Sitting of 1 April 1887

MINUTES.
PRIVATE BILL (by Order)— Second Reading—Metropolitan Railway.*
PUBLIC BILLS —Ordered—First Reading—Criminal Law Amendment [217] [Fifth Night].
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Local Government* [216].
Second Reading—Metropolitan Police.*
Report—Local Government (Ireland) (Carrick-on-Suir)* [200].

QUESTIONS.

  BURIALS ACT—BOLTON-ON-DEARNE BURIAL GROUND.
  MR. SHIRLEYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the following statements, in a letter to The Sheffield and Rotherham Independent of 28th March, headed "Bolton-on-Dearne Burial Ground," and signed "G. Whitlam," are accurate:—
  "The churchyard is full, and has been for years, and every interment means a sight more or less distressing to ordinary human instincts. It is impossible to select a grave space where a corpse has not been previously interred. The consequence is, that every new grave means the disinterment of human remains;"
  and, if so, whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): The Inspector reported as to this burial ground in December last, after having made a personal inspection, accompanied by the Local Authorities. The Inspector recommended that an Order in Council should issue discontinuing burials in the parish church forthwith, and in the churchyard after the 1st of September, 1887. The necessary notices were forthwith given, and ultimately a representation was made to Her Majesty in Council, and I hope that the Order will be made at the next meeting of the Council.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (SCOTLAND)—PAISLEY GRAMMAR SCHOOL EXAMINATION.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Lord Advocate, Whether the attention of the Scotch Education Department has been called to a Memorial from the School Board of Paisley, asking the withdrawal by the Department of a Report, made by Professor Roberts, of St. Andrews, on the French and German section of Paisley Grammar School, on the ground that it deals unjustly with that section of the school, and reflects unmerited censure on its teacher, and that it was based on a perfunctory examination by an examiner unskilled in modern languages; whether it is true as alleged that, among other things, in the course of his examination of a French class, the Inspector recorded a mistake against each of a class of 30 pupils, because they pronounced hier (yesterday) with the "h" mute and the "r" audible, instead of the reverse, and that, in examining in German, pupils were marked as in error because they correctly gave gebracht and not gebrungen as the past participle of bringen; whether the examiner in question is regularly or only occasionally employed on examination duty of the Department; and, whether the Scotch Education Department have taken, or will take, steps to test the accuracy of the statements made in the Memorial of the School Board of Paisley, and the evidence therein referred to?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): The Scotch Education Department, at the request of the School Board, appointed examiners for the inspection of the Paisley Grammar School, one of whom was Professor

  213
  Birrell, of St Andrews; and owing to his sudden illness, their Lordships adopted the suggestion that Professor Roberts, who had at the request of the School Board examined the school on several previous occasions, should take his place. Their Lordships have received a Memorial as described from five of the School Boards, and also one from a minority of four expressing agreement with the Report. Having appointed as examiner a gentleman of position which warranted belief in his fitness, and who possessed apparently the confidence of the School Board, their Lordships' function is at an end, and they have no means of testing statements made with reference to the Report.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—COLLECTION OF RATES IN NEW ROSS UNION BY THE POLICE.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Is it the fact that 150 police have been employed collecting poor rates in New Ross Union, or what number have been so employed; is it true that many ratepayers distrained upon were never asked for the rates till the police seized; is it the case that the cost of the police in this work is estimated at £250, while the amount collected by them was only about £30; if not, what are the relative figures; did Mr. Wall, one of the Vice Guardians, sent down to supersede the elected Board, resign, and why; when it is intended to allow a new Board to be elected to conduct the affairs of the union; and, in the case of the suspension of the Carrick-on-Suir Board, in 1881–2, did the Local Government Board withdraw the Vice Guardians after the expiry of the year of office of the suspended Guardians?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The police were employed in protecting the poor rate collector in the New Ross Union, who reports that it is not a fact that he distrained without having given previous notice for the rates. The amount realized was £80, not £30, as stated in the Question. The cost was about £127. It is true that Mr. Wall, one of the Vice Guardians, resigned. I do not feel called upon to state his reasons for taking that step. The Local Government Board do not feel that they would be justified at
  214
  present in authorizing the election of Guardians. They cannot say when they may be able to do so. In The Carrick-on-Suir case, the Local Government Board were able to allow The Guardians to be re-appointed in about eight months after the dissolution.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked, whether the Local Government Board had any objection to examination into the question whether there was any ground for supposing that a new Board, newly elected, would persist in the alleged misconduct?
  [Reply inaudible.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND)—VOTING PAPERS AT GLENGARIFFE, CO. CORK.
  MR. GILHOOLYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Constable Lark, who is stationed at Glengariffe, County Cork, left a voting paper at the Eccles Hotel; whether, not having received the paper on the proper day, he again called for it on the following day, contrary to the general Regulations of the Local Government Board for Ireland; and, whether, having regard to the fact that an objection has been made to the votes of Mrs. Eccles for the reason here stated, he will direct that they shall be disallowed?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I am informed that the constable did call a second time for the voting paper, as stated, leaving the legal point to be decided by the Returning Officer. But as The votes were given for the defeated candidate, they did not affect the result.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—EXTENSION OF DELIVERY IN CO. CAVAN.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Postmaster General, Whether it is true that an offer was made by F. J. Tully, of Drumcam, Ballyhaise, County Cavan, to guarantee the Department against loss if a rural delivery were extended to Keelagh National School from Ballyhaise and Ardamagh; and, whether, if the facts are as alleged, he will give the extension a three months' trial?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): I cannot find that an offer has been received from Mr. Tully to guarantee the pay-

  215
  ment of any loss involved in the proposed extension of post to Keelagh National School. But as the deficiency of revenue is trifling, I have given directions for the extension to be made without calling for a guarantee.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND)—POOR LAW GUARDIANS AT BANNBOY.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, "Whether, on the 14th March, at Bannboy, after the usual weekly meeting of the Board had separated, a number of members constituted themselves a Board without the usual notice, the chair having been taken by a Guardian who was neither Chairman, Deputy Chairman, nor Deputy Vice Chairman; whether the meeting of Guardians so constituted signed a cheque for £8 to assist one Gillooly to emigrate; and, whether, if the facts are as stated, the parties who signed the cheque will be made responsible by the Local Government Board?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I am informed that the cheque referred to was duly signed by two Guardians during the regular sitting of the Board; but that after the meeting had been dissolved it was discovered that the Chairman had omitted to sign it. It was under these circumstances that the meeting was reconstituted for the purpose of completing the transaction. The proceeding was certainly informal, but the Local Government Board do not think it necessary to take any action in the matter. If the legality of the payment is questioned by any persons affected, they may bring the subject under the notice of the Auditor of Union Accounts.

  POST OFFICE (ENGLAND AND WALES)—THE SOUTH KENSINGTON EXHIBITIONS—FREE POSTAGE.
  COLONEL HUGHES-HALLETTasked the Postmaster General, If it is true, as stated in the Press, that it has been customary, while the various South Kensington Exhibitions have been in existence, to allow free postage to the officials engaged in their management and direction; if so, to what amount and by whose authority; and, whether, with the exception of the
  216
  Indian and Colonial Exhibition, those Exhibitions were purely private enterprises, in the conduct of which all letters were as liable to postage tax as the letters of any of Her Majesty's subjects?
  MR. CONYBEARE: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that Question, may I ask whether free postage is also allowed to the official begging letters of the Imperial Institute?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): I will ask the hon. Member to give Notice of the Question. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester, I have to state that it is the case that in certain instances the Treasury has granted to the Commissioners representing the Royal Commission for the Exhibition of 1851 free postage in respect of the correspondence connected with the business of certain Exhibitions to which my hon. Friend refers. In 1883 the Fisheries Exhibition was allowed free postage to the amount of £1,096. In 1884 the International Health Exhibition was allowed free postage to the amount of £3,870. In 1885 the Treasury refused to grant free postage to the Inventions Exhibition. In 1886 a limited concession was allowed to the Indian and Colonial Exhibition—namely, correspondence from the Exhibition only was permitted to go free. The estimated amount of this was £8,500. In the present year the inland correspondence for the International Exhibition at Adelaide is being permitted to go free. As regards the last part of the Question of my hon. Friend, I can only state that these cases have to be decided as they arise, and the decision rests with the Treasury.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: la the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the case of the Dublin Exhibition of 1882 the Government refused to allow free postage; and will he include that in his list?
  MR. RAIKES: I have already said that the Treasury, from time to time, has exercised its discretion in refusing, or granting, these appeals. In the case of the Inventions Exhibition in London, the Treasury refused to grant free postage; and I have no doubt the hon. and learned Member is correct in what he states as to the Dublin Exhibition.
  MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Postmaster General will be able to say, with reference to the Dublin Exhibition of 1882, whether the promoters of that Exhibition did not decline the patronage of Her Most Gracious Majesty the Queen?
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Treasury, in granting this free postage, exercised their discretion under any statutory authority, or under a claim of inherent right?
  MR. RAIKES: That is a Question that I cannot answer, and it must be directed to the First Lord of the Treasury.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I give Notice that I shall ask the First Lord of the Treasury that Question on a later day.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATONgave Notice that on the Estimates he would call attention to this scandal.

  BURMAH—COVENANTED CIVIL SERVANTS AS VOLUNTEERS.
  MR. J. F. X. O'BRIENasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether any members of the Covenanted Civil Services are, or have been, employed as Military Volunteers in Burmah; and, if so, in what capacity, their names, at what rates of pay and allowances?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): No; but Covenanted Civil Servants have, on some occasions, had to accompany the military columns in the discharge of their Civil duties.

  INDIA—THE NATIVE NEWSPAPER PRESS.
  MR. J. F. X. O'BBRIENasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether any Native newspaper from Madras is filed in the Office of the Secretary of State for India?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): No; but the contents of the Vernacular Press in all parts of India are regularly brought under the consideration of the Secretary of State.

  EGYPT (FINANCE, &c.)—REPAYMENT OF THE COUPON TAX.
  MR. DILLONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign
  218
  Affairs, Whether the decision of the Egyptian Government to repay the Coupon. Tax was arrived at without consultation with the British Government; whether any Representatives of the British Government assented to this arrangement; and, whether, before this arrangement is finally carried out, the House of Commons will be afforded an opportunity of expressing its opinion on the financial condition of Egypt?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): The Questions of the hon. Member appear to be founded on a misapprehension. The repayment of the 5 per cent deducted in 1885 for two years from the interest of the Unified Debt of Egypt in order to relieve her finances, did not require consultation with the British Government, or the assent of its Representatives; nor should the House of Commons, by any expression of its opinion, or by any vote, interfere with that transaction. As there is still such misapprehension, notwithstanding repeated explanations, perhaps the House will allow me to state what are the facts. The repayment of the tax on the coupons is not optional, but the fulfilment of an international arrangement, to which Great Britain is a party. By the Declaration of March 17, 1885, the Governments of Great Britain and the other Great Powers, with the sanction of the Porte, declared that they accepted the provisions of a Draft Decree annexed to the Declaration. That Decree was subsequently also accepted by all the other Powers, and was issued by the Khedive on the 27th of July, 1885. Article 21 provides that the surplus revenues of the years 1885 and 1886 shall remain in the hands of the Caisse till the 15th of April, 1887, and shall then be applied, in the first instance, to the repayment of the deductions from the coupons of the Debt. The amount of the surplus being known to be more than sufficient for the purpose, the Egyptian Government have simply given the necessary directions for carrying into effect the arrangement made two years ago. The existence of a surplus available for the repayment of the coupons affords one part of the existing evidence of the financial, economic, and material improvement of Egypt during the last two years.

  ADMIRALTY—THE FLOATING DOCK AT HAULBOWLINE.
  DR. KENNY(for Dr. TANNER) (Cork Co., Mid) asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Why the southern bank at the eastern end of the floating dock at Haulbowline is left unfinished; why is this part of the dock not built up and protected with masonry, as has been done for the remaining three sides of the western portion of the southern side (enclosing the entrance to the dry dock); if the unfinished portion is the site of entrance to the proposed, but now abandoned, second dry dock; what will be the length and depth of channel required to be excavated and dredged in order to permit the passage of ships from the channel of the river to the floating dock; what class of ships of war will the floating dock accommodate; how long will it take to complete the above-mentioned channel; and,.what class of ships of war will the dry dock accommodate?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): The reason why the southern bank was left unfinished is because it would be the site of the entrance to a second dry dock, if one should ever be required. This second dry dock was never actually proposed to be carried out, though room was left for it. Its construction has, therefore, not been abandoned. The length of the channel to be made to permit the passage of ships from the channel of the river to the floating dock will be about 200 yards, and 20 feet in depth of mud will have to be excavated. It is calculated that it will take about 12 working months to complete this work. The floating and dry docks will accommodate any ship in Her Majesty's Navy.
  MR. J. O'CONNORasked, if they had begun to dredge the entrance to the docks?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, he could not say; but money had been taken for the purpose in the present year.
  DR. KENNYasked if the noble Lord could say when the work would be commenced?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, it would be carried out before the end of the year. If the hon. Member wanted detailed information on the subject, he would be happy to give it to him.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND)—ABSTRACT OF ACCOUNTS OF THE TOWN COMMISSIONERS OF PORTADOWN.
  MR. BLANEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the abstract of accounts of the Town Commissioners of Portadown, as published in The Portadown and Lurgan News, is a true statement for the year ending 31st December, 1886; whether the receipts of the markets are correctly put down as £386 0s. Id., and the expenses of the markets at £421 11s. 6d; whether the sum of £209 for law costs, out of an income of rates of £908 7s. 8d., is a permissible expenditure of the public money; whether the lawyer's bill of costs was taxed; and, if not, why not; and, whether he can explain the certificates of the auditor in the abstract referred to, that the Commissioners received on foot of county contracts £1,046 16.s. 2d., and expended in county contracts £317 6s. Ad., in the year ending 31st December, 1886?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I am informed by the auditor that the figures are correctly stated. It appears that the expenses of the markets included the payment of outstanding accounts of the previous year, and likewise that the account of law costs had been accumulating for some time. The bill of costs was taxed. As regards the items relating to county contracts, it appears that the practice is that any expenditure incurred by the Commissioners after July is not paid by the county until the March following. The accounts are open to the inspection of all persons interested for seven days before every audit.

  POLICE PROTECTION (IRELAND)—POLICE HUT AT DRUMCRUMAN, LOWER DRUMREILLY, CO. LEITRIM.
  MR. HAYDENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether a police hut has been erected in Drumcruman, Lower Drumreilly, County Leitrim, for the protection of two brothers named Gilheany, one of them a bailiff; whether, in connection with a murderous assault on a man named Flynn, the Gilheanys were sentenced some years ago to a term of nine months' imprisonment

  221
  each; and, from what source will the cost of the hut and the extra police come?
  THE CHIEF SECEETAEY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): Reference has been made to the locality for this information; but the reply has not yet been received.

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—THE NORTH DOWN MILITIA.
  MR. M'CARTANasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been called to a report in The Newtownards Chronicle of the 19th instant, of a special meeting of the Newtownards Town Commissioners, convened for the purpose of taking into consideration the removal from their town of the North Down Militia for annual training; whether he can state the number of years during which the North Down Militia have been brought to Newtownards for their annual training there; whether General Moore, late Commander of the 83rd Regimental District, was assured by a deputation from the Town Commissioners that it was their desire to have the Militia retained in their town; whether every facility was invariably given to the Adjutant (Major Hamilton) by the Commissioners, and both the open and inclosed "Market Squares" were always placed at his disposal when required for the use of the regiment; whether in Newtownards there was one of the best rifle ranges in Ireland; and, whether, before making any permanent change, he will cause inquiry to be made into the matter, and give the Town Commissioners of Newtownards an opportunity of being heard in answer to any complaints which may have been made, privately or otherwise, against the conduct of the inhabitants towards the Militia, or as to the unsuitability of the town for training purposes?
  THE FINANCIAL SECEETAEY (Mr. BRODRICK)(who replied) said: Donaghadee has been chosen for the training this year of the 3rd Battalion Royal Irish Rifles, as a healthy place, with a good camping ground and proper facilities for drill. In these respects Newtownards will not compare favourably. It is too late to make any alteration as regards the present year; but I shall be quite prepared, with reference to the future, to consider any representations which the
  222
  authorities of Newtownards may wish to make; the points they would have to prove being that they can offer suitable drill and camping grounds. I must add that the market squares do not fulfil this condition.

  INLAND REVENUE—ASSESSMENT OF INCOME FROM FOREIGN SOURCES.
  COLONEL KING-HARMANasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether Income Tax Collectors are authorised to assess and press for the tax on incomes which have already paid their assessment elsewhere; whether he is aware that incomes, including pensions, which are derivable from the East Indies, and which pay Income Tax there, are again taxed in this country; and, whether, if the Income Tax Collectors are acting according to their instructions in pressing for the tax on an income which has elsewhere been subjected to this Duty, he will take steps to remedy this apparent injustice?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): In reply to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I have to say that the Income Tax Acts take no cognizance of the fiscal laws of other countries. The tax is levied on all incomes above a certain amount received in this country, without regard to the source from which they are derived. For purposes of taxation, India, having its own separate system of finance, must be regarded as quite distinct from the United Kingdom. With regard to the last paragraph, I am afraid that the course which the hon. and gallant Gentleman wishes me to take would be striking at the general principle upon which the Income Tax is levied, and cannot be adopted without opening the door to other exemptions. The administration of the Income Tax is rendered peculiarly difficult by any exemptions.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—LORD CORK'S ESTATE IN VENTRY—OBSTRUCTION OF POLICE.
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If 150 persons, from Ballyferriter, have been summoned to the Dingle Petty Sessions for obstruction of the Sheriff

  223
  and police during the recent evictions, or proposed evictions, on Lord Cork's property in Ventry; whether any hurt or violence resulted from the demonstrations of the tenantry on that occasion; whether Lord Cork, through his agent Mr. Kearney, has amicably settled with his tenants there; and, what is The purpose, under the circumstances, of the proposed prosecution of 150 people?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I have called for a Report into this matter; but there has not been time for its receipt.
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTONasked, If The right hon. Gentleman knew if the Petty Sessions would come off before he received The Report?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he hoped to have the Report by Monday.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)—THE RIOTS AT BELFAST—CUMULATIVE SENTENCES FOR ASSAULTS.
  MR. M'CARTANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the judgment of David Ross, esquire, Q.C., Recorder of Belfast, in the case of an appeal of Robert J. M'Connell from the decision of the Borough Magistrates of Belfast, heard by him on the 10th instant; whether Robert J. M'Connell had been sentenced by the Borough Magistrates to 13 months' imprisonment for assaults committed on different policemen on the occasion of his arrest; whether, on appeal, the Recorder reduced the sentence to six months' imprisonment, and stated that lie (the Recorder) considered that there was only one offence committed; whether Mr. Justice Day, when presiding at the Riots Commission in Belfast, expressed himself very strongly against cumulative sentences for such offences, when only one offence was really committed; whether Robert Comerford, of Oarrick Hill, was, on the 21st July last, sentenced by the Magistrates presiding at Belfast Police Court to 29 months' solitary confinement, with hard labour, for having assaulted, at the time of his arrest, five different policemen, who were endeavouring to take him a prisoner to the police barrack; whether it is a fact that Robert J. M'Connell is a Protestant, and that Robert Comerford is a Catholic; whether he can state any case where Magis-
  224
  trates at Petty Sessions in England gave such cumulative sentences to persons convicted of assault or other offences; and, whether, now that Robert Comerford has already suffered eight months' imprisonment, with hard labour, for this assault, he will consider the justice of carrying out the remainder of his term of imprisonment?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I am informed that the facts are substantially as stated with regard to M'Oonnell. I am not aware whether Mr. Justice Day expressed the opinion mentioned. With regard to the case of Robert Comerford, it was proved to the satisfaction of the presiding Magistrates that five separate and distinct assaults, of a more or less serious character, had been committed, and the charges were dealt with accordingly. I have no power to interfere with the sentence, and it is no part of my duty to review it. But it is, of course, open to the prisoner, or any person in his behalf, to appeal to The Lord Lieutenant for a mitigation of it. With regard to the religious professions of the persons concerned, the Magistrate informs me that he did not concern himself with this; but he has reason to believe the men are of the respective faiths stated.

  POLICE (IRELAND)—PASSENGERS TO IRELAND—SEARCH OF LUGGAGE.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR(for Dr. TANNER)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether all passengers arriving in Cork from England are liable to have their portmanteaux and packages opened by the police, and their contents emptied out and not necessarily re-packed; whether the same method of procedure is carried out as regards passengers going to Dublin from England by the Mail or London and North-Western Steamers; whether an English gentleman named Williams, on his arrival in Cork from Milford on the morning of Sunday the 13th ultimo, had his portmanteaux and packages opened, and the contents strewn about the deck by two detectives in plain clothes; whether it is usual for policemen in plain clothes to search passengers' luggage on arrival in the port of Cork; and, whether he will inquire into the circumstances of the case?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY(Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I am informed that passengers' luggage is not examined by the police at Cork, but that it is sometimes examined by Customs officers at the request of the police. This was done in the case of Mr. Williams, referred to in the Question. The luggage of passengers going to Dublin from England is examined when the Police Authorities think it necessary.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—REFUSAL TO ARREST A ROMAN CATHOLIC PRIEST.
  MR. FINUCANEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Sub-Constable Dorney, of Kilteely, County Limerick, refused to aid in the arrest of the Reverend Matthew Eyan, on last Monday; whether the reason given for his refusal was that he would never aid in the unjust arrest of a Roman Catholic priest; whether, in consequence of his refusal, he has been arrested; whether the Police Regulations enable any member of the Force to resign at any time; and, whether the refusal of the Sub-Constable to act was a virtual, if not an actual, resignation; and, if so, by whose authority was the arrest effected?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY(Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I am informed that Dorney did refuse to aid in the execution of a warrant for the arrest of the Rev. Mr. Ryan, giving as his reason that he had a conscientious objection to do so. The constable has not been placed under arrest; but he has been dismissed. He was of indifferent character, and has been for some time under warning for dismissal for drunkenness. It is not a fact that the Police Regulations enable any member of the Force to resign at any time. A month's notice is required, though not always insisted on.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)—THE RIOTS AT YOUGHAL—INJURIES TO THE POLICE.
  MR J. O'CONNOR) (for Dr. TANNER)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What was the character of the wounds stated to have been inflicted on the police during the recent police assault in Youghal, which resulted in the death of Hanlon; what
  226
  was the technical medical description of each case; and, was any man confined to the house while under treatment for the alleged wounds?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I have asked for the specific details which the hon. Member wishes to obtain; but there has not been time for the receipt of a reply.

  EGYPT (FINANCE, &c.)—THE LAND TAX, &c.)—POWER OF THE CAISSE.
  SIR GEOEGE CAMPBELLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, in Egypt, the Caisse has power to interfere in administrative functions, and to refuse to allow the reduction of the Land Tax proposed by the Earl of North-brook, approved by the Government, and tacitly accepted by the Powers as part of the arrangements on which the Convention of 1885 was founded; and, whether the £250,000, which was devoted to hiring labour in place of the corvée, was assigned in addition to the £5,200,000 already allowed for administrative expenses; and, if not, whether, by the exaction of the full Land Tax, without the contemplated reduction, the gross revenue, out of which the full coupons are being paid, has been increased, while the Egyptian cultivators are deprived of the intended alleviations of the Land Tax?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): I beg to be excused from stating a general opinion respecting the extent of the powers possessed by the Caisse of the Public Debt of Egypt. Those powers are conferred by the Law of Liquidation, and by several International stipulations. As a matter of fact, the Commissioners have not refused to allow a reduction of the Land Tax; but have agreed with the Egyptian Government upon a different arrangement. It has been settled that the sum of £250,000 spent last year in hired labour employed in clearing the canals in lieu of forced labour shall be paid out of the Revenue of the year, in addition to the sum of £5,237,000 allowed for administrative expenses. The reduction of the Land Tax contemplated by the Powers originally was £450,000. But the state of the Revenue did not justify so large a reduction; and ultimately it was agreed

  227
  that, of the money available, £250,000 should be devoted to the abolition of the corvée, which was an addition to the Land Tax, operating with great hardship and inequality on the cultivators, and actually diminishing the public Revenue by injuring the cultivation of the lands held by the impressed labourers. The remissions of Land Tax, in addition to this measure of relief, were to be confined to those cases in which the tax, or the full amount of it, was practically irrecoverable.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked, whether any further Papers on the question would be laid before the House? Those which they had stopped short of the information he wished for.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: Yes, Sir; and on pages 17 and 58 of those recently issued the hon. Member will find a complete description of this matter. There are some further financial Papers in preparation.

  WAR OFFICE—ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT—RETURN OF GUNS.
  MR. FELL PEASEasked the Surveyor General of the Ordnance, Whether the figures in Mr. Burdett's letters, published in The Times of 3rd and 31st January and 24th February, are correct; whether the Return of Guns, dated 12th May, 1884, includes "the number, value, and description of guns manufactured and supplied" by the War Department to The Navy during the years 1877–84, inclusive, or merely the expenditure for naval use; and, could he state what is the money value of the machine-guns included in the total of £1,114,504, and taken credit for yearly in the War Office Estimates during the years 1877–84?
  THE SURVEYOR GENERAL (Mr. NORTHCOTE): The figures are quoted from Parliamentary Papers, and are, therefore, correct, although, as previously stated, they do not refer to the same class of subjects. The Return of Guns, dated May, 1884, relates to expenditure on new iron and steel guns for naval use. The money value of machine-guns, included in the total of £1,114,504, is £234,349.

  FISHERMEN ON THE NORTH-EAST COAST—TENURE OF DWELLINGS.
  MR. ESSLEMONTasked the Lord Advocate, Whether his
  228
  attention has been directed to the unsatisfactory tenure and condition of many fishermen's dwellings on the North-East Coast; and, if he can say whether the Government intend to deal with the question in connection with a Local Government Bill, by an extension of the Agricultural Holdings Act, or otherwise, during the present Session of Parliament?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD), in reply, said, he had received no Notice of the Question before he saw it on the Paper. He must, therefore, ask the hon. Gentleman to postpone it for a day or two.

  ADMIRALTY—THE COMMITTEE ON CONTRACTS—NAVAL CONTRACTS.
  MR. CAINEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If he intends to carry out the recommendation of the Committee on Contracts, that the purchase of hulls and machinery, with the contracts of the Works Department, shall in future be entrusted to the Director of Contracts?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): The recommendation alluded to was the only one upon which the Members of the Committee were not unanimous. While this Committee were sitting, the Controller of The Navy made a number of alterations in the procedure hereafter to be observed in inviting, tabulating, and deciding upon tenders for the construction of the hulls and machinery of vessels. We propose to take action on the other parts of their valuable Report by a speedy adoption of the bulk of their proposals; but we hope that the new Regulations laid down by the Controller will accomplish the object of that part of the Report to which the Question refers.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)—ALLEGED OUTRAGE ON A GIRL IN TIPPERARY.
  MR. P. J. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to The Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he will inform the House at what time, and in what district of the County of Tipperary, the outrage occurred, described by him as having been committed "on a respectable girl by one John Hogan;" and,

  229
  when and where did Hogan's trial take, place?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR) (Manchester, E.), in reply, said, the outrage referred to occurred in the district of Tipperary on the 1st of November last, and the trial took place at the recent Spring Assizes at Clonmel.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked, if the right hon. Gentleman would consult with Messrs. Ryan, Q.C., and Lynch, Q.C., The Crown Prosecutors for that Circuit, and inform the House if the statement he gave was correct?
  [No reply.]

  INDIA (FINANCE, &c.)—USER OF SURPLUS BALANCES.
  MR. CALDWELLasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is the case that the India Council largely supplements its revenue by lending out, for short and varying periods, upon Indian Government Securities, the greater part of its surplus balances; and. whether, with a view to the increase of the Imperial Revenue, and to the reduction of the interest on the National Debt, he will consider the expediency of pursuing a like course as regards the large surplus balances on hand from time to time, as set forth in the Bank of England Returns, under the head of "Public Deposits," and of making temporary loans upon Imperial Government Securities?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): It is the practice of the Secretary of State in Council to lend his surplus balances for short periods; but it can hardly be said that the result is "largely" to supplement the revenue, the average amount received on this account being only about £24,000 per annum. With respect to "Public Deposits" at the Bank of England, it is to to noted that they include the balance of the Council of India and other cash balances on the Public Accounts, besides the Exchequer balance. These other balances, which constitute a material part of "Public Deposits," are not generally in excess of the requirements of the various Public Departments; and it is only for a short period in the year—that is, towards its close—that The Exchequer balance is in any way excessive. The question, however, of balances generally
  230
  is one well deserving of consideration. It has already engaged my attention, and I hope arrangements may be made in the direction of reducing The balances.

  THE COLONIAL CONFERENCE—TELEGRAPHIC MESSAGES.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATONasked the Under Secretary of State for India, referring to his statement in February last, in reply to the hon. Member for Canterbury, that The charge for a telegraphic message on its way from London to Australia is 75 centimes per word from Bombay to Madras, while a local message over the same wires in India is only 22½ centimes per word, Will he arrange that a responsible Representative from. India be present at the Colonial Conference, with a view to have the grievance remedied?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): It is not intended that the Government of India should be officially represented at the Colonial Conference; but the Secretary of State will be ready to furnish the Members of the Conference with ail possible information.

  CROFTERS' HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1886—AMENDMENT OF SECTION.
  DR. CLARKasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Government intend to introduce, or give facilities for, a measure to amend Section 6 of the Crofters Act, 1886, to enable the Crofters Commission to protect crofters from being sued for nonpayment of arrears of rent and made bankrupts, and consequently being removed from their holdings pending the hearing of their applications under that Act; whether the Crofters Commission have sat for six months, and during that time have only determined about 60 applications to have fair rents fixed; and, whether there are several thousand such applications still pending?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): In reply to the first part of the hon. Member's Question, I must refer him to the answer given on the 21st of February last by the then Secretary for Scotland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) to a similar Question—namely—
  "That, while anxious to facilitate the fixing of a fair rent, he was not, as at present ad-

  231
  vised, prepared to re-open the question by fresh legislation."
  The Government still adhere to the above decision. With regard to the second part of the Question, the Crofters Commission has been sitting since the 13th of October last, and has disposed of many more than 60 applications to fix fair rents. I must also refer the hon. Member to the Lord Advocate's answer to a Question addressed to him by the hon. Member himself so lately as the 22nd of last month, which was to the effect that to state the number of applications to fix a fair rent which had been determined would be misleading at the present time, as a very large number of cases were far advanced, although not actually decided, and that the decisions were in many cases delayed at the request of the parties themselves. A large number of applications to fix fair rents are still pending; but the Commissioners are making rapid progress.

  THE PRIVY COUNCIL IN ENGLAND AND IRELAND —ATTENDANCE OF JUDGES.
  MR. J. E. ELLISasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is the practice for Her Majesty's Judges in Great Britain to attend meetings of the Privy Council; and, if not, whether he will state the reason for the attendance of Her Majesty's Judges in Ireland at the meetings of the Privy Council in Dublin?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The hon. Member is probably not aware that the Privy Council in England meets exceedingly rarely. In Ireland the functions of the Privy Council are confined to advising the Lord Lieutenant on matters on which His Excellency is entitled to, and requires, their advice, which are, in fact, questions for judicial decision. Judges who are Members of the Privy Council are entitled to attend; but they take no part in administrative or political business.
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my Question, whether in this country it is customary for the Judges to attend the Privy Council?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Whenever the Privy Council is summoned as a Council, Judges who are Members attend.
  MR. MACNEILLasked, whether it was the duty of the Privy Council, as a Privy Council, to solicit personal interviews with the Lord Lieutenant on any matter of State, and to inform and advise the Lord Lieutenant, if necessary, to institute a prosecution; and, whether the Attorney General for Ireland was invariably a Member of the Privy Council; whereas the Attorney General for England was not invariably a Member?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The hon. Gentleman has asked me a series of Questions, and I must ask Notice of them.
  MR. MACNEILL: Certainly.

  THE MINISTRY—THE LAND BILL AND PURCHASE BILL.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Government regard the passing of the Irish Land Bill, introduced in "another place," as vital to their existence, or do they so regard the passing of a Purchase Bill?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): In answer to the hon. and learned Member, I have to say that the Government regard the passing of the Irish Land Bill as of vital importance, and they will use every effort belonging to them as a Government to secure that the Bill shall pass into law.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my Question. He has stated with regard to the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Bill that its passing was "of vital matter for the Government," and I ask him whether that is the case also with regard to the Irish Land Bill?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I can add nothing, Sir, to the answer I have given.

  QUESTIONS—ALTERATION OR OMISSION FROM NOTICE PAPER.
  DR. J. E. KENNY: Sir, I find that a Question which I handed to the Clerk on this day week, fixing to-day for putting it, does not appear upon the Paper. The complaint I have to make is that I have received no notice explaining why it has not been put upon the Paper. I wish to know from you, Sir, whether it is not the privilege of a Member to receive notice if a Question is irregular, in order that he may, if possible, correct the irregularity?
  MR. SPEAKER: As a general rule, communications are sent to hon. Members whenever there is any irregularity in their Questions. The reason why the hon. Gentleman's Question was rejected was because it contained matter of argument. I suppose it is owing to the pressure of Business that the omission to send notice to the hon. Member occurred. I regret that it should be so; but as a general rule, as I have said, communications are always sent.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I also gave Notice of a Question yesterday to the Clerk at the Table. The Question was taken by the Clerk; and, at the suggestion of the Clerk, I myself made a correction in it, and I understood that the Question was one which would be placed upon the Paper. I find, however, that it has no place upon the Paper to-day, and I have received no notice on the subject.
  MR. SPEAKER: The Question which the hon. Gentleman proposed to put was fully answered yesterday; and the Clerk, acting upon his own authority and discretion, and entirely with my concurrence, did not put it upon the Paper. I should say that the Question, as it was first submitted, was a most improper one. It contained innuendoes which I stigmatized last night in terms not too strong; and I am surprised to find that the hon. Gentleman should make any complaint as to its not being on the Paper.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: As you have deemed it right, Sir, to reprobate, in very strong terms, the Question of which I gave Notice, I think I have a right to claim your indulgence and that of the House while I explain what the Question really was. The Question, Mr. Speaker, was this. [Cries of "No!"] In the first place—
  MR. SPEAKER: I cannot allow the hon. Member to state a Question which I have ruled to be improper. I may say that the part of the Question I objected to, and which I immediately struck out, was that in which the hon. Member desired to ask whether there had been any communication between the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury and myself on the subject of applying the closure to the debate. That was a Question which I thought was a most improper one, and one
  234
  which the hon. Gentleman was not entitled to ask.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Will you permit me to say that, in proposing to put that Question, I did so for the purpose of showing that the right hon. Gentleman was presuming to assume your consent to the closure being put; and permit me further, Mr. Speaker, to say that I did it in order to show my sense that you would impartially administer the law committed to your care, and that the right hon. Gentleman was placing an unjust and unworthy stigma upon you.
  MR. SPEAKER: I stated that the Question was fully answered last night It is not usual to put down a Question which has already received a full reply. In order, however, to satisfy the hon. Gentleman, I may say that the Question was to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he was correctly reported in an evening journal to have declared that he intended to apply the closure to the debate on the Motion for the introduction of the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Bill? Then followed that part of the Question which I considered to be improper and irregular, and which I struck out. To the other part of the Question a full and definite reply was given by the right hon. Gentleman last night.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I am sure, Sir, you will permit me to explain, as you appear to be under the impression that I was about to put on the Paper some Question imputing unworthy motives to you, that I had no such intention whatever. Nothing was further from my thoughts; but really my object was to saddle the right hon. Gentleman with the responsibility of assuming that which he had no right to assume.

  RUSSIA—ALLEGED ATTEMPT ON THE CZAR.
  MR. ADDISONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he was able to give the House any information as to the alleged attempt to assassinate the Emperor of Russia?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): Her Majesty's Government have received no communication whatever on the subject.

  PROGRESS OF BUSINESS—THE CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT (IRELAND) BILL.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention had been called to the fact that in "another place" the House of Lords had required three weeks between the first and second reading of the Land Bill—not a very intricate measure—and, whether, under these circumstances, he proposed to allow not a single Parliamentary day of interval between the first and second reading of the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Bill?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I am aware, Sir, that an interval will elapse between the first and second reading of the Land Bill in "another place." I am aware also that the Bill, when it is taken in hand in the other House, will proceed with much greater rapidity than we have any reason to anticipate with regard to measures in this House; and, as I have stated, there is no doubt whatever that the Bill will be down here before we can hope to dispose of the Criminal Law Amendment Bill in this House. I may, perhaps, be permitted now to refer to the progress of Public Business in relation to the allusion of the right hon. Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) last evening on the subject. He appealed to me, as well as the right hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. John Morley), to allow an interval to elapse between the first reading and the second reading of this Bill; and the right hon. Gentleman founded his appeal on the ground that it was essential the country should have an opportunity of becoming acquainted with the details of the measure before the second reading was moved. He (Sir William Harcourt) referred to the fact that he had introduced a Crimes Prevention Bill on the 11th of May, 1882, and that he did not move the second reading until the 18th of May. I wish to remind the right hon. Gentleman that that Bill was introduced when it was only in a state of draft; and when he was asked when it would be printed and circulated, on the night of its introduction, he intimated that he could hardly fix a date. It was actually only circulated on Tuesday, May 16.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I expected it to be distributed on the Saturday.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am now speaking of the actual facts of the case. An interval, therefore, of only two days occurred between the actual circulation of the Bill to Members in London and the second reading. I would also remind him that the first reading was taken in one night. Taking those facts into consideration, the Government propose, if the first reading is taken tonight, to give a longer time than was given in the case of the right hon. Gentleman's Bill, and to propose that the debate on the second reading shall be begun on Tuesday. This will give an interval of three days, instead of the two which were allowed in 1882. It is also proposed that there shall be an interval of a week after the second reading before the House is asked to go into Committee on the Bill. It is necessary that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer should introduce his Budget, and some other necessary Business will be taken; but I trust I shall have satisfied right hon. Gentlemen opposite that the Government are, as far as it is possible for them to do so, anxious to meet any reasonable demands that can be made for time for the consideration of this measure. We feel, however, that it is our imperative duty, as we have stated from time to time, to ask the House to come to a decision on the principle of the measure. It is not necessary for me to repeat what I have said on this question; but we rely on the judgment and the approval of the great majority of this House.

MOTION.
  PARLIAMENT—THE NEW RULES OF PROCEDURE (1882)—RULE 2 (ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE).

    THE CROFTERS COMMISSION.
    DR. CLARKrose in his place, and asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House, for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, the pressing need of more diligent action by the Crofters Commission, and of protection to Crofters who have made application to the Commission to get

    237
    fair rents fixed against proceedings in bankruptcy involving their expulsion from their holdings before their applications can be heard.
    But, the pleasure of the House not haying been signified,
    Mr. SPEAKERcalled on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not less than 40 Members having accordingly risen: —
    DR. CLARKsaid, he regretted very much being compelled to take this course, but the answer he had received from the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) rendered it unavoidable. He thought the right hon. Gentleman could not be aware of the present condition of things in Scotland, nor what the recent decision of the Court of Session implied. They were under the impression that the Crofters Act passed last year was a protection to the small number of crofters who were not excluded from it. Unfortunately, a decision had been given by the Court of Session which had made that Act perfectly valueless to a large number of the crofters. An appeal was taken to the Court of Session to determine whether a landlord had a right to sue a crofter for arrears of rent, and to make him bankrupt, and so compel him to void his holding. The ex-Lord Advocate (Mr. J. B. Balfour), who represented the crofters in that appeal, and who had introduced the Bill into the House, informed the Court of Session that it was the intention of the Government, and of Parliament, to give the crofters this protection; but, unfortunately, the Court of Session had decided that as the Common Law of Scotland was not repealed, the protection which the late Government and the House intended to give to the crofters had not been given, and any crofter might now be sued at Common Law by his landlord, decree might be given, and he might be bankrupt in virtue of that decree, and might be expelled from his holding. The right hon. Gentleman was under the impression that there had been very few rack-rents in Scotland, that there were not much arrears, and that this decision of the Court of Session was not of very much importance. They had tried to get information from the Government as to the number of applications made and decisions given by
    238
    the Crofters Commission, and now they were told to-night that during the six months the Crofters Commission had been sitting only 60 decisions had been given, and that there were thousands of cases still pending. He would like to call attention to a list of decisions given by the Commission, because they demonstrated that the contention of the late Secretary for Scotland (Mr. A. J. Balfour), to the effect that the crofters, as a rule, are not rack-rented, had not been borne out by the Commission, but the very reverse was the case. The decisions by the Crofters Commission in the Highlands, so far as they had gone, had proved that the Scottish crofters were even more rack-rented than the Irish cottier farmers. They had four estates in Sutherlandshire before them, on three of which reductions were made. On the estate of Skibo there were four cases. In the first the rent was reduced from £7 10 s. to £1 12 s.; the second from £22 15 s. to £7 10 s.; the third from £2 10 s. to £1 1s.; and the fourth from £3 to £2 5s. On the Rosehall estate two decisions were given, in the first of which the rent was reduced from £6 to £2 10 s., and the other from £5 to £1 1s. On the Invercarron estate there were four cases. In the first the rent was reduced from £10 to £7; the second from £7 to £3 7s.; the third from £5 to £2; and the fourth from £7 to £3 6s. He had not quoted specimens, but had quoted all the decisions; and they proved that, as far as the Sutherland crofters were concerned, they were more rack-rented than the Irish tenants, and there had been greater reductions in their case than ever were made by the Irish Sub-Commissioners. The evidence given before the Commission in Skye had proved that the great bulk of the crofters were from four to seven years in arrears of rent, and several of the Skye landlords had got decrees by which they could make them bankrupt. In his own county of Caithness, although he had not been there since the General Election, there had been more and larger meetings held, and stronger language used at them, than ever had been used before. The reason was that these men knew that some of the needy landlords were being compelled to sue their crofters in order to prevent themselves from becoming bankrupt. This was a question

    239
    of great importance to the House, inasmuch as social order would be seriously imperilled. They could not get any Returns from the Government, although they gave such Returns for Ireland, and all they could depend upon was the public Press. In these circumstances, what did the Government intend to do? If they had in six months decided 60 cases, it would take 20 years to get through the present number of cases, and during that time all these crofters would be made bankrupt pending the healing of their applications. What did the Government intend to do to carry out the section of the Act by which the three Commissioners could have assistance? The Commissioners were empowered to have the assistance of valuers and surveyors. All they spent last year was £200 on assistance of that kind, and in the new Estimates all they intended to ask for next year was £492. It was perfectly clear, under these circumstances, that the Crofters Act was a farce, and would be entirely useless for all practical purposes unless something was done to hasten the work of the Commission. Instead of having 60 cases in six months, they ought to have 600 cases in a month. He did not complain of the Commissioners; but if he were to complain, it would be to say that they were doing their work too thoroughly— that they were giving an amount of time to each individual case which was not justified. If, instead of these gentlemen deciding every case in every township, they decided one case in each township, and had assessors and valuers to go and value and report as in Ireland, more work could be done, and these unfortunate people could be retained in their holdings. There were thousands of cases pending, and only sixty cases had been decided; and it was absolutely necessary to have the work of the Commission accelerated, or the Act would be practically useless, and social order in the Highlands would be seriously impaired and imperilled.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Dr. Clark.)
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)said, that perhaps the
    240
    House would allow him to answer, as the matter had come under his consideration while he was at the Scottish Office. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark) said the Scotch crofters were more rack-rented than the Irish tenants, and he founded that observation on the decisions which had been come to in Sutherland. He would give no opinion on the broad question, but the decisions at which the Commissioners had arrived by no means bore out the opinion which the hon. Member had expressed. The County of Sutherland was almost entirely owned by one individual, and the estates on which there had been reductions of rent did not belong to that individual. On the Duke of Sutherland's estates, so far as decisions had been come to, and in so far as it was possible to adduce from conclusions as to rents, he should say that they were too low rather than too high. The hon. Gentleman had told them that rents had been raised because of additional pasture given to the tenants. Even if that were so, it would prove that the relations between landlords and tenants were working smoothly; but, as a matter of fact, the allegation of the hon. Member was not entirely correct, and rents had been raised in cases in which no additional pastures had been given by the proprietors to the crofters. The hon. Member had gone on to say that the Commission were doing their work very slowly, and that at the present rate of progress the Commission might take 20 years to finish its work. That was entirely contrary to the information he had received on the subject from the Commission. Shortly before leaving the Scottish Office they had informed him that at the beginning, as they had to inform themselves on a large number of questions, and while they were in that process of education, as he might call it, they would not work with very great rapidity; but he had understood from them that the urgent cases would be disposed of with greatly augmented speed. Then the hon. Gentleman had come to the question which he had been pleased to describe to the House as one of urgent public importance, and the point he raised was not, perhaps, familiar to most hon. Members of the House. The point he raised was this. He said—

    241
    "By your Crofters Act you gave the crofters power to appeal to the Commission to have a fair rent fixed; but during the delay which may in all cases, and must in some, elapse between the application of the crofter to the Commission and the final decision of the Commission, it was possible for the landlord to make the crofter bankrupt, and thus deprive him of the provisions and benefits of the Act."
    He (Mr. A. J. Balfour) believed the statement of the law was not inaccurate, and the question was one which had received very anxious attention from the Government all through the winter and spring; and while he was Secretary for Scotland he had under his consideration whether it was necessary or not to bring in a Bill to fill up the gap left in the Crofters Act of last year. The reason he had not done so was, that in not a single instance had a landlord, by making his tenant bankrupt, deprived him of the benefits of the Act. It would have been possible, as the hon. Member was aware, for the landlords to proceed against any number of their tenants. He did not believe there was anything in the Highlands that could be described as anything like rack-renting. He had the most ample proof that the landlords had behaved with the most generous consideration to their tenants, where, nevertheless, rents were in arrear for one, two, three, four, and five years. Those were cases where hardship might possibly be supposed to occur under the existing law; but not a single case had occurred in which a landlord had attempted to deprive a tenant of the advantages and benefits of the Crofters Act. He thought that this disposed of the case as being one of urgent public importance. The hon. Member could not produce a single case of a tenant being turned out on these terms.
    DR. CLARKsaid, that proceedings were going on now. There had not been time yet.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he could only speak from information three or four weeks old; but up to that time there had not been a single case, nor was there any apprehension of any such case occurring. The defect in the Crofters Act was a purely theoretical and speculative one; and the question for the Government was whether they should deal with it now, or should not rather go on with the legislation at present before that House and the other House of Parliament? They had before the
    242
    other House at this moment a Land Bill which—whether it was good or bad—was of very large scope, and which was intended and conceived to prevent Irish tenants over the whole of Ireland from suffering eviction through their not being able to pay rents in consequence of no fault of their own. Were they, in those circumstances, to block the way of all legislation before this and the other House in order to bring in a Bill to re-open a very large question connected with an Act in which no real defect had yet been shown to exist, and for which no practical necessity of any kind whatever had been proved? He ventured to suggest to the House that they should best be pursuing their duties if they remedied the law where it was proved to be actually defective in its working, and if they left to a later period the remedy of those purely theoretical and speculative defects which the eyes of the hon. Gentleman had found in the Crofters Act of last year.
    DR. R. MCDONALDsaid, that they knew the Duke of Sutherland had granted to his tenants about 4,000 acres of land, while the rents had only been raised from £209 to £248. Did the right hon. Gentleman mean to say, under these circumstances, there had been no reduction of rent on the Duke of Sutherland's estates when these 4,000 acres of grazing ground had been granted with an increase of only £40? He did not think any Representative of the Highlands had complained much in that House of the rack-rents. What they had complained of was that the people had not enough of land. He would read to the House some of the reductions made by the Crofter Commission, and he would leave it to the House to say whether the Crofter Representatives, as being considered pestilent agitators, had not been particularly modest and within the line in their demands? In Sutherland the rents on one estate had been reduced 37½ per cent, and the other day the Crofters Commission, which was improving the older it grew, like the Irish Land Commission, made reductions of 65⅓ per cent. On other estates the rents had been reduced 25 per cent, 29½ per cent, 40 per cent, 50 per cent, 47½ per cent, and 67¾ per cent. He appealed to the House and to anybody who chose to look at the figures if the High land crofters had not

    243
    been rack-rented, and grievously so? What they wanted the Government to do was to say that it should not be in the power of the landlords to take all the arrears for these fearful rack-rents, and to put the tenants out of their holdings by making them bankrupt. The right hon. Gentleman said no landlords had done this, and were not going to do anything now; but at present the landlords had got writs for £3,000 for arrears of rack-rents hanging over the heads of the people, and they could not take the word of the landlords that they would not put these writs into force, for they knew what the landlords had been in the past. They had no guarantee that the landlords would not repeat their actions in the future; and they wanted to deprive them of the power of putting these writs into execution. Nobody on the Treasury Bench could prevent their doing so; and when it occurred it would be too late to cry out, and the right hon. Gentleman would tell them there was no time for a new Bill; that matters must go on, and the law must take its course; that the men must be made bankrupt, and that families must be thrown on the hill-side and road-side. With reference to the decisions come to by the Commission, he might say that his hon. Friend the Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark) was so far wrong in counting up the cases that the decisions already given numbered close on 200. As to their blocking Irish legislation, he did not wish to prevent the House going to work upon what seemed to be thought more important Business; but when they were told about blocking Irish legislation, he must remind them that nearly the whole of the Irish Representatives, who must be interested in beneficial legislation, supported the Motion of his hon. Friend. He thought they had shown the Government that there was a very serious case, and if the Government would only give them an assurance that they would afford facilities for dealing with the question, they would not delay or trouble the House any longer.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I should like to say one or two words upon this question, because it was my duty to make some representations to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) on the subject when he was
    244
    Secretary for Scotland. I confess I regret that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark) has felt it to be his duty to introduce the matter at this time, and in this particular way. Although I am quite sure that he has no such intention, it may give rise to the inference that he had in view less the urgency of this particular matter than considerations affecting another subject before the House. But my hon. Friend, I think, by common consent, will be admitted to have laid before the House a blot in the Crofters Act. That blot is admitted from this side of the House by those who were responsible for the introduction of the Bill, and who allow that, by inadvertence, it has become possible for grievances which the Act was intended to remedy still to exist. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has also admitted the existence of this blot. It was intended by the promoters of this Crofter Act that, in all cases of arrear, the Court should have discretion. It is possible, in consequence of the inadvertence to which I have referred, that a crofter may be evicted from his holding for arrears of rent without the intervention of any Court. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary says very truly that up to the present time the landlords have not taken advantage of this blot in the Act in order to evict tenants, but it is true that they have it in their power to do so. They may do so, and cases of great hardship may be done before the House has time to interfere. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary is perfectly reasonable when he says that the Government cannot be expected to interrupt very important Irish Business before the House in order to give attention to a subject which may in itself involve considerable discussion. I venture to make a suggestion by which I think the difficulty may be avoided. The blot which the hon. Member seeks to remove can be entirely done away with by a very short Act. An Act of one clause would be sufficient to correct the mistake. If my hon. Friends intend, as I imagine they would, to accept this correction, which is admitted on both sides to be necessary and just, without discussion, it would be perfectly possible for the Government to introduce this Bill at once, and carry it into law in a very short time indeed—even at a time when the

    245
    Irish Business is before the House. I venture to make this suggestion to prevent what may be a great wrong.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As the right hon. Gentleman has appealed to me, I may say I will very carefully consider the suggestion he has made; but, at the same time, I think the grievance of which he complains is daily diminishing. I will consider the matter very carefully.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he would suggest that the possible Bill might be introduced in "another place," where there was more leisure.
    Question put, and negatived.

ORDER OF THE DAY.
  CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT (IRELAND) BILL.

    MOTION FOR LEAVE. FIRST READING.
    ADJOURNED DEBATE. [FIFTH NIGHT.]
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [28th March],
    "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make better provision for the prevention and punishment of Crime in Ireland; and for other purposes relating thereto."—(Mr. Arthur Balfour.)
    Question again proposed.
    Debate resumed.
    MR. PARNELLin rising to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice, said: I am glad, Sir, we are now in a position for the first time to debate the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) with some sort of an approach to completeness of information. It was not until last night that this House and the country were put in possession of the general and complete policy of the Government in its nakedness and its dishonesty. The proceedings last night, Sir, in "another place," revealed to us the extent of the plot and the gravity of the conspiracy by which it is intended by the Tory Party and the Liberal Unionists on the one side to coerce, if possible, the tenants of Ireland into the payment of impossible rents, and on the other side to compel the purchase of the landlords' interest at exorbitant prices, at prices which, if this House puts it into the power of the Government to
    246
    coerce the Irish people under this Bill, will most certainly lead to a repudiation on a wholesale scale and to great loss to the British taxpayer. Sir, up to the present we have only had the coercion side, the direct coercion side, of the Government; but last night we were treated in "another place" to what I may call the indirect coercion side of the Government, a species of coercion which, under the pretext of conferring benefits on the Irish people, stabs them in the back, a species of coercion which, under the guise of friendship, inflicts a most deadly injury. Now, Sir, when last Session I asked the Government and this House to intervene in the crisis which I saw very well was approaching in Irish affairs, when I begged and implored of them, this newly-elected Parliament, full of fresh Members, who could not complain of the fatigue of a recent Session as a reason for a speedy holiday—when I entreated this House to postpone its holiday for a while in order to bring about some modus vivendi to enable the Irish tenants to pass through the coming winter, I was met with the statement that the Government had appointed a Select Commission to inquire into the Land Question, and that when they received its Report they would act on it. I predicted, Sir, that if you waited for the winter you would find things very much entangled, and so far gone before you met again that you would be called upon by the Ministry not to carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commission in the direction of land reform, but to pass a Coercion Bill of unexampled stringency and most drastic provisions, and, unhappily, I have not proved to be a false prophet. I wish it had been otherwise, and the Government in this House are pressing on their coercion with almost indecent haste. On the other hand, they have refused to carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commission. It is impossible for us to consider this question of the state of Ireland without inquiry into the sufficiency of the projects of the Government with regard to remedial legislation. I say that these projects, as announced to us last night, stand condemned by the Report of their own Commission for their insufficiency to meet the justice of the situation and the gravity of the tenants' case. What did

    247
    the Land Commission recommend? They made three main or principal recommendations. The first of all was that the judicial term should be shortened from 15 to five years; they recommended, in the second place, that leaseholders should be admitted to the benefits of the Land Act, and the third recommendation was that the holders of town parks should be constituted present tenants, and should on application be admitted to have a fair rent fixed. With the exception of the admission of the leaseholders to the benefits of the Land Act, the Government have absolutely thrown overboard the other two recommendations of the Commission—that is to say, that out of the three main or principal recommendations the Government have only adopted one. They have declined to shorten the judicial term of tenancy from 15 years to five; they have declined to admit the occupiers of the town parks to the benefit of the Land Act of 1881, and have contented themselves with a mere modification of the definition which will go a very small distance in the required direction. But the two recommendations of the Royal Commission are quite as important for their negative side as for their positive side. We have heard a great deal of the land proposals of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Joseph Chamberlain); how he has bent his great talent and knowledge of Ireland to the construction of a Land Purchase Bill. I am not at all sure that within the last 12 months the right hon. Gentleman has not constructed several Land Purchase Bills, each successive one different to the previous one. Sir, we are told now that he has constructed a Land Purchase Bill, and he has sold this Land Purchase Bill to the Government, the conditions being that the Government have purchased this Land Purchase Bill from him in exchange for his vote. In other words, it is not a case of two fools meeting. Her Majesty's Government have been the wiser of the two, because they have given no value whatever—the two important considerations made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham being that the Government should accept his Land Purchase Bill, and he is to vote in favour of the Coercion Bill. The right hon. Gentleman is wedded to his idea of
    248
    the substitution of small Local Authorities for the Central Authority contemplated by the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), and we may assume—although we have not been favoured with any details as to the Purchase Bill of the Government—we may assume that the Land Purchase Bill of the Government will be in the direction of that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham—at all events, they will be very ungrateful to him if it be not so. But what does the Royal Commission say with regard to this point? They say in paragraph 26 of their Report—
    "We have found an all but unanimous opinion against the expectation that any satisfactory result would follow from the introduction of Local Authorities as guarantors in ordinary or congested districts, and the evidence shows that these authorities would decline such responsibility."
    Further on they say in another paragraph—
    "We think that much caution should be exercised with dealing with small tenants as purchasers of their holdings."
    So that the Royal Commission expressly warned the Government against fathering the Bill of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham. They point out that it would be dangerous, so far as it was operative, and that in all probability it would only be operative to a very small extent. Well, then, Sir, dual ownership is to be abolished in the permanent Bill of the Government—the second Bill of the Government—and it is to be abolished, I suppose, by the guarantee of these Local Authorities in Ireland which has been condemned by the Royal Commission, so that we find not only do the Government refuse to carry out the positive recommendations of the Royal Commission, but they also absolutely disregarded its warnings in these two matters which they advise them not to do. But, Sir, I would turn for a moment to the proposal for dealing with the present exigencies of the case—the situation in Ireland. I have pointed out that it is not the intention of the Government to adopt the principal recommendation of the Royal Commission, based upon the evidence which they received, that the judicial term of the tenancy should be shortened in length from 15 years to five; and here we find

    249
    that again the trail of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham appears to stain the ground. The ill-omened word "bankruptcy" is introduced, and the example which is supposed to have been set by the successful workings of the Bankruptcy Bill of the right hon. Gentleman is to be invoked in reference to the case of the distressed Irish tenants—in other words, Bankruptcy Courts are to be set up wholesale right, left, and centre, all over Ireland in order that the Irish tenants may be turned into bankrupts. These Bankruptcy Courts are to be composed of County Court Judges. To them is to be given the duty of deciding the great number of intricate and difficult matters which from the nature of the case it will be entirely impossible for these gentlemen either to have knowledge of, or time to consider or adjudicate upon. These County Court Judges are limited in number, and I admit they have not a great deal of work to do. Thanks to the freedom from litigation of the mercantile and of the prominent classes in Ireland, there is not much for these County Court Judges to do. But what do you propose to do now as part of your remedial legislation? You propose to give to these 25 County Court Judges the duty of deciding whether 450,000 Irish tenants are, in the first instance, persons of good character; whether, in the second place, their inability to pay rent is due to the fact that they have taken too much whiskey, or that the land is too poor to produce the rent; and, in the third place, what the fair rent is to be that they ought to pay in future. A more monstrous proposal never entered into the brain of man.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I rise, Sir, to ask a question. The hon. Gentleman is going into the details of a Bill before another House, and the Question I have to ask is, if he is to discuss that Bill, shall I be allowed to reply to him in equal detail?
    MR. SPEAKER: There is manifestly great inconvenience in discussing the general question of land on an Amendment to a Motion for the introduction of a Bill for the Amendment of the Criminal Law. The Amendment, in my opinion, must bear some relation to the Bill to which it refers. Although, of course,
    250
    allusion to the Land Question is perfectly in Order; yet any detailed reference to a debate in another House would be improper and un-Parliamentary.
    MR. PARNELL: I shall keep strictly within the limits of your ruling, Sir; but I would remind the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant that in a discussion upon a Motion before a Select Committee of the Whole House for inquiry into the state of Ireland, it is quite impossible to limit the nature of the discussion solely and entirely to the merits of the Bill which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to ask the leave of the House to introduce. We are under the necessity of inquiring into other branches of the Irish Constitution in order to see whether the proposals of the Government as a whole are such as to free them from the necessity of agreeing to my Amendment. That is what I seek. Without referring to any Bill which may be before the other House, and without referring to the details or passages in debate which may have taken place in the other House, I may say, generally, a more monstrous proposal—whether it be the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, or whether it be the proposal of Her Majesty's Government—than that which has been described to us—namely, that of these 25 Judges, who have already some business to do, although not a great deal, to confide to them the duty not only of investigating the moral character of all the Irish tenants who are not leaseholders, but also the capacity of their farms to pay a higher or lower rent than that which they pay now, was never heard of. It is a proposal that is bound to break down from the very commencement, and I can only suppose it was put forward because the Government thought it was necessary for them to propose something in an ameliorative direction, because they had proposed this coercive measure. It is the old story—it shows that in proportion to the severity of your Coercion Code the efficiency of your remedial measures will be diminished. In proportion as you strike down Irish liberties, so will be the ratio of the lessened efficiency of the ameliorating Courts, such as the Courts of the Land Commissioners and others you may establish in Ireland for

    251
    the redress of Irish grievances. As one of those who carefully watched the working of the Land Act of 1881, and who took some part in the agitation of the Land League in those days, I desire to give it as my solemn conviction that, had it not been for the passage of the Coercion Act of 1881, the Land Act of that year would have been received in a very different and far better spirit by the Irish people, and the operations of the Courts would not have been hampered by the criticism of the House of Lords and the opprobrium of the landlord faction in Ireland, which intimidated these Courts, and prevented them from doing that justice to the Irish tenants which they were established to do. Nay, more, Sir; I will go further than that, and I will say I am convinced that the landlord party in the House of Commons had not previously got the Coercion Act of 1881 passed, they would have allowed a far better and more generous Land Act to have passed through both this House and the House of Lords, and that Act would not have been foredoomed to failure by reason of its own inefficiency from the very moment of its birth. If you handicap the Irish tenants in their struggle against unjust rents, if you throw the power into the landlords' hands in Ireland, depend upon it your imperfect attempts to do justice to the tenants will be foredoomed to failure, and that it will be impossible for them to contend against the obstacles which will be placed in their way. Sir, I do not propose to deal fully with the question of the Land Bill which was introduced last night in "another place;" but I will just say this—the last General Election turned to a large extent upon the question of the land proposals of the late Government, proposals to purchase out the tenant at the expense and at the risk of the State in the interests of the landlords, and did more than any thing else to defeat and wreck the late Ministry. If there was one thing the electorate of Great Britain was against it was the loan of the credit of the State for the purpose of assisting the Irish landlords; and I am perfectly convinced from the development I have seen on the one hand of coercion, and on the other hand the land legislation in "another place," that the very danger that the English and British electorate sought to avoid by rushing away from the right hon.
    252
    Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, and his plans, they have leapt into by placing the present Government into Office; and if they allow this Coercion Act to pass, the last defence against the wholesale robbery of the British taxpayer will be removed—there will be then nothing to prevent the exercise of landlord intimidation against the tenants in Ireland. They will be compelled in self-defence—and we have seen many instances of it already—to buy their farms upon any terms that the landlords may force upon them. The result of that—the inevitable result—must be loss to the British taxpayer, because agriculture is at such a low ebb in Ireland now, as in England, that the possibility of obtaining the rent out of the land has almost ceased to exist, except in the very best classes of land. If you attempt to float the landlords by means of State credit, the result must surely be a wholesale repudiation of their obligations, when this coercion shall have been removed, by the tenants whom the landlords will have compelled to purchase at extravagant terms. I have myself always desired to act honestly in respect of this question of land purchase. I have always been identified with it ever since I took a prominent part in Irish politics. I think that the solution of the Irish Land Question depends upon the purchase of their holdings by the tenants. I was denounced as a robber in 1879 by the then Prime Minister, who ridiculed the idea of any large scheme for enabling the Irish tenants to purchase their holdings. The late Sir Stafford Northcote pointed out the danger there would be to the British taxpayer taking the place of these impoverished landlords. In 1880 we (the Irish Party) were held up to public odium because we asked, not that there might be a forced sale of all Irish lands to the Irish tenants, but that a Royal Commission might have power to buy such estates in Ireland as they considered necessary, where strained relations might exist between landlords and tenants. But from first to last I have never wavered or faltered for a single moment in the belief that in the direction of land purchase lies your hope of settling the Irish Land Question. I did not go, I could not go, with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, in hoping or believing that his

    253
    Land Act would prove a final solution or settlement of the difficulty, although if it had been allowed to work by the House of Lords and the landlord faction in Ireland it would have gone very much nearer a solution than it hither to has done. That has been our position—to make the Irish tenant the owner of his holding, and we believe he will turn the sands into gold. We believe that if this be done on a fair basis and a fair price, in the absence of coercion—not with coercion—that the Irish tenant will fulfil his obligations to the last penny; for he would feel as one who drags a lessening instead of a lengthening chain behind him; and the result will be satisfactory to the English nation and without any risk to the Imperial Exchequer. But in the present proposals of the Government there is wanting every element of future security and satisfaction, so that what you give on the one hand you take away with the other; and these unfortunate tenants and those who speak for them will subject themselves to the most terrible penalties if they venture to say a word against the Ministerial view, or the view of the landlords of Ireland. We shall be told during the debate that the Government do not intend to do this, and that they will not use the Coercion Act in such a manner; that they do not intend to use it in this fashion or in that fashion; but we know how these professions vanish when the Government get the sharp sword into their hands. I recollect it being said that Mr. Forster's Coercion Act of 1881 was not to be used except against those who directly incited to outrage and intimidation; that it would be used only against village ruffians, and not used against people who gave advice to tenants. Well, Sir, I can give hundreds of instances of persons arrested under that Act who did nothing whatever but go to the landlord and ask for a reduction of rent. I remember the case of a most respectable farmer from the County of Wexford who was brought into Kilmainham one day. He was a Mr. Crosby, I think, a tenant on an estate in that county, and he had a large establishment in addition to the farm. He was a leaseholder, one of the class you are now going to relieve after seven years' waiting; and he headed a deputation of his brother tenants to the landlord or to the agent—I cannot say now which—to ask for a reduction for rent.
    254
    The landlord or agent said to him—"I will go up to Dublin Castle to-night, and I will see Mr. Forster." He did not speak so courteously of Mr. Forster. He used another name, which, in respect for the memory of the man, I shall not myself use. "I shall see Mr. Forster," he said. "I will have you in gaol in Kilmainham before 24 hours have gone by." Well, Sir, he did go up to Dublin Castle, and saw Mr. Forster, and Mr. Crosby was in gaol in Kilmainham before 24 hours. It will be the same way now. Even the printer's devils employed in the office of United Ireland, were arrested under the Act of 1881 for intimidation because they inked the types of that journal, and the very newsboys of the streets were arrested by the police for intimidation for crying the paper about the streets. So it will be now. You will coerce the Irish tenants, and compel them to use your so-called remedial legislation—legislation which can only be carried out at a vast cost to the English taxpayer. All guarantees of fair dealing will be gone; and how can you expect that the Irish tenants will not repudiate such a bargain when they get the chance. I will now Sir, leave this question of remedial legislation, and I will go to the Coercion Bill of the Government, and the case which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant made upon its introduction. And, Sir, I have to complain that in the course which the Government have taken they have entirely deprived the House of any real means of checking' the information they have supplied. They supplied the House with information solely on their own authority. They have not given us the names, or, except in a very few cases, any details that would enable us to check the bonâ fide character of this information. Now, it is a very serious thing, when you are attempting to steal away the liberties of a nation by such a case as that put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, to depart from the precedent that has been sot by the previous Government under similar circumstances, At all other times we have had figures in abundance; we have had statistics of crime that the Government in question had based their eases upon those figures and upon those statistics; but in this case the Government have not based their case on any figures or on any

    255
    statistics given to the House. The right hon. Gentleman treated us to a series of anecdotes, but he gave us nothing definite. I remember in my young days the great pleasure I experienced when reading Robinson Crusoe. I asked whether it was true or not. I was informed that it was not absolutely true, but I was comforted by the assurance that it was founded upon fact. But we are unable to comfort ourselves even with this assurance in the case of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. The child's guide to knowledge is nothing to the encyclopedia the right hon. Gentleman has unfolded for the edification of us Irish. He has told us that he has based his case upon a series of anecdotes. For example, he gave us the number of persons under police protection in Ireland. That is an important piece of collateral evidence. I submit, it is not one of the figures which should have been given as one of the leading grounds for the Government case, because it is a statement which is impossible for us to test or compare with those of previous years. Such figures as those are not given in the annual Government Returns. The number of persons under police protection in the year 1885, for instance, when the Conservative Government came into Office, abandoning coercion, it would be extremely interesting for us to know, in order that we might compare them with the figures given for the year 1886. We have not got this information, nor can we get information of any kind, relied on by the right hon. Gentleman in the Parliamentary Papers. We are, therefore, without the usual means of testing either the truth or the value of the truth of those statements of the right hon. Gentleman, which he has used as one of his leading crutches. The right hon. Gentleman gave us the charges of some of the Irish Judges. I say some, for he only gave us four of the charges of the Irish Judges. The charges of Irish Judges are not put into Parliamentary Blue Books, and, consequently, we are here, again, not in a position to compare the charges of those four Irish Judges with the charges delivered in 1885; and, probably, if we were in a position to make the comparison we would have found that Mr. Justice Law-son, Mr. Justice Johnson, Mr. Justice Murphy, and Mr. Justice O'Brien have
    256
    been delivering exactly the same kind of charges they had used during the last eight of the nine years since 1879. The right hon. Gentleman said these were not political Judges—two of them certainly are—Judge O'Brien and Judge Johnson are political Judges—I mean they are Judges who owe their elevation to the Bench in a great measure to the fact that one was successful in obtaining a seat in the House of Commons, and that the other was not successful; for I had the pleasure of defeating Mr. Justice O'Brien myself at a contested election in Ennis in 1878. So, consequently, both these Judges are political Judges. They are notorious for the violence of their utterances, and for the way in which they transgress all traditions of the Judicial Bench in going out of their way in denouncing what they called the inherent vice and iniquity of the Irish people. Nobody but right hon. Gentlemen like the Chief Secretary could have attached the slighest importance to their utterances, and nobody else would have thought of bringing them forward as a fair example of their class. But although we cannot go back and compare the utterances of these Judges with their utterances in past years, and especially in 1885, when, as I have already said, the Conservative Government abandoned coercion, I am entitled to ask, why did not the Government give us some of the charges of the other Irish Judges? There are 21 Irish Judges, and out of these the Government selected the four I have mentioned. Why did not they give us the charges of some of the other 17 Judges? I have been at some pains to collect some of those charges during the recent Assizes, but I really do not like to detain the House in reading them. For the four that the right hon. Gentleman has trotted out, I shall be able to trot out 10 or 12 in a distinctly reverse sense to that of those four Judges. But I do not like to detain the House by going over these charges. I will say this—that I think the Government have placed us in a most unfair position by going out of the beaten track in reference to this matter by basing their case on a few Judges' charges on the failures of juries to convict picked up here and there all over the country, the foul refuse of scavengering, which the right hon. Gentleman should have been ashamed to produce. I have

    257
    here the Judges' charges for Mayo, Meath, Galway, Tipperary, the City of Limerick, the County of Sligo, North Tipperary, Waterford County, King's County, Tipperary County, Roscommon County, and Westmeath County. I will read you one example which will show that the Judges have spoken in the highest terms of the peace of the country, of the absence of any serious crime, and also of the considerable diminution in crime that has taken place since the last Assizes. Let us take the North Biding of Tipperary as a fair example. Baron Dowse said—
    "The cases reported to me by the county inspector number only eight, and with the exception of those I have mentioned they do not show the prevalence of crime in this part of the county. The contrast between these eight and the 41 tried before the Judge of this Assize last year is, on the whole, very satisfactory. So far as it goes it shows the crimes are very few. Tipperary was never in a better state."
    Baron Dowse then goes on to administer a little lecture to the Grand Jury, He says—
    "You may possibly like, before you are discharged, to pass, like other Grand Juries, a resolution about the desperate state of the country. I have nothing to do with that, and you may think that what I have said is all wrong. What I have to deal with is cases of crime. These are what the county inspector has to deal with; and, so far as the cases of crime are concerned, the state of the country is satisfactory. I state there has been a decrease of crime in all classes."
    I can read similar extracts from the other Judges. For instance, Lord Justice Fitzgibbon, in Meath, said—
    "The county showed its usual absence of anything like serious crime, and that was the subject which Judges of Assize had directly to deal with."
    Baron Dowse, in Waterford County, said—
    "He was glad to inform the Grand Jury that on that occasion, as on many previous occasions, he could congratulate them on the peaceful state of the county."
    In Waterford City, Judge Andrews said—
    "There are only two cases to go before you, and these are of the ordinary character."
    In the Queen's County, Judge Johnson said the County Inspector's Report showed that the county was in a satisfactory condition. In Sligo, Judge Johnson, and in Roscommon, Judge Murphy, congratulated the Grand Juries on the peaceableness of those two counties. In
    258
    Westmeath, Sir Michael Morris, the Chief Justine, said—
    "I am happy to inform you there is only one bill to go before you."
    The Grand Jury then retired, and found "no bill." I do not think it is necessary to go any further, though I have five or sis other cases. I have selected charges from different parts of the country, and other charges of the Judges tell the same tale; and I ask, Sir, was it fair for the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to treat us exclusively to the charges of four Judges, and ignore the charges of Judges who charged in totally different directions, and in so very different a tone. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary also relied upon the number of offences committed in five large counties in Ireland—comprising, as he said, one - third of Ireland—which is only true as to area, the population being about one-sixth or one-seventh. He had selected them as being the worst in Ireland, and he said there had been 755 offences of all kinds committed last year. Recollect, not agrarian offences, against which this Bill is directed, but offences of all kinds. Is that an extravagant calendar of crime for the large counties of Ireland, comprising one-third of the area and one-seventh of the population of the country, for the whole year? Just look at the calendar of crime in any of your own English counties during the period of one year. Well, he says that out of these 755 cases there was no clue discovered of the perpetrators in 546; but who is responsible for that? The explanation is that in Ireland we have no detective police force, or police worthy of the name. The police force is kept up as a military force for the purpose of overawing opposition at evictions of Irish tenants, and it is notorious that no attempt worthy of the name is made to detect crime unless it is agrarian. I will venture to say, also, that if you compare the statistics of crime in England, where no clue is obtained and no person is made amenable, you will find a large proportion of such cases also; and yet you have an efficient police force, and the sympathy of the people with them, not alienated to a great extent, as in Ireland, by the fact that so-called law and justice has been used for centuries for the oppression of the people. I believe it would be no

    259
    exaggeration to say that of the offences committed in English, towns there are fewer than half in which the offender is caught, or any person made amenable to the Jaw. We all know the numbers of murdered people who are yearly picked up in the Thames, of whose deaths no trace can be found. I say it is monstrous to take away the character of the people of Ireland on such grounds as those. Then the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary says there are 322 instances in which persons injured declined to swear any information. I should like to have compared with this the number of people who refused to swear informations in regard to cases in England in 1885. It is undoubtedly the case that a great many of these injuries occur in party faction. In these faction fights it seems to be a point of honour with the person concerned not to give information to the police. It consequently happens that persons who have got a blow on the head with a stick in a faction fight, or who has received some ether injury in some drinking row coming home from a fair, do frequently not volunteer to give information. I regret that this should be so. I regret that there should be any faction fights. I regard them as a disgrace and a weakness to Ireland; but they are not nearly so numerous as they were, and this Bill is not directed against faction fights. The number of cases in which juries have confused to convict has been also made much of. The right hon. Gentleman has given us three or four instances in regard to this matter; but it is a curious fact that he did not give one in any of the five counties which he held up to us as examples of all that is terrible in the state of Ireland. Three or four cases in which juries refused to agree were given, and two of them were in the County of Tipperary—a model county, according to the testimony of Baron Dowse. The Government are so happy as to possess a careful informant in Tipperary in the person of the notorious Mr. George Bolton, who is the Crown Solicitor there; and I have no doubt he is the person who has given the right hon. Gentleman the information which he conveyed to the House as to these cases the other night. What were these two cases? One of them was that of a man named Clarke, whom the right hon. Gentleman wished the House to believe was acquitted of
    260
    some charge, because he was either a National Leaguer or a local leader of the people, whatever that may be. According to the best of my information, Clarke was not a member of the National League at all; but whether he was one does not alter the details of my case, which shows that, so far from there being any demoralization of the jury, expressly proves that Clarke, who was a Protestant, managed to get upon the jury a friend of his named Hayes, a publican and a Catholic. This man Hayes was the only member of the jury, consisting of 12, who refused to agree on a verdict of guilty against Clarke. Now, that is one example of the cases on which the right hon. Gentleman seeks to blacken the character of juries not only of Tipperary, but of all Ireland. Eleven Catholics were for a conviction, and one Catholic, a personal friend of Clarke's, was for an acquittal. It is very hard that we should be driven and obliged to investigate these cases in remote holes and corners of Ireland, and occupy the time of the House of Commons afterwards in contradicting such ridiculous statements by producing such information as we can get.
    COLONEL KING-HARMAN: How does the hon. Gentleman get these names of the proportion of the jurors?
    MR. PARNELL: The hon. and gallant Gentleman and his Friends are always very unwilling to give us any information; but if the hon. and gallant Gentleman appeals to his friend Mr. George Bolton, he would be able to tell him that my information is absolutely correct. At any rate, I am in a position to guarantee the authenticity and certainty of my information, and I will substantiate it before a Select Committee of the House of Commons if the House will grant one. Now I come to the case of a man named Hogan, who is acquitted on a charge of rape. The right hon. Gentleman says he was charged with a horrible outrage on a respectable girl, and was found not guilty because he was a well-known Leaguer in the district. Now, I have here a letter—this letter I am going to read is from a barrister who was present in the Court watching the trial—
    "The fact was the prisoner was charged with, rape, and the prosecutrix was an able-bodied, healthy young woman, aged about 21 or 22.

    261
    She swore that he raped her six separate times in one hour—a very remarkable story. The jury ought not, and would not, have convicted on the Crown case alone. But the prisoner was examined under Mr. Stead's Act. It was proved, and not uncontradicted, that he spent five hours about the fields and ditches with this girl that evening, and he repeatedly had connection with her, but with her entire consent. The jury thereupon acquitted him."
    This is one of the cases of the right hon. Gentleman. On such information given by his friend Mr. George Bolton, the right hon. Gentleman regales the House of Commons, while the Government is engaged in destroying the liberties of the people. This man Hogan was not a member of the National League. Now I turn to the third case; and this was a case of a rich farmer who was charged, according to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, with obtaining money by means of false documents. The case, said the right hon. Gentleman, of the prosecutor, a maltster, was proved in the clearest possible manner. The Judge charged strongly for a conviction; but the jury, which consisted of farmers, disagreed. Now, the barrister whose letter I have previously quoted says of this ease—
    "This was a case which was proved, in which perhaps a very intelligent jury, familiar with accounts, would have convicted. But, as a matter of fact, it was a most complicated and difficult case. The transactions, nearly all of them, took place in 1885; the witnesses examined were by no means clear; but, on the contrary, were indistinct, mainly owing to failure of memory, but partly to the complex nature of the case. The documentary evidence included a great number of cheques, and the accuracy of various complicated book entries. The wonder was not that the jury disagreed, but that, as the fact was, 10 were for a conviction, at which the counsel for the prosecution was very much surprised."
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): Is that the same case of which the hon. Gentleman spoke just now?
    MR. PARNELL: That is the same case. The right hon. Gentleman observes that there is nothing contradictory in the two accounts, but a great deal which is confirmatory. I will now leave the right hon. Gentleman and his selected cases, which he gave to the House in regard to jury-packing. He gave three or four cases altogether in which he gave the names. I have traced three of them, with the results I have stated. Now, Sir, he relied also on the Boycotting
    262
    cases. He told us of a large number of cases of Boycotting in Ireland, amounting to 836. Here, again, no information is given in the Parliamentary Return, and the same complaint that I made in regard to other branches of the right hon. Gentleman's case applies to these statistics also. We have no opportunity of comparing the number of such cases with the number in previous years, especially in 1885. The House will see that it would have been of the utmost importance to us to have been enabled to compare the number of Boycotting cases in 1886—when the Government comes forward with this, the most drastic Coercion Act that has ever been heard of since 1833, and that Act was not used—and the number of Boycotting cases in 1885, when, by the mouth of their Chief Secretary and of Lord Carnarvon, the Government announced they were going to abandon the old evil methods of coercion. I do not believe, if we had the information which we ought to have, and which it was the duty of the right hon. Gentleman, to produce, we should find there was very much difference in the number of persons Boycotted in 1885 and the number Boycotted in 1886. But the right hon. Gentleman gives us some cases of Boycotting, and I must assume, as in the case of jury-packing, the right hon. Gentleman has selected the most favourable examples from his point of view he could find. He gave us the case of a butcher who was prosecuted and punished for intimidation, the person intimidated being subsequently Boycotted and his wife refused the services of a midwife. It is very terrible that this poor woman should have been refused help in the hour of her need, and I do not believe that any number of persons in Ireland, even in that district, would have done such a thing, or have taken any part in doing it. But what does it prove? The person who was charged with the Boycotting offence was convicted. Therefore, that is not a failure of the law. This is an example given in support of a Bill brought forward to prevent failures in the law with regard to cases of Boycotting. But the right hon. Gentleman places in the very forefront of his examples the case of a person who was convicted, with the result of showing that the accused person was convicted in spite of the fact that he had the sympathy of the people of the locality en-

    263
    listed on his side. Then the Thurles case in August, 1885, was another of the right hon. Gentleman's examples, just at the very time when Lord Carnarvon was going up and down Ireland preaching peace and conciliation to the Irish people; and when Lord Salisbury was making his celebrated Newport speech about the uselessness of the intimidation clauses of the Crimes Act. Then he gives us a third example, a resolution adopted at a meeting of a National League branch in Sligo—
    "That Mr. J. Harvey be adopted as the Poor Law candidate for this parish, and that Mr. Brett he asked to send in his resignation so as to save expenses."
    What are the unseen applications of the new Bill which are to prevent people in localities in Ireland from passing a resolution asking candidates to withdraw from competition for the post of Poor Law Guardian? Could any Constitutional right be more harmless than that of passing such resolutions without a single intimidating or inflammatory speech or word? Then there was another case of intimidation which the right hon. Gentleman has culled. This was a resolution passed by a local branch of the National League on the 25th March last year, in which members were informed that they were expected to pay their subscriptions then due to the branch. Then the right hon. Gentleman gave us along list of cases of Boycotting, and these cases I would ask the House to notice he divided into classes. He gave us no less than eight or nine distinct classes of Boycotting, and amongst them was the case of a man who—as the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland would have them believe—was Boycotted because he refused to join the National League. He was challenged on the spot to give a single case of pressure being brought to bear on anybody to join the National League throughout the whole of Ireland, but he could not do so. If any such thing as this occurred in connection with the National League, that branch guilty of conduct like that would be dissolved on the spot, for the simple reason that no pressure of any kind is brought to bear on anyone to induce them to join the National League. The right hon. Gentleman quoted that case and others in support of his argument; but he did not give us a single instance actually of that
    264
    class of offence. He then made the further accusation against the National League, that it had destroyed the value of the tenant-right in Irish land. I always thought that the value of the tenant-right in Irish land after the tenant had paid his rent and provided for the wants of himself and his family had been entirely destroyed by the fall in prices produced by American competition. If the Irish farmer has a margin on the wrong side of his balance he can have no tenant-right; it ceases to exist, and it does not require the all-potent and mischievous body the National League, or anything else, to step in and destroy it. I now come, Mr. Speaker, to the provisions of the Bill itself. I will not go into the figures which were given with so much power and force, and which I cannot pretend to imitate, even at a modest distance, by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), and which proved that the state of Ireland in regard to crime, as compared with its state in previous years, is one of enormous improvement, and that whereas, in the case of preceding Coercion Acts, a case was made out, showing that crime was on the ascendant, in the present instance the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian shows that crime was going down; nor shall I refer to the contention of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for England (Sir Richard Webster) last night. We wore taunted by the hon. and learned Gentleman with the fact that when a Coercion Bill was brought into this House in 1869 there was not as much agrarian crime in Ireland as at the present time. If the hon. and learned Gentleman had the knowledge on the subject which we cannot expect he should have of the Irish Question, he would have known that the Coercion Bill of 1869–70, as compared with the present Bill of Her Majesty's Government, was as new milk. It consisted only of two or throe very insignificant provisions, one of which is now embodied in the law of the land—namely, the provision in regard to searching for arms and punishing the possession of arms. Now, let me say a few words with regard to the provisions of the Bill which is to be laid before us by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. We have, first of all, clauses

    265
    taken, as the right hon. Gentleman told us, from the Scotch Act relating to secret inquiry and examination. Now, Sir, these clauses are harmless enough if society is in a normal condition; then they are not liable to be abused. The working of these clauses in the Act of 1882 and subsequent years showed that they were liable to abuse, and that they were not effective, except in a few cases—such as murder. The only instances in which these clauses in their practical working were effective was in the case of the "Invincibles." I do not believe the "Invincible" conspiracy would have been broken by you were it not for the denunciation which Mr. Michael Davitt, my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo (Mr. J. Dillon), and myself issued on the morning that we heard of the terrible crime in the Phœnix Park. I believe it was that denunciation that shook that conspiracy and made it possible for the officers of the law in Ireland to make their secret inquiries to stamp out the conspiracy, and to convict the prisoners connected with it; and, finally, to break it up. But what was our experience of these secret inquiry clauses in the Act of 1882? Why, that they were used to ascertain the case of the prisoner before he came to trial, so that the Crown lawyers might be informed of all the particulars as well as the prisoner knew them himself. The witnesses for the defence in the case of the "Invincible" trials were actually summoned after the proceedings had commenced; and after it was known that these people were to be witnesses, they were summoned before the secret tribunal in Dublin Castle and examined as to their knowledge of the matter and as to the evidence they were going to give in the trials before the Court. I say, Mr. Speaker, that is striking below the belt; and are methods which should not be adopted even in dealing with murderers before trial. I now go a step farther. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland says trial by jury is to be abolished altogether, and that instead of Judges we are to have two Stipendiary Magistrates, or an English Judge. There is power given to change the venue, and the right hon. Gentleman appears to have given both his English jury and his change of venue, because he said he could not depend on the jury system at
    266
    all; and, secondly, because it was necessary to remove the trial of certain cases to the Old Bailey. We are, as I have said, to have two Stipendiary Magistrates. What are their powers to be? They are to be entitled to try cases of criminal conspiracy, Boycotting, Whiteboy offences, assaulting the officers of the law, taking forcible possession of premises, and inciting to the above offences. The calendar of offences in the Act of 1882 is enormously increased. Whiteboy offences are not known to your Statute Law; they are offences which are punishable by barbarous punishments which are most drastic in their character, and these offences are to be tried by these men. Then you make a provision for the trial of cases of criminal conspiracy. My hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo would have been tried under that clause, and would have been sent to a plank bed in an Irish prison for six months with hard labour. He would have been given 16 ounces of bread and water a-day, and, perhaps, a little porridge once a-week by way of a change. This is the way you are going to treat your political prisoners, and to bring peace and contentment to Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland says—"We do not propose to interfere with the liberty of the Press." Oh, no, no; not directly. Everything is to be done indirectly in this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said—
    "We entertain the hope that by giving magistrates summary jurisdiction, entitling them to punish persons inciting to those offences, we may be able to prevent the Press from being sharers in these crimes."
    As I stated a while ago anent the printer's devil, the newsboys, the men who attend to the engine, would not be safe; nay, more, they would be certain to be attacked under this law. Inciting to intimidation was one of these offences provided for in Mr. Forster's Act, and under the special provision the whole staff of United Ireland were arrested. It was not merely the journalist who sits in his parlour and writes the article who was attacked, but the unfortunate printer of the paper and the men who are trying to earn their bread by the work of their hands. I leave the question of the change of venue and the change of jury with the remark that, in all the provisions of the Act of 1882

    267
    there was none that excited so much distrust in the minds of public men of the impartiality of English justice in Ireland, or lent more power to the belief that, in consequence of the operation of these clauses, prisoners had been sent to the gallows and penal servitude who were really innocent men; and several innocent persons are still suffering long sentences of penal servitude on account of those provisions. The right hon. Gentleman told us he could not trust any jury, not even the Belfast jury that refused to convict an Orangeman who was put upon his trial for murdering a soldier. With regard to the jury system, the powers which the right hon. Gentleman seeks to obtain from this House are powers to enable him to put into the jury box any man that Mr. George Bolton desires—knowing as he will know, or as his underlings will know—because he will not do the dirty work himself—men whose political complexion will be well known beforehand, and who can be trusted. They are the powers to enable the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends to know beforehand what the jury will do; and, Mr. Speaker, if I were in a position to choose—and I hope I may not be called upon to make a selection—I should prefer to such a tribunal the tender mercies of an Old Bailey jury. The Lord Lieutenant has also power to make it an offence against the Act to have anything to do with an association formed for the commission of crime, carrying on operation for, or by the operation of crime, for inciting to commit crime, for promoting and inciting to acts of violence and intimidation, for interfering with the administration of the law, or disturbing the maintenance of law and order. He was certainly a very ingenious lawyer who drew that. It is thoroughly comprehensive, and I defy anyone, politician, or anyone else, to lift a finger or to say a word of which the Government disapprove, if they choose to put him on trial, without standing a pretty good chance of conviction, no matter how innocent the man may be. Sir, I am sorry to believe that in this Bill the reign of judicial murder in Ireland will be commenced. The hopes of a better time which, for a few short weeks, dawned on the minds of the Irish people have disappeared. The suborning of witnesses will begin, and so will the wholesale perjury of your Crown
    268
    officials in Ireland. What is it you are going to do? You will try the tenants and their advocates by packed juries of their landlords and their creatures. The tenants and their advocates, for the offence of showing that a reduction of rent is necessary, will be hurried before a landlord jury, who will decide in their own cause. These partizan juries will not even exhibit the ordinary tendency of an English jury. They will hasten to convict. Their minds will be irritated by the recollection of their own losses, arising, on the one hand, out of remedial legislation sanctioned by this House, and on the other by the action of General Buller and my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo. They will be burning in the loss to their pockets and the loss to their prestige. It is hopeless to expect a fair trial from such men and by such a system. It is inevitable that you will send to the scaffold and the convict cell many innocent persons known to be innocent by their neighbours—in some cases, known to be innocent by the authorities. The formation of secret societies will be encouraged and fomented beyond a doubt; because the people will recognize that, for their own safety, it is impossible to remain outside either the walls of Dublin Castle, on the one hand, or the ranks of a secret and criminal organization on the other. This measure sends the popular leaders who advise the tenant to ask for a reduction of his rent, as well as the tenant who asks for that reduction, to the tender mercies of one of these Stipendiary Magistrates—magistrates who are not magistrates according to the ordinary acceptation of the term, as you know. They are magistrates who are inexperienced in law, without legal education, many of them retired officers of the Army, who have failed in other walks of life, and who, as a little bit of patronage, get dropped into a snug berth of this kind. There men will not consider whether the law allows them to do this, although this Bill allows them to do anything. They will only consider what their masters—the Government of the day—would like them to do; and they will deem opposition to the Government policy an offence against this Act. The journalist who criticizes the action of the Government, or protests against landlord tyranny and oppression, will meet with the same fate. In fact,

    269
    there is no loophole of escape for any political movement in Ireland. If this Bill passes, it would be preposterous folly for any politician to attempt to cope with the powers which it gives to the Government. They will have to leave the field to others. I hope—I sincerely hope—that there may not be others to take that field. I would have done much, if I had been able to do so, last autumn, to have alleviated the stringency of the position in Ireland, to have counselled moderation amongst the Irish tenants, to have advised them to boar any suffering, to have submitted to any rack-renting, any eviction, any extermination, rather than give the Government the miserable rags and shreds of excuse which they have for this Bill. I was confident from the moment that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian directed his gigantic talent to the redress of Irish grievances, in the only way in which they ever can be redressed, and that is by allowing the Irish people to redress them for themselves—that it was only a question of time, and of a very short time, when the main principles of this Bill would be carried into effect, and would bring about a lasting reconciliation and peace between the two nations. I believe so still. I would still counsel patience. I would still urge the Irish people to submit to any oppression, to any injustice, rather than to retaliate. I would ask them to remember the weighty words of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian the other evening, when he told them that he and the Liberal Party had been enabled to come thus far with us, to fight by our side against this coercion, because the Irish people had remained, as a whole, within the limits of legality. I would ask them to remember that they ought not to do anything to drive the right hon. Gentleman away from our side, or to increase his difficulties, or place him in any false position with his own countrymen. Our battle is won in Ireland. There may be some suffering to endure. There may be some tyranny, perhaps much tyranny, yet inflicted upon us—petty tyrants are always the most merciless—but it will be as nothing compared with what our people have gone through in the past. A little patience, a few years of waiting, and these clouds will be cleared away. The eternity that
    270
    is written on this Bill will disappear before the brighter time, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian will be able once more to appeal to the common sense and the sense of justice of the people of England, the people of Britain; and when he will receive those full powers which will enable him to do justice to our country. Yes, I would urge these considerations upon our people, and from my place in this House I urge them. Ireland will have no place for speaking in after this Bill passes. The Party who have got to gain by violence by going beyond the law in Ireland are the present Government. This is why they have brought forward this Bill to strengthen their own miserable position and remain in Office for a few months longer. Let our people not fall into these toils that have been set for them. I greatly fear for the result; but, Sir, I will not cease to tell the people of Ireland that the situation is entirely different for them from what it was five or six years ago, and that victory for them is certain and secure. I believe that our people, as a whole, will bear in patience those sufferings and tribulations which are undoubtedly before them for the present, and that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian will find that his hand has not been sullied in the great and glorious work which he has undertaken. I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee to consider the state of Ireland."—(Mr. Parnell.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I should not again have ventured to intrude on the House in the course of this debate had it not been for the earlier part of the speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down—the least eloquent but not the least important part of that important statement. It is not my business to comment on what I venture to think is the extreme inconvenience of the course which has been taken in deferring to the fifth night of this debate and the ninth night of our

    271
    debates on the introduction of this Bill the Amendment which has been moved. It is my duty to comment, however, on the extreme inconvenience to which the House is put by the course which the hon. Gentleman has adopted in discussing, in the course of his speech, three Bills, not one of which is before the House, and with regard to one of which nothing but the vaguest and most general statement has been made to Members of the House, or to Members of the other House. The hon. Gentleman began by discussing the land proposals of the Government in general terms outside of which I shall not travel. And what was the attitude he took up? It was most significant. Nobody could have listened to the words that he spoke on that subject without seeing that he meant to give the most determined and strenuous opposition to the land proposals of the Government, whatever these proposals may be, and that he intends to devote the unequalled power he possesses in Ireland to defeat the operation of any salutary measure which the Government may have the good fortune to pass. What title has he to take such a course? Are the measures that we are proposing of so narrow and jejune a character as not to deserve a respectful consideration from hon. Members below the Gangway? The hon. Member for Cork alluded to the efforts that he made in this House last autumn in order to prevent unjust evictions. If the proposals of the hon. Member himself had been carried, it is matter of common knowledge and notoriety that some of the most distressing scenes at evictions during the winter would not have been prevented. He reproached us for not carrying out the recommendations of the Cowper Commission. I state boldly in this House that neither the proposal which the hon. Member for Cork made last autumn, nor the proposal of the Cowper Commission that we rejected, and to which the hon. Member for Cork and the right hon. Gentleman opposite pin their faith, would offer relief in the matter of evictions of tenants in Ireland as extensive as the proposals which we have introduced in "another place." Therefore, if the hon. Member had so much at heart the welfare of the Irish tenantry, of which he poses in the House as the chief protector, he would not be the man to proclaim our Land
    272
    policy a failure even before it is introduced into this House. He told us that he objected altogether to our land proposals, although he had not the least conception of what they were; but he also told us that he always was a conscientious convert to the principle of settling the Irish Land Question by some great measure of purchase.
    MR. PAENELL: I did not say I altogether objected to the plan of the Government. As a matter of fact, I approved of it as regarded the leaseholders.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I was not then speaking of the leaseholders.
    MR. PARNELL: If we are to judge by the words used by Lord Cadogan as to leaseholders, the Government propose to take the words from my Bill of last Session.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman must be aware that in the remarks I was making I was not alluding to that point at all, but to those other provisions of the Bill, by which it will, we hope, be made impossible henceforth that for non-payment of an unjust rent which a tenant is prevented from paying from no fault of his own that tenant shall suffer the extreme penalty of eviction. That the hon. Member describes as a measure for stabbing the Irish tenant in the back. He has confessed himself a convert of long standing to the solution of the Irish Question by a system of land purchase, and yet, with that conviction in his mind, and not knowing what our proposals are, he has given the Government, and given the House and the country fair warning that he means, as far as in him lies, to make our land scheme a total failure. In the words of the hon. Member for Cork, I think there is a warning to be found, which the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian would do well to lay to heart. The hon. Member for Cork has clearly given us to understand that it depends on him and on his Friends whether a scheme of land purchase, which involves some repayment of instalments by the tenant, shall succeed or not.
    MR. PARNELL: I did not say that at all.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman implied it. ["No!"] The hon. Gentleman who interrupts me cannot have listened to the hon. Member. The hon. Member for Cork implied that he

    273
    would use his influence to prevent the tenants from paying the instalments—["No!"]—under our land purchase scheme, because the price would be unfair. That line of argument contains, in my judgment, a warning which the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian should well consider; because what does it imply? It implies that whatever settlement you choose to make with Ireland—be it called Home Rule, be it not called Home Rule—a part of which is that the tenantry shall repay by instalments loans given, no matter how, it will be in the power, and it may be in the will, of the hon. Member for Cork and his Friends to come and make that plan a failure, and by that means put such a pressure on the Government of the day that any fresh terms can be exacted from the people of this country. It is quite true, it may be said, that the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian is going to make a settlement so entirely satisfactory to the people of Ireland that there will never be any temptation to use the means that I have adverted to. But although the scheme may be accepted gratefully by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, and although they may loyally adhere to it, I ask what security can you have that they or their successors may not some day find it inconvenient to carry out their part of the bargain, and put on the Government the pressure of which he has given us to-night so candid and, I may add, so formidable a description. In the rest of his speech the hon. Member for Cork almost entirely confined himself to criticizing my remarks in opening this debate, and I cannot be altogether silent as to some of the criticisms that he passed upon me. He began by criticizing, in very severe terms, the way in which Mr. Forster's Act of 1881 was used. It is not my business to defend the administration of Mr. Forster's Act. The Gentlemen who passed that Act sit opposite. Let them defend the manner in which it was administered. Then he went on to comment on the poverty of the statistics which I had given the House. That is a topic which has been largely worked by hon. Gentlemen opposite; but I would remind those who may be ignorant of it, that if we have not followed the precedent of Mr. Forster in 1881 we have followed the precedent of the right hon. Member for Mid
    274
    Lothian in 1870. The right hon. Member for Mid Lothian, in 1870, gave no special statistics to the House. He contented himself, as we are contenting ourselves, with the very full and copious Parliamentary Papers that lie on the Table of this House and that are in the hands of hon. Gentlemen; but, as we are upon the Act of 1870, may I venture respectfully to express my astonishment at the description of that Act given by the hon. Member for Cork. I have pointed out that crime in Ireland at this moment is far greater than it was when the right hon. Gentleman passed the Act of 1870. ["No."] That is so. But, says the hon. Member, the Act of 1870 was as mild as milk compared with the Bill that is now being brought in. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman's view of mildness may be. He told us that the Act of 1870 consisted of two clauses. [Mr. PARNELL: I said a few clauses.] I would remind the House that it consisted of 40 clauses; and among the clauses of that Act, which was as mild as milk, we find, as is also found in our Bill, a provision to examine witnesses where no person is charged. Then there is the provision—which is not in our Bill—for the search of houses without warrant for documents; also a provision—which is not in our Bill—for arresting persons who are out at night; also a power to change the venue; then a power—not to be found in our Bill—of apprehending witnesses; and also a power of summary jurisdiction in regard to certain offences, given, not to two Stipendiary Magistrates, but to two ordinary magistrates at Petty Sessions, to pass sentences of imprisonment with hard labour. And who are those magistrates in Petty Sessions who were to have summary jurisdiction over those offences under the Act of 1870? The hon. Member has commented in very severe terms on the Irish Stipendiary Magistrates. He tells us that they are the mere creatures of the Executive Government. Whether they are so or not, they are the tribunal which the late Government adopted in 1882. But, as compared with these Irish Stipendiary Magistrates, who are the ordinary magistrates? Why, they are the landlords, who the hon. Member is never tired of telling us are the curse of Ireland—who are the people against whom all the agitation of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway is

    275
    directed; and it is within their hands that right hon. Gentlemen opposite left the power of summary conviction, and the ability to inflict six months' imprisonment with hard labour. The hon. Gentleman made an eloquent attack on those provisions of our Bill which may be used against the Press when it incites to illegal acts. Why, under the Act of 1870, it was in the power of the Government to confiscate the whole newspaper and plant. [An hon. MEMBER: After warning.] Will the hon. Member say that if we had inserted that qualification in our Press clause, he would not have treated it with derision? So much for the provisions of that Act which the hon. Member for Cork described as mild as milk. He went on to comment, in very severe language, on the manner in which I selected certain charges of the Judges and omitted the charges of other Judges. Whether an argument is legitimate or not depends upon whether it makes for the conclusion which it is used to establish. What was the conclusion? That crime prevailed all over Ireland? Not so. I said that the charges in Galway, Limerick, Mayo, Cork, and Kerry, showed that those counties, a third of the area of Ireland, are in a very disturbed state; and I say that no attack on these learned Judges will suffice to disturb the fact that when they made those charges, they had before them adequate evidence for what they said. They discharged properly the duty imposed upon them by their high functions. I may observe that hon. Gentlemen, when a Judge says anything which they do not approve, describe him as partial and a political partizan; but, when he says any thing about the absence of crime, they are happy to quote him. It is another illustration of the remarkable fact of which we have had evidence, that every witness who gives evidence against hon. Gentlemen is a liar, and everyone who gives evidence in their favour is an example of impartiality and fairness. The hon. Member for Cork appears to think that, because crime is limited, we ought not to bring in a Crimes Bill for Ireland. Let me remind him that if crime is limited, our Crimes Bill is limited also. We take powers in our Bill to limit the area of its operation, according as it is found that crime prevails. Therefore, the argument that, because one part of the
    276
    country is quiet our Bill should be rejected, is not applicable to our proposals. The hon. Member criticized one or two cases to which I have referred. [Cries of "Three cases!"] Well, he so contrived to put the case so as to read two descriptions of one case, and if I had not risen in my place and called attention to the fact, every Member I venture to say would have thought he was dealing with a second case. [Cries of "Three cases!"]
    MR. PARNELL: It was two cases. I read, I think, three letters, and they had reference to two cases.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Member is quite right. They were Hogan's case and Clarke's case. What he said was, that there was a friend on the jury. I thought that was a very interesting fact in support of my contention, that wherever there is a particular case you are sure to have a partizan jury, and that in the end justice will be defeated.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Was a charge of fraud against a maltster a partizan case?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Well, I shall modify my statement. I gave a particular case, and I stated there was a failure of justice. The hon. Gentleman quoted a lawyer who said that there was no failure of justice. My authority was the Judge. Then as to the County Tipperary, I referred to cases of failure of justice in Tipperary. Why? Because it was specially mentioned as a quiet county. There is no difficulty in getting cases of failure of justice in Kerry, Galway, Limerick, and Cork; but I thought it would be interesting to show that in a county said to be quiet and in a satisfactory condition, even there failures of justice were constantly arising. In Galway, Cork, and Limerick, the Judges had postponed the cases because there was no jury to be found capable of giving a proper verdict.
    MR. T. C. HARRINGTONasked, whether the Assizes had not been postponed because the time for the Assizes had expired?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have stated the facts; but I may call attention to the singular mode this is of carrying on a debate. Hon. Members opposite are not content with occupying a legitimate share of the time of the House, they must needs disturb me in the midst of

    277
    my argument. I will not detain the House muck longer; but I ask does anyone doubt, in face of the Papers before the House, that crime is increasing? Does anyone doubt that juries cannot be trusted in Party cases? Does anyone doubt that intimidation and Boycotting exist on a large scale and ought to be put down? Does anyone doubt that? ["Yes!" from the Irish Members, and renewed Ministerial cheers.] Then I presume those who doubt it did not listen to the speech of the hon. Member for North Fermanagh (Mr. W. Redmond), who boasted that the system of Boycotting was so deeply ingrained in the Irish people, and had reached such an admirable pitch, that now it was not necessary for the leaders to raise a finger. The system, he said, would go on of itself.
    MR. W. REDMONDsaid, the Government had stated that they were basing their Bill on the fact of Boycotting in Ireland. What he said was that previous Coercion Bills did not put down Boycotting, and that this Bill would also fail to reach it.
    Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Member refers to another part of his speech; but his interruption, does not touch my allegation. The hon. Member for Cork described this Bill in language which would not be exaggerated if it applied to Poland and the Czar. Does anyone suppose that, under this Bill, any innocent man will be shut up? [Cries of "Yes!"] Does the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. John Morley) think that?
    MR. JOHN MORLEY (Newcastle-on-Tyne): Yes.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Does he think it probable?
    MR. JOHN MORLEY: Yes.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Does the right hon. Gentleman next him (Sir William Harcourt) think it probable? If so, what made him pass a Bill in comparison with which our Bill is, in many respects, very mild. Our Bill will not punish a single innocent individual. What it will do, I trust, among other things, is to free from undeserved punishment the various victims now suffering under the tyranny of the National League. There are 830 gentlemen now suffering Boycotting. I leave out of account their families; I leave out of account all persons who, without
    278
    being Boycotted, are afraid to do anything to bring punishment upon them; I leave out of account all those, to use the peculiar words of the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian, who suffer from intimidation proper; and I ask whether we ought not to set ourselves resolutely to the task of saving these innocent persons from the penalties and the bondage under which they labour in spite of the law as it exists?
    MR. BRADLAUGHsaid that, in his opinion, the Bill would deprive a large portion of Her Majesty's subjects of rights which were highly valued in England, It appeared probable, owing to the political combination which now existed in the House, that this most mischievous Bill would pass. Those amongst English Members who were opposed to it felt that if it was all they could do, the least they could do was to make a protest, ineffectual and unavailing though it might be, against the wrong that was about to be done in permanently depriving the Irish people of liberties enjoyed and highly valued by their fellow-citizens in England. They were told the other day by the Chief Secretary for Ireland that the Bill was "extreme," but now it appeared to be quite a mild measure.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, that he had referred to his speech, and had found that he had used the word "extreme," attributed to him by the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian, with regard to only one clause.
    MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, that hon. Members might be excused if they weighted the Bill with the extreme character put upon it by the right hon. Gentleman himself. He understood the Chief Secretary to urge that in political cases, Irish juries could not be relied upon to give verdicts according to the evidence, and yet it was those very cases that the right hon. Gentleman intended to leave to be tried in Ireland.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, that his statement was, that wherever Party feeling ran high, Irish juries could not be trusted to give verdicts according to the evidence; and, therefore, it was proposed in certain cases to change the venue to this country, where the same Party feeling did not exist, and juries were not subject to the same intimidation.
    MR. BRADLAUGHasked, what could be meant in Ireland by Party questions if they were not political? [Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: Agrarian.] If trials for treason, sedition, and seditious libel were to be left to juries in Ireland, why were trials for other offences to be brought to England? Surely, the offences named were essentially of a Party character. The Chief Secretary, when challenged for his authority with reference to some statistics of crime which he thought justified the Bill, said he made the statement upon his official responsibility, having reasonably satisfied himself of the value of the evidence upon which he based the statement. But it was not his responsibility that was in question—it was the responsibility of that House, which was asked to vote the powers to him. When the right hon. Gentleman asked them to change the law permanently, he ought to adduce better evidence than statements made upon his official responsibility. It was for the House, and not merely for the right hon. Gentleman, to be satisfied as to the necessity for the measure. It was worse than useless to charge upon the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian and his Government that, in previous times, they introduced Coercion Bills, when the whole reason for the present Ministry being in power was, that the right hon. Gentleman had proposed a remedy, knowing that coercion had failed. Practically, they had been told that crime and outrage were less, because the National League was stronger; and the Chief Secretary had attributed this partly to what he called the unequalled power of the hon. Member for Cork. But why did not the Government deal with the hon. Member for Cork frankly? If it be true that it were he and his Colleagues alone who were responsible, why did not the Government do what Tory Governments in the past had had the courage to do against rebellious persons—namely, introduce a Bill of Attainder against him and them, and not punish all the rest of the nation by perpetual deprivation of their rights? Boycotting had not increased of late. There was as much wheat the Government came into Office as there was now. There never was a more wretched case presented for a Coercion Bill, and certainly for a Coercion Bill that was in tended to be permanent. The Government ought to have tried remedies before
    280
    attempting to apply punishment. In the very face of their own witnesses, and the recommendation that existing evils should be dealt with by remedial legislation, it was a blunder to attempt to take away rights which we in this country had valued for centuries, not because men had been incited to the use of arms, but because men had exerted themselves to the uttermost within the limits of the law to prevent crimes of violence while they defended their own rights. He had heard the Leader of the House say, in words which might have been a menace if they had come from other lips, that the second reading of the Bill was to be carried before the ordinary Easter Holidays. What would be the effect of this Bill? The Government might suppress public meetings and arrest Members; but they would only secure an outward appearance of order. Force was no remedy. To hold the contrary was to believe in the old system of brute provocation, which never failed to excite vengeance. The Government wanted to hurry this Bill through the House. Was this to prevent the country from speaking out upon it? He believed they were to be asked to read the measure a second time before Easter in order that the country might be prevented from speaking out upon it. There were many men who voted against the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) last year because they feared the burden of his Land Purchase scheme; but their protest would assuredly be heard against a Bill which compensated landlords who, causing the wrong, had increased the burdens of the overweighted British taxpayer. He felt he should be untrue to the constituency which elected him, and to the wider constituency for which he had a right to speak, and from which he undertook to bring messages to that House before long, unless he at least said that he regarded this Bill as one of the most shameful and indefensible violations of liberty that had ever been attempted by any Government within the last century.
    MR. EVELYNSir, having the honour to represent a constituency containing a considerable Irish element, I trust that the House will allow me, in a very few words, to state the reasons why I feel bound to vote against the Amendment proposed by the hon. Mem-

    281
    ber for Cork (Mr. Parnell). Notwithstanding such vehement invectives and imputations as we have just heard from the Junior Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh), public opinion in the country will, I think, acknowledge that, in bringing forward the present measure, Her Majesty's Government were actuated by high and conscientious motives. To me, individually, it is a matter of regret that, without any pressing or proved necessity, a measure should have been introduced which, in some of its clauses, at least, is acknowledged to be an extreme measure of exceptional legislation for Ireland. Yet it must be evident to candid and impartial minds that, since the action taken by the Government is not the easiest or most convenient from a Party point of view, and since it was sure to lead to a strenuous opposition in this House, and to a stormy agitation in the country, that action must have been prompted simply by a sense of what its authors deemed to be their duty. The attacks on the Government during the present debate have proceeded from two of the four minorities into which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) has declared that the House is divided—that is, from the Irish Party on the one hand, and, on the other, from the regular Opposition. Now, with regard to the Irish Party, it must be admitted that, in opposing coercion, they have been straightforward and consistent. In attacking the Government they are acting within their right; and though their language may be somewhat strong, some allowance should be made for the Oriental fervour of the Irish temperament; and I, for one, would not be disposed to connect the Irish Party with crime, or be too hard on them for speeches delivered in this House during the excitement of debate, or at agitated public meetings in the country. Admitting, as I do, their honesty of purpose, I am willing to believe in their disclaimer of all sympathy with crime. But the language of the regular Opposition is scarcely entitled to the same indulgent consideration. And when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian rises in his place on the Front Opposition Bench, and, in solemn tones, lectures down on the present occupants of the Treasury Bench, as if in this matter of Irish coer-
    282
    cion they were sinners above all the Galileans. I cannot quite agree with the hon. Member for Northampton that there is anything unfair in reminding the Member for Mid Lothian that his culpability is greater than that of any Gentleman in this House, not excepting the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby. the hon. Member for Cork, in the eloquent and impressive speech delivered by him this evening, favoured us with a laboured analysis of this Irish Coercion Bill of the Government, which is not yet printed. He also contended that the Gladstonian Coercion Act of 1870 was less stringent in its provisions than the Bill now under discussion. But on that particular point he was completely refuted by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour); and I cannot but feel surprised that the hon. Member for Cork, who is usually more careful, should have committed himself to a statement so inaccurate, that it seems to have been made at haphazard. Then the hon. Member for Cork adverted, at considerable length, to some jury cases, and to a Land Bill of the Government which is now before the other House; but it is somewhat remarkable that, throughout the whole of his speech, he scarcely made a passing allusion to the Amendment which he brought forward. Now, in bringing forward that Amendment, I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Cork acted in accordance with Constitutional precedent; but though the Amendment taken by itself may be perfectly regular, yet it seems open to the imputation of being perfectly unpractical. We have already, in the Reports of Commissions and in the Returns laid laid on the Table of the House, ample information as to the state of Ireland. To go into Committee of the Whole House on that subject would be a mere waste of time. The Amendment then viewed by itself is simply obstructive; it is a part of a policy of delay, a policy scarcely worthy, if I may say so, of the hon. Member for Cork. But, Sir, when I consider the Amendment not by itself, but connection with the violent and intemperate attacks on the Government which have characterized this discussion, then the whole matter clearly resolves itself into a challenge of confidence in the present Government. We,

    283
    on this side of the House, have to meet an attempt to overthrow the present Administration, and to replace it by a Ministry presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian. Such an attempt, if successful, would not, in my humble judgment, tend to the public advantage. It is true that, as an Unionist, and in the interest of the Union itself, I deplore the revival of coercion in a permanent form, and the departure from the policy of Lord Carnarvon in 1885. During my Election contests in 1885 and 188G, i encountered the arguments of my able and eloquent Oriental antagonist, Mr. Lalmohun Ghose, by maintaining that coercion was a thing of the past, and that the Imperial Parliament would do for Ireland all, and more than all, that she could expect from a Native Parliament at College Green. A similar line was adopted by other Conservative candidates; but, henceforth, I fear, that we must look abroad for other arguments in support of the Union. The adoption of the Amendment could but lead to delay, and the hon. Member for Northampton has truly said that the Bill is "sure to pass." Then, why should all English and. Scotch legislation, why should all legislation affecting the working classes of the United Kingdom, be indefinitely postponed, in order to prolong an useless discussion, which can only end in one way, as hon. Members have already made up their minds? And be it remembered, also, that though this particular Bill is now, yet the subject itself has been discussed since the beginning of the century; and the present Bill is said to be the 87th Coercion Bill since the Union, and is based on the same principles as former measures of the same character. Let that which must be done, whether right or wrong, be done quickly. Surely, the prolongation of this discussion would not be advantageous either to Ireland, or to the Irish Party in this House. Surely, it would be better to get rid of this painful subject, and to proceed without delay to the consideration of the remedial measures which are to follow. To those measures I look forward with confidence, hoping and believing that they may not only complete and perfect the Land Acts of 1881 and 1885, but also succeed in restoring to distracted Ireland the blessings of
    284
    tranquillity, prosperity, and contentment.
    MR. THOMASsaid, he felt bound to enter his protest against this Bill. After waiting for eight months to see what the Government were going to do for the Irish people to combat the proposals of the ex-Prime Minister, they had nothing before the country but a Coercion Bill. The Irish had looked to the Government for bread; but they had given them a stone. He looked upon the Bill introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) as being nothing more nor less than a humiliating confession that the Conservative Party were unable to govern Ireland by the use of Constitutional means. It seemed to him disastrous that in this Jubilee year a Conservative Government should be engaged in passing a Coercion Bill for some of Her Majesty's subjects. What a sight this must be for the inhabitants of the Colonies! the British Empire was a grand one—one of the grandest the world had ever seen—and, on the whole, it was governed better than any other. But there was one very black spot on it, and the black spot was in the United Kingdom. Many had been the experiments tried with regard to the government of Ireland, and these had all been disastrous failures. What did history teach us? Why, that the only time Ireland was tranquil and prosperous was when the people of that country had the opportunity of managing their own affairs. In the short time of the Grattan Parliament the people of Ireland were more prosperous and more contented than at any other period. And now the Government had introduced a Bill which was a barrier, a dam, to keep back the great tide of emancipation. But it would only last for a short time, and then it would be swept away like chaff before the wind. The Irish people had never despaired, even in their darkest hours, that they would gain back their liberties which had been taken from them. They heard very much about self-government, and they heard that this was the period of self-government, and yet what was the fact with regard to Ireland? There were five-sixths of the Representatives of Ireland who came to that House with a demand for Home Rule; but there were

    285
    also other Members from Ireland, from England, from Scotland, and, he was sorry to say, a few even from liberty-loving Wales, who stood up and said to the Irish people—"You shall not have your desires." Why should that be so? The majority of the Irish Representatives had no more to do with the government of Ireland than they had to do with the government of Japan. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, in introducing his Bill, referred to the National League. He (Mr. Thomas) could not condemn the National League as the Chief Secretary had done. But if the National League was to be complained of in this respect, it was easy to do away with it. It would not need any prosecutions to bring about that re-suit. All that was needed was the establishment of a National Assembly in Ireland, and then the National League would cease to exist.
    MR. ATHERLEY-JONESsaid, he was of opinion that the Government had not exercised the powers with which they wore already invested for the government of Ireland, and therefore he objected to their coming to Parliament for exceptional legislation. There was one conclusion which all persons who had noticed the facts must come to, and that was that the Government up to the present moment had displayed the most lamentable vacillation and want of determination in conducting the affairs of Ireland. It was not during the Government of the late Prime Minister, it was not during the Chief Secretary ship of his right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. J. Morley), that they had the lamentable spectacle of a high judicial official declaring that the Government were tampering with the law. It was not during the Chief Secretary ship of his right hon. Friend that they had the occasion of the removal of a prisoner to gaol transformed into a triumphant progress in Ireland. It was a very common thing for hon. Members on the Government side of the House to say that the Liberal Party were indifferent to the cause of law and order. He held that the cause of law and order was of as high moment to Gentlemen who sat on the Liberal Benches of the House as it was to hon. Members opposite; but the Liberal Party had different opinions as to what law and order meant. They did not
    286
    think law and order were best illustrated by the laconic telegram of a Government official, who, with flippant brutality, directed the police to "shoot them if they resist." They did not think the cause of law and order was best served by confiding the Administrative Government to the hands of gentlemen, a typical representative of whom met with the severest rebuke from a great English Judge for having incited to disorder and violence in Belfast. He should like to contrast the position which the Government had now taken up on the Irish Question with that taken up by the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) in a speech which he delivered a short time ago, and in which he was supposed to disclose the policy of the Government on the Irish Question. The noble Lord declared his belief that rents throughout Ireland were not too high, but notwithstanding that belief the Government proposed to make an inquiry, and if they found as a result of the inquiry that rents were too high they should take measures to meet the evil. But now that the Government Commission had made a Report and declared that not only were the ordinary rents throughout the country too high, but that the judicial rents also were too high, and when it was admitted by the right hon. Member opposite that the cause of the agitation in Ireland was the inability of tenants to pay the existing rents, the Government met the case with a demand for coercion. [Cries of"Oh, oh!"] He contended that the Liberal policy was the more statesmanlike, more straightforward, plainer, and more common-sense, because the Liberal policy would at once remove the cause of the disorder, and would thereby render recourse to the odious system of coercion unnecessary. It would be interesting for the House to compare the position taken up by the distinguished statesman whoso loss they all regretted so much—Mr. Forster—with that now taken up by the Chief Secretary. When Mr. Forster brought forward the Coercion Bill of 1881, under very similar circumstances to the present, the Land League being then said to be paramount as the National League was said to be now, he gave the House statistics of crime, which showed that in the last three months of 1880 there were no

    287
    fewer than 1,696 agrarian crimes committed; and again, when the Coercion Bill of 1882 was brought in, he showed that in the last three months of 1881 the number of agrarian offences amounted to 1,417. But what did the statistics of to-day show? Why, that the number of agrarian offences for the last three months of 1886 had fallen as low as 162; and that was the state of things which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) wished to persuade the House demanded a stringent measure of coercion. They were now, however, told that the Government did not rest the necessity for their Bill upon agrarian crime. All he could say was that, in 1881, Mr. Forster told the House that he rested his demand for the Coercion Bill of that day entirely upon the abnormal existence of agrarian crime; and at the same time he told the House that after mature consideration he had come to the conclusion that it was not a wise expedient or practicable to legislate against Boycotting. He (Mr. Atherley-Jones) admitted that Boycotting was an offence the existence of which should be deplored, but at the same time he could not fail to recognize the fact that tenants were driven to have recourse to Boycotting in self-defence; and that far more blame was to be attached to those who, by cruel and tyrannical conduct, drove the poor people into the commission of offences than there was to the poor people who had recourse to somewhat primeval remedies for the evils under which they were groaning. By the powers which the Government were conferring upon resident Magistrates to punish acts or omissions they were creating crimes which were not to be found in the Statute Book; and the Magistrates to whom that extraordinary power was conferred were entirely dependent upon the Executive Government, and were selected from a class who were hostile to the people and aliens in blood, in religions, and in social instincts. Those were most objectionable and dangerous powers to confer upon such a class of men. But that was not all. There was also conferred upon those same men a most arbitrary power over the Press. Any one of them would be able to send a newspaper editor to prison for six months upon the very indefinite charge of inciting to commit an offence. He
    288
    admitted to the full that juries in Ireland were influenced by bias; but they were proposing to take the trials of offenders from juries influenced in favour of the tenant to juries influenced in favour of the landlord. Therefore such a proposal was neither just nor reasonable. They also proposed to send men for trial in England. That proposition had not been received with considerable enthusiasm on the other side; it meant that a man was to be brought over to England charged with a crime, labelled as it were by the Government with the declaration that he ought to be convicted, but would not be in his own country. He went for trial with a rope round his neck. He understood that the Lord Lieutenant sitting in Council was to have the power of declaring any association an illegal association, and any person connected with such an association as committing an offence under the Act. They were committing to a political executive officer the judicial function of deciding whether certain acts were offences under the Act, which was contrary to all the history of jurisprudence, and an enormity which could not be contemplated without condemning the whole of the proposals. It was very difficult at this stage of the debate to say anything new, but he would appeal to hon. Members opposite to pause before they committed themselves to that coercion. He appealed to them to consider whether it was by such methods that they were likely to maintain the union between the two countries. He would quote the words of one whom he would still call one of their great Leaders—the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Birmingham (Mr. John Bright)—which seemed singularly appropriate to the present occasion. The right hon. Gentleman said—
    "You would not have a word of it changed nor touched, and yet, strange to say, everybody but your own party believes that your policy makes union absolutely impossible, that you conduct the affairs of Ireland on such principles that you create a sense of wrong which overrides all written words and all parchment covenants."
    He would also recall to the memory of the House the eloquent words of the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), when he appealed to them to stand by him in that great Constitutional conflict. So far as the decorum of debate and the

    289
    dignity of the House permitted, they would stand by him; but they had little hope, while there was the force of Liberal Unionists or Liberal Coercionists against them, of being able to obtain much in the House. But they know that before long they would be able to meet hon. Members opposite when the great inquest of the nation was made. At Liverpool the Liberal Unionists had seen the handwriting on the wall, and they believed that, notwithstanding that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham had constituted himself gratuitous election agent to the Conservative Party, they would, when they came before the country, be successful in reversing the verdict which was the result of accident on the last occasion, and in placing the union between the two countries on the permanent and suitable foundations of mutual goodwill and respect.
    MR. WADDYsaid, that the Government asked for special privileges, but did not tell why they asked for them. They appealed to the House to give them extraordinary powers for extraordinary purposes; and when Members objected, the Government said—"You do not know what the powers are. Pass the Bill." That implied a faith in right hon. Gentlemen opposite which he, for one, did not feel. Liberal Members were blamed because they did not repudiate Boycotting, maiming, and so on. But that was pretended indignation, because hon. Gentlemen opposite knew perfectly well that, whether English, Irish, Scotch, or Welsh, they all equally repudiated those crimes. But since the beginning of the world there never had been a popular uprising against oppression in which the hands of some of those who were seeking for liberty had not been stained at some time or other with righteous blood. What was the difficulty? Between two parts of this great nation an animosity existed which was shocking and painful. It was getting worse and worse, because Gentlemen opposite strove to keep up a Paper Union. It had developed into opposition to the law, and the Queen's writ had almost ceased to run in Ireland. A friend made it a matter of complaint to him the other day that if a Land Bill were granted to the Irish people they would still demand Home Rule. Of course they would. A Land Bill
    290
    was only part of the demand they made. They must go to the root of the matter if they wished to deal effectually with it, and the root of the matter was to give the people of Ireland the power of self-government. The description given of the state of Ireland by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not a whit overdrawn. He said that in every part of Ireland the triumph of lawlessness was complete. That was a pitiable fact for them to recognize; but the Government, because they were infatuated with coercion, were trying to secure the continuance of the mischiefs that had produced the present deplorable state of things. The remedy of the Government was force, and force alone. The way in which their Bills were introduced showed what the Government meant. First came the Closure, then the Coercion Bill, and then the Land Bill. They ought to have begun the other way, and produced the remedial measure first, when, perhaps, the others might have become unnecessary. It seemed as if the real object of the Bill before the House was not so much to amend the Criminal Law in Ireland, as to enable the landlords to get their May rents. There was, no doubt, great disaffection in Ireland; but not so much as there was, and crime and outrage had also decreased. The true reason of this diminution was that for some time past the Irish people had understood that there was a large and an increasing number of people in England who were determined to give them a fair chance of governing themselves, if they would do so in harmony with the Union and with this great Empire. They believed the Irish people meant to do so, and they were, therefore, ready to trust them. They were ready to adopt this remedy because they believed that the great evil that the Government had adduced as a reason for their Bill had been produced, fostered, and nourished by the very coercion which they now sought to make permanent. For generations the wealth, the rank, the power, and the intelligence of Ireland had been all on one side; yet the masses of the people, who were poor, ignorant, downtrodden, were beating them after all. Obedience to the law had been spoken of as a very valuable thing to obtain in Ireland; but there were some things still more valuable—namely, to insure the loyalty of the Irish people—but

    291
    that would never be done by coercion. It had been urged that the disaffection existing in Ireland was due to the influence of secret societies, but he denied the allegation; his contention was that that disaffection was due to long and persistent misgovernment. He believed that the Government would find some of the provisions of their Bill to be too strong for their Liberal Unionist allies, and that they would consent to tone the measure down rather than go out of Office. Nobody imagined that they would maintain to the end the whole of their most extraordinary and obnoxious proposals; but the country would remember that, although they could not force them through the House, they had proposed them, and had, as far as they could, outraged the feelings of Ireland. The majority on which the Government relied was dwindling down. They talked about the disintegration of the Empire. He advised them to look after their own disintegration. Twenty-five per cent of their boasted majority had left them already. He well remembered being present at a meeting at which the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, speaking with reference to Ireland, asked his hearers whether they were content, after some 80 years of failure, to renew once more the dreary experience of repressive legislation; declared that it was only by un-Constitutional means that we maintained peace and order in Ireland; and compared our rule in that country with that of Russia in Poland. I should wish for nothing more amuseing in the irony of history than to hear the right hon. Member for West Birmingham of to-day criticized by the Joseph Chamberlain who made that speech. To continue the attempt to rule Ireland by force and coercion was not really governing that country. As a great man had well said, a nation was not governed which had perpetually to be conquered. He believed that the mischievous policy now being pursued by the Government would, if carried out, destroy every hope of peace and reconciliation between the people of Ireland and of Great Britain, and would tend to impair the dignity, the strength, and the safety of this great country. He must give his vote against that abominable Bill.
    DR. COMMINSsaid, that the introduction of that mea-
    292
    sure—the 87th Coercion Bill which this country had seen—was a practical admission of the utter incapacity of the Ministry to govern Ireland. If he were asked to describe this Bill, he should say it was a Bill for the promotion of crime, for crime would follow every step taken to enforce it. Its object was to aid the landlord in collecting his March rents, but he doubted very much whether it would succeed. The Bill made a very serious inroad on the liberties of the Irish people; but the Irish people would close their ranks, and they would destroy the Bill and those who had produced it, as they had destroyed other Coercion Bills and other Governments. As to the charges of the Irish Judges, they were very flagrant examples of what went on in Ireland in the name of law and order. He had never heard of English Judges, in all his long experience of the Bar, delivering harangues from the Bench on economic and social questions. No English Judge would lower himself by doing such a thing. An English Judge, in his charge to the Grand Jury, never went beyond the facts disclosed by the depositions submitted to him. It was only the Irish Judges who delivered harangues on the state of the country based upon private reports, which might be open to criticism. When policemen organized secret societies for assassination and outrage, and then betrayed those whom they had entrapped, it was not surprising that juries refused to the evidence of those who retured the crimes they denounced. The House ought to have more trustworthy evidence before it consented to take away liberty in the way proposed by this Bill, which was the most unjustifiable Coercion Bill ever submitted to the House. It was his firm conviction that the Bill would drive all complaint and disaffection under the surface, and then they would have to meet those who relied upon the dagger and assassination. He did not desire that result—he should deplore it—but all history told them that that would be the consequence. He contended that there was no ease whatever for the Bill, and all that the Amendment asked was that the House should have real facts, instead of the anonymous tittle-tattle, to rely upon.
    MR. T. C. HARRINGTON: I rise, Sir, at this late stage

    293
    of the debate to address some observations to the House, which I feel will of necessity be somewhat more lengthened than hon. Members—at least on the opposite side of the House—would wish them to be. My excuse, will, I think, be a valid one when I remind the House that during the progress of this debate the speeches which have been made on the other side have one and all been an attack upon an organization for which during the last four or five years I have been almost wholly responsible. The organization I refer to is the Irish National League, that which grew up in Ireland under the Crimes Act administered by Earl Spencer. That organization, which to-day is established in almost every parish in Ireland, has been violently and bitterly attacked by hon. Members opposite, and they have unfairly endeavoured to attribute every disorder in Ireland to it. Now, at the outset of my observations I desire to say that I am willing to accept full responsibility for anything that can be brought against the organization, and while I am ready to defend any act that can be alleged against it, I have no intention whatever of disavowing the responsibility which attaches to me. On the contrary, I am proud of the position which the National League has assumed, and I challenge any hon. Member to make a case against it. Now, Sir, whatever may be said by apologists for the Chief Secretary, I maintain that the universal verdict of those who co read the events of history taking place at the present time, be that there never was so weak a case made in favour of coercion of any form, and that there never has been a more drastic proposal for coercion made by a Government upon exceptionally insufficient grounds. What did the case of the Chief Secretary consist of? It rested chiefly on a number of anecdotes—silly anonymous anecdotes, which I cannot help thinking must have been told to the right hon. Gentleman in the course of an afternoon tea party, during his visit to Ireland. These ridiculous stories are wholly unauthenticated, and even as they stand it is quite evident that the plea put forward as an excuse for want of authentication is not justified. The Chief Secretary preferred for his own purposes—and it was a course which subsequently proved to be a wise one—
    294
    to ask the House to take these anecdotes upon his personal responsibility; he did not add from his lengthened experience of Ireland, and his intimate knowledge of her people. If he had done so, perhaps the House might have felt disposed to accept the right hon. Gentleman's assurances. But it is quite certain that the stories he has brought forward are of such a nature that he can have had no opportunity of inquiring into the particulars of them. The right hon. Gentleman simply asks the House to take for gospel truth what is the mere idle gossip of Dublin Castle and the officials there, and upon this tittle-tattle to fritter away the liberties of a people. Such a course is calculated, I am afraid, to inflict upon our unfortunate country a still greater injustice than any which this Parliament has already inflicted. Let me suppose even that all these stories told by the right hon. Gentlemen were true. Then, surely, the most that can be said of them is that they afford a very slender excuse for depriving a nation and a people of the Constitution under which they live—for abolishing trial by jury and gagging the Press, and suppressing the right of public meeting and free speech. [A laugh.] Hon. Members laugh; but they do not seem to have studied the provisions of this Bill, although they are going blindly to vote for it. More than that, the measure proposes to establish a number of petty despotisms all over the country, each being with the other in goading the people into exasperation. I have said that there was a good deal of wisdom in the course which has been taken by the Chief Secretary, in carefully concealing from the House the particulars of the cases he has brought forward, so that we should have very little opportunity of bringing to a test the accuracy of the stories he has related. But the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for England was not so discreet in the speech which he delivered last night. That hon. and learned Gentleman saw at once the weakness of the ease which had been made out by the Chief Secretary, and he endeavoured to supplement it by giving the particulars in regard to some of these statements. I am not going to make any accusation against the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for England. I am

    295
    not going to say that he would for one moment state to this House particulars which he did not believe to be true, or use arguments he knew could not be sustained by facts. It is, however, very instructive to consider the manner in which he dealt with the case which he undertook to quote to the House. I should like to know whether he would have been prepared to deal with it in a similar manner if it had been a report affecting an English trial? The hon. and learned Gentleman, in supporting the contention of the Government that there had been a failure of justice in recent trials in Ireland, quoted from The Freeman's Journal, and made a great deal of the fact that his report was taken from that newspaper. Now, the case in question was one which was tried at the Kerry Assizes; it was that of a man named Pat Hickey, who was charged with Moonlighting; and the report went on to say that the jury, without hearing any evidence for the defence, acquitted the prisoner. Now, if the case had occurred in England and not in Ireland, what would have been the comment of the learned Attorney General or of any other impartial reader? Would it not have been that the case for the prosecution was so weak and so little backed up by evidence that, as a matter of fact, the jury acquitted the prisoner because there was no evidence before them which would justify them in convicting him? Nevertheless, because the case had reference to Ireland, the argument of the learned Attorney General was this—that because the jury acquitted the prisoner without requiring to hear any evidence for the defence, forsooth, the prisoner was guilty; that the 12 jurymen were forsworn, that they sympathized with Moonlighting, and that, therefore, they acquitted him. Now I happen to know the particulars of the case which the hon. and learned Gentleman has been, so unfortunate as to cite. I happened, as his counsel, to defend the prisoner; and I invite the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland to confer with the counsel who prosecuted for the Crown, if he wishes to ascertain whether the statement I am about to make is not strictly accurate. The counsel for the prosecution is not a Nationalist, on the contrary, he is a Conservative; but anybody who knows Mr. John Atkinson, Q.C., knows that he is
    296
    a man of honour and of principle; and, therefore, I am prepared to abide by his confirmation of my statement as to whether the Judge who tried the case did not charge for the acquittal of the prisoner. That Judge was no other than Mr. Justice O'Brien, who delivered the violent political harangue of which so much capital has been made by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House. The case made a deep impression on my mind. I listened to the charge of the Judge to the Grand Jury, and. I listened to the figures given by him of the state of crime in Ireland. I knew that crime was still rampant, to a great extent, over some portions of the County of Kerry; but, at the same time, I knew that there were men who were anxious to prefer false charges against others in order to gratify private malice or curry favour with some Irish official. They had a ready means of doing that from the existence of crime in that county. Having listened to the extraordinary speech of the Judge on that occasion, I may say that this was the first case of Moonlighting that came before him. As I have said, I received a brief in the case; but I was most careful to inquire, before accepting it, whether there was a shadow of evidence against the prisoner; not because I wished to shirk the duty of defending a prisoner, but because I did not desire my public position as secretary to the National League to be identified to any degree in the eyes of any misguided people in Kerry with a defence of Moonlighting. I cross-examined the principal witness for the prosecution, and after my cross-examination the Judge asked a few questions which clearly convinced me he did not believe a word of the witness's story. I proceeded no further with the case, but left it in the hands of the Judge, whereupon, he charged for an acquittal, and the jury acquitted the man accordingly. The Chief Secretary was more wise. He gave us no names or any means of ascertaining the particulars of the cases to which he referred, and yet, notwithstanding the slender materials we had to work upon, in order to bring these stories to a test, I think it will be admitted that my hon. Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell), in the able and eloquent speech with which he opened the debate this evening, very

    297
    clearly exposed the character of some of the cases which were quoted by the right hon. Gentleman. I propose to take some others which have been selected by Dublin Castle and supplied to the Chief Secretary as a proof of the necessity for a sweeping change in the administration of the law. Some of the cases, I admit, have been so carefully concealed that it has been impossible to bring them to a test. But I maintain that through their own inherent absurdity they have altogether broken down. Let me take the first of these cases, which was given by the right. hon. Gentleman as an illustration of the way in which Irishmen regard the jury system. The right hon. Gentleman said—
    "I heard the other day of a man over 70 years of age who applied to be excluded from the panel, and he was told that he should be so relieved. Next day he returned and said he would rather be on the panel, for it might give him an opportunity of serving a friend."
    Now, if the right hon. Gentleman had consulted the Attorney General for Ireland, it would have been the duty of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to tell him that a story like that, and, indeed, many of the stories we have heard of jurymen—has been simply invented for the purpose of imposing on the credulity of Englishmen who go over to Ireland. This particular instance is one which never could have occurred, because there was no official before whom the man could go to have his name put on or taken off the jury list except the Judge, whose duty it was to revise it; and yet we are asked to believe that in this particular case the learned Judge consented to take a man off the jury panel one day and to put him on again the next. But the fables which the right hon. Gentleman appears to have collected in his short tour in Ireland are so absurd that I fail to see how they could have imposed upon any rational man. Here is another of the amusing fables with which the right hon. Gentleman interested the House while framing the case with which to do away with the liberties of our unfortunate country. The right hon. Gentleman said—"I heard the other day"— most of these stories begin with, "I heard the other day"—but before I read the passage, let me make one other remark. An hon. Friend of mine, when
    298
    he feels tempted to express a doubt as to the authenticity of a story, usually interrupts the speaker by saying—"Is this a true story?" Probably he would not have been allowed to interrupt the Chief Secretary in that way; but in regard to the story I am about to quote, I have no hesitation in saying that it is not only not a true story, but that it would tell against the right hon. Gentleman himself if there were any truth in it. The right hon. Gentleman said—
    "I heard the other day of jurors in a respectable position who had begged of an officer whoso duty it was to order some jurors to 'stand by' that he would include them in the jurors to be asked to 'stand by.' The officer refused, but said that if they did not come up to be balloted for he would not fine them."
    If that story is true, what does it prove? It proves this—the man who has the privilege of ordering a juror to "stand by" is the prosecuting Crown Solicitor. I believe hon. Members have heard it said, on the authority of the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland, that he is responsible for ordering jurors to "stand by" at a trial; therefore, if the story of the Chief Secretary is true, it proves that, in order to ascertain how the jury is affected, and to test what sort of verdict is likely to be given, the Crown Solicitor must have an audience with the jurors before putting thorn into the box. A story of this kind certainly gives the House a glimpse of the practices resorted to by the Crown in Ireland, and which, as I maintain, have caused the failure of your jury system, and the disrespect with which your administration of law is regarded in Ireland. Now, Sir, we have also had from the right hon. Gentleman some very garbled extracts from the addresses of some of the Judges of Ireland. That fact, however, has been so much commented upon by other speakers that I will not dwell on it in detail further than to observe, upon the extraordinary statement of the Chief Secretary, that these Judges are not political partizans; that they are not influenced in their utterances by the politics of the day. That, Sir, is notoriously the case in Ireland. I believe the House is perfectly familiar with the fact that most of the Irish Judges—certainly three of them—whose charges were quoted by the Chief Secretary in his speech, have had seats in this House, and occupied official posi-

    299
    tions in this House under various Governments. Now, let me suppose the case of the right hon. Gentleman the present Attorney General for Ireland. With regard to that right hon. and learned Gentleman, I will say that we should have quite as much confidence in his decisions as we have now in the decisions of the other Irish Judges. But it is absurd of the Chief Secretary to ask us to believe that the present Attorney General for Ireland has no political opinions of his own. "We refuse to believe that the Attorney General for Ireland, as well as others who have preceded him, and who have occupied official positions in the House of Commons, take up politics as a profession when they come into this House, and that they cease to hold any political sentiments the moment they leave this House. The speech of the Chief Secretary pointed to three difficulties in Ireland. The first difficulty he complains of is general intimidation, or Boycotting; the second, the difficulty of procuring evidence; and the third, the failure of juries to convict. Now, let us consider for a moment these difficulties in relation to the remedies for them proposed by the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman. The difficulty of general intimidation, or Boycotting, he proposes to cure by giving extended powers to Resident Magistrates. Now, everyone knows that during the course of the past few years the Resident Magistrates have dealt under the existing law of Ireland with cases of general intimidation, and cases of Boycotting, and it must be well known that whenever a charge of Boycotting or intimidation is brought against a man there is nothing to prevent the Resident Magistrates from applying the existing law to such cases. But it is intended, under the proposed Bill, to give these gentlemen very extended powers, and, therefore, I should like the House to understand what the class of gentlemen is to whom it is proposed to give these extraordinary powers. What are the qualifications necessary for a Resident Magistrate in Ireland? First of all, he must have friends sufficiently influential to be able to beg the position for him from the Executive. In the next case, he must be over head and ears in debt and difficulties before he is able to make out a strong case; and, thirdly, he must have had a military training somewhere or other, or if it has happened by acci-
    300
    dent that he has received a legal training of any kind, then he must never have been able to make a penny at the Bar. Now, I have a great passion for collecting autographs, and quite lately I had an opportunity of looking up the autographs of some very remarkable personages, most of whom have passed away. Among these political autographs, I find that there are many letters to the Lord Lieutenant of the day, applying for the position of Resident Magistrate. I propose to read from the evidence put forward by their own friends—landlords and land agents in Ireland—what their idea is of the qualification of an Irish Resident Magistrate. The first letter I will read is from a gentleman who was certainly well known in the political world, and who made himself particularly remarkable for the bitter hostility he offered to the land legislation of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone). I refer to the Knight of Kerry, a staunch champion of the landlords of Ireland. Here is his idea of the particular qualities that fit a man to occupy the position of Resident Magistrate, and to administer the extra powers which the Chief Secretary proposes to in trust them with. This is a letter addressed to Lord Carlisle when he was Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—
    "My dear Lord,
    "The kindness which your Excellency has shown me since I have had the honour of being known to you encourages me to apply to you on a subject deeply interesting to me, although I fear it will need all your kindness to excuse the presumption of the application"—
    what modesty!—
    "My brother (Steven Fitzgerald) having but a small provision, my father applied to Lord Clarendon, when Lord Lieutenant, for a situation for him, and received an encouraging reply with a conditional promise; but, nothing having resulted there from, he continued to live an idle life at home, and fell into habits injurious to himself and distressing to his family, who could not but lament to see considerable talents, united with an excellent natural disposition, completely going to waste. He has latterly, I rejoice to say, been leading a different life, and recently formed an attachment for a most interesting young Scotch lady, one who, especially in point of deep religious feeling, is all that could be wished for, and their union, so very desirable, is only delayed in reference to his financial position. Under these circumstances, I venture to ask your Excellency's kind aid in procuring a situation for him. That of Stipendiary Magistrate is one for which I think he would be extremely well qualified, as he has regularly and very efficiently—"

    301
    notwithstanding his idle habits—
    "discharged his duties as a J.P. in this parish and the neighbouring district; but if that post be unattainable, some one of less value would just now be very acceptable. I really dislike, more than I can well say, thus troubling your Excellency in such a personal matter—"
    notwithstanding, I have in my possession a letter troubling his Excellency for another friend later on—
    "but I feel at least that you will make great excuse for my so doing in a case where more than the temporal interests of an only brother are involved.
    "I have the honour to be,
    "My dear Lord,
    "Your Excellency's very obedient"
    and obliged servant,
    "P. FITZGERALD,
    "Knight of Kerry."
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Was Mr. Fitzgerald appointed?
    MR. T. C. HARRINGTONYes, he was.
    COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I hope the hon. Gentleman will give the House some proof of the authenticity of this letter.
    MR. T. C. HARRINGTONI am prepared to show the letter to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. If he is acquainted with the handwriting of the Knight of Kerry he will see that it is perfectly genuine. I would, however, ask the House to accept my word, being personally acquainted with the handwriting of the Knight of Kerry, when I say that I pledge myself to satisfy the House, if necessary, of the authenticity of this letter.
    COLONEL KING-HARMANI think the hon. Gentleman ought to be able to state how he got that letter.
    MR. T. C. HARRINGTONI am prepared to take the hon. and gallant Member's own word if he says he knows anything of the handwriting of the Knight of Kerry. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman were as well qualified as I am to judge of the handwriting he would at once admit the authenticity of the letter.
    An hon. MEMBER: To which Lord Lieutenant was it addressed?
    MR. T. C. HARRINGTONThe letter was addressed to Lord Carlisle during the time he occupied the Office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and it is dated July the 5th, 1859. [Cries of "Oh!"] Well, I said before I read
    302
    the letter that it was addressed to Lord Carlisle. I did not attempt to deceive the House in any way, and now, Sir, here is another letter, and it is from a nobleman who is still alive, and who will be able to repudiate it if it be a forgery. I hope that statement will satisfy Her Majesty's Government and the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite. The date of this letter is 1855.—
    "Treasury, May 1st, 1855."
    "My Lord,—
    "I sit down to perform what is to me a very disagreeable task—namely, to ask you for a favour in the obtaining of which I am personally interested. My brother-in-law—Mr. Edward Croker—late a Captain in the 17th Lancers, is very anxious to obtain some employment which would increase his income. He is, unfortunately, not on good terms with his father, and, as he has nine children and very small means, at present his circumstances are very embarrassing. I understand there are now two vacancies in the office of Stipendiary Magistrate, and I think he would be very well qualified for such a position, as he has discharged the duties of a Justice of the Peace for many years past. If you can appoint him to one of the vacancies I think he would make a good public servant, and it would be a great obligation to me. Believe me to be your Excellency's very faithful servant,
    "MONCK."
    Hon. Gentlemen are mistaken, if they imagine for a moment that I am quoting these letters to the House under the impression that they all come from Tories. I do nothing of the kind, but the inference I ask the House to draw is this. That if these were applications made to a Liberal Lord Lieutenant with whom the great body of Irish landlords and land agents are not in political sympathy, what must have been the applications that were made on the other side?
    COMMANDER BETHELL: May I ask if the hon. Gentleman has read that letter with the consent of the writer?
    MR. T. C. HARRINGTONNo, Sir; nor do the Resident Magistrates, when imprisoning us in Ireland, ever trouble themselves about getting our consent. The next letter I propose to read is another letter from the Knight of Kerry, addressed, not to the Lord Lieutenant, but to the Chief Secretary—"My Dear Sir, —
    An hon. MEMBER: What is the date?
    MR. T. C. HARRINGTONIt is dated the 19th of January, 1860.
    "My Dear Sir,—
    "His Excellency was kind enough to promise to bear in mind my brother's application for the situation of Stipendiary Magistrate."—

    303
    I see that this refers to the previous case; therefore, it is not necessary that I should read it. [Cries of"Read!" from the Ministerial Benches.] Certainly, if hon. Members opposite desire that I should do so; but they need not suppose that I abstained from doing so because this letter is likely to tell against me. Without further preface I will read the whole of the letter:—
    "Valentia, 19th January, 1860."
    "My Dear Sir,—
    "His Excellency was kind enough to promise to bear in mind my brother's application for the situation of Stipendiary Magistrate, which Lord Castlerosse"—
    Lord Castlerosse is the present Earl of Kenmare
    —"and Colonel Herbert both promised to further. I have been informed that there are likely shortly to be three vacancies. I know how beset His Excellency must be, but still will venture to ask you, at a proper moment, to remind him of my brother's application.
    "Believe me, my dear Sir,
    "Yours very truly,
    "P. FITZGERALD,
    "Knight of Kerry."
    May I add that this reminder of the application proved successful, and that the Knight of Kerry's brother obtained the appointment. And now, Sir, I come to a most extraordinary application. It is the case of a gentleman who seems to have been recommended by no less a personage than the King of the Belgians. It is dated "Castle Connell, County Limerick, 16th of April, 1863," and it says—
    "May it please your Excellency to pardon the liberty I take in addressing you on the following subject. In January last I was informed by Viscount Conway that His Majesty the King of the Belgians had applied to Sir Robert Peel to give me the appointment of Resident Magistrate, in lieu of the appointment I now hold in the Constabulary. Knowing that there are now three vacancies, and that there will be two more immediately—"
    Probably some friend was going to resign to make a vacancy for him; for I have other letters which show that an arrangement had been made between the outgoing and incoming men. A pure cut-and-dried arrangement; The letter goes on to say—
    "Knowing that there are now three vacancies, and that there will be two more immediately, I wrote to Sir Robert Peel, and this day received his reply—namely, 'That the appointment of Resident Magistrate rests with the Lord Lieutenant, to whom you should accordingly apply.' His Majesty, who got the Constabulary cadetship
    304
    for me eleven years ago, considered that the Chief Secretary was the person to apply to again now. Under the circumstances of His Majesty's present delicate state of health, may I beg of your Excellency to consider his application on my behalf. Being so low down on the list I should be over age before I could expect Sir H. J. Brownrigg to consider me. An increase of salary would be to me a great boon, having a young family to educate.
    "I have the honour to be,
    "Your Excellency's"
    "Most obedient humble servant,
    "R. K. FULTON.
    "S.I. Constabulary."
    MR. JOHNSTON: Will the hon. Gentleman inform the House how and where he got these letters?
    MR. T. C. HARRINGTONI can only attribute the question of the hon. Member to the well-known character he bears in this House for innocence and simplicity. However, I would go far to satisfy the curiosity of the hon. Gentleman. I bought the letters at an auction; letters of that class are so common in Ireland that they may be had at auctions all over Dublin. There is, however, one thing I can promise hon. Gentlemen opposite, and it is that they will not find many documents of the kind after any Members of the present Irish Party. The next letter I desire to read is dated January 23rd, 1861. It is a letter recommending the appointment as stipendiary magistrate of a Gentleman—Colonel Forbes—who still, I believe, occupies that position. The letter is as follows:—
    "62, Great King Street, Edinburgh,
    "January 23.
    "My Dear Sir,—May I venture to introduce to you my cousin, Major Forbes, late of the 3rd Light Dragoons, a very distinguished officer at Sobraon? His military testimonials will speak for themselves. He is a candidate for one of two Stipendiary Magistracies in Ireland, where his brother, Colonel Forbes, has recently purchased property in County Galway—"
    The purchase of property, therefore, appears to be another qualification. The letter goes on to say—
    "Their father commanded the 56th Foot. They are all Roman Catholics, but mostly gentlemanly and popular men. Major Forbes has been for some time resident in Edinburgh.
    "Yours faithfully,
    "J. I. HODSON, D.D.,
    "Merton College, Oxon."
    COLONEL KING-HARMANIs that the gentleman who is still a Stipendiary Magistrate?
    MR. T. C. HARRINGTONI believe so.
    COLONEL KING-HARMANColonel Forbes was never in the 3rd Dragoons, and never had a brother who purchased property in Ireland.
    MR. T. C. HARRINGTONI can only attribute the impatience of the hon. and gallant Member to the fact that he is afraid some letters of his own may come out.
    COLONEL KING-HARMANI have not the least fear of that.
    MR. T. C. HARRINGTONHowever, I am quite willing to set the hon. and gallant Gentleman's mind at rest, for I have no letter of his at present. The next letter I propose to read is one dated October 10, 1861, written from Wexford by a gentleman who was formerly a Member of this House to the Under Secretary of State of the day—
    "My Dear Sir,
    I have been asked by Dr. Crean of this town to solicit your good offices in behalf of Mr. Thomas Wyse, Sub-Inspector of Constabulary, who is a candidate for the situation of Stipendiary Magistrate. He is cousin of our Ambassador at Athens, who has already solicited the situation from his Excellency. I am ashamed to be boring you this way;"
    which certainly shows frequent applications—
    "but I really cannot refuse without making enemies, and all I ask is that you will drop me a line saying a kind word about the matter, as Crean is an influential man here; and it is well to conciliate him.
    "I am, my Dear Sir,
    "Yours very faithfully,
    "JOHN GREENE."
    "John Hatchell, Esq., &c, &c, &c."
    I did not intend to read this correspondence at such length, and I should not have done so if I had not been invited by hon. Members opposite to do so. I shall not read many more. The next letter is a letter from the Marquess of Donegall—
    "Harefield Park, Uxbridge,
    "March 13, 1855."
    My Dear Lord,
    "First let me offer you my sincere and heartfelt congratulation on your appointment of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and then let me beg of you, if you should have it in your power, to appoint a cousin of mine—Captain William Verner, of Windsor, near Belfast"—
    I daresay the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Johnston) will know him.
    MR. JOHNSTONNo; I cannot say that I do.
    MR. T. C. HARRINGTONThe letter goes on—
    "to some place or other that may happen to fall into your gift—such as Stipendiary Magistrate.
    306
    He is well qualified for anything—was a long time on the bench in New South Wales, and is a Magistrate for the County of Antrim. Added to all this he has a very large family; and is very poor;"
    that is another of the same kind of qualification, you see—
    "and, therefore, if you can do anything for him, you will most truly oblige,
    "Yours very truly sincerely,
    "DONEGALL."
    "The Earl of Carlisle, K.G., &c., &c."
    COLONEL KING-HARMANWhat is the date?
    MR. T. C. HARRINGTONMarch, 1855. [Cries of" Divide!"] I can well understand the impatience of hon. Members opposite. I can well understand that this subject is exceedingly distasteful to them. But in connection with the subject under discussion it is not a waste of the time of the House. I have no desire to waste that time; but having regard to the fact that you are placing the liberties of Ireland at the mercy of men of this description, I think I have a perfect right to read to the House some evidence of the character of these men. I maintain further that if any hon. Member is justified in doing so it is I, seeing that I have suffered imprisonment and have been condemned to the plank bed, and was clad in prison uniform by two officials of this very class, specially selected for the duty, and for the utterance of words so inoffensive that the Chief Secretary was ashamed to read them to the House. The words which I used were these—that as Secretary to the National League, I appealed to the farmers in the constituency, which afterwards returned me to this House, to give a just and fair consideration to the claims of the labourers; and that, if they did not, they would find that the agitation used in that behalf might be turned against themselves for the benefit of the labouring classes. Those are the very words I used. They were marked in a report sent up by the Resident Magistrates to Dublin Castle to know if they were sufficiently strong to justify a prosecution against me. They were returned by the Chief Secretary with the words I have quoted bracketted and marked with a blue pencil. These magistrates, having received this intimation, and knowing that their promotion depended on the will of Dublin Castle, were hardly likely to refuse to do what they did—namely, to send me to gaol. Now, Sir, I have re-

    307
    ferred to the character of the general intimidation which was complained of by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary in his speech; and I want to show how very misleading are the few figures in the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman has given us the number of persons who have been Boycotted, and I wish to explain to the House how these statistics have been got up. In a district in Ireland where evictions have been carried on, if an emergency man wishes to procure goods, he is not taken to the house of a Conservative or Protestant shopkeeper in order to obtain them, because it is very well known that he would get them without difficulty, and in every town in the South of Ireland there are Protestant and Conservative shop- keepers, who are generally the most successful and wealthy merchants in the town—such, is the toleration of Catholics, who do not practise anything in the nature of exclusive dealing upon religious or political grounds as others do. But instead of bringing persons who may have incurred popular disfavour in such localities into the shops where it is well known that they would be supplied, they are marched into the shop of the local president or secretary of the National League, and if the shopkeeper refuses to supply them, because they are emergency men or caretakers of evicted farms, the case is at once set down as a case of Boycotting. There is no difficulty whatever in procuring an ample supply of food from those with whom they are in political sympathy. [Colonel KING-HARMAN expressed dissent.] I will challenge the hon. and gallant Gentleman to name a single village in Ireland where this cannot be done. Day after day we see cases recorded in the local newspapers where the police have marched men into houses where they knew they would not got the supplies for which they asked, and where they were perfectly aware they would be Boycotted. Now, Sir, the second difficulty complained of by the Chief Secretary in his speech was the difficulty of procuring evidence. But, I would ask, what provision is there in the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman to facilitate the procuring of evidence? Is there any provision in the Bill, as stated by the right hon. Gentleman to the House, which, will make it more easy
    308
    for the Crown in Ireland to get evidence in criminal cases or to procure the assistance of the people in carrying out the law? Does he think, if he transfers the venue, say from Kerry to Belfast, that the Crown witnesses who go down to Belfast to prosecute would be more popular in that locality than by giving evidence at a trial in their own locality? Does he think a Crown witness will be more likely to be popular in Ireland, and that the people will be more likely to fraternize with him because he comes over here at the instance of the Chief Secretary to hang or send to penal servitude a fellow-countryman? Or is it meant that juries and magistrates shall act without any evidence at all? The statement of the right hon. Gentleman may or may not be true; but, at all events, it is patent that the Bill makes no provision whatever which will enable him to get over the difficulty of procuring evidence, and nothing this House can devise will render the position of a Crown witness, or the office of Crown prosecutor, more popular in Ireland, until they are employed in carrying out laws which the people sanction and respect. The third difficulty of the right hon. Gentleman was the failure of juries to convict. Now, I am not going to deny that there have been cases in Ireland where, in the teeth of evidence tolerably clear, the jury have either disagreed or refused to convict. But is there no instance the other way? Have there been no eases, and have none been brought under the attention of the House in recent years in Ireland, where juries, instead of refusing to convict, have convicted on evidence absolutely false or insufficient; have there been no cases in which juries have, in the jury-box, given way to their political feeling, and have consigned to penal servitude, and in some cases to the gallows, men who are now admitted to have been innocent?
    COLONEL KING-HARMANWho are they?
    MR. T. C. HARRINGTONWho are they? I will appeal to hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, who gave eloquent support to a Motion which I made in one of these cases a few years ago. I appeal to the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill), and to the present Solicitor General for England (Sir Edward Clarke), who made admirable speeches

    309
    in support of my Motion on that occasion. Before this House proceeds to legislate in the direction of doing away with trial by jury, let rue ask hon. Members to consider first whether trial by jury has not had a fair chance in Ireland; and if it has not, is the blame of the failure attributable wholly to the people and none of it attributable to the Crown? Last night we had upon this subject an able and eloquent and very remarkable speech from the right hon. Gentleman who was a former Chief Secretary and the late Secretary for War (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman). He described the system of trial by jury in Ireland as a system by which the people look upon the Crown as doing everything, fair or unfair, to carry out their object, and the people naturally did everything they could to defeat the Crown. Have we not had our attention drawn, night after night, to the infamous manner in which jury-packing is carried on in Ireland? We have been told times out of number that Catholics are persistently challenged on every trial by jury in Ireland. It may be desirable to obtain convictions; but one conviction, or two convictions, or 100 convictions, are not so important as the impartial administration of the law in a manner calculated to command the sympathy and respect of the people; and I warn the House that no Government will succeed in winning the respect of the people of that country for the administration of the law unless you convince them that it is their duty and their right to take part in its administration. The Chief Secretary stated in his speech that it was well known, by any person acquainted with the country, that before a juryman entered the box in agrarian trials in Ireland, how he would cast his verdict. Now, I would like to ask the House how that matter has become so well known? It is a practice condemned on the part of the people, and I admit that it is a practice which ought to be condemned. But surely it is equally blamable when practised for the Crown. What takes place in ordinary cases tried at Criminal Assizes in Ireland? I will take a case that was tried recently in Cork. There were several agrarian cases tried there; and this singular fact occurred, that while the first jury who tried a case of that kind disagreed, the juries who tried the cases at the end of the Assizes, in almost every instance, whether rightly or
    310
    wrongly, and whether the accused was guilty or not, found a verdict of guilty. What was the reason? It was this—that the prosecuting Crown Solicitor who had charge of the trial, the moment the first jury were discharged, on account of want of agreement, went out among the jurors to find out what was the state of the mind of the jury. He canvassed the jurymen themselves, ascertained how many were for an acquittal, and how many for a conviction, and when these prisoners, or others, were put again on their trial, in an infamous and shameful manner he selected only those jurors who had been in favour of a conviction, and carefully excluded those who had been in favour of an acquittal in the earlier trial. Now, I challenge the Law Officers of the Crown to stand up and deny that that has been the persistent practice of the Crown Prosecutors in Ireland. Almost invariably the Crown Solicitor goes out to a jury who have disagreed, and ascertains in this way the state of their mind. How can you expect the people of Ireland to respect any law so shamefully and infamously administered as that? If you want the people of Ireland to respect your laws you must set them a good example. Surely it is better for the Crown and better for the country that a few criminals should escape, oven if guilty, than that you should set every man in Ireland root and branch against your system of administering justice. There recently appeared in an Irish newspaper a remarkable letter from a Roman Catholic Bishop—the Bishop of Achonry upon this subject of jury-packing. I will read one paragraph in the letter which refers to certain cases recently tried at Sligo. The jurors selected were "nailers," the prisoners were convicted; but the opinion of all but furious partizans of the so-called Party of Order was thus expressed by the Catholic Bishop of Achoury—
    "A Woodford Catholic prisoner in Sligo dock sees all his co-religionist jurors set aside by the Crown, and twelve non-Catholics called to try him—I say 'try,' when the word 'convict' is the one; but let that pass—The prisoner's counsel very properly resents the action of the Crown, remarking that the conduct of the Crown was equivalent to branding every rejected Papist as a perjurer. Now, how could that poor Papist prisoner have any confidence in the administration of the forms of the law, when he sees these things occur in the name of the Crown?"
    That is a weighty declaration; but anyone who possesses the slightest know-

    311
    ledge of Ireland knows that it is true, and that it lies at the root of the whole system of the failure of trial by jury. It was the Crown which had set the example of not respecting the administration of the law; and when the Crown did that, how was it possible for them to expect the respect and sympathy of the Irish people to the law? I have to complain that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary in his speech, and others who have risen on that side of the House, have resorted to the unfair and very unjustifiable course of attributing every difficulty, every crime, and every disorder in Ireland, to the influence of the National League. Let me ask this question. Was there never a crime committed in Ireland, and was no exceptional legislation for that country ever asked for, before the National League was established? Is it not patent to everybody that year after year the Government have had to come to this House for special powers to enable them to deal with exceptional agrarian crime in Ireland? Is it not shameful and unfair that because there is a public organization in the country endeavouring to shield the people from the oppression of an iniquitous class—is it not unfair and dishonest that everything in the nature of crime and disorder which may occur in that country is attributed to that organization? Has the Chief Secretary brought forward one instance where an officer of the National League has been brought to justice or punished, or oven charged with any one of these crimes? If this great organization in Ireland is exercising its influence in the way the right hon. Gentleman has attributed to it, then what have the Executive been doing in Ireland, with all their police, during the period the National League has been in existence, seeing that they have not been able to charge against one single officer of the National League any one of these offences? I maintain that this species of argument is most unfair and dishonest, and I do so because I believe that behind this appeal of the right hon. Gentleman for the suppression of the National League, there exists some other motive and influence besides that of a desire to deal with disorder and crime. The Government know that, in addition to looking after the interests of the tenant farmers in Ireland, the National League has devoted a large amount of time and has expended a
    312
    large sum of money in looking after the Parliamentary Registration in Ireland. That is the real secret. That fact, whatever may be said of the agrarian difficulty in Ireland, explains the desire of some hon. Members from the North of Ireland, whose constituencies are exceedingly doubtful and shaky, to bring out the suppression of the League, because they know that the National League will suppress them out of this House very shortly. [Cries of" Oh!" and "Question!"] Considering the manner in which all sorts of crimes have been attributed to the National League, I think I am entitled to say a few words in its defence. First of all, I invite the attention of the House to the fact that the National League was established in October, 1882, when the Crimes Act, administered by Earl Spencer, was in full swing in Ireland. The National League grew up under that Act; the laws were as strong as any Government could ask for, and when they were passed in this House the two political Parties in this country insisted upon making them as severe and stringent as was possible. Notwithstanding that fact, the National League grew up under the administration of Lord Spencer. For a period of five years I have been in charge of the organization of the National League, and I assert it is false to say that any effort has ever been made to force the National League on the people of the country. For the manner in which the National League was established and organized, my hon. Colleagues will tell you that I am altogether responsible. They gave me a very free hand in regard to its direction and management. Every letter that left the office has been signed with my name, and all communications coming there read by me; and so far from the National League having been forced upon the country, there has not been a single organizer sent out to establish a branch. I declined to do so, and insisted that only such branches should be received as were got up by the localities themselves and applied for affiliation with us. Of course, when an application was made to us for copies of our rules and cards of membership we were willing to supply them; but we never went so far as the organizers of most political movements in sending organizers throughout the country to establish branches. Here is the address which was put forward to the people of Ireland at the time

    313
    the National League was established, and it is signed by the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell), the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), the hon. Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy), myself, and about 30 other gentlemen, some of whom occupy a prominent and leading position in mercantile life in Dublin. The address says—
    "Fellow Countrymen,—As the Organizing Committee entrusted to the National Conference with the preliminary arrangements for the organization of the Irish National League, we have the honour of submitting to you the accompanying rules for the formation and guidance of branches. It is desirable that no time shall be wasted in putting the resolutions of the Conference in force. The necessity of close organization, for the purpose of concentrating and giving a definite direction to the national energies, is universally felt. It has been forced upon public attention by the encroachments upon popular rights, which have been going on in all directions since the power of union among the people was relaxed. The landlord combination for the purpose of breaking the spirit of the Irish tenant, the dismay which the present scale of judicial rents has created among applicants to the Land Courts, and the confiscation of tenants' property that is being effected wherever disorganization has crept in, render it more necessary now than over that the Irish tenantry should be re-united in vigilant and lawful association, for the purpose of protecting themselves from injustice, and for seeking that full measure of land law reform which alone can secure them against the perils of halting legislation. From the farming classes the desire for organized effort has extended to the labourers, whose miserable condition has been so long disregarded, and to the artizans, who see in the spirit evoked by a great national combination, a power which can nourish our decaying industries with millions of money, now annually drained away into foreign markets. With all these incentives to organization, the Irish National League unites a programme of social and political reform, which will gradually transfer all local power and patronage from privileged strangers into the hands of the people, and so fortify them for the work of National Self-government, which is the aspiration of all our struggles."
    Those words have not been written since the introduction of the Home Rule Bill of the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian; they were written years before the mass of the Liberal Party gave their sanction to Home Rule, and I invite the attention of hon. Members to the fact that the Irish National League placed this object in the forefront of their programme—
    "And so fortify them for the work of National Self-government which is the inspiration of all our struggles. The National Conference has with the most hearty unanimity embodied these principles in the programme of the Irish National League. It remains for you now, in your various districts, to give immediate and
    314
    practical effect to these resolutions, so that from the formation of local branches, the League may be able to proceed to the election for the Central Council, and may he able to offer to every section of the Irish people, the power and protection which organization and discipline alone can ensure."
    The people of Ireland did take up that appeal, and let me assure the House that the organization of the National League is not confined to the so-called disaffected districts. In the Province of Ulster there are the following branches:—Antrim, 18; Armagh, 20; Cavan, 46; Donegal, 51; Down, 38; Fermanagh, 30; Derry, 23; Monaghan, 27; and Tyrone, 56; making 309 for the entire Province of Ulster. In Munster there are 473—namely, Clare, 64; Cork, 119; Kerry, 61; Limerick, 92; Tipperary, 97; and Waterford, 40. In the Province of Leinster there are 420—namely, Carlow, 16; Dublin, 52; King's County, 30; Kilkenny, 45; Kildare, 28; Louth, 37; Longford, 26; Meath, 44; Queen's County, 31; Westmeath, 40; Wicklow, 22; and Wexford, 49. In Connaught there are 311 branches, composed as follows:—Galway, 105; Leitrim, 33; Mayo, 71; Roscommon, 57; and Sligo, 45; making a total of 1,513 branches for the whole of Ireland. If that organization of the National League is so criminal now, it must have been criminal a year or two ago.
    MR. SINCLAIR,: Will the hon. Gentleman say what the total income of these branches is?
    MR. T. C. HARRINGTONThe total annual income from all the branches to our Central Executive is about £11,000.
    CAPTAIN COLOMB: May I ask how much of that is American money?
    MR. T. C. HARRINGTONI have been speaking of the total income of the League from its own resources. Since its establishment the National League has not used £4,000 of American money. That, I think, shows the value of the information which hon. Gentlemen opposite have in regard to the National League. Twenty-five per cent of the funds of the League are retained by the branches for political purposes and working expenses in their own various localities. Without pressure from us, or any endeavour on our part to force their hands, we have received from them 75 per cent of their funds. That 75 per cent is applied, first of all to pressing requirements where most

    315
    needed on behalf of tenants who have been unjustly evicted. Hon. Members on the other side of the House, as well as upon this, know perfectly well that before we take up the cases of these tenants and consider them we make the most minute and careful inquiry, and that the tenant who has allowed himself, by his own recklessness and want of thrift, to fall into arrears with his landlord, never receives assistance from us. [A laugh.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite laugh. I do not wish to appeal to hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House. I know that the present debate is exceedingly inconvenient and unsatisfactory to them; but this I will say, that there are hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House who are going to vote for the Bill of the Chief Secretary who have themselves found their way more than once to the offices of the National League.
    COLONEL KING-HARMANName one of them.
    MR. T. C. HARRINGTONI will not be tempted to "Name!" Their; interviews with me were not strictly a matter of confidence; but I think I am bound to respect them. But this I will pledge myself to—that some of those who are now going to vote for this Bill did, at the time the Conservative Party were coquetting with Home Rule, had interviews with me, and they gave me some very valuable suggestions as to the best manner of putting the Home Rule question before the people of England. There is another fact in regard to the policy of the National League to which I wish to draw the attention of the House. We have deemed it necessary to make a vigorous endeavour on our part to stamp out crime in different parts of the country. The National League has repeatedly refused to give grants to an unfortunate evicted tenant whose case in every other respect deserved consideration, solely because he lived in a district where disturbance was rife, and because we believed that the giving of assistance in such a locality where a tenant had been evicted might appear, in the eyes of a misguided people, to have some semblance of encouragement to crime and outrage. Besides that, I am reminded, by my hon. Friends behind me, that the executive of the National League have persistently and deliberately refused, on many occasions, to take money, or allow branches to be formed, and to take them into
    316
    affiliation, because the demand came from localities where crime and outrage were prevalent. I will go further, and I will appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite who know anything of Ireland to point out a single instance where one of the branches has taken what might be considered a wrong step in regard to Boycotting, or an outrage of any kind, or anything that might have a tendency to it, where we have not used our exertions and have got that branch suppressed. We have on all occasions, where our attention has been called to action of that kind, suppressed the branch of which there could be the least shadow of a suspicion. I fear that I have troubled the House too long, and I will, therefore, conclude by asking the House seriously to reflect on the character of the step they are taking in passing this Bill. I also ask them to consider the view which the Irish people will take of it. During the discussion of the Home Rule Question we had very encouraging speeches from hon. Gentlemen opposite who then sat on these (the Opposition) Benches. Indeed, we had a chorus of lamentation from hon. Gentlemen at the state of Ireland. They told us that coercion had been carried far enough, and nothing was more common than to hear from them the expression that Ireland had been ruined and brought to demand Home Rule because the country had been made the shibboleth of political Parties in this House. I ask hon. Gentlemen what are they by their vote going to make of Ireland now? What is the motive of the policy which the Government are now introducing in regard to the people of Ireland? What they are doing with our unfortunate country is nothing else than making it the shibboleth of faction and party. Have they established any reason or justification for the policy they are attempting to carry out? If they have done so now I would ask if the case was not infinitely stronger before, when they refused to enter upon the policy they are now deliberately pursuing. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian has spoken of the responsibility which is incurred by hon. and right hon. Members opposite. The unfortunate people of Ireland are close observers of the proceedings and events which take place in this House, and they cannot forget the speeches of Conser-

    317
    vative Members when they were in opposition deploring the manner in which our country has been made the shuttlecock of Parties, nor will they forget that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), who refused to go with his own Party one step in the direction of passing a Home Rule Bill, born of confidence in the people of Ireland, because he disagreed with some of its provisions; and who is going now in precisely similar circumstances wholly and heartily in for a Bill which is intended to have, and must have, the effect of scourging and irritating the people of Ireland.
    MR. CONYBEARE: I think that even the most prejudiced listener in this House will think that the speech we have just listened to has been marked with incidents of no ordinary occurrence, and by the announcement of transactions which cannot reflect great credit on the parties whose letters have been read and upon the system to which those letters bear reference; and I think further, that the evidence which has been given by my hon. Friend the Member for Dublin (Mr. T. C. Harrington) of the character and origin of the method and working of the institution known as the National League ought to carry some weight, at any rate, to unprejudiced minds, and show the absolute falsity of the calumnies which have been urged against it. Some of those who are going to vote against the liberties of Ireland ought to see that their conclusions are founded upon totally wrong premisses, and that they should pause before they take a step which they can never retrace. But there was one further piece of evidence in the speech of the hon. Member for Dublin to which I wish to refer. My hon. Friend spoke of the fact that there are hon. Members sitting on the opposite side of the House, who, when their Party was coquetting with Home Rule in 1885, did not disdain to fall back on the National League in order to get information from its office in Dublin, and virtually thus to make themselves accomplices of the League. My hon. Friend, as he told us, respected their confidence; but we have a right to challenge those hon. Members to declare themselves. I speak, Sir, to-night, as a member of the National League, and not only that, but as a member of the Demo-
    318
    cratic party in this country, and as the freely chosen Representative of a constituency which has recorded its unfaltering determination to oppose tooth and nail—both inside and outside this House, by every legitimate means that may offer—any retrograde step in the direction of coercion such as the Government is now trying to force upon the country. I desire to refer to some of the statements made by the Chief Secretary for Ireland in the course of this debate; and I should like to remark upon the lugubrious predictions which he and his Party are in the habit of making in reference to the action of the Irish people. I should like to know by what title the Party opposite claim to speak for all eternity on behalf of Members of this House and those who come after us. We are told by hon. Gentlemen opposite that, whatever the character of their Bill may be, it is no worse, at any rate, than the measures which have been put forward in times past by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House. There are two answers to that statement—first of all that the condition of Ireland is very different from what it was in the past; so different that they do not venture to rely on statistics in support of their flimsy allegations in justification of their measure. If hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House have learnt by experience the folly of their past ways, it is, at any rate, to their credit that they should have done so. They have learned something by the mistakes of former years. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen who sit opposite are, by some mental infirmity, I must assume, incapable of learning wisdom either from their own faults or from the mistakes of others. [Interruption.] I believe half-past 12 o'clock is generally admitted to be the time at which it will be most convenient to adjourn our debates, and there are still a few minutes during which I may be permitted to continue. Almost the only reason which has been advanced on behalf of this Bill is that the Jury system in Ireland is unworkable and, therefore, without inquiring into the reasons why it is unworkable, the Government unblushingly say that we must abolish it root and branch. I think that in answer to their plea that they cannot work the jury system, and that we must abolish it, we have a right to go somewhat narrowly and critically into the causes

    319
    of its unworkability, admitting for the sake of argument that it is unworkable. And, I think it is right to point out that it is owing mainly to their own action that it is as they say in an unworkable condition in Ireland. And why? Is it not a fact which cannot be denied, because your own officials have admitted it, that you have prostituted the sacred name of justice by packing juries in order to secure men devoted to your own interest and purpose? This is the principal cause of the breakdown of the jury system in Ireland. Again, the meaning of Jury Trial is that you draw a sample as it were from the bulk of the people, and when you find that it does not suit your purpose it is clear that there is something radically wrong in your system. It was the same in the early part of the century when English juries revolted against the unfairness of English law, and over and over again refused to convict men charged with stealing and other offences, because they knew that the prisoners under the Draconian laws of the time would be hanged; they preferred to allow criminals to go free rather than themselves commit the greater crime of hanging them. I ask hon. Gentlemen to consider what was the remedy then applied in our country. It was the humane, salutary and statesman-like policy of Romilly and other great reformers which brought about that changed condition in the minds of the people, that reverence on the part of the people for the law which has established the system of trial by jury in this country upon a foundation which cannot be shaken. This is what we ask shall be done in Ireland. If you will only pursue a policy of humanity and conciliation, and as I would say of common sense, and not go back from the pledges which you yourselves have in many cases given for your constituents, the same result would follow in Ireland; but do not think to return to those hated paths of coercion to which you know that the hearts of the people of this country are now firmly opposed, and which the leaders of the people of the country will not allow to continue. You know that your case is so weak that you dare not face your constituents. Just as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) knows that he cannot with success address a free public meeting in the
    320
    country, and that throughout the length and breadth of England, wherever he may go he will be hooted at every meeting that is not a hole-and-corner meeting; so the Leaders of the Conservative Party know perfectly well that a fortnight's Recess now would mean a fortnight's agitation such as has not been witnessed in the country for some years, and so they dare not trust their supporters out of their sight lest they should find out the true feeling of the country with regard to the policy of coercion to which they are going to commit themselves. I can tell the Government that the agitation is commencing, and that they are likely to raise a flame which all their coercion will not be able to put out.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned." —(Mr. T.P. O'Connor.)
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Sir, I would not for a moment press any claim of my own to occupy the time of the House, except by the free permission of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury; but as he has accorded me that free permission, I wish to say very briefly why I think Her Majesty's Government should be inclined to accept the Motion which has been made by the hon. Member who has just sat down. [Loud cries of "No, no!"] I take note of those negatives, but I wish to state what I believe to be strong reasons in support of it. We have had two questions brought before us to-night—one with respect to the interval between the first and second reading, the other with respect to the termination of the present debate. With regard to the interval between the introduction of the Bill and its second reading, I do not wish to enter into any detail. But if I do not refer to what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman to-night, I must beg him not to consider my silence as an indication of my acceptance of the proposal he has made. I do not think it would be well to enter upon arguments on that point at this moment. But it would, in my judgment, be better that the question of the termination of the debate should be determined upon its own merits. How does the case stand? I request the House to go back with me to what happened at the commencement of the evening. The hon. Member for

    321
    Cork (Mr. Parnell) moved an Amendment of the greatest importance. It was truly observed by the right hon. Gentleman, last night that the introduction of such an Amendment at so late a stage was unusual and inconvenient. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and I understand that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cork agrees with him, that it was both the one and the other. But the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cork pointed out with, I think, absolutely conclusive force, that he had not been able to move his Amendment—[Cries of "Oh, oh!"]—at any earlier stage, because the materials necessary to his argument were not in his possession. ["Oh, oh!"] That is strictly and absolutely true. I say it without hesitation and without offence. The Chief Secretary for Ireland referred to the Land Bill of the Government; but in his speech in this debate he conveyed no clear and substantial idea of what the Land Bill is which constitutes the most important and difficult part of the case. I listened to the right hon. Gentleman. He assents to what I say, and I am glad of that, because I own that, as to the most important part of the case, except with regard to his objection to breaking the 15 years' contract, it was impossible to gather any idea from the few words used by the right hon. Gentleman. It appears to me that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cork, under the circumstances, having to propose an Amendment which invited the House to consider the whole state of Ireland, was bound to move that Amendment, having in his possession a view of the entire policy of the Government, so far as it is now proposed. Therefore, he appears to me not open to the smallest blame for the unusual and inconvenient course he was bound to pursue, for if there was anything unusual and inconvenient, it was entirely due to the circumstances in which he was placed by Her Majesty's Government. Many Gentlemen opposite listened to the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cork. I do not wish to use any disrespectful expression; but having known the introduction of many Bills for the restraint of Constitutional liberty in Ireland, and having listened over and over again to the
    322
    opposition to those Bills, I must say I have never known an instance in which the case for the Government was so completely torn to rags as was to-night the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary by the analysis of the hon. Member for Cork. You complain of the length of this debate; but how is it possible for the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cork to make adequate examination of the anonymous anecdotes of the Judges' charges, jury cases, and Boycotting allegations, without time to communicate with Ireland, in respect of which I must say I am rather surprised that he has been able to do so much in so short a time? [Cries of "Oh, oh!" from the Ministerial Benches.] I presume that hon. Gentlemen opposite could do a great deal more without any inquiry at all. But I speak of men who have to examine closely and argue seriously. I contend that the case which the hon. Member for Cork has brought forward at the earliest moment is most serious and grave, and now the demand is made on behalf of Ireland by a well known Member for the devotion of another night to the discussion of this Amendment and the consideration of the case against the Government, and particularly against the speech of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. I must own that, in my view, this is a reasonable demand, and I believe, moreover, that in stating that it is a reasonable demand I am stating the opinion which largely and generally prevails upon this side of the House. It certainly appears in conformity with precedent. The Government are starting on a new course in applying extreme pressure to the House in attempting to hurry proceedings of this kind. ["Oh!"] I am not aware that it has been the practice to hurry these proceedings against the judgment either of the Irish Members or of large portions of the House on former occasions. I am not aware that it is necessary for me to go into all the precedents now. They will probably have to be discussed hereafter. We will not go over the precedent of 1881 further than to say that again the gentleman—whoever he may be—who supplies the right hon. Member with information, supplies him with most inadequate information, leaving out all the most material facts. Sir Robert

    323
    Peel, in 1846, brought in a Bill which, if I remember aright, contained, even in the title of the Bill, far graver allegations than any now made in justification of the present measure. It was a Bill, I think, for the repression of murder or assassination. It was brought forward under some such title as that. At the same time that Sir Robert Peel brought forward that measure, he had in his hands a Bill to which he attached inestimable and supreme and superlative importance—namely, a Bill for the Repeal of the Corn Laws—a Bill on which, even at that period, the peace of the country depended; and I remember well how earnestly he strove to keep aside from the deliberations of Parliament that year everything that could interfere with the progress of the Corn Law Bill. But, notwithstanding that, what was the view taken by him of the nature of the Coercion Bill for Ireland, and what the moral difficulty of interposing by the pressure of a majority to stop its full and free discussion? In 1846 the first reading of that Bill was moved on the 30th of March, and it was not obtained until the 1st of May. That, Sir, was in a Parliament in which the Tory Party had a very large majority, and in which, as I have said, between four and five weeks interposed between the proposal of the first reading and the carrying of it. I suppose that this Motion for Adjournment, though it is made by an English Member in the strict sense of the word, is made on the part of Irish friends and coadjutors, and that it conveys the demands which they think it their duty respectfully to lay before the House. I must say that I shall not be a party to refusing that demand. I warn the right hon. Gentleman—[Signs of dissent]—well, I will not use that expression; I respectfully request him to observe that, so far as I am aware, this description of pressure has not been used on former occasions. I could show that, I think, by going into previous cases in detail. It is a dangerous pressure to use, and although I do not wish to employ any phrase or language which could in any degree introduce heat into the discussion, having stated strongly and firmly the opinion which prevails on this side of the House, I desire, on broader grounds, to refer to principles hitherto held applicable to
    324
    measures of this class, and respectfully ask the right hon. Gentleman to give a favourable consideration to the Motion now before the House.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): Mr. Speaker, I have listened with the respect which is due to the authority of the right hon. Gentleman to the appeal which he has made to me, and I have also listened to the arguments which he has addressed to the House in support of that appeal. I cannot say that I was greatly influenced by the last precedent on which he relied—that of Sir Robert Peel, in 1846. It appears to me, Sir, that if Sir Robert Peel was of opinion that the condition of Ireland was so grave and so serious as to make it necessary to ask Parliament for extraordinary powers, it was Certainly his duty to have pressed earlier for those powers than he did. I am perfectly aware of the result of that appeal and of the consequences that followed next year. The hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) has moved the adjournment of the debate. If he had risen at any time during the five days of this debate I am sure the House would have listened to him. I am not aware that he has done so. But the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition laid stress on the fact that the hon. Member for Cork had had no opportunity of raising the debate which he has initiated until to-night, in consequence of the absence of information on which he desired to rest his case. Well, Sir, I listened to the very able speech of the hon. Member, and with the exception of the first few passages it appeared to me that the speech was devoted to criticism of the speech of my right hon. Friend on my left (the Chief Secretary for Ireland) and to the Motion for leave to bring in this Bill, rather than to the general question of the condition of Ireland. I have listened also to the speeches that have been made this evening on the other side of the House, and they also have been directed to the Motion rather than to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork. I am sure it will be felt by the House and by the country that this preliminary debate has lasted long enough, and if the right hon. Gentleman had been in

    325
    his place when my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary answered the speech of the hon. Member—
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I was in the House.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: Then, if that was so I can only say that my impression of the speech of my right hon. Friend was that it gave a most complete answer to that of the hon. Member for Cork. The views of the hon. Member, to which the right hon. Gentleman attaches so much importance, will have their weight with the House and the country, and, therefore, he will have the full advantage of the effect produced by the speech in the Division, which I hope may now take place. Sir, we have a duty to discharge to the country, which expects Parliament to make progress with the Business of the country. I will not, in the slightest degree, underrate the gravity and importance of the demand the right hon. Gentleman makes on Parliament. We feel our responsibility as greatly as the right hon. Gentleman opposite can do—more, probably, than the right hon. Gentleman does. ["Oh, oh!"] Yes; probably more than he does, for we are responsible for the government of the country, and he is not. We are responsible for the safety of the lives, the liberty, and the property of the people of Ireland. We have placed before Parliament the measures we deem necessary to secure that safety and liberty, and, under these circumstances, I greatly regret that I cannot accede to the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman.
    MR. PARNELLI am afraid, Sir, that the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has not paid me a very great compliment in saying that only a few passages in the first part of my speech this evening were devoted to the subject on which we received information for the first time last night. I certainly intended that the whole of my speech should hang upon and be connected with that information. And it was my desire, in the preparation of my speech, to carry out that intention, and I think I did so. However, be that as it may, I think the right hon. Gentleman will admit that he takes upon himself very considerable responsibility in adopting the unreasonable course which he now proposes to adopt of refusing to concede another night for the discussion of an Amendment of the character of that
    326
    which is before the House. I may remind the right hon. Gentleman of the appeal which has been made by the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian, with his great experience of the traditions of this House. Many of my hon. Friends who are inclined to speak in this preliminary debate have so far waived their right of speaking in favour of the numerous English and Scotch Members who have desired to speak on one side of the House or the other. It is right that the voice of Great Britain should be heard, and heard effectually; and, oven if none of us should be permitted to speak by the exigencies of the limits which the right hon. Gentleman appears to have felt it his duty to place upon the debate, we should not have grudged that surrender of our rights, since it enabled the noble demonstration to be given which has been afforded by so many Members for Great Britain during the last few days. But, Sir, the fact remains that such Members as the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton)—one of the Nationalist Ulster Members—and my hon. Friend who has moved the adjournment of the debate (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), have not been permitted to speak even upon the Motion for taking all the time of the House for this Bill, much less upon the Motion for the introduction of the Bill, or the Amendment we are now discussing. The right hon. Gentleman cannot reconcile that state of affairs coming upon a Coercion Bill—a Bill in which our liberties are so deeply involved—as being consistent with the declarations repeatedly made in the discussion of the Closure Rule. The right hon. Gentleman cannot say it is fair or in accordance with fair play, that so few Irish Members should be heard as have been heard oven upon this preliminary Motion. He cannot say that any time has been wasted by any of the Irish Members or by any of the English Members. He must know full well by this time that the introduction of this Coercion Bill has stirred this House to its depths, and will stir this country to its depths. He must know that if he smothers debate to-night it will burst out some other night on some other stage. If he chokes off the discussion of this stage of the Bill by an unfair application of the Rule of Procedure, which he has obtained under distinct and oft-repeated pledges that it

    327
    should be used only to stop irrelevant and undue discussion, and the flame is smothered to-night, it will break out again shortly. It is impossible in these days and with the advantages we live under, to ultimately choke down a case and stop discussion in this House. I think the right hon. Gentleman will see that the demand we make is not an unreasonable one. He cannot say, speaking in reference to the Irish Members, that they have occupied an undue portion of the time of the House. The Irish Members have not sustained their due share of this discussion. The time within which such Members as the hon. Member for West Belfast can speak, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, is very limited, being confined to periods of two or three hours at the beginning and at the close of the evening. It is not fair to expect such Members to speak during the dinner hour. ["Oh, oh!"] I think even young Tory Members will admit that it would not be reasonable to expect the hon. Member for West Belfast to speak on a Coercion Bill directed against Ireland during the dinner hour. The request we make is not an unreasonable one. It is an eminently reasonable one. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will show his ideas of fair play, and his willingness to keep his word to us, by acceding to the Motion which my hon. Friend has made.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The hon. Member for Cork has just called attention to the extremely limited period of time within which it is possible for Members of importance to address the House. I think we might have expected, in these circumstances, that the hon. Member for Cork would have given some explanation of the action of himself and his Friends this afternoon, when by unanimously rising to support a Motion for the Adjournment of the House, they did everything that it was in their power to do to restrict that limited time before 8 o'clock within which important Members can speak. But before the House comes to a decision on the question of the adjournment, I think it would be desirable that we should call to mind the time which, during the present Session, has been devoted to what has practically been one discussion. The general discussion on the Address in answer to the Speech from the Throne lasted four days.
    328
    I will not say that the whole of those four days was devoted to the discussion of Irish questions, but a very considerable portion of those four days was so occupied. The hon. Member for Cork then moved an Amendment which practically raised the same issue as we have been debating during the last fortnight; it was to the effect that the remedy for the evils existing in Ireland was not to be found in increased stringency of the Criminal Law, but in legislation which would meet the wants and desires of the Irish people. That Amendment was practically an Amendment in favour of giving precedence to remedial over repressive legislation, and the whole of the debate of those five days really turned upon the same issue we are now debating. Well, now, five days were thus occupied. The question of Ireland was, I think, again discussed before the conclusion of the debate on the Address, and it frequently cropped up during the protracted debate upon the Closure Rule. Not taking into account the five days' general discussion upon the Address, we have now had five days' discussion on the Amendment to the Address proposed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cork, four days' discussion on the Motion for urgency, and five days' discussion upon the Motion for leave to introduce this Bill. We have thus already had, during the present Session, 14 days' debate upon what is really only a preliminary stage of the Bill—the introduction of the Bill. I think it is impossible, having regard to any precedent which my right hon. Friend (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) can produce from any period of Parliamentary history, to contend that such an amount of time has ever been given for the discussion of a merely preliminary question as has been given to the discussion of this. I object to the further indefinite prolongation of this debate. I object for reasons of what I think I may call a general Parliamentary character. It is not a practice to be encouraged that second reading speeches or Committee speeches should be made on the introduction of a Bill. Nearly all the speeches which have been made during the course of this debate have been of the character either of second reading speeches or of Committee speeches; and I think there can be very little doubt that if the debate is further protracted the speeches

    329
    made hereafter will be of the same character. We are now asked to continue this discussion—continue it I do not know how much longer—for the purpose of discussing, concurrently with the proposal to increase the stringency of the Criminal Law in Ireland, the land legislation which has been proposed by the Government. Now, it appears to me that that would be a most inconvenient course to take. We cannot discuss the two subjects together. We should not be allowed by the Chair to make detailed references either to speeches made in "another place" or to a measure which is before the other House. We can only discuss the proposal of the Government relating to land in Ireland in a most partial and imperfect manner, and if we cannot discuss such a question as that in connection with the repressive legislation proposed by the Government it seems we should only lose time and create confusion by attempting to do so. There is no object in doing it. The Government have not professed that the land legislation which they bring forward will in their opinion create such a favourable impression upon the minds of the discontented and dissatisfied portion of the people of Ireland as to render the legislation we are now discussing unnecessary. [Home Rule cheers.] As I understand the matter, they have not proposed it with any sanguine hope it will give complete satisfaction, and, judging from the cheers of hon. Members below the Gangway, in that they are perfectly right. If we had heard from them to-night that the land legislation of the Government is so favourably received by them as to probably accomplish all that is required for the maintenance of law and order in Ireland, then there would have been good ground for asking that repressive legislation should be deferred until further progress had been made with the land legislation. But we have heard the land proposals of the Government described by the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) as a stab in the back for the tenants of Ireland. Under these circumstances, there can be no object in prolonging this debate. The land proposals of the Government are absolutely and entirely distinct from those we are now considering; and, therefore, I cannot vote for the Motion for Adjournment.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: My noble Friend (the Marquess of Hartington) has, as he always does, made the case which he desires to put before the House perfectly clear. There can now be no doubt whatever as to the character of the vote that is to be given on this Bill. We had understood from some Gentlemen who belong to the Party of which my noble Friend is the distinguished Leader, that their vote for coercion depended, to a certain degree, upon the remedial measures of the Government, that if the remedial measures were satisfactory then they would be justified in voting for this Bill; but if the remedial measures were not satisfactory nothing would induce them to be parties to coercion. Well, on the part of the Liberal Unionists that situation is not only abandoned, but repudiated by the noble Lord. He says, what have we to do in voting for this Bill with the discussion of the land remedies of the Government? They are beside the question altogether. Now, the demand made is that the important statement made last night by the Government in "another place," is, in point of fact, a statement of the remedial measures of the Government, and should be discussed upon the Motion of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell). The answer to that which my noble Friend (the Marquess of Hartington) makes is, that that has nothing to do with the question, that the question of coercion is a question pure and simple, to be voted upon by itself without regard in any manner to the remedial proposals of the Government. That, I suppose, is the position taken up. We know it is the position taken up by my noble Friend the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington), and I understand it to be the position accepted by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain). In these circumstances, I think it will be perfectly clear to the House and to the country that it is a question of coercion pure and simple, and that we enter upon it with the question of remedial measures absolutely repudiated. ["Oh, oh!"] I do not mean to say that the Liberal Unionists repudiate remedial measures; but that they repudiate remedial measures as being a condition of the passing of a Coercion Bill. I thought my noble Friend a little

    331
    unkind in regard to the Motion for Adjournment made earlier in the evening. I did not approve of the Motion. I have never got up to support a Motion for Adjournment in my life, and never shall do so; but I thought my noble Friend was a little unkind in his criticisms, because that Motion gave an opportunity to my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham to make a speech upon the question of the crofters, which was raised by the Motion. Now, I think it is right it should be understood exactly what is asked, and what is refused. What is asked is one night more—that was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lothian, and also by the hon. Member for Cork—one night more to discuss the character of the remedial measures. ["No, no!"] What is the use of saying "No, no," when everybody knows that is what is asked? The Gentlemen who cry "No, no" cannot have heard the statements of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cork. What is asked is one night more to discuss the remedial measures of the Government in their bearing upon this measure of coercion. The remedial measures were only introduced into the other House of Parliament last night. They can only be examined, of course, by Members with the Bill before them. If the present demand is refused, it can only be because the persons who support this Motion are determined to vote for coercion at any risk, and whatever the character of the remedial measures may be.
    MR. PICTON: Sir, I must protest against the reproach addressed by the noble Marquess the Member for Rossendale to the Irish Members on account of the part they took at the beginning of this evening in supporting the Motion for the Adjournment of the House. Those hon. Gentleman rose in defence of a kindred people. The Highlanders of Scotland speak practically the same language as themselves, they are of the same origin, and they are suffering under almost precisely the same wrongs. I, therefore, cannot think it was fair of the noble Marquess to reproach them. I consider that they showed great self-sacrifice in devoting a part of the time of this evening to the subject raised by the hon. Member for
    332
    Caithness (Dr. Clark). Besides, the Motion for Adjournment was supported by the Colleague and ally of the noble Marquess, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain). But, Sir, as to the necessity of adjourning this debate, I contend that new matter has been brought before the House that demands delay for consideration. Why, Sir, the cases that were raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) have been contradicted, have been disproved, have been utterly scattered by the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) this evening. Of the alleged failures of conviction, for instance, out of the four cases mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. J. Balfour), three were disproved by the hon. Member for Cork. I can only say, that the case raised by the hon. Member for Cork and the new information given to the House does demand a better answer than has been given and more time for consideration.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I am very glad indeed that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton) has made a very proper reply to the most unfair taunt of the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington). It is very easy in cases of this kind for a person of £40,000 a-year to attack the Representatives of the poor, humble crofters. I maintain that we would have been false to our position as Irish Members if we had not shown sympathy with the people who are practically the same as ourselves in blood, and who suffer from exactly the same oppression as we do. I shall leave that point simply by saying that—after the experience we have had of a small group of Members vainly endeavouring to bring political grievances before the House, and of being treated with contumely until the matter assumed such proportions that statesmen themselves could not any longer ignore it—we should have been false to the peasants who sent us here if we had refused to support the demand of the hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark). I very much regret the course taken by the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) in refusing to give any further opportunity of debate. I think that, to a great ex-

    333
    tent, we may attribute that to the line lately taken by Members of the Government in supplying their own agents in the Press with statements as to how long the debate should last, and as to what views were taken by the Government Bench, and as to what views they falsely attributed to those in authority in the House. We are discussing on the present occasion a great International question between the two countries, and the interference of newspapers—[Cries of "Question!"] It is the question, I maintain that if newspapers were to write with regard to decisions which are given, or which are to be given, by Courts of Law, in the same way as they write respecting matters which are to be brought before the House of Commons—Renewed cries of "Question!"] I am dealing with the Question—they would be at once cast for contempt of Court. I deprecate also the course some hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite, of some six or eight months' experience in this House, take in calling out "Question" and in rising to points of Order—
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. and learned Gentleman is not now confining himself to the Question before the House.
    MR. T. M. HEALYI regret, Mr. Speaker, I was drawn astray by way of rebuke to hon. Gentlemen opposite. I maintain that the endeavour to provoke speedy conclusions of debates by the system of manipulating the Press which has been introduced by gentlemen connected with the Government since the Clôture Rule was passed, must lead to the greatest mischief. Upon what ground do we ask for an adjournment of the present debate. The First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) said that if my hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), or my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton), or any other Gentleman on these Benches, had intervened in this debate, he would have been heard with great patience. No doubt he would. But he would have taken up time which had been occupied by the Member for some English constituency, whose voice naturally commended itself in a greater degree to the attention of Englishmen than the voice of an Irish Member would. And now, for
    334
    the first time, we are anxious for the free play of English opinion upon Irish questions; and we are told, forsooth, that we should have risen as Irish Members, and not have allowed English Members to be heard. I entirely repudiate that, view. We are anxious to hear English Members, and more than that, our constituents in Ireland would a thousand times prefer that we should sit silent if it were necessary in order to enable English Members to be heard. That is one of the reasons why in this debate, which has already proceeded for four or five nights, my hon. Friends, although they could bring an enormous amount of knowledge to bear upon the discussion, have not ventured to endeavour to shut out English Members from addressing the House. Under these circumstances, I would ask the House if it is fair, when we have a Bill which is to last, not three years, or 30 years, or 300, or 3,000, but for ever—is it fair on an occasion when, for the first time since the Union was carried, those who approve of that Union should demand that the Irish Members should be clôtured after a single week's debate on the first reading? And why? The reason for the demand for the closure of the debate is in order that the Bill may be rushed through the House; and next week, when the Chief Secretary comes forward to move the second reading, he will probably content himself by formally taking off his hat. This is part of a preliminary arrangement for clôturing the debate on the second reading. Therefore, if the Irish Members consented now without a protest to the closure of debate, we may be making out a case for the Government some day next week to close the debate on the second reading, after a few nights' discussion. They will be prepared to say—"You have already had five nights' debate on the first reading, and surely you may put up with a considerable less amount of time for the discussion of the second reading." Now, that is not the way to treat questions of this kind, when the Irish Members are anxious to discuss the grievances of the people they represent. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) says that my hon. Friend the Member for Cork did not take up much time in discussing the remedial proposals of the Government; but I would remind the House that my

    335
    hon. Friend had no sooner ventured to enter upon that line of discussion than the Chief Secretary, in the most churlish manner, rose to Order. Let me tell the tight hon. Gentleman that if he is Anxious to maintain his relations with the Irish people, the way to gain their respect and confidence is not, on a Motion of this kind, when a debate of the greatest importance is proceeding, to endeavour to stop the leader of 5,000,000 of people by rising to Order.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I did not rise to Order for the purpose of stopping the hon. Member for Cork, but I rose to put a question to the Speaker—whether, if the hon. Member went into details upon the Land Question, I should be allowed the power of replying to him.
    MR. T. M. HEALYI interpreted the remark of the right hon. Gentleman in that way. I looked upon it as a "friendly lead," as it is called—a sort of suggestion that my hon. Friend was straying from the Question.
    MR. SPEAKERI must remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that by the Standing Order, the debate on a Motion for Adjournment must be strictly confined to that Question.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I think I was quite in Order in explaining why it was that my hon. Friend the Member for Cork did not endeavour to deal with that Question. Of course, after the intimation you have given, I will at once pass from that subject. We have now in the course of debate in this country two great questions on which the passions of Irishmen are aroused—namely, the question of land and the question of coercion. If the hon. Gentlemen opposite desire the amity and friendship of the Irish people, I cannot understand why the noble Marquess and his Friends, or rather his Colleagues opposite, should resist the demand of five-sixths of the Irish people, and declare that on an occasion of this kind the debate ought at once to be stopped. Time is not the essence of the question. The Government allowed day after day to lapse, and made no attempt to bring in their Bill. They occupied nearly a month in discussing questions wholly irrelevant to the present subject. They occupied a month on the first rule of procedure, whereas if they had been as anxious as
    336
    they profess they would have brought in this Bill much more speedily, and would not grudge us at the present moment the single additional day claimed by my hon. Friend for the prolongation of this debate. If, instead of 85 Irish Members claiming an adjournment of a Question so important to the people they represent, we had the English or Scotch Members claiming an adjournment, I do not believe there would be any attempt to close the debate. We hear a great deal, on occasions like the present, of the anxiety which possesses the English breast to heal up the wounds of Ireland; and yet when we seek to lay our views before the House, we are met with the most strenuous attempts to close our mouths, and that, too, on an occasion when the Government are proposing to introduce a measure affecting the lives and interests of the Irish people for future generations. It is proposed that the first reading of such a Bill and the policy of the Government are to be inaugurated by closing the mouths of the Representatives of the people who will be most seriously affected.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 254; Noes 361: Majority 107—(Div. List, No.84.)
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. DILLWYN: At this time of the morning I do not think we ought to continue the discussion upon so important a question as that which has been brought before the House by the hon. Member for Cork. An Amendment has been moved relating to the whole condition of Ireland, and upon it only a few speeches have been made. As I think the magnitude of the Question entitles it to further consideration than can be given to it at this hour (1.50), I beg to move the adjournment of the House.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— (Sir. Dillwyn.)
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I venture to hope that the discussion may be allowed to continue, after the very marked and conclusive manner in which the House has just expressed its opinion on Division. I

    337
    appeal to the right hon. Gentleman opposite to use his influence to save the House from the necessity of dividing again on the question of adjournment, against which the opinion of the House has been so conclusively given, and by which no good end can be attained.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I am aware that by the vote I shall give, if the present Motion is pressed to a Division, I shall lay myself open to the charge of obstruction. It has never been my habit to delay measures which, in my opinion, are useful or necessary; but I feel we have a distinct case for asking for another night's discussion on this question. We are told that the proposals of the Government with regard to land in Ireland have nothing to do with the present question, and ought not to affect it; but I reply that from the other side the House has had repeatedly put before it the proposition that this measure is simply one of expediency. It is said that the question of Ireland is already—
    MR. SPEAKERI must point out to the hon. Gentleman that he is not confining his remarks to the Question before the House.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I regret that I have transgressed the Rule of Debate in my endeavour to give my reasons for supporting the Motion of the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn). My reason is that a distinctly new element has been introduced into the debate. I quite agree that it is not usual to move the adjournment of the House on the first reading of a Bill; but that is when a primâ facie ease has been made out. I was perfectly willing to admit, up to a certain time to-night, that a primâ facie case had been made out; but the speech of the hon. Member for Cork has altered that opinion. That speech has appealed to us so forcibly as to make us feel that one more night, at least, even if it be on Saturday, should be devoted to the question of the first reading of this Bill. It is no ordinary Bill which, is before the House. No doubt, it is an extreme measure to oppose a first reading; but when the first reading of this Bill has been passed, I believe that circumstances will press forward the Government faster than they anticipate. The whole aspect of the Irish Question will be altered, and
    338
    we know that then the Government, in their own defence, will be obliged to press forward the remaining stages of this Bill. It is for that reason I think we are entitled to continue the debate on the question of the first reading another day.
    MR. ANDERSON, rose to address the House. His remarks, supposed to be in support of the Motion for Adjournment, were rendered inaudible by cries from the Ministerial Benches.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I rise, Mr. Speaker, to say a word in the belief that courtesy requires it, although it is not an agreeable choice that is put forward when the alternative lies between silence or a verbal answer on a question on which I am not able to agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I find, on thinking over the appeal that the right hon. Gentleman has made, that he has furnished me with one argument, and it is this—if I thought that the speech of the hon. Member for Cork contained no argument that had not been answered by Her Majesty's Government, then I think we should have no reason to complain of the course they propose to take. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to me fundamentally to mistake the character of debates in this House. He appears to think that it is the privilege, and propriety as it were, of each side of the House to consider in what degree their interest is affected, or otherwise, by sufficiency or insufficiency of speeches. I take a totally different view of the matter. My view is this. Her Majesty's Government have made a most important proposal to the House. There having been a most powerful impeachment of that proposal—an impeachment, as I think, to the total destruction of the original proposal—by the leading Representative of the Irish people, it is due, not merely from the Government to themselves, but from the Government to the entire House and to the country, that an answer should be made. With regard to other matters, I must frankly tell the right hon. Gentleman that the system of extreme and unprecedented pressure which has been applied, and which, it appears, is to be continued to be applied to very large bodies of Members in this House, and to the Irish Members who are not so

    339
    large a body, will have special and peculiar interest. If I saw on the part of the Government a disposition to allow a reasonable interval for consideration conformable with Parliamentary precedent, I should gladly respond to the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman by acting in the sense he desires; but by this system of pressure he renders me certainly totally powerless for the purpose.
    DR. KENNY: I would point out to Her Majesty's Government that I am one of those Members from Ireland who take a deep interest in this matter, which is one of the greatest importance to the Irish people. I am one of those Members who have a right to speak upon it, but who will be refused the opportunity of doing so if the debate is closed to-night. I think the Government are by no means carrying out the contract they entered into in passing the Closure Rule by using the Rule to close a debate of such vast importance to Ireland without allowing a greater number of Representatives from that country to express their views. My hon. Friend the Member for the Harbour Division of Dublin (Mr. T. Harrington) offered a most interesting and able defence this evening of the National League, of which he is a member and the law adviser. But I also occupy a position in regard to the Body now threatened with extinction by the Government which gives me the right to express an opinion upon the subject. This is the only opportunity I have had, owing to the action of the Government, to say a single word on the question. It seems to me beyond all precedent, and beyond all the limits of everything like fair play, that the Government should close a debate, or attempt, as they are now doing, to force the closing of a debate of such great importance to the Members of this House, and involving principles so dear, I will not say alone to Irishmen, but to Englishmen also, without giving us full and ample opportunity for discussing the question in all its bearings. I do hope that the words which have fallen with reference to the Motion now before the House from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian may have some effect upon Her Majesty's Government in inducing them to allow the Motion to pass, and that they will not press by means of a
    340
    brute majority, and by force alone, and not by force of argument—that they will not press upon us the closure of this debate. Sir, I am well aware that no appeal of mine, or any Member who occupies as humble a position as I do, can have any effect on Her Majesty's Government; but I feel I should not be doing my duty to those who sent me hero and to my country, if I did not protest in the most solemn manner against the pressure of this Motion on the present occasion.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 253; Noes 361: Majority 108.—(Div. List, No. 85.)
    Original Question again proposed.
    Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITHrose in his place, and claimed to move "That the Question be now put."
    Question put accordingly, "That the Question be now put."
    The House divided:—Ayes 361; Noes 253: Majority 108.

    AYES.

    Addison, J. E. W.

    Blundell, Colonel H. B. H.

    Agg-Gardner, J. T.

    Ainslie, W. G.

    Bond, G. H.

    Ambrose, W.

    Bonsor, H. C. O.

    Amherst, W. A. T.

    Boord, T. W.

    Anstruther, Colonel R. H. L.

    Borthwick, Sir A.

    Bridgeman, Col. hon. F. C.

    Anstruther, H. T.

    Ashmead-Bartlett, E.

    Bright, right hon. J.

    Atkinson, H. J.

    Bristowe, T. L.

    Baden-Powell, G. S.

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

    Baggallay, E.

    Bailey, Sir J. E.

    Brookfield, Col. A. M.

    Baird, J. G. A.

    Brown, A. H.

    Balfour, rt. hon. A. J.

    Bruce, Lord H.

    Balfour, G. W.

    Buchanan, T. B.

    Banes, Major G. E.

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

    Baring, Viscount

    Barnes, A.

    Burghley, Lord

    Barry, A. H. Smith-

    Caine, W. S.

    Bartley, G. C. T.

    Caldwell, J.

    Bass, H.

    Campbell, Sir A.

    Bates, Sir E.

    Campbell, R. P. F.

    Baumann, A. A.

    Chamberlain, rt. hn. J.

    Beach, W. W. B.

    Chamberlain, E.

    Beadel, W. J.

    Chaplin, right hon. H.

    Beaumont, H. F.

    Charrington, S.

    Beckett, E. W.

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

    Beckett, W.

    Bective, Earl of

    Clarke, Sir E. G.

    Bentinck, Lord H. C.

    Cochrane-Baillie, hon.

    Bentinck, rt. hn. G. C.

    C. W. A. N.

    Bentinck, W. G. C.

    Coddington, W.

    Beresford, Lord C. W. de la Poer

    Coghill, D. H.

    Collings, J.

    Bethell, Commander G. R.

    Colomb, Capt. J. C. E.

    Commerell, Adml. Sir J. E.

    Bickford-Smith, W.

    Biddulph, M.

    Cooke, C. W. E.

    Bigwood, J.

    Corbett, A. C.

    Birkbeck, Sir E.

    Corbett, J.

    341

    Corry, Sir J. P.

    Gibson, J. G.

    Cotton, Capt. E. T. D.

    Giles, A.

    Courtney, L. H.

    Gilliat, J. S.

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Godson, A. F.

    Cross, H. S.

    Goldsmid, Sir J.

    Crossley, Sir S. B.

    Goldsworthy, Major-

    Crossman, Gen. Sir W.

    General W. T.

    Cubitt, right hon. G.

    Gorst, Sir J. E.

    Currie, Sir D.

    Goschen, rt. hn. G. J.

    Carzon, Viscount

    Gray, C. W.

    Curzon, hon. G. N.

    Green, Sir E.

    Dalrymple, C.

    Greenall, Sir G.

    Davenport, H. T.

    Greene, E.

    Davenport, W. B.

    Grimston, Viscount

    Dawnay, Colonel hon. L. P.

    Grove, Sir T. F.

    Gurdon, R. T.

    De Cobain, E. S. W.

    Hall, A. W.

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

    Hall, C.

    Halsey, T. F.

    De Worms, Baron R.

    Hambro, Col. C. J. T.

    Dickson, Major A. G.

    Hamilton, right hon. Lord G. F.

    Dimsdale, Baron R.

    Dixon, G.

    Hamilton, Lord E.

    Dixon-Hartland, F. D.

    Hamilton, Col. C. E.

    Dorington, Sir J. E.

    Hamley, General Sir E. B.

    Dugdale, J. S.

    Duncan, Colonel F.

    Hankey, F. A.

    Duncombe, A.

    Hardcastle, E.

    Dyke, right hon. Sir W. H.

    Hardcastle, F.

    Hartington, Marq. of

    Eaton, H. W.

    Hastings, G. W.

    Ebrington, Viscount

    Havelock - Allan, Sir H. M.

    Edwards-Moss, T. C.

    Egerton, hon. A. de T.

    Heath, A R.

    Elcho, Lord

    Heathcote, Capt. J. H. Edwards-

    Elliot, hon. A. R. D.

    Elliot, hon. H. F. H.

    Heaton, J. H.

    Elliot, Sir G.

    Heneage, right hon. E.

    Elliot, G. W.

    Hermon-Hodge, R. T.

    Ellis, Sir J. W.

    Hervey, Lord F.

    Elton, C. I.

    Hill, right hon. Lord A. W.

    Evelyn, W. J.

    Ewart, W.

    Hill, Colonel E. S.

    Ewing, Sir A. O.

    Hill, A. S.

    Eyre, Colonel H.

    Hingley, B.

    Feilden, Lt.-Gen. R. J.

    Hoare, S.

    Followes, W. H.

    Hobhouse, H.

    Fergusson, right hon. Sir J.

    Holland, right hon. Sir H. T.

    Field, Admiral E.

    Holloway, G.

    Fielden, T.

    Holmes, rt. hon. H.

    Finch, G. H.

    Hornby, W. H.

    Finch-Hatton, hon. M. E. G.

    Houldsworth, W. H.

    Howard, J.

    Finlay, R. B.

    Howard, J. M.

    Fisher, W. H.

    Howorth, H. H.

    Fitzgerald, R. U. P.

    Hozier, J. H. C.

    Fitz-Wygram, Gen. Sir F. W.

    Hubbard, rt. hn. J. G.

    Hubbard, E.

    Fletcher, Sir H.

    Hughes, Colonel E.

    Folkestone, right hon. Viscount

    Hughes - Hallett, Col. F. C.

    Forwood, A. B.

    Hulse, E. H.

    Fowler, Sir R. N.

    Hunt, F. S.

    Fraser, General C. C.

    Hunter, Sir W. G.

    Fry, L.

    Isaacs, L. H.

    Fulton, J. F.

    Isaacson, F. W.

    Gardner, R. Richardson-

    Jackson, W. L.

    James, rt. hon. Sir H.

    Gathorne-Hardy, hon. A. E.

    Jardine, Sir R.

    Jarvis, A. W.

    Gedge, S.

    Jennings, L. J.

    Gent-Davis. R.

    Johnston, W.

    342

    Kelly, J. R.

    Northcote, hon. H. S.

    Kennaway, Sir J. H.

    Norton, R.

    Kenrick, W.

    O'Neill, hon. R. T.

    Kenyon, hon. G. T.

    Paget, Sir R. H.

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.

    Parker, hon. F.

    Pearce, W.

    Ker, R, W. B.

    Pelly, Sir L.

    Kerans, F. H.

    Penton, Captain F. T.

    Kimber, H.

    Pitt-Lewis, G.

    King, H. S.

    Plunket, right hon. D. R.

    King-Harman, Colonel E. R.

    Plunkett, hon. J. W.

    Knatchbull-Hugessen, H. T.

    Pomfret, W. P.

    Powell, F. S.

    Knowles, L.

    Price, Captain G. E.

    Kynoch, G.

    Puleston, J. H.

    Lafone, A.

    Quilter, W. C.

    Laurie, Colonel R. P.

    Raikes, rt. hon. H. C.

    Lawrance, J. C.

    Rankin, J.

    Lawrence, Sir J. J. T.

    Rasch, Major F. C.

    Lawrence, W. F.

    Reed, H. B.

    Lea, T.

    Richardson, T.

    Lechmere, Sir E. A. H.

    Ridley, Sir M. W.

    Ritchie, rt. hn. C. T.

    Lees, E.

    Robertson, J. P. B.

    Legh, T. W.

    Robertson, W. T.

    Leighton, S.

    Robinson, B.

    Lethbridge, Sir R.

    Rollit, Sir A. K.

    Lewis, Sir O. C. E.

    Ross, A. H.

    Lewisham, right hon. Viscount

    Rothschild, Baron F. J. de

    Llewellyn, E. H.

    Round, J.

    Long, W. H.

    Royden, T. B.

    Low, M.

    Russell, Sir G.

    Lowther, J. W.

    Russell, T. W.

    Lowther, hon. W.

    St. Aubyn, Sir J.

    Lubbock, Sir J.

    Salt, T.

    Lymington, Viscount

    Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. M.

    Macartney, W. G. E.

    Macdonald, right hon. J. H. A.

    Saunderson, Col. E. J.

    Sclater-Booth, rt. hn. G.

    Maclean, F. W.

    Maclean, J. M.

    Sellar, A. C.

    Maclure, J. W.

    Selwin - Ibbetson, rt. hon. Sir H. J.

    M'Calmont, Captain J.

    M'Garel-Hogg, Sir J.

    Selwyn, Captain C. W.

    Makins, Colonel W. T.

    Seton-Karr, H.

    Malcolm, Col. J. W.

    Shaw-Stewart, M. H

    Mallock, R.

    Sidebotham, J. W.

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

    Sidebottom, T. H.

    Sidebottom, W.

    March, Earl of

    Sinclair, W. P.

    Marriott, rt. hn. W. T.

    Smith, rt. hn. W. H

    Maskelyne, M. H. N. Story-

    Smith, A.

    Spencer, J. E.

    Matthews, rt. hn. H.

    Stanhope, rt. hon. E.

    Maxwell, Sir H. E.

    Stanley, E. J.

    Mayne, Admiral R. C.

    Stewart, M.

    Mildmay, F. B.

    Sutherland, T.

    Milvain, T.

    Swetenham, E.

    More, R. J.

    Sykes, C.

    Morrison, W.

    Talbot, C. R. M.

    Mount, W. G.

    Talbot, J. G.

    Mowbray, rt. hon. Sir J. R.

    Tapling, T. K.

    Taylor, F.

    Mowbray, R. G. C.

    Temple, Sir R.

    Mulholland, H. L.

    Theobald, J.

    Muncaster, Lord

    Thorburn, W.

    Muntz, P. A.

    Tollemache, H. J.

    Murdoch, C. T.

    Tomlinson, W. E. M

    Newark, Viscount

    Tottenham, A. L.

    Noble, W.

    Townsend, F.

    Norris, E. S.

    Trotter, H. J.

    343

    Tyler, Sir H. W.

    Wiggin, H.

    Verdin, E.

    Williams, J. Powell-

    Vernon, hon. G. R.

    Wilson, Sir S.

    Vincent, C. E. H.

    Winn, hon. R.

    Walsh, hon. A. H. J.

    Wodehouse, E. E.

    Waring, Colonel T.

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Watkin, Sir E. W.

    Wood, N.

    Watson, J.

    Wortley, O. B. Stuart-

    Webster, Sir R. E.

    Wright, H. S.

    Webster, R. G.

    Wroughton, P.

    West, Colonel W. C.

    Yerburgh, R. A.

    Weymouth, Viscount

    Young, C. E. B.

    Wharton, J. L.

    White, J. B.

    TELLERS.

    Whitley, E.

    Douglas, A. Akers-

    Whitmore, C. A.

    Walrond, Col. W. H.

    NOES.

    Abraham, W. (Glam.)

    Craven, J.

    Abraham, W. (Limerick, W.)

    Crawford, D.

    Crawford, W.

    Acland, A. H. D.

    Cremer, W. R.

    Acland, C. T. D.

    Crossley, E.

    Allison, R. A.

    Deasy, J.

    Anderson, C. H.

    Dillon, J.

    Asher, A.

    Dillwyn, L. L.

    Asquith, H. H.

    Dodds, J.

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Duff, R. W.

    Austin, J.

    Ellis, J.

    Balfour, Sir G.

    Ellis, J. E.

    Balfour, rt. hon. J. B.

    Ellis, T. E.

    Barbour, W. B.

    Esslemont, P.

    Barran, J.

    Evershed, S.

    Beaumont, W. B.

    Farquharson, Dr. R.

    Biggar, J. G.

    Penwick, C.

    Blake, J. A.

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro-

    Blake, T.

    Finucane, J.

    Blane, A.

    Flower, C.

    Bolton, J. O.

    Flynn, J. C.

    Bolton, T. D.

    Foley, P. J.

    Bradlaugh, C.

    Foljambe, C. G. S.

    Bright, Jacob

    Forster, Sir C.

    Bright, W. L.

    Forster, Sir W. B.

    Broadhurst, H.

    Fowler, rt. hon. H. H.

    Brown, A. L.

    Fox, Dr. J. F.

    Bruce, hon. R. P.

    Fry, T.

    Bryce, J.

    Fuller, G. P.

    Buxton, S. C.

    Gane, J. L.

    Byrne, G. M.

    Gardner, H.

    Cameron, C.

    Gaskell, C. G. Milnes-

    Campbell, Sir G.

    Gilhooly, J.

    Campbell, H.

    Gill, H. J.

    Campbell-Bannerman, right hon. H.

    Gill, T. P.

    Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

    Carew, J. L.

    Gladstone, H. J.

    Chance, P. A.

    Gourley, E. T.

    Channing, F. A.

    Graham, R. C.

    Childers, right hon. H. C. E.

    Gray, E. D.

    Grey, Sir E.

    Clancy, J. J.

    Gully, W. C.

    Clark, Dr. G. B.

    Haldane, R. B.

    Cobb, H. P.

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

    Cohen, A.

    Coleridge, hon. B.

    Harrington, E.

    Colman, J. J.

    Harrington, T. C.

    Commins, A.

    Hayden, L. P.

    Conway, M.

    Hayne, C. Seale-

    Conybeare, C. A. V.

    Healy, M.

    Corbet, W. J.

    Healy, T. M.

    Cossham, H.

    Holden, I.

    Cox, J. R.

    Hooper, J.

    Cozens-Hardy, H. H.

    Howell, G.

    Craig, J.

    Hoyle, I.

    344

    Hunter, W. A.

    Pease, A. E.

    Illingworth, A.

    Pease, H. F.

    Jacoby, J. A.

    Pickard, B.

    James, hon. W. H.

    Pickersgill, E. H.

    James, C. H.

    Picton, J. A.

    Joicey, J.

    Pinkerton, J.

    Jordan, J.

    Playfair, rt. hon. Sir L.

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

    Plowden, Sir W. C.

    Kennedy, E. J.

    Portman, hon. E. B.

    Kenny, C. S.

    Potter, T. B.

    Kenny, J. E.

    Power, P. J.

    Kenny, M. J.

    Power, R.

    Kilcoursie, right hon. Viscount

    Price, T. P.

    Priestley, B.

    Labouchere, H.

    Provand, A. D.

    Lacaita, C. C.

    Pugh, D.

    Lalor, R.

    Pyne, J. D.

    Lane, W. J.

    Quinn, T.

    Lawson, H. L. W.

    Rathbone, W.

    Leahy, J.

    Redmond, J. E.

    Leake, R.

    Redmond, W. H. K.

    Lefevre, right hon. G. J. S.

    Reed, Sir E. J.

    Reid, E. T.

    Lewis, T. P.

    Rendel, S.

    Lockwood, F.

    Richard, H.

    Lyell, L.

    Roberts, J.

    Macdonald, W. A.

    Robertson, E.

    MacInnes, M.

    Robinson, T.

    Mac Neill, J. G. S.

    Roe, T.

    M'Arthur, A.

    Roscoe, Sir H. E.

    M'Cartan, M.

    Rowlands, J.

    M'Carthy, J.

    Rowlands, W. B.

    M'Carthy, J. H.

    Rowntree, J.

    M'Donald, P.

    Russell, Sir C.

    M'Donald, Dr. R.

    Russell, E. R.

    M'Ewan, W.

    Samuelson, Sir B.

    M'Kenna, Sir J. N.

    Schwann, C. E.

    M'Lagan, P.

    Sexton, T.

    M'Laren, W. S. B.

    Shaw, T.

    Mahony, P.

    Sheehan, J. D.

    Maitland, W. F.

    Sheil, E.

    Mappin, Sir F. T.

    Shirley, W. S.

    Marum, E. M.

    Smith, S.

    Mason, S.

    Spencer, hon. C. E.

    Mayne, T.

    Stack, J.

    Menzies, R. S.

    Stanhope, hon. P. J.

    Molloy, B. C.

    Stansfeld, right hon. J.

    Montagu, S.

    Morgan, rt. hon. G. O.

    Stepney-Cowell, Sir A. K.

    Morgan, O. V.

    Morley, rt. hon. J.

    Stevenson, F. S.

    Mundella, right hon. A. J.

    Stevenson, J. C.

    Storey, S.

    Murphy, W. M.

    Stuart, J.

    Neville, R.

    Sullivan, D.

    Newnes, G.

    Summers, W.

    Nolan, Colonel J. P.

    Sutherland, A.

    Nolan, J.

    Swinburne, Sir J.

    O'Brien, J. F. X.

    Tanner, C. K.

    O'Brien, P.

    Thomas, A.

    O'Brien, P. J.

    Tuite, J.

    O'Connor, A.

    Vivian, Sir H. H.

    O'Connor, J. (Kerry)

    Waddy, S. D.

    O'Connor, J. (Tippry.)

    Wallace, R.

    O'Connor, T. P.

    Wardle, H.

    O'Hanlon, T.

    Warmington, C. M.

    O'Hea, P.

    Watt, H.

    O'Kelly, J.

    Wayman, T.

    Palmer, Sir C. M.

    Whitbread, S.

    Parnell, C. S.

    Will, J. S.

    Paulton, J. M.

    Williams, A. J.

    Pease, Sir J. W.

    Williamson, J.

    345

    Williamson, S.

    Wright, C.

    Wilson, H. J.

    Yeo, F. A.

    Wilson, I.

    Winterbotham, A. B.

    TELLERS.

    Woodall, W.

    Marjoribanks, rt. hon. E.

    Woodhead, J.

    Morley, A.

    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
    Main Question put.
    Ordered, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make better provision for the prevention and punishment of Crime in Ireland; and for other purposes relating thereto, and that Mr. Arthur Balfour, Mr. Secretary Matthews, Mr. Attorney General, and Mr. Attorney General for Ireland do prepare and bring it in.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 217.]

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Long, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the Local Government District of Aldershot, the Improvement Act District of Bethesda, the Local Government District of Bridlington, the Borough of Cheltenham, the Local Government District of Epsom, the Special Drainage District of Merton Rush, the Local Government District of Pontypool, the Borough of Saint Helen's, and the Improvement Act District of Surbiton, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Long and Mr. Ritchie. Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 216.]
    House adjourned at a quarter before Three o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading— Army (Annual) * (55); Merchant Shipping (Fishing Boats) Acts Amendment* (51).
Committee—Railway and Canal Traffic (32–60).
Committee—Report—Sheriffs (Consolidation) * (50); County Courts (Expenses)* (48).
Third Reading—Church Patronage * (52); Lunacy* (8), and passed.

IRISH LAND LAW BILL.

  QUESTION.
  LORD BRABOURNEbegged to ask the Lord Privy Seal a Question, of which he had given him private Notice. In the report of the able speech of his noble Friend on the previous evening, in introducing the Irish Land Law Bill, he was represented in the usual channels of information as having said that the clauses relating to equitable jurisdiction would only be applicable to holdings of an annual value of more than £25; as, from the general tenour of the observations of his noble Friend, he (Lord Brabourne) thought there must have been some misapprehension upon this point, he wished to ask for an explanation.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Earl CADOGAN): The Question of my noble Friend gives me an opportunity, of which I am glad to avail myself, of explaining the point to which I have referred. There has certainly been some mistake in what I am supposed to have said with reference to the value of holdings to which the equitable jurisdiction clauses of the Irish Land Bill will refer. Those clauses will be limited in their application to all holdings the rent of which does not exceed £50 a-year.

  RAILWAY AND CANAL TRAFFIC BILL
  (The Lord Stanley of Preston.)
  (NO. 32.) COMMITTEE.
  House again in Committee (according to Order).

  PART II.—TRAFFIC.
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORD, in moving the insertion of a clause before Clause 24, said, that the cost of providing stations was mentioned in the Bill as being a legitimate subject for making terminal charges. The object of the Amendment was to define what charges were to be included in the maximum rate or toll. The effect would be to restore the law to what it had been before the decision in Hall's case, by which the decision of the House of Lords had been reversed by an inferior Court, to the great alarm and dismay of all traders. An expensive station might be erected and the rates thereby materially increased on all classes of goods, although some of them might not benefit in any way by the erection of a station. It seemed to him that a classification covered terminal charges.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 7, line 26, after ("Part II. Traffic") insert following clause:—"23A. The maximum toll, rate, or charge contained in every Act of Parliament relating to railways and canals in the United Kingdom shall include the charges for station accommodation, use of sidings, weighing, checking, clerkage, lighting, watching, and labelling goods, and no railway company or canal company shall be entitled to make any additional charges for such services or any of them.
  "Section two of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1854, shall hereafter be read and construed as if the words 'and provide all reasonable works, machinery, and conveniences' were inserted in the said section immediately after the word 'facilities' and before the words 'for the receiving and forwarding and delivery of traffic'"—(The Earl of Crawford.)
  LORD BRABOURNEsaid, that the 43rd clause contained a definition of "terminal charges," and it would be far more convenient if his noble Friend would postpone the discussion upon this point until the Committee had arrived at that clause. By the 15th clause of the Railway and Canal Traffic Bill, 1873, the Commissioners were empowered to decide disputes as to terminal charges, and their jurisdiction was extended by Clause 10 of the present Bill. It was impossible to add the definitions proposed without creating confusion and inflicting injustice. There was no wish on the part of the Railway Companies to do anything dishonest; but a great many services were now performed by the Railway Companies which were not contemplated when the maximum rates were fixed, and in respect of which they were entitled to some remuneration. It appeared to him that there was no necessity for this new clause, and that the subject was sufficiently dealt with in other parts of the Bill, and, at all events, he urged that any discussion upon these points would be more fitly postponed until the Committee came to the Definition Clause.
  LORD HENNIKERsaid, he supported the Amendment, for he thought the law on the question of terminals was now in a most unsatisfactory condition, and it was desirable the matter should be dealt with. It was quite fair that Railway Companies should be allowed to charge for warehousing; but it was absolutely essential to have a clear definition in the Bill as to what terminal charges were to be.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he did not object to the principle of the noble Earl's Amendment; but noble Lords sitting in that part of the House were quite in the dark as to the exact nature of his proposal, as they could not hear his statement, and the clause was not on the Paper.
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid, he was not at all sure that the clause, as now framed, would carry out the object the noble Earl had in view, as it would only apply to future Acts of Parliament, and not to those already in existence. With respect to the question of terminals, he (Lord Herschell) agreed that the law with respect to them was in a most unsatisfactory condition, and as it was very desirable that the question should
  190
  be settled it would be well that the Legislature should deal with them by the Bill.
  LORD BRAMWELLsaid, that the noble Earl's Amendment would have the effect of preventing all Railway Companies from making these charges, notwithstanding that it had been held that the London and Brighton Railway Company had a right, under the terms of their Act, to make terminal charges. The effect of the Amendment, therefore, would be to take from that Company a right which the law said they possessed. For himself, he should have thought that no Railway Company had power to make these charges at present, unless specially empowered by the Act.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he was decidedly of opinion that the subject might be more conveniently discussed when they came to the Definition Clause.
  LORD GRIMTHORPEsaid, he opposed the clause on the ground that it was a question which ought to be left to the Commissioners. They ought to have the power of saying whether station accommodation should be paid for or not.
  LORD MONK BRETTONsuggested that it should be left over for the Report.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Lord STANLEY of PRESTON)said, he fully concurred in the suggestion that that was not the most convenient way of discussing the question, which had better be left for the Definition Clause, or the Report.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, that his opinion was generally in favour of the noble Earl the Mover of the Amendment; but he thought that the least likely way for him to get his view adopted was to force their Lordships to a Division upon his clause.
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORDsaid, the object of the Amendment was to say what was not to be included in terminal charges. He did not desire to define what were to be terminal charges.
  LORD STANLEY OF PRESTONsaid, it would be very inconvenient if the Amendment were pressed at this stage. He would appeal to the noble Earl to withdraw it for the present, and to raise the question at the proper time—namely, on the Definition Clause.
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORDsaid, he would withdraw the Amendment, and move it again on the Report.

  191
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Clause 24 (Revised classification of traffic and schedule of rates).
  THE MARQUESS OF TWEEDDALE, in moving an Amendment to leave out the words "applicable thereto," in order to insert "equivalent to such rates and charges," said, he understood that the intention of the noble Lord in charge of the Bill was, that though the rates might be raised in some cases and lowered in others, yet, on the whole, the alteration should not prejudice the Railway Companies. The words "applicable thereto" did not seem to convey that intention very clearly, and he accordingly proposed the substitution of the words of the Amendment. That a new classification was necessary was not the fault of the Railway Companies, but was due to the fact that the present classification was not suitable to the circumstances of the time.
  Amendment moved, in page 8, line 34, leave out ("applicable thereto") and insert ("equivalent to such rates and charges.")—(The Marquess of Tweeddale.)
  LORD STANLEY OF PRESTONsaid, however desirous their Lordships might be not to interfere with the general result of the charges made, or with the rights of the Companies, on the faith of which so great an outlay had been made, he thought the words proposed were too limiting, and would bind more closely than was desirable. The proper words were, in his opinion, such classification as it would, in the opinion of the Board of Trade, be just and reasonable to substitute for the existing maximum rates and charges, having regard to the general result of such rates and charges. While he did not desire to act in a spirit different from that which the noble Marquess gave him credit for, he could not ask the House to accept the Amendment.
  LORD BRAMWELLsaid, the words proposed might not be the best, but they could not be worse than the words in the clause. It was very consolatory to him to learn that the noble Lord (Lord Stanley of Preston) did not propose to reduce the profits of the Railway Companies. It was certain now that Parliament had not reserved to itself the right to reduce those rates, and the only reason for doing so was the great con-
  192
  venience of doing wrong in the matter. He would like to ask the draftsman what definite idea he attached to the words "just and reasonable." What on earth were "just and reasonable charges" in the abstract? He knew what were just and reasonable charges in fact, and they were the charges which, by law, Companies were entitled to make. "Just and reasonable" were equivalent to "fair." Had not their Lordships had enough of that word? Similar difficulties as arose on this word would arise if the words "just and reasonable" remained in the clause.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY)said, that the noble and learned Lord (Lord Bramwell) argued that because the word "fair" in an Act of Parliament had given rise to difficulties, the interpretation of the words "just and reasonable" would occasion similar difficulties. The noble and learned Lord was somewhat sophistical. Would the noble and learned Lord venture to say that even now the Courts of Law had not often to determine the meaning of the phrase "just and reasonable?" His (the Marquess of Salisbury's) own impression was that they often had to do so; and there appeared nothing very extravagant in the idea that future Courts of Law might define it, even as past Courts of Law had already done: He sympathized with the general jealousy of the noble and learned Lord as to any interference with the rights of property; but care must be taken not to strain that principle too far. What had Parliament done with regard to the Railway Companies? It had taken away land belonging to other people and had given it to them at a certain price, and, at the same time, allowed them to charge certain rates in connection with the arrangement. By some that was regarded as a contract binding for all time, upon which those who took part in the enterprize had a right to depend; and if there were no other considerations to be borne in mind he should be very much inclined to share that opinion. But some weight should be given to the fact that Railway Companies were altogether artificial creations, and were, therefore, carried out of the field in which ordinary individuals were dealt with. The main point was,

  193
  that while there were a number of questions which the Board of Trade, as the organ of Parliament, might be fairly called upon to decide, their Lordships were not by this Bill giving any sanction whatever to the decisions at which the Board of Trade might arrive. All Parliament did was to tell the Board of Trade its opinion as to whether certain charges were, or were not, just and reasonable. If there were any charge which really injured the Railway Companies, or which vitiated the guarantee which Parliament had already given, Parliament would be called upon to refuse to enforce it, lest at some future time a fraud should be committed upon Railway Companies by a strained interpretation. But to refuse to allow the list to be prepared, lest Parliament should be weak enough to commit a fraud on the Railway Companies, appeared to be a very unnecessary distrust of their own Parliamentary powers.
  LORD STANLEY OF PRESTONaccepted the principle of the Amendment, and would be quite willing to insert the necessary words. He hoped, however, that it would be withdrawn, in order that some better form of words might be adopted.
  LORD GRIMTHORPE, having referred to the effect of the Act of 1844, said, that while the Bill might not, in direct words, give power to Parliament to reduce the rates of the Railway Companies, it did so in effect. Power would be given to the Board of Trade to recommend a Parliamentary Committee to reduce the rates; and what chance, he would like to know, would a Railway Company have of protecting its interests in a dispute of that kind coming before a promiscuous Committee, mainly consisting of persons who represented everyone but the Railway Companies. It went without saying that they could not put a check on future Parliaments; but he was very desirous to put a check on future Boards of Trade in regard to this matter. By the Act of 1844 it was provided that the rates of Railway Companies should not be reduced, so long as they did not exceed 10 per cent, and the Standing Clause, adopted concurrently with the Act, obviously referred to that revision, and was merely intended to prevent future Companies from slipping more words into their Acts which they might plead against it. Now
  194
  they barely turned 4 per cent; and if the Board of Trade were to have the power of general revision, they would be empowered to commit what was nothing less than a robbery of the Companies as proprietors of property valued at upwards of £800,000,000. He had an Amendment on the Paper, in words copied from the Act of 1844, that no revision should be made which would be likely to diminish the divisible profits of the Companies.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, that good causes sometimes suffered from over-zealous advocacy. He feared that was the position taken up by his noble and learned Friend (Lord Grimthorpe). He could not agree with his noble and learned Friend, and thought the words "just and reasonable" did afford some protection to the Companies. He was sure that none of their Lordships desired to injure the Railway Companies, in which so many of them were interested. The consideration of the Bill had drifted away from the particular Amendment into a general discussion, and he would suggest that the words "on the whole" should be prefixed to the words proposed to be inserted by his noble Friend. The words would then be—"On the whole equivalent to such rates and charges."
  THE MARQUESS OF TWEEDDALEsaid, that although he had no right to speak for the Railway Companies, he might mention that they had no desire whatever to strain their rights. It was quite possible that they were a little sensitive with regard to the interpretation of the words '' just and reasonable;'' but he did not think their Lordships need be much surprised at that. He was not wedded in any way to particular words of his Amendment; and as he understood the noble Lord the President of the Board of Trade had, in effect, accepted the principle of his proposal, he was prepared to withdraw it in favour of such more suitable words as might be suggested.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOKhoped that, as the discussion had proceeded at such length, this point should be now settled. He might incidentally remark, in answer to an observation of the noble and learned Lord behind him (Lord Grimthorpe), that many of their Lordships had very considerable interest in Railway Companies. They, fortunately, had no desire to cheat them.
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 25 (Undue preference in case of unequal rates and charges and unequal services performed).
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORDsaid, he would move an Amendment with a view to guarding against agreements between a Company and a trader for a secret "drawback."
  Amendment moved,
  In page 9, line 25, after ("lower") insert ("or charges, and whether by way of rebate, discount, drawback, overweight, allowance or otherwise.")—(The Earl of Crawford.)
  LORD STANLEY OF PRESTONsaid, he must point out to his noble Friend that if it were entirely secret no Act of Parliament could affect it; but if it could be proved, then it would constitute an undue preference. He would add that the Commissioners had power to compel the Companies to produce their books.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  LORD BRABOURNEsaid, he would propose an Amendment, the object of which was to limit the operation of the clause relating to "undue preference" to "competing" traders. The clause was framed so as to throw the onus on the party accused of showing that he was not guilty. As this was contrary to the general policy of the English law, they ought to be as careful as possible what they admitted within that rule. The clause, as it stood, might work injustice. The Select Committee of 1882 had reported that "inequalities of charge"—that was, special rates—were often "to the advantage and not to the disadvantage of the public;" and this was undoubtedly the case, and one illustration would be better than a long argument. He knew of a case where a Railway Company charged 2s. 6d. a-ton for coals carried to one district, while to another district they charged 3s. 6d. In the one case a constant and large demand for coal by a particular trade justified the lower rate, whilst both rates were well within their legal maximum. In many instances there might very well be good reasons for this difference, such as difference of gradients or a smaller amount of traffic. If they were to say that there must be no difference between
  196
  rates to traders who were not competing, the simple result would be that the Rail way Company would raise its lower rate to the level of its higher one, by which action the trades which had been supplied at the lower rates might be crippled or destroyed. This was an instance of the difficulty of interfering with the details of the internal working of a great industrial undertaking, by which much mischief might be caused.
  Amendment moved, in page 9, line 27, leave out ("other"), and insert ("competing.")—(The Lord Brabourne.)
  LORD STANLEY OF PRESTONsaid, he was unable to see any advantage in the proposed Amendment, and he could not help thinking that it was also inconsistent with some of the clauses which their Lordships had already passed.
  LORD GRIMTHORPEsaid, if their Lordships remembered the enormous distances over which some railways extended, he thought they would agree that it did not signify to a trader at one end of the railway what rate a trader at the other end got his goods carried for, so long as he was not a competing trader.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEaid, the introduction of the word "competing" would deprive a private person of the advantage of the clause.
  Amendment negatived.
  THE EARL OF JERSEY, in moving, as an Amendment, to omit Sub-section 2, which was as follows:—
  "In deciding whether a lower charge or difference of treatment does or does not amount to an undue preference, the Court having jurisdiction in the matter, or the Commissioners, as the case may be, may, so far as they think reasonable, in addition to any other considerations affecting the case, take into consideration whether such lower charge or difference of treatment is necessary for the purpose of securing the traffic in respect of which it is made,"
  said, that his object in making this provision was to withhold from the Railway Companies the power of favouring one district at the expense of another, and of giving undue preference to the carriage of foreign produce over our own. If this sub-section remained in the Bill, it would, to a great extent, nullify the 1st sub-section, which was aimed at undue preference. As an instance of the undue preference that now prevailed, he might mention that, whereas the

  197
  Railway Companies charged 25s. per ton for the conveyance of foreign meat from Liverpool to London, they charged no less than 50s. per ton for the carriage of English, meat. That was not reasonable treatment which the English trader could put up with. Undue preference was contrary to the Act of 1854; but if this sub-section were passed it would give Parliamentary sanction to what had hitherto been contrary to the intentions of Parliament. He did not urge that there should be equal mileage rate; but he contended that the Commission should be empowered to consider whether every preference was undue or unreasonable. If there were many cases such as he had quoted still in existence, it was not surprising that the great majority of the trading public wore of opinion that these rates were contrary to justice. A simple rule ought to be laid down that Railway Companies should not have power to favour one district at the expense of another, or give facilities to one trader that they denied to others, or grant ''most favoured nation "treatment to foreign produce.
  Amendment moved, in page 9, line 35, leave out Sub-section (2).—(The Earl of Jersey).
  LORD BRAMWELLsaid, he hoped their Lordships would not accede to the Amendment. In cases where there were differential rates, they were made because the Railway Companies would not otherwise get the traffic. Nothing could better illustrate the unreasonableness of the cry about undue preference than a case which appeared in The Times that day. It appeared that coals from North Wales were carried to Birkenhead for 2s. per ton for the whole distance, or about ¾d. per ton per mile. South Wales coals were taken to Birkenhead, from eight to ten times the distance, for a charge of 6s. per ton for the whole distance, or only three times as much as the charge from North Wales. And why was that done? Because, if the Railway Company did not make this reduction in their charge per mile for the long distance coal, that coal would not go to Birkenhead at all, and the only persons benefited would be the North Wales coalowners, who, being freed from the competition with the South Wales coal, would be able to raise their prices. He denied that that would be any benefit
  198
  to the consumer. It had been said that it was very hard upon the English grazier that American beef should be landed at Liverpool and should be brought by railway thence to London at a lower rate than that paid by the English producer. Why did the Railway Companies carry the American beef at a less rate than English beef? It certainly was not out of any love for the American grazier or the importer; but it was because, if they did not do so, the American beef would go straight to London by ship instead of being landed at Liverpool. That would be a gain, not to the consumer, but to the shipowners who traded between New York and London. These differential rates were made, not for the sake of the persons who appeared to benefit by them, but because the Railway Companies would not get the traffic unless they made them. What would a good paterfamilias do in this matter supposing he had the regulation of all these things? Would it not be reasonable of him to say to the South Wales coalowners—" You are at a long distance from an excellent market for your goods, and we will endeavour to give you some compensation by providing that your coals shall be taken to Birkenhead at a less rate than that which is charged the North Wales coalowners." It had been said that the consequence of carrying from a long distance at a low rate was that the Railway Companies were obliged to charge a higher rate for the shorter distance; but it was nothing of the sort. Let him speak with regard to this matter with a cynical plainness. The reason that the Railway Companies charged a high rate to the North Wales coalowner was because they had a right to make that high charge, and could do it, and if they could charge more they would do so; and the reason why they did not charge a higher rate from South Wales was because, though they had a right to charge more, they could not get more; if they could they would. He might take the opportunity of saying, in reply to an observation of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) earlier in the evening, that he did not, for one moment, deny the power of Parliament to modify the railway rates and charges making compensation. He opposed the Amendment, because he believed that the omission of

  199
  the sub-section would take away from the Railway Companies the right which, according to decisions already given in the Courts of Law upon Acts of Parliament, they possessed, as a means of eking out the miserable dividends they earned. It would entail an absolute loss and detriment upon the consumer, and the only persons who could possibly gain by it would be those who were at a less distance from the markets of consumption than others.
  LORD BRABOURNEremarked, that this was not a question between the traders and the Railway Companies, but between the traders and the public, and in justice to the latter he felt bound to oppose the Amendment. Where there was undue preference the law now provided a remedy. He entirely agreed with the noble and learned Lord opposite, that in all cases the Railway Companies charged as high rates as they could charge consistently with the maintenance and development of their traffic; but in the question now before the Committee their interests were identical with that of the public—namely, that by special rates they should be able to bring larger supplies into the markets from a distance. There was no need for any concealment in the matter; every Railway Company desired to get over its line as large an amount as possible of remunerative traffic, but competition kept rates down, and the protest against special low rates for long distances really meant a desire on the part of traders residing near the markets for a protective duty in their own favour. There ought to be some discretion left in the hands of those who managed these great Companies with regard to the regulation of their rates. He strongly supported the retention of the sub-section, and stated that he withdrew his Amendments to it, as they were entirely met by words to which the noble Lord in charge of the Bill had consented, providing that the Commissioners should take into consideration whether lower rates complained of were charged in the interest of the public.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, if the noble Earl (the Earl of Jersey) went to a Division, he should vote with him, on the ground that the 1st sub-section alone would give the proper authority power to take into consideration all reasonable matters. The 2nd sub-
  200
  section was perfectly new, and went a long way to strike at the present law of undue preference.
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid, that he differed from the view of the noble and learned Earl who had just spoken (the Earl of Selborne). He believed that this question affected trader and trader, district and district, infinitely more than it affected railways, because particular districts and particular traders might be ruined. If the 1st sub-section were passed without qualification, the contest would be no longer between the Railway Companies and the traders. It would be a matter of trader and trader, town and town, district and district, and the whole of the trade of the country would be dislocated. He quite admitted the preferential treatment of foreign goods as against British, which had excited a good deal of feeling. There might be something in the nature of a bounty created by those preferential rates in favour of the foreigner. He would object to exclude from the 2nd sub-section the whole of that case. Suppose a Staffordshire coalowner were to say to a Railway Company—"You bring my coal to London at a higher rate than yon charge for Wigan coal. That is an undue preference." How could the Railway Company defend itself? The railway Company was denied the right of showing that if they charged Wigan coal the same rate of mileage as the Staffordshire coal, the Wigan coal would never come to London at all. What would be the effect on the Wigan coal trade and the Wigan coalowners? The Staffordshire coalowner would benefit, because he would be saved from the competition of the Lancashire coalowner, but what would the Lancashire coalowner say if he were charged a prohibitive rate with regard to the London market? Again, Staffordshire wanted to get its iron to the sea. How was it to compete with the Lancashire ironmaster, who was near to the sea, if there was no difference of rate? In the one case the Staffordshire coalowner would be benefited at the expense of the Lancashire coalowner; in the other, the Lancashire ironmaster would be benefited at the expense of the Staffordshire ironmaster. People were not awake to the effect; they had not thought out how it would work, if every person could claim the same treatment in mileage rates.

  201
  Again, Lancashire and Staffordshire were on the same railway, and therefore the Staffordshire coalowner could complain of undue preference shown to his rival, if the Lancashire coalowner was charged a lower mileage rate; but if Yorkshire coal was brought to London at a lower rate he could not complain, because the Yorkshire coal was not carried on the same line of railway. The great reasons which Railway Companies had for charging different mileage rates was to secure traffic, and why should the Legislature step in and interfere to disturb the natural laws that otherwise applied to the case? The more he had considered this matter, the more he had come to the conclusion that it was impossible to conceive how far-reaching the consequences of such interference would be. It would injure trade, it would operate against the interests of particular districts, it would be disastrous to particular traders, and it would be opposed to the interests of the Railway Companies. Moreover, he contended that there was no necessity for this interference. He thought the sub-section needed amendment, to exclude the cases which the noble and learned Lord had referred to, and he should be willing to see the sub-section excluded from particular application to the first case mentioned in the 1st sub-section. The rest of the sub-section ought to stand with the modification that had been suggested. That was to say, that while objecting to the total abolition of the rates, he should be in favour of their abolition so far as they favoured the foreign producer as against the home producer.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he had listened with great interest to the speech of the noble and learned Lord who had just sat down (Lord Horschell), but he had by no means been convinced by it. The noble and learned Lord commenced by throwing away more than half of his case.
  LORD HERSCHELL: Oh, no.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: At any rate, the noble and learned Lord threw away a very important part of his case. He (the Earl of Camperdown) was himself by no means in favour of allowing foreign goods to be carried on more favourable terms than British goods; but, according to the noble and learned Lord's argument, why not? The
  202
  foreigner had the advantage of his geographical position, to which his noble and learned Friend alluded. Why should he not be allowed the benefit of it?
  LORD HERSCHELL: Because he is not subject to the same taxation.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNThat is the old argument of Protection.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I should like to explain I did not put this as a matter which I advocated at all. I said myself that, on strict principles of political economy, it might be objectionable; but that there was a very strong feeling in the matter.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he was content to take the argument that way. He assured his noble and learned Friend that there was a most excessive feeling on the matter throughout the United Kingdom. Many persons seemed to think that the feeling was limited to a small class; but he could assure the noble and learned Lord that he had heard it, not only in agricultural and commercial circles, but elsewhere, over and over again. He must confess that hitherto he heard no sufficient answer to the course which the Railway Companies had taken. The noble and learned Lord admitted, that as this question of carrying foreign goods cheaper than British goods had of late become so unpopular, and had produced such an outcry throughout the country, it might be expedient to withdraw that power from the Railway Companies; but then his second argument was that of the consumer, and he said—"If I am not allowed to carry Wigan coals at a lower rate than Staffordshire, Wigan coals cannot come to London." The consumer did not object to low rates. What the producer said was this— "If you are to be content with a low rate at Wigan, and if it pays you to carry at a low rate from Wigan, why cannot you extend that same rule to me?" The fact was that the Railway Companies appealed to the consumers in the one case, and to their own shareholders in the other. With regard to the Wigan coals, they said to the consumer—"Well, you see, consumer, we are consulting your interest. We Railway Companies are most impartial and patriotic people, and we wish to benefit you." On the other hand, they turned round to the shareholder, and said—

  203
  "Oh, shareholders, that is quite true that we make very little profit, or, perhaps, no profit at all out of carrying this Wigan coal; but we will make it up in the rates. We shall put on the Staffordshire coal." Practically, that was what they did, and that was practically what was admitted by the noble and learned Lord, when he said that the Railway Companies charged them rates because they had the power to do it. Another argument that was used was this. Trade had grown up in particular localities on the faith of certain arrangements, and, therefore, Parliament had no power to alter that arrangement. If it were true, as was stated, that preferential arrangements were made for the carriage of coal in favour of the town of Newcastle, as against the town of Hull, were those arrangements to be perpetuated for ever; and if it were true that millions of money had been laid out by the town of Newcastle in the making of railways, was Parliament for that reason to be precluded from insisting that Railway Companies should act in an impartial manner between the town of Newcastle and the town of Hull? Was it not by far the more proper attitude of Parliament to care neither for the town of Newcastle nor for the town of Hull, and to insist that Railway Companies, which were common carriers, and which enjoyed, to a certain extent, a monopoly, should deal fairly and equally between their different customers? The introduction of the principle that lower rates might be charged for the purpose of securing the traffic was absolutely new of railway legislation. Hitherto, the principle had been that rates were to be reasonable; and if now their Lordships said that, in order to secure traffic, Railway Companies might charge one rate in one part of the country, and a different rate in another, they would be taking a highly inexpedient course.
  LORD STANLEY OF PRESTONsaid, he joined issue entirely with his noble Friend who had just sat down, and thought the question ought to be considered from the point of view of the consumer as well as of the trader. This was not a question for the carriers, or for the traders. It was undoubtedly a question in which a much larger body, including the consumers, were interested. He sympathized with those
  204
  who, living in agricultural districts, saw produce from elsewhere pass their doors at cheaper rates than they could supply them. But if there were no differential rates as between long and short distances, enormous injury would be done to several trades—for example, milk, fish, and greengrocery, all of which were exclusively British. The foreign goods carried on our railways bore a very small proportion to the British, being only about 25,000,000 tons as compared with 257,250,000 tons. If this subsection were struck out, their Lordships would deliberately declare that they wished to exclude competition. The complaint of a great many of the deputations which waited upon him was, not that the rates were differential, but that they were not sufficiently differential with regard to long distances. Hitherto, all legislation had been directed against giving a monopoly. Were their Lordships, by throwing out the sub-section, going to turn round and supplant all the decisions which Parliament had arrived at in former times? Competing lines had always been encouraged, and some persons thought they had been almost unduly encouraged; but there was one branch of competition with which no legislation could deal, and that was our insular position. If the sub-section were thrown out, and the Railway Companies were not entitled to lower their rates in any cases, it would only be the Steamship Companies which would be benefited. It was in the interest of the general consumer that the clause was inserted, and he hoped their Lordships would pass it.
  On Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause?"
  Their Lordships divided:—Contents 49; Not-Contents 11: Majority 38.
  Amendment disagreed to.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 10, line 2, add—" Provided that where for the purpose of securing traffic, or for any other reason, any railway company charge a lower toll or rate than the maximum between two distant places, no person consigning the same class of goods from any intermediate station between such places to the same place of consignment, shall be charged more then is charged between the two such distant places."—(The Earl of Crawford.)
  LORD BRABOURNE, in opposing the Amendment, desired to give an instance

  205
  to show how it would work. Two railways ran from London to Bristol, the distance by one being 210, by the other 118 miles. To obtain through traffic, the railway with the longer mileage could only charge the same through rates as its rival. But if, by the noble Earl's clause, it was enacted that everybody who lived on the longer line, it might be 120, 150, or 180 miles from the terminus, should pay no higher rate than this, the result would be that the through traffic low charges would have to be abandoned, and the public would be deprived of the choice of a second route.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 10, line 2, at end of clause add—"Section 2 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1854, shall hereafter be read and construed as if the words 'or at the request of any trader' were inserted in such section immediately after the words 'at the request of any other such company' and before the words 'of through traffic'"—(The Earl of Crawford.)
  LORD STANLEY OF PRESTONopposed the Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 26 (group rates to be chargeable by railway companies).
  Amendment moved,
  In page 10, line 19, at end of clause add—"Where any group rate exists, the consignor of any goods to a point of destination between the group and such point of destination shall not be charged more for the same class of goods than the group rate, and where any imported goods are carried to a group or district at a group rate, no person between the point of importation and the group or place of consignment shall he charged more than such group rate, and no group rate shall affect the tolls as between persons situated within the group as between places within such group."—(The Earl of Crawford.)
  LORD STANLEY OF PRESTONopposed the Amendment, saying the Government could not accept it.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 27 (Complaints to Board of Trade of unreasonable charges by railway companies).
  THE MARQUESS OF TWEEDDALE, in moving, said, that under the clause the expenses of the inquiry were to be borne by the Treasury. After the Board of Trade had made the inquiry at the ex-
  206
  pense of the Treasury, they were practically to got no further, because they had no power whatever to enforce any decision or opinion at which they might have arrived. All they could do was to attempt to reconcile the parties, and if they failed to do that, they had to make a Report to Parliament of every case which came before them. The great objection to the clause was, that it really imposed upon the Board of Trade functions which were entirely foreign to that Department; because every opinion expressed in this capacity by the Board of Trade would be tantamount to a decision on the merits of the case. It could not be otherwise. There would arise this condition of things. There was certain to be a conflict of opinion, if not a conflict of decision; because the Board of Trade would make a Report to Parliament, while the Party aggrieved would probably go before the Commissioners' Court and have his case tried over again, with the probability, or, at any rate, the possibility, of securing an entirely different decision. That could not fail to cause great confusion and litigation of a very harassing character. But not only would it do that, it would impose new and very arduous duties upon a Department of the Government which was already overburdened with work, for there was probably no Department in the country which had to perform more multifarious duties. This Bill would impose upon the Board the very heavy duty of reclassifying, and of revising all the rates and charges of the Railway Companies. That was in itself an enormous additional burden, and one which they would have very great difficulty in coping with. His third objection to the clause was, that it would inevitably encourage litigation, and litigation of a most costly kind. At present, railway litigation was a very expensive matter, and that was its chief check; but this Bill provided a sort of paradise of litigation, for all proceedings before the Board of Trade were to be taken, not at the expense of the parties, but at the expense of the Treasury; and when concluded, this litigation had the disadvantage of not binding the parties by the result. Upon the second reading of the Bill, this Committee of Inquiry was called an Arbitration Court; but it was by no means an Arbitration Court. A Court of Arbitra-

  207
  tion was a very valuable Court. It had this special advantage, that when a case was decided by it, it was decided for ever, and the parties were bound by the agreement, which could be enforced by a Court of Law. But nothing of the sort could occur in this Court of Inquiry. It was argued that in other countries this Court of Conciliation had answered, for example, in America, where it was first heard of. But the circumstances in America were entirely different. The reason for its establishment there was, because at that time there was no other Court to go to, and certainly so unpractical a proposal as the establishment of a powerless Court alongside a Court of Law would never have entered into the American mind. This Court would have power to annoy Railway Companies and not sufficient power to benefit the public.
  Moved, "To omit the clause."—(The Marquess of Tweeddale.)
  LORD STANLEY OF PRESTONsaid, that a similar clause was in the Bill of last year; but he felt bound to say there was a great deal to be said from the point of view of the noble Marquess, although its operation might prove exactly opposite to that described by his noble Friend. It was a matter upon which there was a great diversity of opinion, and it was thought that this means of investigating complaints would save the Railway Companies considerable litigation; but if the noble Marquess was of a different opinion, the Government had no desire to support the clause.
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid, he should offer no opposition to the omission.
  Motion agreed to; Clause struck out.
  Clause 28 (Annual returns by railway companies to contain such statistics as the Board of Trade shall require).
  LORD BRABOURNE, in moving the omission of Sub-section 1, said, it was impracticable, and that it would cause a useless and enormous expense to the Railway Companies.
  LORD STANLEY OF PRESTONsaid, he could not agree to the Amendment, but he would undertake to consider what modification could be made in the words of the Sub-section upon the Report.
  Amendment moved, in page 11, leave out Sub-section 1.—(The Lord Brabourne.)
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 29 (Publication of all tolls and charges).
  On the Motion of The Lord BRABOURNE, Clause struck out.
  Clauses 30 to 32, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 33 (Returns by canal companies).
  On the Motion of The Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY, Amendment made, in page 13, line 27, after ("stopped"), insert ("for more than two days").
  LORD GRIMTHORPE, in moving to omit Sub-section 5 altogether, contended that it was unnecessary that notice of the stoppage of a canal should be given to the Board of Trade, as the public could be better informed of it by the Canal Company.
  Amendment moved, in page 13, to leave out Sub-section (5).—(The Lord Grimthorpe.)
  LORD STANLEY OF PRESTONsaid, that, unfortunately, some canals had got into certain hands in which they were not treated in the most friendly manner. Repairs were sometimes unduly prolonged, and it was desirable the Board of Trade should have notice of the time for which it was intended to stop the canal.
  Amendment negatived.
  LORD GRIMTHORPEalso moved to omit Sub-section 6, which made Companies and their officers, failing to comply with the requirements of the section, and not giving the Board of Trade the notices therein enumerated, liable to a penalty of £5.
  Amendment moved, in page 13, to leave out Sub-section (6).—(The Lord Grimthorpe.)
  LORD STANLEY OF PRESTONsaid, there was no way of enforcing the provisions of the section. But he promised to re-consider it.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 34 to 48, inclusive, agreed to.
  Postponed Clause 20 agreed to.
  Further Amendments made.
  The Report of the Amendments to be received on Thursday the 21st instant; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 60.)

CENTRAL ASIA—AFGHANISTAN—PROCLAMATION OF A HOLY WAR.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORDasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether the Indian Government had received any information as to the reported proclamation of a Holy War against Russia by the Ameer of Afghanistan, and the alleged disturbances in that country, as stated in recent telegrams in the public Press?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Viscount CROSS): My Lords, I am not unaware of the rumours as to the proclamation of a Holy War to which the noble Lord refers, but I do not attach importance to them. They have not been in any way confirmed, or even commented upon by the Government of India, and I do not believe that the Ameer of Afghanistan has any hostile intentions whatever towards Russia. With regard to the alleged disturbances in Afghanistan, some rumours were reported to the Indian Government a short time ago, but of late no more has been heard of them, and I have reason to suppose that tranquillity has been maintained.

ALLOTMENTS—LEGISLATION.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: I rise to ask the Prime Minister whether the Government intend to bring in a Bill this Session dealing with the question of allotments? I ask the Question because it seems to me that an Answer given a short time ago to a similar Question was somewhat ambiguous. The Lord President of the Council said it would not be brought in before Easter, but he did not say whether it would be brought in after Easter. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) declared that the introduction of such a Bill would depend upon the state of Business in "another place," and that he could not pledge himself to anything definite. This question of allotments is one of great importance. It affects the welfare of a large and well-deserving set of men, and I venture to think it affects us on this side of the House, and our credit as a Party who are anxious, as far as practicable, to fulfil in Parliament pledges which we have made in the country. No question of domestic policy, leaving Ireland on
  210
  one side, has attracted so much attention as this question of allotments. The Prime Minister mentioned it long ago in his speech at Newport. It was given a prominent place in the Dartford speech of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, a speech in which he set out the programme of the Government. That programme was fully endorsed by the present Leader of the House of Commons, who, shortly after The Dartford speech, declared that Lord Randolph Churchill spoke with the "knowledge and assent and consent" of all his Colleagues. The Government fulfilled their pledges to a certain extent by giving the question of allotments a prominent place in the Gracious Speech from the Throne. I believe a great expectation has been raised in the minds of the agricultural population on this question. With few exceptions there is a consensus of opinion that a large and comprehensive measure—a measure containing provisions which ensure that labourers can obtain sufficient allotments at reasonable rents—is desirable and necessary; and I am sure that such a measure will have the best effect on the population, will educate them in the best sense of the word in self-respect and self-reliance, and make them feel that a responsibility rests upon them as respectable citizens, and will not fail to have a good effect in giving stability and vitality to the whole land system. I can well understand that there will be great difficulty in getting many measures through the other House, but that difficulty is all the more reason for bringing a measure of this kind into this House. We have ample time. We have passed measures of great importance, and we hare two Bills of first-class importance before us now, one dealing with land in Ireland and the other dealing with the transfer of land—a Bill which affects primarily the landlords—and I think it would be an expedient thing that a Bill of this kind affecting those engaged in agriculture at the other extreme of the social scale should be brought into Parliament this Session. I hope the Government will recognize the importance of this question and will introduce a Bill of this kind into this House, and even if it passes this House and does not pass the other, I do not see that the question would be any worse off than if it was not included at all.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): I quite concur with my noble Friend as to the great importance of this subject, and that it is one of the subjects which the Government hoped to have dealt with; but, whatever its importance, nothing will make it pass through Parliament this Session unless the state of Business in the other House is such as to enable the Government to carry it through. I am afraid that in the present state of affairs I cannot give any other answer to my noble Friend than that which I gave the other night, that such a Bill depends upon the state and progress of Business in the other House.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Nine o'clock, to Monday the 18th instant, a quarter past Four o'clock.