Sitting of 2 August 1888

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Suffragans' Nomination* [363]; Suffragans' Act Amendment* [364].
Second Reading—Pharmacy Act (Ireland), 1875, Amendment [357].
Committee—Report—Members of Parliament (Charges and Allegations) [336] [Fourth Night]; Public Health Acts Amendment (Buildings in Streets) [255]; Municipal Corporations (Local Bills) (Ireland) [351].
Report from Standing Committee on Trade, &c.—Merchant Shipping (Life Saving Appliances) [No. 318].
Withdrawn—Pauper Lunatics' Asylums (Ireland) (Officers' Superannuation) [135].

MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (CHARGES AND ALLEGATIONS) BILL—THE DEBATE OF TUESDAY, JULY 3—AMENDMENT OF ENTRY IN VOTES.
THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON): I desire, Sir, to call your attention to a point of Order in reference to an incident which took place in Committee on the Members of Parliament (Charges and Allegations) Bill. I find that that incident is described in the Votes and Proceedings of the House as "abuse of the Rules of the House." The circumstances are these—About 2 o'clock on Wednesday morning I moved that the Chairman should leave the Chair. The Chairman then rose, and pointed out that the matter, which I was then anxious to have debated, would be best discussed at the next Sitting of the House. The Chairman made no reflection on me, nor did he describe the Motion as an abuse of the Forms of the House. He simply stated that the balance of convenience was in favour of his not putting the Motion from the Chair. I find in the Votes of July 31 that my Motion is described as an abuse of the Forms of the House, which is a direct contradiction of the statement made at

1209
the time by the Chairman. The following is the entry in the Votes and Proceedings:—
"Mr. Sexton moved, 'That the Chairman do now leave the Chair;' but the Chairman, being of opinion that the Motion was an abuse of the Rules of the House, declined to propose the Question thereupon to the Committee."
MR. SPEAKER: I believe that the terms of the Standing Order require the reason for the Motion not being put to be specified. I must say, however, that I think, with the hon. Member, that there may be harshness in the form in which the record has been placed on the Votes, and I will endeavour to ascertain whether it cannot be put in some form less objectionable to the hon. Member.
MR. SEXTON: Thank you, Sir.
MR. SPEAKER: I may remind the hon. Gentleman that the incident he has referred to occurred during the time the Chairman of Ways and Means was in the Chair, and therefore I have no personal knowledge of it. I will, however, mention the matter to the hon. Gentleman when he is in attendance.
MR. SEXTON: I may add that the debate was adjourned immediately, so that the purpose of my Motion was attained.

QUESTIONS.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE—EXPENSES OF DEFENCE OF CERTAIN CONSTABLES.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Why, although 40 Metropolitan Police constables out of 44 against whom charges having been preferred during the past 12 months of excess of duty have been acquitted, 10 only have been assisted in their defence from public funds; and why the Rule, that the cost of meeting unfounded charges arising out of official duty should be recouped, was suspended in the case of the remaining 30; and, if, having regard to the disastrous consequences frequently resulting from even a false criminal accusation, in the default of legal power for a defendant to recover costs from a prosecutor unable to substantiate his charge, and certified by the presiding Judge or magistrate to have acted upon insufficient grounds, be will consider the adjustment of the
  1210
  Criminal Law in this particular to the liability of an unsuccessful plaintiff in a civil suit?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): The Rule was not suspended in the case of the 30 constables referred to; but these were either cases of so simple a nature that there seemed to be no necessity for the employment of a professional advocate, or they were cases in which the charge did not arise out of the performance of police duty. In one or two cases special circumstances existed which demanded special consideration. I have consulted the Lord Chancellor as to the latter paragraph of the Question; and he is of opinion that the distinction between civil and criminal proceedings is so marked that the Government are unable to hold out any hope that they will undertake legislation of the kind suggested.

  REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS—REPORT OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION.
  SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, among the subjects on which Her Majesty's Government contemplate early legislation, the recommendations of the Royal Commission, which reported in 1883 on Reformatory and Industrial Schools, and the repeated promises of measures on these important subjects have been borne in mind; and, when the Bills which have been prepared for these objects will be introduced?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): These Bills will, I hope, be introduced in the House of Lords in the course of the present Session.

  REGISTRATION OF DEEDS AND ASSURANCES (IRELAND)—INSANITARY CONDITION OF THE OFFICE.
  MR. MACNEILLasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether his attention has been directed to the First Report of the Commission appointed to inquire into the Law relating to the Registration of Deeds and Assurances in Ireland, page 100, whence it appears that the official searching room is wholly inadequate and utterly un-

  1211
  wholesome; that there is great complaint by the staff of the ill effects upon their health of the system of heating by hot water pipes; that these complaints are well-founded; that the mode of generating heat in the Office is unwholesome; and that the Treasury are losing because the staff are suffering from ill-health; whether any steps will be taken to remedy these evils, which have, after the lapse of nine years from the tendering of this evidence, increased; and, whether he will be prepared to grant a Return showing how many of the 62 officers and clerks who were on the permanent staff of the Office in June, 1878, are now in the Department, and a Return showing the annual Revenue derived during the five years ending on the 31st day of December, 1887, by the Exchequer through the operation of the Registry of Deeds Office; (a.) On account of Duty stamps on muniments; (b.) On account of fee stamps; and the annual cost to the Treasury during the same period?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): The Report of the Commission was made in 1881, since which date the staff to be accommodated in the Registry of Deeds has been reduced from 69 to 50, and it will be further reduced, as vacancies occur, to 48. I have no reason to believe that the existing staff is in excess of the capabilities of the building, or that the latter is not in a wholesome condition; but it is hoped that arrangements may before long be made which will render it possible to transfer the work and staff of the Registry of Deeds to the building in Henrietta Street, now occupied by the officers of the Probate Court. For the last five years the average receipts in stamps have been £12,551, and the average cost of the Office, including non-effective and other charges, £20,668. Probably, with this information, the hon. Member will not think it necessary to press for a Return.

  RAILWAYS (ENGLAND AND WALES)—ACCIDENTS AT LEVEL CROSSINGS.
  MR. M'LARENasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether his attention has been called to the four deaths which have taken place between the 17th and 21st of July, owing to persons being run over at level crossings by trains at
  1212
  Sittingbourne, Harecastle Junction, Ayton, near Scarborough, and Whyke Lane crossing, near Chichester; whether these deaths were all due to want of proper precautions on the part of the four Railway Companies; whether his attention has been called to the automatic electric alarm, invented by Mr. W. F. Folks, of 30, Mark Lane; and, whether he will have it examined by a Board of Trade Inspector, and if found suitable, have it recommended to these and other Railway Companies?
  THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH), in reply, said, that the attention of the Board of Trade had been called to the deaths in question; but he was not aware whether they were all due to want of proper precaution on the part of the Railway Companies. With regard to the invention in question, it was for the Railway Companies, and not for the Board of Trade, to decide on the respective merits of inventions.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—SCHOOL BOARD ELECTIONS—HOURS OF POLLING.
  MR. M'LARENasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether, in view of the approaching school board elections this autumn, he will recommend to those persons who fix the seven hours during which the poll may remain open that they should in all cases arrange to have it open between 6 and 8 p.m., for the convenience of the working-class electors; and, whether he is aware that in many places at the last election it was only open from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): By regulations which have been substituted for those to which the hon. Member refers, the Education Department have directed that the poll in every school board election shall be open between the hours of 6 and 8 p.m.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—POST OFFICE AT KILMORE, CO. ROSCOMMON.
  MR. COXasked the Postmaster General, Whether the post office which for the last 30 years was held in the village of Kilmore, County Roscommon, has recently been changed from

  1213
  there to a public-house half a mile distant; whether the wishes of the people within the postal district have been consulted; if so, how; on what date was the resignation of the late Postmistress made known; when was her successor appointed, and if an opportunity was afforded eligible persons in the village of Kilmore to apply for the appointment; and, whether, in view of the fact that the granting of a post office to be held on licensed premises is contrary to the Regulations, and that the new site is objectionable and inconvenient to the people of the district, he will direct that the office be re-opened in Kilmore?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES), in reply, said, no appointment had yet been made to the post office at Kilmore. The late Postmistress resigned on June 30, and on July 4 the office was placed in the temporary charge of the present occupant. The house was a public-house; but the post office was shut off from the licensed premises. The house was in a convenient position. Inquiry was now being made as to the qualification of the candidates, and care would be taken to appoint a suitable person.
  MR. COX, having lived in the place all his life, assured the Postmaster General that he was entirely mistaken in saying that the post office was in a convenient position.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE—THE NEW OFFICES ON THE EMBANKMENT.
  MR. BROADHURSTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the contract for the building for the new police offices on the Embankment has been yet let; and, if so, to whom; and, whether the granite and stonework for the building is being prepared by the convicts at Dartmoor and Portland respectively; and, if so, whether this work is done for the Government, or whether the convict labour is hired by contractors, and, if the latter, by what contractors?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): Yes, Sir; the contract for this building has been let to Messrs. Grover and Sons. The granite required for the lower portion of the building has been worked by convict labour at Dartmoor. The work is done for the Government, and the
  1214
  Receiver of Police pays all expenses incurred, including delivery on the ground. The contract was concluded on the understanding that all the granite would be delivered free of cost, and the contractor derives no benefit therefrom.

  ROYAL COMMISSION ON WARLIKE STORES—THE SADDLERY DEPARTMENT—MR. DUNN, A WITNESS.
  MR. BROADHURSTasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true that Mr. Dunn, a witness in the recent exposures of the scandals in the Saddlery Inspection Department at Woolwich, has recently been twice passed over for the appointment of viewer in favour of two men, both of whom are his juniors in the Service; and, if so, who is responsible for this treatment; and, whether Mr. Dunn is referred to in the Judge Advocate General's Report as a person who thoroughly understood his business?
  MR. HANBURYalso asked, Whether the Judge Advocate General had not stated that, in his opinion, Mr. Dunn, as a viewer, was a far more valuable man than Inspector Spicer himself; and, whether he would interfere to prevent Mr. Dunn from being unjustly punished?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): As to the Question whether I will interfere to prevent the improper punishment of Mr. Dunn, I have already denied that there has been, or can be, any improper punishment inflicted in his case. If the hon. Member wishes for further information on the matter, I must request him to give me Notice in the usual way. With regard to the Question on the Paper, I have to say that of the two men who were the principal witnesses in the recent inquiry at Woolwich, one (Moody) is shortly to be promoted. The other (Dunn) has been passed over in favour of men who were better fitted to become viewers.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman would undertake that, during his term of office, Mr. Dunn should not be a marked man?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: He is not, and will not be, a marked man. I can undertake to say that full justice will be done him.
  In answer to a further Question from Mr. HANBURY with regard to the Report of the Judge Advocate General,
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, that it was not to be expected that he carried the Report of the Judge Advocate General in his pocket. If the hon. Member desired further information on the subject, he must ask him to give Notice of his Question.

  PUBLIC HEALTH—POLLUTION OF THE REGENT'S CANAL.
  MR. PICTONasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he is now able to state the result of his inquiry into the pollution of the Regent's Canal by the sewage of the Zoological Gardens?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER (Mr. PLUNKET): The alleged insanitary condition of the Regent's Canal is one which very remotely affects my Office; and, after consulting the Local Government Board upon the subject, I can only point out to the hon. Member that if those who dwell in the neighbourhood of the Canal find that they suffer seriously from the impure state of the water, they may again endeavour to set their Vestries in motion with a view to the abatement of the nuisance, or they might, if they were so advised, take proceedings to bring the case before the Court of Summary Jurisdiction under the 13th section of 23 & 24 Vict. c. 77.

  COMMONS AND OPEN SPACES (METROPOLIS)—FORTUNE GREEN, HAMPSTEAD.
  MR. BRODIE HOAREasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he is aware that the Common known as Fortune Green, Hampstead, is being enclosed; and, whether the provisions of the Metropolis Commons Act of 1866 have been complied with in this case?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I am informed by the Metropolitan Board of Works that the Common in question is a piece of roadside waste of about two-and-a-half acres. Last year the Board was informed that there was a proposal to build upon it, and the Board was asked to interfere, and to preserve the ground as an open space. The parish
  1216
  authorities were, however, unwilling that the Board should interfere; and as the area of the ground was small, and Hampstead was well provided with open spaces, it appeared to the Board not to be a case in which it was desirable to set in motion the procedure under the Commons Act of 1866.
  In reply to Mr. BRUNNER (Cheshire, Northwich),
  MR. MATTHEWSsaid, that the question of the right to enclose a Common could be raised by an action at law.

  WAR OFFICE (AUXILIARY FORCES)— THE 4TH LANCASHIRE ARTILLERY VOLUNTEERS.
  MR. WHITLEYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true that an offer has been received from the officer commanding the 4th Lancashire Artillery Volunteers to horse and drive, at his own expense, a 16-pounder Battery, as in a Field Battery, R.A.; and, if so, what answer the War Office preposes to return to it?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): Yes, Sir; it is the fact that in a most patriotic spirit this offer has been made by Lieutenant Colonel Belcher and his officers. I recognize it as one among many proofs of the loyal devotion which characterizes our Volunteer Forces. It is one which primarily must be considered by the Commander-in-Chief, and I propose to consult with him on the subject.

  EGYPT—STORAGE OF THE NILE WATERS—THE RAIAN BASIN.
  MR. WOODALLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, since the reply given by him last Session, further surveys of the Raian Basin have been made by the Egyptian Government; whether those surveys have conclusively demonstrated the feasibility of the project of Mr. Cope Whitehouse to utilize the basin as a storage reservoir for the Nile flood; if it is true that Nubar Pasha has stated that an expenditure of £2,000,000 upon such a scheme would be recoverable in the value of lands reclaimed; whether he is aware that responsible contractors have offered to cut the canal and construct the essential works for £250,000;

  1217
  and, whether Her Majesty's Government are disposed to give any encouragement to the Egyptian Government in furthering the accomplishment of so important an undertaking?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): The question of the feasibility and the expense of Mr. Cope Whitehouse's project are matters upon which the Egyptian Government must necessarily be guided by the opinion of its technical advisers. We have not received a copy of Nubar Pasha's observations on the scheme; but Sir Evelyn Baring has sent home a copy of a Memorandum by Sir C. Moncrieff in reply to those observations. Sir C. Moncrief estimates the cost of the undertaking at £1,800,000, and deprecates its being proceeded with for some years to come. Her Majesty's Government do not feel justified in interfering with the discretion of the Egyptian Government in the matter, or in encouraging them to undertake so large and uncertain an expenditure in the present state of their finances without the most careful consideration.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—CONSTABLE PHILLIPS, BALLYGAR.
  MR. HAYDENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Constable Phillips, of Ballygar, who draws lodging allowance with his pay, has a house rent free from Mr. John Bagot, for acting as gatekeeper for him; whether the constable was changed from Ballygar in February last; whether, on Mr. Bagot's application to County Inspector John Mark O'Brien, he was changed back to Ballygar, and resumed his position in the gatehouse; and, whether it is in accordance with the Rules of the Force that a constable may discharge the duties and receive the remuneration above referred to?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR), in reply, said, the Inspector of Constabulary reported that it was the case that the constable referred to had a house from the gentleman named; but it was not the case that he had acted as caretaker. It was true that he was transferred; but he was re-transferred at his own request. The constable, being a married man, was not accommodated in the
  1218
  barracks. There was no objection to his holding a house rent free if he could get it; but he was prohibited from rendering service for it.

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTORS (IRELAND)—REVISION COURTS—DUBLIN DISTRICTS.
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON(for Sir THOMAS ESMONDE)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If any representations have been made to the Irish Government by the people of South County Dublin, with a view to having Revision Courts held at the different polling stations in the districts; and, if so, whether, in consideration of the hardship imposed upon so many labouring men who have to travel long distances, in some cases repeatedly, to attend the present Revision Courts to secure their votes, losing, very often, several days' pay by so doing, the request will be granted?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): Representations have not been made to the Irish Government in favour of having Revision Courts at all the polling stations in South County Dublin, nor, as I am informed, is there any need whatever for such. An application, however, has been received from the Secretary of the South Dublin Nationalist Registration Society for the establishment of a Registration Court in Cabinteely for the convenience of the people of that polling district, and this will be done.

  NEW ZEALAND—CONFLICT AMONG THE MAORIS.
  MR. A. M'ARTHURasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, If he can give the House any information respecting a tribal conflict arising out of a land dispute between Maoris in Whangarei District, New Zealand, in which several Natives are said to have been killed or wounded, as reported in The Times, of 23rd July?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir JOHN GORST)(who replied) said: No official information has been received on this subject; and it is not apprehended that the disturbance referred to, if correctly reported, has any political significance. It appears to have been a

  1219
  quarrel among the Natives in a district in which there are few European settlers.

  SCIENCE AND ART DEPARTMENT— LACEMAKING IN IRELAND.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the Secretary to the Treasury. Whether, as stated in the Thirty-Fourth Report of the Department of Science and Art, page xli., the duties of the Lady Inspector of Lace-making in Ireland are confined to—
  "Affording advice to the convents in Ireland upon the commercial necessities of trade in lace, as well as upon the variations of fashion and the adoption of good work materials;"
  whether the appointment was created at the suggestion of the Lord Lieutenant to supplement and not to supersede the lectures on designing given by Mr. Alan Cole; and, whether, in view of the requests for Mr. Cole to resume his lectures, as well as of the fresh applications which have been made for his services, arrangements may be made for Mr. Cole to lecture at the lacemaking centres in Ireland not less frequently than twice a-year?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): When the appointment was first made of the Lady Inspector it was intended that she should visit the schools where lacemaking is taught, inspect the quality of the work, advise as to the best designs and patterns, and as to the relative commercial values of the work turned out. It is not easy to draw a line between her functions and the lectures given by Mr. Alan Cole; but I may say that arrangements have been made, subject to a limit of expense, which will prevent the entire discontinuance of Mr. Cole's lectures.

  PIERS AND HARBOURS (IRELAND)— BALLYCOTTON PIER.
  MR. FLYNNasked the Secretary to the Treasury, in view of the conflict of opinion between the Cork County Grand Jury and the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, in respect to the alleged serious defects in the Ballycotton Pier, and the refusal of the Grand Jury to take over and maintain the pier, Whether he will take steps to insure that a competent engineer, independent of either of these Bodies, shall be sent to examine into and report on the condition of the work?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON), in reply, said, he had ordered an inspection of this pier, and he had had submitted to him Reports from the engineers who had made the inspection. He had carefully read these Reports; and although there was considerable conflict of opinion between the Grand Jury and the engineers, he had no doubt that the pier was substantially built and perfectly safe. The pier and walls had been tested, and there was no evidence at all of any movement as stated. The locality might rest assured that the work was well designed, well constructed, and perfectly safe.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—DONEGAL BOARD OF GUARDIANS.
  MR. MAC NEILLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether complaints have reached him of the condition of Donegal Workhouse, for the past five years through the action of the Protestant majority of the Board of Guardians, who systematically excluded Catholics from every official position in the Union; whether he is aware that on the 2nd of June last a Resolution was passed by these Guardians that the matter of an appointment of a Catholic to any office in the workhouse be not entertained by the Board for 12 months, and that when on three occasions a vacancy for schoolmistress arose, the Guardians at each time set aside the Catholic candidate, though more eligible, and appointed a Protestant; whether two of the Protestants so appointed were compelled to resign in consequence of not attaining to the educational standard of the National Board; whether the Guardians refused several applications for a catechist to teach prayers and Christian doctrine to the Catholic children; whether afterwards they, on several occasions, declined to appoint a Catholic assistant teacher to the workhouse, although strongly recommended and sanctioned by the Local Government Board; whether he is aware that 90 per cent of the inmates, and nearly all the children, are Catholics; whether he is aware that the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Sir George Trevelyan), and the right hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. John Morley) when Chief Secretary for Ireland, and the Local Government

  1221
  Board expressed disapproval of the conduct of the Guardians; whether the parish priest, the Very Rev. Hugh McFadden, with the approval of the Catholic Bishop, resigned the chaplaincy of the workhouse on account of the persistent refusal of the Protestant majority of the Board to grant a religious educatian to the Catholic children; whether, in consequence, the workhouse of Donegal has been without a Catholic chaplain for the past five years, 90 per cent of the inmates without Divine Service in the Union on Sundays and Holy Days, and without the opportunity of practising their religious duties; whether the Local Government Board have power, under such circumstances, to dissolve the Board of Guardians; and, whether the Government will take any, and, if so, what, means to remedy grievances suffered so long?
  MR. MACARTNEY: Perhaps it would be convenient for the right hon. Gentleman to answer Question 53 at the same time.
  MR. MAC NEILL: I would prefer that my Question should be answered by itself.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I have here the answer both to Question 21 and 53; but as the subject is a purely local one, and as the answer covers about six pages of foolscap, I think it would be more convenient that the hon. Gentlemen should allow me to show them the answer, and then send it up to the newspapers, rather than I should trouble the House with an extremely long and dull recital.
  MR. MAC NEILL: Mr. Speaker, my Question is one of great importance, and I shall insist upon its being answered orally.
  MR. SPEAKER: It is not competent for the hon. Gentleman to force a Minister to make a reply in a particular form. If the right hon. Gentleman chooses to give his answer in writing, I know of no power to force him to give it orally in the House.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope the House will understand it is really out of respect to the House I refrain from reading this document; but if the House wishes to hear it, I shall be happy to read it. [Home Rule cries of: "Read, read!" and Ministerial cries of "No, no!"]
  1222
  The reply was as fellows:—1. The only complaint made, so far as the Local Government Board are aware, respecting the exclusion of Roman Catholics from official positions had reference to the workhouse teachers; but observations may have been made as to the general tendency of the Guardians in that respect. 2. It is not the case that a Resolution was passed that the appointment of a Roman Catholic to any office be not entertained for 12 months. The Resolution of June 2, and a further one of June 16, related only to teachers, and the consideration of that question was postponed for 12 months. With respect to the office of schoolmistress, three vacancies occurred within recent years. The first was in October, 1882, on the resignation of the Protestant teacher, who had held the post for 16 years; the second was in June, 1885, and the third in June, 1887. With regard to the first of these vacancies, the clerk states that a Protestant was appointed who had been trained as a teacher in the Kildare Street Training Institution, and who had been engaged for seven years as a teacher of a school in Donegal. The Roman Catholic candidate was, the clerk says, only 19 years of age, and, therefore, ineligible under Article 32 of the General Regulations. For the second vacancy a Protestant was again selected. This teacher was not classed under the National Board of Education; but she had been trained in the Londonderry District Model School. One of the Roman Catholic candidates had a certificate of the second class under the National Board, besides other qualifications. On the occasion of the third vacancy the highest qualified candidate was elected. She is a Protestant, and holds a certificate of the first class under the National Board of Education, and is now in office. The candidate who was supported by the Roman Catholic Guardians on this occasion was neither trained nor classed. 3. The clerk reports that it is not a fact that any of the teachers referred to were compelled to resign; but it would seem that in 1884 the National Education Commissioners had reported to the Guardians that the then schoolmistress had failed to pass a qualifying examination of theirs. The statements in paragraphs 4 and 5 are correct. 6. The clerk states that 79 per cent. of the

  1223
  inmates, and 78 per cent. of the children, are Roman Catholics. 7. It is the case that the right hon. Gentlemen named, as also the Local Government Board, expressed regret at the continuance of the existing state of things. 8. In April, 1883, the Roman Catholic chaplain of the workhouse (the Very Rev. H. McFadden, P.P.) resigned his position by direction of the Roman Catholic Bishop, on the ground of the non-appointment of a Roman Catholic catechist. 9. No one has acted in the capacity of Roman Catholic chaplain of the workhouse since 1883; but the Local Government Board are informed that all the inmates who are able are at liberty to attend Mass at the chapel in Donegal, which is only a few hundred yards from the workhouse, and that the parish priest visits the sick. 10. The Local Government Board cannot dissolve the Board of Guardians because the Guardians have declined to appoint a Roman Catholic assistant teacher or catechist; and the Solicitor General for Ireland of the day informed this House on December 2, 1884, that the section of the Act authorizing the substitution of paid Guardians does not apply to this case. 11. The Local Government Board have endeavoured to induce the Board of Guardians to appoint an assistant Roman Catholic teacher; but this the Guardians have declined to do, although they are apparently willing to allow an additional salary to the chaplain if he would himself employ a catechist to assist him; and in 1884 the Local Government Board offered to the late chaplain, if he would resume duty, an increased salary in consideration of the extra labour caused to him through the teacher not being a Roman Catholic; but he declined to accept it. I fear I am unable to suggest any further remedy in the matter.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—SALARY OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHAPLAIN OF DONEGAL WORKHOUSE.
  MR. MACARTNEYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the salary of the Roman Catholic Chaplain of Donegal Workhouse has been raised; and, if so, when; whether any grounds were ever stated by the Roman Catholic chaplain for such increase; and, if so,
  1224
  what were they; whether the duties of chaplains as to catechising children are specified in the chaplain's books; and, if so, what are they; what were the number of visits paid by the respective chaplains of Donegal Workhouse for this purpose in the years 1880, 1881, 1882, and 1883; whether any reports have been made as to the frequency or not of such visits; what are the arrangements with regard to the catechising of Roman Catholic children in Donegal Workhouse, and whether they have hitherto worked satisfactorily; whether he is aware that the Roman Catholic Bishop has prohibited any priest under his jurisdiction from acting as chaplain to the workhouse; and, what are the number of children at present in the workhouse?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)handed the reply to the hon. Gentleman, which was as follows:—The Clerk of Donegal Union reports that—1 and 2. The salary of the Roman Catholic chaplain was increased in 1868, on the ground that he was obliged to instruct and catechise the inmates of the workhouse. 3. This duty is specfied in the chaplain's books as follows:—That the chaplains are to examine and catechise the children not less than once in every month, and after each of such examinations record the same, and state the general progress of the children in a book to be kept for that purpose, to be laid before the Guardians. 4. In 1880 the Roman Catholic chaplain paid two visits, the Protestant chaplain 23 visits. In 1881 the Roman Catholic chaplain paid one visit, the Protestant chaplain 20 visits. In 1882 the Roman Catholic chaplain paid 1 visit, the Protestant chaplain 20 visits; and in part of 1883 the Roman Catholic chaplain paid 4 visits, and the Protestant chaplain 10 visits. 5. The Local Government Inspector did complain in January, 1883, of the neglect of his duties on the part of the Roman Catholic chaplain in not catechising the children, and similar complaints had previously been made by successive Inspectors against successive chaplains. 6. When the schoolmistress is a Protestant a senior pupil (R.C.) acts as a monitor to hear the Roman Catholic children repeat their catechism, &c., and to teach the younger, and this system has been carried out

  1225
  satisfactorily. 7. The statement respecting the Roman Catholic Bishop is correct. 8. The number of Roman Catholic children is 14, and of Protestant 5. Total, 19.

  NAVY (SHIPS)—H.M.S. "BUZZARD."
  SIR EDWARD WATKINasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If H.M.S. Buzzard has required any, and what, repairs since her trial trip; and, having left England for Halifax on June 16, what time the Buzzard took in making the voyage?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): There were various adjustments required to the machinery of the Buzzard after her 96 hours full-power trial; but, with the exception of one slight defect in her cylinder, the repairs required both to hull and machinery were of a trivial nature. She was eight days making the passage to Madeira, and occupied 26 days in proceeding from that port to Halifax under the usual orders to use economical speed and to make use of her sail-power when it was feasible.

  PRISONS (IRELAND)—THE INQUEST AT MITCHELSTOWN ON MR. MANDEVILLE.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the three communications from the Prisons Board in Dublin to the authorities of Tullamore Gaol with respect to the treatment of Mr. Mandeville, which the Governor of the gaol refused to produce at the recent inquest?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I find that all the prison papers are away from Dublin at the place where the inquest on Dr. Ridley's body is being carried on. I have attempted by telegraph to find out some particulars about the matter. As far as I can gather from the telegraph, the instructions in question were of the barest possible kind. They were simply that the Governor should obey the Prison Rules, subject to the opinion of the doctor.
  MR. CLANCY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether some of the instructions were
  1226
  not conveyed orally by the authority of the Prisons Board?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As I understand the Question of the right hon. Gentleman, it refers to three communications, which, he states, the Governor refused to produce on the ground that they were privileged documents. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has accurately quoted the evidence given at the inquest, or whether he has means of accurately quoting it; but I assume there were three instructions in writing which the Governor refused to produce. The Government could not produce verbal instructions.
  MR. CLANCY: Will the right hon. Gentleman have the documents produced?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is precisely the Question I answered the right hon. Gentleman just now.

  THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, 1883—SEC. 122—THE DRAFT RULES.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAINasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether the Lord Chancellor and the President of the Board of Trade have considered the Draft Rules under section 122 of "The Bankruptcy Act, 1883," prepared by the Departmental Committee appointed last year, and laid upon the Table of the House; and, whether the Lord Chancellor and President of the Board of Trade propose to proceed with such Rules?
  THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH)in reply, said, it was the intention of the Lord Chancellor to proceed with those Rules. The reason for delay was that they had been communicated by Circular to the County Court Judges, and numerous conflicting observations had been made in reply.

  PUBLIC HEALTH—MEDICAL OFFICERS OF HEALTH—THE RETURN.
  DR. FARQUHARSONasked the President of the Local Government Board, When the Return granted in August, 1887, in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 359, of Session 1873, as to the appointment Medical Officers of Health, will be in the hands of Members?
  SIR LYON PLAYFAIR,also asked, When the Return relating to Medical Officers of Health, ordered by the House on August 12, 1887 (No. 22), will be presented; and, whether he can assure the House that it will be ready for the Autumn Session?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): It has been necessary to obtain Returns from more than 1,500 authorities, and in some cases several applications have had to be made for the information required. The Returns are now complete; but in some cases further inquiries will be necessary. We hope to have the Return in the hands of the printers in about three weeks from the present time; and we shall endeavour to expedite the printing as much as possible.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY— "SMYTH v. MADDEN AND CURRY"— PAYMENT OF LEGAL EXPENSES OF CONSTABLES.
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON(for Sir THOMAS ESMONDE)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, By what Rule of the Police Force, or Act of Parliament, the Attorney General sanctioned the payment out of the public funds of the amount of the verdict and costs recorded against Constable Curry, "on the grounds that he had acted reasonably as a public officer," in the action of "Smyth v. Madden and Curry," for slander and false arrest, heard before the Recorder of Dublin, at Kingstown, April 15, 1887; and, upon what authority did the Recorder alter the verdict subsequent to the hearing of the case?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The Rule as to the payment of the legal expenses of constables against whom proceedings have been taken for acts done by them in the execution of their duty is the same in the Royal Irish Constabulary, the London Metropolitan Police, and in the Dublin Metropolitan Police. The invariable practice is for the constable in the first instance to defend himself; and when the proceedings have terminated, the propriety of indemnifying him is considered and decided by Government. I have no knowledge of the matter referred to in the last paragraph, nor have I any title to make inquiry on the subject.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE—SOCIALIST MEETINGS—POLICE SUPERVISION.
  MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAMasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If it is a fact that Police Constable 529 V was sent to the house of a man named Dalshaw, on July 20, to ask him if he contemplated speaking at a meeting next Monday, and if he also stated that he had orders to report the time and place of all Socialist meetings to the District Inspector; if this was by Sir Charles Warren's orders, and if this system of police supervision exists by the Home Secretary's authority; and whether the supervision extends to all public meetings?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I am informed by the Chief Commissioner that no such inquiry was made by the police constable; that no such statement was ever made by him to Dalshaw; that no such orders had been issued; and that, therefore, there could be no system of police supervision; and that the man Dalshaw was quite unknown to the police.

  LAW AND POLICE—CELLS AT POLICE STATIONS—INSANITARY CONDITION.
  MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAMasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to do anything to remedy the insanitary state of the cells at many London and Provincial police stations?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): Yes, Sir; it is the intention of the Government to do everything in their power to remedy the insanitary state of the cells in London and the Provinces. Active communication is now proceeding with the various Local Authorities; and there is every prospect that it will be found possible to carry out the recommendations of the Committee.

  THE JURY SYSTEM (IRELAND)—WICKLOW ASSIZES—EXCLUSION OF CATHOLICS.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, on the subject of excluding Catholics from serving on

  1229
  juries, Whether it is the fact that, although the Catholic population of Wicklow stands to the Protestant in the relation of four to one, exclusively Protestant juries have been sworn for the trial of capital cases; whether he is aware that on one occasion the Catholic jurors held a meeting in the Town Hall, and passed a Resolution protesting against their treatment; whether he has seen the following observations, made by the presiding Judge at the opening of the Wicklow Assizes on Saturday last, as reported in the Conservative journal, The Irish Times, of July 30:—
  "His Lordship said that at the last Assizes there was reason to complain that without necessity some jurors were required to come into the jury box, which caused great delay, only to be told to stand by, therefore he had conveyed to the Attorney General his disapproval of the course, and he would request the Crown Solicitor to have the names called, and if his mind was made up as to a juror not serving on the jury to say so before he went into the box. Some jurors had complained to him, and there was needless offence caused to them in the Court by calling them into the box and then ordering them to stand by;"
  and, whether, in view of the observations of Judge O'Brien, the practice of excluding Catholics from serving on juries will be discontinued?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN): Perhaps I may be allowed to answer the Question. There is no foundation for the suggestion that jurors were excluded from serving on juries in Wicklow because of their religious belief. A meeting of Catholic jurors is reported to have been hold in the Town Hall. My attention has been called by the Question to the report of the observations attributed to Mr. Justice O'Brien. His observations apply merely to the time at which the Crown Solicitor should direct a juror to stand by, and have no reference to the religious belief of any juror, or to any question as to the exclusion of jurors on any such ground. Those acting on behalf of the Crown will be most willing to adopt the suggestion of the learned Judge; but there is no power to compel those acting on behalf of prisoners to take the same course in the case of challenges.
  MR. W. J. CORBET: Is it not a fact that on the day after he made these observations the learned Judge quashed a jury panel on the ground that it had
  1230
  been improperly constituted; whether a number of prisoners had been previously convicted of resistance at an eviction; whether the Judge was asked to make an order for the release of these prisoners, and replied that it was a question for the Executive; and whether, under these circumstances, the Government will see to the release of the prisoners?
  MR. MADDEN: There were two objections to a constitution of the jury panel at the Wicklow Assizes. One was a technical matter—non-compliance with the statutes—and upon that ground the whole panel was quashed. On the question of the alleged misconduct on the part of the Sheriff, the triers unanimously found in favour of the Sheriff. I have no specific information with regard to the prisoners referred to by the hon. Member.
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON)asked whether, as the religion of every person in Ireland was officially ascertained by the Census, the hon. and learned Gentleman would have any objection to an arrangement by which the question might be tested? The agents of the Crown systematically excluded Catholics.
  MR. MADDEN: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to give Notice of the Question.
  MR. J. E. REDMONDsaid, he did not think the hon. and learned Gentleman had precisely answered the first paragraph of the Question. He (Mr. Redmond) wished to ask him whether it was the fact that although the Catholic population of Wicklow stood to the Protestant in the proportion of four to one, exclusively Protestant juries had been sworn for the trial of capital cases?
  MR. MADDENsaid, he had no specific information as to the proportion of Catholic and Protestant population. No juror had been excluded on the ground of his religion.
  MR. MAC NEILLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether it was not the invariable practice in England to have no "stand asides" in criminal cases by the Crown; and whether Mr. Justice Stephen had not stated that, in his whole experience, he only knew of two cases?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I think

  1231
  a Question as to the practice of a Court of Law should not be asked without Notice. An objection to a juror is not raised in England the same way as in Ireland. The practice in England is not to challenge the jurors in the box; but to communicate privately with the officers of the Court.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked whether, in regard to the score of cases which had been transferred, the hon. and learned Gentleman would give the name of a single Catholic who had been allowed to serve on a jury?
  MR. MADDENsaid, it was impossible for him to give such a case.
  MR. W. REDMONDasked whether, if Catholics were not excluded from juries in Wicklow because of their religion, the hon. and learned Gentleman would say whether they were excluded because of their politics? Did the hon. and learned Gentleman wish them to believe that it was by chance that Protestant juries exclusively had been appointed over and over again to try cases in Wicklow, although there were four Catholics to one Protestant in the population?
  MR. MADDENsaid, he was perfectly willing to lay on the Table the Rules by which the action of the Crown Solicitor was regulated in regard to the challenging of jurors. He had known Crown Solicitors for the last 20 years, and he knew that they went by those Rules, and those only.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (SCOTLAND)—ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS, STIRLINGSHIRE.
  MR. J. C. BOLTONasked the Lord Advocate, Whether, in view of the dissatisfaction reported to exist with the method and severity of the examination in specific subjects in the elementary schools of Stirlingshire, he will inform the House the number of presentations in specific subjects in Stirlingshire in Standards V., VI., and ex-VI. in the year last completed, before the present Inspector was appointed; and the number of presentations in the same subjects and standards in the last completed year under the present Inspector?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): In 1883–4 the number of presentations in specific subjects in Standards IV. to ex-VI.—the
  1232
  numbers in each Standard not being recorded separately—was 5,688. Of these, 2,594 were in English literature, a subject which is now a class, not a specific subject. In 1886–7 the number presented in Standards V. to ex-VI., to which specific subjects are now confined, was 2,832. In making a comparison, it must be remembered that the figures for the later period include no presentations in Standard IV. nor in English literature. These have recently been excluded by an alteration in the Code.

  CANALS, &c.—PURCHASE BY THE STATE.
  MR. WATTasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether the Government have come to any decision with regard to the advisability of the purchase by the State of the canals throughout the country; and, if so, whether he is prepared to make any statement on the subject?
  THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH), in reply, said, what he had suggested to the hon. Member for Glasgow, who advocated the State purchase of railways, was to direct his attention to the purchase of canals as a more feasible proposal, and one to which less objection could be offered. But he did not undertake, on behalf of the Government, to bring in a Bill on the subject. He might say that under the Railway and Canal Traffic Bill of this year Returns would be received from the Canal Companies of the United Kingdom which would throw light which they did not now possess on the traffic of these canals, and the terms on which they could be bought, if their purchase were thought desirable. The subject could not be properly considered until they had these Returns.

  INDIA—THE CANTONMENTS ACTS.
  MR. JAMES STUARTasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the Indian Government have yet taken any steps to carry out the unanimous Resolution of this House of June 5 last, in so far as it affects the Cantonments Acts; and, whether he will make inquiry by telegraph as to what steps are being taken in this matter, so that the House may be in-

  1233
  formed of the fact before the Indian Budget is discussed?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): The Bill of the Government of India dealing with the subject of contagious disease has not yet been received by the Secretary of State, because there has not been time for its transmission to this country. While awaiting the receipt of this Bill the Secretary of State does not propose to make any further communication to the Government of India.
  MR. JAMES STUARTasked, whether the hon. Gentleman would obtain that information before the Indian Budget was brought on?
  SIR JOHN GORSThad already said that, awaiting the arrival of the Bill, the Secretary of State did not propose to make any further communication to the Indian Government. He hoped that before the Bill arrived the Indian Budget would have been discussed and the House would have adjourned.

  INDIA—LOCK HOSPITALS— STATISTICS.
  MR. JAMES STUARTasked the Under Secretery of State for India, (1) Whether, in reply to the despatch of the Secretary of State for India, dated August 11, 1887, requesting that any available statistics in regard to lock hospitals in the Punjaub, as well as in other parts of India, should be regularly forwarded in future, the India Office have received copies of the Annual Report of the Secunderabad Lock Hospital for 1887, and of the lock hospital in Lucknow for 1887; (2) whether the India Office possesses the reprint, dated August 1, 1887, of the Cantonment Regulations containing the Special Committee's Exposition of the Lock Hospital Rules, or any other copy of that Exposition; and, (3) whether these Lock Hospital Rules are at present in force or not?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): My answer to the first Question is no, they are not yet received; (2) yes; (3) paragraph 7 of the despatch of the Secretary of State, No. 180 of May 17, 1888, which has already been presented to Parliament, instructed the Government of India to undertake a careful revision of the Cantonment Lock Hospital Rules upon the principles there laid
  1234
  down. The carrying out of these instructions will supersede many of the existing Rules.
  MR. JAMES STUARTasked, whether the India Office were generally so long in receiving the important documents they asked for as in this case? The document to which he referred was issued on January 1 last.
  [No reply.]
  MR. M'LARENsaid, that Viscount Cross lately stated to a deputation that the whole of the Regulations under the Cantonments Acts with regard to those diseases were absolutely suspended and non-existent; and he asked whether the Under Secretary of State for India would corroborate that statement now?
  SIR JOHN GORSTsaid that the statement of the Secretary of State ought to satisfy the hon. Member, and that no corroboration of it by the Under Secretary was required.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, he had only asked the Question in consequence of an answer just given by the hon. Gentleman.
  MR. JAMES STUARTgave Notice that he would raise the question on the Indian Budget.

  BUSINESS OF THE SESSION—VOTES IN SUPPLY.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.)asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he proposes to ask the House to vote before the adjournment those Votes which are contentious, and the reduction of which is to be moved, particularly Vote 11, to which Members who had general objections to the first Money Vote were referred when they allowed that Vote to be taken?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE), in reply, said, that Vote 11 would not be taken before the adjournment of the House.

  BANKRUPTCY (IRELAND)—ADJUDICATIONS, &c., CO. LIMERICK.
  MR. O'KEEFFEasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, If he can state the numbers of all bankruptcy adjudications, arrangement cases, and compositions after bankruptcy from Limerick City and County, from the North Riding of County Tipperary,

  1235
  Clare, and north of Kerry within the past five years; whether those districts at present constitute the probate jurisdiction of the Registry at Limerick; whether he can state the amount of liabilities involved in such bankruptcy cases; and, whether he will consider the advisability of constituting the City of Limerick a centre for examination of witnesses and winding up of such insolvent estates?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN), in reply, said, he was not at present in a position to give the hon. and learned Gentleman the information he desired in the first paragraph of his Question. The answer to the second paragraph was in the affirmative.

  MARRIAGES (SCOTLAND)—FEES FOR PUBLISHING BANNS.
  MR. PHILIPPSasked the Lord Advocate, What use the Clerks of Kirk Sessions have made of the sums they have obtained in various parishes of Scotland by their exaction of the excessive fee of 10 s. for publishing the banns on a single Sabbath?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): I am unable to answer this Question. Any person who feels aggrieved at having paid more than the proper fee can raise a small debt action asking restitution, and so have the point settled.
  MR. PHILIPPSasked, who got the money; was it the Clerks of Kirk Sessions or the Established Church?
  MR. J. H. A. MACDONALDasked the hon. Gentleman to give Notice of the Question, as he was not at present in a position to answer it.

  LAW AND POLICE (METROPOLIS)—CONVICTION OF THOMAS RUSSELL FOR ASSAULT ON POLICE CONSTABLE 326M.
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to a case heard at the Southwark Police Court on Monday, when a carman named Thomas Russell was convicted by Mr. Slade of assaulting Police Constable 326M; whether the evidence for the prosecution was that of four civilians, who swore
  1236
  that the prisoner did not assault the constable, and that the officer was drunk and struck the prisoner and several other persons; and whether the evidence for the defence was that of an inspector and a constable, who were not present when the alleged assault was committed, but swore that the prosecutor was sober when they saw him about that time; whether Mr. Slade is correctly reported to have said that—
  "After the evidence of the Inspector he could not believe in the serious charge of drunkenness made against the constable, and he had come to the conclusion that the evidence for the defence had been got up to screen the prisoner;"
  and, whether he will inquire into the circumstances of the case?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I have obtained a Report from the magistrate on this case, from which it appears that four civilians gave the evidence quoted, for the defence and not for the prosecution. The Inspector who took the charge and two constables who were with 326M before and after the occurrence respectively swore that he was quite sober. The prisoner did not deny the charge at the station, and made no complaint against the constable. The magistrate, after careful hearing, deemed the defence set up to be utterly untrue, and the charge of drunkenness to be amply disproved. He gave the prisoner an opportunity of appealing; but this he refused to do, and paid the fine. I see no reason to interfere with the decision of the magistrate.

  PUBLIC MEETINGS (IRELAND)—PARTY DEMONSTRATION AT ENNISKILLEN— COLONEL KINLOCH.
  MR. W. REDMONDasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he is aware that Colonel Kinloch actually stood on the platform at the meeting in Enniskillen on July 12; and, whether the Government will give instructions to officers in Ireland to keep away from the vicinity of party demonstrations?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): I have already stated that Colonel Kinloch took no part in the meeting referred to. I agree that it is desirable that the Queen's Regulations on the subject of

  1237
  political meetings should be strictly adhered to.
  MR. W. REDMOND: I am really very sorry to trouble the right hon. Gentleman further about this matter. It is a serious case for me, because the allegations I have made against this gentleman have been denied. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether he is prepared to say decidedly that Colonel Kinloch did not go to the platform of this meeting, as I have information from people I cannot disbelieve that Colonel Kinloch did go to the meeting, and conducted two ladies there, and that he stood on the platform if he did not make a speech?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I have already stated to the House Colonel Kinloch's own version. What he assures me is that he was in plain clothes, and that he watched the procession going past as a spectator. The hon. Gentleman was good enough to give me for another purpose a photograph of the platform, about which I will make inquiries; but it shows that Colonel Kinloch was not on the platform.
  MR. W. REDMOND: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether he will state positively whether Colonel Kinloch was not on the platform; and as Colonel Kinloch states he went to the meeting as a spectator, I wish to ask him whether it is not desirable, in a place where party feeling runs so high as it does in Enniskillen, that officers should not even go as spectators, seeing how hard it is for many people to discern between a man going as a spectator and a man going as a sympathizer?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I have already stated that the Queen's Regulations must be fully carried out. Beyond that I do not think it right to deprive an officer of his civil rights.

  AFRICA (WEST COAST)—CUSTOMS DUTIES LEVIED BY THE ROYAL NIGER COMPANY.
  MR. PICTONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether there would be any objection to lay upon the Table of the House a Return showing the nature and amount of Customs duties levied by the Royal Niger Company on merchandise imported into the countries bordering the River Niger up to Sago, and the River Binne up to Yola, together with
  1238
  the nature and amount of duties levied by the Company on the export of native produce from these countries?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): There will be no objection to grant the Return if the hon. Member moves for it.

  AFRICA (WEST COAST)—THE ROYAL NIGER COMPANY.
  MR. PICTONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Government has received any Report of recent disputes or hostilities between the servants of the Royal Niger Company and the King and people of Onitcha; and, whether he can give the House any information as to the cause and nature of the dispute?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): No such Report has been received. The council of the Niger Company states that there is no truth in the rumour.
  MR. PICTONasked, whether the name "Royal Niger Company" implied that it was under the British Government, and that they were responsible for it?
  Sir JAMES FERGUSSONreplied that the word "Royal" before the name of a Company meant that it was a Company incorporated by Royal Charter. Her Majesty's Government retained a supervision over the Company, which was obliged to render to them Reports from time to time.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—THE EVICTIONS ON THE VANDELEUR ESTATE, CO. CLARE—CASE OF JOANNA O'DEA
  MR. JORDANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been directed to a report of the Vandeleur evictions in The Daily News, of July 31; whether the Sheriff, Mr. Croker, evicted a tenant named Joanna O'Dea; whether a sick child six years old, afflicted with spinal complaint and idiotic, was lying on a straw bed near the fire; whether the authorities compelled the inmates to remove the invalid from the dwelling house to an outhouse; and, whether he will take steps to prevent such occurrences in future operations?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The Divisional Magistrate reports that at the eviction in question there was a child in the house. The doctor saw it, said it was idiotic, and must have been so for a very long time; but that there was nothing to prevent its being removed. It was taken outside by the woman of the house, and was not taken to an outhouse; and that there was no inhumanity whatever about the proceedings.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—THE EVICTIONS ON THE VANDELEUR ESTATE, CO. CLARE—CASE OF MARY O'DEA.
  MR. JORDANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been directed to a report in the The Daily News, of July 31, in which it is stated that, on Monday last, at the Vandeleur evictions, the Sheriff, Mr. Croker, broke with a sledge hammer the door of the house of Mary O'Dea, and evicted her, and that she afterwards fainted; and, whether the eviction was legal; and, if so, whether the Government will grant Mary O'Dea compensation, or take steps to compel the party liable to compensate her for the damage and loss sustained and for the illegal eviction?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The Divisional Magistrate reports that the Sheriff informs him that a holding was pointed out to him as the herd's house of the farm just evicted. One of the men forced the door open with a hammer. A man was inside; no woman whatever was seen. When the man said he had not been served, the Sheriff withdrew. They were not evicted, and have their own remedy against the Sheriff if they choose. The Government have no power over the Sheriff.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—THE EVICTIONS ON THE VANDELEUR ESTATE, CO. CLARE—ALLEGED DESTRUCTION OF FURNITURE, &c., AT KILRUSH.
  MR. JORDANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been directed to the telegram in The Star, of the 1st of August, addressed to the hon. Member for North Dublin County (Mr.
  1240
  Clancy), at the House of Commons, from Mr. Kerr, a Scotch Justice of the Peace, stating that he saw with his own eyes—
  "The tenants' furniture ruthlessly destroyed, the furniture, bedroom ware, clothes, contents of sleeping room, without any consideration whatever. This happened at Kilrush;"
  and, whether, in view of this independent testimony, he still adheres to his statement that he believes the report of the officials in the matter?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I have given the fullest available information on the general subject of this Question. I do adhere to my belief as to the accuracy of that information. The wilful destruction of property alleged would, I apprehend, be clearly illegal, and those concerned in the matter have an ample opportunity of testing it in a legal manner.
  MR. JORDAN: If I supply the right hon. Gentleman with the testimony of other independent witnesses, will he still adhere to his references to my veracity in this matter?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. I expressed no opinion on his veracity. I expressed a very strong opinion on the veracity of Colonel Turner, and to that opinion I adhere.

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICES—THE SALARY OF PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD.
  MR. M'LARENasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether in the Vote on Account for the Civil Services, which is to be moved, there is included any portion of the salary of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board; and, if so, what amount; and on what day the Vote will be moved?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON), in reply, said, the Vote would include a portion of the salary of the Parliamentary Secretary, and he expected that it would be taken to-morrow.
  MR. M'LARENgave Notice to move a reduction of the hon. Member's salary.

  BURMAH (UPPER)—SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS AND OPIUM—THE RETURNS.
  MR. BRYCEasked the Under Secretary of State for India,

  1241
  When the Returns relating to the issue of licences for the sale of intoxicating liquors and of opium in Upper Burmah, for which an Address was voted by this House in August, 1887, will be presented to the House?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): The Returns are now received, and will be presented this day.

  THE CIVIL SERVICE (IRELAND)—SIR PATRICK J. KEENAN, RESIDENT COMMSIMISSIONER OF NATIONAL EDUCATION.
  DR. KENNYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the P. J. Keenan, whose name appears in The Dublin Gazette of July 6 and July 10, 1888, appended to Dublin Castle Proclamamations, and also to many other similar Proclamations on various other occasions, is the same P. J. Keenan whose name appears in the Estimates as paid Resident Commissioner of National Education, Ireland; if so, will he state on what grounds the said P. J. Keenan is exempted from the Rule of the Civil Service requiring all paid officials to devote their entire time to the duties of their offices, and forbids them taking part in other business; whether the meetings of the Privy Council in Dublin Castle are held during the ordinary business hours for Civil servants; and, whether it is the custom in England for Civil servants, who happen to be also Privy Councillors, to take any active part in the Executive Government of the country?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The gentleman referred to is Sir Patrick Keenan, the Resident Commissioner of National Education. It is not the case that his name appeared in The Dublin Gazette of the 6th and 10th of July, or in The Gazette of any other date, appended to Dublin Castle Proclamations, as he has never signed any such Proclamations. His name appears in The Gazette mentioned in two Orders of a routine character, one approving of an expenditure of money for the improvement of a lunatic asylum, and the other approving, as required by Statute, of a Rule as to costs adopted by the Judges. There is no such Rule in the Civil Ser-
  1242
  vice as that suggested. But, in any case, the duties performed by Sir Patrick Keenan as a Privy Councillor do not interfere with the discharge of his official duties as Resident Commissioner of National Education. The meetings of the Privy Council do not take place at any fixed hours, but are frequently held after the ordinary business hours for Civil servants.

  BURGH POLICE AND HEALTH (SCOTLAND) BILL—REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.)asked the Lord Advocate, If he will take care that, before the House is asked to discuss the clauses of the Burgh Police and Health (Scotland) Bill, as settled by a Select Committee, Members are put in possession of the Report and proceedings of that Committee?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): I am informed that the proceedings of the Committee will be circulated to-morrow morning.

  MASTERS AND WORKMEN—EXCESSIVE HOURS OF WORK (WILLIAM LOVE).
  DR. CLARKasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the Coroner's inquest on the body of William Love, who died on June 4 from the effects of a fall at Wheelock Works, Northwich; whether this man had been at work for 17 hours when the fatal injury occurred; whether it is the case that at these works there are shifts of 23 hours continuously; and, whether he will consider the desirability of introducing a measure to deal with such excessive hours of toil?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): Yes, Sir; my attention has been called to a newspaper report of the inquest, from which it appears that this man had been at work for 17 hours when the accident occurred. He was engaged on a night shift, which lasted from 1 on Saturday till 8 on Sunday morning. I agree with the hon. Member that this was a shift of excessive length; but I gather from the report of the inquest that the death was caused by the imprudence of the deceased in endeavouring to oil the

  1243
  machinery when standing on some pipes, instead of on the platform provided for the purpose. I cannot undertake to introduce legislation for the purpose of curtailing the hours of labour contracted for by adult persons.

  NAVY—WARLIKE STORES—SUPPLY— NAVY ESTIMATES, VOTE 9.
  MR. HANBURYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether he accepts as correct the statement in the First Report of the Committee on Army Estimates that—
  "The Admiralty are now solely responsible to Parliament for the sufficiency or insufficiency of warlike stores provided for the use of the Navy;"
  and, if not, which Department is, in fact, responsible for the sufficiency of Vote 9, now for the first time included in Navy Estimates; whether, when that Vote was transferred to and included in Navy Estimates, a complete statement had been furnished by the War Office to the Admiralty of moneys received and moneys actually expended by the War Office for naval ordnance up to that date, and whether any amount so received by the War Office still remains unaccounted for to the Admiralty, and is not represented by ordnance stores of equal value held for or handed over to the Navy by the War Office; whether a complete statement had then been, or has since been, furnished to the Admiralty of the number and kinds of guns, and also of the amount and description of ammunition in the hands of the War Office and belonging to the Navy; whether a complete statement had then been, or has since been, furnished by the War Office to the Admiralty of liabilities incurred and unpaid amounts chargeable to Naval Votes, and whether fresh liabilities are still being discovered; whether the Director of Naval Ordnance has declined responsibility for the sufficiency of the Vote as it now stands, in the absence of proper information from the War Office as to the stores of naval guns and ammunition in its charge and available for use; and, whether the Admiralty some time since sanctioned a further expenditure on account of this Vote; and, if so, whether the increased charge so sanctioned will be provided for out of savings on other Votes or by a Supplementary Estimate?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): The Admiralty have only accepted responsibility in reference to the ordnance stores, concerning the amount of which they have complete information; and their position is made clear both in my Memorandum explanatory of the Estimates, as well as in a letter addressed to the War Office on the 27th of April, 1887, and which, I understand, was laid before the Committee on Army Estimates. The transfer of the Vote to the Navy Estimates was made before complete statements of the nature alluded to—of moneys received and expended—were furnished. The information as to guns in the hands of the War Office is complete; that relating to ammunition and other naval stores is promised in its entirety by September 10. As regards foreign stations the information is complete. The record of liabilities incurred and unpaid amounts chargeable to Naval Votes is complete, but has not yet been furnished in full detail from the ordnance factory. There was a large surrender on last year's Vote, the contractors being unable to earn the sums contained in the Estimates to cover the orders given to them. To prevent this year a recurrence of this surrender, a larger proportion of orders to the money voted have been given. I cannot now say whether a Supplementary Estimate will be necessary, as the sums to be paid within the financial year entirely depend upon the progress made by the contractors with the work given to them.

  WAR OFFICE—ARMY CONTRACTS— THE NEW VALISE EQUIPMENT.
  MR. HANBURYasked the Secretary of State for War, Who is the contractor to whom the order for Colonel Slade's contract for the new valise equipment has been given, and what portion of it has already been executed by such contractor?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): The hon. Member will see by my reply to a Question put by him on the 20th of July that this contract was given to Colonel Slade himself. No complete sets have yet been supplied; but a few sample sets hive come in.

  CUSTOMS (STATISTICAL DEPARTMENT)—WRITERS.
  MR. JAMES STUARTasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is the case that a number of the writers in the Statistical Department of the Customs are engaged upon similar work to that discharged by Lower Division clerks; whether some of these writers have been recommended for promotion; whether the Committee of Inquiry, having in view the reorganization of the Department, have expressed their opinion that a special rate of payment would probably meet the case; and, whether any such special rate of payment has yet been made; and, if not, when it is intended that it shall be made?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): It is the case that some of the writers employed in the Statistical Office in the Customs are engaged upon work of a similar character to that which is discharged by some of the Lower Division clerks. None of these writers have been recommended for promotion. The question of a special rate of payment for the persons employed in tabulating the statistics is being held over for permanent settlement until the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments shall have reported; but, meanwhile, the Treasury have agreed to grant a special rate of payment to the writers referred to by the hon. Member, which will shortly take effect on the introduction of the seven hours' system into the Office.

  LAW AND POLICE (METROPOLIS)— HAMMERSMITH POLICE COURT.
  MAJOR-GENERAL GOLDSWORTHYasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether Her Majesty's Government is taking any steps for the improvement of the Hammersmith Police Court?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER (Mr. PLUNKET): I have been in communication with the Home Office; and we have now settled the plans for improving and Increasing the accommodation for prisoners at Hammersmith Police Court.

  COAL MINES, &c. REGULATION ACT, 1887—REFUSAL OF CERTIFICATES.
  CAPTAIN HEATHCOTEasked the Secretary of
  1246
  State for the Home Department, If he can now state the result of his inquiry into the accuracy of the statements made by Her Majesty's Inspector of Mines in justification of his refusal to recommend James Hughes and Thomas Parker for second-class certificates, under section 80 of "The Coal Mines, &c. Regulation Act, 1887;" and, if, in the event of James Hughes and Thomas Parker proving their fitness to receive second-class certificates, and that they have been prevented from following their ordinary employmeat for six weeks in consequence of any inaccuracy or carelessness in the Reports of Her Majesty's Inspector of Mines in North Staffordshire, they will be entitled to fair and reasonable compensation for the loss in wages which they have sustained?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): The Inspector of Mines had to exercise his judgment to the best of his ability on conflicting statements of fact as to the real nature of the previous employment of Hughes and Parker which made their claim to receive second-class certificates a matter of doubt and difficulty. I have sought for further information; and upon careful consideration of all the circumstances I have come to the conclusion that Hughes and Parker may have certificates granted to them. No claim for compensation can be entertained.

  MERCHANDIZE MARKS ACT IN THE COLONIES, &c.
  MR. MUNDELLAasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he is using, and will continue to use, his influence with his Colleagues in the India Office, Foreign Office, and Colonial Office to secure the adoption of the principle of the Merchandize Marks Act in our Colonies and Dependencies, and in all foreign countries which have become parties to the Convention of Rome; and, whether he can report any satisfactory progress in this direction?
  THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): I am doing everything in my power in accordance with the wishes of the right hon. Gentleman. We have no progress to report with regard to foreign countries. With regard to India, I think my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for India has already informed the House

  1247
  that the Local Governments and Councils have been communicated with on the subject, and that a Bill, which is now before the Legislative Council in India, will pave the way for further legislation. A further despatch on the matter is going out to-day. With regard to the Colonies, in nine legislation has been already passed; in one it is proceeding; in 16 it is promised; and from seven no replies have been received; while in six of no great importance legislation is considered unnecessary.
  MR. MUNDELLAremarked, that with respect to India there was abundant evidence that falsely-marked merchandize had been shipped to a considerable extent in foreign bottoms.

  ROYAL PARKS AND PLEASURE GARDENS—KEW GARDENS—ADDITIONAL FACILITIES OF ACCESS.
  MR. TOMLINSON(for Sir JOHN WHITTAKER ELLIS)asked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether greater facilities of access to Kew Gardens cannot be granted by opening a new gateway entrance?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER (Mr. PLUNKET): I am in communication with the owner of the property lying between the Kew Railway Station and the Gardens, and I have reason to hope that he will agree to the making of a new road through his land. In that case I have undertaken to open a gate directly facing and in view of the exit from the station. This will be an improvement and a great convenience to the public.

  OATHS AND AFFIRMATIONS—OATH OF A DECLARED ATHEIST.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether he is aware that, at Barrow-in-Furness last week, the magistrates refused to allow one John Clegg (who stated that he was an Atheist, and objected to take an oath) to make affirmation, but ultimately permitted him to give evidence on oath; and, whether, under the circumstances, the refusal to allow affirmation, and the taking the evidence on oath, were in accordance with the Law?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): I have made inquiries, and have ascer-
  1248
  tained that the magistrates were not informed of the Statute enabling persons objecting to make an oath to make a "promise and declaration." The refusal, under the circumstances, was not in accordance with the law; but attention having been called to the matter it is not likely to occur again.

  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (CHARGES AND ALLEGATIONS) BILL—MR. BUCKLE, EDITOR OF THE "TIMES."
  MR. T. M. HEALY, who had the following Question on the Paper:—"To ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Mr. Buckle, editor of The Times, came to see him in reference to the allegations against Members, along with the proprietor of that journal, or separately; and, what were the date or dates of the interviews," said, he would postpone the Question, but asked whether there was anyone who could propose the Motions of which Notice had been given in the name of the First Lord of the Treasury (for suspending the Midnight Rule and applying the Closure after 1 o'clock)?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): Yes, Sir; it is proposed to move the two Motions which stand in the name of my right hon. Friend, and I am prepared to answer the Question of the hon. and learned Member if he wishes it.
  MR. T. M. HEALYstated that he had received a letter from the Private Secretary of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith), desiring that the Question might be postponed, as the right hon. Gentleman had to attend the funeral of Admiral Codrington, and could not be in his place at Question time. After hearing that letter the right hon. Gentleman could take his own course.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I think I can answer the Question. My right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury has had no communication with Mr. Buckle at all on the question. He has not seen him, and has not been called upon by him.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: As the right hon. Gentleman takes upon himself to answer for the First Lord of the Treasury without being asked, I will ask him if he can state whether the First Lord of the Treasury saw Mr. Leycester,

  1249
  chief reporter of The Times, in the Gallery of this House, several times on this question?
  MR. GOSCHEN: No, Sir; I cannot answer this Question without information.
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON): With reference to the manuscript read on Thursday, the 12th ultimo, by the First Lord of the Treasury, when the right hon. Gentleman was understood to say that the Government would frame a Bill to institute a Special Commission to report upon the charges and allegations against Members of Parliament only, I wish to ask whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer is aware that the manuscript read by the First Lord of the Treasury was sent to members of the Press Gallery, where it was seen by several gentlemen, and whether it is not a fact that the words "and other persons" did not appear in that manuscript?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I have no knowledge whatever of the manuscript having been sent to, or not having been sent to, the Reporters' Gallery. They were the notes of the First Lord of the Treasury, and they were not in the possession of any of his Colleagues.
  MR. SEXTONasked, whether the manuscript was or was not sent to the Reporters' Gallery? Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether it did or did not contain the words in question?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I have never seen it, and I am not aware that any of my Colleagues have ever seen it. Therefore, I cannot say whether it contained the words or not.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked, whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer knew whether the First Lord of the Treasury would be willing to give the date of his interview or the dates of his interviews with Mr. Walter?
  MR. GOSCHEN: No, Sir.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE ADJOURNMENT.
  MR. CAUSTONasked, whether the Government intended to proceed with the Excise Duties (Local Purposes) Bill before the adjournment; and, if so, when?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): In the present state
  1250
  of Business it is extremely difficult to fix a day.
  MR. MUNDELLA: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to bring in this Bill late in the Session, when many Members are away? Members are already pairing and going away.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I am in a dilemma with regard to this matter, because the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone)—very naturally as I think—insisted the other day that the Bill ought to be brought in before the Autumn Session, on the ground that the tax ought not to be delayed until so late a period of the year. Of course, there is here this circumstance to be borne in mind, that the tax is not an Imperial tax, but a local one. Personally I should have no objection to a postponement of the Bill until the Autumn Session if we cannot bring it on very early next week. But I can only postpone it on the understanding that such postponement is not to be considered in the light of a withdrawal or change of front on the part of the Government.
  MR. FIRTHasked, whether the Sitting on Saturday would be devoted to Scotch Business?
  MR. GOSCHEN: No; it will be impossible to take Scotch Business on that day. I may state the course of Business during the next two days. It is absolutely indispensable to take a Vote on Account to-morrow for the Civil Service, and on Saturday it will be necessary to take the Report of the Vote on Account of the Army and Navy Estimates. The Army Estimates will be put down for to-morrow, and the Vote on Account may possibly be taken on that night, and in that case the Army and Navy Votes will be proceeded with at a Saturday Sitting.
  MR. MUNDELLAinquired whether the right hon. Gentleman supposed that a Vote on Account could be got to-morrow night? There were many subjects that would have to be discussed.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN&c.): Which day will be devoted to Scotch Business?
  MR. GOSCHEN: In the absence of the First Lord of the Treasury I cannot go beyond the next few days, for which the programme has been absolutely settled; but I know the anxiety of the

  1251
  First Lord of the Treasury to secure a day for Scotch Business as soon as possible. In answer to the right hon. Member opposite (Mr. Mundella), I have to say that it is our hope and expectation to complete the Vote on Account to-morrow, it being absolutely necessary to secure the money.
  In reply to Sir WILLIAM PLOWDEN (Wolverhampton, W.).
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, the Indian Budget would be taken this Session if it were possible to do so; and, in accordance with the pledge of the First Lord of the Treasury, three clear days' Notice would be given.

  WAR OFFICE (SMALL ARMS)—THE NEW MAGAZINE RIFLE.
  MR. WOODALLasked, Whether the Secretary of State for War would tell the House the result of the trials with the new magazine rifle; and, whether the statement that had appeared in a Povincial newspaper, to the effect that the rifle had been condemned, was true?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): There is no truth in the statemant. As far as I am aware, the trials have been very satisfactory.

  SOUTH AFRICA—ZULULAND—SURRENDER OF NATIVE CHIEFS.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAINasked, Whether the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies had received any recent information about affairs in Zululand?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir JOHN GORST)(who replied) said: Yes, Sir. The following telegram has been received from Sir Arthur Havelock:—
  "1st August.—Colonial Secretary sent by east coast road reach Umfolosi River without opposition. Somkeli, Chief of that locality, has involuntarily and unconditionally surrendered to authorities. Other Chiefs expected to surrender. Native followers who had come to Dinizulu from beyond Zululand are said to be dispersing. I am not without hopes that Dinizulu himself will surrender. Situation much improved."

PRIVILEGE.

  "THE TIMES" NEWSPAPER—BREACH OF PRIVILEGE—RESOLUTION.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I wish, Sir, to submit to the House a
  1252
  Question of Privilege. It is with regard to an article in The Times newspaper of to-day, portions of which I deem, and I think that other hon. Members when they hear them read will also deem, to constitute a gross breach of the Privileges of this House. In order that I may found a Motion upon it, I believe that I am right in taking the extract of which I complain up to the Table of the House and asking the Clerk to read it.
  MR. SPEAKER: Bring it up.
  The said Paper was then delivered in, and the passages complained of read as followeth:—
  "The endeavour to convict the Government of a change of front because Mr. W. H. Smith, in offering Mr. Parnell the alternative of the Special Commission, omitted the words 'and other persons,' though ever since the notice of the introduction of the Bill was placed on the paper those words have been before the House, and the Opposition allowed the Second Reading to pass unchallenged with full knowledge of them, conspicuously failed; but this and other groundless accusations have afforded Mr. Parnell, Mr. T. Healy, Mr. Sexton, Mr. T. P. O'Connor, and the rest the opportunity to pour out a flood of blackguardism—we can call it by no other name—on The Times and the persons responsible for its conduct, which we venture to say is absolutely without parallel in Parliamentary history. We are completely indifferent to abuse, calumny, and mendacious charges from that quarter, and we are quite surd that public opinion will take the just measure of the men who resort to these weapons. But, for the honour of public life in England, it is to be deplored that Mr. Gladstone as well as Sir William Harcourt entered into a competition with the foul-mouthed oratory of their present allies below the gangway. Still more scandalous is it that Mr. Morley should dare to accuse this journal of the 'deepest infamy' on the unsupported testimony, which he has taken no pains to sift, of one of his reckless Irish allies. The stuff which is held to be good enough to furnish forth the speeches of these statesmen with their facts, their arguments, their taunts, and their calumnies would not be listened to by any decent people if it were bawled about the streets by the sort of people who obtain a hearing because they are Members of the House of Commons."
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I have asked, Sir, the Clerk to read the whole passage, in order that the House may have an opportunity of seeing what it is. It

  1253
  is, however, upon the following three points that I rely in making the Motion with which I propose to end my observations:—First—
  "This, and other groundless accusations, have afforded Mr. Parnell, Mr. T. Healy, Mr. Sexton, Mr. T. P. O'Connor, and the rest, the opportunity to pour out a flood of blackguardism."
  That is an accusation that the Gentlemen named did yesterday pour out in their speeches a flood of blackguardism. The second passage upon which I rely is this—
  "We are completely indifferent to abuse, calumny, and mendacious charges from that quarter."
  That is a charge by innuendo of mendacity against hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House. The third passage on which I rely is this—
  "For the honour of public life in England, it is to be deplored that Mr. Gladstone, as well as Sir William Harcourt, entered into a competition with the foul-mouthed oratory of their present allies below the gangway."
  That is to say, that Mr. Gladstone, Sir William Harcourt, and others, were foul-mouthed in their observations last night. Now, Sir, in 1733, the House of Commons passed, nemine contradicente, the following Resolution:—
  "That the assaulting, or insulting, or menacing any Member of this House in his coming to, or going from the House, or upon the account of his behaviour in Parliament, is a high infringement of the Privileges of this House, a most outrageous and dangerous violation of the rights of Parliament, and a high crime and misdemeanour."
  Now, I think there is no one here who will contend that the article in The Times is not insulting to certain Members of this House. Sir Erskine May, at page 100 of his book on Parliamentary Practice points out that—
  "Libels upon Members have also been constantly punished; but to constitute a breach of Privilege, they must concern the character or conduct of Members in that capacity."
  No one will deny that these charges and allegations in The Times article concern the character and conduct of Members in that capacity. I do not wish, for a moment, to enter into whether these charges and allegations are true or false. This is not the moment for it. These charges are libellous. There can be no question of that, for to constitute a libel, it does not depend upon whether it is true or false. If a libel is true, it may be justified by
  1254
  the assertion that it is true, but it remains a libel, nevertheless. These charges are essentially libellous in their character, and I cannot help thinking that this House ought to take notice of them. The words are strong. I notice sometimes that words used in newspapers are strong. But really there ought to be some limit even in the language which is permitted to that most sacred gospel of the Conservative Party—The Times. I beg to move, Sir, that the newspaper referred to, in its issue of this morning, has been guilty of a breach of the Privileges of this House.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the 'Times' newspaper, in its issue of this morning, has been guilty of a breach of the privileges of this House."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): I am sorry to say this is not the first time that cases of Breach of Privilege with regard to articles appearing in newspapers have been brought before the House of Commons. There are several precedents to guide us in this matter. I would mention them to the House, and, with the same brevity exercised by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), I will point out how the House dealt with these cases without going into details, but making a mere general statement. There can, of course, be no doubt that a Breach of Privilege has been committed by the article in question. There is no reason for denying or mitigating the fact. No doubt, of late, some very strong language has been used with regard to The Times in this House under the protection of Privilege; but that would not, of course, affect the question whether a Breach of Privilege has been committed. But on previous occasions, when a Breach of Privilege has been committed—
  MR. LABOUCHERE: As a question of Order, would it not be more proper for the right hon. Gentleman to reserve these observations for the second Motion I shall make when this has been carried?
  MR. GOSCHEN: No; because the precedents which I will mention to the House will show that in these cases the House did not accept the Motion that a Breach of Privilege had been committed, and passed to the next Business of the day. I am sure the right hon. Gentle-

  1255
  man the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) will remember the cases, and I know that he has often advised the House to be extremely careful in this matter of proceeding against newspapers, and has used his influence in having such Motions as this either withdrawn or indirectly negatived by the acceptance of a Motion to proceed to the next Business of the Day. There are two comparatively recent cases which I have been able to look up in the few available moments I have had. On the 15th April, 1878, Mr. O'Donnell moved that an article in The Globe newspaper was a breach of the Privileges of the House. An Amendment was proposed to pass to the next Business on the Paper, and that was carried without a Division. On the 23rd February, 1880, Mr. O'Donnell brought forward a similar Motion in regard to articles in The World, Morning Advertiser, Daily Telegraph, and Pall Mall Gazette. Sir Stafford North-cote moved an Amendment, which was seconded by the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington), to pass to the Orders of the Day, and that was accepted and carried without a Division. I think the House will feel the extreme delicacy of proceeding in these matters, and I would submit that, while we cannot deny that a Breach of Privilege has been committed, we should follow these two precedents and proceed to the Order of the Day. [Cries of "Move!"] Well, I do not move. It is for the House to decide, and I should like to know the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, who will, I feel sure, deal with this matter with entire impartiality. [Cries of "Move!"]
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman does not move?
  MR. GOSCHEN: As a matter of fact, I did not move; but I beg now to move, Sir, "That the House do now proceed to the Business of the day."
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I rise to second that Motion. I think that we should proceed in these matters with great reluctance, and if my hon. Friend had consulted me, I should have ventured to dissuade him from taking the course he has. The precedents which have been mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman appear to me to be founded
  1256
  on a rule of prudence. Breach of Privilege is a very wide net, and it would be very undesirable that notice should be taken in this House of all cases in which hon. Members are unfairly criticized. Breach of Privilege is not exactly to be defined. It is rather to be held in the air to be exercised on proper occasions when, in the opinion of the House, a fit case for its exercise occurs. To put this weapon unduly in force is to invite a combat upon unequal terms wheresoever and by whomsoever carried on. Though, in the present case, my opinion of the language in the article now brought under the attention of the House is not very different from that of my hon. Friend, I do not think there is any duty or policy which should induce us to treat it as an exception to the general rule of prudence acted upon in former cases. My hon. Friend referred to the Resolution passed by this House in 1733. I say quite frankly that I am not prepared to be bound by the usage of the House on matters of Privilege in 1733. The right of the nation to know the proceedings of Parliament was not then recognized. Now that right is established, and opinions are therefore naturally formed in regard to these proceedings. Indeed, it is absolutely necessary that there should be freedom of comment. That freedom of comment may, of course, be occasionally abused; but I do not think it is becoming the dignity of the House to notice that abuse of it. It is infinitely better and more dignified in this House to stand on the general reasonableness of its proceedings if we can, and if we have not that basis of reasonableness, we have no basis at all. I would therefore say that in accordance with the precedents that have been mentioned, and not only as a matter of precedent, but upon general grounds, we would do well to take no notice of this subject. I am, it appears, one of the persons honoured by reference to the observations I yesterday submitted to the House; but I am quite ready to second the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman, and I would also venture to respectfully request my hon. Friend not to press the Motion which he has made.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I do not think it was quite fair of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian

  1257
  as a Gentleman having a perfectly impartial and independent mind upon this subject; for the right hon. Gentleman is himself accused in this article, and, under those circumstances, he has got up not with an impartial mind, but with a desire to return good for evil. The right hon. Gentleman is one of those who are termed "foul mouthed" by The Times. He has urged me not to press this Motion. I will not press it under the circumstances; but I will just point out that in my researches into antiquity, I find that the punishment for the offence which has been committed is branding, flogging, and being put in pillory one and all. I hope that Mr. Walter and his friends will henceforth abate the coarseness of their language towards the right hon. Gentleman, when they find that it is owing to his intervention that they are not punished as they deserved to be by this House.
  Amendment proposed,
  "To leave out from the word 'that,' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'the House do pass to the Public Business of the Day.'"—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.")
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. SEXTON: Before the Motion is withdrawn I desire to offer a few words to the House. As for the references of The Times to myself, I do not care what it says, and I should not have thought of troubling the House on this occasion, for I regard its utterances with immeasurable contempt. In the second place, I know well, from experience, that the proceedings of Irish Members in this House are regarded by a considerable section of the House as fair matter for scurrilous attacks by any blackguard of the Press. Irish Members, of whom I am one, are accused of blackguardism in the performance of their duties in this House. I only wish to say that whatever they have said and done has been under the notice and control of either Mr. Speaker or the Chairman of Ways and Means. I do not know that I have come much into conflict with the Chair; but I do remember that on one occasion when I was forced to call an hon. Member a liar to his face, you, Mr. Speaker, having regard to the provocation I received, did not consider that I exceeded the limits
  1258
  of my right. The article read at the Table declares that the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. John Morley) is scandalous, because he said that the conduct of The Times had been infamous. Now, what were the facts of the case? My hon. Friend the Member for North Wexford (Mr. J. E. Redmond), on the day after the Phœnix Park murders, addressed a public meeting at Manchester. He put himself in communication with the police, and learned that the rumour of Lord Spencer's assassination was false, but that, as regarded Lord Frederick Cavendish, it was true. He therefore referred to the murder of Lord Frederick Cavendish only, because he knew of no other murder. On the following day, The Times commented upon the fact that my hon. Friend did not refer to the murder of Mr. Burke, and conveyed in the plainest terms that, if he did not actually approve of the murder, he was willing to condone it. My hon. Friend wrote a letter to The Times explaining the matter; but The Times, from that day to this, has refused to print that letter. The hon. Member subsequently repeated his explanation in a speech in this House; but The Times, in reporting his speech, cut out the passages explaining the matter.
  MR. SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Member that the House is now considering the subject of Privilege in connection with The Times article of this day.
  MR. SEXTON: The Times article of to-day accuses the right hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne of scandalous conduct in charging it with the deepest infamy on the unsupported testimony, which he had taken no pains to verify, of his reckless Irish allies. I am endeavouring to show that the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman was not scandalous, but was justifiable. I maintain that the statements of the right hon. Gentleman did not rest on unsupported testimony, but were proved by notorious facts. The Times refused to insert the letter of my hon. Friend, and, as I have said, cut out of his speech in this House his explanation in reference to the matter. Will it be observed that that speech having been delivered in May, 1882, and my hon. Friend having written a letter to The Times to explain the whole matter, the hon. and learned Attorney

  1259
  General the other day, in the case of "O'Donnell v. Walter," absolutely drew the attention of the jury to the passage contained in The Times in which it attacked my hon. Friend. I hold in my hand the third and revised edition of Parnellism and Crime, and let me turn to one passage there relating to the conduct of my hon. Friend.
  MR. SPEAKER: That is not the question before the House. The question is whether the words in The Times' issue of this day constitute a Breach of Privilege. The hon. Member is not entitled to go back to former articles, because the question is simply whether the words contained in the article to-day constitute a breach of the Privileges of this House.
  MR. SEXTON: Surely, the word scandalous applied to the right hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne is a Breach of Privilege. I was endeavouring to show that the right hon. Gentleman had not spoken on unsupported testimony.
  MR. SYDNEY GEDGE: I rise to Order. I submit, that the words in The Times being admitted to be a Breach of Privilege, it is immaterial whether they are justified by the facts or not, and, therefore, it is out of Order for the hon. Member to discuss them and endeavour to prove that they are not in accordance with the facts.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: As you, Sir, were not in the Chair yesterday afternoon, I may perhaps be allowed to say that the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) was referring to what took place in Committee, and to the speech made by my hon. and learnen Friend the Member for North Wexford. I submit that the hon. Member was entitled to show that the remark which he thought it his duty to make was justified.
  MR. SPEAKER: The truth of this matter has nothing to do with the question whether the language of The Times was proper to be used towards Members of the House, and whether the use of improper language constitutes a Breach of Privilege. The truth and justice of the language used is not the question before the House.
  MR. ROBERTSON: Is not the question before the House the propriety of proceeding to the Business of the day?
  MR. SEXTON: The libel upon my hon. and learned Friend was inserted in The Times on the 8th of May, 1882—
  "On the 7th," said The Times, "Mr. J. Redmond spoke at Manchester. He condemned the murder of Lord Frederick Cavendish; but it is significant that he made no reference to the murder of Mr. Burke."
  It is enough for me to say that the hon. and learned Attorney General read the remarks to the jury on the conduct of Mr. Redmond without any explanation. But we despise insinuations proceeding from the paymasters and accomplices of forgers. I will not detain the House further with the infamous suggestion directed against my hon. Friend six years ago, the explanation of which has been suppressed, but I will only ask who were the blackguards?
  MR. J. E. REDMOND: I wish, Sir, to claim your indulgence and the indulgence of the House while I speak one or two sentences in reference to a matter which affects me personally. I hold now, in my hand, the proof of the statement which I made yesterday. Yesterday I stated the circumstances under which I made the speech to a public meeting at Manchester, and I said that The Times had publicly accused me of sympathizing with the murder of Mr. Burke, because in that speech I did not mention his name. [Cries of "Question!"] If you tell me it is not the Question, I will sit down, and I will ask leave to make a personal explanation. I made that statement yesterday; but I find that the statement I made went further than the fact. What The Times did was this, it made the statement the next day that I had made no reference whatever to the murder of Mr. Burke. A couple of days afterwards the hon. Member for Derry City (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) told me that comment had been made by Members of the House on my silence in presence of that implied charge. In answer to the appeal of the hon. Member for Derry City, I wrote a letter to The Times, stating that I had no more idea than the child unborn, at the time I made the speech, that Mr. Burke had, unfortunately, been murdered. The Times did not publish that letter. On May 18, 1882, I alluded to the subject in the House, as reported in Hansard. I said—

  1261
  "That it was difficult for the Irish Members to insure the proper representation of their words and actions before the public might be seen from the fact that for his speech at Manchester, immediately after the lamentable outrage in the Phœnix Park, he had been attacked in the London Press for having mentioned Lord Frederick Cavendish and omitted Mr. Burke, notwithstanding the fact that at the time of the delivery of the speech he was unaware that Mr. Burke had been assassinated. A letter which he wrote to The Times newspaper explaining this was not inserted in that journal, although it was one of the London papers that took the matter up."—(3 Hansard, [269] 998.)
  The Times omitted the whole of that passage from the report of my speech. The matter had then passed from my memory until the early part of last year, until the articles entitled Parnellism and Crime appeared, when I found the statement in them—
  "The same day"—
  that is the day after the murder—
  "Mr. J. E. Redmond spoke at Manchester. He, too, condemned the Chief Secretary's murder. But it is a point of high significance, noted at the time, that at this meeting no reference whatever was made to the murder of Mr. Burke."
  These words are quoted from The Times of May 8, 1882. In a subsequent page of the same pamphlet is this passage—
  "Mr. Finarty headed the demonstration at Turner Hall. The latter had recently expressed his sorrow that the London explosions were not more successful. He now threw his side light on the murders in the Phœnix Park. He (Lord Frederick Cavendish) died because he was in bad company—was with Thomas H. Burke, the Fouche of Ireland. The day after the murders, Mr. J. E. Redmond, M.P., deplored as we have seen, the Chief Secretary's end. He, too, said nothing as regarded Burke."
  When I read these articles in Parnellism and Crime, I wrote a letter to a London journal, stating the facts and challenging The Times to explain why they had publisned this calumnious statement. That letter duly appeared on the 15th of March, and then The Times replied in a way that was little else than saying that I was telling a lie. They said that—
  "Mr. J. E. Redmond's so-called explanation of his silence about the murder of Mr. Burke was merely an assertion that on Sunday afternoon in Manchester, he knew nothing of the double nature of the crime committed on Saturday night with which the whole country was ringing. Such an assertion hardly required comment."
  This is the end of my miserable story, miserable for everybody concerned except me. The hon. and learned Attorney General, I am sure, knowing nothing of my explanation, and acting
  1262
  on instructions, insisted after contention with Mr. Ruegg, the counsel for Mr. O'Donnell, in putting before the jury the whole of these scandalous imputations upon me. With regard to the remarks of the right hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, who has been foully assailed because it is said he accepted my statement without sifting it, the right hon. Gentleman did nothing of the kind. What the right hon. Gentleman said yesterday was—that if my statements were true, they covered The Times with infamy; but he went on to say that probably I might have omitted something in my statement. If I did omit anything in that statement, I have tried to supply the omission. I have nothing further to say than that I hope the right hon. Gentleman will now be satisfied by the proofs that I have given, and the statements I have made, of the truth of the statements I have made day by day with dates, and chapter, and verse, and I am sure that the public will not be slow to draw the right inference with regard to the repeated accusations which have been made against me by The Times, after the conductors of that paper knew them to be false, nor will they be slow to sympathize with the hon. and learned Attorney General at having found himself, as counsel for The Times, in the position of repeating against me the calumnies which those who instructed him knew to be false.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: After hearing what my hon. and learned Friend has said, I am, as he supposed I should be, entirely and fully satisfied, and now I am in a position to alter what I said yesterday. What I said yesterday was—and it is not worth while in this case to notice remarks in editorial articles—with regard to the conduct of The Times strictly conditional. Four times in the course of my remarks I said—"If this is proved, The Times has been guilty of the deepest infamy." I have heard the speech of my hon. and learned Friend, and I now withdraw that qualification, and say that The Times has been guilty of the deepest infamy.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: While I think that the House is justified in taking no further notice of this matter, and while I fully endorse the action of the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian, I think that the House has some reason to complain that the

  1263
  reports in Hansard's Debates are largely taken from The Times, which we now know in every case in reporting the speeches of Irish Members acts like a literary Thug.
  MR. SPEAKER: Do I understand the hon. Member for Northampton to withdraw his Motion?
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Yes, Sir; I ask the leave of the House to withdraw the Motion.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: On this side of the House, it was expected that the hon. and learned Attorney General would take the opportunity which has been offered him of withdrawing a statement which he must now know was a calumny, and which he could not justify. [Cries of "Answer!"]
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member now withdraw the Motion?
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Yes.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

MOTIONS.
  SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE, EXEMPTION FROM THE STANDING ORDER.

    RESOLUTION.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the proceedings on the Members of Parliament (Charges and Allegations) Bill, if under discussion at Twelve o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order 'Sittings of the House.'"—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
    DR. CLARKsaid, he rose to a point of Order. He wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was in Order in moving a Motion which stood upon the Paper in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith), who was then present in the House?
    MR. SPEAKER: It is competent to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make the Motion which stands on the Paper in the name of the First Lord of the Treasury.
    Motion agreed to.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—PROCEDURE ON THE MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (CHARGES AND ALLEGATIONS) BILL—RESOLUTION.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): In rising to move the Motion which stands upon the Paper in the name of my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury, and Notice of which I gave on his behalf yesterday afternoon, I think I shall best consult the convenience of the House by confining myself strictly to making the Motion. We have now been engaged for three days—Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday—upon the Committee of this Bill, and the whole of yesterday afternoon was occupied in discussing one Amendment, which was, no doubt, an important Amendment. In making this Motion, I am anxious not to say anything that will lead to controversy. I think that during the time at our disposal between the present hour and 1 o'clock in the morning, we shall be in a position to deal with the remaining Amendments to the Bill which have been placed upon the Paper, especially in view of the fact that the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) has stated that the most essential parts of the measure have already been disposed of. There are, no doubt, some Amendments of some importance upon the Paper; but I believe that they can receive full and adequate discussion between now and 1 o'clock. I beg to move the Resolution I have referred to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed
  "That at One o'clock a.m. on Friday 3rd August, if the Members of Parliament (Charges and Allegations) Bill be not previously reported from the Committee of the whole House, the Chairman shall put for with the Question, or Questions, on any Amendment or Motion already proposed from the Chair. He shall next proceed and successively put forthwith the Questions, That any Clause then under Consideration, and each remaining Clause in the Bill, stand part of the Bill. After the Clauses are disposed of he shall forthwith report the Bill, as amended, to the House. From and after the passing of this Order no Motion, That the Chairman do leave the Chair, or do report Progress, shall be allowed."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that the conduct of the Government in proposing this Resolution was in accordance with their general conduct in reference to this Bill. The Resolution amounted to a decree that the greater part of this most important Bill should be passed without any discussion whatever. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was at fault with regard to the statement of the

  1265
  hon. Member for Cork, which he said amounted to an admission that the most essential portions of this Bill had been disposed of. To that assertion he gave the most unqualified contradiction. Neither directly nor by inference did the hon. Member for Cork make such a preposterous statement. There were many parts of the Bill remaining to be discussed which were of the greatest importance. The earlier part of the Bill had given rise to a prolonged and animated debate, and the remainder of the Bill would give rise to an equally prolonged and animated debate. The object of the Motion was to put the Bill through the House by force, and he might almost say by physical violence. The right hon. Gentleman might almost as well adopt the policy of Cromwell, and turn all the Irish Members out of the House. He protested against this Motion as being an act of brute force and brute violence on the part of the Government. He begged to call the attention of the House to the manner in which the Government had put forward this Motion. Why had the discussion upon the Bill been prolonged? As had been stated yesterday, if the Bill had been in the form in which the Government had promised they would introduce it—if the Government had been true to their own pledges and promises, the Committee upon the Bill need not have occupied more than two hours; it would have gone through Committee with as little friction as that with which it had gone through its second reading. The discussion in Committee had been so prolonged because the Government had promised them one Bill and had given them another. The Government had promised the Irish Members an opportunity of clearing their characters from certain foul charges and aspersions, and they had now taken from them the opportunity of doing so. These charges against Irish Members had been circulated in the form of pamphlets by the First Lord of the Treasury by the million, and they had been repeated by the highest Law Officer of the Crown, and there was scarcely a single occupant of the Benches opposite who had not gone down to his constituency and had promulgated the same calumnies. It had been said by hon. Gentlemen opposite and by the Attorney General
  1266
  that those charges were of the gravest and most serious character ever brought against a body of men. Yet, when they were charged with murder and complicity with murder, when those charges had been repeated all over the country, when they had been made the stock-in-trade of their political opponents, and after they had been promised an opportunity of meeting those charges, the Government shuffled from their promise, and offered an inquiry into an organization and political movement. Such proceedings as these could not be too strongly condemned by any impartial Member. Hon. Members from Ireland accepted this Bill on the pledge of the Government that it should give them an opportunity of meeting definite charges made against them or against persons intimately associated with them. That promise had been departed from. He did not wish to anticipate the action of his hon. Friends; but he thought it would be their duty to take no notice whatever in their discussion of this Bill of the force and violence practised upon them by the Government. For his part, he should discuss every Amendment brought before the Committee with just as much advocacy as it deserved, in utter disregard of the limit of time imposed upon them by the violence and force of the Government. He did not know what the result might be; but certainly several parts of the Bill would go through the Committee undiscussed. It might be that the Committee would not reach the important Amendment as to whether the letters should or should not be singled out and set forth as demanding inquiry by the Commission. In these circumstances the Commission might be asked to do everything but the right thing. He cast the responsibility on the Government, and he thought hon. Members by-and-bye would be able to adequately appreciate the justice and fair play of the political foe who first uttered foul charges and then ran away from the chance of having them investigated and examined.
  MR. R. T. REID&c.)said, he could not be surprised at the Government taking this course. The Government had departed from the old custom of the House of having any regard to the opinions of the minority. The time

  1267
  might come, the time would come, when hon. Members opposite would be in a minority. Then he trusted that those who were in the majority would show more consideration than was being shown at present. At the end of this Bill there was a clause which might not come up for discussion at all on account of the limitation of time. It was the clause having the effect of saving The Times harmless from any action. The Committee would not have an opportunity of discussing that clause. The Bill would probably be forced through by the Government without the discussion of a clause which would prevent hon. Members from Ireland from ever bringing an action against The Times for the clearance of their character, which would save The Times harmless from the consequences of uttering what, if untrue, were about the most foul and deliberate libels ever uttered.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, he must congratulate the Government on having moved this Motion. Last year he went to the manager of Hansard and asked him to put in the Index of Hansard the number of times the closure was moved. That would form for future purposes a valuable series of precedents, but he was bound to say that no precedent of so great value had been set as in the Motion now before the House. There was, of course, a precedent for the course taken last year on the Coercion Bill, where the Government were able to say that the lives and liberties of millions of people were dependent on the passing of coercive legislation in the interests of law and order. But now for the first time with regard to ordinary legislation the Government created this important and, as he conceived, most precious precedent, and that with regard to a Bill which a fortnight ago the Government declared to be of so little importance that a negative reply from the hon. Member for Cork would be sufficient to induce them to withdraw it. Hon. members would find in Hansard under the letter "P" a record of all the closure Motions. He presumed the present Motion would be passed with the aid of the closure; but he conceived that nothing could be of higher value for a future Parliament of England than that after three night's discussion a Minister should come down to the House and propose with regard
  1268
  to a measure of the most important and far-reaching character a Motion of this kind. He congratulated hon. Gentlemen opposite. They were sharpening a most valuable tool which by-and-bye would be placed at their own throats. Such a Motion as that proposed amounted, in his opinion, to nothing less than a direct censure on the Chairman of Ways and Means. In the first place, it took no note of the character of the Amendments. Some Amendments necessarily must be of less importance than others. The hon. and learned Member for Dumfries (Mr. R. T. Reid) had suggested an Amendment of the most far-reaching importance with regard to the protection proposed to be given to The Times. There were Amendments compelling the putting in the forefront the letter of the hon. Member for Cork, and as to the place where the Commission should sit; there were Amendments of the most natural and most reasonable kind as to the circumstances in which the libels were published and were to be vindicated. All these Amendments the Government included in one common catalogue of ruin at 1 a.m., although it was in the power of hon. Members opposite with regard to any Amendment they thought trivial to rise and move, if the Government had refused it, that that Amendment be now put. It was right that the country should understand that hon. Members were moving those Amendments with all the power at the disposal of the Government which the closure gave—a closure which had been applied with ruthlessness and recklessness. Those hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who in 1882 spent 20 nights discussing the closure never had it applied to them by the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone). The Government, however, obtained the closure, and in one year after they got it they applied it 100 times; then they reduced the majority from 200 to 100; and now, having got a closure which they could put by a bare majority, they were not satisfied with that. Because a dignified and impartial officer of the House, a Member of the Government Party—the Chairman of Ways and Means—entertained views as to what was fair and what was impartial, as to the importance of Amendments, as to their relative position, and as to whether time ought fairly to be allowed for their

  1269
  discussion, he received, so to speak, a Ministerial kick, a Ministerial slap in the face, by the mover of this Motion. There was to be an Autumn Session. What was the necessity for an Autumn Session? Were there more important Bills before the House than this? He saw on the Orders for that evening a whole series of Bills for which there was to be an Autumn Session. He did not see why he should not move that the same treatment be accorded to the Burgh Police and Health (Scotland) Bill, the Court of Session and Bill Chamber (Scotland) (Clerks) Bill, the Tithe-rent Charge Recovery and Variation Bill, Presumption of Life (Scotland) Bill, East India Officers Bill, Public Works Loan Bill, and the Bann Drainage Bill. This would be a means whereby hon. Gentlemen opposite who intended to shoot grouse, might not only shoot in peace long before the present sitting was likely to end, but they would save themselves from the Autumn Session as well. He was really astonished at the moderation of hon. Gentlemen. He was greatly afraid, however, that at some future day they might be succeeded by Gentlemen not quite so moderate or so Constitutional. He regarded this Motion as another sad proof of the fact that English Members in regard to Irish Members were prepared to treat them in exactly the same spirit as when the Red Indian danced round his victim at the stake. There was not an hon. Gentleman opposite who would not "bolt" any proposal that the Government made if they thought they could thereby prejudice the Irish Party. What should he say of hon. Gentlemen professing Unionist principles? They might not like this proceeding, but they could not dissent from it. The noble Lord the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington) might not like this proceeding, but, like the man in mediæval stories who had sold his soul to the Evil One for any temporary advantage, he was bound to carry out to the full the indenture he had signed with his blood. The Government were quite safe at any time in making any proposal they pleased, well knowing that they could whip the Unionists at the cart's tail after them. Hon. Gentlemen of the Unionist Party might get up and say they approved of that proceeding of the Government. They might say so, but they could not say anything
  1270
  else; and he should retain in respect to that his own liberty of appreciation. He trusted that the country would see what the consequences were of the present alliance of Her Majesty's Government. If the Liberal Party were in power the Tory Party would join the Irish Members in making high-flying protests against action such as that. But the Ministerialists, reinforced by the Liberal Unionist Party, were enabled and encouraged to do things which the Tory Party, had it twice its own strength, would not dare to do. The Government did not despise the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain), but they had his weight to an ounce. The Government knew that the declarations made by that right hon. Member in favour of limiting that inquiry were purely platonic, and that when they proposed to put on the closure they could rely on his solid avoirdupois in the Division Lobby. In order to test the amount of trust which the Government and the Liberal Unionists placed in the impartiality of the Chairman of Ways and Means, he would suggest that in the present Motion the qualifying words should be inserted, "If the Chairman of Ways and Means sees fit." He submitted that that would be a proper Amendment to the Motion. Then, in regard to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Dumfries dealing with the question, if The Times was proved to be a forger, as they now knew it to be a liar—[A laugh.] The hon. Baronet the Member for North Antrim (Sir Charles Lewis) laughed at a statement of that kind. Why did the hon. Baronet not go into the witness-box when charges of corrupt practices were made against him at Derry, and——
  MR. SPEAKER, interposing, said, that the hon. and learned Gentleman was not speaking in any sense to the Question.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, that was because he was interrupted by the laughter of the hon. Baronet. He held that the Chairman of Ways and Means should be enabled to show his appreciation of the relative importance of the Amendments proposed to the Bill, and to allow such adequate time for their discussion as he deemed fit. The Chairman was himself once a writer in The Times, and therefore his impartiality could not be contested by the opponents

  1271
  of the Irish Party. The Irish Members, and certainly he, speaking for himself, who sometimes incurred his censure, cordially, nevertheless, acknowledged the impartiality of the Chairman—though in saying that he did not desire to fetter himself for future comment—and he thought that, in regard to a Gentleman of such high position as the Chairman, it would be only proper that the Government should show some semblance of respect for the decencies of the situation by accepting the suggestion which he now had the honour to make, and which he hoped that some other hon. Member would move as an Amendment. Then he would ask why the words "1 a.m." should be retained in the Motion. Let them substitute "1 p.m." and give more time for discussion. He asked hon. Gentlemen opposite, who in their private relations were, no doubt, men of honour, and even of tenderness, why in a matter of such grave importance they should treat the Irish Members in that manner? Let them assume if they liked that they were all guilty of murder and a thousand other crimes, and he asked whether the eminent lawyers sitting opposite would abridge the trial of a prisoner by declaring that at 1 o'clock the jury must find a verdict against him. Was it, then, reasonable to put the whole Bill at a given hour?
  MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, he was not quite sure how far the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman followed previous forms, but he was sure that on one occasion, when a similar Motion was carried, the course was essentially different. If the Motion, as he understood it, were carried, before the Amendments to the first clause were finished the Chairman would put the question on any Amendment or Motion already proposed from the Chair, and would proceed immediately afterwards to put the Question that any clause then under consideration and each remaining clause should stand part of the Bill. The effect of that would be that the Committee would be unable to pronounce any judgment whatever on any one of the questions that were raised by the other Amendments. That was a most monstrous proposition. He would suggest to the Government that they would not save much time by it, because he would feel it his duty to exhaust every
  1272
  Parliamentary means of getting the decision of the House on the two great legal questions which he would raise. He should again raise the questions involved in his Amendment on the Report stage of the Bill. The precedent to be made by the Government was dangerous and might be utterly disastrous, and it justified him in charging the Government with degrading Parliament. He remembered an occasion on which the Opposition went out of the House on a Closure Division; but he remained in his place while the Speaker went care-full through all the Amendments on the Paper to the Bill then being considerd, calling upon each Member in turn to move his Amendment. It was possible, therefore, to have taken the verdict of the House on every Amendment, whether it was debated or not. Without using any menace or threat, he would warn the Government that they were making a dangerous precedent, which might be abused in a time of political strain by an accidental majority. What would the Ministerial Party say if they were then gagged as they would now gag the Opposition? His Amendment was on a question which had been carefully guarded by the Courts in every fashion, and the Government now proposed to set it aside for the first time in our history by giving opportunity for the investigation of murder charges in foreign part. The Government said that the Question was not even to be submitted to the judgment of the House, and that would, of course, involve an appeal from the judgment of the Government to that of the country.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, it seemed to him that this Motion was one that was made absolutely without any justification whatever. They were discussing a measure that was admittedly of a novel and exceptional character, a measure which most seriously affected the character, reputation, and position of a number of Members of that House, and it claimed to be the foundation for a Commission which was to inquire into, he would not say "political" organizations, but organizations. It had a very wide scope, and was intended to inquire into every species of crime, and if ever there was a measure in which the justice and dignity of Parliament required that there should be full and adequate discussion, it was this Bill. It

  1273
  could not be said that any of the important Amendments upon it had been discussed at exorbitant length. It had always been in the power of the Government to move the closure, and they had tried to do so once, but the Chairman of Committees had determined against them. Therefore it could not be said that discussion hitherto had been unduly protracted. There were upon the Paper not a great number of Amendments, but some of them of importance, and it was monstrous to say that they could be amply discussed in the six or seven hours of that evening. The next Amendment raised a question whether the alleged forgery of letters should be one of the first issues; and the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) had one important Amendment as to sending Commissions abroad in criminal cases, a thing never heard of before. The last was a subject of the deepest importance and deserving of the fullest discussion. The ground for this Motion was not that there had been exhaustive discussion, but it was that the Government did not like the further discussion of the Bill. Up to the present the discussion had not been favourable to their conduct in reference to this measure; they were well aware that, whatever their majority might be in that House—and already their normal majority had been reduced by one-half—the effect of the discussion of the measure was not favourable to them in the country, and therefore they were determined they would have no more of it. They would therefore use their majority to stifle discussion. He protested against such conduct in the name of fair play and justice, which had not been the guiding principle of the Government in the prosecution of this measure. If discussion were unduly prolonged, if trivial and unimportant Amendments were proposed, the remedy of the closure was in the hands of the Government, and would be applied by the Chairman. But the Government were determined there should not be another day's discussion on the subject, and so they would sweep the Bill through by suspending the ordinary Parliamentary procedure. They might do it by their Party majority, but they would only throw additional discredit upon the measure, and make it the more obvious that they were actuated by political motives and used their majority to gag political opponents.
  MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, he for one felt a very strong objection to this Resolution. He had always said that the closure should only be applied in very exceptional cases, and he felt it ought not to be applied in this sweeping way in the case of a Bill of an absolutely novel character. The Bill was absolutely novel and without precedent, and it was sought to carry it by a procedure which in itself was also novel, and which he hoped would never be repeated. He wished to ask the Government whether they were to understand that when the clock struck one, and the Question then before the Committee had been disposed of, either by Division or otherwise, all the other clauses were to be passed without any opportunity of in any way amending a single word of them? More than one Amendment was required without which the Bill could not be worked properly; were they then to allow the measure to go through the House with these manifest imperfections in it simply because it was necessary to pass it hastily through the House?
  MR. FINLAY&c.)said, that if the Government desired, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) had suggested, to make Party capital out of the Bill, they could desire nothing more than that such discussion as had gone on during the last two nights should be prolonged indefinitely. So far as Party warfare was concerned, the more speeches the right hon. Gentleman made such as he had been making during the last three days the better. But the Government had to consider something else—they had to consider the Business of the country. The prolonged discussion that had already taken place upon the measure had filled with amazement everyone who was not in the secrets of the opposition to the Bill. There was one practical observation that he ventured to make. There remained close upon seven hours before 1 o'clock, and he submitted that that time was ample for the discussion of any Amendment of any importance. They had already decided by far the greater number of points of principle that had been raised on the Amendments to the measure, and—with the utmost deference to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, who had expressed upon this, as he did on every subject, a most con-

  1275
  fident opinion—he (Mr. Finlay) submitted that the time that remained was ample, if properly utilized, for all the further discussion that was necessary. If, instead of proceeding to Business, speeches such as those to which they had listened continued to be made, he thought both the House and the country would know what to think of it.
  SIR GEORGE TREVELYANsaid, it was an astonishing thing that a man of the personal courtesy and kindness of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Finlay), when he spoke upon this Bill, seemed quite unable to rise in his place without attributing to opponents motives apart from their real motives by 100 miles at least. What was the real cause of the delay that had taken place on this Bill? They had here a deliberative Assembly of 670 Members, very proud of being a deliberative Assembly, and very jealous of their rights as such. It did not require anyone to have been in Parliament as long as his hon. and learned Friend to have noticed that that House never really took pride or pleasure in a Bill all share whatever in the making or moulding of which was denied to the House as a deliberative Assembly. That was the real cause of such delay as had taken place. As far as he knew, there had been no discussion on any Amendment which was not of immense importance, and he asked hon. Members to compare the unimportant subjects on the discussion of which they had often spent Wednesdays, and usefully spent them as they believed, with these Amendments, which touched the very liberties of a large number of people. The hon. and learned Member for Inverness seemed to think that the remaining Amendments could be disposed of very rapidly. But what were they? First of all there was the Amendment as to the priority of the letters, and the importance of that priority had been acknowledged in all the impartial speeches which had been made on the other side of the House. There was next the immensely important Amendment on the question whether a Commission should be allowed to be held abroad to inquire into criminal charges. Then there was the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for North Longford, which would give him and his Friends the right of inspecting documents. There was the
  1276
  Amendment providing that the inquiry should be conducted in the same manner as the trial of a cause in the High Court of Justice. There was the Amendment requiring that the parties should specify their allegations, and there were also several other equally important Amendments, including one which involved the question whether the proceedings before the Commission ought to protect the proprietor of The Times from proceedings for libel. This Bill, which was really constituting a Court of High Commission of the greatest importance, charged with matters affecting the reputation of a great number of men, was now being passed through the House of Commons and discussed exactly as if it were another Criminal Law Amendment Bill. That Bill was directed against the liberties of Irishmen, and this Bill was directed against their reputations, and the same process which was used with regard to the passing of the Coercion Bill—the results of which the news from Ireland every week showed to be lamentable and pernicious in the highest degree—that same process was being used to carry this Bill, which would place the reputations of Irishmen at the mercy of their opponents, just as their liberties were at the present moment.
  MR. BYRON REEDsaid, that he looked upon the proposal before the House as supplying a very dangerous precedent, and he wished that it had not been found necessary to bring this Resolution forward. But he wished still more that the proceedings in Committee had been conducted in such a way as to warrant Members who thought as he did on that side of the House in giving effect to their general opinion by voting against the Government. Unfortunate as he considered the necessity of this procedure to be, he recognized that the Government had been forced to make the proposal by the manner in which the Bill had been dealt with in Committee during the three days of its discussion. They had only disposed of an infinitesimal number of Amendments, and those Amendments had been contested, he would not say with severity, but with a pertinacity of an almost unwarrantable kind. They had heard what he might describe as the painful loquacity of certain hon. Members opposite, the chief

  1277
  offenders being the hon. and learned Member for North Longford——
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I was not here during two days of the discussions.
  MR. BYRON REEDsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman had made up for his absence on the third occasion. Among others who might be said to have helped by their loquacity to obstruct the progress of the Bill were the hon. Member for West Belfast——
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON): I do not consider the hon. Member a judge of my conduct in any respect.
  MR. BYRON REEDsaid, another hon. Member who might also be regarded as doing much to delay the measure was the bon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), and the occupants of the Front Opposition Bench had proved themselves, in the matter of prolix loquaciousness, to be very able backers of their Supporters below the Gangway. The proposal of the Government had been rendered necessary by the deliberate action of the Opposition, and therefore, although unwillingly, he should be compelled to vote for it.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, that the hon. Member opposite who had just sat down had delivered the kind of speech with which the Committee had now become familiar. The hon. Member, like other rising Tories who hoped some day to enjoy the sweets of Office, had made a speech in which he had explained that his feelings and convictions all went one way, and that their votes would go the other. The speech of the hon. and learned Member for Inverness (Mr. Finlay) he (Mr. Sexton) maintained, showed the Motion before the Committee to be in effect a Motion of censure upon the Chairman of Ways and Means. He, as an Irishman, heartily joined in the protest of his hon. and learned Friend against a Motion which, if it meant anything at all, amounted to an indirect and oblique declaration that the Chairman of Ways and Means had not performed his duty, and that for the remainder of the proceedings on the Bill he was not to be trusted. There were still some 40 Amendments on the Paper, and the time left for moving and debating each before one o'clock would be 10 minutes, leaving nothing for divisions. If ever there was a Bill which ought to be
  1278
  freely, fully, and unreservedly debated without the slightest attempt to check the utterance of the humblest Member, this was the Bill. It affected not only the characters of his hon. Friends and himself, but even something more than their very lives, because if this Commission was improperly used, it might inflict upon them a punishment worse than death. Whereas originally it was a Bill "offered" to his Party, it was now, it appeared, to be forced down their throats without debate. That being so, what were they to say with regard to the moral jurisdiction of a tribunal as arbitrary in its nature, as dark in relation to the course of its proceedings as any erected in mediœval ages by any despot of history? Would the Government be willing to accept the Amendments which had been accepted by Walter? Mr. Walter was not only the private familiar but the public instructor of the Government. Every morning showed in his paper an article in which, picking up the Amendments handed in the night before, he informed the Government what Amendments they might accept and what they must reject. He (Mr. Sexton) wanted to know whether the Government would ever give them the small mercy of accepting Amendments which had been accepted by their client? There were three reasons for the Motion. The first was that the Government, in view of the revelations and disclosures of the last few days, were afraid to face further debate lest there might be further disclosures, the suppression of debate being directly with the object of preventing the country, by examination in the House, from arriving at the bottom of the relations between the Government and the managers of The Times. The second reason was that the Government dared not allow the Amendments to be debated, because there were Amendments on the Paper which, if presented and debated, the Government could not reject. There was, for example, an Amendment in the name of the right hon Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. John Morley) providing that the Commission might have power to report from time to time. The object of that Amendment was that if the Commission arrived at the conclusion that the letters had been forged they should report upon that matter, as to which the country

  1279
  was most anxious, at the earliest convenient moment. The Government dared to evade that Amendment by the present Motion. And the last reason was that the Ministerialists wanted to get away to their rural sports. He would warn them that the working men of this country would come to their own conclusions with regard to a manœuvre which subordinated the character and position of 85 Members of the House and the interests of their constituents to the convenience of two score of Gentlemen who wished to leave their legislative duties and proceed to their sports on the 12th of August.
  SIR CHARLES LEWIS, in supporting the Motion, said, that though the Bill passed the second reading with the unanimous assent of hon. Gentlemen opposite, yet directly the House got into Committee there was hardly a single provision, hardly a single line, but was met by Amendments. It was soon discovered that hon. Members, while pretending to accept the Bill with tremendous alacrity, really disliked it more and more, and so it was met with the most ruthless opposition at every point. They had been three days in disposing of about five Amendments, and it was not to be forgotten that upon one day, Tuesday, so extreme was the measure of obstruction carried on that upon three separate occasions the Chairman of Committees refused to put Motions for Adjournment and for reporting Progress, because he considered they were an abuse of the process of the House. Surely, that was good primâ facie evidence of obstruction. Again, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt)—who was always telling them there had been no obstruction—spoke no less than four times, repeating over and over again exactly the same arguments. If he went to the lower regions among the Party opposite he could give the House even worse instances. The right hon. Gentlemen the Member for Derby, a Privy Councillor, had indulged in this sort of opposition, and the francs tireurs below the Gangway had followed suit. Having regard to the Amendments they had moved, their acceptance of the Bill on the second reading must have been very insincere. The object of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway seemed all along to be to narrow and destroy the
  1280
  Bill. The Amendments still remaining on the Paper manifested the same purpose. Thus, one proposed that there should be interim reports.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORrose to Order. He wished to know whether the hon. Member was in order in discussing the Amendments still remaining to be considered?
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, he thought the hon. Baronet was exceeding proper limits in doing so.
  SIR CHARLES LEWISsaid, he would not continue the subject; but he had only proposed to do what others had done.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORagain rose to Order, and called attention to this, as he alleged, disrespectful remark of the hon. Baronet in calling in question the ruling of the Chair.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, he was sure the hon. Baronet was not doing anything of the kind. He understood the hon. Baronet to accept his ruling.
  SIR CHARLES LEWISsaid, he certainly unreservedly accepted Mr. Speaker's ruling. The same arguments had been urged over and over again by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and it was quite clear that their object was to undermine and, if possible, get rid of the Bill.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid, the hon. Baronet had tried to make capital out of the fact that the second reading was accepted without a Division. But that was because they believed that the Government were prepared to meet them fairly on several vital points. This impression was strengthened by a speech delivered by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain), who was regarded as practically a Member of the Government. The Amendments that had been moved were not frivolous Amendments; but, on the contrary, most important Amendments, which were aimed at bringing the text of the Bill into accordance with the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury when he introduced the Bill. The Bill was of such magnitude and importance that at least five or six nights should be devoted to the consideration in Committee of the clauses rather than have the Bill in haphazard fashion thrust down their throats. So

  1281
  far from the Chairman considering the discussion obstructive, he had refused on one occasion to put the closure when moved by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) had boasted that the Government had not changed one comma in this Bill; for his own part, he did not think that it should be a matter of boast to the Government that in a Bill of this nature and importance they had made no endeavour to meet the wishes of the minority in that House.
  MR. MAURICE HEALYsaid, he would suggest as a compromise that the decision whether the debate had lasted long enough at 1 o'clock should be left in the hands of the Chairman of Committees. Speech after speech had been made from that side of the House directing the attention of right hon. Gentlemen opposite to particular Amendments which seemed to those on that side to be of considerable importance, and he thought that they might condescend to give some reply, and say whether or not they thought these Amendments ought to be accepted. He begged to move the insertion of the words "If the Chairman so think fit."
  Amendment proposed, after the first word "That," to insert the words "if the Chairman so think fit."—(Mr. Maurice Healy.)
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)said, he was anxious that this discussion should close, because if this Motion was to be carried the sooner it was carried the better in the interests of that discussion which hon. Gentlemen opposite themselves wished. For that reason the Government had refrained from taking advantage of many tempting opportunities laid before them in this debate, and had listened in silence and with patience even to the attacks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby. He did not want, therefore, to prolong the debate by one unnecessary sentence. The Government could not accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Maurice Healy). That Amendment would place a responsibility upon the Chairman from which they thought that that Gentleman would certainly and rightly shrink. No doubt
  1282
  the existing Rules did throw upon Mr. Speaker or upon the Chairman of Committees the responsibility of deciding in certain cases whether a particular Amendment had been discussed long enough or not. That responsibility had been complained of as being a greater burden than ought to be put upon the Speaker or the Chairman of Committees, but this proposal went much further; it was suggested that they should ask the Chairman to decide, not merely whether a particular point had been debated long enough, but to cast his eye back through each successive stage of the Bill and to determine the question whether the whole debate had lasted long enough. The Government thought that that responsibility should be taken by the House, and by the House alone. The Government were aware of the responsibility which they took upon themselves in making the proposal which they had made; they recognized the fact that every Government that made such a proposal did so at its peril, but it was for the country to judge. The Government believed, rightly or wrongly, that they were supported by public opinion, and it was for that reason and because they were the responsible guardians of the time of the House and those who had to make the arrangements by which the convenience of Members was best consulted, that they had taken upon themselves most reluctantly to make the Motion now before the House.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONEsaid, that he had not spoken upon the Motion of the Government, not because he had too little, but because he had too much to say. In his opinion, if they were to use the Motion, as they were entitled, for the purpose of bringing under full Parliamentary review the most extraordinary series of transactions he had ever known they would roach 1 o'clock long before the legitimate debate on the subject would be exhausted. In these circumstances he did not wish to occupy the time of the House, and therefore he would avoid the main question. He must, however, say one passing word with regard to what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the Government were supported by public opinion, as they on that side of the House believed

  1283
  that they were supported by it. As the right hon. Gentleman said so, he had no doubt that that was the right hon. Gentleman's opinion; but there was this difference between them—that while they on that side of the House showed great anxiety that the public opinion of the country should be tested, hon. Gentlemen opposite, notwithstanding the confidence which they professed in that public opinion, were very careful to avoid any disposition to test it, and through their organs reckoned upon the full period of seven years of Parliamentary life as the time during which they might enjoy immunity from any practical reference to the public judgment. With regard to the proposal of the hon. Member (Mr. Maurice Healy), they had objected, and they still objected, to the regulation of last year, placing the responsibility on the Speaker in the application of the closure, which they looked upon as nothing less than a public calamity. In these circumstances—though they had every confidence in the Chairman of Committees—yet he thought that the objections of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary were good, and that they had no right to put this responsibility upon the Chairman. He ventured to express a hope that this proposal might be withdrawn.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question again proposed.
  MR. AIRDrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put;" but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid, that having regard to the arguments used on that side of the House, and the extent to which they were shared by the independent Members on the opposite side, he was not surprised at the reticence of the Government. The Chairman would be obliged to put all the clauses, and none of the Amendments or new clauses. He did not think that the Government could consider it desirable that each and every Amendment should be swept away without discussion, and he therefore proposed to modify the Resolution by making it apply to the several Amendments and new clauses now printed on the Notice Paper, if not then disposed of. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Ex-
  1284
  chequer would see his way to accept that proposal.
  Amendment proposed,
  In line 5, to leave out the words "Questions, That any Clause then under consideration, and each remaining Clause of the Bill, stand part of the Bill," and insert the words "several Amendments and new Clauses now printed on the Notice Paper and not then disposed of,"—(Mr. Asquith,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, he could not accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Asquith), but he thought he could make an alternative proposal which would substantially meet the views of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) and other hon. Members. Of the Amendments on the Paper a very considerable number were of secondary importance. If the hon. and learned Member would withdraw his Amendment he would propose to introduce words to the effect that the Chairman should successively put forthwith from the Chair all the Amendments which might, in his judgment, be of the greatest importance. [Cries of "Oh!"] He would not press it in the face of opposition from hon. Members. He believed the Chairman of Committees would not object to this burden being placed upon him; if he had the slightest objection the Government would not urge it.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONEsaid, that this was nearly the proposal of the hon. Member below the Gangway to which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland objected.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, that he thought the proposal differed—though it did throw on the Chairman of Committees a burden which the original proposal of the Government did not—but the Government had no desire to stand by that of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  MR. WHITBREADsaid, he thought the last proposal of the Government was the most astounding proposition ever made to Parliament. It was that the Chairman of Ways and Means, without having heard one syllable in favour of any Amendment, should pick out which Amendments in

  1285
  his judgment were important and sacrifice those which he thought were not. Such an innovation he most emphatically protested against. The Committee which sat on Procedure a few years ago had before it evidence from every foreign State which used the closure, and the question was put to them whether the closure had been complained of as having been abused or unduly used? In every single instance, if his memory served him, the answer came back that it had not been complained of as having been abused by the majority. Did the Government think, if they used the power they proposed that night, that it would not be complained of; and was it to be said that England, the mother of Parliaments, was the country in which the majority were least able to control themselves? If the closure was to be used in the unjustifiable manner now proposed, it would encourage minorities to use such powers as they still possessed in a manner which would not facilitate the despatch of Public Business.
  MR T. M. HEALYsaid, he rejected the suggestion of the Government. He preferred, as a mercy to the House, that the Motion should be carried in the most offensive and naked manner, because it would prove a most useful precedent. The Government were insulting the Chairman of Committees by asking him to invite Members to divide upon Amendments, the arguments in support of which they had not heard.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, he would not propose his Amendment.
  SIR LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, that the Amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Member behind him (Mr. Asquith) was an Amendment which would have brought back the Motion of the Government to the exceptional Closure Rule passed in 1881, to enable very difficult and arduous work to be done in Parliament. It enabled the House, at all events, to give its opinion on the Amendments. Nothing could be worse than the new proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The only protection the Chairman had in superintending discussion was that his action should be absolutely apart from the wisdom or the importance of the Amendments. He believed with the hon. and learned Member for Inverness (Mr. Finlay) that the important
  1286
  Amendments remaining would have been soon discussed in a proper way. They had the Rule of Closure which would have enabled them to stop any frivolous Amendments. He believed the Bill would have been got through to-night, or at least in another day. To save one day the Government had proposed a Rule of the most drastic and indiscriminate character—it was a complete slaughter of all Amendments to the clauses without considering their importance. It was most unfortunate that that precedent had been made; and although he thought the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for East Fife (Mr. Asquith) was much better than the extreme closure proposed by the Government, he could not vote for it, because it would be an admission from that side of the House that this extreme form of closure was justifiable on a Bill of this kind. To that he could not assent, as he considered the action of the Government was wholly unjustifiable, and formed a precedent of a most dangerous character to the restraint of free discussion.
  SIR JOHN SIMONsaid, he thought the Government would save time and trouble if they would say at once whether it was their intention to accept any of the Amendments on the Paper?
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked, whether the Government had withdrawn their Amendment, and whether they opposed that of his hon. and learned Friend?
  MR. GOSCHENhaving replied in affirmative to both questions,
  MR. ASQUITHsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 237; Noes 185: Majority 52.

  AYES.

  Addison, J. E. W.

  Baring, T. C.

  Aird, J.

  Barry, A. H. S.

  Ambrose, W.

  Bartley, G. C. T.

  Amherst, W. A. T.

  Barttelot, Sir W. B.

  Anstruther, H. T.

  Bates, Sir E.

  Ashmead-Bartlett, E.

  Bazley-White, J.

  Baden-Powell, Sir G. S.

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

  Bailey, Sir J. R.

  Baird, J. G. A.

  Beadel, W. J.

  Balfour, rt. hon. A. J.

  Beaumont, H. F.

  Banes, Major G. E.

  Bective, Earl of

  Barclay, J. W.

  Bentinck, rt. hn. G. C.

  Baring, Viscount

  Bentinck, W. G. C,

  1287

  Beresford, Lord C. W. De la Poer

  Fowler, Sir R. N.

  Fraser, General C. C.

  Bethell, Commander G. R.

  Fry, L.

  Fulton, J. F.

  Bigwood, J.

  Gardner, R. Richard-son-

  Birkbeck, Sir E.

  Blundell, Colonel H. B. H.

  Gent-Davis, R.

  Giles, A.

  Bolitho, T. B.

  Godson, A. F.

  Bond, G. H.

  Goldsworthy, Major-General W. T.

  Borthwick, Sir A.

  Bridgeman, Col. hon. F. C.

  Gorst, Sir J. E.

  Goschen, rt. hon. G. J.

  Bristowe, T. L.

  Granby, Marquess of

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

  Gray, C. W.

  Green, Sir E.

  Brookfield, A. M.

  Grimston, Viscount

  Brown, A. H.

  Grunter, Colonel R.

  Bruce, Lord H.

  Hall, A. W.

  Caine, W. S.

  Halsey, T. F.

  Caldwell, J.

  Hamilton, right hon. Lord G. F.

  Campbell, J. A.

  Carmarthen, Marq. of

  Hamilton, Lord C. J.

  Cavendish, Lord E.

  Hamilton, Lord E.

  Chamberlain, rt. hn. J.

  Hamley, Gen. Sir E. B.

  Chamberlain, R.

  Hanbury, R. W.

  Chaplin, right hon. H.

  Hardcastle, F.

  Charrington, S.

  Hartington, Marq. of

  Clarke, Sir E. G.

  Hastings, G. W.

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

  Havelock-Allan, Sir H. M.

  Coddington, W.

  Heath, A. R.

  Colomb, Sir J. C. R.

  Heathcote, Capt. J. H. Edwards-

  Cooke, C. W. R.

  Corbett, A. C.

  Herbert, hon. S.

  Corbett, J.

  Hervey, Lord F.

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Hill, right hon. Lord A. W.

  Cross, H. S.

  Crossley, Sir S. B.

  Hill, Colonel E. S.

  Crossman, Gen. Sir W.

  Hill, A. S.

  Cubitt, right hon. G.

  Hoare, E. B.

  Currie, Sir D.

  Hobhouse, H.

  Curzon, Viscount

  Houldsworth, Sir W. H.

  Curzon, hon. G. N.

  Darling, C. J.

  Howard, J.

  Davenport, H. T.

  Hozier, J. H. C.

  Davenport, W. B.

  Hughes, Colonel E.

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

  Hughes-Hallett, Col. F. C.

  Dixon-Hartland, F. D.

  Duncan, Colonel F.

  Isaacs, L. H.

  Dyke, rt. hn. Sir. W.H.

  Isaacson, F. W.

  Ebrington, Viscount

  Jackson, W. L.

  Edwards-Moss, T. C.

  Jarvis, A. W.

  Egerton, hon. A. J. F.

  Johnston, W.

  Elliot, hon. A. R. D.

  Kelly, J. R.

  Ellis, Sir J. W.

  Kennaway, Sir J. H.

  Elton, C. I. wart, Sir W.

  Kenrick, W.

  Kenyon, hon. G. T.

  Eyre, Colonel H.

  Ker, R. W. B.

  Feilden, Lt.-Gen. R. J.

  Kerans, F. H.

  Fellowes, A. E.

  Kimber, H.

  Fergusson, right hon. Sir J.

  King, H. S.

  Knightley, Sir R.

  Field, Admiral E.

  Knowles, L.

  Finlay, R. B.

  Kynoch, G.

  Fisher, W. H.

  Lafone, A.

  Fitzwilliam, hon. W. H. W.

  Lawrence, W. F.

  Lea, T.

  Fitz-Wygram, Gen. Sir F. W.

  Lechmere, Sir E. A. H.

  Lees, E.

  Folkestone, right hon. Viscount

  Legh, T. W.

  Lethbridge, Sir R.

  Forwood, A. B.

  Lewis, Sir C. E.

  1288

  Lewisham, right hon. Viscount

  Robertson, J. P B.

  Robinson, B.

  Long, W. H.

  Ross, A. H.

  Lowther, hon. W.

  Round, J.

  Lowther, J. W.

  Royden, T. B.

  Lubbock, Sir J.

  Saunderson, Colonel E. J.

  Lymington, Viscount

  Macartney, W. G. E.

  Sellar, A. C.

  Macdonald, right hon. J. H. A.

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H.

  Sidebottom, T. H.

  Mackintosh, C. F.

  Sidebottom, W.

  Maclean, F. W.

  Sinclair, W. P.

  Maclean, J. M.

  Smith, A.

  Madden, D. H.

  Spencer, J. E.

  Matthews, rt. hn. H.

  Stanhope, rt. hon. E.

  Mattinson, M. W.

  Stanley, E. J.

  Maxwell, Sir H. E.

  Stokes, G. G.

  Milvain, T.

  Swetenham, E.

  More, R. J.

  Talbot, J. G.

  Morrison, W.

  Tapling, T. K.

  Moss, R.

  Taylor, F.

  Mowbray, rt. hon. Sir J. R.

  Temple, Sir R.

  Theobald, J.

  Mowbray, R. G. C.

  Thorburn, W.

  Mulholland, H. L.

  Tomlinson, W. E. M.

  Muncaster, Lord

  Townsend, F.

  Muntz, P. A.

  Trotter, Colonel H. J.

  Murdoch, C. T.

  Tyler, Sir H. W.

  Newark, Viscount

  Villiers, rt. hon. C. P.

  Noble, W.

  Vincent, C. E. H.

  Northcote, hon. Sir H. S.

  Waring, Colonel T.

  Watson, J.

  O'Neill, hon. R. T.

  Webster, Sir R. E.

  Paget, Sir R. H.

  West, Colonel W. C.

  Parker, hon. F.

  Weymouth, Viscount

  Penton, Captain F. T.

  Wharton, J. L.

  Plunket, rt. hon. D. R.

  Whitley, E.

  Plunkett, hon. J. W.

  Wodehouse, E. R.

  Pomfret, W. P.

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Price, Captain G. E.

  Wood, N.

  Raikes, rt. hon. H. C.

  Wortley, C. B. Stuart-

  Rankin, J.

  Wright, H. S.

  Rasch, Major F. C.

  Reed, H. B.

  TELLERS.

  Richardson, T.

  Douglas, A. Akers-

  Ritchie, rt. hon. C. T.

  Walrond, Col. W. H.

  Robertson, Sir W. T.

  NOES.

  Abraham, W. (Glam.)

  Campbell, Sir G.

  Abraham, W. (Limerick, W.)

  Carew, J. L.

  Causton, R. K.

  Allison, R. A.

  Chance, P. A.

  Anderson, C. H.

  Channing, F. A.

  Asher, A.

  Clancy, J. J.

  Asquith, H. H.

  Clark, Dr. G. B.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Cobb, H. P.

  Balfour, Sir G.

  Colman, J. J.

  Balfour, rt. hon. J. B.

  Conway, M.

  Ballantine, W. H. W.

  Corbet, W. J.

  Barbour, W. B.

  Cossham, H.

  Barran, J.

  Cox, J. R.

  Barry, J.

  Cozens-Hardy, H. H.

  Biggar, J. G.

  Craven, J.

  Bolton, J. C.

  Crawford, D.

  Bolton, T. D.

  Cremer, W. R.

  Broadhurst, H.

  Crilly, D.

  Brown, A. L.

  Deasy, J.

  Brunner, J. T.

  Dickson, T. A.

  Bryce, J.

  Ellis, J.

  Burt, T.

  Ellis, J. E.

  Buxton, S. C.

  Ellis, T. E.

  Byrne, G. M.

  Esmonde, Sir T. H. G.

  1289

  Esslemont, P.

  O'Gorman Mahon, The

  Evans, F. H.

  O'Hanlon, T.

  Fenwick, C.

  O'Keeffe, F. A.

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro-

  O'Kelly, J.

  Finucane, J.

  Parker, C. S.

  Firth, J. F. B.

  Parnell, C. S.

  Fitzgerald, J. G.

  Paulton, J. M.

  Flower, C.

  Philipps, J. W.

  Flynn, J. C.

  Pickard, B.

  Foley, P. J.

  Pickersgill, E. H.

  Fowler, rt. hon. H. H.

  Picton, J. A.

  Fox, Dr. J. F.

  Pinkerton, J.

  Gaskell, C. G. Milnes-

  Playfair, rt. hon. Sir L.

  Gilhooly, J.

  Plowden, Sir W. C.

  Gill, T. P.

  Power, P. J.

  Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

  Power, R.

  Gladstone, H. J.

  Priestley, B.

  Goldsmid, Sir J.

  Provand, A. D.

  Gourley, E. T.

  Pugh, D.

  Graham, R. C.

  Pyne, J. D.

  Gully, W. C.

  Randell, D.

  Haldane, R. B.

  Redmond, J. E.

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

  Redmond, W. H. K.

  Reid, R. T.

  Harrington, E.

  Rendel, S.

  Harrington, T. C.

  Reynolds, W. J.

  Harris, M.

  Roberts, J. B.

  Hayden, L. P.

  Robertson, E.

  Hayne, C. Seale-

  Roe, T.

  Healy, M.

  Roscoe, Sir H. E.

  Healy, T. M.

  Rowlands, J.

  Holden, I.

  Rowntree, J.

  Hooper, J.

  Sexton, T.

  Hunter, W. A.

  Shaw, T.

  Joicey, J.

  Sheehan, J. D.

  Jordan, J.

  Sheehy, D.

  Kenny, C. S.

  Sheil, E.

  Kenny, J. E.

  Simon, Sir J.

  Kenny, M. J.

  Sinclair, J.

  Kilbride, D.

  Smith, S.

  Labouchere, H.

  Spencer, hon. C. R.

  Lalor, R.

  Stack, J.

  Lawson, Sir W.

  Stanhope, hon. P. J.

  Leamy, E.

  Stevenson, F. S.

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

  Stewart, H.

  Lewis, T. P.

  Stuart, J.

  Macdonald, W. A.

  Sullivan, D.

  MacInnes, M.

  Sullivan, T. D.

  Mac Neill, J. G. S.

  Summers, W.

  M'Cartan, M.

  Sutherland, A.

  M'Carthy, J.

  Swinburne, Sir J.

  M'Donald, P.

  Tanner, C. K.

  M'Donald, Dr. R.

  Thomas, A.

  M'Ewan, W.

  Thomas, D. A.

  M'Kenna, Sir J. N.

  Trevelyan, right hon. Sir G. O.

  M'Laren, W. S. B.

  Mahony, P.

  Tuite, J.

  Marum, E. M.

  Wallace, R.

  Mayne, T.

  Warmington, C. M.

  Molloy, B. C.

  Watt, H.

  Morley, right hon. J.

  Wayman, T.

  Mundella, rt. hon. A. J.

  Whitbread, S.

  Will, J. S.

  Murphy, W. M.

  Wilson, H. J.

  Neville, R.

  Winterbotham, A. B.

  Nolan, Colonel J. P.

  Woodall, W.

  Nolan, J.

  Woodhead, J.

  O'Brien, J. F. X.

  Wright, C.

  O'Brien, P. J.

  O'Brien, W.

  TELLERS.

  O'Connor, J.

  Marjoribanks, rt. hon. E.

  O'Connor, T. P.

  O'Doherty, J. E.

  Morley, A.

  Ordered, That at One o'clock a.m. on Friday 3rd August, if the Members of Parliament (Charges and Allegations) Bill be not previously reported from the Committee of the whole House, the Chairman shall put forthwith the Question, or Questions, on any Amendment or Motion already proposed from the Chair. He shall next proceed and successively put forthwith the Questions, That any Clause then under Consideration, and each remaining Clause in the Bill stand part of the Bill. After the Clauses are disposed of he shall forthwith report the Bill, as amended, to the House. From and after the passing of this Order no Motion, That the Chairman do leave the Chair, or do report Progress, shall be allowed.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (CHARGES AND ALLEGATIONS) BILL.— [BILL 336.]
  (Mr. William Henry Smith, Mr. Secretary Matthews, Mr. Solicitor General.)
  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (CHARGES AND ALLEGATIONS) BILL.— [BILL 336.]

    COMMITTEE. [Progress 1st August.]
    [FOURTH NIGHT.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1 (Appointment and duties of special commissioners).
    THE CHAIRMANpointed out that the Amendment in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Robertson) was identical with an Amendment already disposed of in Committee, and was, therefore, out of Order. The first Amendment of the hon. Member for Londonderry City (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) was also out of Order, on the ground that it was beyond the scope of the Bill.
    MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, he rose to move an Amendment the meaning of which was that the Commission should compel those concerned in this investigation to bring out in every form all the history of the manner in which these charges had been got up. It was not enough that the charges remained to be examined as they now stood by a public tribunal. They could all understand that the editor of The Times was prompted to set out these serious charges and allegations by some person or persons unknown. It was of the utmost importance that the Commission should be put in possession of the way in which the charges were originally got up; it might have been that some disappointed person was at the bottom of the chargee,

    1291
    or some man had made them for the sake of pay. What they wanted to get at was the story of the inception of the charges; they wanted to know who it was that came to Mr. Buckle and said—"I will betray to you all this matter affecting Members of Parliament;" who was the man who brought the forged letters to Mr. Buckle or Mr. Walter, and under what pretence did he make Mr. Buckle or Mr. Walter believe that they were honestly obtained; what was the original evidence to satisfy Mr. Walter and Mr. Buckle that these letters were genuine documents? He presumed that in a Court of Common Law any person producing such letters could be asked how he knew them to be genuine; and, that being so, he was of opinion that something of the same kind should be the case in the investigation by this Commission. But, although that might be the case with the forged letters, it might not be so with regard to other charges and statements made. They wanted not only to have the charges put on the table before the Commission, but they wanted as a first, or, at all events, as an early step, to get at the secret history of the charges and to discover the man who brought them forward, as well as the primâ facie case given to The Times in virtue of which the articles were published. He was strongly of opinion—it was his conviction—that if they could get that story in the beginning it might save the Judges a great amount of investigation. He believed that it would have the effect of convincing every reasonable man of the absurdity and falsehood of the whole mountain of charges that had been heaped up by The Times day after day. He would only say, further, that if the Committee would accept his Amendment they would save a vast amount of time in the exposure of a hideous conspiracy, and, with regard to the persons implicated, "would put a whip in every honest hand to lash the rascals naked through the world."
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, line 20, at end of the Clause, to add the words "and the circumstances under which the said charges and allegations were originally published and made by the defendants in the said action."—(Mr. Justin M'Carthy.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS)said, that, so far as the charges and allegations were concerned, the object of the hon. Gentleman would be attained without the insertion of the Amendment, because the subject would necessarily be brought under the notice of the Commissioners; all matters would be necessarily inquired into by the Commission so far as they bore on the truth of the charges and allegations, and if the truth were established, the motives with which they were published did not appear to be of much importance.
    MR. ANDERSONsaid, he quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department that what was intended by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Londonderry City (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) would necessarily be brought under the notice of the Commission when they came to consider the subject referred to. But the right hon. Gentleman had referred to the letters, and he said that if the genuineness of the letters were proved, which, of course, would depend upon the handwriting, it would not be necessary for the Judges to go into the question as to how The Times obtained the letters. If the Commissioners did not go into the question as to how the letters were obtained, they would leave out one of the important elements of genuineness. As a general rule, you prove the genuineness of a letter by calling upon experts in handwriting, and that was sufficient; but the right hon. Gentleman was now taking a course which had actually been taken on the trial by the hon. and learned. Attorney General in his position as counsel for The Times, when he said that nothing would make The Times swerve from the course they had originally taken—that was to say, they would not divulge the source from which they obtained the letters. Was that the position taken up by Her Majesty's Government? One of the matters he wished to have distinctly understood by the Committee was, that the counsel for The Times ought not to be permitted to take up that position which the hon. and learned Attorney General had done as counsel for The Times in the case of "O'Donnell v. Walter." He looked upon this particular point as to whence

    1293
    the letters originated, and whence they were obtained, as the essence of the question. He had been told on authority, which was not altogether bad, that The Times had in its possession several hundred other letters reputed to be written by the hon. Member for Cork; but he would remind hon. Members that in the case of articles of vertu the supply soon became very great, and that there might have been an actual flood of so-called genuine letters of the hon. Member for Cork. He should like to have the question investigated and fully brought out at the inquiry, how many hundreds of forged letters The Times now possessed, because that would be an important matter in considering the genuineness of the letters in question. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he had misunderstood him in saying that the Government disavowed the course taken by the counsel for The Times, and that the Commissioners would not be allowed to take again at the commencement of the inquiry the course of action which had been resorted to by the hon. and learned Attorney General in the case of "O'Donnell v. Walter?" He was in Court when the hon. and learned Attorney General made the statement he had referred to, and he remembered that it created a profound sensation; but to say that the information asked for in the Amendment should not be given would be to shut the door to one of the main pieces of evidence as to genuineness. If he had had any faith in the genuineness of the letters, it was shaken by the refusal of The Times to state the source from which they were derived. He did not believe any journal, which was genuinely anxious to bring before the public any important documents, sincerely believing in their genuineness, would refuse to bring forward one of the first elements of proof of their genuineness. For these reasons he hoped the Government would tell the Committee that the procedure before the Commission was not to be the same as in the case of "O'Donnell v. Walter," and that the source from which the letters had been derived was to be inquired into. But, upon the grounds stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, he thought the Amendment might he almost dispensed with.
    THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr SEXTON)said, he did not think his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Anderson), in speaking of the Amendment being dispensed with, had given any reason why it should not be discussed. The ear of the Government was a somewhat dull ear; but hon. Members would have to make a further appeal to the right hon. Gentleman at the risk of being denounced again to-morrow for blackguardism by Mr. Walter, the big brother of the Government. He must say that, so far as they were concerned, they not only invited the fullest inquiry, but were anxious for it. He had to remind the Committee that the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington) had said on Tuesday last in the House that The Times was on its trial in this business as well as the Irish Members. Undoubtedly that was the ease, and it was possible that some of its charges might not be made good. As the Bill stood, it would relieve The Times, if found guilty of publishing forgeries, of all consequences, whether civil or criminal; but when this Commission was over, it would seem that no one attacked by The Times could possibly bring a civil action.
    MR. MATTHEWS: Only witnesses are relieved.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, of course, Mr. Buckle and Mr. Walter would come before the Commission and make what they called a full disclosure, and obtain a certificate which would protect them against civil action commenced by anyone. That being so, it became of great importance that the proceedings before the Commission should be searching and go to the bottom not only of acts, but of motives. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary held that, if the fact of murder was proved, there was no necessity to go into motives. That was an admirable argument from an Old Bailey point of view, because if you wanted to prove a man's guilt you hanged him, and there was an end of the matter; but from the point of view of statesmanship it was not only necessary that the act, but the motives, should be ascertained. He held it to be a matter of great importance to prove not only who committed a crime, but what was the motive for its commission, because then practical statesmanship would

    1295
    apply itself to the prevention of causes which led to crime. If there were to be an inquiry into the discovery of motive, the Amendment must be accepted. The Commissioners were only required to inquire and report on the truth or falsity of the allegations and charges; but if motive was an essential part of the inquiry, they should not be directed to inquire into the allegations unless they inquired also into the circumstances. It would be a proper matter for inquiry, in case the allegations or charges were proved to be false, under what circumstances The Times made them; it would be necessary to ask who the writer of the articles was—whether he was a person of position or a penny-a-liner? Every point tending to establish or prove the good faith of The Times in publishing the articles would be necessary to the ascertainment of the truth. They had heard that these letters had been offered to another person. He was aware that these very inferior works of art had been hawked about the country by persons for some years. On the meeting of the Commission they would want at once to get Mr. Walter into the chair to know where he got the letters from. The only way to discover the falsehood of the letters would be to proceed back upon the track on which the letters came, and then it would come up whether, having regard to the man's position or financial means, Mr. Walter and another were justified in taking them from him and publishing them. In point of fact, it would be a vital element to consider whether Walter and another, in dealing with these documents, dealt with them in manifest bad faith and malice, or whether they took them in good faith and only used them after due inquiry into their genuineness. If Walter and another, under the Bill as it stood, said they obtained the letters from So-and-so and gave so much money for them, that would be a full disclosure, and they would get their certificate; but he thought Irish Members would have to pursue that matter a little further, and for that reason the Amendment ought to be accepted.
    MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, he did not think the hon. and learned Member for North Longford need be very much afraid of the consequences of his Amendment not being adopted. The Judges on the
    1296
    Commission were men of great practical experience, and one of the first considerations would be whether these letters were genuine or forged. Every question bearing upon them could be put on cross-examination, and would be considered where they came from, who was the person who brought them to The Times; and, in short, The Times proprietors, would not be allowed to ride over the course in the way the hon. Gentleman suggested. Unless The Times could give an account whence these letters came, and could produce the persons from whom they bought or obtained them, and unless those persons could stand cross-examination, the Judges would never have accepted the inquiry. When a proper cross-examination was administered, a clear account would have to be given as to how the letters came into the hands of The Times, by whom they were written, and how they came into the hands of the person to whom it was alleged that the hon. Member for Cork had given them. The whole matter would be gone into, and, unless this was done, the letters would be held to be forged, and the whole idea of their being genuine would be scouted. He was afraid that, as the last clause of the Bill stood, although the Government might not have intended it, if Mr. Walter or anybody else gave an account however damaging to themselves, or however criminating to themselves, if that account were true, they would be entitled to an indemnity which would shield them from liability for their acts. Now that ought not to be so, and for that reason he had asked earlier in the afternoon a question with reference to Amendments to which he hoped a satisfactory answer would be given.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he would point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Staveley Hill) that he had an Amendment upon the Paper to the last clause, which would have the effect of voiding the injustice which the hon. and learned Member pointed out. He believed that one of the reasons why the Government were so anxious to bring the discussion of the Bill to a close without considering the Amendments was that they were bound to Mr. Walter not to allow any such Amendment to be proposed. That was perfectly monstrous, because it was depriving people of a remedy at law.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, he must point out to the hon. Member for Northampton that he was not in Order in discussing an Amendment by anticipation.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, it was an extraordinary thing that, whenever any hon. Member on the Opposition side of the House got up and pointed out that it would only be reasonable and fair that the Judges should be obliged to follow some particular course, he was met by the answer of the Government that the Judges were so wise that they would most unquestionably pursue that course. The basis of the Bill was built up on the Government confidence in Mr. Justice Day and others. Now, not having that confidence, he could not understand why the Government did not accept Amendments calling upon the Judges to do precisely what the Government said they would do. He defied The Times, or any Representative of The Times on the Treasury Bench, to deny that last autumn, when Parnellism and Crime had already been published and fallen a little flat, they engaged a detective at a large salary and sent him to the United States under a false name, whose business it was to try and get friends with persons connected with the National Movement out there, and who was given free scope to buy up all documents of a certain kind and send them to The Times. Now, he thought that kind of thing ought to be investigated. It was an encouragement to robbery, and it was an encouragement to theft. He did not see why, if everything relating to his hon. Friends was to be investigated by this tribunal, it should not also investigate the particular sources from which these letters came, and look into the course of action which had been pursued by The Times in their systematic attempt to vilify the Irish Party. The object of the Amendment was to get at the whole truth, and his hon. Friends had only referred to the letters as an illustration of its object. They did not want to go into the motives of Mr. Walter; his object was clear enough; his newspaper was going down in circulation, and he wanted something sensational to bring it up. Those were his motives; perhaps they were good motives, but they were the motives undoubtedly. They wanted to know how all this system had been carried out by The Times, in order that
    1298
    they might found upon it some check to this system, which he had already said was a practical encouragement to fraud and robbery.
    MR. ANDERSONsaid, he agreed with the hon. and learned Member for the Kingswinford Division of Staffordshire (Mr. Staveley Hill) that the Judges would inquire into where the particular letters came from. But his point was not only that the Judges should inquire into particular letters, as he agreed it was their duty to do; but he also wanted to know how it was that The Times got those forged documents into their possession, because they had a great number of other documents in their possession which were undoubtedly forgeries? Surely, it was a most important matter to inquire into them also; but under the Bill, as it stood, he believed that the Judges had no such jurisdiction. The terms of the Bill were that they should inquire into the allegations and charges made in the action of "O'Donnell v. The Times" against Members of Parliament and others. Now, there was no charge made in the action of "O'Donnell v. The Times"—nothing of the sort. The Times had out of this mass of forgeries brought forward two or three only. He was sure that was a matter which ought to be the subject of inquiry. ["Hear, hear!"] The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department appreciated that sentiment; but would be get up and say that in the opinion of himself or the Solicitor General the Judges would have power under this Bill to go into the question? If so, he should be perfectly satisfied
    MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, he could not understand why the Government should oppose the Amendment; because all through the discussion it had been stated from the Treasury Bench that the great object of the inquiry was to get at the truth, and the whole truth, and objection had been over and over again taken to the inclusion of anything that would limit the scope of the inquiry. The Amendment went to the purpose of getting at a very important part of the whole truth, and he wondered how the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department could get up and oppose it. It was exceedingly important in this inquiry, which was not to be exclusively

    1299
    directed to the truth or innocence of Members of Parliament, that they should learn how the documents were obtained by The Times; under what circumstances they came into the possession of that journal; what amount of money was given for them, and who were the persons who supplied them. All these things constituted a most important part of the whole truth which the Government had declared themselves to be so anxious to ascertain. A forgery might by skilful people, be very adroitly effected; it was possible to imitate with a wonderful degree of perfection the signature and handwriting of any man. A skilful forger, with care, time, and practice, and original documents before him, could, he maintained, produce an imitation, not only of the signature, but of the handwriting of any man in the House of Commons, or any man in England, with such perfection as might deceive the person whose handwriting was imitated. It would throw a great light on the genuineness or otherwise of these documents, if they were to know early who were the parties who supplied them to The Times. The person who supplied the documents might be a person of bad character. He must be someone who had a bitter animus against the hon. Member for Cork, or other Members of the Irish Party; he might be a man who had been notoriously seeking to blackmail the Members of the Irish Party, or one who had been trying to beg or extort money from them. The personality of the person from whom the letters came would unquestionably throw an important light upon their authenticity. Then why should the Government show so much opposition to the inclusion of these words? He thought there was good reason why the Amendment should be admitted. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had told the Committee that the Judges would be men of experience and men of sense and discretion, and that they would investigate every important point, and rule out every one one that was not important, and that they would not waste time in the consideration of what was irrelevant. He (Mr. T. D. Sullivan) would like to have something more definite to go upon than that, and they preferred that the security should be in the Bill, which would be more reliable than the opinion
    1300
    of the right hon. Gentleman. It was a matter of notoriety that at the trial of "O'Donnell v. Walter" the counsel for The Times stated in open Court that, whatever might happen in the course of the proceedings, the proprietor of The Times would not reveal the source from which he got the documents. That was a very bold position to take up; men in Ireland were being sent to prison every day for refusing to answer questions put to them in the Star Chamber Court; and Mr. Walter announced openly in Court that he would refuse to produce the person from whom the documents were obtained, or disclose the ways and means by which he obtained them. They thought it was essential that the proprietor of The Times should be compelled to do this. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary did not know that his views as to the course of the inquiry would be shared by the Judges; and, at any rate, the Committee desired that the protection given by the Amendment should be included in the Bill. He thought that the case of the Amendment was a strong one, and he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give a better reason than he had given for the opposition of the Government to it. He repeated that the right hon. Gentleman had told the Committee that the Judges would do one thing and would not do another; but the Commissioners might not see the matter in exactly the same light as the right hon. Gentleman; and, that being so, Irish Members, as one of the Parties in the case, urged upon the Government the acceptance of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Londonderry. They wanted it inserted in the Bill that The Times should be compelled to inform the Commission of the source from which and the means by which they obtained these documents, giving the names of the persons who supplied them. If the Government would do that, he maintained that it would tend a great deal to satisfy the public. As to having the opinion of experts, that might leave the facts still uncertain, and nothing but the history of the letters could be in any way conclusive. If the person who supplied them were of good report, it would, of course, be an important consideration; if they were persons known to be in bitter animosity to the hon. Member for Cork and his Friends, that

    1301
    would place them in a different position. For the reasons he had given he strongly urged upon the Committee to insert the Amendment in the Bill.
    MR. HARRISsaid, it would be very unfair if a witness who gave evidence in support of The Times on the inquiry were allowed the privilege of not answering questions put by counsel who appeared on the side of Irish Members. If the relief were allowed to these persons, he should certainly feel himself justified in refusing to answer questions put to him, and he questioned whether any witness would not be justified in doing so under those circumstances. This was a most peculiar imposition, and he regarded it as a very disgraceful thing in a country like this that they should arm a body of Commissioners with power to inquire into every description of intercourse people might have with their fellow-men—such powers to overrule the usages and amenities of society. It was a most disgraceful thing that these powers were to be directed altogether to one side, and that the other side was to escape inquiry. It seemed to him that that would be one of the most unfair modes of treatment that a Party was ever subjected to.
    DR. KENNYsaid, he hoped the Government would see their way to accepting the Amendment. He, of course, hoped against hope in asking for any such concession on their part. As a matter of fact, the Government knew that it was they themselves who were on their trial—they and their friend The Times. As a matter of fact, it was the Government who were seeking to avoid inquiry into the circumstances under which those charges had been made. They would not accept any Amendment which would have the effect of restricting, on the one hand, their friend The Times from going into all manner of charges, whether relevant to any specific issue or not, and of equally opposing any Amendment which would give facilities to the Irish Members who were incriminated by The Times, or whom The Times had endeavoured to incriminate—Amendments framed with the object of throwing back upon The Times the charges that really lay at their door. A few nights ago the Government had packed the jury, and ever since then they had been preparing a method by which they might summon evidence to condemn the Irish popular Represen-
    1302
    tatives in that House, and they had been seeking in the interests of The Times to drag in every irrelevant matter which they thought might tend to cast guilt upon those Representatives, and upon the Irish people, and to avoid every fair and square issue that could be proposed. He trusted that the Government would have some little sense of shame after all the action they had taken on this Bill, and that they would give the Irish Members some little concession on the point under discussion. The Government were desirous that the Committee should come to a speedy end of these debates; but it was they themselves who, by refusing all such reasonable Amendments as the one now under discussion, were prolonging the debates uselessly. The Government, he believed, were acting thus in order that, at the end of the discussion, they might be able to shut out Amendments of another class, which hon. Members might desire to move hereafter. He hoped some ray of light and grace would come to them even at that late period. Even at that late period he ventured to hope that, if a scintilla of fair play remained with them, they would accept an Amendment which could not operate injuriously to them or to their client, but which would modify that which was intended to operate injuriously upon the Irish Members.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 128; Noes 162: Majority 34.—(Div. List, No. 258.)
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he desired to move the following Amendment:—In page 1, line 20, after "another," add—
    "Provided that the Commission shall, at the commencement of the inquiry and before entering upon further matters, inquire and report upon the letters read by the counsel of the defendant in the action of 'O'Donnell v. Walter and another,' purporting to be signed 'Charles S. Parnell,' and to have been written and sent by or under the authority of Mr. Charles Stewart Parnell, the signature to which the aforesaid Mr. Charles Stewart Parnell has declared to be a forgery."
    He was glad to think that the atmosphere was not so electric as it had been during the last day or two, and that they were in such a judicial frame of mind that he felt little doubt that he would be able to prove to the hon. and learned Solicitor General and to the Home Secretary that if they wished it

    1303
    to be thought in the country that this Bill was a fair and honest Bill, they would do well to accept the Amendment he suggested now—an Amendment which, if they did not accept it, they would, at least, admit was au important one, and one that required some sort of discussion. It would be observed that the idea in the Bill was that the whole issue, so far as Members of the House were concerned, was an issue of "The Times v. Parnell and others;" but he would point out that there was another side of the matter, and that there was also an issue of "Parnell v. The Times." His hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) accused The Times, precisely as The Times accused him. His hon. Friend accused The Times of having, either knowingly or foolishly and negligently, published certain letters which they alleged were written by him, but which were forgeries, and which, if they had been written by him, would very seriously have damaged his character. Now, he (Mr. Labouchere) had read through Parnellism and Crime. He was not like most hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, who took things for granted and voted for their Party without taking the trouble to look into matters. He (Mr. Labouchere) distinctly stated, having read this pamphlet, that absolutely the only real and definite issue of fact in the whole of it was whether the hon. Member for the City of Cork did or did not write these letters. His hon. Friend did not for a moment contest the innuendoes which were contained in what was written in these letters; but he met them with an absolute denial that he had written them. The hon. Member admitted himself that, had he written them, he would have been guilty not only of dishonourable and improper action in so doing, but that he would also be the most outrageous and the most impudent of liars that it would be possible for the human mind to conceive. Now, with regard to his hon. Friend, he had distinctly stated in the House that he did not write those letters; and, so far as he (Mr. Labouchere) gathered from the attitude of hon. Members opposite, they had suspended their judgment. They did not absolutely say that the hon. Member for the City of Cork was guilty of an untruth; but they were not prepared to say that he was not guilty
    1304
    of an untruth. They, on the Opposition side of the House, had been accused whenever they had taken an opportunity of—say, doubting the memory of hon. Gentlemen opposite—they had been denounced by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer and others; but when his hon. Friend and his Colleagues—or "the men below the Gangway," as the right hon. Gentleman expressed it—declared certain statements with regard to them were false, it was deemed only reasonable on the other side to say—"Oh! they may be speaking the truth, or they may not; we know nothing about it." His hon. Friend (Mr. Parnell) had been sneered at for not going to law. He had asked for a Select Committee; but the Government had told him he could not have one. They proposed the present Commission, saying that it would be in accord and in agreement with the wishes of his hon. Friend; but hon. Members on that (the Opposition) side of the House absolutely denied that the hon. Member for the City of Cork had ever, in any sort of way, assented to such a Commission as the Government were proposing. But, at any rate, the Bill for the Commission was before the House, and he did think that it was only reasonable on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite, as they were to have the Commission, to see that the charge which unquestionably affected his hon. Friend most should be speedily investigated, and that was the scope of the Amendmemt which he (Mr. Labouchere) had here put down. The Amendment was, first, to instruct the Judges to inquire into the truth or falsity of these signatures, "Charles Stewart Parnell," and afterwards to proceed to other matters—but not until they had inquired into this matter and reported thereon. He did not believe the Home Secretary would refuse the Amendment; and he would say why. He had a better opinion of hon. Gentlemen opposite than had many Members upon that—the Opposition—side of the House, and he thought it would be so base and so vile to refuse the Amendment, that until he was informed of the fact by the progress of events he declined to believed that anyone in the House would do such a thing as to refuse it. What interpretation would be put into it? They had had it stated that The Times,

    1305
    and the hon. and learned Attorney General and the "old friend" of The Times suspended their belief; but the explanation which would be put upon it by impartial and independent persons like himself (Mr. Labouchere) would be that The Times, and both the hon. and learned Attorney General, who represented it, and the First Lord of the Treasury, who was "the old friend" of Mr. Walter, were perfectly convinced by this time that The Times had made a mistake, and they themselves, although they were not certain one way or the other, hesitated to believe that the letters were forgeries. The Committee had had a good many indications of this. They had found those letters gradually disappearing from the forefront and becoming a very secondary matter. Then they had had the fact that the Attorney General, acting for The Times, had stated that under no circumstances would his clients say what the circumstances attending the production of these letters were. [An hon. MEMBER: Why?] Why, what? The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, speaking for The Times, had stated that under no circumstances would The Times acknowledge whence those letters were derived—that they would rather lose their action than state it. Now, that was a very important declaration. He confessed he did not see how The Times proprietor could do otherwise. There was such a thing as journalistic etiquette and journalistic honour. [An hon. MEMBER: Not much.] An hon. Friend had said "not much." Well, perhaps not much, but still a certain amount. This journalistic etiquette covered such an event as a person coming to a newspaper with certain information, on the understanding that if the newspaper used the information, either for its private or other purposes, it should pledge itself not to state where it had obtained the information, but accept the consequences of its publication—that was to say, to go to prison or do anything else that might be necessary, rather than reveal the name of its informant. It was said that The Times would reveal the name of the person or persons who had supplied them with the letters purporting to be written by the hon. Member for the City of Cork; but, unless The Times was preparing to throw away every shred of journalistic
    1306
    honour, it would not do any such thing. In fact, they had the statement that it would not. Everything tended to prove that the Commission which was now proposed and the mode of procedure contemplated were based upon the idea that those letters were forgeries, and the object was to swamp the real issue as to their genuine character in the midst of mud and garbage picked up here, there, and everywhere. They could never, he maintained, come to the fact whether those letters were written by his hon. Friend or not without the adoption of this or some similar Amendment. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, who was a distinguished lawyer as well as a distinguished statesman, what would occur if they did not lay down that the letters were to be inquired into first and reported upon first? It was probable that the Judges might think it desirable to look into all the allegations against the Land League and everything else before they touched the question of the letters. They should have all these matters looked into, and that was not the main object of the Commission, as stated by the First Lord of the Treasury; but after they had gone into all these matters The Times might say—"We are not going to give the names of the authors of those letters, or the names of the persons from whom we have obtained them." Suppose The Times took that course, and suppose that Mr. Walter, rather than give the names of his informants, elected to go to prison. Personally, he should have no objection to Mr. Walter going to prison; but that would not help the case of his hon. Friend. They would have had an investigation into a mass of matters, and this Commission, the object of which was to look into the letters and report upon them, would, after having looked into a mass of irrelevant matter, not be able to find out the authorship of the forgeries. What was the answer which would be given to him (Mr. Labouchere)? Why, he should be first told that these Judges were good and excellent men, and that everything should be left to them. Well, he admitted the excellence and the purity of the Judges. He would admit that they might be the best and the wisest of men; but it did not necessarily follow that, being the best and wisest of men, they would look into the question of these letters and report

    1307
    thereon, unless they were instructed by the Committee to do so. Then he should be told that the Irish Members had given a general assent to this Bill on the second reading, and that because they had given that assent, they had no right to propose any change or alteration in it. Well, he should like to know what on earth was the good of a Committee stage, if such a principle as that was to be laid down? He never yet heard of such a principle being laid down or being acted upon. Most assuredly, it was not acted upon by hon. Gentlemen opposite when they were in Opposition. Again and again, they accepted the second reading of a Bill, and endeavoured to alter that Bill in Committee. But in this case it had to be remembered that the Irish Members had clearly laid down certain conditions under which they would accept the Bill. The hon. Member for the City of Cork did not give his assent to the Bill as it stood at the second reading. None of them had given their assent to it. What had occurred? Why, he distrusted, and always did distrust, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite. He had put down an Amendment to the effect that the Bill should be read a second time that day six months. A good many Members on the Opposition side were most anxious that he should go to a vote on that Amendment; and who was it that prevented him? Certainly, not hon. Gentlemen opposite; but it was the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork. The line that hon. Member took was this—"I am so very anxious that there should be an investigation into these matters—into these direct charges against me—that I hope you will do nothing to prevent the passing of this Bill." He (Mr. Labouchere) had said upon that—"You do not mean to say you want this Bill?" And the hon. Member replied—"No; but I am certain that after we have discussed the matter in Committee we shall have some fair alteration in the measure." He (Mr. Labouchere) had rejoined—"I do not believe it; if you take my word for it, you will got nothing from the Government." Well, which of them had been proved to he in the right—his hon. Friend or himself? He did not say this to prove his own wisdom or forethought; but when hon. Members opposite boasted
    1308
    that the second reading had been carried nemine contradicente, he wished to point out that it had been carried nemine contradicente, because his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork believed—though as matters had turned out that belief was seen to have been altogether a delusion—that he would be treated fairly, honestly, and honourably, and that he would get a Commission which would enable him to establish his innocence of charges which affected his reputation and honour. He (Mr. Labouchere) was certain of this, that if hon. Gentlemen did not accept this Amendment—which was really not a question of principle, but a question of detail, although a most important detail in this case—they would stand convicted of having tried, under very false pretences, to induce the House to accept the second reading of a Bill which as it stood was designed, not to discover the guilt or innocence of his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork, but to evade the issue and protect The Times. As he had said, he could not believe that the Government would refuse to accept this Amendment; but still, if he were mistaken, and the Amendment were not accepted, he would again take upon himself to offer advice to the hon. Member for the City of Cork and his Friends; and his advice would be this—the Commission would be constituted under the Bill; but let the hon. Member and his Friends refuse to appear before it—let them absolutely refuse, and wash their hands of the whole matter. If they were summoned as witnesses, then let them attend; but do not let them have counsel, do not let them examine the men who gave evidence against them, and do not let them waste their money day after day, week after week, and month after month on the inquiry. And, at the same time, he would advise his hon. Friend to do this. The country was only anxious upon one point—namely, as to whether or not his hon. Friend wrote the forged letters. Now, he (Mr. Labouchere) confessed that where politics were concerned he should distrust a Middlesex jury, but so would the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary; but if they submitted a simple question of fact to a Middlesex jury as to whether a certain person did or did not write certain letters, his impression was that the jury would not be

    1309
    biassed by their political feeling, but would give a fair verdict. When, therefore, he said to his hon. Friends that if he were in their position he would wash his hands of the Commission, he said, at the same time, that he would bring an action against The Times with regard to this question of the letters, which was the only important point. His hon. Friend would clear his character, he was sure, by following this course. He (Mr. Labouchere) had not yet discovered very clearly what would happen under the Commission; but he presumed that Mr. Walter would go to prison—and when he mentioned Mr. Walter, he referred to him generally as The Times, either Mr. Walter or The Times would go to prison—for refusing to state whence these letters were procured. But in the event of an action the first step would be to administer interrogatories to The Times, and one of these interrogatories would unquestionably be—"From whom did you obtain these letters?"
    An hon. MEMBER: They would not be bound to answer.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, an hon. Member said they would not be bound to answer; but he thought that they would be bound to answer such an interrogatory. The plea put in by the hon. and learned Attorney General for not stating the names of the persons from whom The Times had obtained the letters was that Mr. Walter or someone imagined that if they did give the names something would happen to those persons who had given them the letters. That was a plea, he imagined, entirely unknown to the law. If men under English law refused to answer interrogatories on such pleas as that, there would be very few interrogatories answered. They could not look into men's minds, and Judges had to act according to the ordinary legal procedure. He thought if hon. Gentlemen would look into the matter, they would find that there were only three reasons for which a person could answer an interrogatory pertinently addressed to him, and amongst those was not to be found the reason that he took it into his head that in this law-abiding country something terrible would happen to the individual from whom he obtained certain information if he disclosed that
    1310
    individual's name. That was a reason totally unknown to English law. Such was the advice he ventured to give his hon. Friend. He did not know whether the hon. Gentleman would take that advice; but if he were in the hon. Gentleman's position, he certainly should act in that way if this Amendment were not accepted. He begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, line 20, at the end of Clause, to add the words—"Provided, that the Commission shall, at the commencement of the inquiry, and before entering upon further matters, inquire and report upon the letters read by the counsel of the defendant in the action of O'Donnell v. Walter and another,' purporting to be signed 'Charles S. Parnell,' and to have been written and sent by or under the authority of Mr. Charles Stewart Parnell, the signature to which the aforesaid Mr. Charles Stewart Parnell has declared to be a forgery."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir EDWARD CLARKE)said, that a very few words would be necessary from him to state the reason why, notwithstanding the threat of the hon. Gentleman as to what he would think of them if they refused the Amendment, the Government would refuse that proposal. He should confine himself strictly to the question before the Committee, and should not follow the hon. Gentleman into the interesting statement he had made as to the advice he proposed to give to the hon. Member for Cork if the Amendment were not accepted. He hoped the hon. Member would give good advice; but whatever the advice might be, the Government would have nothing to do with it. As to the Amendment, it proposed really to invert or alter and dictate the order of the proceedings of the Commission in an entirely unnatural way. It proposed that the Commission should, at the commencement of the inquiry, and before entering into any other matters, inquire into and report upon the letters alleged to have been signed by the hon. Member for Cork. In the course of the speech delivered by the hon. and learned Attorney General in the case of "O'Donnell v. Walter and another," a number of letters were produced. There were, he thought, four letters from

    1311
    Byrne, four or five said to have been signed by Egan, and six letters signed by the bon. Member for Cork. [Mr. T. M. HEALY: Said to be signed by him.] Yes; purporting to be signed by the hon. Member for Cork—he had not meant to convey by what he had said an expression of opinion as to whether or not the signatures were genuine. These letters did not in themselves constitute charges. If the letters were true, they, no doubt, went far to support some charges made by The Times in Parnellism and Crime, and in the course of its investigation the Commission would undoubtedly have recourse to every means known to experienced Judges and to the powers which this Bill would put into their hands—and they were ample powers—to find out whether these were genuine documents or not. But they could not dissever the evidence in this case from the issues. He quite admitted that the question of the authenticity of the letters was of great importance, and that the country and the House would attach great importance to the question of whether or not it was true that the hon. Member for Cork had signed them. Those who produced the letters could not say—they would not be allowed to say—that the letters were not important, and that would not have to be pronounced upon them. But it must always be remembered that these letters were produced as evidence in support of allegations made in Parnellism and Crime. Hon. Members might be perfectly certain that the Judges would not postpone the investigation of such an important matter as these letters. He did not doubt that the Judges would take such means as they had in their possession of ascertaining whether or not the letters were genuine. But it would be injurious to the proper conduct of the inquiry to direct that the Judges should occupy themselves with those letters separately from the other evidence, and not with the further matters at all. [Mr. LABOUCHERE: No, no!] Yes; that was what it came to. The words of the Amendment were these—
    "The Commission shall, at the commencement of the inquiry and before entering upon further matters, inquire and report upon the letters read by the counsel of the defendant,"
    and so on. He submitted that it would be absurd to put such a limitation and
    1312
    instruction into the Bill. The Commission would have ample experience to guide them in the discharge of their duty in this case. It would have ample power given by this Bill, and he was quite sure that confidence might be felt in their ability to deal with the important issue they would have before them. But he submitted that it would be to the detriment of the satisfactory character of the inquiry to fetter the Commissioners in this way, and to select certain bits of evidence from the charges, and require them to report upon those bits of evidence apart from the rest of the case.
    SIR GEORGE TREVELYANsaid, the hon. and learned Solicitor General had set one especially good example at that period in the length of his speech, and he (Sir George Trevelyan) would follow the hon. and learned Gentleman in that example. The hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to have stated the view of the Government, and to have stated it very fairly, and a tolerably strong case it was; but he should like to ask why it had not been stated long ago on the second reading when Member after Member rose in different parts of the House, and especially on that (the Opposition) side, to support the Government and to say that the whole gist of the inquiry was these letters? The Solicitor General, he thought, forgot that the most important of all these letters was not brought forward in support of a charge. All this immense excitement arose from the publication of a certain letter alleged to be signed by Charles Stewart Parnell in The Times newspaper. Until that letter was published, there was no sensation on this question whatsoever. That letter was not brought forward in support of any charge. It was a charge in itself; and if the Government did not like the word "charge," they were at liberty to take another word from their own Bill and call it an allegation. But charge or allegation, if it had not been for that letter, the hon. Member for Cork might very well have disregarded all other charges and allegations whatsoever. The speech of the Home Secretary yesterday made the speech of the hon. and learned Solicitor Gentleman a very important one. It appeared now that the letters were to be referred to merely

    1313
    as pieces of evidence or illustration more or less important upon the general question into which this Commission was to inquire. Since yesterday it was laid down by the Government that the Commission was to inquire first into the history of the Land League, and then into the history of the National League, and it might be that it was not until that enormous branch of inquiry had been exhausted—and how long it might take to exhaust it, and at what expense to the Members whose reputation were at stake, it was impossible to say—that they would come to the letters at all. The letters were the marrow of the whole matter; but the speeches of the Government and the votes of their majority had all gone in the direction of giving an immense and wide scope to the Judges as far as the Judges could have any guidance given them by votes and speeches in Parliament. Therefore, he thought it was extremely important that within the four corners of the Bill itself. Parliament should clearly lay down, in justice to the hon. Members whose reputations were at stake, that in the opinion of Parliament, at any rate, the Judges should first approach these letters, and should approach them as a definite and isolated issue.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, that the Solicitor General (Sir Edward Clarke) dropped—he did not know whether by deliberation or in advertence—a curious and, as he thought, a most instructive phrase. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) was endeavouring, by his Amendment, to invert the order of the inquiry. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Labouchere) asked that the forged letters should be taken first. The hon. and learned Solicitor General said that, if that were agreed to, it would invert the order of the inquiry; therefore, it was evident the Solicitor General was already possessed of information, not possessed by the Committee generally, that the forged letters would be taken last. He watched carefully the speech of the hon. and learned Attorney General in the late trial. Upon the assumption that the Commissioners, unless they were otherwise instructed, would follow the course of the topics dwelt upon by the Attorney General in his speech, the forged letters, upon which the whole country was waiting a decision, would
    1314
    certainly be taken not first, but last. He saw the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Elliott Lees) in his place, and that he was attending carefully to the observations he (Mr. Sexton) had the honour of making. He did not envy the hon. Gentleman his reflections when he heard the hon. and learned Solicitor General say that the letters would be taken last. That high-minded Conservative said that the letters were the essential matter, and that the country would regard all the rest of the charges as extraneous. Now, the hon. and learned Attorney General, in his speech in the Court, dealt first with the history of the Land League during the two years of its existence; were they to understand that the Commissioners would follow the hon. and learned Gentleman's course of enumeration, and first of all inquire into the proceedings of the Land League? If so, there were thousands of subjects to be dealt with, and there were the utterances of hundreds and thousands of men in Ireland and America and other parts of the world to be dealt with, all of which were comprised in the history of those two years. Were they to understand that the Commissioners would enter upon an inquiry into that vast body of public action, extending over two years, before they approached or touched the question of the letters? The second topic touched on by the hon. and learned Attorney General was the National League, which covered five years—namely, from 1883, and which extended over Ireland, America, Australia, and other places. Would the Commissioners inquire into the history of the National League before they touched the letters? The third topic upon which the hon. and learned Attorney General discoursed was the assumed relations between persons and organizations in Ireland and persons and organizations in America. They extended over many years; in fact, if they included the Clan-na-Gael and the Fenian Brotherhood, they would open up a body of inquiry to which that contained in Gibbon's Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire would be a mere trifle. Now, he challenged contradiction when he said that all the evidence produced by The Times, and all the evidence cited by the hon. and learned Attorney General, in regard to the three topics he had specified, depended to the last atom

    1315
    upon public records. The Times cited nothing secret. It could cite nothing secret; because the whole matter depended upon articles, speeches, reports, and paragraphs in the Press. Following the order of the topics laid down by the hon. and learned Attorney General, the Commissioners would inquire into three sets of public questions, extending over different countries and many years, and concerning hundreds and thousands of persons; would inquire into questions depending upon public records before they touched that important and urgent question involved in the letters. The Times confessed, on the morning it published the forged letter, that the evidence was what was called published evidence; now, they said, they produced unpublished evidence. On that morning, for the first time, they produced that which could properly form a subject of inquiry. The fac-simile letter was a trump card, and it was played as a trump card by The Times on the morning of the second reading of the Irish Coercion Bill. The dissident Liberals were becoming limp, they needed a tonic, and The Times administered a tonic, enabling them to perform their work in the Division of that evening by producing the forged letter. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Sir George Trevelyan) was absolutely correct when he said that this letter was the first thing which created any sensation. Out of the publication of the facsimile letter grew the debate last year upon Privilege; out of the publication of that letter grew the letter of Mr. O'Donnell and the subsequent action of Mr. O'Donnell against The Times. He (Mr. Sexton) attended in Court during the trial of the late action, waiting and hoping to be called as a witness, until the hon. and learned Attorney General decided not to allow the calling of any evidence. The hon. and learned Attorney General's speech, which lasted for 10 hours, excited no interest except and only when he came to the forged letter and what he called "the family of letters" belonging to it. That was the only thing which excited any interest in the jury or in anyone else. The Times decided that they would not state the source from which they got the letters. It had suggested that if it did state the source, the person who produced the
    1316
    letter might be in danger of his life. The hon. and learned Solicitor General was the only Minister who had advanced that theory. He could not imagine that the hon. and learned Gentleman could place any reliance on such an argument. To exhibit the document would tell them nothing about the substance that was not already public by the text; the only danger would be with reference to the handwriting. Could the forgery be so badly done that a glance at the letter would exhibit its authorship? Let him put the matter on the lowest possible ground. Would it not be more convenient to his hon. Friend (Mr. Parnell), or anyone interested in his hon. Friend, that the person who fabricated the document should be brought on the Table and compelled to admit his guilt, than that violence should be offered to him. If the letter were genuine, it could place no one in danger; if it were false, and if the origin of the letter was discovered, it was perfectly evident his hon. Friend would rather bring the forger upon the Table, and get the truth out of him before the Commission than do otherwise. He (Mr. Sexton) maintained that the letters were really the only matter of inquiry, and that every honest man in the country who was not already convinced that the letters were forgeries, and there were many who were so convinced, desired to ascertain from this Commission one thing, and one thing above all others, one thing immeasurably superior to all others, and that was, whether the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) wrote the letters or not. Let them look at the position in which they placed the hon. Member for Cork. They called the House a deliberative Assembly, they claimed to be men of sense and honour, they knew that the hon. Member's honour was at stake, they knew that his position as a political Leader depended upon the genuineness or otherwise of the letters, and what did they say to him? They said "You must go before the Commission; you must attend in Court day by day; you must watch the whole course of this vast inquiry, because at any moment a charge may be launched against you, and you can never afford to be absent. You and your counsel and witnesses must always be arrayed and marshalled before the Commission." How much would be the

    1317
    daily cost of the attendance of counsel, and of scores and hundreds of witnesses? As a matter of fact, they would have to hire Olympia for this new Irish Exhibition. They actually expected his hon. Friend, a sane man, to go before the Commission, to sit there day after day, to retain and refresh his counsel day after day, to maintain all his witnesses in London for months, perhaps for years, while they were doing what—examining into records of public speeches delivered in 1879, 1880, and 1881, and every year since; into public records as to the relations between politicians in Ireland and politicians in America; watching, no doubt, for what might occur at any moment. This was a denial of justice, it was a farce. In the classical language of Lord Dundreary, this was a mockery, a delusion, and a snare. No one could expect the hon. Member for Cork to sit before the Commission with his counsel and witnesses waiting for the pleasure of the Commission to close a matter of public inquiry extending over years, and to come at their pleasure to the matter in which alone the hon. Member for Cork was concerned. He did not know what action his hon. Friend would take; but he did know what action he himself would take under the circumstances. If this was to be the order of the inquiry, if the letters, as the hon. and learned Solicitor General conveyed, were to be taken last, and public matter first, he asserted every fair-minded man in the country would repel and spurn that condition; a condition which no man of honour would dream of imposing, and which no man of sense would accept.
    MR. PAULTONsaid, he had been very loth indeed to disbelieve the good faith of the Government in this matter; but, he admitted, his belief had been very sorely tried during the last few days. The reason why he was anxious to offer a few observations upon this Amendment, was that he did not think there could be a stronger test of the good faith of the Government than their action upon this Amendment. If the Government or the Party opposite believed the letters to be genuine, and unless they were influenced by considerations which might have been adduced by The Times, they could not possibly object to the letters being put in the fore front of the in-
    1318
    quiry. He appealed to every fair-minded English Gentleman opposite to say candidly whether, supposing the letters to be proved to be forgeries, they would attach any great importance to other matters which might be brought forward? If that was so, what special objection could they have to the letters being made the first subject of consideration by the Commissioners? Many arguments had been advanced upon the opposite Benches in order to prove that the Government was acting in good faith in endeavouring to make these letters a matter of subsidiary importance in the inquiry; but he himself felt strongly that if the Government refused—well, they had already refused the Amendment—but, if hon. Gentlemen opposite supported the Government in rejecting the Amendment, they must be aware that the main charge against Irish Members was not that which they sought to investigate by means of this inquiry.
    MR. MOLLOYsaid, he thought the position in which hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Tory Benches opposite found themselves at the present moment was one of an exceedingly unpleasant character. He was fairly entitled to say that nearly every hon. Member opposite, including the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen), had made use of these letters throughout the country against the Irish cause. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a speech in the country, alluded to these very letters in the strongest language, while he did not allude in any strong language to the other charges which had been made by The Times. When the fac-simile letter was published, a new edition of the pamphlet Parnellism and Crime was issued, and Tory Members bought it, and subscribed to it, and circulated it throughout the length and breadth of the land. What was the position in which they found themselves that night? They sat there as hon. Gentlemen, and the first thing hon. Gentlemen did was to fight fairly. Were they going to fight fairly—these hon. Gentlemen who had used these letters, and who had spread them broadcast through the land, who had put them forward in their constituencies in order to gain for themselves support? Were they going now, after having used these letters, and

    1319
    based their case upon these letters, to support the argument of the Solicitor General, and not allow, as the hon. and learned Gentleman called it, the order of the inquiry to be inverted? Were they going to leave the letters, if not absolutely, at any rate possibly, to be the last thing examined into? Hon. Members opposite found themselves in a very difficult position. They were called upon by this Amendment to act as hon. Gentlemen, and he left it to themselves to decide, after examination into their own consciences, whether, having made this charge the main charge against Members of the House, they ought to vote against the present Amendment. Hon. Gentlemen opposite would, he thought, give the best evidence of what their idea of honour was by the manner in which they voted upon this Amendment. He remembered that last year the hon. Member for Derry (Sir Charles Lewis), now the hon. Member for North Antrim, moved for the appointment of a Select Committee to examine into the charges which had been made, the very same charges which were now being dealt with. The Members of the Government, in their speeches, practically admitted they were willing to appoint such a Committee; at first they offered no dissent to the proposition of the hon. Member (Sir Charles Lewis). One Member of the Government rose and asserted that the proposed inquiry would be an examination into a minor point only. For two days and two nights they discussed whether a Committee should be appointed to examine into what was said to be a minor point. The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) asked what would be the use of the examination if the letter were not to be inquired into? His hon. Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) was at that time at death's door at his seat in Ireland. Those who knew the circumstances knew that many Members of the House never expected to see the hon. Member return, so dangerous was his illness. He was telegraphed to, and, after the Government had stated that their only objection practically to the appointment of the Committee was that the letter was not to be included in the matters to be referred to the Committee for inquiry, a telegram was placed in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman the late Chief Secretary
    1320
    for Ireland (Mr. John Morley) from the hon. Member for the City of Cork, in which that hon. Gentleman stated that he was willing and anxious for the letter to be brought before the proposed Committee. The point he (Mr. Molloy) desired to make was that during the whole of that debate, extending over two days and two nights, the objection taken by the Government to the appointment of the Committee was that the real and the essential matter which ought to be inquired into was the authenticity of the letter, the fac-simile of which had appeared in The Times. [Sir EDWARD CLARKE dissented.] The hon. and learned Solicitor General now shook his head, but he (Mr. Molloy) remembered perfectly well what occurred. A most effective and dramatic close of the debate was the production of the telegram from the hon. Member for Cork by the right hon. Gentleman the late Chief Secretary assenting to the reference of the letter to the Committee. Everyone who heard the debate would remember the jeers when, all concessions having been made to the Government, they refused the Committee on a totally new ground. It was the honour of hon. Gentlemen opposite that was at stake in this matter. This was a matter in which hon. Members could follow the arguments of no one; every man must judge for himself in a case of the kind, and he and his hon. Friends would closely scrutinize that night the votes of hon. Gentlemen who were always speaking about their desire to do everything which was fair and honourable. They would closely scrutinize the votes in order to see whether those Members who used the letters as the principal charge against the Irish Members were now going to give a vote by which those letters might be relegated to an examination twelve months hence, for no other purpose, as far as he could see, than that a cloud of obscurity might be raised in the way of the real issues of the case. The hon. and learned Solicitor General (Sir Edward Clarke) had alluded to the inversion of the order of evidence. Now, they had been told over and over again in the debate that the Judges were to decide all these matters; yet it appeared from the observations of the hon. and learned Solicitor General that there was an order fixed in the minds of the Government. [Cries of "No, no!"]. Then, if there

    1321
    was not, what right had the hon. and learned Solicitor General to talk of inverting the order of evidence?
    SIR EDWARD CLARKEsaid, he had known his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Molloy) quite long enough to know that he would not intentionally misinterpret what he had said.
    MR. MOLLOY: Do you think I would?
    SIR EDWARD CLARKEsaid, he was saying that he had known the hon. and learned Gentleman sufficiently long to know that he would do nothing of the kind. He (Sir Edward Clarke) spoke of these letters as being evidence in support of the charges; he said that they were very important, and that in dealing with the charges the Commissioners would deal with them. He added further, that they would invert the order if they insisted upon the Commissioners dealing with the letters before they addressed themselves to the subject upon which they were entering.
    MR. MOLLOYsaid, that he had known the hon. and learned Gentleman for very many years, and he certainly did not mean to insinuate any charge against him; he was dealing with the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument, and with his argument alone. What he was contending was that in the mind of the Government, as in the mind of the Solicitor General, there must be some kind of order as to the evidence, otherwise they would not talk about inverting the order of evidence. The second expression used by the Solicitor General was the disseverance of evidence. He (Mr. Molloy) found it rather difficult to understand what was the meaning of the phrase "disseverance of evidence." It sounded very similar to the expression so often used by Tory Members, the "disruption of the Empire." What was "disseverance of evidence;" what did it mean? Whatever the hon. and learned Gentleman did mean, he (Mr. Molloy) would make a proposition which would get over any idea of disseverance of evidence. If the letters had reference to anything at all, they had reference to a certain murder or murders, and he admitted at once, and his hon. Friends around him would admit at once, that if they examined into the letters the examination must be thorough and clear and full. But it would be monstrously absurd, it would be childish, to argue that they
    1322
    should examine into letters without examining into that to which it was alleged the letters referred. Now, would the Government agree to a modification of this Amendment to the effect that the murder or murders to which these letters were supposed to have reference should be the first matter for inquiry? He put it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and asked him for an answer. It was useless to talk about the general character of this examination; the House was merely concerned in the honour of its Members, the rest was a secondary matter with the House. This action was taken with regard to the honour of the Members of the House. When the hon. Member for the City of Cork asked for a Committee, he asked for it on the ground of these letters; he said that the letters were forgeries, and he asked for a Committee to inquire into them. In reply to that the Government had given him this Commission. The only sense in which the case was now altered was that, instead of a Committee of the House, there was to be a Commission of three Judges. He did not like to make accusations, but he was bound to say that it would be very difficult for anyone who had listened to the debate, and had seen what the action of hon. Members had been during the last two years, to believe in the honour and bona fides of the Government if they refused this Amendment with the modification he had suggested.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: It has been stated on both sides of the House to-day that the final judge of what we are doing will be the country, and I venture to say that there is no issue upon which the judgment of the country will be more gladly taken than it will be upon the conduct of the Government in regard to this Amendment. Now, what is the situation in reference to the Irish Members of this House, and what is the situation of the Government? The Irish Members, as they say, have been foully and calumniously assailed by the charges of forged letters in The Times newspaper. They demanded of this House redress by what was considered the ordinary and Constitutional method—namely, by a Committee of this House. That was refused by the Government; but they offered the Irish Members specifically in its place a remedy for the evil and wrong under which they suf-

    1323
    fered. They offered it to them, in the language of the hon. and learned Solicitor General, as an act of unexampled generosity. We are now able to judge, and the country will be able to judge, of what the Government understand by "unexampled generosity" to their political opponents in respect of charges of the most heinous and the most injurious kind which the Government themselves, aye, and, above all, my noble Friend the Member for the Rossendale Division of Lancashire (the Marquess of Hartington), have used individually against the Irish Members. My noble Friend, more than anybody else, has vouched for The Times—perhaps vouched is too strong a word to use; but he has said that these were charges which men were bound to meet. Well, here are these men so charged before that Commission which you have created for them, as you say "an act of unexampled generosity;" and what they demand is this—that the first and principal inquiry—I will not say sole inquiry, or even the main inquiry—of this Commission is to look into those letters which would cover them with shame if they were true, and which were infamous if they were false. They ask that that shall be the first inquiry, in order that they may clear their characters as Members of the House of Commons. Do you want them to clear their characters? If you refuse this Amendment, the country will come to the conclusion that the principal object is to blacken their characters, and that what you are trading upon are these calumnies which you have adopted; that what you desire above all things is to postpone the day when these calumnies shall be proved to be false. What is it the hon. and learned Solicitor General says? The Home Secretary said, yesterday, that the conduct of the Irish Members was not the main object of this inquiry, and to-day we have had a speech from the Solicitor General; and, mark you, what the Solicitor General says in this House, the Attorney General is going to say before the Commission. All the arguments which the Solicitor General has used here to postpone the hour at which the Member for Cork and his Friends can come forward and clear their characters will come from the mouth of the Attorney General as
    1324
    counsel for The Times, backed up by the authority of Her Majesty's Government. I say that if you refuse this Amendment, there is but one conclusion, and one conclusion only, at which the country will arrive, and that is that you desire, as long as you can, to give currency and support to these calumnies. What other object can you have in refusing this Amendment? It has been said that the Amendments proposed have been proposed for the purpose of limiting this inquiry. Yes; of limiting, how? Have they happened to limit it in the sense of the Members escaping from this inquiry? No; they have demanded that this inquiry shall be concentrated and focussed upon themselves. That is the demand they have made. There has been no attempt on their part to say—"Inquire into something else, and do not touch us." On the contrary, they have said—"It is we who stand here as the persons who desire to have an opportunity of clearing our characters of these charges." Aye, and whatever you may say to-night, whatever you may vote to-night, depend upon it that it is the opinion of this country. If you think that the people of this country approve of your endeavour to blacken the characters of your political opponents, you are sadly mistaken. I know, aye, and the people of Ireland will have to know, that the men against whom you encourage calumnies here, are the men who are most welcome to the people of that country. I know that the men that you are endeavouring to destroy by adopting these calumnies of The Times—
    MR. GOSCHEN: May I ask whether it is in Order for the right hon. Gentleman to say we are adopting the calumnies of The Times?
    THE CHAIRMAN: It is against the practice of the House to impute such things to hon. Members.
    MR. MURDOCH: Mr. Chairman, I beg to call your attention to a remark made by the hon. Member for Mayo—namely, "You are afraid to hear the truth!" I should like to know whether such a remark is in Order?
    THE CHAIRMANcalled upon Sir William Harcourt to proceed.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: We are certainly bringing the closure

    1325
    and the gag to excess. We shall destroy all freedom of debate if we cannot tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he is afraid to hear the truth. If that is so, we may as well give up debate at once. Well, I am extremely glad of the interruption of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am extremely glad that he is sensible of my criticism, that he is ashamed of the calumnies of The Times, and that he considers it a shameful imputation on the Government to say that they have adopted them. I hail that as a proof of repentance on the part of the Government; but I maintain that what will be looked at by the country is this. Do you or do you not intend that the Irish Members shall have an opportunity, aye, and a complete and full opportunity, of meeting these calumnies which have been urged against them? I can understand a man—I will not say the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Government—who believes in his mind, and who knows from the sound advice he has received from men who have every opportunity of examining the case, that these statements are forgeries, I can conceive a man, who had been so informed by persons who had every means of knowing, thinking that the latest moment would be the best on which these forgeries could be inquired into. That I can well understand; but if there be any man with a sense of honour who can understand the feelings of men—I will not say his Colleagues in this House, because I cannot say that I see any disposition on the part of hon. Gentlemen sitting opposite to treat the Irish Members as if they were Colleagues in this House; indeed, the theory of the Union seems to me to be, that the men who have no right to any opinion or any views on any subject, especially upon Irish subjects, are the Irish Representatives. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Well, the principle of the Unionists is that if an Irishman dares to express an opinion upon English subjects, it is obstruction, and that his mouth is to be closed upon Irish subjects. [Cries of "Question!"] You voted the closure earlier in the evening. I do not, therefore, appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite to treat their Colleagues with any generous respect. That, I do not think, can be asked from them; but what we have a right to ask is that they should extend, even to an
    1326
    Irishman and a Representative of Ireland, that justice which would not be refused to the meanest criminal in this country. [Laughter.] There is a Gentleman opposite who thinks it absurd that an Irishman should get as fair treatment as is extended to the meanest criminal in this country. This manner of treating Irishmen and the Representatives of Ireland is really the secret of the agitation in Ireland towards the Government of England. Do you really believe that if an English Member were charged with a crime for which you say he ought to be expelled from this House, you would seek about and be ingenious in your research to prevent methods by which he might vindicate his character? What is the argument of the hon. and learned Solicitor General. He says that to allow this to be brought forward in the front rank would be to invert the order of procedure. That statement he has repeated twice. That, I say, is a statement upon which the conduct of the Government will be judged by the country. The hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Elliott Lees) expressed the other night the real opinion of the country. I believe they want to know whether the charge about these letters is true or not. That is the first thing in the mind of the country, that is the last thing in the mind of the Government. The Government want to go into some general dirt throwing which shall affect the issue. Why do they want to do this? Because they have received advice from people who know that this charge cannot be sustained. They know very well that if this charge were refuted all the rest would fall to the ground. That is what the hon. Member for Oldham said the other day, and that is why the Government are so desirous to keep the charge in the background. That is why the words "other persons" were introduced. It was to prevent the investigation of the charges against the Irish Members being the first and the principal charge which should be undertaken; it was to prevent their receiving that justice they were entitled to from this House in the appointment of a Commission, which was said to be an act of unexampled generosity towards them. I protest against such a course as this. The Government might have said—it would have been a plausible argument—"We leave it to the Commissioners to deter-

    1327
    mine." But they have not said that. The hon. and learned Solicitor General has explained the course which the Commissioners are expected to take. He has told us what is the proper course, and that that is not to take these letters first, but that they are to go into the whole general question. [An hon. MEMBER: Hear, hear!] That, I understand, is the view of an hon. Gentleman opposite. This charge against the honour of Irish Members is to be dealt with as a subordinate part of a subordinate question. I venture to say that when the country comes to understand that that is the view taken of this Commission, they will regard it as an act of gross unfairness and of most incredible injustice.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I will give the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) as little assistance as possible in the intention he evidently has to talk out this Amendment.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I rise to Order. I wish, Sir, to call your attention to the Rule under which we are operating, which says that you shall put the Question under discussion when we arrive at the hour of 1, and would ask you whether there is any possibility of talking out this Amendment, and I wish to ask you whether the noble Marquess has not alleged that which is absolutely impossible?
    THE CHAIRMAN: That is not a question of Order.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I am going to give as little assistance as possible to the endeavour to unnecessarily protract the discussion on any particular Amendment, and thus give hon. Members no opportunity of saying to the country, as we have so often been told they are going to say, that we have adopted a course to-night which prevented important Amendments being discussed. Now, after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, I cannot avoid saying that his observations throw a remarkable and rather instructive light upon the sort of tactics which are being pursued by the Opposition in regard to this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has thought it necessary, in the discussion of an Amendment relating to certain letters which are on this side of the House called forged letters, to drag in my name. He said, in the first place—
    1328
    although he afterwards rather modified or withdrew the expression—that no man was more responsible than I myself was for having vouched for these charges. He withdrew the word "vouched" and said that no one was more responsible for giving currency and circulation to these charges than myself. Now, so long as I am able to charge my memory, I have never, inside this House or out of it, said one word upon the subject of what is called the "forged letters." I have only, so far as I can recollect, referred on one occasion to the articles published in The Times. I spoke in the debate upon the Crimes Bill more than a year ago, on the very day upon which the so-called "forged letter" appeared in The Times. I referred to some of the charges which were contained in this so-called "forged letter," and charges which, in my opinion, called for an answer from the hon. Gentleman to whom they referred, and I pointed out, I believe, that the hon. Gentleman had, in my judgment, an opportunity of giving them refutation by means of the ordinary Courts of Law. But, in those observations, I never referred for a single moment to the letter which has been referred to, and I have never referred to it since. [Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: Why!] Why! I do not know that it is necessary on this occasion I should go into my reasons for not referring to it. I want to know for what reason, for what purpose, and with what justification, my right hon. Friend thinks it necessary to drag in my name into this discussion in respect of letters to which I have never in the course of these discussions so far referred? [Mr. T. M. HEALY: You were closeted with Smith.] Having made that statement, which I believe cannot be contradicted, I do not think it is necessary I should detain the House by saying anything on the question of the Amendment; but I may say this—it has never occurred to me that the question of the letters was the main question which has been raised in The Times articles. If I thought it, I should have referred to the letters. On the contrary, I have never done so. I endeavoured on the occasion I refer to, to state what, in my opinion, were the issues raised by these letters. The question of the letters refer to the hon. Member for Cork alone. Many of the charges which are contained in these

    1329
    letters refer to other hon. Members besides the hon. Member for Cork, and I am certainly unable to see why the beginning of the Commission should be fettered by instructions which would compel them to go into a question which affects only one Member of this House, leaving to future consideration equally important questions in my opinion which affect the honour and character of a great number of others. If the Committee have confidence in the tribunal which is created under this Bill, it appears to me its best course would he to leave the tribunal free to conduct its own proceedings in a manner most competent to it. We know that some hon. Members have not got confidence in the Commission, that they have protested against the appointment of one of its Members; but the great majority of this House have confidence in it, and under what pretext do you expect that we shall, by voting an unnecessary Amendment, place that confidence in the tribunal which we feel the Commission will, I should think, be the best judge of the manner in which its proceedings should be conducted. I do not say the question of the forged letters can very long be kept out of its proceedings; but I do not know for what reason it is necessary that instructions should be given to the Commission which will in any way fetter the course of its proceedings. It is perfectly idle to say that instructions to examine into this or that question are being given by speeches of Members of Parliament. The Commission, if it is worthy to inquire into these questions at all, will act upon its own judgment and upon the instructions which are contained in the Bill, and upon no other instructions. Do hon. Members suppose that men of the judicial eminence of those who have been appointed to conduct this inquiry are going to take their instructions and directions from speeches which are delivered either on the Treasury Bench or from any other Bench? It is perfectly idle to contemplate such a course on their part; and, believing that it would be simply to show distrust in the competence of the tribunal we are creating, I, for one, shall certainly refuse to vote for the Amendment.
    MR. ILLING WORTHsaid, the noble Lord the Member for
    1330
    Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington) occupied a very peculiar position in that House; they knew that he occupied a predominating position in the policy of the Party opposite. He was surprised at the line the noble Lord had taken in the speech just delivered by him. He remembered the speech to which the noble Lord had just referred, and he recollected well that he did make reference to the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) in that speech, and seemed to think that it was essential that the hon. Member should avail himself of an opportunity of clearing himself from the charges made in The Times newspaper. The hon. Member for Cork and his Colleagues had been seeking for an opportunity of dealing with this charge, and asking that their case might first be dealt with; but the noble Lord treated that part of the question now as a very small matter, and that the letters would more properly be referred to an uncertain future, when, after a number of things which had nothing to do with the charge had been dealt with, the hon. Gentleman and his Friends might then proceed to clear themselves. He could only say that he thought more might have been expected from the noble Lord's position. [Mr. T. M. HEALY: No, no!] He said that in a sense of fairness to the noble Lord, and he confessed that in the speech the noble Lord had just made, which contained his first utterance all through these discussions—[The Marquess of HARTINGTON dissented.] Well, if the noble Lord had taken a general part in the debate, he (Mr. Illingworth) had, unfortunately, been absent. However, the noble Lord had given the Committee so little information with regard to this question, he thought if he had followed the old traditions of the Whigs in that House he would have said something that would have really maintained the old Constitutional system—namely, that when hon. Members were placed under an imputation they should be treated in the old-fashioned way, instead of, as now, being subjected to a revolutionary change such as they were subjected to by the action of the Government. Time would show whether it was to the advantage of the old order of things and the Constitutional Party in that House, and he must say that the noble Lord's speech

    1331
    that evening had been eminently disappointing, and that the Committee had a right to expect from him some thing of a very different character.
    MR. FINLAY&c.)said, that so far as he understood the argument in favour of the Amendment, it was that the hon. and learned Solicitor General had laid it down in his speech that the letters were to be relegated to a later stage of the inquiry. Now, he had heard his hon. Friend's speech, and he certainly did not understand the hon. and learned Gentleman to say anything of the kind. The hon. and learned Solicitor General stated his view of the letters; but he apprehended that the hon. and learned Gentleman understood too well what the proper functions of the Government were in this matter ever to have dreamed of prescribing to the Commission what the course and order of their proceedings should be. Of course, those proceedings were not in the hands of the Government; they were in the hands of the Judges themselves, and it was for them, and for them alone, to direct in what order the inquiry should take place. Now, he had listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for the Birr Division of King's County (Mr. Molloy). The hon. and learned Gentle man had felt, as every member of the Bar must feel, that this Amendment was perfectly and hopelessly impracticable, because he did feel, and had expressed that feeling in his speech, that some other Amendment was wanting, and that it would be necessary to provide in some way or other that the Commission should be at liberty, before determining on the genuineness of these letters, to take evidence relating to other matters. But the hon. and learned Gentleman did not attempt to put into the form of an Amendment the evidence which it would be necessary that the Judges should take, and he apprehended that the hon. and learned Gentleman in trying to amend the Amendment before the House, which he knew to be hopelessly impracticable in its present form, felt that he had undertaken an absolutely impossible task. He (Mr. Finlay) apprehended that the letters must necessarily occupy an early and prominent place in the inquiry of the three Judges; but he submitted to the judgment of the Com-
    1332
    mittee that it would be absurd to require the Judges to make an interim Report on the question of those letters—[Cries of "Why?"] For this reason, that they should, in determining the genuineness of the letters, have evidence before them as to the relations between the hon. Gentleman who was said to have written them and the various parties who were said to have received them. [Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE: Hear, hear!] The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian cheered that statement. Did he desire to put the Judges in the position that one day they should make an interim Report as to the genuineness of the letters, saying that they were not genuine, when the next day they might have evidence before them which totally altered their minds? He declared in all seriousness that a more absurd proposition was never made.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid, he had hesitated a long time before he determined to take any part in the debate, for the reason that he felt that the House might look upon him as a prejudiced person in this matter. He had already stated both in the House and out of it his opinion of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite.
    MR. SEXTON: Well, you had better not state it now.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSON: Whatever crime or misdemeanour hon. Gentlemen might ascribe to him, they could never ascribe to him this, that he had been afraid to say before their faces in the House what he had said outside the House behind their backs. He had determined to say a few words on this question, because it not only affected hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway but also the whole question upon which the prosperity of Ireland and the settlement of the Irish Question depended. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) stated that the Government had adopted the words of the calumnies of The Times. But The Times was not the only calumniator of hon. Gentlemen opposite, for foremost among their calumniators stood the right hon. Gentleman himself—the right hon. Gentleman who had just left the House.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I would ask the hon. and gallant Member to remember the conditions under which we are

    1333
    acting, and the desirability of addressing himself to the Amendment before the Committee.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid, that all the Amendments which had been introduced to the notice of the Committee had a family likeness; all of them had one object, and that was to hinder and hamper the action of the Commission which it was proposed to establish. [Cries of "Order!"] He asked any dispassionate Gentleman in the House whether any Amendment, including that under consideration, had had for its object to assist the Commission in a wide, free and far-reaching inquiry? With regard to the Amendment they were considering, he would say that, important as the hon. Member for Cork might be in the eyes of his Party and of hon. Members on the opposite side of the House, the forged letters, as they were called by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) before he had taken the trouble to find out whether they were forged or not—those letters, which might be forged or not, affected the character of the hon. Member for Cork; but there was something far more important which they affected, and that was the character of the Party to which he belonged, that Party which commenced the policy which had now been adopted by its present Radical allies. He could not conceive anything more unfortunate, if they were to have the Commission, than to hamper and fetter it by stating that the first thing the Commission was to do was to state whether the hon. Member for Cork had signed those letters or whether they were forged. During the course of that discussion hon. Members on the other side of the House had on various Amendments pointed out that the scope of the Commission, if it were to be unfettered, should not only include the action of hon. Members opposite and the truth and falsehood of those letters, but that it should also include the course that had been pursued in Ireland by himself and other Loyalist Leaders in the country. [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite might laugh, and though his observations might not be absolutely germane to that Amendment, yet it was just as germane as the accusations that were hurled at him from the other side of the House on other Amendments; and, therefore, he thought it was only
    1334
    fair play that he should be allowed to answer those accusations. The hon. Member for Cork and his Friends had stated that their one great desire was that there should be a full inquiry as to their guilt or innocence. They said that inquiry should be extended beyond them and include speeches made by himself and the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill), which they said had just as much relation to bloodshed and crime in Ireland as any action of theirs.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, he would again ask the hon. and gallant Member to address himself more closely to the Amendment before the Committee.
    MR. W. REDMONDasked whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman was in Order in referring to a speech of his in that debate.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid, the country—that country to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) was so fond of appealing—would judge of the character of the Amendment, and whether the object of hon. Gentlemen opposite was really to have a full and unfettered inquiry as to their innocence or guilt. With regard to the letters he could only say that in the course of any speeches he had made—and he was sorry to say he had made a good many—he had never treated those letters as genuine or as false, because he had never seen the evidence that could be produced on the one side or the other; and, although hon. Gentlemen opposite occasionally found fault with him for the accusations he made against them, he had never in that House or elsewhere made accusations without giving a definite reason generally from speeches made or things done by themselves. But the authenticity or unauthenticity of those letters was quite beyond his knowledge. The Times stated that it could prove their authenticity, and the hon. Member for Cork had been unwilling to avail himself of the means to vindicate his character before a Court of Law. Therefore the only reason why, in his own mind, he had thought there might be something real and genuine in those letters was that the hon. Member for Cork, although he declared they were clumsy forgeries and therefore could be easily disproved, had never ventured to test that question before a British jury.

    1335
    Why should they give such prominence to those letters? Those letters, undoubtedly from the point of view of The Times newspaper, occupied a first place; but he denied absolutely that the letters occupied a first place in the eyes of this country or of Ireland. The question that occupied the first place in the eyes of this country and of Ireland was the character of the men to whom the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian proposed to entrust the destinies of Ireland; and, that being so, why should the House compel the Commission to deal first with what he maintained this country and Ireland, as he knew, looked upon as a very secondary matter? Hon. Gentlemen opposite had shown very clearly what they feared most when the Commission was appointed. It was not the letters, because they knew and everyone knew that it was almost impossible to absolutely prove the authenticity of a letter. [Mr. SEXTON: The murder is out.] He had always looked upon these letters as of secondary importance to those other accusations which the hon. Member for Cork and his Friends had shrunk, and still shrunk, from meeting. Why did they devote so much of their time and attention to debating the question of "other persons?" What logical reason did they give that "other persons" was really the crucial point that would come before the Commission? He denied that these letters had ever been in the eyes of the hon. Member for Cork and his Friends the dangerous cloud which loomed in the distance and which they feared. He did not believe that the Committee would accept the proposal now before it. They were about to establish a Commission to examine into the whole question as to whether hon. Gentlemen had or had not been guilty—it was an inquiry, not simply into the character of one hon. Member, but into the character of a whole Party. That was the view which was taken in Ireland. It was proposed that those men should be their rulers, and their answer was "examine into their characters." The question to their minds was not only whether one Member of that Party had written the letters which were called forgeries, but whether hon. Gentlemen opposite had or had not been in direct trade and communication with criminals and crime. He had used that
    1336
    argument in that House, and he had used it in the country as the strongest argument against ever trusting the destinies of Ireland to their hands, and he said that if this Commission was to settle that point, they must take the whole question and deal with crime as a whole, and not take up part of the question only as they now proposed. If it were found, as he acknowledged it might be found, by the Commission, that the hon. Member for Cork, in its opinion, had not signed those letters, he readily admitted that he knew nothing of the evidence that The Times might have to prove them; but should the Commission decide that the hon. Member for Cork had not signed the letters it would not alter one iota of the objections they had urged over and over again in the House and in the country to placing Ireland in the hands of those who had shown by their actions in the past what their actions in the future would probably be. He had longed for the day to arrive when these questions should be cleared up once for all, and it should be decided whether the allegations that had been made over and over again in the House and in the country and before the world were founded on fact or whether they were absolute delusions. He looked forward to the time when this question should be set at rest. There was a law which could never be broken or destroyed—it was of eternal application—namely, "Whatsoever a man soweth that shall he also reap," and if this Commission, which they were about to appoint, decided that hon. Gentlemen opposite have sown honour and right and truth, they would reap their reward; but if, on the contrary, it decided that they had been connected with crime, they then would reap the condemnation of their fellow-countrymen, and they and their cause and their allies above the Gangway would justly fall in crumbling ruin together.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, that the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington) as the confederate of the Government and their chief supporter, had accused the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) with great virulence of attempting to talk out the debate, but he observed that the followers of the noble Lord and his confederates across the House were

    1337
    quite willing that the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson) should talk as long as he liked, and not only so, but that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Inverness (Mr. Finlay) should give his views upon every Amendment that was brought before the House. They had very few hours to spare, and he (Mr. T. M. Healy) would therefore beg the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale to ask his followers like the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel Saunderson) and the hon. and learned Gentleman behind him (Mr. Finlay) just to leave the Irish Members a little time, and that, at any rate, if charges of obstruction were to be made by Gentlemen in his position, they should be made with some relevancy, and he would add with some decency. It was a great misfortune that the noble Lord and his confederates were actually unable to agree about what this Commission had to report. They saw the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) conferring with the noble Lord, and they had heard the speech of the hon. Member for Oldham opposite (Mr. Elliott Lees). To-night the noble Lord told them that he had never alluded to these forged letters—that he had never thought them of sufficient importance. What the noble Lord was so anxious for was, that these letters with other matters should be inquired into, but he had never lent the weight of his powerful name to the examination of these letters alone. But what said the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oldham, opposite? Why, they said that if these letters were disproved, the public would think very little of all the rest, and it was upon that basis that the Government carried the second reading of the Bill. It was upon the implied promise of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, and upon the direct request of the hon. Member for Oldham, that if these letters got a fair front place, and the Irish Members were able to disprove them, then all the rest would go by the board, that the Irish Members had consented to the second reading. But not only so. The noble Lord said that he was extremely anxious that the worst of these letters should be inquired into, and yet he was one of those persons who were
    1338
    the parties, he presumed, with Leycester and Walter and The Times and the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, to whom they owed the conversion of this scheme to turn the offer of the Government of a Commission to inquire solely into the conduct of Members of Parliament as a scheme which they must either accept or reject with the present Bill. The noble Lord the Member for Rossendale must have agreed to this scheme, because without his consent or knowledge it could not have been conducted. The noble Lord now came forward and said that he did not attempt to put these letters in the forefront of the inquiry—that he had never alluded to them—and he was supported in that by the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh; and what was the reason of this? He (Mr. T. M. Healy) had felt for the counsel of The Times when these important declarations were being made—he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman looked very sick. It would appear that the ground was crumbling under the feet of the conspirators, and that, finding that out, they desired to shift their position. It was no longer the letters they relied upon—it was the speech of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) or the hon. Member for Ennis in October, 1880, and it was Boycotting, it was the Chicago Convention, it was anything except the definite matter to which the Irish Members wished to pin their accusers, and that was the course taken by "The first Gentlemen in England"—all hon. Members. Having carried the second reading of their Bill, unanimously as they boasted, by the help of the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham and the hon. Member for Oldham—speeches declaring that if these letters were disproved the public would think nothing of the other charges—they found it desirable to shift their ground and to declare—as the Irish Members always expected they would declare—"Oh, we thought very little of the matter. These are secondary matters, these charges against Members of Parliament themselves, and what we want to get at is what Paddy O'Rafferty did in the county of Kerry or what somebody else did in the county of Donegal. As for these Members of Parliament, they are not half so important as the action of those people

    1339
    who send them here." Well, he (Mr. T. M. Healy) put it to the Committee as serious men, did they think the country would be fooled by declarations of that kind? No doubt, they thought that the 86 Irish Members sitting on those Benches would escape from the reflections which might be cast upon them by the Commissioners. Did they think that the country would care for what Paddy O'Rafferty did in the county of Kerry in the year 1880? It was only because the Government believed that these letters, which were in the forefront of these proceedings, were false and forged that they were changing their ground. He did not believe that Walter of The Times would be very much obliged to the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh for his declaration to-night. He (Mr. T. M. Healy) was extremely sorry that the Chairman had found it necessary to call that hon. and gallant Gentleman twice to Order in the course of his speech, because the hon. and gallant Gentleman was just about to go into his quotations. He had been just rounding the Cape of Good Hope. The hon. and gallant Gentleman without his quotations was a very dull person indeed. They had heard all the rest of his speech several times before, and therefore he would bespeak at the hands of the Chairman for the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Armagh the utmost consideration, so that the House might be never again deprived of the benefit of his quotations. Now, the Irish Members knew exactly the position in which they found themselves to-day, and when hon. Gentlemen opposite had created—or, rather, he would say set this mountain in labour, he would tell them this—that however much they might think they had the Irish Members trapped, yet the hon. Member for the city of Cork would only have to lift up his little finger and they would not be able to get a man in Ireland nor a single one of the 86 Members of the Irish Parliamentary Party to go before the Commission. True, the Government might put them in gaol, but they had been there before. The cause of the Government would be prettily advanced by such a course as this. The noble Lord the Member for Rossendale had done his best to keep the Irish Members in gaol, and had been a Member of the Cabinet who had sent them
    1340
    there, and he assumed this passive position with regard to these contemptible letters thinking that he had got them safe. No doubt the Government of right hon. Gentlemen opposite was conducted with geniuses. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury was a genius; all his Colleagues were geniuses, and hon. Gentlemen opposite who were supporting the Government in refusing to put these letters in trim for examination no doubt thought they were doing a very clever thing. They thought they were doing a very clever thing in refusing this Amendment, and in arranging that the Commission should inquire into the charges of murder which they had heard of a thousand times already, and into cases of Boycotting—into cases where a poor woman had been deprived of a midwife, and where, too, according to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a sick child could not get white flour—all these things it would be delightful to have over again; but if they would allow him to say so, he would point out to them that they were playing this game with men who were just as clever as they were themselves, and when the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Armagh said that what they wanted to know was whether these letters were forged or not—whether the hon. Member for Cork and his Friends were assassins or angels, as he was unwilling to trust the liberties of his fellow countrymen to persons of that description——
    COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I never said they were angels.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, he had never imputed it to the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh—the hon. and gallant Member had not even said that they were fallen angels. When the hon. and gallant Member said that it would not make the least matter to him what was proved against the hon. Member for Cork and his Friends, or what was proved in their favour——
    COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I never said anything of the kind. I said it would not affect us in the least if the letters were proved to be false or if they were proved to be true.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, that with his feeble intellect he was vainly endeavouring to give expression to that view. According to the hon. and gallant Gen-

    1341
    tleman, it would not affect him in the least if these letters were forged or were not forged. Very well, but would it or would it not affect Walter and The Times? That was the point. Would it affect the Government or not? Would it affect the hon. and learned Attorney General or not? And did they mean to say that if they believed these letters were not forged that they would not endeavour to thrust them down the throats of the Irish Members on the very day the Commission sat? As a matter of fact, what they wished to do was to hoodwink the public, and what the Irish Members proposed to do was to expose the manœuvres of the Government to the public. He wished to know whether it was intended to keep this Commission running as a kind of counterbalance to the Coercion Act and to divert the public mind from the real point in the hopes perhaps that the question of the forged letters would never crop up again? [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr. De Lisle) was interrupting—it was impossible for that hon. Member to keep order in the House and he ought to have rules for himself. The hon. Member ought to be under rules called, "Rules of the Holy Roman Inquisition." The hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh said—and this was the third time he (Mr. T. M. Healy) had endeavoured to get it out owing to the interruptions of hon. Gentlemen opposite—that what he was anxious for was that his countrymen should never be brought under the rule of Gentlemen who were accused of the charges which were made by The Times newspaper. Now, if he (Mr. T. M. Healy) had pointed out once before, he ventured to do so once again, that if that was the hon. and gallant Member's only objection to Home Rule, the remedy was extremely simple—namely, to provide that none of the 86 Irish Nationalist Members should ever sit in an Irish Parliament. And now he passed from that subject, and he would ask the Government what was their position to-night? It was this—that having offered the Irish Members this inquiry with regard to these letters and with regard to these charges against Members of Parliament, because they were described by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham as so great and terrible, when the Irish Members asked
    1342
    that in mercy to them and to the reputation of their Leader he should be offered an early opportunity of going into these charges, they refused him that opportunity. He (Mr. T. M. Healy) would put this case to the hon. and learned Attorney General. Supposing they believed the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury guilty of a forgery, supposing that they believed that in the course of his public or in the course of his private life he had been guilty of a conspiracy to murder, or, supposing, to take another case, the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale was charged with having written to one of his jockeys to pull a horse—[Cries of "Question!"] An hon. Member cried "question!" but he (Mr. T. M. Healy) thought he was "on the spot." Supposing there were a great many other Gentlemen on the turf who were concerned in these alleged transactions, and the noble Lord got up in this House and said, "I claim, as a British nobleman, that this House shall grant me an inquiry as to whether I wrote to this jockey, or signed this letter telling him to pull this horse;" and supposing the House said, "No; we cannot grant an inquiry into this alleged action of yours, because there are general allegations against the whole betting fraternity which we must go into. It is really a matter of very small importance whether a particular horse of the noble Lord's was pulled or not, or whether or not he wrote to his jockey to tell him to pull it, what we want to get at is the whole system of pulling horses and deluding the whole public. We will institute a general inquiry into this system by which the public are swindled and defrauded." [Interruption.] He would ask the noble Lord how he would like in regard to such a matter—[Interruption]—Seeing that the Irish Members had only until 1 o'clock to discuss this matter, he did think that the Government might induce their supporters to keep quiet, and that they might also keep quiet themselves. He asked how the noble Lord would enjoy having his conduct as one of the first Members of this House, and as one of the first public men in England, held over and put on a shelf, so to speak, until the entire question of rigging the market in the betting ring had been settled and decided? He (Mr. T. M. Healy) observed that the

    1343
    right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not like these synonyms. He was anxious to jump on his legs to defend the character of his Colleague. The first thing he (Mr. T. M. Healy) ventured to say the right hon. Gentleman would do when he got on his legs was this—he would deliberately say something to provoke an interruption from that (the Opposition) side of the House.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I have ventured to appeal to other hon. Gentlemen to remember the conditions under which we are now acting. The hon. and learned Member for North Longford will do well to do the same.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Very well, then; he would therefore state that with regard to the question which, to the minds of himself and his Friends, was a question of the first magnitude, whether or not it were so to hon. Gentlemen opposite—namely, the question bearing upon their own characters, he and his friends belonged to the vast majority of the Representatives of Ireland, and what they said upon the subject ought to have some weight upon the House. They claimed that when they elected the Leader in whom they placed confidence they were entitled to know whether he had written the letters purporting to be signed by him or not. They claimed that they were entitled to ask whether their nation in Ireland and their people abroad—and there were millions of them—were right in placing this confidence in the hon. Member for Cork. They knew that he had not written these letters. He (Mr. T. M. Healy) thought that no one had a better opportunity of judging upon a matter of this kind than he had had for the past 10 years, and he thought he might fairly say this, and he did so with the utmost deference, that if a seraph instead of John Walter were to make an affidavit as to the genuineness of these letters, knowing something about the Member for Cork, he should require some further confirmation of that affidavit before he credited it. They, therefore, put it to the House as a favour. They who were brought to this House of Commons, compelled to come here, asked to maintain the Union, asked to join in the glories of the Empire—they invited and beseeched the House, in regard to what seemed to them to be a matter of the first importance, to give them the
    1344
    opportunity which would not be denied to a Member of the House charged with being a black leg of the turf. This House, in spite of the demands of the Irish Members and of their advisers, would proceed to vote down this Amendment; but happily this House was but a creature of the public outside. They appealed from the speeches of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite in Committee to the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham and the Member for Oldham on the second reading. They appealed from the speeches to-night to those made 12 months ago in connection with the Privilege Motion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Armagh, and they said that from hour to hour and from day to day the anxiety of hon. Members opposite had not been to enable the Irish Members to clear their characters if they were impeached, but that their anxiety had been for political objects to put them in the wrong in the vain belief that by proving certain things against the present generation of Irish leaders they would settle for all time this Irish Question which had troubled them and their fathers and their grandfathers. He said that if they would only look to the past they would see the futility of these proceedings. He said, that if they would refer to their own declarations made only 12 months ago, and the leading articles in their own newspapers, and to their own speeches to their constituents, they would see that in refusing this demand that these letters should have the foremost place in the inquiry before the Commission, and should not be delayed by matters altogether irrelevant and distinct from them, they were playing a part as wretched and deplorable as was ever played by any conspirators against the good fame of their political opponents.
    MR. GOSCHEN: When the hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) rose, he made a kind of appeal to us that, as the time was short, as much as possible of it should be left at the disposal of himself and his Friends. I think he will admit that we have done our best on this Bench to comply with his request. We have imposed on ourselves considerable self-restraint in the course of this debate. There have been many

    1345
    insults launched against us, many motives attributed to us which we wish to repudiate in the strongest possible terms. Attacks have been made on our honour, but we felt that the time at the disposal of the hon. Gentleman was short. Hon. Gentlemen opposite asked us for this time, and we feel it necessary to be brief—we have intended to be brief; and I myself do not intend to occupy more than the shortest possible time. I say that if we do not reply at length to the insinuations against us and the attacks made against our honour, it is not because we do not feel confidence in the force of our position, but we leave it to the country to judge between us.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: That is Smith's speech.
    MR. GOSCHEN: We leave the country to judge between our position and that of hon. Gentlemen. We give them the full benefit of the further speeches they have made this evening in repetition of the speeches they have made before. We give them the full benefit of all this time to make this attack on us, and we feel perfectly safe that all that hon. Gentlemen opposite have said will make no impression whatever on the country to which they professedly addressed themselves. The hon. and learned Member who spoke last has indulged in a simile, and has supposed that the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale would appeal to this House if some accusation were made against his honour as a sportsman. Every Member of the House knows that the noble Lord, if he were libelled, would go to the tribunals of his country, and would not come, as the hon. and learned Member who has just sat down has done, supplicating us for a particular form of inquiry, after refusing to go to the ordinary Courts open to every citizen.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Would Chamberlain do so?
    MR. GOSCHEN: I thought there was an objection to interruption. If the noble Lord were to come to the House and ask us to form a special tribunal to try his case, then it would certainly be open to the House to say that the inquiry should take a general form. The hon. and learned Member for North Longford now comes forward and speaks of the hurry which he and his Friends are in to have the
    1346
    question of these letters cleared up, when for more than a year and a quarter they have had ample opportunity of meeting the charges made against them, and have not availed themselves of it. They have come at last to a different tribunal than that of the ordinary Courts; and, surely, under these circumstances, the House has a right to impose its own conditions on that inquiry. It is absolutely false and untrue that the Government wish to put these letters into the background of the inquiry. We could not do it, even if we wished. As the Bill is drawn, it will be perfectly open to the Commissioners on the first day of the inquiry, if they chose, and if it seems to them that it will be the best means of arriving at the truth, to deal with the letters. All that the Government contend is that, important as the question of the letters is, it should be left to the Special Commission that has been chosen to determine what is the best way of arriving at what the public desire to know—namely, what is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he thought the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was hardly fair in suggesting a comparison in the course which would be taken by the noble Lord and the course which should be taken by his hon. Friend the Member for the city of Cork (Mr. Parnell). The right hon. Gentleman knew as well as he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) did that the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale, if he went before a jury in London, would go before the jury almost entirely in accord with his own political convictions. [Cries of "No, no!"] Certainly most of the men would agree with the noble Lord's own particular convictions, and all of them would be of the same nationality, whereas, if the hon. Member for the City of Cork went before such a jury, he would go before one consisting of men of a different nationality from his own, and almost wholly composed of men of different political views from his own. He was surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his Colleagues speaking in such high terms of eulogy of the jury system, considering that they were the very men who had broken down that system in Ireland. What would the

    1347
    noble Lord the Member for Rossendale say if it was proposed to bring such conduct as that which had been referred to for purposes of illustration before an Irish jury? And yet that would be a fair analogy—much fairer than the one the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had sought to make. The right hon. Gentleman said that the forged letters had been before the country for a year and a-quarter, and yet the Irish Members had never asked for an inquiry into them. Why, within a few days of their publication the Irish Members had asked for an inquiry in this House, and the right hon. Gentleman was guilty of an almost Uriah Heap amount of humility when he said that he and his Colleagues were not the proper persons to try that question. Now, the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson) was the best speech in favour of the Amendment which has been delivered in the course of the debate. What did he say? He said the question at issue was the further settlement of the Irish Question. Did that not show the object of the appointment of the Commission? The object of the Commission was not to inquire into the character of Members, but into the proceedings of a political Body. The hon. and gallant Gentleman also spoke of the forged letters. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) desired to call attention to the extraordinary fact that there was not a single Tory or Unionist Member who, in referring to these letters, had not somehow or other slipped in the adjective "forged." The letters were given up by every rational man in the country outside the office of The Times newspaper. An hon. Friend reminded him that the letters were given up by The Times. So they were. From the very first moment that the genuineness of these letters seemed likely to be examined and investigated, The Times had shirked and skulked away from the letters as being only a secondary, accidental, and immaterial part of their case. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Armagh found some fault with the statement that had been made with regard to those letters, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland last night attacked the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian very strongly, because he dared to speak
    1348
    of the letters as forgeries. The right hon. Gentleman said it was grossly unfair that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian should anticipate the verdict of the Commission in the matter. If the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary were in his place, he would like to ask him why he had never expressed the opinion with regard to these letters; whether he had always maintained a judicial position in regard to these documents? He would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he made a speech at Ipswich last year, in which he said—
    "Every man who wishes to form a conclusive judgment will probably consider, in the first place, the probability of such a letter as that being accurate from what he knows of the Irish history and the antecedents of the Irish Party, and will also take into consideration the kind of status and position of the journal which published the letters."
    That did not say the letter was genuine or forged. A candid and open statement of his opinions was not much in the line of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, but it was suggested and insinuated in strong language, and in as open language as the right hon. Gentleman could induce himself to employ, that in his opinion the letter was genuine. As a matter of fact, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, and all hon. Gentlemen opposite, had gone round the country up to within the last few days declaring their entire faith in the genuineness of the letters, which one and all were now ready to acknowledge were nothing but the vilest forgeries. He was surprised at the speech of the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington); but he must say that it was not the only surprising speech the noble Lord had made since he took up the unfortunate position he now occupied. There was a time when the noble Lord was not only remarkable for his high sense of honour, but for fair play and even chivalry towards his political opponents. But there had been a gradual deterioration in the attitude and the words of the noble Lord towards his political opponents since he entered into opposition to the policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian. He must say that he thought that at one time when the Irish Members—even the Irish Members whom the noble Lord was so bitterly opposed

    1349
    to—were unjustly and unfairly attacked, the instincts of fair play and honour of the noble Lord which, up to lately, he had always displayed, would have induced him to come to their rescue and see that they got fair play. But on every occasion when their characters had been affected, the noble Lord had allied himself with their assailants. He had ventured to ask the noble Lord in the course of his speech why he did not allude to the letter of The Times? He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) apologized to the noble Lord for having made that interruption, because the noble Lord turned round to him and gave him a reason which he confessed was not present to his mind when he asked the question, and which clearly showed that there were painful and terrible circumstances which fairly entitled the noble Lord to abstain from commenting on that matter. He was sure the noble Lord would believe him when he said he would be the last man to say anything giving pain to him in relation to a matter in which the whole country sympathized with the noble Lord; but though the noble Lord did not refer to the letter, the letter was referred to by all the Gentlemen with whom he usually acted, and he did not think the noble Lord could entirely dissociate himself from the conduct of those Gentlemen. But whether the noble Lord referred to the letter or not, he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) asked if it was not a letter of gravity so great as to require serious and isolated and immediate attention? Let him call the attention of the Committee to what The Times said itself in regard to this letter that it had published—it is a facsimile of a letter from Mr. Parnell, written a week after the Phœnix Park murders, accusing his public condemnation of the crime, and distinctly condoning, if not approving, the murder of Mr. Burke. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) asserted that a letter which could be fairly described as of that character, was a letter so abominable as to call for immediate attention, isolated attention, and prompt attention, and prompt conviction or prompt acquittal. He had hoped the noble Lord, with his characteristic fairness, would help them to get an immediate investigation. Now, he must refer to another Gentleman on the Opposition side of the House who had taken part in the debate. He (Mr. T.
    1350
    P. O'Connor) understood, although he was not so well acquainted with these matters as the hon. Member for the Lough borough Division of Leicestershire (Mr. De Lisle), that when it was proposed to canonize a holy individual in Rome, there was a worthy Cardinal always employed to urge against canonization all the things which could be urged against the most venerable character and the most saintly life. That advocate had a particular name, and the position of that advocate was exactly the position towards the saint as the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Inverness (Mr. Finlay) had towards the Government—he was the "Devil's" Advocate. Whenever the Government were in a difficulty, whenever all the course of reason and argument was going against the Government, up jumped the Devil's Advocate, the hon. and learned Member for Inverness, to come to their assistance, and supply them with such arguments as they were wanting in themselves. He was a little surprised the hon. and learned Gentleman continued to occupy the seat he did as long as he performed this function for the Government. He must express his surprise that for the first time in human history the position of spy in the camp of the enemy had been considered of noble position for the hon. and learned Gentleman to occupy. The hon. and learned Gentleman got up, in his character of Devil's Advocate, and made a defence of the Government by saying that if this Amendment were carried the Commission might one day find out that the verdict of the previous day was an unjust verdict. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) and his hon. Friends had been reproached for want of confidence in the competence of the Commission. What was the confidence in the competence of the Commission of the hon. and learned Gentleman when he regarded them as so incapable of judging evidence that they would be ready to pronounce a verdict on a most important matter, on material or on insignificant evidence, and who regarded their judgment as so weak and fickle that they would be ready to reverse to-morrow a verdict they had given to-day. The Committee had very little time at its disposal, and he did not mean to make any further inroad into it. He thought, considering the importance of the Amend-

    1351
    ment, the Irish Members could not be accused for having taken an undue share of time when so much time had been occupied by the noble Lord and by the Devil's Advocate upon this Amendment.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 203; Noes 281: Majority 78.—(Div. List, No. 259.)
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.)said, he had the following Amendment on the Paper:—In page 1, line 20, after "another," add—
    "In case the evidence taken by them shall, in their opinion, suffice to justify the committal of any of the said persons on any charge against which he is not protected by the provisions of this Act, or otherwise, they shall commit him for trial before the Court having jurisdiction to try that charge."
    After the decision the Committee had just come to on the last Amendment, he felt that no other Amendment whatever had any serious chance of being accepted, and as his proposal was an important one and would involve important considerations which it would take some time to debate, he proposed not to move it, but to leave the little time which remained at the disposal of hon. Members from Ireland.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, he wished to move the following Amendment:—In page 1, line 20, after "another," add—
    "Provided, that the Commissioners shall make a separate report in regard to the charges against each individual Member of Parliament, and refer in such report specifically to the evidence on which their conclusions are founded where such conlusions are adverse to the Member affected."
    This was on Amendment to which none of the objections taken in any of the speeches of the Members of the Government would apply. His proposition, simply stated, was this—that when this Commission had completed its labours, and when its last witness should have been called, and the counsel for The Times would have made his last speech and received his last refresher—when the Attorney General bowed to the Judge and said that he had nothing more to add—then, when the Commissioners had had all the body of evidence before them, they should, as a portion of their Report, report separately in regard to the charges made against individual Members of Parliament. He
    1352
    respectfully submitted to the Committee that that was an Amendment which could not be rejected either on the ground of principle, of policy, or of expediency. He respectfully submitted that it could only be objected to by those who endeavoured to father the entire Party with the Act, or because of an individual or of two individuals. If such act or acts could be proved against any one individual, he maintained that the entire Party, at least, were not to be condemned for the act of such individual. If a wild speech had been made in Galway or Donegal by any Member in that locality there was no reason why a man in Cork or Dublin should he held responsible for it. Accordingly, he provided that these three Commissioners, in whom he had no confidence, should be compelled to refer specifically to the evidence upon which their Report was founded. He did not trust Mr. Justice Day, nor Mr. Justice Hannen, nor Mr. Justice Smith. He neither trusted the trinity nor the unity. He would not trust any tribunal—["Hear, hear!" and laughter]—even the intelligence of hon. Gentlemen opposite might be sufficient to enable them to restrain themselves until he had finished his sentence—he would not, he said, trust any tribunal selected by a Tory Lord Chancellor from Tory Judges. Why did not hon. Members opposite cheer that? And, therefore, he provided that this Tory trinity should be compelled, when they were attempting to blacken the character of the Irish Party, to refer to the evidonce upon which the tar brush had been dipped into the tar barrel. That was a gauge of the bona fides of the Government. The Judges, under the Amendment, would have to say that they found against a Member of Parliament on the evidence of so and so, or on question number so and so. Then it would be possible to turn to that evidence and see whether the witness was a convict, or a person accused of crime, or a person with regard to whom the receipt of money could be traced, or whether there was a reasonable suspicion of his being a suborned witness. When he heard any praise of particular individuals, because of the particular functions they fulfilled, he was reminded of the reproach addressed by one of the ancient prophets, that the people having taken a block of wood, fashioned it

    1353
    with their hands, carved it, and gilded it, lo! it became a god. When Mr. Justice Day or Mr. Justice Hannon was at the Bar he would not have offered up incense to them; even the name of Smith could not provoke any undue respect from him; and, therefore, the fact that these gentlemen had got ermine upon them did not entitle them to any particular respect at his hands. False hair and ermine gave no particular titles to respect. These three gentlemen had been selected by the Tory Lord Chancellor, and so they were told that nothing was to be done to limit their functions. That was very fair for the Party opposite, who had the knave up their sleeve, who had rigged the tribunal and packed the jury and selected the Bench. Even the protest against Mr. Justice Day because of his scandalous conduct on the Belfast Commission—which was objected to by the Tory counsel for Orangemen—Judge Kisbey, who had sent John Dillon to prison for six months, and objected to also by the entire Orange Body—was not attended to by the Ministerial Party, and therefore he insisted on the Amendment. Further, he claimed that when the Judges referred to the Irish Party or to Parnellism and Crime, they should pick out the particular Parnellite and the particular crime. They were now coming to close quarters, and if the Government refused this Amendment, the public vision should be brought to bear on the fact that they had declined to accede to a means by which the Judges would be forced to avoid vague generalities, and by which the genuineness and honesty of their finding could be proved.
    Amendment proposed,
    At the end of the clause to add the words—"Provided, that the Commissioners shall make a separate report in regard to the charges against each individual Member of Parliament, and refer in such report specifically to the evidence on which their conclusions are founded whore such conclusions are adverse to the Member affected."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS)said the hon. and learned Gentleman who had moved the Amendment could scarcely have expected that the arguments by which he had supported it could have met with any other than one response
    1354
    on the part of the Government. He did not suppose that even the right hon. Gentlemen on the opposite Bench would suggest for a moment that the Government should accept an Amendment which was deliberately based on distrust of the tribunal which it was now proposed to establish. Every hon. Member was told at the outset that the tribunal was to be mainly or wholly composed of Judges, and the hon. and learned Member knew from the beginning that the Chancellor who would select the Judges was a Tory Lord Chancellor.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Not a word was said about selecting.
    MR. MATTHEWS: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman be good enough to hear him? The House listened to the taunts and contumely with which the hon. and learned Member favoured them every night. Would they suffer him (Mr. Matthews), without interruption, to make observations which were neither contumelious or taunting. He was about to say that the hon. and learned Gentleman knew from the first what the tribunal was which it was proposed to erect, and he now thought it becoming, or an argument which the Government could accept, to open the door to a future assault on that tribunal, if it should dare to report against him and his Party, by describing them as persons for whom he had no respect. He (Mr. Matthews) never know the hon. and learned Member to express respect for any office, however high, and now he said that in his mind the Judges themselves were not above suspicion. These so-called Tory Judges selected by a Tory Lord Chancellor were the tribunal to which he assented on the second reading.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: No.
    MR. MATTHEWS: Did the hon. and learned, Gentleman seriously propose to the House and the Government an Amendment which was based not only on distrust of those Judges, but on the conviction that they were going to give a dishonest judgment. He appealed to the House to say whether it would be possible for any Government not totally devoid of all self-respect to do other-wise than oppose this Amendment, the whole purpose and object of which, as well as every argument offered in its support, was au outrage on the tribunal which was proposed to be set up.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he should like to refer to that passage of the right hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Matthews')speech, in which the right hon. Gentleman informed the House that the Judges would be chosen exclusively by the Tory Chancellor. That statement was made over and over again with great insistance, with a repetition of assertion which argued a perfect belief in its truth. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to refer them to a passage, a syllable, a hint in any previous speech, that the Judges of whom the Commission was to be exclusively composed were to be selected by the Tory Lord Chancellor?
    MR. MATTHEWS: The assertion made by the hon. and learned Member for North Longford was that a Tory Lord Chancellor would select them.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, the right hon. Gentleman would not run off on a false scent like that. Undoubtedly his hon. and learned Friend had stated that the Judges were exclusively selected by a Tory Lord Chancellor; but the reply of the right hon. Gentleman was that fair notice was given on the second reading of this Bill that the Judges would be selected by a Tory Lord Chancellor. Did the right hon. Gentleman deny that this was a true and correct representation of what he said?
    MR. MATTHEWS: I do.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Then what did the right hon. Gentleman say? It was in the recollection of the House that what the right hon. Gentleman said was, that the House was warned that these Judges would be appointed by a Tory Lord Chancellor. Why, instead of that being the case, it had been made an objection and a reproach from the Front Opposition Bench that the Judges were selected exclusively by the Tory Lord Chancellor, and not in consultation with right hon Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary spoke of the speech of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. T. M. Healy) and the Amendment as throwing suspicion upon the Judges. But the speech was one thing and the Amendment was another, and where did the Amendment throw suspicion upon the judges? What happened in this House when a Select Committee made its Report? If that Report
    1356
    was properly drawn up, there was not a single distinct recommendation which was not confirmed by a reference to the witness and the number of the questions in the evidence on which the recommendation was founded. Was it too much to ask that a Court consisting of three Judges, or a Court consisting of three Archangels, if they gave a verdict of conviction of serious crimes against a Member of this House, should be compelled to accompany that verdict by a statement of the reasons and the evidence on which that verdict was founded? How could that demand involve disrespect to the three Judges? The right hon. Gentleman said the Amendment bore some resemblance to other Amendments that had been proposed. [Mr. MATTHEWS: No.] Well, he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) thought the right hon. Gentleman did say so, and, at any rate, it was perfectly true that this Amendment did bear a very close resemblance indeed to other Amendments proposed from those Benches—in this respect, that the Irish Members were willing to have their names set forth for inquiry; that they were perfectly prepared to be pilloried in the most public manner as objects of inquiry, provided only that in addition to particulars of their names there should also be particulars as to the charge and evidence that were brought against them. They had not shirked but demanded inquiry into their characters. What was the best proof of that? It was that they had asked over and over again that their names should be set forth in Schedules of the Bill, or by any other form that would segregate them from any other persons. All their proposals on that point had been, however, rejected; and nothing but the historical honour of being out short by the atrocious proposal of the Government would induce him to add one word to this debate.
    MR. PARNELL: Sir, I rise, as we are now coming to the enforced termination of our proceedings upon this Bill, to say a few words as to the course which I should recommend my hon. Friends to adopt with regard to their action upon the Questions which will be put by you, Sir, in accordance with the Resolution of the House after 1 o'clock. It would be affectation for me to deny that I approach the inquiry before this Commission with a rankling

    1357
    sense of injustice. It would have been easy, I think, for the Government to have avoided such a feeling on my part, to have rendered such a feeling on my part impossible. I think it would have been better if they had endeavoured to be a little straight forward in their conduct in dealing with us. It is true that we are only Irish Members; and the hon. and learned Attorney General, during the course of these debates, pointedly stated that he should decline to notice the accusations and the references of the Irish Members to himself. That is in the recollection of the House.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): If the hon. Gentleman will pardon me, I said nothing of the kind. What I said was, that I should decline to notice again the accusations that had been made against my conduct as counsel for The Times which had been made, not by Irish Members, but by Members sitting opposite.
    MR. PARNELL: The hon. and learned Gentleman, in the very able and eloquent speech which he delivered on the second reading of the Bill, pointedly referred to the Irish Members below the Gangway as persons beneath his notice. [SIR RICHARD WEBSTER dissented.] And he carried out that argument in practice by refusing—and I thought he might have taken the opportunity of pulling himself right at least in that respect—to answer the charge of want of accuracy which I had made against him in regard to his speech in the case of "O'Donnell v. Walter." They were simple questions of fact which the hon. and learned Gentleman might have referred to in the interval between my speech and his speech, and which, if he had referred to, he would undoubtedly have seen that he had been in error in the statements he had made; and he could have corrected the error in those statements, which he has refrained from doing up to the present moment. Well, Sir, this Bill has arisen out of a request by me to the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) that a Select Committee of this House should be appointed to investigate the charge which had been made against me and my Colleague, and the genuineness and authenticity of these letters; and the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, in reply to that request,
    1358
    promised us a Royal Commission to investigate all the charges and allegations which had been made against myself and my Friends and Colleagues. He said, further, that it was for me and my Colleagues in this House to reject the proposal that he made, thus clearly indicating that the proposal was with reference to myself and my Colleagues, and not to any outside persons. Well, Sir, I had no fault to find with that proposal in its inception, though I had fault, and very strong fault, to find with the accompanying statement of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, that it was for me to accept or reject it on the spot, before the Bill was printed, or that otherwise it would not be proceeded with. I thought that was an unfair position to put us in, to have to accept or reject a Bill we had not seen. But I had no fault to find with the proposal itself; nor have I any fault to find in my own mind with the proposal itself, but when the Notice appeared on the Paper a great change had taken place. The Reference, which at first was confined, according to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, to the charges and allegations against me and my hon. Friends, was extended to the charges and allegations against "other persons," and since then, by the speeches from the Treasury Bench, it has been further extended into an inquiry, first of all, against the Land League, and, secondly, against the National League. That, again, I say was an evidence of want of straight forwardness on the part of the Government. If they had desired an inquiry into the Land League and the National League, I should not have stood in their way. I should have said that it was a reasonable request; but I think it is unreasonable, underhand to ask us to consent to an inquiry into our own conduct, and then to enlarge it into an inquiry into the conduct of organizations. Well, Sir, the thing has gone on, and we have had discussions in Committee upon some vital points in reference to this Bill, and I should not have complained, whatever the result might have been of unfairness, if we had been heard. But I think this House has taken a grave responsibility upon itself in denying to us, who are so vitally interested in this question, the opportunity of being fully heard with regard

    1359
    to the tribunal which is to try us and the organizations with which we are concerned. We stand in this position. We feel we are approaching an inquiry which has been shaped by yourselves and your superior force without your having given us an opportunity of stating our views with that fulness which the gravity of the occasion requires. Some of his hon. Friends had placed Amendments on the Paper with regard to provisions for enforcing the attendance of witnesses before the Commission which are lacking in this Bill. This Amendment by your action to-night will be shut out. We consider, and I consider, that these Amendments are vital for the purpose of proving the forgeries of these letters. We consider that we have information that there are men at present in London whom we can lay our hands upon, if they wait for us to lay our hands upon them after this Bill is passed, who have a knowledge of the forgeries of these letters, and who, if we can put them in the box, we shall force to admit that they are forgeries. We have placed Amendments on the Paper casting provisions which are lacking in this Bill, which will enable us to enforce the attendance of these men; or, failing the possibility of enforcing their attendance, that after the cessation of the proceedings of the Commission these persons shall be punished for absconding from its jurisdiction. Recollect how we stand in regard to the question of the forged letters. The Times has announced that it will refuse to produce evidence as to how it got these letters, that they will refuse to us an opportunity of knowing who our accusers are, and that they will refuse to declare from whom these letters were obtained, or to let us know the circumstances under which they were obtained. It is, therefore, of the greatest and gravest importance to us that we should be able to supply the deficiency in the evidence of The Times. Mr. Walter, the proprietor of The Times, may be sent to prison for refusing to answer. But what does he or anyone else care for remaining in prison during the session of the Commission, when he knows that immediately the Commission has ceased to sit he will be released from prison, and that he may snap his fingers at all the Courts of the country so far as the
    1360
    Commission is concerned? And what will those criminals care which have evaded, and will be able to evade, our attempts to put them in the box, owing to your action in refusing our Amendments, and owing to your action in not even allowing us to put them before you; what will these criminals, these forgers, care for your action in appointing a Commission of Inquiry, when, simply by stepping across the Channel and staying there during the sitting of the Commission, they can draw an impenetrable veil of secrecy over the origin of those miserable productions? I say that it is not fair play to us; you ought to have heard us. You ought to have given us that hearing which the House of Commons have never before denied to individuals who were charged before it. We consented to this unprecedented and unconstitutional inquiry into our guilt or innocence with regard to these matters, and the least return you could have given us was to have afforded us a full and fair opportunity of laying our views before the Committee. When the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury first spoke of appointing this Commission, I said then, as I say now, that I do not object to entrust my cause to the judgment of any three, four, five, or six able, learned, and honourable men. I believe from that scrutiny we shall come out untarnished and triumphant. But I do say that you, the majority of the House, have tarnished yourselves, have discredited the traditions of this House, by refusing us, who are your equals in this House, who are as honourable as yourselves, the right we have under the Constitution of the House of shaping, or of attempting to influence your judgment in shaping, the most important measure which has ever been devised for the judgment of man, the importance of which with regard to the future situation of political Parties in this country and to the future interests of the Nation which we represent is incalculable.
    It being One of the clock a.m., the Chairman, in pursuance of the Order of the House, interrupted the Debate, and put the Question forthwith.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 201; Noes 283; Majority 82.—(Div. List, No. 260.)
    Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Clauses 2 to 7 agreed to.
    Preamble agreed to.
    Whereupon the Chairman, in pursuance of the Order of the House, forthwith left the Chair and reported the Bill, with Amendments, to the House.
    Bill, as amended, to be considered on Monday next.

  BURGH POLICE AND HEALTH (SCOTLAND) (re-committed) BILL.
  (The Lord Advocate, Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland, Sir Herbert Maxwell.)
  BURGH POLICE AND HEALTH (SCOTLAND) (re-committed) BILL.

    [BILL 340.] COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    DR. CLARKasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to say whether it was the intention of the Government to ask the House to proceed with this Bill, a Bill which would practically recast all the Burgh Police and Public Health laws of Scotland, before the adjournment, or to postpone it until the Autumn Session?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN)said, the Government were desirous that full effect should be given to the labour of the Committee upon this Bill, and they were also anxious to consult the wishes of Scotch Members. In the absence of his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury he could not say more, and proposed to set down the Bill pro formâ for Monday.
    Committee deferred till Monday next.

  TITHE RENTCHARGE (RECOVERY AND VARIATION) BILL [Lords].
  (Mr. William Henry Smith.)
  TITHE RENTCHARGE (RECOVERY AND VARIATION) BILL [Lords].

    [BILL 289.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. ILLINGWORTHasked, had the Government any expectation that it would be possible to proceed with this Bill before the Recess? It would be necessary to have the Bill discussed, and there were some very wide questions to be raised in connection with it. Would it not be preferable to defer the Bill until the Autumn, if, indeed, it was not desirable to withdraw it for the Session?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN)said, he was not in a position to give the hon. Member the information he asked for.
    Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

  DR. TANNER AND MR. BROOKFIELD.

    PERSONAL COMPLAINT.
    DR. TANNERrose, and claimed Mr. Speaker's attention to a point of Order. He said, I have been grossly insulted, Sir, outside by a Gentleman and addressed in the most impertinent manner. He has spoken to me again and again in the most impertinent terms. I do not know what constituency he represents—some division of Kent, I think—his name is Brookfield. ["Sussex."] He has addressed me again and again in most insulting terms. I have put up with his conduct on many occasions. Just now he persisted in following me about. I said I did not want to know him, that I did not think his acquaintance worth having, and that he would confer a favour upon me if he ceased to address me. He, however, insisted on following me about in the presence of a great number of hon. Members—I do not know them—who witnessed his conduct, I told him that unless he ceased, I would bring his conduct to your notice. This is not the first time, Sir, or I would not do so. Again and again I have been grossly, want only insulted by hon. Members who sit on those Benches, and I beg now to bring this conduct under your notice and judgment.
    MR. SPEAKER: Is the hon. Member for the Rye Division of Sussex in the House? If so, I will call upon him to say if he has any explanation to offer.
    MR. BROOKFIELD: I do not understand, Sir, what the allegation of the hon. Member is. He seems to have some complaint against myself; but I can only say that if there is any complaint at all to be made, it would more properly come from me. But I wish to make every allowance for the hon. Gentleman, whose eccentricities are pretty well known to Members of this House—[Cries of "Order!"]
    DR. TANNERrose——
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member for Mid Cork has made a

    1363
    complaint of some misconduct, and I ask the hon. Member for Rye if he has any explanation to offer?
    MR. BROOKFIELD: The explanation. I have to offer, Sir, is that the hon. Gentleman insulted me as I was leaving the House, and the only observation I made to him was, "Really, Dr. Tanner, if you speak to me in this manner I shall have to bring your conduct before the notice of the Speaker."
    DR. TANNER: Might I be allowed to remark that I never addressed the hon. Gentleman at all; but he came up to me at the Bar swaggering and saying, "I will not allow you, Sir,"—or words to that effect—"to look at me, or speak to me." I did not address the hon. Gentleman at all. This a myth of his own imagination; he was suffering under some hallucination at the moment, but I am not responsible for that. It is most painful to me——
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I must call on both hon. Members to maintain a courteous bearing towards each other, and I do hope the House will not think it necessary to pursue this matter any further.
    DR. TANNER: I may be allowed to say one thing; the hon. Member dares not say to me outside the House what he has said here.

  LLOYD'S SIGNAL STATION BILL [Lords].
  (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)
  LLOYD'S SIGNAL STATION BILL [Lords].

    [BILL 343.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Second Reading be deferred till Saturday next."—(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, this was the first Order set down for that day, and acquiescence with the Motion would fix a Saturday Sitting. He might prevent that by objection, but had no wish to take that course; he merely wished to ask what Business was proposed to be taken on the Saturday, at what hour the House would meet, and when it was proposed to adjourn? A Saturday Sitting necessarily meant a day snatched from the rest of Members and officers of the House, and he presumed the Sitting would be governed by the usual Rules applicable to Wednesdays. Further, he would sug-
    1364
    gest that the practice of last Session should obtain, and it would prevent a considerable amount of wrangling that no private Member's Business should be taken; but the Government after their own Business was disposed of should move the adjournment. That was a fair proposition to make; it would prevent Members being brought down and kept continually on the watch against Bills to which they were opposed.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN)said, it was not proposed to take any Business seriously opposed, except the Report of Supply and Army and Navy Votes in Supply. It was proposed that the House should meet at 12, and suspend its sitting at 6 o'clock, as on Wednesday, and the Government would certainly propose to follow the suggestions of the hon. and learned Member, that no Opposed Private Member's Bill be taken.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: No Bills?
    MR. GOSCHEN: No Bills; unless the House were disposed to take an unopposed Bill.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: No contentious Bills?
    MR. GOSCHEN: No other contentious Business than I have mentioned.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Second Reading deferred till Saturday.

  EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY FOR INJURIES TO WORKMEN BILL.
  (Mr. Secretary Matthews, Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Ritchie, Mr. Forwood.)
  EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY FOR INJURIES TO WORKMEN BILL.

    [BILL 145.] CONSIDERATION.
    Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Order for Consideration be deferred till To-morrow."—(Mr. Jackson.)
    Mr. MAC INNESasked, was there any likelihood of the Report of the Committee on this Bill being taken before the adjournment? There were many Amendments on the Paper, and much interest in the Bill was displayed on both sides of the House?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN), said the Government hoped to take the Bill before the holidays.
    MR. BROADHURSTsaid, if the Bill was not to be taken to-morrow why put it down? If it were put down only for a day when it might possibly be taken, Members would be relieved from the harassing occupation of watching for a Bill in which they were interested.
    MR. GOSCHENsaid, he could not say when it would be taken; but it would not be to-morrow.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Consideration deferred till To-morrow.

  OATHS BILL.
  (Mr. Bradlaugh, Sir John Simon, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Courtney Kenny, Mr. Burt, Mr. Coleridge, Mr. Illingworth, Mr. Richard, Colonel Eyre, Mr. Jesse Collings.)
  OATHS BILL.

    [BILL 319. THIRD READING.
    Order for Third Reading read.
    MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, he desired to invite an expression of the views of the Government in respect to the Bill. When the Government obtained control of the whole time of the House, it was with a special exception in favour of this Bill then at the Report stage. He had put the Bill down night after night, but still was met with the "I object" from hon. Members opposite, and the proceeding approached the nature of absolute farce. He invited the Government to mention some reasonable time when the final stage of the Bill might be taken. He would not press for an answer in the absence of the First Lord of the Treasury, but put the question in moving to defer the Bill once more till to-morrow.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Order for Third Reading be deferred till To-morrow."—(Mr. Brad-laugh.)
    SIR ROBERT FOWLERsuggested that if the Bill were allowed to be called at 10 minutes to 12 some night, there would probably be no attempt to discuss it, and he imagined the hon Member only desired to take a Division on the Bill?
    MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, he should be quite content with that.
    Question put, and agreed to.

  PAUPER LUNATICS' ASYLUMS (IRELAND) (OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION) BILL.— [BILL 135.]
  (Mr. Johnston, Mr. Chance.)
  PAUPER LUNATICS' ASYLUMS (IRELAND) (OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION) BILL.— [BILL 135.]

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Johnston.)
    MR. BIGGARobjected.
    MR. JOHNSTONsaid, in consequence of the continued opposition of the hon. Member for West Cavan, he would move the discharge of the Order.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Order for Committee be discharged."—(Mr. Johnston.)
    MR. CHANCEsaid, his name was on the back of the Bill. It would be matter for regret if a Bill that had the support of Members of such opposite political opinions should be withdrawn while an opportunity remained of converting its useful provisions into law. He appealed to the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his Motion, and not give up the attempt until every hope was exhausted.
    MR. JOHNSTONsaid, he had waited night after night, and had been persistently met with objection by the hon. Member for West Cavan. He adhered to his Motion.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Order discharged; Bill withdrawn.

  MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (LOCAL BILLS) (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 351.]
  (Mr. Sexton, Mr. Murphy, Mr. T. D. Sullivan, Mr. Maurice Healy, Mr. O'Keeffe, Mr. Richard Power, Mr. Peter M'Donald)
  MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (LOCAL BILLS) (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 351.]

    COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER in the Chair.)
    Clause 1 agreed to.
    Clause 2 (Cost of promoting Bills in Parliament to be charged on municipal funds).
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, line 9, after "Parliament," insert "for the purpose only of consolidating existing Acts, and for creating new stock within the limitation of existing powers."—(Mr. Jackson.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted,"
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he regretted the Government should think it necessary to insert this limitation. It would be necessary at no distant time to bring in an amending Bill to put Irish Corporations in an equal position in this respect to those of England. It was useless, however, to resist the Amendment; but he hoped there would be no objection to add the words—"or of borrowing powers hereafter conferred by Parliament."
    Amendment, to amend the proposed Amendment by the addition of the words "or of borrowing powers hereafter conferred by Parliament,"—(Mr. Sexton,)—agreed to.
    Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clauses 3 to 5, inclusive agreed to.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he had handed the hon. Gentleman in MS. a clause to extend the Bill to townships. Could the hon. Gentleman say if he would accept it now, or should he bring it up on Report?
    THE SECRETARY To THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON)said, he had seen the clause in MS. proposing to extend the Bill to Town Commissioners; but he could not accept it at that stage. It might be necessary to amend the Bill hereafter; but the Bill as it stood met the difficulty of which complaint had been made.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he would not press it.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

  COPYHOLD ACTS AMENDMENT BILL [Lords].— [BILL 298.]
  (Mr. Haldane.)
  COPYHOLD ACTS AMENDMENT BILL [Lords].— [BILL 298.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. HALDANErepeated what he said on a previous night, that if the House would allow the Bill to go through its second reading, so far as he was concerned the "Mineral" Clauses should be omitted in Committee. He believed there was general assent to the principle of the Bill.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said,
    1368
    he was very sorry that he could not consent to the Bill being taken now. Speaking personally, he did not think there would be any great objection to the Bill with the "Mineral Clauses" taken out. He had, however, received representations from both sides of the House that the Bill could not be allowed to pass without a second reading discussion.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, he was surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General should object to a Bill dealing with land, after it bad received the assent of Lord Salisbury and passed through the ordeal of the House of Lords.
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid, the hon. and learned Member had misunderstood the position. The Bill was not a Government Bill and it required careful consideration. He was far from saying that the Bill should not be allowed to pass in some shape; but it was not a Bill that could be read without some discussion. Exception was taken to some of the clauses, and it would not be fair to Members from whom he had received representations that the second reading should not now be taken.
    Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

  QUESTIONS.

    BUSINESS OF TILE HOUSE.
    DR. CLARKasked the Lord Advocate, Whether he intended to take certain Scottish Bills next Friday which he had put down for that date?
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): No; we have only put them on the Paper in the hope that they might be reached.
    In answer to Mr. T. M. HEALY,
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON)said, the Government would to-morrow take the Vote on Account for the Civil Service and the Army Votes, and on Saturday the Navy Votes. His right hon. Friend would to-day move that the 12 o'clock Rule be suspended.
    House adjourned at ten minutes before Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Committee—Fishery Acts Amendment (Ireland) (86–246).
Third Reading—Victoria University (218), discharged.

SOUTH AFRICA—ZULULAND—SURRENDER OF NATIVE CHIEFS.

  QUESTION.
  In answer to Earl GRANVILLE,
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Lord KNUTSFORD)said: I am glad to say that last night I received a telegram from Sir Arthur E. Havelock confirming the telegram which appears in the newspapers this morning in reference to the state of affairs in Zululand. The telegram is as follows:—
  "August 1.—Colonial Secretary sent by East Coast road reach Umfolosi River without opposition. Somkeli, Chief of that locality, has voluntarily and unconditionally surrendered to authorities. Other Chiefs expected to surrender. Native followers who had come to Dinizulu from beyond Zululand are said to be dispersing. I am not without hopes that Dinizulu himself will surrender. Situation much improved."

RAILWAY AND CANAL TRAFFIC BILL.

  CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS' AMENDMENTS.
  Commons' Amendments considered (according to order).
  LORD BRABOURNEsaid, that the great Companies did him the honour of placing their interests in his hands by entrusting him to conduct their case with respect to the Bill of last year. This year, however, he was incapacitated by severe illness from attending the Sittings of that House during the discussions upon the Bill now before their Lordships. He had, however, conferred with the representatives of the Companies, who, in accordance with his (Lord Brabourne's) advice, had agreed not to delay the Bill or to trouble their Lordships with Amendments such as they might have desired, but to submit to the present measure as a settlement of the question, with the exception of one single Amendment which he hoped presently to convince their Lordships was just and
  1196
  reasonable. He desired, however, to enter his earnest protest against this species of confiscatory legislation, which, unduly interfering with the management of a great and important industry, directly tended to paralyze commercial enterprize at least in one direction, to discourage the application of capital to railway development, and to diminish, if not destroy, that public confidence in the justice of Parliament, upon the faith of which so much capital had been embarked in railways. How did this matter stand? In the earlier part of the century, it was a question whether British railways should be constructed out of public taxation or left to private enterprize. After due deliberation by Parliament, it was determined to leave the construction of railways to private enterprize; and every British railway had consequently been constructed by the money of private individuals invested upon the security provided by a special Act of Parliament. This Bill, like others which had preceded it, cast Private Acts of Parliament to the winds, and proposed to entrust partly to a Public Department and partly to Commissioners that management of railway property which had been distinctly guaranteed by Parliament to the duly elected representatives of the Railway Companies themselves. It could not be said that railway shareholders had received any large or unreasonable dividends upon the capital which they had invested, or that the public had been aggrieved by the management of the railways. He was much afraid that the public and traders would not receive from this Bill the advantages which they expected. Hitherto the railways had been admirably managed by persons who were specially conversant with railway business, and he entered his protest against the interference with their functions proposed in this Bill. He might be told that he spoke only from a shareholder's point of view; but, in truth, he was much more largely interested as a landowner than as a shareholder, and, as a matter of fact, he had little personal interest in the matter, as he was but a small shareholder. On the other hand, he might retort that there were many gentlemen whose estates had been developed and improved and their incomes increased by railways constructed by other people's money, and who were now seeking, under the convenient

  1197
  shadow of alleged public convenience, to get a further advantage from the same benefactors. This was the last unkind word he had to say of the Bill or of its promoters. Though he was obliged to act the part of Cassandra with reference to this Bill, he sincerely hoped his prognostications might be disappointed, and that the measure, without deteriorating railway property, as he feared it would, might be productive of that advantage to traders and to the public which he was quite sure that its authors intended and expected.
  On the Motion of the Earl of ONSLOW, Commons' Amendments to the end of Clause 4 agreed to.
  Amendments to Clause 5 postponed.
  Clause 17 (Appeals on certain questions to supreme court of appeal).
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid, it was his opinion that if this clause stood as it had come from the Commons it would not be long before their Lordships were asked to alter the law, and that those would be the first to ask for a change in the law who secured the passing of the Amendment in question. He did not ask their Lordships to disagree with it, but to take a practical course with reference to a matter that might arise under it. Conceivably the Court of Appeal in each country might take a different view on a given question, and the result would be that if there was no power of appeal beyond either of those Courts there would be a different law as between parties and railways in England, Scotland, and Ireland. He therefore moved to add the following words to the clause:—
  "Provided that where there has been a difference of opinion between any two such superior Courts of Appeal any superior Court of Appeal in which a matter is pending may give leave to appeal to the House of Lords."
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY)thought the proposal of the noble and learned Lord a wholly reasonable one.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 24 (Revised classification of traffic and schedule of rates).
  LORD BRAMWELLsaid, he begged to move that the Commons' Amendment
  1198
  striking out the words enacting that the Board of Trade, in making a classification of maximum rates and charges, should substitute for existing rates and charges such as were "upon the whole equivalent to such maximum rates and charges" be disagreed with, and that the words quoted, which were in the Bill when it went down to the Commons, be restored. Those who were interested in railway shares and stock had been warned not to dissent from the proposals of the Commons or something worse would befall them, and he thought that was quite possible, because he had noticed that in the discussions on this subject it never seemed for one moment to have occurred to anyone that the Private Acts of Parliament under which railways were made gave the Railway Companies certain definite fixed rights, and it seemed to have been considered that they might be dealt with as though the question now arose for the first time what their rights might be. By striking out the words above quoted, the Board of Trade, he contended, would be at liberty to make a classification of maximum rates which should not be equivalent to the existing maximum rates and charges; they might make a diminution of 50 per cent, or any amount, on those charges, and say such diminution was "just and reasonable." He contended that the words "just and reasonable" did not convey any more definite idea than the word "fair," which no one would again introduce into an Act of Parliament after the experience of the working of the Irish Land Acts. Who could say what would be "just and reasonable" for carrying a ton of coals 100 miles? It was a most unjust thing to Railway Companies that their rights should be taken away, and he left it to the judgment and discretion of the Board of Trade.
  Moved, "That the Commons' Amendment to the Clause be disagreed with."—(The Lord Bramwell.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that if the Board of Trade had to decide what was "just and reasonable," the criticisms of the noble and learned Lord would be accurate; but the provision objected to by the noble and learned Lord was only a preparatory matter.

  1199
  To enable Parliament to decide, the Board of Trade was to submit its opinion to Parliament, and there was surely no harm in asking the Board of Trade to state what it considered to be just and reasonable. When it had done so Parliament would have an opportunity to decide again how far the provisions which were suggested were a breach of the original contract made with the Railway Company, and the noble and learned Lord would have every opportunity he now had.
  LORD BRAMWELLsaid, if the Board of Trade went wrong in this matter, Parliament might do the same, and he wanted to stop the thing at the outset.
  On Question? Resolved in the Negative.
  Commons' Amendment agreed to.
  LORD BALFOURsaid, that he had been informed by the authorities of the House that he would not be in Order in moving the new clause which stood in his name on the Paper. Its object had been to provide that any difference with regard to remuneration or compensation between the Postmaster General and any Railway Company should be referred to the Commissioners instead of to arbitration. Although he could not move this clause, he wished to explain that it was merely on account of the technical objection.
  Clause 25 (Amendment of 36 & 37 Vict. c. 48, s. 11, as to through traffic).
  Moved, "That the Commons' Amendments to the Clause be agreed to."—(The Earl of Onslow.)
  THE EARL OF JERSEY, who had an Amendment on the Paper to strike out the words, "in respect of the same or similar services," said, he thought that Clause 29, which provided that the Railway Companies should state all the particulars of the through rate on both sides of the sea, would cover this question, and he did not propose to move his Amendment. He would, however, like some explanation from the noble Earl.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (The Earl of ONSLOW)thought it was obvious that whether the consignors were foreigners or home traders it would be manifestly unfair to impose the same rates upon both parties, whether they sent a large or a small quantity of goods, or whether the goods
  1200
  were sent at regular or at irregular intervals. One man, again, might have a private siding, and there were many other cases in which the services to be rendered were different.
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid, he wished to call attention to these words as affecting particular ports, and especially the Port of Newcastle. The question was whether it would be a matter of discretion with the Commissioners; but he understood that there were grave doubts as to whether they would have any discretion in the matter. The Ports of Hull and Newcastle, and other Northern ports, had formerly been served by two different lines of railway. Though Hull was much nearer than Newcastle to Liverpool, the two railways had carried goods at equal rates. An amalgamation then took place, and the two lines became the property of the North-Eastern Railway Company. In the other House the question had been raised of the competition of the two Ports of Hull and Newcastle, and an endeavour was made by those who wanted that the rates should not be equal to get a clause inserted carrying out that view. He was not speaking on behalf of any Railway Company, but on behalf of the town of Newcastle. If this clause were passed as it now stood the Railway Companies would be unable to charge what for the moment he would call the lower rate, and if they were unable to do so, there would be no benefit to the home producers, but to one English port as against another. The question had been asked in the House of Commons whether these circumstances could be taken into account by the Commissioners, and it had been stated by the President of the Board of Trade that they could. For his own part, he confessed that he could not take that view; the words were absolutely stringent. The town of Newcastle considered that the effect of these words would be to deal a heavy blow at their interests, not to the benefit of the home producers, but that of Hull. That, of course, had not been the object of these words. He understood that the view of the Government was that the Commissioners would have power to consider such a case, and all that he now asked for was that it should be a matter to be so considered, and that there should be some elasticity given to the clause to allow the Commissioners to deal with

  1201
  such cases. At present he did not see how the Commissioners were to give any such consideration.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, he agreed that the words were peremptory, but only with regard to the question of foreign merchandize; they would not prevent the Companies from charging the same rates on these two lines.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOWsaid, that it was specially provided in the first part of the sub-section that where there was a difference made between home and foreign traders, or traders of any kind, which would be likely to lead to undue preference, the Commissioners were to take into account whether such difference of treatment was intended to secure the interests of the public. If the noble and learned Lord would propose any words which were not likely to interfere with the general scope of the clause he should be happy to consider them. But if any part of the clause was omitted, the result would be that we should come to equal mileage rates. No doubt, as the noble and learned Lord argued, the effect in some cases might be to transfer foreign traffic from one port to another; but he agreed with the noble Earl behind him that of two evils it was better that the home trader should not be put to considerable loss than that a particular port should suffer.
  LORD BRABOURNE, in rising to propose at the end of Sub-section 3 of Clause D, after "railway," to add "the lesser distance being included within the longer distance," said, this was the one Amendment which the Railway Companies of England desired their Lordships to make; and he must all the more claim the indulgence of their Lordships, as much turned upon the construction of the clauses, and he was at a disadvantage, as a layman, speaking in the presence of more than one ex-Lord Chancellor and other great legal luminaries. The clause was, in its primary intention, directed against the admission of foreign produce at a lower rate than home produce was carried on the same line of railway. He was not going to say a word against that. But the words at the end of the clause went somewhat further. They empowered the Railway Commissioners to make different rates over the same line of railway; the same line of railway meaning, he believed, the same system
  1202
  of railway, or in other words all the lines under one Company. That would lead to mileage rates, which had been condemned by every Commission and every Committee which had sat on the subject. Some lines had difficult gradients, and were much more costly to make than others. Let him explain what he wished to convey to their Lordships by a simple illustration. Suppose that from the seat occupied by the Prime Minister at that moment one line ran to the right and the other to the left hand corner of the House. One might have cost double the other in construction, and its gradients might make the working more expensive. A higher rate might, therefore, have been authorized upon the latter, and this section as it stood would enable the Railway Commissioners to enforce an equal rate upon each. What he (Lord Brabourne) desired was to leave to the Commissioners the power to compel equality of rates upon the same line, but not upon different lines upon the same system. He spoke in the public interest as well as in the interest of the Railway Companies, for the section as it stood might have a somewhat different effect from that contemplated by its authors. He would give two instances; one of hardship which might be inflicted upon a Railway Company, and another in which the public might suffer. The Great Western Railway Company had lines in Cornwall where the gradients were bad and the working consequently expensive, therefore their Private Acts sanctioned a higher maximum rate on that part of their system than upon the flat and easy gradients of the Herefordshire part. But under this section the Commissioners might enforce an equal rate throughout, and inflict a manifestly unfair injury upon the Company. On the other point, the distance from London to Bristol by the Great Western was 120 miles—by the Midland Company's line 220 miles. Now, the latter competed with the former Company for merchandize traffic, and to do so were obliged to charge only the same rates as the competing Company. But suppose the inhabitants of Leeds, which was 180 miles from London by the Midland Railway, and the inhabitants of other Yorkshire towns on the same line came before the Commissioners to complain that they were charged higher rates for their merchan-

  1203
  dize than was charged to Bristol. The Commissioners could enact an equality of rates, the immediate effect of which would be to destroy the competition of the Midland with the Great Western Company—that very competition which had always been insisted upon as so important in the interests of the public. It would be said—"The Railway Commissioners will be able to judge of such cases as fairly as you can;" but that was not quite the point. A Railway Commissioner would, fairly enough, look first at the interest of the public, and would not, of necessity, weigh all the reasons for which a higher rate had been fixed upon one part of a railway system than upon another. Why should the Railway Commissioners have power to say that the rates which it was proper to charge on lines which were more easy and less expensive to make should apply to lines more difficult and costly of construction? But he (Lord Brabourne) had another objection to this section as it stood, to which he most earnestly invited the attention of their Lordships. Noble Lords who advocated the traders' interests asked, Why not leave this question open to the Railway Commissioners, as the question of terminal charges has been left open to the Board of Trade? He would answer that question simply and clearly. He believed the words to which he objected were introduced at the bidding of the noble and learned Earl opposite (the Earl of Selborne). He had asked the noble and learned Earl whether he would assent to his Amendment; but he said he did not think it would be right to fetter the judgment of the Railway Commissioners. With great submission to the noble and learned Earl, he (Lord Brabourne) must submit to their Lordships that this was a complete misapplication of terms. Every Court of Justice had got its judgment fettered. It could interpret, but it could not alter an Act of Parliament. But this was precisely what the section under discussion would permit this Court of Railway Commissioners to do; and at the very moment when they were limiting the right of appeal in this Bill, they were going to constitute the Railway Commissioners a Court of Appeal from the Board of Trade. Let him point out his meaning more clearly. By a previous clause in this Bill, every Railway
  1204
  Company had to go to the Board of Trade within a certain time, and to agree with the Board of Trade on its revised table of tolls. Whether they could agree or not, the Board of Trade had to come to Parliament, and get an Act of Parliament confirming its Provisional Order as to the maximum rates to be charged by the Company. Nor was this all. The Bill, as it left their Lordships' House, provided that the Board of Trade was to substitute for the existing maximum rates and charges such rates and charges as it would be just and reasonable so to substitute "as upon the whole equivalent to such existing rates and charges." But these words were struck out in the House of Commons, so that the Board of Trade had now a free hand to deal with the maximum rates and charges of every Railway Company with no principle laid down for their direction. Now, let their Lordships mark what this section would do without his (Lord Brabourne's) Amendment. It would leave the scale of charges, which had been revised and settled by the Board of Trade, after full inquiry and consideration, and which by this very Bill were in each case to be embodied in an Act of Parliament, to be re-opened and altered at the discretion of the Railway Commissioners. He ventured to think that neither the Board of Trade nor the Railway Companies ought to be exposed to such a state of things, which would unnecessarily invite litigation, and cause an undeniable clashing of authority. Why should the Railway Commissioners be made a Court of Appeal over the Board of Trade and the Act of Parliament? When the Board of Trade and the Act of Parliament had said to the Company—"This shall be your maximum table of rates," why should the Railway Commissioners be allowed to say—"A fig for your Act of Parliament, a fig for your agreement; we will alter your rates according to our idea of public interest and public convenience, in spite of all the considerations which may have guided the Board of Trade in their deliberate settlement of 'just and reasonable' rates." The words he proposed were taken from the American legislation of last year; and he moved them in the full belief that the public and the traders would in no respect suffer from

  1205
  an alteration which in common justice was duo to the Railway Companies.
  Amendment moved, in page 16, Clause (D.), inserted by the Commons, to add, at the end of the clause ("the lesser distance being included within the longer distance").—(The Lord Bra-bourne.)
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, he must ask their Lordships not to agree to the Amendment of the noble Lord opposite. The clause was accompanied by every safeguard that would be required for the protection of the Railway Companies. If the words proposed by the noble Lord were introduced, an unlimited power of evading the object of the clause would be given to the Railway Companies. He therefore urged their Lordships not to accept the Amendment.
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid, that nobody seemed to consider the unfortunate British public, who, after all, had a great interest in the matter. He could not conceive anything more mischievous to the interest of the public than to insist on this system of equality. If this equal mileage rate were insisted upon, competition would be killed, a monopoly would be given to the lines with the shorter routes, and the British public would consequently suffer. He considered that the Commissioners could deal with the whole of this question. The words were that they—
  "Shall have power to direct that no higher charge shall be made over a less distance than over a greater,"
  and left them a discretion in the matter. If it were not that he believed the Commissioners would have a discretion he should certainly vote with the noble Lord opposite in the interests of the public.
  LORD BRAMWELLsaid, he would not say a word in favour of the Railway Companies, though they were to be fleeced to a certain extent. He wished to speak in favour of the public, and he would put a particular case. The Great Eastern Railway had a branch to Wisbech, about due north from London. It had also got a line to Ipswich. In making a charge for carriage from Ipswich it must bear in mind that it had the competing river carriage to London, and consequently that it could not charge more to
  1206
  those who were desirous of sending their goods by railway than would tempt them to do so rather than send them by the slower mode of the river. But the railway went to Wisbech and Lincoln. To Lincoln it had another competing line, but it had no competing line to Wisbech, and there it charged as much as it was allowed to do, bearing in mind the necessity of getting as much traffic as it could. Consequently it would charge more from Wisbech for the carriage than from Ipswich, supposing the distances were equal. A singular argument had been used by one of the most intelligent of our public men; it was that because a Company could afford to carry at a certain rate from one place it could afford to carry at the same rate from another place. What a Railway Company did was—it charged what it could where there was no competing consideration to induce it to diminish its charge, and charged what it could where there was that competing consideration, and the result was it could charge more where there was no competition. It had a perfect right to charge the larger sum; the law of the land gave it that right; and the only effect of the alteration, which would compel it to charge equally to both places, would be, not that it would lower the rate which was the more profitable in amount, not that it would lower the rates from Wisbech or Lincoln, but that it would raise that from Ipswich. The noble and learned Earl near him said that the reducing of rates by competition operated as a bounty. He had two answers to that. First, the other operated as a protection; secondly, the objection to a bounty was not its consequences but its cost. Was it not absolutely certain that if that clause passed as it stood the result would be, not that the high rates would be lowered, but that the low rates would be raised, and was it not a necessary consequence of that that the articles carried would be charged at a higher rate to the consumer?
  EARL FORTESCUEsaid, he was always very suspicious when he found those who were interested on the side of the monopolies dwelling on the advantages of competition. They knew in London how wide the competition was between the Water Companies, which at one time sold water almost below cost price. They began by a competi-

  1207
  tion injurious to shareholders, but ended by a coalition entailing a heavy tax on the public. He hoped that the Government would keep the Bill as it was, and not accept the advances of the monopolists, made under the plausible guise of competition and Free Trade. He protested against thus giving practical bounties to the Railway Companies to the injury of our shipping, which the former were allowed to underbid by their differential rates, and thus deprive the latter of their reasonable traffic.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOWsaid, many of the arguments which had been used would be admirably adapted to the second reading of the Bill, and others to a discussion on the question of bounties. He must take notice of one remark which had been made by the noble and learned Lord opposite, who said that the Railway Companies were there to be fleeced.
  LORD BRAMWELLsaid, what he meant was that the tenour of some of the observations showed a disposition to deprive Railway Companies of their rights.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOWsaid, he understood the noble and learned Lord to say that there was a disposition on the part of Parliament to take away something which Parliament had given. He did not deny that; but with regard to the particular clause the omission of which had been moved by the noble Lord opposite, he would point out to him that the whole object of this Bill was to leave the Commissioners as free as possible to deal with the subjects which came before them. The noble Lord said he was only asking their Lordships to agree to the same words that were in the American law. But that law especially laid down that it should be unlawful to do these things, whereas this Bill only said that discretion should be given to the Commissioners. If they could not trust the Commissioners whom they were about to appoint under this Bill they had better not have them at all. He maintained that the men appointed on the Commission would be worthy of confidence, and that it was undesirable to fetter them by putting into the Bill any words which would tie their hands.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 18; Not-Contents 43: Majority 25.
  The rest of the Commons' Amendments agreed to; and Bill, with the Amendments, returned to the Commons.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.