Sitting of 23 May 1890

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.
QUESTIONS.

  IRELAND—TITHE RENT-CHARGE.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland if he will state the amount of tithe rent-charge redeemed in Ireland since the Disendowment of the Church, and the average number of years' purchase at which the tithe rent-charges have been redeemed; and whether the Government have ever considered that any abatement in the tithe rent-charge ought to be made in consequence of agricultural depression?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): The amount of tithe rent-charge in Ireland redeemed since 1869 is £230,579, the purchase-money for which has been £4,914,231, being 22½ years' purchase of the net rent-charge, poor rate being deducted, or about 21⅓ years' purchase of the gross rent-charge. The existing tithe rent-charges in Ireland are fixed by statute, and it would not be possible for any abatement on account of agricultural depression to be made without legislation.

  RURAL POSTMEN.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether a Post Office Circular was issued on 4th June, 1889, giving rural postmen in Ireland the option of starting on their return journeys one hour after their arrival at their respective destinations on bank holidays, and thus reducing their hours on duty; and whether this Circular has been acted upon; and, if not, would he explain on what grounds?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,): Yes, Sir, such a Circular was issued, and has been acted upon throughout England and Wales; but I understand bank
  1678
  holidays are not generally observed in Scotland and Ireland; and it has not, therefore, become necessary to apply it to either of those parts of the United Kingdom.
  MR. HUGH GRAHAM,J.P.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether Mr. Hugh Graham, J.P, of Dromore, County Tyrone, recently suspended by the Lord Chancellor on charges of drunkenness and threatened assault, has yet been dismissed from the Commission of the Peace; and, if not, can he explain which of his magisterial functions Mr. Graham is forbidden to discharge by his suspension, and what is the distinction drawn between his case and that of Mr. George Sandes, J.P., recently dismissed from the Commission of the Peace by the Lord Chancellor, on the grounds that his retention in that capacity would not be in the interest of the Public Service?
  MR. MADDEN: Mr. Hugh Graham, J. P., of Dromore, County Tyrone, has not been dismissed from the Commission of the Peace, as the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, after full consideration of all the circumstances of the case, was of opinion that the facts did not call for such a course. There was no charge of threatened assault, but of two cases of alleged intoxication. His suspension precludes him from sitting on the Magisterial Bench until further orders, meanwhile his conduct being under the Lord Chancellor's observation. The different decisions arrived at by the Lord Chancellor in the two cases referred to were arrived at after a full review of the facts disclosed in each case.
  MR. SEXTON: Is this gentleman, in the meantime, discharging magisterial functions which do not relate to the administration of justice?
  MR. MADDEN: He has been suspended from the discharge of all his magisterial functions.

COUNTY COURT JUDGE HICKSON.
MR. TUITE: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the action of County Court Judge Hickson in the case of the "Guardians

1679
of the Mullingar Union v. Murray. "heard at the recent Quarter Sessions for Westmeath, and to the resolution adopted by the Guardians on the same subject, published in the Westmeath Examiner of the 17th instant; if it is a fact that Judge Hickson first dismissed the case on its merits, and in two days afterwards stated to Mr. Downes, the solicitor to the Guardians, that he was anxious to have the case re-opened; whether the Guardians, having agreed to the proposal, the Judge, without re-hearing the case, again changed his mind and directed the Clerk of the Peace to inform the solicitor that he would allow the dismissal to stand; and whether he will ask the Lord Chancellor to request Judge Hickson to furnish an explanation of his reasons in acting thus with regard to this case?
MR. MADDEN: The matters referred to in the question are matters which occurred before the Judge in the discharge of his duty as a County Court Judge. It would be improper for me on behalf of the Government to communicate with him as to the discharge of his duty in the capacity he fills.

POSTAGE TO INDIA AND AUSTRALIA.
COLONEL HILL: I beg to ask the Postmaster General what will be the effect upon the Imperial Revenue if, consequent upon the reduction of the colonial postage to 2½d. (estimated by him to involve a loss of £88,400), the number of letters to India and Australia be doubled; and what will be the financial effect of the same increase of correspondence if the postage on letters to India and Australia be reduced to one penny?
MR. RAIKES: As every letter for India or Australia carried for a postage of 2½d. would involve a loss, to double the amount of correspondence sent would but be to increase the loss; and, if the same increase took place in conjunction with a 1d. postage, the loss would, of course, be very largely augmented. With reference to the answer which I gave in this House on the 15th of May as to the estimated additional loss which the revenue would sustain by the establishment of universal penny postage, I may
1680
say that the sum of £400,000 then mentioned would be largely increased by any considerable addition to the correspondence.

THE INDIAN SALT TAX.
MR. HOWELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether it is a fact that the Indian Salt Tax was mainly if not entirely imposed in consequence of the loss which the Indian Government sustained by the fall in the gold value of the rupee; and, if so, whether the Secretary of State for India will, in view of the rise in the gold price of silver which has now taken place, bring the matter under the notice of the Governor General in Council, with the object of securing that at least a corresponding reduction shall be made in the Salt Tax?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,): The Secretary of State cannot admit that the increase of the Salt Tax in India was caused mainly, if not entirely, by the loss in exchange. That was one, but not the only one, of the causes which made the increase necessary. The Secretary of State and the Government of India are both anxious to reduce the Salt Tax to its former amount, so soon as it is possible to do so, but any statement at present would be premature.

THE LAND TAX.
MR. BOWEN ROWLANDS: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, on the 17th January, 1889, and 27th February, 1890, the Land Tax Commissioners for Banbury, Oxfordshire, obtained from Major H. C. Maul, of Horley House, Horley, two several sums of £5 12s. each, on the representation that the same were due from him to the Commissioners for Land Tax in respect of his tenancy of Horley House and premises, the last of the two sums having been obtained by the Commissioners under a threat of distress, although the Land Tax for the said premises had been for many years redeemed, and nothing was due to the Commissioners from Major Maul in respect thereof; if he will explain why it is that, although the Commissioners

1681
have admitted this to be the case, they refuse to refund the two sums of £5 12s. each to Major Maul; and whether he will institute inquiries, and direct that the two sums of £5 12s. each be returned to Major Maul?
THE: CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): I must ask the hon. Gentleman to be good enough to ask the question after the recess.

MAINTENANCE OF URBAN ROADS.
MR. HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has considered the effect of the recent decision in the Warminster case (with respect to the maintenance of urban streets and footpaths); and whether, in view of the fact that during the passage of the Local Government Bill, ho more than once assured the House (see Hansard, vol. 327, pp, 1667, 1752), that it was not intended by the Act to throw upon the County Councils the whole cost of maintaining urban streets and footpaths, he will now consider the advisability of legislating to define the law and carry out the intention of the Local Government Act?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): I have as yet only seen a newspaper report of the judgment in the case referred to. From that report it would appear that the Court placed an interpretation on Sections 13 and 15 of the Highways and Locomotives Amendment Act, 1878, entirely different from that which was usually adopted by the Local Authorities prior to the passing of the Local Government Act. The judgment, as I understand it from that report, is that the liability to maintain footways devolved on the County Authority under the Act of 1878, and that as the powers of the County Authority under that Act have been transferred to the County Council, the like liability now attaches to them. I am not aware whether it is the intention to bring the question before the Court of Appeal. At present, I can only state that the question will be further considered by the Government when they have seen a full report of the judgment in the case.

MEETINGS OF POST OFFICE EMPLOYÉS.
MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is now aware that the police have, in certain towns in the Home Counties, made inquiries as to intended meetings of Post Office employés; whether the result of such police inquire's have been communicated to him; and if he will state through whom any correspondence or communication from the Post Office as to such inquiries has been made?
MR. RAIKES: NO, Sir, I am not. No such inquiries have been made with my knowledge, and I should certainly be aware of them if they had been made from the Post Office.
MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that instructions have in any and what case been forwarded from Scotland Yard to local police to inquire and report as to meetings of Post Office employés likely to be held in the Home Counties; whether these instructions have been sent to the local police at the request of the Postmaster General, or at whose request; and whether he will state the precise nature of the instructions to the police sent from Scotland Yard, and to what towns such instructions have been sent?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that no such instructions have in any case been sent to the local police from Scotland Yard.
MR. BRADLAUGH: In consequence of the reply of the right hon. Gentleman I beg to give notice that on the Estimates I will give details of cases in which the police have acted as I have stated, either with or without instructions.
MR. H. J. WILSON: Have there been any inquiries by the police? May there have been communications which would not be called instructions?
MR. MATTHEWS: I am not aware that there have been any. The information I have received is an absoluta negative of the question of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Brad-laugh). If a different question is put on the Paper I will answer it.
MR. BRADLAUGH: Would the words "no instructions" used by the Commissioner of Police include telegraphic directions from Scotland Yard to the local police?
MR. MATTHEWS: Undoubtedly, Sir. If any such telegraphic communications have been sent I ought to have been informed of it, and I should not have given a negative as an answer.

BOW CEMETERY.
MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he intends to take any action on the Petition of the Mile End Vestry about Bow Cemetery?
MR. MATTHEWS: The resolution of the Mile End Vestry, which was in favour of closing Bow Cemetery, was referred by me to the Inspector of Burial Grounds, and he reports that, though the cemetery is gradually filling up, there is still room for common graves to be made. The cemetery has been placed under regulations sufficient to prevent any injury to the public health, and the Inspector has instructions to satisfy himself, by occasional visits, that these regulations are duly and fully observed.

MALTESE MARRIAGES.
MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether many mixed marriages, that is to say, marriages between Protestants and Catholics, have been celebrated in Malta during the present century, especially by the English chaplains resident there; and whether the project of law which the British Government has announced is to be introduced in the Council of Malta will have the effect of invalidating such marriages, and of rendering their issue illegitimate?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FER-GUSSON,): It is believed that marriages between Protestants and Catholics have been celebrated by English chaplains in Malta, but that the same marriages have also been celebrated by the Roman Catholic priests. Care will be taken that the project of law to be
1684
introduced in the Council of Malta shall not have the effect of invalidating any past marriage.

THE RIDLEY COMMISSION.
MR. ROYDEN (Liverpool, W., Toxteth): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if it is intended that the provisions of the Treasury Order, dated 10th August, 1889, which gave effect to the recommendations of the Ridley Commission, and which are now under the consideration of the Treasury, on their application to the clerks of the Customs in London, will also be applied to the clerical staff of the Customs at Liverpool; and, if so, whether the Treasury will apply the same treatment to clerks of the present staff at both places whose positions are analogous?
THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): I must ask the hon. Gentleman to defer this question until the House meets on the Monday after the holidays.

THE CORPORATION"DESTRUCTOR."
MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the nuisance (to which his attention was drawn in June last) arising from noisome smoke issuing from the chimney of the "destructor" belonging to the Commissioners of Sewers of the City of London, situated at Lett's Wharf, still continues; that it was particularly offensive on the 15th instant; and that complaint has been made to the Lambeth Vestry by Mr. Shiel, Police Magistrate; and whether he will take further, and effectual, steps to abate the nuisance?
MR. RITCHIE: I am informed by the Commissioners of Sewers of the City of London that the inquiries which they have made lead to the conclusion that the noisome smoke nuisance complained of does not proceed from the chimney of the "destructor" belonging to them, which is situated at Lett's Wharf. The Vestry of Lambeth, within which parish is the wharf referred to, state that there appears to be little doubt that smoke issues from the chimney of the "destructor," which gives out a faint, sickly smell, but the Vestry have never been able to obtain from the Medical Officer of Health a statement that such smell is

1685
dangerous to health. In the absence of this evidence the Vestry have been unable to take any action, except to keep a watch on the wharf from time to time. Looking at these replies, I will direct one of the Inspectors of the Local Government Board to inquire and report to me on the subject.
MR. STAVELEY HILL: As the matter is one which is causing a good deal of feeling, will the right hon. Gentleman receive any Memorials upon it?
MR. RITCHIE: Certainly, Sir. I am glad at any time to receive communications bearing on matters connected with my Department.

SEA FISHERY COMMITTEE.
MR. ROWNTREE: I Leg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if, before publishing any Order for the formation of a Sea Fishery Committee for the coast from the Tees to the Donna Noth Beacon, he will consider the practicability of awarding at least two members to each considerable fishing port, so that the skilled fishermen of the ports may be represented on the Committee as well as the owners and other persons interested in the trade?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): The question of the representation of the fishermen does not form part of the Order creating the Sea Fisheries District. As soon as the Order shall have come into force, the County and Borough Councils will appoint one-half of the Committee out of their own body. The other half of the Committee will consist of fishery members; and in making their selection I am most anxious to secure the services of representatives of all fishing interests, including, of course, skilled and practical fishermen.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD—MEDICAL REPORTS.
MR. ROWNTREE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if arrangements can be made to furnish copies of the Medical Report of the Local Government Board to the Medical Officers of Health in the more important centres of population without
1686
imposing upon them the cost of procuring them as private individuals?
MR. RITCHIE: The Local Government Board cannot undertake to supply generally to the Medical Officers of Health of the more important centres of population copies of the Reports of the Medical Officer of the Board as suggested. At the same time, I am fully aware that the Reports referred to would be of considerable assistance to the Medical Officers of Health in connection with their duties, and I think that the Sanitary Authorities would be justified in purchasing copies for the use of the authorities and their officers.

WESTERN AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION BILL.
MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the great interest which is taken, not only in Western Australia but in all the other Australian Colonies, in the passing of the Western Australia Constitution Bill, he can state on what day the next stage of the Bill will be proceeded with?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): I am not yet in a position to state on what day the next stage of the Western Australia Constitution Bill will be taken.

SUGAR CONVENTION BILL.
SIR LYON PLAYFAIR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government consider that they have the power, and whether they have the intention, to ratify the Sugar Convention Bill without the previous consent of Parliament?
MR W. H. SMITH: It does not appear to us that the Sugar Convention can be ratified consistently with the obvious intention of its provisions until the legislation which is necessary to carry it into effect has received the sanction of Parliament.

THE GOVERNMENT LICENSING PROPOSALS.
MR. A. C. CORBETT: I beg to ask whether the Government have any further information regarding the public meeting in

1687
Bridgeton, which the President of the Local Government Board quoted as an indication of public sympathy with the Government proposals which conflicts with the facts stated in the following telegram:—
"From inquiries made find that it was publicans not public meeting in Bridgeton; about dozen present. Brown, the sender of telegram to Ritchie, is a publican.—(Signed) MACKAY."
SIR W. LAWSON: Are the Government prepared to make any statement on the subject?
MR. W. H. SMITH: I have no information on the subject. It is usual when an hon. Member asks a question of this character to give notice of it.

DISTRESS IN THE SOUDAN.
MR. HOWORTH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any information as to the appalling condition of the people at Suakin, Kassala, Berber, and elsewhere? Perhaps I may be allowed to read the following extracts from letters I have received:—
"You have no idea of the awful state the country is in. The population are actually starving, and the people are like living skeletons. The greatest misery is amongst the widows and children of the men we have killed, of whom there are over 100,000. Cannibalism has taken place; everything has been eaten; dogs, cats, rats, donkeys, snakes, lizards, old bones, and leather are eagerly devoured; and the stronger take by force from the weaker. I have seen a big boy seize a small one and try to strangle him for the food that was in his mouth. This is at Suakin. At Tokar things are worse. From 50 to 100 and sometimes more die daily. Kassala they say is still worse, whole families being found dead in their houses. At Gallabat and Gedair the population nearly cease to exist. At Berber, Shendy, and Metemmeh the same. At Halaib, Mahamed Ghoul, and Aghig the distress is also intense."
I beg to ask the Under Secretary whether, considering our national responsibility, we ought not to be prepared to take further measures to alleviate the distress, or whether an official communication cannot be made to the Lord Mayor to call a meeting to consider this exceptional and dire distress?
SIR J. FERGUSSON: The hon. Gentleman showed me the question as I came into the House. I answered a similar question a few days ago, and I
1688
then stated that the Government have every reason to believe that distress in the Soudan is extreme, principally owing to the failure of the crops in successive years—a failure that has produced a state of things with which the Government are unhappily acquainted in India when actual famine has occurred. Some of the figures of the hon. Member are, I think, exaggerated, but, notwithstanding, the Government are informed that there is extreme misery, and that many widows of persons killed in the war are in a state of destitution. The places in the interior are entirely beyond our jurisdiction or control. In the neighbourhood of Suakin the officials of the Egyptian Government are giving liberal supplies to the necessitous. The last account states that at the least 2,000 a day are being fed, and that the worst cases are being treated in the hospital. No doubt a great many deaths have occurred, and there is room for benevolence in the shape of relief; but, as regards the interior, it is not in the power of the British or of the Egyptian Government to give any relief.

THE BEHRING SEA FISHERIES.
MR. STAVELEY HILL: I wish to put a question to the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, of which I have given him private notice, namely, whether he has seen in the newspapers a telegram to the effect that a United States Revenue cutter has been ordered to cruise in the Behring Sea, and to dismantle any vessel violating the Statutes? I wish to know whether the British Government have given instructions for the protection of our vessels engaged in their legal trade?
SIR J. FERGUSSON: In answer to my hon. Friend, I can only say that as communications on this subject are still proceeding, I am not at present in a position to make any further statement with respect to it.
MR. S. HILL: In view of the grave public importance of the matter, I beg to give notice that I will bring it before the House on the Motion for Adjournment.

THE WHITSUNTIDE RECESS.
MR. ESSLEMONT: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will extend the

1689
same consideration to Scotland as he has to Ireland, and undertake that no Scotch business should be taken in the first week after the Recess? I wish, at the same time, to express my personal obligations to the right hon. Gentleman for the extension of the holidays.
MR. W. H SMITH: If it is the wish of hon. Members from Scotland that no Bill affecting Scotland should be taken during the first week I will endeavour to comply with it. It is probable that some measure may be taken that might refer in a general way to Scotland, but that would hardly come under the hon. Member's objection.
MR. B. ROWLANDS: When will the Tithes Bill be taken?
MR. W. H. SMITH: Probably on the first Thursday after the holidays.
MR. SEXTON: The Chancellor of the Exchequer promised to announce what course would be taken in regard to Supply after Whitsuntide.
MR. W. H. SMITH: So little time has elapsed since that statement was made by my right hon. Friend that the Government have been unable to consider the question, and I cannot state the exact course that will be taken.
MR. SEXTON: I will renew the question on the Motion for Adjournment.

MEETING AT NEW TIPPERARY.
MR. SEXTON: May I ask whether, in view of the extensive arrangements which have been made for the meeting at New Tipperary next Sunday, when many public men will be present, and excursion trains run, the Government intend to exercise their powers to suppress the meeting? I think it would probably be inconvenient, if not dangerous, to allow the matter to remain as it is.
MR. MADDEN: The Chief Secretary, in answering the question yesterday, gave all possible information on the subject, namely, that a meeting of a certain character could not be allowed. I understand that at the time my right hon. Friend gave that answer no formal announcement had been made as to the character of the meeting. The authorities must hold themselves free to act in the matter as they think best for the preservation of the peace of the locality.
MR. SEXTON: The House will agree that an intolerable situation is created. Everybody knows what has been arranged. Four Members of Parliament intend to address an open-air meeting of their constituents. I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to define what kind of meeting is to be prevented and what kind allowed.
MR. MADDEN: I would suggest that the hon. Gentleman should repeat the question on the Adjournment, when the Chief Secretary for Ireland will be in his place.
MR. SEXTON: Very well.
MR. C. GRAHAM: I wish to ask whether, if the people insist on assembling, force will be used to suppress the meeting; and, if so, whether that pillar of our civilisation, the Hotchkiss gun, will de employed?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

PUBLIC HOUSE LICENCES.
Return ordered—
"Showing the number of Public Houses that have a certificate from Licensing Justices, but whose owners, in respect to whom the certificates have been granted, have not applied to the Excise for an Excise Licence."—(Mr. Labouehere.)

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 220.)
Lords Amendments to be considered upon Monday 2nd June, and to be printed. [Bill 317.]
MOTION.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (GOVERNMENT BUSINESS.)
  (2.45.) MR. W. H. SMITH: I rise to move the Resolution which stands upon the Paper in my name, namely,—
  "That after Whitsuntide, unless the House otherwise order, the House do meet on Tuesday and Friday at Three of the clock, and that Government business have priority on Tuesday; that Standing Order 11 be suspended, and the provisions of Standing Order 56 be extended to the other days of the week."
  I can assure the House that no explanation is necessary for my making this proposal. The circumstances of public business require it, and I hope it will be accepted without much discussion. I observe that the hon. Member for Crewe

  1691
  (Mr. M'Laren) has an Amendment on the Paper to exclude from the operation of the Resolution Tuesday, June 3, so that the Motion on the extension of the franchise to women may be discussed. I would suggest, however, to the hon. Member that instead of moving an abstract Resolution on that subject he should, early next Session, bring in a Bill dealing with the question, and so test the feeling of the House in that way.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That after Whitsuntide, unless the House otherwise order, the House do meet on Tuesday and Friday at Three of the clock, and that Government Business have priority on Tuesday; that Standing Order 11 be suspended, and the provisions of Standing Order 56 be extended to the other days of the week."—(Mr. William Henry Smith.)
  (2.48.) MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN (Stirling, &c.): I am very much surprised that no reason has been given for a Motion which, at this period of the Session is absolutely unprecedented. But, while expressing my astonishment on that point, I am bound to say that, having regard to the deplorable condition of the public business, my right hon. Friends on this side of the House have already indicated, in what passed yesterday, that they do not intend to oppose the demand of the Government. The condition of business in the House is indeed deplorable, and I do not think that it has been so bad for many years. Up to now only six nights of the Session have been devoted to Supply, whilst in 1888, which was supposed to have been a particularly backward year, eight nights were devoted to Supply before the end of May, so that matters are really worse now than they were in 1888. But let me point out the great difference between this year and 1888. In 1888 the legislation of the House was sympathised with and generally approved of, while this year, unfortunately, the Government have so contrived that every Bill of the first class which has been introduced is not only objectionable in its details, but objectionable in its main objects, so that behind the legislative business there is no such momentum as in 1888. I am very much mistaken if even the supporters of the Government, to whose loyalty and constancy I am
  1692
  willing to pay a tribute, do not give their support with much reluctance and with very grave misgivings as to the wisdom of the measures for which they vote. The obvious remedy for the present backward state of business is for the Government to sacrifice certain of their measures, and they will have to do so before the end of the Session. But, in the meantime, considering that the necessary business of Supply and the whole condition of affairs are so backward, I do not think it is altogether unreasonable on the part of the Government to make a large claim upon the indulgence of the House. Nor can I forget that upon private Members' nights we have had a number of counts out, which further strengthens the claim of the Government. But while I am not prepared to resist the Motion, I must protest against the Resolution being looked upon as a precedent, inasmuch as it is only accepted in consequence of the backward state of the public business, which is due to the mismanagement of the Government. I am sorry that the Government have not resolved to take Day Sittings on Tuesdays and on Fridays, and to devote the Evening Sittings on those days to Supply. However, as the Government have decided otherwise I will not raise an objection to the Motion on that score. I do not think that hon. Members will vote against the Government proposal, however much they may dislike it, because I think that, in the circumstances of the Session, the proposal is justifiable.
  MR. SEXTON: I wish to move an Amendment to the proposal of the Government which will come in earlier than the Amendment of the hon. Member for Crewe. I wish to point out that if the proposal of the Government is adopted there will be no opportunity for bringing forward grievances. Although £7,000,000 have already been voted in Supply, not a single penny of Irish Supply has been taken up to the present time, and, therefore, no regular opportunity has been afforded for discussing Irish grievances. The hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) holds a strong view that the proposal of the Government should not be assented to unless an undertaking is given that Supply shall be taken regularly once a week after Whitsuntide. As a matter

  1693
  of protest, I shall oppose the Motion, unless the right hon. Gentleman gives an assurance that after Whitsuntide Supply will be taken at least once a week, and I beg to move to amend the Resolution by inserting after the word "Whitsuntide" that "Supply be taken at least one day in every week."
  Amendment proposed, after the word "Whitsuntide," to insert the words "Supply be taken at least one day in each week and."—(Mr. Sexton.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am sorry the hon. Member has thought it necessary to move a formal Amendment. It is one to which I cannot consent, because, in the making of arrangements for business, it is necessary the Government should have their hands free, so that they may adopt the course that is most convenient to the House, as a whole, and most conducive to the progress of business. The arrangement for the first week after the recess includes two days for Supply, at least—Monday and Tuesday. I am sure the House will see it is impossible for the Government to have their hands tied by a Resolution of this kind. The Government wish, as far as they can, to consider the convenience of hon. Members. The suggestion that the House should meet at 3 o'clock meets, I understand, with the concurrence of a majority of Members, for many Members rather object to coming down at 2 o'clock and again at 9 o'clock. This is a matter about which the Government have no strong feeling; but it is one they are bound to consider with reference to the conduct of business and the convenience of the House as a whole. In these circumstances I trust the hon. Gentleman will accept my assurance that I will endeavour to make progress in Supply as rapidly as I can.
  MR. SEXTON: It is not rapidity I ask for, but regularity.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: At all events, the hon. Gentleman will see that whoever is in charge of the business could not accept a positive direction of this kind, under which it would be absolutely impossible to conduct the business. When the House gets into Committee on a Bill, I believe the House is in favour of pro-
  1694
  ceeding with it from day to day until the Bill is through Committee. The Government will at all times be glad to give the most careful consideration to suggestions from any part of the House with a view to making such arrangements as will, on the whole, best meet the convenience of hon. Members.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: In making future arrangements for the conduct of public business in this House there are two Government measures to which I wish to draw special attention. One is a Bill which has been sent down from the House of Lords—the Indian Councils Bill—in regard to which the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury is under a specific pledge to the House. I will only remind the House that I refrained from raising any question on this subject by Amendment to the Address on the distinct understanding that at least a real opportunity would be afforded for discussion. One of the matters which I should have felt it my duty to urge was the question of the extension of the Legislative Councils of India and the introduction of some principle of representation in reference to members. Although that Bill came down to this House from the House of Lords before Easter it has never yet been put down on the Paper as the First Order or even as an early Order. I am not prepared to deny that there is great pressure upon the Government in reference to public business, but I would venture to suggest that some day soon after the re-assembling of the House after the Whitsunside recess might be fixed for the Second Reading of the Bill, so that hon. Members may know when it will be taken, and might be prevented from coming down day after day, simply because the Bill is on the Paper, with very little prospect of its being brought on. The question is a very grave one, affecting, as it does, the interests of more than 210,000,000 persons in India, and as I refrained from raising any Indian question upon the Address I think I am entitled to make this demand. All that I ask is that the Bill may be taken on an early day, and that a couple of days' notice may be given, so that Members may not come down fruitlessly. The next measure is the Employers' Liability Bill. The Government have

  1695
  been under a pledge, repeated for years in succession, to amend the law, but they have made no real effort to do so. In 1888 they did introduce a Bill which went before a Grand Committee, but it was not introduced at all last year, and in its present state it would raise more discussion than the earlier Bill did. The Bill has been mentioned three times in three Queen's Speeches, and the Government ought to let the House know whether it is to be persevered with now.
  MR. MONRO FERGOSON (Leith, &c.): May I ask what is going to be done about Scotch Private Bill legislation?
  MR. C. GRAHAM: I wish to support, as strongly as I can, the claim for time to discuss the Employers' Liability Bill, and also to urge that the Miners' Eight Hours Bill should receive some attention. Both of these are measures of vital importance to the working classes, and at the earliest moment they ought to be discussed by the House, in order to convince the working classes that we do sometimes occupy ourselves with their affairs. The Miners' Eight Hours Bill has also been introduced for three successive years, and it is a measure upon which we have had a distinct expression of opinion from a large majority of the persons concerned. A conference of miners, representing 350,000 men, have unanimously declared in favour of the Bill. Then, again, there is an important measure which affects the extension of the Parliamentary Franchise to Women. On this side of the House we have received a whip to-day asking us to support the Motion of the hon. Member for Crewe to secure a discussion of this measure on the 3rd of June.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is now discussing a Motion in regard to which there is a notice already on the Paper.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I am not convinced that there are a majority of miners in favour of the Eight Hours Bill. In reference, however, to the remarks of the First Lord of the Treasury, I fear that he does not quite appreciate the motive with which the Amendment has been moved by the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sex-
  1696
  ton), which is that Supply should be fairly taken at a reasonable period of the Session, and not put off to the close of the Session, to be taken under pressure and in a perfunctory manner. What is desired is that Supply should not be put off until the fag end of the Session, and then run through in one day.
  MR. PHILIPPS: I must remind the Government that hopes have been held out that the Eight Hours Bill would have been discussed before this period of the Session. There are many thousands besides miners who wish to have this question discussed.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I do not believe that business has ever before been so backward at this period of the year. In the last three Sessions the average number of days required for Supply has been 37; and last year at this date 20 had been already given to Supply, and in the previous year 10 had been devoted to it, in spite of which it was necessary to have an Autumn Session, in which 22 days were given to Supply in the months of November and December. In the present year only seven days have been devoted to Committee of Supply, and between the present time and August 20 there are only 44 days which could be devoted to Government business. If 30 of these are given to Supply, to make up the customary 37 days, only 14 will be left for other Government business. There ought to be an understanding that a reasonable proportion of the remaining time will be given to Supply. Personally, I should have been glad if the Morning and Evening Sittings were continued—[Cries of "No, no !"] but at least one day a week ought to be given to Supply. I hope the leader of the House will take the figures I have given into consideration. Our real difficulty has been caused by the ambitious Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the introduction into the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill of highly contentious matters, which have already occupied the attention of the House for 11 days.
  (3.20.) The House divided:—Ayes 53; Noes 117.—(Div. List, No. 107.)
  Main Question again proposed.
  MR. M'LAREN: I beg to move as an Amendment, after "Tuesday," to insert—
  "Except on Tuesday, June 3, when the first Notice of Motion, Parliamentary Franchise (Extension to Women), shall take precedence."
  I am obliged to the First Lord of the Treasury for the kindly tone in which he referred to this Amendment, but I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the advice which he has given to me is advice which I cannot possibly accept. If my Motion were to be carried, the subject to which it refers would certainly be considerably advanced in Parliamentary importance. It should not be forgotten that earlier in the Session—on March 4th—I obtained precedence by the Ballot for a Motion similar to the one which now stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for the Leigh Division of Lancashire (Mr. C. Wright), but the exigencies of the business of the Government rendered it necessary that I should give up that day. On that occasion I asked the First Lord to promise that he would not again take our day away, and he said he would not do so mischievously or wilfully. He is now breaking the spirit of that promise, for there is no need to take this evening. I will suggest instead that the Government should take Wednesday, June 4, which is the Derby Day, for their business instead of taking four hours on the previous evening, which would do them very little good indeed. The opportunity is not taken away by the mere exigencies of public business. There is always what I must call an intrigue to prevent the subject of Women's Suffrage being discussed, and it is a matter of common notoriety that the senior Member for Northampton has a full share in making these arrangements. I do not say that the First Lord of the Treasury knows of it; perhaps these things are purposely kept from his knowledge, in order that he may be in a position to deny them. But they are within the knowledge of his Whips. I now press the Government to leave us one evening of four hours. We have had great ill-fortune with this Bill. In 1887, it had the first place on the Paper on July 20th, and that day was taken from us by the Govern-
  1698
  ment, on the plea of the exigencies of public business, although they refrained from giving us a day later on in the Session. In 1888 we had a very good place on June 6th, and we lost that day owing to the operation of the new Rule under which Bills not read a second time before Whitsuntide lost precedence. In 1889, one of my hon. Friends had first place for this Bill on the Wednesday before Good Friday, and a Memorial, signed by 170 Members, was presented to the First Lord, asking him to-allow us to sit on that Wednesday. I am aware it is not a usual thing to sit on that day: but the Government have no hesitation in appointing Wednesday Sittings when they desire to get a stage of the Coercion Bill, although they seem to hold very different views when a Women's-Suffrage Bill is under discussion. On the 25th April this year this Resolution stood second on the Paper, the first Motion thereon having reference to the duties on dried fruits. The Member who had that Motion on the Paper persisted in keeping-it down in order to prevent the Women's Suffrage discussion taking place, though his subject had been dealt with in the Budget, and as I did not see why we should try to keep the House for him under those circumstances, I consequently took this Motion off the Paper, and immediately I had done so that hon. Member removed his Motion. I have reason to believe a similar arrangement has been made in regard to Tuesday, 3rd June. Now, I think we are making a reasonable request in asking the Government to-defer the operation of the Motion they are proposing now until Friday, 6th June. The right hon. Gentleman, in moving his Resolution, said that four hours was, no doubt, a very short time, but a great deal of business could be done in it if the House only chose. Now, the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that on the 4th June we are going to waste six hours by not sitting on that day, which is Derby Day; and I will make a practical suggestion to him, that the Government should take their business on Wednesday, the 4th June, and give us this Tuesday. The right hon. Gentleman refuses. That only shows what a sham

  1699
  is his plea about the necessity of taking our four hours. We are now three or four months from the end of the Session. We desire to get a discussion on this question. It has been agitated a very long time by a large number of women throughout the country, and I appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite to do us this justice, and allow us to debate the matter. One of the women who have been most actively engaged in this movement asked me the other day why we were prevented having a Debate—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is not adhering to his Amendment.
  MR. M'LAREN: Well, then, Sir, I will simply say I ask the House to pass my Amendment simply as an act of justice. As the subject has been deliberately shelved by this Parliament, I intend to divide the House.
  Amendment proposed, in line 4, after the word "Tuesday," to insert the words—
  "Except on Tuesday, 3rd June, when the first Notice of Motion, Parliamentary Franchise (Extension to Women), shall take precedence."—(Mr. Walter M'Laren.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. WEBB: I rise to second the Amendment, as this is a subject in which I take great interest. I desire to put forward some reasons why this question should be discussed. There are a large number of reasons—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That line of argument is not in order.
  MR. WEBB: The question has been before the House on many occasions since 1870, and on many grounds it is desirable—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. CREMER: It is not often that I indulge in the luxury of voting with the Government, but on this occasion I shall certainly avail myself of the opportunity of going into the Lobby with them. I do not share the views which have been expressed by the hon. Member for Crewe. There are questions of far greater importance requiring debate than that of
  1700
  female suffrage. For instance, only the other night, by tactics which some of us took occasion to condemn, we were prevented discussing the grievances of a large number of working men—a subject which was to have been brought forward by the hon. Member for Woolwich. Then, again, there is the registration of voters question. Many of us—most of us I believe—desire to get rid of the anomalies that surround the present system; but we have never yet, either by Bill or by Resolution, succeeded in getting a day to consider that question, which is of supreme importance. The hon. Gentleman is, therefore, not alone in the difficulty of which he complains. In the early part of the Session I was fortunate enough to get a good place for the consideration of a Registration of Voters Bill which I have brought in for four years, but the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury deprived me of the opportunity. I had just as much right to complain as has the hon. Member for Crewe, but I did not come down to the House with a whine on that occasion, but have ever since been trying for another chance to bring it forward. Then, again, there is the question of the water supply of London, which vitally affects the millions of people of London, and which we are anxious to get discussed. Many other questions also press for solution, all of them of far greater importance than that which the hon. Member for Crewe is anxious for the House to consider.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I intend to indulge in the same luxury as the hon. Member who has just spoken and to vote with the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe ascribes to design what really was chance. It is a mere chance that the hon. Gentleman has no opportunity of bringing forward his Resolution. As one of his own fair clients, the Duchess of Gerolstein, said, it is fatality. The hon. Member has accused the First Lord of the Treasury and myself of intriguing in order to prevent this Resolution from being brought forward. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord will allow me to protest in his name that there has been no sort of intrigue. The position of the hon. Member for Crewe

  1701
  is, I repeat, due solely to chance. He has referred to the fact that on one occasion a Memorial was presented to the First Lord asking him to pursue the exceptional course of making a House on the Wednesday before Good Friday, and he suggests that, owing to certain intrigues, that privilege was refused him. The hon. Gentleman forgets that there was another Paper signed—and signed by a large number of Members—against his proposal, and that, possibly, will account for the refusal of the First Lord to adopt his suggestion. Again, the hon. Gentleman complains that on the occasion on which he had secured second place for his Motion, the hon. Member for Glasgow would not yield to him and withdraw his Resolution upon dried fruits. He also states that, immediately he had taken his Motion off the Paper, the hon. Member for Glasgow also removed his, and this he quotes as another instance of intriguing against him. But the hon. Member for Glasgow had a reason for what he did. He spoke to me on the subject He pointed out to me that he did not want to be interrupted in the middle of his speech by a count, and he asked what course he should take. I told him I thought it was a pity that he should only be able to deliver a portion of his speech, and that it might possibly be as well for him to choose a better moment for bringing it forward. That is why he took it off the Paper. Now, I am a person of principle. I have always opposed Ministers taking private Members' nights, and, consequently, I am opposed to this Motion of the Government. But I have another principle upon which I act, and that is, that, when once such a Motion is carried, it is not wise to make exceptions in favour of anyone. I sympathise greatly with my hon. Friend in his disappointment; but I cannot consistently support his Amendment, because if it were carried it would be my duty to move a series of Amendments, asking that about 20 subjects should be exempted from the operation of this rule. Under these circumstances, I think it is no use further debating this Amendment, and that we may as well take a Division on the proposal of the First Lord of the Treasury. The hon. Member for Crewe has simply been
  1702
  unducky, and he will have to grin and bear it.
  SIR R. KNIGHTLEY: I think it is time some protest was made against this fresh raid on the rights of private Members. We have some right to complain of the mode in which this Motion has been brought forward. Had we had fair notice we might have secured an attendance of Members sufficient to defeat it; but as it is, we are completely powerless. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury has got us by the throat I do appeal, however, to that amiable garrotter to make this one exception to his Resolution.
  (4.0.) The House divided:—Ayes 32; Noes 145.—(Div. List, No. 108.)
  Main Question again proposed.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I desire to thank the First Lord of the Treasury and the Government on behalf of a great number of Members greatly interested in the Tithes Question for having promised to put down the Tithes Bill for the first Thursday after the Recess. I hope I may take that promise to imply a determination on the part of the Government to pass the measure with all due despatch. I am not disposed to blame-the Government for having so long delayed progress with the Bill. I know the circumstances of the last few days have made it impossible to redeem the promise made that the Bill should be taken before Whitsuntide. At the same time, however, we cannot, in face of the history of the question, view without some anxiety the postponement of the Bill until a later day than was originally promised. Although I have every reason to suppose my right hon. Friend intends to pass the measure with all due despatch, in consideration of the fact that there is considerable agitation in the country on the question—and in matters of this kind, when agitation once begins, it is better to have the question settled one way or the other—I urge upon the First Lord to risk nothing. I hope we are to understand that the Bill will be passed this Session.
  MR. F. S. STEVENSON: The right hon. Gentleman has not said whether the Tithes Bill will be the first Order on that day.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I shall not put it down late.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Is it to be the business?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Certainly. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) thinks that the state of business is duo to the fact that the Government have not proposed measures entirely agreeable to the Opposition. It is very singular that they have not done so. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite have themselves done what the Government now propose for the promotion of public business. I will leave it to the right hon. Gentleman to say how far the prolonged Debates upon the Budget Bill and other measures of the Government will account for the condition of business. The Government cannot propose measures to Parliament with reference solely to the views of the Opposition. They must have regard to what they believe to be for the public interest. I recognise the claim of the hon. Member (Mr. Bradlaugh) for the early consideration of the Indian Councils Bill, and it shall be brought forward so as to give him an opportunity of stating his views upon it. With regard to the Employers' Liability Bill, I desire that it shall be read a second time and considered again by a Committee, and I hope the result will be, what the Government very much desire, to settle the question in the interest of all parties. Supply will be taken on the Monday and the Education Estimates on the Tuesday after the holidays.
  (4.16). Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved—
  "That after Whitsuntide, unless the House otherwise order, the House do meet on Tuesday and Friday at Three of the clock, and that Government business have priority on Tuesday; that Standing Order 11 be suspended, and the provisions of Standing Order 56' he extended to the other days of the week."

CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL.—(No. 231.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  SIR W. LAWSON: I do not want to occupy the time of the House unduly, and I do not want to prevent hon. Members getting away for their holidays, but some hon. Members on this side of the House feel that on every occasion they must oppsose this Bill. They look upon it as part and parcel of the whole scheme for the compensation of publicans and the endowment of public house property. They can see the evil which this Bill is already doing. Accounts are arriving from the country as to the increase in the value of public house property since the measures of the Government have been before the House; and it is clear that if this goes on there will be a very heavy burden placed on the public. Two days ago the President of the Local Government Board said that he had received a telegram giving an account of a public meeting in Glasgow in support of the measure. The public meeting turned out to be a meeting of 12 publicans in a back parlour. That is the public opinion in support of the Government on this occasion. We would consider ourselves to be absolute traitors to our constituents and to the public good if we did not on every possible occasion offer every possible opposition to the passing of the most mischievous and most abominable measure which even this Government has proposed. I beg to move that the Bill be read a third time this day six months.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Sir Wilfrid Lawson.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I merely wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer why it is

  1705
  a Return I moved for 10 days ago showing the military expenditure during the present year has not been already laid before the House? It is as well we should have had the Return before the Third Reading of this Bill, because I think it will be found we are spending for military purposes £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 over and above the amount provided for by taxation.
  MR. WINTERBOTHAM: I had no opportunity on the Second Reading of entering my protest against the Bill. I therefore wish to join with my hon. Friend the Member for Cockermouth (Sir W. Lawson) in opposing the Bill. I look upon the Bill as introducing a principle most disastrous and most mischievous. I am informed by a leading man in the City that the shares of those large Brewery Companies interested largely in tied public house property are going up day by day since the policy of the Government on this point has been initiated. Whatever the good intentions of the Government may be, the actual effect of their policy is seen in the augmented value of public house property and brewery shares.
  MR. T. FRY: As I, too, had not an opportunity upon the Second Reading, I wish at this stage to join in the protest against this Bill. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer must now be satisfied that public opinion is growing exceedingly fast against this measure. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will find time on Saturday week to attend the Hyde Park meeting and see the large numbers who will flock to the Park to protest against the Government proposals. Reference has been made to the character of the public meeting held in Glasgow. To some extent the same remarks will apply to the meeting of the Church of England Temperance Society. Hon. Members have read that Canon Wilber-force has said he will never again go to a meeting of that body until the Council have purged themselves from the invitation which they have issued to their members to support the licensing proposals of the Government.
  MR. SEXTON: The right hon. Gentleman has promised a Select Committee to consider the financial arrangements as between the three countries. I suppose the Motion for the appointment of a Committee will appear in the Orders of the Day immediately after Whitsuntide. As to the Irish share of the money, I should also like to have a Return showing how the money is to be distributed during the first financial year, and eventually between the several counties and the corporations as soon as the principles of Local Government are extended to Ireland.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): I am sorry that it has not been possible to present the Return asked for by the right hon. Member for Bradford. I had hoped to present the Return yesterday, but the right hon. Gentleman is aware that it refers to Navy expenditure as well, and this involves dealing with two Departments instead of one. It has been found that it is not possible to follow exactly the wording of the Return, or to give the figures in the form in which they are asked for. There is not much alteration, however. It is extremely important in presenting the Returns to remember that the Treasury become responsible for the accuracy of the figures, and we, therefore, ask for a little indulgence, in order that we may have time to examine the figures carefully. I hope to be able to present the Return on the first day after the recess.
  MR. S. GEDGE: Reference has been made to the action of the Church of England Temperance Society in this matter, and to the secession of the Rev. Canon Wilberforce. As everybody knows, Canon Wilberforce is a very extreme man. The action of the Society has been dictated by sound common sense, and by an earnest desire to promote true sobriety and temperance in every part of the country. It was because they recognised that the Bill was an honest and well-devised effort in that direction that they were glad to support it. If, as is alleged brewery shares have gone up since the introduction of this Bill, the fact is solely due to the tactics of the Opposition. It is because of their constant misrepresentations of the scheme

  1707
  that people outside who have not closely-studied the Bills believe their statements to be true, and that the Government really propose to compensate the publicans. Believing these misrepresentations, they naturally rush to buy the shares. They will find they are mistaken, and that the Bill does not propose compensation. The scheme is voluntary, and need not be put into operation at all by the County Councils unless they like.
  CAPTAIN VERNEY: I take the opportunity of expressing my opinion that there is no more hollow, unsecure Society to be found in England than the Church of England Temperance Society. I do not know of a single instance in which of two candidates before a constituency, the one in favour of temperance principles and the other not, the Church of England Temperance Society gave its support to the temperance candidate. I have never heard of a single instance. Canon Farrar has referred to the fact that of the 12 working-class Representatives in this House who are temperance men not one received support from the Church of England Temperance Society.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I do not know whether it is expected that I should answer the questions that have been put. I cannot undertake that the names of the Committee shall be put upon the Notice Paper immediately after Whitsuntide. The nominations and terms of reference will require a good deal of reflection. The hon. Member will recall to mind that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Morley) expressed some doubt whether the Committee could be appointed this Session. We shall do our best for this Session, and, if the Committee cannot be-appointed at once, at all events, we will proceed without delay to put together the information to be laid before the Committee. As to the Return asked for, I will communicate with my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland, but, of course, the points mentioned can be raised on the Local Taxation Bill.
  MR. SEXTON: It will be rather late then to enter upon it.
  MR. GOSCHEN: Well, it shall be provided at the earliest possible date. I will confer with my right hon. Friend on the subject.
  MR. HENEAGE: I only wish to say, in regard to the hollowness of the Church of England Temperance Society, that I think there is something more hollow in the declamations against the Society by hon. Members who support the hon. Baronet the Member for Cockermouth (Sir W. Lawson). Looking over the Amendment Paper I find the only Amendments of importance standing in the name of the hon. Member for Barrow (Mr. Caine) are those which emanate from the Church of England Temperance Society.
  (4.35.) The House divided:—Ayes 141; Noes 67.—(Div. List, No. 109.)
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) (PLEURO-PNEUMONIA) BILL.—(No. 168.)
  As amended, considered.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. CHAPLIN,): The new clause I have to propose has relation to the commencement of the Act. I have named the 1st of September next, on the assumption that the Bill will receive the Royal Assent by the end of June, and thus an interval of two months will elapse before it comes into operation.
  New Clause, "This Act shall come into operation on the first day of September one thousand eight hundred and ninety," read a first and second time, and added to the Bill.
  MR. CRILLY: In moving the new clause, of which I have given notice, I need not detain the House beyond a few minutes. I am, glad to say that when the Bill was passing through Committee the right hon. Gentleman showed a certain amount of sympathy with the question which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Longford and myself, and promised to meet us as far as he could on the Report stage of the Bill. This new clause proposes to put some limitation upon the

  1709
  powers and duties of the officers who may be appointed under the Act. As the Bill at present stands those powers are absolutely undefined; but we want to provide that those who carry out the provisions of the Bill shall take action within a certain time, and practically the right hon. Gentleman has assented to the first part of the clause, for I understand he proposes to insert -1 days in Subsection 6 as the period within which the powers of compulsory slaughter shall be carried into effect; but what I want the right hon. Gentleman to do is, when the slaughter has taken effect, to declare the area free from infection as soon as possible. Suppose the slaughter has taken place within the 21 days, and it is found that the slaughtered cattle were actually not suffering from pleuro-pnoumonia at all, but were perfectly free from that disease, then I say there should be no delay in declaring the area free from the disease. Without some limitation of time, that will happen which happens under the existing Act, that the officials will allow a great number of days to pass without taking action at all, simply from thoughtlessness or carelessness, and dairymen and others will thus be subjected to an unnecessary amount of expense and annoyance. I by no means insist on the two days mentioned in the Amendment if the right hon. Gentleman thinks that a longer interval is necessary; but, at all events, there should not be an unlimited time left open. Then the other branch of my clause refers to the other contingency, that after slaughter it appears that the cattle were infected with the disease. Here I propose that, in the same way, there shall be a limit to the ban which is placed upon the area or place. Upon the best advice I can get, it appears that 56 days is a sufficient interval wherein to decide that infection has disappeared after the diseased animals have been slaughtered, and I provide that the loss and annoyance to the proprietor shall not have an indefinite continuance. It is too often the case that in legislation on this subject the interests of the owners is lost sight of, and the officials are left too free a hand. The right hon. Gentleman has shown sympathy with our object in inserting the 21 days' limit in the first instance, and I hope he will see his way to meeting
  1710
  us so far as to fix some definite limit within which the declaration shall be made.
  New Clause—
  "The Board of Agriculture shall, within five days from the putting in force of the powers given them by Sub-section 6, Section 16, of the principal Act, cause all suspected cattle to be slaughtered.

  (1.) Upon such slaughter being carried into effect, should it appear that such suspected cattle were not affected with pleuro-pneumonia then the Board of Agriculture shall within two days declare by order any field, shed, yard, or other place, where such suspected cattle may have been, free from pleuropneumonia;

  (2.) Upon such slaughter, should it appear that such suspected cattle were affected with pleuro-pneumonia, then at the end of 56 days from the date of such slaughter the Board of Agriculture shall declare by order any field, shed, yard, or other place, where such suspected cattle may have been, free from pleuro-pneu-monia,"

  —brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed "That the Clause be read a second time."
  MR. SEXTON: I join with my hon. Friend in recognition of the spirit with which the right hon. Gentleman has endeavoured to meet our wishes in providing that the decision as to exercising the powers of slaughter shall be carried out in a reasonable time. These powers having been carried out, it is reasonable that the declaration of infection should not be indefinitely continued in either contingency, whether the disease is found not to have existed or whether there is proof that it did exist. At present there is a minimum period within which the area cannot be declared free, and if the right hon. Gentleman thinks that under all circumstances it would not be safe to limit that period we do not seek to alter it, but, on the other hand, I agree with my hon. Friend there should be some maximum period within which the declaration of freedom from infection should be made.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I am glad to find hon. Members approve of the Amendment I have placed upon the Paper proposing the limit of 21 days, and which I proposed with a view to

  1711
  meeting what, I think, wore reasonable objections raised. Now, as to the first point raised in the present Amendment, that if animals are slaughtered, and it is subsequently found that they were not suffering from the disease, then the locality shall be declared free within two days, that contemplates a contingency which it is almost impossible can arise, because no slaughter could take place unless there was reason to suppose the disease existed. It is true that a number of animals suspected of disease might be slaughtered, but I do not think that circumstances could arise under which a general slaughter could be ordered, unless it was proved that some animals were infected with the disease, and the disease can always be detected. Then, as regards the second contingency with which the clause purposes to deal, the period of time within which it shall be obligatory upon the authorities to declare the locality free. This matter has been arranged, and is now carried out under the Act of 1878, and I have not found that the arrangements are defective, or that serious complaints have arisen of the administration under that Act. So many contingencies, so many conditions may arise known only to experts, who have to put into operation the provisions of the Act, that it is important to leave the officials the widest discretion. As a matter of fact, I am of opinion that to accept this second part of the clause might be to place the infected locality in a worse position. One good reason submitted to me is this:—A man in buying stock very often buys from one herd, and the stock when sent home are perhaps distributed over two or three farms. A case of disease breaks out in an animal in one locality, and the animal there being slaughtered, and within 56 days the place being declared free, what is the result? Immediately other stock are imported from the other two farms, with, perhaps, the consequence that there is a fresh outbreak of disease, among animals from the same herd originally. There is every desire on the part of the Board to administer the Act with the greatest possible consideration for the convenience of all concerned, but I am strongly impressed with the importance of leaving the widest discretion possible
  1712
  to those who have the responsibility of carrying out the Act, and I hope the hon. Member will not think it necessary to press the Motion.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: What I would point out is that we should secure uniformity of action and the cooperation of the different authorities in the boroughs and counties. That is far more important, I think, than laying down a hard and fast line. It is to be deprecated that while one Local Authority is doing its duty another one should be acting carelessly.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. CRILLY: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has an Amendment on the Paper which covers mine, I do not think it necessary to propose that which I have on the Paper. I am quite sure that when the Bill becomes law it will be carried out with spirit by the right hon. Gentleman, and that local officers will be subjected to a supervision which will free the owners of cattle from unnecessary delay.
  MR. SEXTON: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would have no objection to issuing a Memorandum to the local officials.
  MR. CHAPLIN: Yes.
  Amendments made.
  Amendment proposed, in Clause 5, page 3, line 23, to leave out the word "General," and insert the words "Cattle Pleuro-Pneumonia."—(Mr. Chaplin.)
  MR. SEXTON: I believe the effect of this Amendment will be to enable the special losses incurred by certain Unions in Ireland, especially by the North and South Dublin Unions, to be defrayed out of the moneys provided by this Act. I should be glad to be assured of that fact.
  MR. CHAPLIN: That is the effect, for the reason that much of the work to be accomplished has already been done.
  Question, "That the word 'general' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Question, "That the words 'cattle pleuro pneumonia' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: I only wish to make one observation. I think there is one defect, though I thoroughly approve of the principle of the Bill. The Lord Advocate is not in his place to answer for Scotland. We have three alternatives—the local taxes, the taxation of the Nationalities, and—which the Government have been good enough to step in with—the Imperial Treasury. To that extent I take this opportunity of saying that I think the measure is defective.
  MR. CRILLY: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has consented to send out a Memorandum to insist that the work under the Act shall not be delayed. I have received a telegram this morning which gives an instance of the vexatious loss caused by official delay.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: I am very much obliged to the House for allowing me to move that the Bill be read a third time. I readily undertake to issue the Memorandum to local officials.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

ALLOTMENTS ACT (1887) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 147.)
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clause 4.
CAPTAIN VERNEY: I beg to move in Clause 4, page 2, line 27, at end, to add"whose deliberations shall be public." I do not think it likely that the President of the Local Government Board has the smallest idea how this clause will work; and I dare say he does not know much of the composition of County Councils. I have got a little information about the Bucks County Council, and who are likely to be the Committee to deal with allotments, one piece of information the right hon. Gentleman will be very glad to have. The Bucks County Council consists of three-fourths of Conservatives and one-fourth of Liberals, and I am very proud to know that the Liberals come from the constituency which I have the honour to represent, who are the gentlemen who are going to form the Committee and whose deliberations are to be private. I find no less than 40 Guardians on the
1714
Buckinghamshire County Council out of 68 Members. There are 13 elected Guardians and 27 ex officio Guardians. These men are not likely to wish to upset the decision of the Rural Sanitary Authority, who are the Guardians. What check have we got upon them? The only check is publicity. If these men are going to try to shirk the duty imposed upon them, as I believe they will, it will only be a natural result. They do not wish to come to a decision against the Guardians, who have already done all they can to prevent the men getting their allotments. Therefore, I think we want publicity. Now, then, we have got, to begin with, out of 68 members, 40 Guardians. Out of the remaining 28 members of the Committee there are 10 tradesmen, eight gentlemen, three brewers, two farmers, two soldiers, two parsons, and one labourer. It is a singular thing that there are only two farmers out of that rural constituency on the County Council. Who are likely to be the gentlemen appointed? According to the Act they must be, I think, more than one-third of the County Council. That is not more than 27. That number would make a cumbrous Committee. Unless there is something in the Bill, the Committee will be able to hold its meetings in private. I suppose they would only appoint a small Committee, and the question is, what class of men are they likely to appoint? I should hope they would appoint some labourers upon it; but they are more likely to appoint Magistrates and gentlemen resident in the district, who, in the future as in the past, will do their utmost to prevent the labourers obtaining allotments under the compulsory powers of the Bill. ["No, no !"] Hon. Gentlemen opposite say "no," but I can assure them I have been informed by different gentlemen that they strongly disapprove of these compulsory powers. I do not wonder at this. It is quite natural that they should disapprove of these powers, and do their best to oppose them. They say: "If you carry these compulsory provisions we will do all we can to prevent their being carried into execution." This has been said to me in the County of Bucks, which is a typical county, and I am very anxious that the Twyford men should get their allotments

1715
as soon as possible. I mean to go down there on Saturday and tell the men the Government are doing all they can to prevent their getting their allotments for the next two years. Why should these Committee meetings be held in secret? The Rural Sanitary Authority always holds its meetings in public with reporters present, and I believe that is the case everywhere. I think it would be deplorable if a body holding its general meetings in public and preventing the labourers from getting allotments should give them an appeal to a body meeting in secret. I believe the Committees of most of the County Councils hold private meetings; and unless the Bill renders these meetings public, I am afraid they will continue to be held in private. The labourers have already been waiting three years for their allotments; they are now told they must wait till next Michaelmas two years, and that then they must go before a body sitting in secret conclave if they wish to assert their rights, in which case they will be subject to all the pressure and influence which those who live on the spot know so well how to exercise. During the Committee on this Bill all the Amendments proposed have had but one object, namely, to make a bad Bill work better if possible. We have told the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ritchie) that the Bill will not work. He said it would; but if it is to work at all, we ought not to be kept waiting for two years to see how it will work. I cannot see why my Amendment should not be accepted. Why should not the tribunal of appeal to which the labourers must go be a public tribunal? As the meetings of the Sanitary Authority are held in public, the same rule should apply to the meetings of the County Council Committees to which the labourers must appeal.
MR. RITCHIE: I cannot quite see the force of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's logic. He argues that, because the Sanitary Authorities have held their meetings in public, and have failed to do their duty, therefore we must compel the Committees of the County Council to hold their meetings in public likewise. How the hon. and gallant Gentleman can satisfy his own mind with such an argument I cannot possibly conceive. He has
1716
said a good deal of what is done in Bucks, and has told us that a large number of Guardians have there been elected on the County Councils. That, of course, is a matter for the electors of that county, but it would seem that if there be a large proportion of Guardians on the Bucks County Council, they have been put there because the electors have thought they have done their duty as Guardians. Unlike the hon. and gallant Gentleman I have full confidence in the discretion of the County Councils, and in their anxiety to perform their duties in a manner most in accordance with the interests of their constituents, and, for my part, I decline to be a party to fettering their action in this matter in a manner which is not applicable to any other portion of their duties. County Councils, including that of Bucks, do not hold their meetings in public. I remember the discussion which took place on this question of holding public meetings of the Committees of the London County Council, and on that occasion it was resolved by a large majority that those meetings should not be held in public.
Amendment negatived.
Amendment proposed, in Clause 4, page 2, line 30, after the word "division," to insert the words "any County Alderman residing within and."—(Sir R. Knightley.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. H. STEWART: I hope that, as the House has already decided not to give prescriptive rights to Aldermen, the Government will not accept this Amendment. We had this question fought over and over again on the principal Act, with the result I have just stated; and as the right hon. Gentleman has hitherto resisted all the pressure brought to bear upon him in regard to this matter from the opposite side of the House, I trust he will not now listen to the Amendment moved from his own side, the effect of which would only be to delay the passage of the Bill.
MR. RITCHIE: I quite sympathise with the object of my hon. Friend in the Amendment he has proposed, and, for my own part, I think that the presence of an Alderman residing in the locality might

1717
have a beneficial influence on the deliberations of the Committee. Still, I cannot but feel the importance of the objection taken by the hon. Member opposite; and, feeling that it would be illogical for us now to take up the position suggested by the Amendment, I trust my hon. Friend will not deem it expedient to persist in his Amendment.
SIR R. KNIGHTLEY: After what has been said by my right hon. Friend, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Other Amendments made.
CATAIAN. BETHFLL(York, E. R, Holderness): I am surprised to find that my right hon. Friend is accepting Clause 4, which has the direct result of limiting the powers of the County Councils, and also that he has accepted from an hon. Member who objects to the powers given to the Councils an Amendment which makes this clause still more drastic. If we are going to give these powers at all we ought to give them freely and to let the County Councils do their work in their own way. Why should we insist on having a Standing Committee at all? If the Council desire to have more than one-fourth, why should they not? We have already got three Committees, two of which—the Lunacy and Finance Committees—are, to some extent, independent, and why should you have another independent Committee, which may still further hamper the work of the Council? Everything which is proposed might be done by the Council itself, and the appointment of the Committee would only hamper the Council and detract from its dignity and general use. There can be no reason whatever for insisting on this limitation being placed upon the Council, whose powers are already unnecessarily and improperly limited. I wish we could persuade my right hon. Friend to withdraw this clause; but, failing that, I am glad to have this opportunity of entering a strong and vigorous protest against this bad system of limiting and violating the powers of the County Councils.
Motion made, and Question, "That Clause 4 stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
Clause 5.
MR. H. STEWART: I propose to move the Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member for the Cirencester Division, the object of which is to substitute for the Sanitary Authority, as a body to which the County Council may delegate their powers as to the management of allotments, a Committee consisting of a member of the County Council for the district, two ratepayers chosen by the allotment holders, and two ratepayers chosen in open Vestry. By the Bill, as it at present stands, the County Council is to give the first consideration to a body which is discredited. For my own part, I would have preferred a Parish Council; but as we have been beaten on that point, I do press the Government to accept this Amendment.
Amendment proposed,
"In page 3, line 20. after the word 'to,' to leave out the words 'the sanitary authority,' and insert 'a Committee consisting of—(1) The member of county council for the district; (2) two ratepayers chosen by the allotment holders; (3) two ratepayers chosen in open vestry.'"—(Mr. Haltey Stewart.)
Question proposed," That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
MR. W. H. LONG: I think the hon. Member who proposed this Amendment must have overlooked the fact that under this Bill the County Council has double powers; that it may either delegate its duties in this respect to the Sanitary Authorities, or, on the recommendation of one-sixth of the electors of the parish, appoint allotment managers. You thus have introduced the element of local administration. I think it is hardly worthwhile to appoint another method and to create another local Parish Authority. I trust that the Amendment will not be pressed.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
Clause6
Amendments made; Clause agreed to.
CAPTAIN VERNEY: I beg to move the new clause of which I have given notice. I think the proposal is a very reasonable one. It is that the school of the parish should, if in receipt of a Government grant, be as

1719
the service of the authority to which the allotment powers are delegated; of course on payment of any expenses that may be incurred. I do hope that the Government will accept this proposal.
New Clause (Use of School on Payment of Expenses,)—(Captain Verney,)—brought up, and read the first and second time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."
MR. F. S. STEVENSON: I trust the Government will accept this new clause. It must be borne in mind that the case of a rural parish is very different to that of a town. In the latter there is usually a town hall, where public business may be transacted, but most villages are entirely without a public hall of any kind, and the parish school is the most suitable building for the purpose. Surely the Government might consent to allow schools to be used for this purpose?
MR. W H. LONG: I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that the Government entirely sympathise with the spirit of the Amendment, but all those who are conversant with village life must be aware that the Educational Authorities have found great difficulty from the somewhat too frequent use of the school buildings. The Government do not disapprove of the object of the Amendment at all, and they will consider the question between this and the Report stage.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. F. S. STEVENSON: Between this and the Report stage I hope the Government will have the Bill re-printed.
MR. LONG: Certainly.
Bill reported as amended, to be considered on Tuesday 3rd June, and to be printed. [Bill 318.]

SUPPLY—REPORT.
Resolution, 22nd May, reported (see page 1632.)
Resolution read a second time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
MR. SEXTON: I have now to demand from the Irish Government an explicit declaration of their intentions with respect to a public meeting, fixed to be held at Tipperary, on Sunday next, in order to afford the Members for the district an opportunity for conferring with their constituents on public affairs, and especially on the legislative proposals with regard to Ireland which are at present before the House. I insist that there is nothing in the state of popular feeling in the district constituting anything like a menace to public order or the public peace. It cannot be pretended that the Plan of Campaign is in operation there now. On the 13th of last month a public meeting on a very large scale was allowed at this very spot, without interference on the part of the authorities, and the result justified such non-interference, and I maintain that there is no rational ground for apprehending danger in the present case. The meeting has been advertised for many weeks; extensive arrangements have been made for holding it, and contingents of Nationalists are to attend from various parts of the country. We are now within 48 hours of the time fixed for the meeting on Sunday, and yet the people and all concerned are left in ignorance as to whether the meeting is to be permitted or not. Such a policy,. I contend, is calculated to create disorder. I know that within the last few hours the right hon. Gentleman has had a private conversation with Mr. Smith-Barry and his agent. There can be no worse enemy of the public peace than the Minister or the Government which allows arrangements for a meeting of this kind to go forward throughout a wide district, and up to the last moment leaves everybody in doubt as to their intentions in the matter. I claim for the people of Tipperary the right to hold this meeting as an essential and indispensable part of their system of Parliamentary government.
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The information I have received does not bear out the notion that extensive local preparations have been made for the meeting announced for next Sunday at Tipperary. The information I have re-

1721
garding the meeting is drawn from certain statements which have appeared from time to time in the Freeman's Journal, and the report of a speech of the hon. Member delivered, not in Tip-penny, but in Dublin, on the occasion of a recent meeting of the National League. These are very imperfect sources of information from which to ascertain clearly or explicitly what the character of the demonstration is to be, and it was from the mouth of the hon. Gentleman himself that I first learnt that what is contemplated is a great open air demonstration in the town of Tipperary.
MR. SFXTON: I am aware of five special trains to be run from Cork, Waterford, Dublin, Kanturk, and Clonmel.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am obliged for the information; it is not yet in possession of the authorities in Dublin Castle, and, of course, I will take advantage of it to prevent the intending excursionists from being put to inconvenience. The intended open air meeting cannot be permitted by the authorities. I am sure the hon. Member for West Belfast will agree that nothing could be more concisely explicit than the statement which, as the Representative of the Irish Government, I made on this subject yesterday.
An hon. MEMBER: In the William O'Brien Arcade.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, in the William O'Brien Arcade. I was not certain what the meeting was. But I did say, in a most explicit and categorical manner, in regard to Sunday's meeting, that if one of the great open air demonstrations which from time to time had taken place in Ireland was contemplated, that could not be permitted in a town in the condition of Tipperary at this moment. The hon. Member desires to convict me of inconsistency, because, holding these views, there was no attempt made to prevent the meeting in connection with the formal opening of the William O'Brien Arcade. I would point out, however, that the circumstances were entirely different. The programme of the demonstration held, I believe, on the 13th April [An hon. MEMBER: "The 12th."] was well-known to the Government, and those who were responsible for organising the banquet were informed that if the programme
1722
was adhered to there would be no objection to its being gone through. An open air meeting was no part of the programme, and though I believe it is the fact that some ceremonial or other took place at the door of the William O'Brien Arcade, the whole of the proceedings were certainly not of the character which I understand attaches to the proceedings which are to take place on Sunday, and had they been, the meeting of the 13th April would have been stopped precisely as two preceding meetings, at which the hon. Member for North-East Cork was announced to speak were stopped earlier in the year, or at the end of last year. The consistency or inconsistency of the Government in this matter is, after all, a small affair. What is of importance is whether the Government are or are not justified in interfering with this meeting, and I say—and I say it confidently—that no one who has really studied not merely the rights or wrongs, or the origin of this dispute, but the history of the method by which it has been carried on can entertain the slightest doubt that meetings of this sort must lead to boycotting and intimidation, and ought, therefore, to be prohibited. I do not think it would be convenient or suitable that I should, on this occasion, dwell upon the not only insufficient but absurd reasons that have been alleged for stirring up the tenants of my hon. Friend who sits below the Gangway (Mr. Smith-Barry), reasons which amount, in short, to this: that my hon. Friend is one of those who resises an illegal conspiracy to which another landlord might probably fall a victim. I am not going into these reasons, but I do not think hon. Gentlemen opposite will persuade the people of this country that the actions of the Member for Fast Cork and others were otherwise than wholly unjustified in their origin, as they have been criminal and disastrous in their consequences. What I am more concerned with is what is actually taking place in Tipperary itself, and I do not think it at all necessary to go into disputed matter on this point. nor is it necessary that I should rely on the reports of police constables and inspectors, because it is not denied by the chief actors in the drama that intimidation and boycotting have gone

1723
on to a great extent. I observe that the Member for North Wexford gave a description of the state of things on the 14th September last. In the Wexford People the hon. Member was made to say that—
"He had never seen such excitement in his life as there was in the town of Tipperary. The houses of the men who paid their rents were there left alone by everyone. The houses of these men have been nearly wrecked"
That is a statement made by a Member of this House, an influential Member of the organisation which has produced the existing condition of things in Tipperary—a statement in which he actually triumphed at the disasters which his action, and that of others, had brought to the town. Another Member of the House, the Member for Longford, is reported in the Freeman's Journal, with regard to the conspiracy not to pay rents to my hon. Friend (Mr. Smith-Barry), to have said—
"Would the hon. Member (Mr. Smith-Barry) seek to eject these tenants. The way to consider this matter was to consider it calmly, and he should like to see Smith-Barry trying to eject a score or more of the principal shopkeepers of Tipperary! Ballycoohey would be nothing to it."
Ballycoohey is well-known. It is a place in Tipperary where a landlord had some dispute of an agrarian character, the result being that a constable and the steward of the landlord were shot dead. I do not misinterpret this speech of the Member for Longford when I attribute to him the opinion that it was as impossible for my hon. Friend to do what, I think, as a matter of fact, he has done, namely, evict a score of the principal shopkeepers of Tipperary who have not paid their rent.
MR. SEXTON: It was done in perfect peace.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I observe that at a meeting of the Tipperary branch of the National League Dr. J. F. O'Ryan made a speech in which he moved a Resolution directed against my hon. Friend (Mr. Smith-Barry), and in which the meeting pledged itself from that day forward not to hold any dealings whatever with the men who paid their rents, or their aiders or abettors. I could multiply examples of that kind. It is not denied, and cannot be
1724
denied, that there is a conspiracy against the payment of rents, that that conspiracy is supported by intimidation and violence, that the houses of those who venture to pay their rents have been wrecked, or nearly wrecked. [Cries of "No."]
MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: Give a single instance.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The instances are given by the Member for North Wexford in the speech I have just quoted. It is not denied that not once or twice but many times there have been attempts by means of explosives and otherwise ["No, no!"] to terrorise and intimidate those who have done anything to fulfil their legal obligations. It is not denied, and cannot be, that boycotting exists to an enormous extent in Tipperary, and since this meeting of the 13th April, to which allusion has been made, Father Humphrys, a clergyman of the Roman Catholic Church, has written a letter, the authenticity of which has never been denied, in which be said,—
"As one of the Catholic clergy of Tipperary he protested against the libel that he was doing all he could to stop boycotting."
I say if that is the attitude of Catholic clergymen in Tipperary, if that is the result of the agitation started by the Member for North-East Cork and his Friends, if the means I have described were being used to intimidate the shopkeepers of Tipperary, the Government would be neglecting its primary duty if it permitted a vast mass meeting under the auspices of the Member for East Cork, and the Member for East Mayo, to be held, a meeting, the only possible consequences of which would be that the terrorism which has existed for the last few months would be redoubled. I have had made out an account of certain crimes which have taken place in Tipperary during the last four months of 1887, 1888, and 1889 respectively, which is significant. I find that the number of persons convicted of drunkenness, assaults, or other crimes affecting the public peace in these periods was, in 1887, 143; in 1888, 162; and for the last four months of 1889, 274. [Laughter and cries of "Police statistics."]
MR. E. HARRINGTON: You run them up when you like.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Though this may appear a laughing matter to some hon. Gentlemen, I apprehend that those who have the good of Ireland at heart will regard it as a serious result of the agitation of hon. Members.
MR. SEXTON: If the right hon. Gentleman, instead of giving us the last four months of last year, had given us the first four months of this year. It would have been more to the point.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know why it would be more to the point. I may say that these are figures which I got prepared for me some months ago, thinking that this question might be raised; but if the hon. Member thinks it desirable to go into the matter I will have further statistics collected. I think I have said enough to convince the House that the Government are more than justified in doing all they can to stop this proposed demonstration in Tipperary. I can prove without going to police statistics, but relying on the utterances of Catholic priests, Members of Parliament, and members of the National League, that a system of terrorism and boycotting exists in Tipperary which the Government is bound to put down by every means in their power, and which they will be responsible for encouraging if they permit meetings of this kind to take place without doing their best to prevent them.
MR. J. O'CONNOR: Anyone who has listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman must have come to the conclusion that the interview he had with the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Smith-Barry). and his agent from Tipperary has not been without effect.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I forgot to allude to that part of the speech of the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) in which he insinuated that the action of the Government had been in some way directed, or dictated, or suggested, by my hon. Friend below the Gangway. I need hardly say that I did not consult with anyone but my own officials in determining what to do.
MR. J. O'CONNOR: Is it denied that the right hon. Gentleman last night conferred with Mr. Maurice Townsend, the agent for the hon. Member opposite?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is absolutely untrue to say that the interview I had with Mr. Townsend last night—[Ironical Irish cheers]—yes, and which I am not ashamed of having had, decided the line I should take. That interview took place many hours after I had sent over a telegram to Ireland saying that under no circumstances would an open air meeting be permitted in Tipperary.
MR. J. O'CONNOR: Well, there was a good deal of uncertainty in the replies given yesterday by the right hon. Gentleman to our questions as to the proposed meeting, and there was a good deal of uncertainty to-day in the mind of the learned Attorney General for Ireland.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BOB IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): I stated distinctly, when asked the question, that my right hon. Friend had stated yesterday that a meeting of the kind which he described—a large open air meeting—could not be held, and that I had nothing to add to the statement.
MR. J. O'CONNOR: That explanation may be all very well in its way, but people of common sense will draw their own conclusions. It is a very strange thing that the certainty of the Government as to prohibiting the meeting should synchronise so completely with the meeting between the right hon. Gentleman and Mr. Townsend. In order to justify the proclamation of the meeting the right hon. Gentleman has quoted a list of crimes which have been committed in the district. But what is the nature of those so-called offences? In one instance a constituent of mine was charged with riot, and the Magistrates, having heard the case against him, found that there had been no riot, but because they thought that the meeting had been an exciting one they sentenced him to six weeks' imprisonment. In another case 15 persons were charged with taking part in a riotous assembly, and although they were acquitted of having committed the offence with which they were charged, for fear that they should do it again they were all sent to gaol for two months. The statement that a Mr. Phillips was boycotted, that a policeman attending a funeral was stoned, and that

1727
the services of a midwife were refused to the wife of a policeman, are absolutely untrue, though it is true that at the funeral a number of little children, all of whom were under seven years of age, seeing several policemen gathered together, shouted out "Balfour," which is an epithet of opprobrium in Ireland. Those are the kind of crimes which the right hon. Gentleman relies upon as justifying him in destroying the liberties of the Irish people, and in taking away their right of public meeting. People who make these and similar statements to the Chief Secretary have done so knowing them to be false, and the right hon. Gentleman has not been ashamed to repeat them, to the misleading of the House and the country. The speeches which were made at the previous meeting at Tipperary, which was conducted most openly, and during which the people and the police fraternised, were of a Constitutional character—of the same nature as those which we intend to deliver next Sunday at Tipperary, for we will hold that meeting at the risk of our lives in spite of the right hon. Gentleman's buckshot and bayonets, and will continue to hold such meetings until the liberties of Irishmen are restored to them. The right hon. Gentleman may send his police with their buckshot to the place of meeting. We have faced them before, and we will face them again.
DR TANNER: All he wants is blood.
MR. J. O'CONNOR: I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that we will continue to hold meetings when he and his name are relegated to an obscurity from which history will never redeem them. It does not matter to Irish Members under what Government they are, when the only effective argument that is used against them is that of force. The Irish authorities are not willing that a good feeling should exist between the Irish people and the police, and that is the reason why this meeting is to be proclaimed. We will hold our meeting in the town of Tipperary, and we invite the right hon. Gentleman with all his force to come forward in aid of the hon. Member opposite, who is engaged in his unmanly and wretched crusade against
1728
the homes of the Irish people, backed up by the arms and repression of a tyrannical Government.
COLONEL SAUNDERSON: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has told the House, like another celebrated Irishman, that he is "agin the Government." I do not see why the hon. Gentleman should blame the Chief Secretary for employing force, because the hon. Gentleman has told the House it is the only argument he will yield to. I have observed that hon. Gentlemen opposite are very reticent about the question of Tipperary. It has not been a favourite theme with them, because I suppose they know as well as I do that their action at Tipperary is condemned by the vast majority of the British people. I do not think hon. Gentlemen will describe to the British people how the action of the inhabitants of Tipperary was developed into the present condition of affairs. It has been represented by hon. Gentlemen that it is a sort of spontaneous manifestation on the part of the tenants of my hon. Friend the Member for South Hunts (Mr. Smith-Barry) because of his action with regard to the Ponsonby estate. How were the men of Tipperary got up to high-water mark? Boycotting notices were sown broadcast about the town. Within the last three weeks boycotting notices have been posted throughout Tipperary condemning the action of certain unpopular persons who have offended against the League, or who have held communication with those who are under the ban of the League. I think it a very good thing that the House and the country should remember that the action of the men of Tipperary has not been a spontaneous but a got-up action, under the authority and threats of the National League and of hon. Members below the Ganway opposite. Within the last three weeks a boycotting notice was posted in the Division which the hon. Member who has just spoken represents, holding up to execration a certain Mrs. Peer and a certain Tom Coghlan, of Fermoy, who supplied meat to a certain landgrabber named Noonan.
MR. J. O'CONNOR: Fermoy is not in Tipperary, but in County Cork, 100 miles away.
COLONEL SAUJSTDERSON: Similar boycotting notices have been posted in Tipperary. I hold some in my hand—
"Boycott Smith-Barry. Boycott Horace Townsend, the long, oily, slippery, petty agent of a Syndicate. Boycott Walter Nolan, the emergency attorney from God knows where. Boycott"
Several others in similar terms. The action of the Tipperary people was not spontaneous, but got up and caused by the pressure and tyranny of the League which hon. Gentlemen opposite represent. Let hon. Gentlemen opposite who have advised the men of Tipperary to leave their good houses, built with stone and roofed with slate, and to go and live in the lath and plaster shanties in which they shiver at the present time—let those hon. Gentlemen give a banquet to the men who have followed their advice, and try to persuade these men that it is a more comfortable thing for them to live in their present huts than in the houses they have left. I think it matter for the greatest satisfaction that hon. Members have thought fit, just before the Whitsuntide recess, to bring this matter before the House and the country, because I believe the Government never had, and never will have, a better case to go to the country with than Tipperary. I believe nothing will do more damage to the cause of hon. Gentlemen opposite.
MR. W. H. SMITH: May I be allowed to make an appeal to hon. Members. It is that they will now allow the Report to be taken, in order that I may make the Motion for the Adjournment?
MR. SEXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman closure the Motion for Adjournment?
MR. W. H. SMITH: Certainly not. If the House desires to sit on Monday I shall not offer any opposition.
MR. GILL: I shall not occupy more time than is necessary; certainly I shall conclude my remarks in time to allow the right hon. Gentleman to make his Motion. We have heard the hon. and gallant Gentleman's description of what he is pleased to call the terrorism going on in Tipperary. He has read to us a boycotting notice which referred not to County Tipperary but to
1730
County Cork, and he has argued that the men of Tipperary in surrendering their homes as a protest against the action of their landlords did not act spontaneously, but in a got-up manner. We must have a very great deal of power indeed in Ireland if our influence is so great as to compel men to give up their comfortable houses and properties and go out upon the roadside and occupy the shanties the hon. and gallant Gentleman spoke of. I cannot conceive a more forcible way of bringing home to the minds of the people the heroism of the people of Tipperary than the description the hon. and gallant Gentleman has given. We will await the verdict of the English people on the action of the men of Tipperary with absolute confidence: we will await their verdict on the action of the hon. Member for South Hunts (Mr. Smith-Barry), and the Government, which does not scruple to enter with the hon. Member and his agent into a conspiracy to suppress the right of public meeting in Ireland. The Chief Secretary has cited a number of statistics and reasons why this meeting should be suppressed. He told the House that at Ballycoley the tenants barricaded the houses and shot a constable and the steward of the landlord. Does he mean to insinuate that the people of Tipperary have carried out the programme of Ballycoley? I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to assert that in any single instance in Tipperary was there the slightestresistance to the process of eviction. I maintain that this attempt on the part of the Chief Secretary is a most monstrous and unscrupulous attempt to bemirch the character of the people and to misrepresent the great problem with which the Government in Ireland have to deal. Suppose that all the right hon. Gentleman has said were true; suppose every one of the so-called outrages which he describes had taken place before the meeting of April the 12th. If the arguments which the right hon. Gentleman has cited are valid reasons for suppressing the meeting of next Sunday, they were still more valid reasons for suppressing the meeting of last April, because they had occurred still closer to the time of meeting. I ask the House to consider what is the reason which common-sense-can alone deduce from the action of the

1731
right hon. Gentleman for the suppression of next Sunday's meeting and the allowing of the meeting of April the 12th. A large English contingent, consisting of a considerable number of English Members of Parliament and English leaders and representatives of English organisations, attended the meeting in April, and that is the sole and single quality which differentiates the meeting in April from the meeting next Sunday. I ask the House and the English people to consider well the extraordinary and glaring state of things which the Government action now reveals—to bear in mind the fact, that if the Irish, people wish to hold a meeting in their own country they must hold it under the protection of Englishmen. In face of his action in regard to next Sunday's meeting, will the right hon. Gentleman ever assert again that the Irish people enjoy the same liberty as the English people? The right hon. Gentleman cited a passage from a letter of Father Humphrys, in which that reverend gentleman said, in effect, he would be ashamed to refrain from defending boycotting'. I repeat the sentiment expressed by Father Humphrys in his letter, because I know well what it means. I. should be ashamed to refrain from defending boycotting as it is understood in Tipperary. Boycotting has taken place in Tipperary, but it is of the class which I am prepared to defend here or before any civilised audience. It is simply and solely exclusive dealing, the exercise by the community of one of the rights they possess, to protect themselves against the hostility of individual of their own class.
It being ten minutes to Seven of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed this day.

DEEDS OF ARRANGEMENT BILL. (No. 264.)
Bill read the third time, and passed.
WORKING CLASSES DWELLINGS BILL. (No. 279.)
Bill read the third time, and passed.

CUSTOMS CONSOLIDATION ACT (1876) AMENDMENT BILL—(No. 247.)
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clause 2.
Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday 2nd June.

EVENING SITTING.

  SUPPLY—COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  MR. SEXTON: I beg leave to explain that there was no intention on the part of Irish Members to prevent the Motion for the Adjournment being decided at the Morning-Sitting; but it was prevented by two circumstances, the length of the speech of the Chief Secretary and the superfluous intervention in the Debate of the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson). It was simply by inadvertence that my hon. Friend (Mr. Gill) overran the time.
  MR. GILL: The fact that I happened to talk out the Debate on the Report of Supply arose from my want of knowledge of the Rule that governs an Afternoon Sitting. I was under the impression that we did not break off Debate until 7 o'clock.
  MR. HALLEY STEWART: Upon this Motion I am anxious to say a few words, and they shall be very few, in corroboration of the statement of my hon. Friend the Member for Tipperary (Mr. J. O'Connor). [Cries of "Agreed."] Well, if you agree with the statement of my hon. Friend, then the question is settled; but the Chief Secretary has made a statement entirely at variance with the statement of my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend has referred to the English Members who accompanied him, and I intend, in a few sentences, to emphasise what he has said. The Chief Secretary states that the arrangements for the public meeting at Tipperary were not made with the cogni-

  1733
  sance of the police. But, Sir, these arrangements were made in the light of day and ought to have been within the cognisance of the police, if the police did their duty. The preparations for the meeting were apparent to every inhabitant, a platform was erected, and, I suppose, 10,000 people must have seen it. Speeches were delivered to an immense concourse of people in the open air at New Tipperary. Personally, I addressed largo crowds at some eight or 10 meetings standing by the side of my hon. Friend (Mr. J. O'Connor). [Interruptions.] I can assure hon. Members that I am as anxious to get away for my holiday as any of them can be, but I consider I have a public duty first. On the day my hon. Friend has referred to there were meetings held in the town and outside, and thousands of people gathered. During the time the Ponson by evictions were proceeding, I. addressed a meeting of the evicted tenantry; and a day or two afterwards at Youghal I spoke to a crowd estimated by Canon Keller, who is a good judge of numbers, at 3,000 or 4,000 people. It is vain for the Chief Secretary to assume that the police were ignorant of these proceedings. Irish Members and English Members spoke at these meetings. When Irish Members speak alone, they are interfered with by the police; but when they are accompanied by English Members, there is no interference on the part of the police. You may explain it as you will, the fact remains, and we desire to record it here, where the statement may be challenged and disproved if it is capable of disproof. You deal out one measure of justice to your Irish fellow subjects and another to Englishmen. [Cries of" No!"] The facts are in evidence. Will you agree with me now? Let hon. Members opposite, with that spirit of honour which has always been supposed to characterise the Tory Party, put them selves in the place of Irish Members; let them imagine, if their imaginations are sufficiently fertile, what would their feelings be if they were governed by an Irish majority, and Irish Members were permitted to visit their constituents unmolested, while they themselves were denied the right to hold public meetings. The only way to appreciate the feelings of Irish Members is to put yourselves in their place. Look at the position from
  1734
  an Irish point of view, and I do not understand how the Tory Party, with all their traditions of Constitutionalism, can support the action of the Chief Secretary. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to keep peace and order in Ireland let him keep the police away from public meetings; they are the origin of the troubles; the source and fountain of the confusion that arises is the action of drunken policemen. [Cries of "Oh, Oh !"] You cry shame, perhaps, on the drunken policemen, but the Chief Secretary does not repudiate their conduct. Irresponsible Members behind the Government Bench may interject denials, but it is a fact that we were followed from Cashel to Tipperary by four drunken policemen on a car. They were armed with loaded revolvers, and we travelled in peril of our lives from Cashel to Tipperary. This is the sort of protection offered to Members of Parliament. I have intervened most reluctantly in this Debate. There will be other opportunities for English Members to make good their case, but, knowing how my hon. Friend the Member for Tipperary enjoys the esteem and confidence of tens of thousands of his countrymen, I could not allow his statement to go uncorroborated when it is the fashion to attach more importance to the word of an Englishman than to that of an Irishman.
  MR. SCHWANN: I wish to add my protest to that of the hon. Member against interference with the meeting appointed to be held on Sunday next. Every English man mustre-volt at the suppression of rights always considered to be the possession of Irishmen and Englishmen. Hon. Members on that side, as well as hon. Members here, in their addresses and speeches at the General Election, declared they would insure equality of rights to Irishmen and Englishmen. I do not apologise for intervening in this Debate. The interference of the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh was totally unwarranted. He occupies no official position—to his disappointment, perhaps—but he has adopted the position of judicious bottle-holder to the hon. Member for South Hants (Mr. Smith-Barry). I can add my experience to what has been said by the hon. Member who has just spoken in reference to the

  1735
  meetings in Tipperary. The Chief Secretary does not seem to be well informed upon what is taking place in Ireland. His predecessors in office, the right hon. Gentleman who is now President of the Board of Trade and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle, were continually going backwards and forwards between London and Dublin sifting evidence, and endeavouring to learn facts for themselves; they were not satisfied with Reports from Dublin Castle; but the right hon. Gentleman is chiefly employed in following his favourite pastime on the breezy downs. I regret this interference with the meeting on Sunday. The open-air meetings in April were attended by English Members and English ladies, and we all felt the greatest admiration for the pluck, the energy, and sympathy with their fellows shown by the men of New Tipperary. It shows the solidarity of the Irish tenantry that, when they found a body of their fellow tenantry treated as they were treated on the Ponsonby Estate, they determined to carry the war into the enemy's country, and I am glad they have done so. I have no reason to doubt that the hon. Member for South Hunts will bitterly regret that ever he entered on this internecine struggle. I have no wish to detain the House beyond expressing my admiration for the conduct of the gallant men of Tipperary, and my abhorrence of the policy of the Chief Secretary.
  MR. P. J. O'BRIEN: As one of the Members against whom this attempt at muzzling is directed, I do not think it necessary to make any apology, but I do make my most earnest protest. The Chief Secretary will find, later on, that never in his political career has he made a more egregious mistake if he supposes he will he successful in his attempt to intimidate the people of Tipperary. I can tell him, as one of the Representatives of the county, that we are not to be intimidated. I shall exercise my right to meet my Constituents in Tipperary on Sunday, and I challenge the right hon. Gentleman or any of those whom he may send there at their peril to interfere with the just rights of the people. 1s this not the time in this brief Parliamentary Recess when Members should meet their constituents? Where are the equal
  1736
  rights to all if we are denied the right to meet our constituents in peaceful assembly? I assert for my constituents that they are peaceful, well-disposed, intelligent, respectable men, and our meetings, if not interfered with by the police, will be orderly as they hitherto have been, honourable alike to the constituents and the Members who address them. I tell the Chief Secretary again that ho will find he never made a more fatal mistake than to attempt to intimidate the Members and people of Tipperary.
  MR. CRILLY: I do not think any apology is needed for our intervention in this Debate. It is not my habit to intervene very often in debate; but here is an occasion when a great public issue is at stake in Ireland, and though we subject hon. Members to the inconvenience of sitting here for an hour this evening, we are impelled by duty to our constituents and the assertion of public rights. You, the English Members, can go away on your Whitsuntide holidays without fear or danger of having your free right of public meeting in your constituencies being interfered with, but we can indulge in no such expectations. I have been present here during the day, and I listened to the previous discussion this afternoon, and I can say that it is due to the tone and temper of the speech of the Chief Secretary that we are here now. Had the duty of replying to my hon. Friend the Member West Belfast, who raised this discussion, been left to the Attorney General for Ireland, I venture to say the House would not be now sitting, and we might have been on our way to the enjoyment of our brief holiday. But the Chief Secretary, after having been absent from the House during the greater part of the day, and being sent for when my hon. Friend raised this subject, has made a speech, the effect of which has been to exasperate every Irish Member and every English Liberal Member who heard it. The right hon. Gentleman, in the course of that speech, followed as it was by the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh, based his interference with the meeting on Sunday on the assumption that the meeting would lead to intimidation and boycotting. The right hon. Gentleman asserted that the tenants of

  1737
  the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Smith-Barry) were engaged in a policy of intimidation. Now, it was pointed out by my hon. Friend (Mr. Gill) that the tenants upon the estate of the hon. Member for South Hunts had gone out of their holdings without any protest whatever. It is a fact known to the Chief Secretary himself that these tenants are engaged in a lawful and peaceful combination against a combination of landlords. Let me quote words used by the right hon. Gentleman himself on this very subject, speaking in this House on July 1, 1889. On that occasion the Chief Secretary said—
  "He had been told that he had interfered with combinations of tenants, and that he ought, therefore, to interfere with combinations of landlords. He did not care how much the tenants combined or how much the landlords combined. If he were a tenant in Ireland and he found the landlords were combining against him, he would combine against them."
  Will the right hon. Gentleman truthfully answer—I do not use the expression in any offensive sense—my question how he explains the combination of tenants which exists in Tipperary today if it is not a combination against a landlord conspiracy, against which he has said he in like circumstances would enter into combination? The tenants have combined peacefully and legally to carry out their policy of protection; and if the tenants in Tipperary fail to carry out that policy, including as it may do boycotting to a certain extent, the man who will be mainly responsible for driving the tenants of Tipperary to that very policy he has indicated to-day will be the Chief Secretary. He wants to put down conspiracy. So do we. We want to give utterance to our feelings and to express our indignation in open meeting; but when we want to come together for the purpose, when Members for Tipperary want to address their constituents, then the right hon. Gentleman tries to prevent open discussion, tries to do that which Lord Cowper once boasted of having done when he said he had "driven disaffection beneath the surface." The right hon. Gentleman is attempting the same thing. He is trying to drive the Members for Tipperary from the public platform, to suppress the public discussion of grievances, and to induce a return to the vices of that evil time when an exasperated
  1738
  tenant was driven to find vengeance for his wrongs with a musket from behind a hedge. For a recurrence of these evil times, this infatuated policy of yours will be responsible. I ask Tory Gentlemen on the other side, are they afraid to listen to the Irish people? You listen readily enough to Irish Representatives hero in the House of Commons; are you afraid to hear the same opinions expressed in Ireland? And yet you have declared your willingness that the people of Ireland shall enjoy equal rights with the people of England! You are anxious to get away for your holiday; you will not recognise the condition of affairs in Ireland; you will not realise that deep down in the heart of the Irish people is the intense desire for some sort of self rule. You are impatient because your holiday is delayed for a few hours; but whatever may be said of our motives, if it were possible and necessary, we would keep your Parliament sitting until doomsday to make these facts known. No answer has been given to the facts put forward by my hon. Friends. You permitted meetings to be held on April 12, and at those meetings English Members and English ladies were present, but other meetings are prohibited. Why do you behave in this fashion? You laugh now; but we shall win in the end, and those laugh loudest who laugh last. The Irish National cause is winning against all your efforts. The Chief Secretary has admitted that he had an interview with Mr. Townshend and the hon. Member for South Hunts. The policy of his Party in Ireland is shaped by the landlords. According to the supporters of the Government, the government by repression and tyranny is to continue until the youngest among us has a grandson buried. But I tell you that to persist in this policy will leave you no cause for laughter. The Attorney General for Ireland may laugh now, and Attorneys General and Chief Secretaries have laughed before, but the attachment of the Irish people to the old and sacred cause of self-government will survive all the laughter from the Ministerial Bench. We are determined, and the determination has been expressed to-night by my Colleagues to support our people. You have not passed the threshold of the Irish difficulty, and you

  1739
  will have to face it until you adopt a higher, nobler policy than yon have indicated to-day. I tell yon that you but intensify your difficulties by such exasperating speeches as that we have heard from the Chief Secretary to-day, and some day you will have to admit there is no way to govern Ireland but by-applying the policy advocated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian.
  MR. T. H. BOLTON: The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has, in effect, admitted that he determined to prohibit next Sunday's meeting at Tipperary on insufficient information as to what its character would be. He has said that until speeches in the House and, in particular, until the speech of the hon. Member for West Belfast, the information which reached him had not led him to believe it would be of a large or dangerous character, and, therefore, he must have taken action on insufficient grounds. To prohibit the right of public meeting in any place is a most serious step which ought only to be taken after the most careful consideration. If bloodshed should ensue from the action of the Government in regard to this Tipperary meeting the country would hold the Chief Secretary-responsible, and the House would call him to very severe account. I rise for the purpose of appealing to the right hon. Gentleman to re-consider the situation. If, after the assurance given that the meeting will be held in a peaceable manner, and that its main object is to give hon. Members an opportunity of taking counsel with their constituents, the right hon. Gentleman can see his way to permit the meeting, I trust ho will do so. The right of public meeting is a very sacred thing in this country. It ought not to be lightly interfered with, and as the right hon. Gentleman has been assured that the Tipperary meeting will be a peaceful one, he ought to see that there is no justification for prohibiting it. I have not sympathised with extreme measures in the Irish agitation. I have never at any time said a word in favour either of the Plan of Campaign or boycotting; I have never justified any violent resistance to authority in Ireland; and I trust my appeal will be met by the right hon.
  1740
  Gentleman in the spirit in which it is made, and that he will not adopt a course which may lead to serious occurrences in Ireland. I do not wish to make a long speech, or to stand in the way of the adjournment; but I feel it my duty as an English Member to advocate the proper and just treatment of the Irish people in relation to this matter of holding public meetings.
  MR. W. P. SINCLAIR (Falkirk, &c.): We have been told by the hon. Member for Tipperary that he desires to take advantage of this Whitsuntide recess to address his constituents; but we have had no such assurance from other hon. Members who are expected to attend this meeting that the gathering will be a peaceful one, and I would ask—Is it not possible to give the Government some such assurances; can they not give an undertaking that the addresses delivered at the meeting shall be only those which are ordinarily delivered when an hon. Member meets his constituents and that there will be no appeal to the people to break the law.
  DR. TANNER: There never is.
  MR. W. P. SINCLAIR: Hon. Gentlemen have said that from shore to shore of the island the law of the League is the law of the land, and we cannot forget that that assertion has been made. I say that if hon. Gentlemen who are to speak at the meeting will promise that their speeches shall be of the character I have indicated then I think an appeal may fairly be made to the Government not to proclaim the meeting.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: I promise to deliver any speech I may make next Sunday to the Falkirk Burghs when I return.
  MR. E. HARRINGTON: Does the hon. Member (Mr. Sinclair) submit the speeches he is about to deliver for the opinion of the Lord Advocate? A more indecent proposal, in the Parliamentary sense, has never been made in the House of Commons than that which the House has just listened to. My hon. Friends have not proclaimed their intentions to break the law, but merely to assert their Constitutional right to address their constituents; and yet here we are having it laid down as a Constitutional doctrine that

  1741
  Members about to address their constituents in Ireland are to give an undertaking to the Government of the day as to the language they will use. If the right hon. Gentleman adopted a wise and statesmanlike policy he would judge this meeting by those which have previously been held at that place. He has prosecuted no one who spoke and attended at the meeting at Tipperary on the 12th April, and he has no right to assume that the meeting of Sunday next will in any way differ from that meeting. The hon. Member for St. Pancras has tried to throw oil on troubled waters. I quite recognise the force of what he says: that every allowance must be made for the Government when they have avowed a settled and determined policy. But then, also, some allowance ought to be made for hon. Members who believe that they are within their right and are pledged to meet their constituents. They have not proclaimed that they will break the law, they are only claiming to exercise a Constitutional right which the Government are seeking to abrogate. This policy of repressing public meetings in Ireland, which hon. Gentlemen opposite treat so lightly, is, to our mind, a very serious grievance; and I say, with the force of my 11 years' experience, that by pursuing this policy you are fostering and encouraging secret societies, and that you will thereby bring about a crop of far more dreadful crimes than anything in the shape of intimidation. Why cannot the Chief Secretary rise to the greatness of a statesman? I thank those of our English friends who have come down to support us to-night. We should have been glad, if we could, to release hon. Gentlemen at an earlier hour, but we were forced into the course we have taken by the temper and tone of the reply of the Chief Secretary, backed up by the very ungallant references of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Armagh to a man who is head and shoulders—morally and physically—above him. I recognise that for anyone to run the risk of bringing the people into close proximity with the forces of the Crown is a serious thing, but I consider that the right of public meeting is so sacred that men are bound to run some risk; and the answer of the Chief Secretary has left nothing open to us but to run that risk.
  MR. HUNTER: When the hon. Member for Falkirk finds it necessary to address a caution to the Government, we may judge pretty well what the feeling of the country is. I listened to the speech of the Chief Secretary with amazement. A speech more atrocious, a speech more utterly devoid of argument, a speech more deliberately intended to wound, annoy, and insult than the Chief Secretary's it would be impossible for a man to make. That speech has convinced me that there is not a shadow of justification for interfering with this meeting. I have no hesitation in saying that the country will not hold him guiltless if one drop of blood is shed on Sunday. I advise my hon. Friends not to take the right hon. Gentleman seriously; be is dressed in very brief authority, and the day is coming with rapid steps when the right hon. Gentleman will be hurled from power and visited with the punishment he so richly deserves.
  MR. CAUSTON: When I came down to the House to-night I had not the slightest intention of interfering in this Debate; but I cannot help supporting the appeal so well made by the hon. Member for North St. Pancras—an appeal which was really an attempt to throw oil on the troubled waters. The speeches delivered by hon. Members from Ireland have all been in a like direction; that of the Member for South Kerry was most conciliatory. We are told that this meeting is to be suppressed. Well, I can only say that when hon. Members declare that they desire to address their constituents in a peaceable, orderly, and Constitutional way, very considerable responsibility will be cast on the Government if any disaster occurs from the attempt to hold this meeting on Sunday next. I cannot conceive any wisdom in the policy of the Government. Since 7 o'clock Ministers have had an opportunity of conferring together, and now there seems to be a conspiracy to allow the Debate to close without any one of them saying a word. I am sorry we have no Members present on the Front Bench on this side of the House. But the Government must not construe their absence into a sign that

  1743
  they approve the policy adopted in regard to this meeting. I believe that it is due to the belief that the House would be adjourned at 7 o'clock. I hope Her Majesty's Ministers will not take advantage of the fact to remain silent, and in that way to support the Chief Secretary and Attorney General for Ireland in carrying out their policy of suppressing this meeting. I do make a most earnest appeal to the Chief Secretary to re-consider his decision. I think the speeches which have been delivered from below the Gangway must satisfy him that this is intended to be an orderly political meeting. I hope that some independent Members of the Tory Party will support this appeal. I am sorry that anyone should have been put to the inconvenience of returning to the House, but now that we are here I trust we shall turn the time to profitable account.
  MR. BYRON REED: I feel that there is a point at which silence becomes almost criminal. I am not prepared to play the part of a political criminal or a mis-representative of my constituency in face of the addresses we have hoard from the opposite side of the House to-night. I am here to say, as the Representative of a not unimportant English constituency, that none among the many actions of the Chief Secretary for Ireland will be more applauded in England on Monday morning than the announcement of his having prevented a disloyal and criminal meeting in Ireland. I am prepared to stand any odium which may be cast on me by hon. Gentlemen opposite, in consequence of my having pronounced this opinion. I am bound to say, in answer to the pleas of hon. Gentlemen opposite for the right of public meeting, that we on this side of the House are not usually deprived of that right except by the low Irish element resident in Great Britain. I have never received insult or contumely or disrespect from any body of my constituents whom I have addressed, save in one instance from a number of Irish voters whose votes I had declined. I then expressed myself in very plain terms, and said I should consider myself insulted by the votes of the disloyal Irish Party.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: There was not one of them but was better than you.
  MR. BYRON REED: I am very sorry that hon. Gentlemen opposite should be at all affronted.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: Withdraw your insults, then.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I must ask hon. Gentlemen to restrain themselves on both sides.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: There is no need to introduce any irritation or any thing disgraceful and to the scandal of this House.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I rose for the purpose of allaying any feeling there might be
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: Allow me to explain. I should be very sorry to introduce into the Debates of this House a scandal—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. BYRON REED: I made no reflection on hon. Gentlemen opposite, who, I am bound to say, while ready to rain down charges of the most odious, atrocious, and untruthful character upon the head of the Chief Secretary, show themselves singularly thin-skinned when the mildest criticisms are addressed to themselves. Now, I would address myself for a brief moment to the proclaimed meeting at Tipperary. I can understand an hon. Member addressing his own constituents; but it is a different thing when Members from other places flock together for the purpose of flouting authority, setting the law at defiance, and causing disorder. What use would be made of it if this meeting were permitted to be held? It would be used in the columns of United Ireland as another instance of the weakness of the "base, brutal, and bloody Balfour." I am prepared to measure swords upon this point with hon. Gentlemen in my constituency, and to tell my constituents, what the House and English Members know, of the feeling and the views that prevail among Englishmen as to the disloyal action of the Irish Party in the past and the plans of the disloyal Party in Ireland for the future, and the obstruction of public business that takes place in this House. I believe that each English Member who goes to his constituents, as I will go to mine, to tell

  1745
  them of the action of the disloyal Irish Party, who obstruct our business by the "dreary drip of dilatory declamation," and to toil them of the more than veiled insurrection which takes place night after night on the floor of this House. I say any English Member who goes to his constituents and tolls them that will receive rich approval and hearty endorsement of his action at the next General Election.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. Member who spoke last has added very much to either the interest or the dignity of this discussion. He complained of being driven from his platform. [do not wonder at a certain impatience being manifested at any speaker making such a speech to his constituents as that which the hon. Member has just delivered. I am very sorry that any speaker should be driven from any platform; but if the hon. Member speaks habitually to his own constituents as he addressed this House to-night, I cannot wonder that some demonstration should have been made. Although I do not approve of violent measures, one must make allowance for human nature, which after all, is weak and passionate, and could not stand many hours of declamation such as that with which the hon. Gentleman has just favoured us. In my position I cannot regret the course which has been taken by the Government, because we wish to accentuate and emphasise our protest against the system of ignoble personal rule which is now going on in Ireland. I think it an anomaly in a country like this, and in a Parliament like this, to have a system of Government like that which the Chief Secretary proclaimed and defended to-night. It reminded me of some of the chapters in Charles Lever's novels, when the Chief Secretary is interviewed by some "Con Heffernan," of importance and significance in his own district, in some room in this House, where is arranged a system of governing Ireland under which right of public meeting is not allowed, and all because this Con Heffernan had an interview with the Chief Secretary, and told him what ought to be done. The real anomaly is that this system should be allowed
  1746
  to go on by a country like England, where people may hold a meeting without oaring throe straws whether the Government like it or not. But in Ireland, when a Member is going to address his constituents, the meeting is announced three weeks before, and no word is said against it until Con Heffernan interviews the Chief Secretary, who tells the Member that he cannot address his constituents unless in some room or small hole and corner place. I do not know whether there is any distinction in the Constitution of this country between a meeting held in a room and an open air meeting. I should like to know what you would think in this country if a Member were told that he may address his constituents under a roof and within walls, but that if he attempts to address the same men on the same subjects in the open air, the force and strength of the State would be employed to stop the meeting, even if bloodshed should be the result.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON: There is no National League in England.
  MR. J. M'CARTHY: The hon. and gallant Member only shows his ignorance by making that statement, because there is a National League in England, on the Council of which I have the honour to sit. Let me remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman of what happened in the old days of the second French Empire, where the sort of system he advocates was carried into execution. In those days the people had to apply to the police for permission to hold their meetings, and the conditions were that they wore not to exceed a certain number of persons, and that the meetings must be held under a roof and within four walls. We all know what a brilliant success was achieved under that system, and I am perfectly sure that a similar fate will await any English Government which attempts to enforce in one part of the Empire that French Imperial regulation which they dare not attempt to enforce elsewhere.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  SUPPLY—Committee upon Monday, 2nd June.

ADJOURNMENT.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the House, at its rising, adjourn to Monday, 2nd June."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer?)
SIR W. LAWSON: I desire to ask, before the Motion is agreed to, the Government whether if a Motion is made for the adjournment of the House in order that hon. Members may attend a horse race at Epsom they will support that Motion? The business of the House is now in such a congested condition that I think it desirable to take every day we can obtain for the advancement of public business, and, therefore, the Government ought not to countenance an adjournment for such a purpose as I have indicated.
MR. GOSCHEN: I can only answer the hon. Baronet by leave of the House; but I would point out that however congested the business of the House may be the Government have not proposed to take Wednesdays for the purpose of proceeding with Government business.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved, That this House at its rising do adjourn till Monday 2nd June.—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

SUPPLY [22ND MAY].
Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question, this day,
"That this House doth agree with the Committee in the Resolution That a further sum, not exceeding £3,929,500, he granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charges for the Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending on the 31st day of March 1891.'"
Question put, and agreed to.

BARRACKS BILL.—(No 231.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,): In moving the Second Reading of this Bill I would only remark that the sooner it is passed the sooner will it be possible to remedy the insanitary condition of certain barracks.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  DR. TANNER: This Bill is one that is brought in at a late hour, and I have to state that certain military gentlemen with whom I am acquainted have asked me to give attention to the matter, and have furnished me with certain details. The reason why I now object to proceeding with the measure is that I think it ought to be taken at a time when it can be discussed. I hope, therefore, that instead of trying to push it through at this juncture it will be put down for the first day of the reassembling of the House, when we may have a full opportunity of considering its details.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday 2nd June.

TEACHERS ORGANISATION AND REGISTRATION BILL. (No 178)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. KELLY: I wish to ask you, Sir, whether it is competent to put down for the Evening Sitting a Bill which has been put on the Paper for the Morning Sitting?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The Question is that this Bill be now read a second time.
  MR. KELLY: I desire, Sir, to point out that this Bill is one of a very extraordinary character, and has been so drawn that I am perfectly unable to understand to what schools it really refers. It certainly cannot apply to all the schools mentioned in the Act of 1868—that is to say, Winchester, Harrow, Rugby, Shrewsbury.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes after Ten of the clock till Monday 2nd June.