Act, a candidate at a Parliamentary Election had a right to be present at the counting of the votes. The Ballot Act applies to England as well as to Scotland, and in England it has been decided that candidates have the right to be present when the votes recorded are being counted. I presented myself at the Sheriff's Court, but the Sheriff refused to allow me to be admitted. I retired to look up the Act and to consult with my agent. I returned to the Court, and told the policeman who refused to admit me that I was going in, and if he prevented me I would have him pulled up for assault. He called his sergeant, who assured me he had instructions from the Sheriff to keep me out. I know some of the hon. Gentlemen oppo-
    1296
    site sympathize with illegal acts. Let me mention a few more of such acts committed by my Sheriff. Candidates are compelled to deposit a certain sum of money, and Returning Officers are by law compelled to send in their bills within a certain day, otherwise they are barred. My Returning Officer sent in his bill five days after date, and it was accordingly barred. My agent committed an illegal act by condoning the matter. Ten days afterwards the Sheriff sent in another bill, but I was not to be caught napping—I refused to pay it. If the Sheriff had liked he might have applied to the High Court to get the matter rectified, but he simply kept my money until Parliament ended.
    MR. WEBSTER: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask you if the hon. Gentleman is in Order in relating the circumstances of his Election contest.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is not out of Order; but it is quite obvious he is taxing the patience of the House.
    DR. CLARK: I regret that I should tax the patience of some hon. Members in bringing before the House what are, undoubtedly, illegal acts on the part of very important officials in the Highlands of Scotland. At the present time, a spirit of lawlessness is abroad in Scotland, and as Sheriffs are as much infected with it as crofters I think I must still tax the patience of some hon. Gentlemen by bringing other facts before the House. In this case the Sheriff acted in a way he ought not to have acted—he acted illegally. I have one more fact regarding the administration of justice for the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland (Mr. A. J. Balfour). In 1884 we in the Highlands got circulars inciting to crime. We brought these circulars before the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate (Mr. J. B. Balfour). My friend the late Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macfarlane) on the 17th of July, 1884, called attention in the House to the character of the literature. The Lord Advocate said that he would make inquiry. The same circular was read two nights ago by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland (Mr. A. J. Balfour). I thought I had seen or heard of it before, and when I asked

    1297
    the right hon. Gentleman whose circular it was—
    MR. GENT-DAVIS: I beg to rise to Order. I desire to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether you do not consider the hon. Gentleman is trifling with the time of the House?
    MR. SPEAKER: I have already said I have no power to interfere with the hon. Member.
    DR. CLARK: When I asked whose circular it was, the right hon. Gentleman said I knew something about it.
    THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I did not say anything of the kind.
    DR. CLARK: I called out who circulated it, and the right hon. Gentleman said—"Perhaps you know best," and there was great laughter on the other side of the House. I do not want to trespass any further on the patience of hon. Gentlemen. I agree with them that we ought not to transact such Business between 1 and 2 o'clock in the morning; and I hope that, by-and-bye, we shall be found adjourning each night at half-past 12. I will conclude by moving, as an Amendment to the Address—
    "And humbly to represent to Your Majesty that there is pressing need for reform in the administration of law in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland."
    I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland will consider these matters. During the ensuing winter there will probably be trouble in these districts of Scotland. If writs are issued in the Island of Skye, probably there will be more gunboats and marines required there. I hope that anyone who breaks the law, be he either crofter or cottar, Fiscal or Sheriff, will be punished; and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see that Fiscals and Sheriffs as well as crofters and cottars are tried if they do wrong. And the right hon. Gentleman might also, at the same time, see that when the Judges are in Session they ought not to make political speeches, especially regarding prisoners who are awaiting trial.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): At this hour (1.15) I do not intend to detain the House at any length; but, inasmuch as the hon. Member (Dr. Clark) has thought proper in the course of his observations to make
    1298
    serious accusations against gentlemen in responsible positions, I think it is right I should say a word or two before the House deals with the matter. The hon. Member spoke of a case in which two men had been detained in prison for a period of 66 days without trial, and he suggested that they were so detained out of spite on the part of a Tory Procurator Fiscal. The hon. Member is quite mistaken in supposing that any such thing is possible, and for this simple reason, that no one can be detained in prison after commitment by the Sheriff except under the orders of the Crown Counsel, and during the whole time these men remained in prison the Crown Counsel were the representatives of the Party who sit opposite. The hon. Member has also called attention to a number of questions which are said to have been put by the Procurator Fiscal to these men. If such questions were put in the course of an official examination, I have no hesitation in saying they constitute a gross breach and dereliction of duty on the part of the Procurator Fiscal, and, certainly, if the questions appear in the official declaration, they must call for serious deprecation. In the meantime I do not think it is possible they can appear in the official declaration. As regards the case to which the hon. Member refers, and in which a rev. gentleman was sentenced to four days' imprisonment, I have nothing further to say except this, that it was brought up by way of appeal, and justice done as far as it could be done by the rev. gentleman being liberated within 24 hours, and by the sentence being set aside by the Superior Court. If the rev. gentleman had any ground for accusing any person of having acted maliciously, he had the ordinary remedy under the Civil Law. As regards the case of which we have heard so often, the case of the inspection of certain telegrams in the Island of Skye, I do not know the exact facts so as to be able to give any opinion as to whether the Sheriff acted with perfect discretion in the matter or not; but I think it should be distinctly understood by this House, as the opinion of the Law Officers of Scotland, that where it is necessary for the preservation of the public peace, and for the purpose of preventing justice being defeated, a Sheriff of a county would be perfectly entitled to stop the sending of telegrams inciting

    1299
    the people to create disturbance and to resist the law. In my opinion, a Sheriff would be entitled to go a great deal further; he would even be entitled to cut the wires. Whatever the Rules of the Post Office may be, the Sheriff, in the exercise of his judgment, is entitled in a case of public disturbance to deal with the telegraph wires as may be necessary for the purpose of preventing justice being obstructed by any person who attempts to use them for the purpose. That is my distinct opinion. Then as regards the statement of the hon. Member (Dr. Clark) that he and his friends are placed in a difficulty in Scotland inconsequence of prosecutions being taken at the instance of the Public Prosecutor, he is in that respect entirely mistaken, because if he or any of his friends think they can sustain a criminal prosecution, they are perfectly entitled to endeavour to do so, provided they have any substantial interest in the charge brought. The Public Prosecutor cannot refuse his concurrence in any case in which the private prosecutor thinks he has cause of complaint. Aspersions have been cast upon the administration of justice in Scotland; but while it is open to any person to prosecute if the Public Prosecutor will not take up the case, so satisfied are the general public of Scotland that all cases that ought to be prosecuted are only prosecuted by the Crown, that during the whole course of my professional experience I have never known one case of private prosecution. Now, Sir, in reference to the counting of votes and to the hon. Member (Dr. Clark) being excluded from the room, I am rather inclined to think that if the manner and tone of the hon. Member were pretty much the same as we have seen him occasionally adopt in this House—
    MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is not entitled to use that expression, and I hope he will withdraw it.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE: I withdraw it, Sir; I had no intention of speaking offensively. I will only say that if the hon. Member felt he had cause of complaint he should have complained at the time and in a proper Court. He was perfectly entitled to have the matter brought up at the proper time. As he did not choose to bring it up then, I maintain it should not be brought up
    1300
    now. Lastly, Sir, with regard to the question of the Returning Officer of Caithness having acted illegally in the matter of expenses, surely that is a matter concerning which the hon. Gentleman had a civil remedy. Apparently he was advised he had not so good a case as to justify him in taking advantage of the remedy the law provided.
    MR. J. O'CONNOR: I desire to say a few words on one branch of the subject introduced by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark), and in doing so I trust it will not be thought I am wasting the time of the House. The hon. Gentleman referred to the matter of private inquiry, and it is to that matter I wish to refer. I wish to do so as the victim myself of maladministration of justice in this respect; but in order that I may not be misunderstood, permit me to say that I approve of the system of private inquiry where a person charged with an offence may nave the power of exculpating himself if he desires to do so. I believe if the system had been generally adopted, it would not have been necessary for the Home Secretary to have exercised his power as he did on many late occasions when, after the confession of the criminals, many innocent persons were released from prison. I desire, by way of illustration, to cite to the House my own. experience of a private inquiry, and to point out how injustice may be done to an individual by the tyranny and bullying and the overbearing manner of the magistrates who are employed to carry on the inquiries. A few years ago I was summoned to appear before an inquiry held in Cork to state what I knew concerning most horrible transactions—namely, the blowing up of public buildings by dynamite, and the taking of the lives of Her Majesty's subjects. I attended before the secret inquiry, but I laid it down, as a condition to answering any questions, that I would not be asked any that had no bearing on the matter set forth in the summons. The magistrate got very wrath indeed, and endeavoured to bully me out of my decision. I was firm, however, and I told him that on no account would I recede from the position I had taken up. I would answer no questions unless I understood from him that he would confine himself to the matter set forth in the summons.

    1301
    He endeavoured by threats of imprisonment, and by every system of bullying he could employ, to compel me to be sworn. I declined to be sworn unless I got the assurance I asked, and he accordingly sent me to prison. I remained in gaol a week, and when I again appeared before the inquiry the same system, though to a more severe extent, was adopted towards me. The magisstrate seemed to have worked up his anger to an extraordinary pitch because, when I appeared before him the second time, he could scarcely conceal his anger. He actually sat there with a revolver in his hand, and many hours he kept me before him, and by threats and every other means he could employ tried to get me to recede from my position. I declined to do so, and a second time he sent me to prison; and I think if it had not been for the intervention of my Friends on these Benches, the same magistrate would have continued to send me to prison week after week. I merely relate these circumstances to show that there is much reason in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark). It may be asked why I declined to be questioned as to matters not specified in the summons. I did so because I knew that already there had been summoned before the magistrate no less than 200 young men, each of whom had been examined upon his whole life. According to the terms of the Act under which they were summoned, they were bound, if they once allowed themselves to be sworn, to answer every question the magistrate thought fit to put to them under the pain of a penalty of six months' imprisonment. The administration of justice is a very serious matter, and if you increase the power of your magistrates, it is a duty incumbent upon the Government to see that the magistrates are fit and proper persons to exercise stringent powers. I do not oppose it—certainly if it be proposed, and if I have the honour of a seat in this House, I should not oppose the introduction of a measure that would give power for secret inquiry. I believe it would be of benefit to the people charged. I believe that the whole presumption of English law, as it stands at present, is wrong on the subject. I hold and maintain that if you increase the power of magistrates, you must be exceedingly careful as to the character of
    1302
    the men you employ to exercise the power. It is for that reason I rise to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Caithness—it is to impress upon this House that there is much reason in what the hon. Gentleman has said; it is to impress on the Government that wherever these powers exist—and I believe they do exist in Scotland—the Government should be careful the powers are exercised by judicious and responsible persons.
    MR. W. A. MACDONALD: A matter of great public importance was raised by the remarks of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald). I understood him to say that, according to the law in Scotland, under certain circumstances which he described it was possible for telegrams to be inspected by a Sheriff, by virtue of his own authority, and possible even for a Sheriff to cut the wires. Now, I want to know whether that is really the law in Scotland, or the law in England, or the law in Ireland, for it does not seem to me it ought to be the law in any civilized country in a state of peace? For this reason I most earnestly support the Amendment of the hon. Member (Dr. Clark).
    [The Amendment being informal, was not put.]
    Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee on the said Address," put, and agreed to.
    To be communicated by Privy Councillors.

    SUPPLY.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I beg to move—"That this House will, upon Monday next, resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty."
    MR. M. J. KENNY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say in what order it is proposed by the Government to take the Estimates on Monday next?
    MR. W. H. SMITH: My noble Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Lord Randolph Churchill) stated, earlier in the evening, that the Army Estimates will be taken first, then the Navy Estimates, and then the Civil Service Estimates in their regular order.
    MR. SEXTON: Will they all be put down for Monday?
    MR. W. H. SMITH: No; only the Navy Estimates.
    Motion agreed to.
    Resolved, That this House will, upon Monday next, resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
    [Estimates referred].

    WAYS AND MEANS.
    Resolved, That this House will, upon Monday next, resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the Ways and Means for raising the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
    CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEE OF WAYS AND MEANS.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. W.H. SMITH): On behalf of my noble Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Lord Randolph Churchill) I wish to give Notice that he will, on Monday, move that Mr. Courtney do take the Chair.
    SECRET SERVICE (REPEAL) BILL.
    Mr. Jackson, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Akers-Douglas)

    [BILL 41.] COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    [Mr. RAIKES in the Chair]
    Clause 1 (Short title).
    MR. M. J. KENNY: Mr. Raikes, we have had no explanation from the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) as to the exact nature of this Bill. The Bill has been brought in in pursuance of some arrangement; but it has some features in regard with which we ought to receive an explanation from the hon. Gentleman. In the first place, it is proposed by this measure to repeal a section and a portion of a section of two separate Acts of Parliament. The Auditor General, who has made a Report to this House, and in accordance with which Report the Bill is brought in, says that he has come to the conclusion that he is unable, in reference to the Secret Service Vote, to fulfil the
    1304
    statutory obligation imposed upon him. Now, Sir, I should like to know—
    THE CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member will be more in Order if he makes his observations on the 2nd clause of the Bill, which has reference to the sections to be repealed. The 1st clause merely relates to the title.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 2 (Repeal of parts of 22 Geo. III. c. 82, and 1 & 2 Vict. c. 2).
    MR. M. J. KENNY: I merely desire to have some statement from the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) in regard to the reasons for the sudden discovery of the Auditor General that he is unable any longer to fulfil the duty imposed upon him by the 26 & 27 Vict. The declaration which the Auditor General was required to make was of an extremely explicit nature. Amongst other things, he was to declare that none of the Secret Service money was spent in Election matters. We are perfectly aware, from recent disclosures, that a portion of the Secret Service Fund, payable out of the Civil List, has for many years past, been devoted to the purpose of securing the election of Gentlemen to this House, and therefore I think we are entitled to an explanation from the Secretary to the Treasury as to how it is that the conscience of the Auditor General has been so suddenly pricked that he can no longer make the declaration required of him. For years past he must have suspected that the declaration he made was not in accordance with the facts, and it appears to me that, if he had reason to doubt the truth of what he said, the making of the declaration was very like the committal of perjury. I await explanation from the Secretary to the Treasury, or from the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Akers-Douglas), both of whom are present, and either of whom will, I suppose, be able to afford me the information I ask.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON): I do not think it is necessary to occupy the time of the House in making any explanation with regard to this Bill, though, of course, we are perfectly willing to explain anything that may require explanation in connection with it. I may say that the hon. Member (Mr. Kenny) is entirely wrong in sup-

    1305
    posing that the Bill was brought in in consequence of any difficulty the Auditor General had, because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the Auditor General really had no power over the money dealt with by this Bill. The £10,000 which has been the subject of a great deal of controversy from time to time was a charge upon the Consolidated Fund, and for a long series of years was used for various purposes by successive Patronage Secretaries to the Treasury. It is only fair to my hon. Friend and Colleague (Mr. Akers-Douglas) to say that it was in consequence of his action and of his very strong feeling that this money ought to be made the subject of Parliamentary control that this Bill was introduced. My hon. Friend was the first man who surrendered the unexpended balances, and I think he is entitled to the credit of this Bill. As I have already said, I am not aware it is necessary to make any explanation. I should have thought the House would have been very glad to get rid of the difficulty. I have no doubt the Bill will meet with the hearty approval of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), who I am sorry not to see in his place, but who has always taken a great interest in the Secret Service Fund. It is because the Government have recognized the fact that there is a growing wish that the control of Parliament over the Expenditure of the country should be more complete that they have brought in this Bill. The House will understand, of course, that there are some messengers whose salaries will have to be paid. To meet such salaries a Supplementary Vote, amounting, I think, to about £1,100, will be brought in.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I must confess that, as far as I am personally concerned, I regard the introduction of this Bill with very great satisfaction; and I think credit is due to the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Akers-Douglas) for initiating the improvement. I cannot, however, altogether agree with the statement which has fallen from the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson), to the effect that the Comptroller and Auditor General had nothing to do with causing some such measure to be introduced, because the hon. Member will know very well that, besides the
    1306
    £10,000 which has year after year been drawn from the Consolidated Fund, and which, being drawn, was beyond the ken and reach of the Comptroller and Auditor General, there was another sum, amounting sometimes to £33,000 in a single year, drawn from the Votes of Supply for the same service. In regard to that larger grant, it appears there is somewhere about £100,000 unaccounted for. The Comptroller and Auditor General had no authority to demand certificates such as he was entitled to receive from voted Services; and it was by reason of the fact that he complained of the inability to check matters in this respect that attention was drawn to the subject, and that year after year the Public Accounts Committee made Reports which were of such cogency and strength that the Treasury were obliged to take the matter in hand. With regard to the matter of unexpended balances, it appears to me that the present Bill is insufficient. I do not find in the Bill, certainly not in the clause now under discussion, which is the operative portion of the Bill, any direction for the surrender of any unexpended balances which may be at present in the hands of the Secretary to the Treasury. I do not understand how, having regard to the wording of the Act of Parliament under which the Comptroller and Auditor General is to act, he would be able to insist upon a statement or certificate in regard to the money which is now in the hands of the Secretary to the Treasury. I merely throw this out as a suggestion, and possibly the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Jackson) may see his way to amend the Bill so as to remove the difficulty. If the difficulty is not removed, I imagine the Comptroller and Auditor General will be in precisely the same difficulty he has been in in past years. I imagine it will be necessery to introduce some Amendments. I am not prepared to suggest the Amendments; but the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Jackson) may possibly be in a position to do so.
    MR. JACKSON: I may be allowed to answer that Question; perhaps I ought to have done so before. It was not thought necessary to insert any clause in the Bill bearing upon the subject; but the Bill, as the hon. Member is aware, is made to come into operation immediately on its being passed into law. He may, and I have no doubt

    1307
    the House will, accept the assurance of the Government that any unexpended balances will be properly accounted for.
    Clause agreed to.
    Bill reported, without Amendment.
    MR. JACKSON: As I do not anticipate there will be any objection on the part of hon. Members to take the third reading of the Bill now, I beg to move that the Bill be now read the third time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. Jackson.)
    Motion agreed to.
    House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock till Monday next.