Sitting of 3 February 1893

QUESTIONS.

  AMERICAN PATENT SPECIFICATIONS.
  MR. SNAPE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that only one set of Patent Specifications of the United States of America is presented to this country, whilst twelve sets of British specifications are presented by the British Government, one set to the United States' Patent Office, and the other 11 to the United States' public libraries, he will take steps to procure a corresponding number of United States specifications for the public libraries of the principal towns of the United Kingdom?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MUNDELLA,): Only one set of the specifications of the United States of America is presented to this country. Communications have, from time to time, been addressed to the United States' Patent Office, with a view to obtaining additional sets for the chief public libraries of the United Kingdom; but it would appear that the United States law does not allow the United States Patent Office to present free copies of its publications to any public libraries either in the United States or elsewhere.

  BOGUS DRINKING CLUBS IN DUBLIN.
  DR. KENNY: I desire to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received or has had his attention drawn to a resolution adopted by the Dublin Corporation, on the 16th ultimo—namely, in which they state that they
  "view with alarm and dismay the rapid increase of bogus drinking clubs in all portions of the city; that, in their opinion, these clubs are a prolific source of poverty, crime, and disorder; that they are instrumental in depreciating the rateable value of property wherever they are established, and call upon the Government to introduce a Bill in the coming Session of Parliament that will be effective in grappling with this degrading and pestiferous evil;"
  384
  and whether, in view of the urgency of the evil condemned in above-cited resolution, and in compliance with the request therein contained, he will introduce a Bill during the present Session which, whilst giving power to the Local Authority to grapple effectively with evil complained of, will guard the rights of genuine workmen's clubs?
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: My attention has been drawn to the resolution referred to, and the Irish Government fully recognise that the evil condemned in the resolution is rapidly increasing and demands attention and remedy, but at the present moment I cannot promise immediate legislation on the subject.

  COMPULSORY RETIREMENT OF SIR T, BRADY.
  MR. JOHNSTON: In putting this question, perhaps I may say I have had great pleasure in working with Sir Thomas Brady before I was dismissed from the office of Inspector of Irish Fisheries for making a Protestant speech. I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, considering the distinguished and special services rendered to the State by Sir Thomas Brady, late Inspector of Irish Fisheries, during a period of nearly 46 years, as testified by letter from His Excellency to Sir Thomas Brady, and his having been compulsorily retired from his office under an erroneous impression and advice that the Order in Council of 19th August, 1890, requiring all Civil servants who had attained the age of 65 to retire from the Public Service, applied to his office, the Treasury will exercise the powers given to them by the Superannuation Act to meet the case of such special services as have been rendered to the State by Sir Thomas Brady, and confer on him a pension equal to the amount of his salary when he was retired from the Public Service?
  MR. BURDETT-COUTTS: When answering the question, would the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury say whether he will be willing to lay upon the Table the correspondence between the Treasury and the Irish Fishery Board on the subject of the retirement of Sir Thomas Brady?
  MR. DANE: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the supplementary question of the hon. Member for Westminster I should like to put another question to him. Will he undertake to lay on the Table of the House the Judgment of the Master of the Rolls in Ireland in the initial hearing of Sir Thomas Brady's case?
  *THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,): An Inspector of Irish Fisheries is an officer within the operation of the Order in Council, and his retirement is compulsory, under Clause 10, on his attaining the age of 65. This point was raised by Sir Thomas Brady on a Petition of Right, and was decided against him by the Master of the Rolls and by the Court of Appeal. Sir Thomas has been awarded the full pension sanctioned by Section 2 of the Superannuation Act, 1859, for diligent and faithful service, and I cannot hold out any hope of its being increased.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the opinion he has expressed as to the effect of the decision of the Court of Appeal and the Rolls Court is his own opinion of the construction of the Judgments or the opinion of the Attorney General for England or anyone connected with the Legal Profession in this country?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The decision I have referred to is the one arrived at in two Courts.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Does the right hon. Gentleman act on his own opinion as to the construction of the Judgments, or have they been submitted to competent legal authorities?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The Judgments have not been especially reported upon to me.
  MR. W. REDMOND: In view of the fact that all parties in Ireland strongly desire to have the suggestion of the hon. Member for Belfast which is contained in this question carried out, I would ask whether the Treasury could not re-consider their determination? Could they not do this in view of the special facts of the case?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: If any special facts can be brought forward showing that this ease ought to be taken out of the general run of cases of this kind no doubt the Treasury will be willing to consider such facts, if submitted.
  *MR. DANE: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he himself has had an opportunity of reading the Judgment passed by the Master of the Rolls in Ireland, and the Judgment of the three Judges who decided the appeal in the Court of Appeal in Ireland; and if he is aware that the majority of the Court of Appeal in Ireland decided that they had no power to inquire into the reasons why His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant dismissed Sir Thomas Brady; and if he is further aware, as a matter of fact, that it was admitted in both Courts that His Excellency had dismissed Sir Thomas Brady under an erroneous impression of law, having been wrongly advised that the Order of Her Majesty's Privy Council in England operated in Ireland?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I may say I was not Secretary to the Treasury when this matter was decided, and therefore I have not thought it my duty to read the decision of either Court.
  MR. LANE: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will re-consider the matter and read the decisions.
  MR. MACNEILL: I wish to ask my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware, as a matter of fact, that Sir Thomas Brady was dismissed by the last Government, and that his place was filled by Mr. Cecil Roche?
  MR. J. MORLEY: Yes; I understand that both statements are correct.
  MR. W. REDMOND: Might I ask she First Lord of the Treasury whether he would be good enough to look into the case of Sir Thomas Brady, and see whether he cannot meet a demand that comes generally from the Irish Members?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE,); I do not think I need apologise to the House for not being acquainted with these Departmental facts, but I may point out that the decision was given some time ago. It appears to me that a very fair answer was made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury—namely, that if any new facts could be alleged the subject would be re-considered.

  QUALIFICATION OF MEMBERS OF SCOTTISH PAROCHIAL BOARDS.
  MR. LENG: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether re-

  387
  presentations have been made to him of the desirability of reducing the qualification of members of Parochial Boards in Scotland to the same rating as that of members of Boards of Guardians in England; whether he has had any communications with the Board of Supervision on the subject; and whether he will state the nature and result of those communications?
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. TREVELYAN,): The Ratepayers' Association of Dundee have memorialized the Scotch Office to reduce the qualification for elected members for the Parochial Board, which now stands at a rating of £40 a year. There am some 10 parishes in Scotland, containing about a quarter of its population, in which the qualification is restricted, and in the most important of these the figure stands at £20 or £40. On December 5th last I wrote to the Board of Supervision in Edinburgh suggesting the propriety of reducing the qualification on these Boards to £5. The Board of Supervision met to decide the question on December 29th, and found themselves unable to accede to the proposal. The Board resolved instead to make an inquiry into the circumstances of each separate parish and to decide on each separately. I have applied for the result of the decision several times since, but am told that nothing can be determined until after the meeting of the Board next week. I am assured that the Board is proceeding with all possible rapidity, and I can only transmit that assurance to my hon. Friend.

  RAILWAY RATES IN IRELAND.
  MR. DONAL SULLIVAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the freights on Irish produce and Irish manufactures charged by Irish Railways are much higher than the charges made by English Railways for the carriage of similar goods; and whether he will direct the attention of the Directors of the Irish Railways to the injury which their charges inflict on the Irish traders?
  MR. MUNDELLA: The maximum powers conferred by Parliament last Session are not greater in the case of the Irish Railways than in that of English
  388
  Railways of similar description. As to actual charges, I have no such information as will enable me to answer the hon. Member's question. But all complaints of unreasonable charges will at once receive the careful consideration of the Board of Trade, and the attention of the Directors of Irish Railways will be called to them.
  MR. W. FIELD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the Irish Railway Companies place the charges for transport in Ireland some 10 to 20 per cent. higher than the English charges? If not, will the right hon. Gentleman institute inquiries to ascertain whether I am right in my statement?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I am not aware of the fact. If the hon. Gentleman would give specific illustrations I would make inquiries.
  MR. FLYNN: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the Report of the Cork Chamber of Commerce on the subject?
  MR. W. FIELD: May I ask whether, in the event of such evidence as the right hon. Gentleman desires being forthcoming, he will take steps to prevent the Irish Railway Companies levying these taxes on the Irish people?
  [No answer was given.]

  THE GALWAY HOSPITAL.
  DR. KENNY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Royal Commission on the Queen's Colleges, which sat in Galway in 1884, reported that it was only by the utilisation of all the hospitals in Galway City, including the Galway Hospital and the union and fever hospitals, that medical students in the Galway College could receive even the minimum of the necessary clinical instruction for their course, and that the Galway Queen's College authorities, in their College Calendar for 1892–3, offer to students entering their medical school all the clinical facilities referred to above; whether he is also aware that, notwithstanding the Senate of the Royal University of Ireland has recently recognised the "Galway Hospital," au institution containing only 20 beds in constant occupation, instead of 60 as required by the

  389
  regulations, as sufficient for the clinical instruction of medical students attending the Queen's College, Galway, who were induced to join the medical school of that College on the understanding that they would enjoy the clinical instruction of all the Galway hospitals; and whether, since the new regulations will have the effect of depriving them of clinical instruction in fever cases, and of their certificates for having attended the same, the Government propose to take any steps in the matter?
  MR. J. MORLEY: In reply to the first paragraph of the question, the President, Queen's College, Galway, reports that the Commission of 1884 did refer to the then existing Galway hospitals as unsatisfactory for clinical instruction, but the Galway Hospital mentioned in this portion of the quest ion did not then exist, having been founded by Act of Parliament, June 27, 1892. The statement in paragraph 2 is described as incorrect; the notification in the calendar was drawn up by the medical officers of the union and fever hospitals over which the college has no control, and the college disclaims all responsibility for the statements of these gentlemen. As regards paragraph 3, I understand the Senate of the Royal University has recognised the Galway Hospital with the approval of the Lord Lieutenant. The hospital is reported to the President by the medical faculty as fulfilling in every particular the requirements set forth in the regulations of the Royal University; but representations having been made as to the number of beds available inquiries were instituted, and the entire question will be again before the Standing Committee at its meeting next week. The college has made no new "regulations," but regrets the exclusion up to this date of medical students by the senior medical officer of the Galway Fever Hospital.
  DR. KENNY: The right hon. Gentleman states that the Galway Hospital was not ill existence up to 1892. That is quite correct as to the name, but the institution existed as the Galway Infirmary. The right hon. Gentleman has not answered that portion of the question dealing with the number of beds in constant occupation. May I also ask whether—
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman will have another opportunity of putting his questions.
  COLONEL NOLAN: May I ask whether, if the number of these beds is going to be increased at the expense of the county, the right hon. Gentleman will consider the propriety of making a contribution from Government Funds towards their maintenance?
  [No reply was given.]

  CITY OF LIMERICK MAIL SERVICE.
  MR. O'KEEFFE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if steps will be taken to give to the City of Limerick the benefits by the new system of the acceleration of the mails from England and Dublin to the South of Ireland?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. ARNOLD MORLEY,): This matter is under consideration, but I am not yet in a position to say whether any arrangement can be adopted for giving effect to the wishes of the hon. Member.

  EXAMINING OFFICERS OF CUSTOMS.
  SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether any decision has yet been arrived at by the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury, with reference to the memorials of Examining Officers of the Customs on the question of their seniority in the Department; and, if so, whether he will indicate the nature of the decision?
  *SIR J. T. HIBBERT: This question was inquired into and reported on by a Departmental Committee, and regulations were framed by the Commissioners of Customs in accordance with the Committee's recommendations. The Treasury has not seen its way to devise any different solution, or to modify the arrangements made. It would be difficult to describe within t he limits of an answer to a question the arrangements made, but if the hon. Member desires information as to any details, I shall be very glad to communicate with him.

  QUALIFICATION FOR IRISH POOR LAW GUARDIANS.
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the

  391
  Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he intends before the annual election in March to reduce the rateable qualification for Poor Law Guardian in Ireland to the standard recently fixed for that office in England?
  MR. J. MORLEY: From the information at present before the Local Government Board for Ireland, they are of opinion that a uniform reduction of the rating qualification for the office of guardian, such as that made in England, would not be generally acceptable to the unions throughout Ireland; but where any application has been made to the Board to reduce the existing qualification, the guardians of the union concerned have been informed in every case that if, after due notice, they pass a resolution in favour of reduction, the matter shall receive the favourable consideration of the Local Government Board.
  MR. HAYDEN: Does the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the fact that these men do not represent the ratepayers, and are not likely to pass such a resolution as he refers to?
  [No reply was given.]

  ASYLUM GOVERNORS IN IRELAND.
  MR. JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will consent to give the Return of the names, addresses, dates of appointment, and religious professions of all Governors of District Lunatic Asylums in Ireland for the years 1892 and 1893, as moved for by the Member for South Belfast?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I cannot find that there is a precedent for the Return suggested by the hon. Member. The District Lunatic Asylums Boards in Ireland were re-organized by the late Government in 1887, during the Chief Secretaryship of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol, when 95 Governors who had been appointed without any limitation of time were removed; and again in 1887, during the Chief Secretaryship of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Manchester, when the numbers of the Governors constituting the Boards were generally reduced, in some cases, at least, by one-third. It does not appear that Returns were then presented to the House, and I think properly so, as any such Returns must prove invidious, and could serve no useful purpose.

  ROYAL COMMISSION ON MINING ROYALTIES
  MR. WOODS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Royal Commissioners on Milling Royalties have completed their investigations; and, if so, when is their final Report likely to be submitted to the House?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,): I have no knowledge of my own on the subject; but I will communicate with the Royal Commissioners, and inform the hon. Member of the result.

  SICK PAY IN THE POST OFFICE.
  MR. GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Postmaster General why the Post Office Minute, concerning sick pity, which has recently come into force, has not been extended to all the unestablished hands engaged at Mount Pleasant and Holloway Postal Telegraph Factories?
  MR. ARNOLD MORLEY: I am not aware to what Post Office Minute the question of the hon. Member refers, but the subject of the question shall receive consideration.

  ILLITERATE VOTERS AT THE MEATH ELECTIONS.
  MR. WEBSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the home Department if he would inform the House, prior to the Debate on the North and South Meath Election Petitions, the number of electors who voted as illiterates at the late General Election ill those constituencies?
  MR. ASQUITH: I am endeavouring to obtain the information the hon. Member desires, and have telegraphed to Dublin for the figures. Up to the present I have received no reply. If I do receive one I will communicate with him.

  THE CONVICT LEARY.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with respect to the case of Daniel Leary, a convict in Mountjoy Prison, who has been in the hospital for the past four mouths, whether, in view of the fact that his sentence is nearly up, and that he is seriously ill, he will order his release?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The General Prisons Board report that this convict was removed on the 21st of last month on medical grounds to Maryboro' Prison, where his condition will be carefully watched. He will be eligible in the ordinary course for release on licence on the 23rd of next month. His case was recently under the consideration of the Government, and there seemed to be no adequate medical ground for release before that time.

  THE CONVICT GALLAGHER.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has read the statement reported to have been made by Callan, who was lately released from prison, that Dr. Gallagher, a convict in Portland, is insane; and whether he will sanction an independent medical inquiry into Dr. Gallagher's condition?
  MR. ASQUITH: I have read the statement attributed to Callan. It is totally without foundation in fact. In view of this and similar allegations I have made careful inquiries respecting the mental condition of Gallagher, with the result that I have come to the conclusion that he is perfectly sane. There is no ground, in my opinion, for an independent medical inquiry.

  PUBLICANS AND THE MAGISTERIAL BENCH.
  MR. PENROSE FITZGERALD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if Mr. James O'Neill, recently appointed a magistrate at Kinsale, County Cork, held, at the time of his appointment, a retail publican's licence; if he still holds a publican's licence; and if he is the owner of a pawnbroker's establishment, the licence for which is taken out in the name of his wife?
  MR. J. MORLEY: Being unacquainted with the practice, I have communicated with the Lord Chancellor of Ireland on the subject of the question, and have not yet procured a reply.
  MR. SEXTON: May I ask whether there is any rule of law by winch persons holding publicans' licences are excluded from the Magisterial Bench?
  [No reply was given.]

  QUARANTINE IN THE SUEZ CANAL.
  MR. JAMES WILLIAM LOWTHER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Convention relating to quarantine in the Sues Canal, signed at Venice on 30th January, 1892, by a certain number of the European Powers, has now been signed and ratified by all?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY,): The Convention signed at Venice on January 30th, 1892, relating to quarantine in the Sues Canal, has now been ratified by all the signatory Powers, except Portugal, whose action is still dependent upon the consent of the Cortes.

  IMPRISONMENT OF AN ENGLISH SEAMAN AT BILBAO.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been called to the imprisonment of all English seaman named A. Shelley, of the steamship Newcastle, at Bilbao, and if he is aware of the fact that the man Shelley has been waiting in prison seven months for his trial; if his attention has been directed to the fact that the other two seamen who were arrested with Shelley for the same alleged offence have been liberated through the influence of the American and Swedish Consul; if he is aware that the English inhabitants of Bilbao have repeatedly called the attention of the British Consul and Vice Consul to the fact that this seaman has been kept in prison for so many mouths without trial, the alleged offence against Shelley and the other seamen being, "That whilst under the influence of drink they had an altercation with the Spanish police," and that the British Consul and the Vice Consul have repeatedly refused to secure the release of the man Shelley, or to insist upon the Spanish Authorities bringing, him to trial in order that the alleged offence might be inquired into; mid if he will at once take steps to secure the release of one of Her Majesty's subjects who has suffered so many months' imprisonment without trial, whilst subjects of other nations, through the care and interference of their Consuls, have been released for the same alleged offence, and are now taking steps against

  395
  the Spanish Government for false imprisonment?
  *SIR E. GREY: This is the first time that the attention of the Foreign Office has been called to this case. Inquiry will be made at once by cable.

  THE GLANDERS AND FARCY ORDER.
  MR. THOMAS HENRY BOLTON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the fact that the London County Council, in carrying out the recent Order with regard to glanders and farcy, refuses compensation to the owners of animals compulsorily slaughtered; and whether any further legislation is contemplated, with a view to the provision of reasonable compensation in such cases?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. H. GARDNER,): The recent Order with regard to glanders and farcy left it optional on the part of Local Authorities to slaughter and pay compensation for animals suffering from either of those diseases. The London County Council unanimously decided not to exercise the power thus conferred upon them, and I do not feel that I should be justified at the present tinge in setting aside their decision. In any case, I do not think that any further legislation would be necessary.
  MR. T. H. BOLTON: Having regard to the serious danger to human life, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of sending the Order back to the London Comity Council for re-consideration?
  MR. GARDNER: My hon. Friend is no doubt aware that there are other provisions in the Order besides those for slaughter and compensation, and I think it would be better to wait and see how the Order works before taking further steps.

  UGANDA—SIR GERALD PORTAL'S MISSION.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will lay upon the Table a Copy of the Instructions to Sir Gerald Portal?
  SIR E. GREY: The full instructions are included among Papers which were laid on the Table on Tuesday, and will be distributed on Monday.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Would it be convenient to say whether those instructions will contain any reference to the provisions which may have to be made for the peace of the country in the interval between the evacuation of the East Africa Company and the final decision of the Government?
  SIR E. GREY: I should say that the question of what is an adequate provision would be rather a matter of opinion.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I did not say adequate. I said "reference to any provision."
  SIR E. GREY: The Papers will be distributed on Monday, and it would be better for the right hon. Gentleman to form his own opinion then.

  THE CHRISTIAN BROTHERS.
  COLONEL NOLAN: beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the Board of Education in Ireland has passed rules under which the Christian Brothers can receive grants on the terms sketched out in last year's Debates; if these rules have received the assent of the Lord Lieutenant, and if the estimate will provide for any increase of expense under this head; and if the Lord Lieutenant does not sanction such rules, how will the Christian Brothers be admitted to share in the grant?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,): The Board of Education have recently submitted certain proposed changes in the rules under which grants are paid, but the Lord Lieutenant found himself unable to give his sanction to the changes so proposed. The Christian Brothers can, of course, only be admitted to share in the grants by compliance with the regulations of the Board.
  COLONEL NOLAN: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the Lord Lieutenant has refused to sanction the second set of rules passed by the Board of Education?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I am not sure that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is right in saying that the rules were really "passed." But the Lord Lieutenant has found himself unable to sanction cer-

  397
  tain changes proposed by the National Board.
  MR. SEXTON: Are we to understand that the amended proposal has been rejected, or is it still under consideration? Has the right hon. Gentleman any objection to lay on the Table a copy of the proceedings and votes of the Commission on the subject?
  MR. J. MORLEY: It is quite true that on Friday last it was my duty a second time to inform the National Board that the proposed changes could not be sanctioned. I know of no reason why the correspondence on this subject and the minutes of the National Board should not be laid on the Table of the House, but I should like to communicate with the National Board before doing so.
  MR. DIAMOND: Is it not a fact that some of the practices to which the objection is taken in the case of the Christian Brothers' schools in Ireland are carried on in English voluntary schools, where they are made no obstacle to the earning of the grant.
  [No answer was given.]

  ALLEGED TERRORISM IN ROSS-SHIRE.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the case of Alexander Macrae, who, between Thursday, 26th January, and Tuesday, 31st January last, was mobbed in Plockton, Ross-shire, had to barricade himself in his bedroom, was refused police protection, and ultimately ejected from his lodgings through terrorism, was for safety taken by his friends at 11 p.m. on Tuesday night to Strome Ferry, where he arrived, at 1 a.m., and sought the shelter of the police station there for the rest of the night; and whether steps have been taken to provide protection for him, in order that he may be able to follow his ordinary cal ling in the village of Plockton?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. B. BALFOUR): My attention was called to certain statements relating to this matter, and I immediately telegraphed directing that an official Report should he sent to me in regard to it. I have received a telegram briefly stating the result of the inquiry, and mentioning that a full Report is being forwarded by post. When that Report is received steps appropriate to the circumstances which it may disclose will at once be taken.

  CLASSIFICATION OF AGRARIAN OFFENCES IN IRELAND.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any alteration has been made since 1st August, 1892, in the classification of agrarian offences in Ireland; whether any offences or class of offences are included in the Return presented to this House which were not previously included; and whether any offences or class of offences are omitted from the Return which were previously included?
  MR. J. MORLEY: My answer to all the inquiries is "No."

  INDIAN COUNCILS ACT, 1892.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether he can lay upon the Table of the House, Copies of the Correspondence which has passed between the India Office and the Government of India on the subject of the Indian Councils Act of last Session?
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. GEORGE. RUSSELL,): The correspondence is incomplete, and therefore, as my hon. Friend will see, it would not be desirable to lay it on the Table at present.

  TRIAL BY JURY IN BENGAL.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether a Commission has been, or will be, appointed to inquire into the action of the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal, with the consent of the Viceroy of India, with reference to the abolition of the right of trial by Jury in Bengal in many classes of cases which previously were subject to that mode of trial; and what measures have been taken, or will be taken, by the Secretary of State for India, should such a Commission not have been decided upon, to preserve to the inhabitants of Bengal the right they have hitherto enjoyed of trial by a jury of their fellow-subjects?
  MR. G. RUSSELL: The Orders of the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal to which my hon. Friend refers, and which affect eight out of the 46 districts of Bengal, have been and are under the consideration of the Secretary of State; but as he

  399
  is, at the request of the Government of India, awaiting a despatch on the subject which is now on its way home, it is impossible to make any final announcement of his intentions.

  CROWN LANDS IN WALES.
  MR. PRITCHARD MORGAN: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total acreage of the Crown Lands in the counties of Carnarvon, Denbigh, Merioneth, and Montgomery, and what is the total acreage of lands in those counties sold and disposed of where the Crown retained all the mineral rights?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,): The information will be found on page 310 of Parliamentary Paper 284, Session 1889.

  HOME AND FOREIGN LABOUR.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury what effect Her Majesty's Government proposes to give to the resolutions adopted by the Trades Unions Congress at Glasgow in September last, representing some 418 societies, and 1,219,934 artisans, with respect to
  "Steps being taken to prevent the State purchasing materials for the postal and other branches of the Civil Service from Bavaria, and to ensure their being purchased front home manufacturers;" "to prevent the landing of foreign pauper aliens on our shores" and "for the restriction of foreign labour in loading and discharging ships in Great Britain and Ireland."
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE,): In answer to the hon. and gallant Member, I have to say that as regards the part of the question referring to the landing of pauper aliens on our shores, as that is the subject of a notice given by an hon. Gentleman opposite in the Debate now proceeding, it would be decidedly inconvenient to enter upon the matter in answer to a question. With reference to the first part of the question, as to the purchase of materials by branches of the Civil Service front home manufacturers, the Legislature has by a series of Acts made careful provision that the whole of the community shall have free access upon equal terms to all products whatever, in whatever country produced; and it appears to me that those
  400
  Acts of the Legislature are presumably a guide for the Executive Government. It would be a singular step for an Executive Government its own discretion to allow the course of legislative precedents to be infringed. I will also say that there are no facts before me on this subject, and, of course, if any facts do come to the knowledge of the Government that admit of being examined—if they come to the knowledge of any Department of the Government—they will be duly examined. The third part of the question asks about "the restriction of foreign labour in loading and discharging ships in Great Britain mid Ireland." I am not aware, Sir, that the Government have any power to interfere for the purpose of dictating to those who load and discharge ships in Great Britain and Ireland whether they should do it by means of foreign or of home labour.

  RETURN RELATING TO MAJORITIES.
  SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether there is any objection to providing the Return, relating to majorities necessary for constitutional changes, which stands on the Paper to-day?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I have inquired of the representatives of the. Foreign and Colonial Departments whether there is any objection to this Return, and I find there is none. This is a question referring to matters which are constantly transacted between those who wish for Returns and the representatives of the proper Departments in the House. They are transacted without any public proceeding whatever, and are passed as unopposed Motions. I am quite at a loss to know why the hon. Member has made this the subject of a public question, which necessarily occupies a certain portion of the time of the House.

  IRISH JUDICIAL RENTS.
  MR. DANE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, having regard to the present serious agricultural depression in Ireland, and the inability of many of the farmers there to realise out of their holdings the rents judicially fixed, Her Majesty's Government will introduce in the present Session a short

  401
  measure providing for a temporary abatement of such rents upon the lines of the 29th section of "The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887"?
  SIR T. LEA: At the same time, I will ask the right hon. Gentleman if his attention has been called to the low prices obtained for agricultural produce in Ireland; and whether the Government intend to introduce a Bill to provide for a revision of judicial rents upon the basis of prices similar to the provision in the Land Act of 1887?
  MR. MCGILLIGAN: Has the right hon. Gentleman received a copy of a resolution from Fermanagh asking him to press this matter on the attention of the Government?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I have received a good many resolutions on the subject, and do not recall this particular one. With reference to the questions on the Paper, I fear I can hardly add anything to what I stated in reply to questions on the same subject which were addressed to me in the House yesterday afternoon.

  OFFICIAL NOMINATIONS TO IRISH ASYLUMS BOARD.
  MR. DANE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland how long Colonel Buchanan has been a Governor of the District Asylum for Tyrone and Fermanagh; how many attendances he has made during that period; what was the total windier of attendances; and upon what grounds was his removal effected front the List of Governors by His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The general grounds on which the Lord Lieutenant acted in selecting his own nominees for the Asylums Boards for 1893 were fully explained in my reply yesterday to a question put by the hon. and learned Member for Londonderry, and again in my statement of last evening. The fact that the particular gentlemen mentioned were, with others, not included in the limited number of selections made directly by His Excellency was in no way whatever due to personal considerations, hut solely to the necessity of establishing a fairer and more general representation on the Boards. I understand both these gentlemen gave good attendances. It is, of course, open to the Grand Jury to
  402
  nominate them to any of their vacancies. The Lord Lieutenant would he also glad to appoint them to any vacancies among his nominees when it can be done without interfering with the more general representation which he has endeavoured to establish.
  MR. DANE: Arising out of that answer, may I ask if the right hon. Gentleman is aware that Colonel Buchanan was removed in favour of another gentleman who was also a Protestant? Is he also aware that Colonel Buchanan not only most carefully and sedulously attended the meetings of the Board, but lived within gunshot of it; that he was unanimously elected on each one of its committees, and that, as a matter of fact, he kept all the minutes of its meetings in his own handwriting?
  MR. CARSON: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the question, I wish to ask him, is he aware that last year Colonel Buchanan received special thanks from the Visitors of the Lunacy Department for the manner in which he had discharged his duties?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is not Colonel Buchanan Clerk of the Peace for the county of Tyrone, and are not his official duties in that capacity sufficient to occupy Ids attention? Did not the gallant gentleman in the course of a speech that he recently delivered say that if the Home Rule Bill were passed he would put himself at the head of his regiment?
  MR. J. MORLEY: When the change was made I was not aware of one qualification or disqualification of the kind enumerated.
  MR. MACARTNEY: Was any inquiry made by the Lord Lieutenant into the qualifications or disqualifications of the members of the Board?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The object of the inquiries made by direction of the Lord Lieutenant was to redress the balance in the representation on the Board. No personal consideration of the kind indicated in the questions put, to me were entertained for a moment.
  MR. MACARTNEY: I am not in conflict with the right Gentleman on the point that the right hon. Gentleman was entitled to exercise his own judgment in the matter, but I want to know whether any inquiry was made by

  403
  the Lord Lieutenant as between the gentlemen on the Board as to who had been most regular in attendance and who had the greater or the lesser qualifications?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The fact of the attendance was undoubtedly in our view when these appointments were made, but the question of qualification in other respects was not.
  MR. DANE: How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile this last answer with—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  POLICE PROTECTION FOR SHERIFFS AT NIGHT.
  MR. DARLING: I wish to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland a question of which I have given him private notice—namely, whether, having regard to the unanimous judgment delivered yesterday be the Court of Queen's Bench in Ireland in the case of "the Attorney General v. Kissane," he will withdraw the Circular dated Dublin Castle, December 7 last, and direct the police authorities in Ireland to act in accordance with the law of the land, as laid down by the Court of Queen's Bench, until that decision may have been reversed on appeal?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I can only say, in answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman, that the decision will of course command the immediate attention of the Irish Government, and whatever direction it may seem necessary in conformity with that decision to give to the police authorities will be given.

  MEMBERS AND THEIR SEATS.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: Will you, Sir, kindly, for the instruction and convenience of the House, repeat the ruling given by you on a former occasion as to the way hon. Members may secure and retain their seats during the evening?
  MR. SPEAKER: In answer to the hon. Member's question, I have to say that there is no fixed rule or Standing Order regulating the manner in which hon. Members may secure their seats. But there is a well-understood custom by which hon. Members who have attended prayers should have a right to the seats they then occupy, and they have asserted their claim by placing a
  404
  card at the back of the seats. More than that, hon. Members who are engaged in Committees upstairs have been accustomed a short time before the meeting of the House to secure the seats they wish to occupy by placing their hats upon such seats for the purpose of retaining them. But that claim is not made good until the hon. Member who owns the hat attends at prayers, so as to establish a definite claim to the seat. Some scats in the House are allotted by the courtesy of Members to gentlemen who have occupied them for a long period, and I hope that that is a custom that will be preserved. I have said that there is no fixed rule, but it is quite possible for a Member to have two hats, or even more, for the purpose of securing seats either for himself or his friends. That clearly is a violation of the spirit of the rule, and I may venture to say, in conclusion, that no rule nor practice nor custom can possibly be effective unless it be generously interpreted, and unless applied, as I am sure it will be, with that mutual forbearance and courtesy which I hope is the characteristic of this House.
  MR. W. REDMOND: I desire, Sir, respectfully to ask, is it not a fact that Members who are attending Committees may secure their seats for the evening by means of a pink card instead of placing their hats thereon? And may I ask whether it would not be advisable to make the rule for retaining seats hold good for the whole Session, so that the hon. Members of the various Parties in the House may, as far as possible, sit together? For myself I am lost where I am.

  PERSONAL EXPLANATION BY COLONEL SAUNDERSON.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I rise for the purpose of making a personal explanation. Unfortunately I was absent from the House yesterday, when the hon. Member for East Galway spoke. He said—
  "The hon. and gallant Member also accused him of having stolen a deer. He never stole a deer, he never pleaded guilty to stealing a deer, and he was never fined for stealing a deer, and he challenged the hon. and gallant Member to produce any record showing such a conviction."
  The hon. Member pointed out also that I made a mistake in asserting that two days after a speech he had made a

  405
  murder was committed. I made that statement upon what I believed to be sufficient authority, but I find I was mistaken. The date of the murder was five mouths after he made the speech. With regard to stealing the deer, I hold in my hand an authority which I deemed conclusive, and that was a certified copy of the order and finding on that case. Perhaps the House will allow me to read it. The case set out—
  "That you the defendant (John Roche) did, on the 4th of October 1876, at Derrycraigh, being a forest chase or purlieu of the complainant, carry away therefrom a deer, and further that you hail in your possession on the day aforesaid a deer, contrary to the statute in such case made and provided. The defendant pleaded guilty of having the deer in his possession on the 4th of October, 1876, and expressed regret for the same, and consented to pay all cost."
  Sir, that is the authority on which I stated John Roche stole a deer. Furthermore, the hon. Member accuses me of personal discourtesy to him in having made this statement in regard to him without having given him previous information. I should be sorry to show discourtesy to any Member of the House; but permit me to observe that I was not bound to associate John Roche, who took away the deer and had it in his possession, with the hon. Member for East Galway, although I am bound to admit that between the names of the two persons there is some similarity.
  MR. JOHN ROCHE: Mr. Speaker, I must firstly say that I received no notice from the hon. Member for North Armagh of his intention to introduce this question here to-day, no more than of his attack on me yesterday. He produces a copy of a summons; but as he told you, he stated in his speech yesterday that I stole this deer, that I pleaded guilty, and that I was fined. Now he has got a copy of a summons close on 20 years old, but why has he not got the conviction, if there was any such thing as a conviction? If I was fined where is the record of the fine? He says I apologised. But I apologised for nothing, because there was nothing to apologise for. I was summoned, no doubt, for shooting a deer upon my own land—upon a farm which I hold in the townland of Derrycrag, for which I pay rent. There is not within 10 miles of the farm a single enclosed deer park or forest. No doubt there is a large number
  406
  of wild deer in the district owned by several men, and I say here, that if tomorrow I were on the lands and found a deer straying there I would shoot him. The landlord's agent, Mr. George Morris, who is now a member of the Local Government Board, Dublin, and a brother of Lord Morris, appeared at the Petty Sessions, and stated he would withdraw the summons, and that no fine or penalty need be inflicted. [Cries of "Withdraw Saunderson!" and "Apologise!"]

  THE ROCHESTER ELECTION PETITION.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the evidence in the Rochester Petition will be printed and laid on the Table of the House?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: No, Sir.

MOTIONS.

  NEW WRIT—NORTH MEATH.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crow n in Ireland to make out a New Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the County of Meath (Northern Division) in the room of Michael Davitt, esquire, whose election for the said County has been declared void."—(Sir Thomas Esmonde.)
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON: Sir, my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim on a former occasion gave notice that it was our intention to oppose the issue of this Writ. Our object in doing so was to bring under the notice of the House the circumstances attending that election, especially with regard to priestly intimidation. That object will be attained by the discussion that will arise upon the Amendment to be moved by the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Arnold-Forster); and as we do not wish to put the House to the trouble of two debates on the same subject, it is not our intention to oppose the issue of the Writ. Perhaps I might appeal to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to carry out our wishes by moving that the evidence be not only laid on the Table of the House, but circulated amongst Members of the House.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,): On that subject I should think the proper course would be for the hon. Member to move. The evidence in these cases is very voluminous, but, of course, in cases where the House desires it, it will be laid on the Table. It has been so laid, and is accessible to Members in the Library. In any case where it is desired that the evidence should be printed and circulated, there should be a special Motion for the purpose.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Do I understand that the Judgment and the evidence is to be laid on the Table? Is the Judgment to be printed as distinct from the evidence?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The first Motion was for laying on the Table the Judgment and the evidence, but I understand that the Home Secretary has given notice that the Judgments should be printed and circulated. There is no Motion to print the evidence.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Is it necessary to make any such Motion? Is it not sufficient to go to the Librarian, as I have often done, and say, "I want this printed and circulated"?
  MR. SPEAKER: in such a case as this we would require the order of the House to print the evidence.
  Motion agreed to.

  NEW WRIT—SOUTH MEATH.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland to make out a New Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the County of Meath (Southern Division) in the room of Patrick Fulham, esquire, whose election for the said County has been declared void."—(Colonel Nolan.)
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I object to this Motion, on the ground that the hon. and gallant Member is not the proper person from whom such a Motion should come. The hon. and gallant Member is not in any sense connected with the party who recently held the seat in South Meath, and though perhaps he may be within his right in moving for this Writ, we must have regard to what the usage of the House has been. That usage is an ancient usage whereby Writs are moved by the
  408
  officials or Whips to which these seats belong. Therefore, I object to the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member. Of course, this matter must now be decided by the House. If it is to approve of the course adopted by the hon. and gallant Member, the usage which has prevailed by courtesy amongst the Whips representing the different Parties in this House will he transgressed. If such a Motion is allowed, there will be nothing to prevent the Whip of my Party from moving a Writ in the case of a seat which has been vacated by a Member of any other Party in the House. I would respectfully submit that inasmuch as my Party hitherto held the seat in South Meath, and also inasmuch as I have a Motion on the Paper for Tuesday next, that the Writ for South Meath be moved for on that day, that the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member should not be allowed. I respectfully beg to move the adjournment of this Debate until Tuesday next.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Sir Thomas Esmonde.)
  Mr. JOHN REDMONDand Colonel NOLAN rose at the same time, and the SPEAKER called on
  COLONEL NOLANwho said: Of course, I should in all eases give way to the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond), but in this case there may be some matters of which he may not be aware. The first and most extraordinary business is that I went to the hon. Baronet (Sir Thomas Esmonde) last Tuesday, the first day on which this subject was before the House, and told him I would move the Writ if he did not move it. I would appeal to this House—is moving for the Writs to be turned into an electioneering dodge—[Tory and Parnellite Cheers]—or whether we are to move for them fairly and squarely? Otherwise a majority in this House may disfranchise a small minority. What did I do on Tuesday? I asked the Secretary to the Speaker for the two Writs for North and South Meath. I brought them both into the House to move them both. The hon. Baronet had only one Writ on the Paper; I wanted both down. I believe there is supposed to be a small Party advantage in the holding of one of the elections first, and I believe that is

  409
  the explanation of all these manœuvres. I have had no manœeuvres. On every occasion I had both Writs ready, so that both might go by the same post to Ireland. I submit to Liberal Members opposite, is it not fair that the two Writs should be moved for together And as to the point of etiquette, I appeal to everyone, is not this rule that if a Whip is too slow—[cries of "Oh!"]—in moving for any Writ and wants to turn it into an electioneering dodge—is it not the custom for another Whip to go to hint and say, "If you do not move it, I will?" That is not a supposititious case. The last one was done by the hon. Baronet to myself. There was a vacancy in the County of Wexford. The hon. Baronet, I think, very properly came to me and said, "You move the Writ for the County of Wexford, or I will be obliged to move it myself." I told him I had no instructions on the subject, and that I had no great anxiety to move it.
  MR. T.M. HEALY: "The Boys of Wexford."
  COLONEL NOLAN: He then moved it himself. In the present case, I think the two Writs should be sent away by the same post, so that both elections may take place on the same day.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: With the indulgence of the House I wish to say, in reply to the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway, in reference to the Writ for North Wexford, that I did not move for the Writ until I had asked him to move it and until he had declined to do so. The difference is this: that in the present case the hon. and gallant Member put down the Motion without consulting me at all.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I regret extremely that any difference should arise over this matter, and I sincerely trust that no conflict will take place over it. What I would ask the House to do is to take care that fair play is asserted in the matter. I may say that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Galway, in moving the Writ on Tuesday last, moved under the impression that he was acting in accordance with the usages of the House. He said very fairly on Tuesday that he would submit the question to the Whips of the two great Parties in the House, and would adopt their decision. He accordingly consulted the gentlemen, and they told him that in their opinion he
  410
  had taken a mistaken view, and he at once acted in accordance with the view which they expressed. The invariable practice of the House, as explained by the Whip of the Conservative Party the other night, has been that not merely the Whip of the Party who owned the allegiance of the late Member should move the Writ, but it has also been the practice of the House that if he does not move the Writ, the Whip of another Party might say to him, "If you do not move the Writ by such a day, I will move it." On Tuesday last my hon. and gallant Friend said openly and publicly to the House that he would move for the Writ to-day if it was not moved by the hon. Baronet, the Whip of the other Party. In addition to that, my hon. and gallant Friend had some private communication with the hon. Baronet; but as to that I know nothing. But he certainly stated publicly in this House that if the hon. Baronet did not move the Writ, he would move it. The hon. Baronet bas not moved the Writ today, and so my hon. and galland Friend in moving for the Writ is acting in strict accordance with the usages of the House, as explained by the Whips of the two great Parties. Under these circumstances, I regret extremely that there should be any objection to issue the Writ; and I would appeal to the House, in the spirit of fair play, that if there is any political advantage to be gained by one side or the other, that we should take care not to lend ourselves to any such attempt, and to take care that the Writs are issued on the same occasion by the same post to the proper office in. Dublin.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. MARJORIBANKS,): I was not in the House the other day when my right hon. Friend the Member for St. Augustine's Division of Kent (Mr. Akers-Douglas) explained what is the usual practice of the house with regard to moving Writs. My right hon. Friend explained that the Whip of the Party to whom the Member who vacates the seat belongs moves the Writ; but he might have gone further and said that that Writ should be moved within a reasonable time, and that it according to that custom the Whip, as announced, does not move the Writ, on it particular day, if that day allows of a fairly reasonable limit of time, that then any person

  411
  who gives notice would be within his right in moving for the Writ. It is quite true that it is the right of the hon. Baronet, strictly speaking, to move this Writ; but it does seem to me that there is considerable force in the argument used by the hon. and gallant Member opposite that, having given notice to the hon. Baronet, the hon. Baronet has to some extent lost the right to oppose the issue of the Writ. I do hope that matters of this kind will be treated by all Parties in the House without any sort of heat or partisan feeling. It is to the convenience of Members of the House that these formal matters should be treated in a friendly, considerate, and forbearing manner; and I would appeal to the hon. Baronet opposite to give way and not to oppose the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member opposite, for that is a course that will be to the advantage of the progress of the business of the House.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I am sorry that the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury has seen fit to intervene in a matter upon which he is not sufficiently informed. The facts of the case are these: That without any notice to us of any sort or description the hon. and gallant Member for North Galway, without communicating with us, without communicating with the Tory Whips, without communicating with the Liberal Whips, without communicating with anybody, made his Motion upon Tuesday last. ["Hear, hear!"] We were hound to take exception to the Motion. We took exception to it upon the ground that he had moved in defiance of the House requiring two days' notice to be given that he was obliged to postpone his Motion. What were the facts? We waited until that Rule was put on the Paper by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We were bound to wait until we saw what the Rule was, and what the practice under that Rule would be. Some people may take different views; but when you are dealing with a matter that is more or less a matter of discretion, you have to consider the views of those who are acting upon a particular discretion. My hon. Friend did not put down his Motion for South Meath until he saw the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the
  412
  Paper. That was upon the Wednesday. He then, in order to give two days' notice, conceived he had to give two days' sitting notice. His notice did not appear on the Paper till Thursday. The two sitting days were Friday and Monday, and the soonest occasion on which he conceived be could make his Motion was Tuesday next. However, this is a matter, of course, in which the Conservative Party are even more interested than anybody else. They are as much interested in maintaining this matter as we are; so is the Liberal Party. It may he inconvenient to the Conservative Party, as it may be inconvenient to our Party, that Writs should be moved as vacancies occur; and if an inroad is to be made on what is laid down as the settled practice, there is an end altogether to the amenities which have hitherto prevailed in relation to this matter. It seems a fair thing to say, let both Writs go together to the Sheriff; and let him decide. But who is the Sheriff? The Sheriff is their loan, as every Tory official in Ireland is their man.
  MR. W. REDMOND: Every Tory official is not our man, nor every Whig either.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: We, by reason of our position in the House—
  MR. W. REDMOND: I will not allow anything of that sort to be said.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: We, by reason of our position in this House in regard to this matter, prefer to take one of these elections first. At the same time, the matter is in our carriage. We are the proper judges of a matter affecting our own Party—our own seats; and surely we are proper judges of our own domestic affairs. We do not seek to interfere in the affairs of the Tory Party or of the Liberal Party, and all we ask is Home Rule within our own Party.
  MR. T. HARRINGTONsaid, he could scarcely congratulate the hon. Member upon the speech he had just made, in face of the appeals that had been made from different parts of the House not to import heat into the discussion. The explanation he Lad given was an explanation which might have some weight if they did not know that the same Whip of the hon. Member's Party had on the Paper for this evening a Motion with regard to North Meath, and though he antici-

  413
  pated some opposition from the Conservative Benches of the House, it was a curious commentary upon the courtesy of hon. Members that the Conservative Members withdrew opposition to the notice and yet they declined to withdraw theirs. The South Meath Election Writ should have been moved before the North Meath Election Writ. The petition and the circumstances heard in the course of the case were decided in South Meath before they were in North Meath. He thought they would be safe in trusting the matter before the House to the sense of fair play of the House. They had endeavoured to take no advantage of their opponents. They were willing to go to Ireland together, and let the officials responsible for the carrying out of the elections select their own date. The elections could not take place on the same day; one would take place one or two days before the other. The Sheriff would have to make his arrangements, but in any case he thought they might well leave it to the fair sense of the House.
  DR. KENNYsaid he joined in the request to withdraw this opposition. The hon. Baronet had on the Paper a Motion respecting North Meath, put down in the full knowledge of all the facts, and surely he might have put down the Motion for South Meath at the same time, and avoided this conflict. The hon. Baronet was a gentleman of most courteous disposition, but they were all more or less creatures of their environment, and the hon. Baronet had his instructions from a quarter which was not disposed to extend to them that courtesy. He was bound to say that he recognised the position of the hon. Baronet, and he recognised the hand of the hon. and learned Member for Louth; the voice was the voice of Jacob, but the hand was the hand of Esau; and he ventured to appeal to the hon. Baronet to withdraw his opposition. All this contention had been raised over a matter of four days. He would venture again to ask those who thought they were stronger than his own Party, and who had accused them of wishing to take a political advantage, to withdraw their opposition to the Motion of his hon. and gallant Friend.
  MR. SEXTONsaid he was very glad to observe the temper and spirit in which this question had been discussed by the Irish Members who, had taken prominent sides in the dispute for, whatever might be the issue, he did not think it a question of sufficient magnitude to justify any angry spirit or any intemperate language. Now, he thought certain matters were beyond dispute. The first was that the original Motion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Galway was not justified by the usage of the House. The hon. Member had most frankly made an admission to that effect; in the second place, the question was whether his hon. Friend the Whip of their Party had used sufficient expedition in putting down a Motion for Tuesday next. He thought the argument of his hon. Friend the Member for North Louth had great force. The hon. Baronet was entitled to wait and see what was the nature and scope of the Sessional Orders. He would propose a compromise. It had been said by one of Ins hon. Friends that the Sheriff was their oppponent's man, and that observation had been resented. He would not take any partial position. The other side said the Sheriff was not their man, and the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had intimated that if the writs went together the elections would be held together. Well, if the elections were held together they were satisfied. What they wanted was that by no manipulation of the matter should the elections be held in succession to each other. Both sides believed that one division was more favourable to them than the other. He for Ins part, proposed, though he thought the hon. Baronet was well within Ins right, according to the spirit of the rule and usage, in fixing Tuesday next for the issue of the Writ—that if the hon. Member for Waterford and his friends would agree to assent to au arrangement by which the elections might be held on the same day, he would himself suggest to the hon. Baronet that he should withdraw his Motion, and that both the Writs should be issued together.
  MR. J. LOWTHERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir W. Harcourt) if Ins attention had been called to the fact that the Motion made, to which the House assented on Wednes-

  415
  day last only, stood as a Sessional Order. He would suggest that the Order should be made a Standing Order of the House.
  SIR W. HARCOURTsaid he only followed the usual form and practice. He had moved it, he believed, as a Sessional Order, but the Speaker expressed an opinion that it ought to be a Standing Order. He thought that would be sufficient.
  MR. J. REDMONDsaid he wished to disclaim altogether any desire of manipulation which had been alluded to. The object of himself and friends in preventing the postponement of one Writ until Tuesday next, after the issue of another Writ to-day, was to prevent that sort of thing. If it was proposed to have the two elections on the same day, he would be very glad. He did not know whether it was possible or not, but certainly, so far as he was concerned, and so far as he could speak for others, no attempt whatever would be made by them to manipulate this matter, or to try and induce the Sheriff to have the election which they desired first put before the one which the hon. Member for Kerry desired first. Therefore he thought the matter might now be allowed to end, and the two Writs might be allowed to issue. He regretted that any heat had been imported into the matter at all, and that the two sections of the Nationalist Party, who differed on important subjects, should have differed in this small matter, which at one time approached the indignity of a scene. He hoped the motion of the hon. Baronet would be withdrawn, and that the Writs would be sent by the same post to the Sheriff, the matter to be left to him.
  MR. W. REDMONDregretted that heat had been imported into the discussion. He agreed with the tone of the speech of the hon. Member for Kerry, but thought that if heat had been introduced it had not been through the fault of his own party. [Ministerial cries of "Oh!"] It was not the slightest use trying to howl him down. The Member for North Louth had attacked the party to which he belonged. The hon. Member said that the Party to which he belonged was supported by every Tory Official in Ireland. Well, if they wanted to raise the question now he was quite prepared
  416
  to go on. The hon. Member also said the Sheriff was their man. The hon. Member had no warrant whatever for saying that the Sheriff was their man, any more than he was the man of the Party to which the hon. Member belonged. It had been said that the Sheriff favoured one particular Party: he certainly had not favoured their Party, and he did not believe he would favour the other Party. The Sheriff was perfectly impartial in the matter. He regretted that they could not have a discussion about these Writs without introducing Party matter, but so far as he was concerned, he deplored any friction whatever. When, however, he heard a thing said in that House about the Party to which he belonged which he knew not to be true, he would deny it at once and as strongly as he could. Therefore, while he completely agreed with suggestions made by various speakers—principally by the Member for Kerry—that this compromise should be adopted, he also took the opportunity of saving that whenever the Party to which he belonged was attacked in that House he would undoubtedly reply. He repudiated the suggestion that either Tory or Whig officials were on their side. He was not sent either by Whig or Tory to that House, but by the Nationalists of Clare, where he would be glad to meet the hon. Member at any time.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, he desired only to say that if the Writs for these two seats were issued on the same day, most certainly the elections would not take place upon the same day. The Sheriff would not supply a new set of ballot boxes in order that two elections could take place on the same day. The House might depend on it that if the Writs were issued on the same day the elections would not be held on the same day, and, therefore, he thought the Motion ought not to be withdrawn.
  SIR T. ESMONDE: As it seems to be the wish of my hon. Friends, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Ordered, That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown in h-eland to make out a New Writ fur the electing of a

  417
  Member to serve in this present Parliament for the County of Meath, Southern Division, in the room of Patrick Fulham, esquire, whose election for the said County has been declared void.

  NEW WRITS.
  For Northumberland County (Hexham Division), v. Nathaniel George Clayton, esquire, void election; Walsall, v. Frank James, esquire, void election.

  NEW WRIT FOR ROCHESTER CITY.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a New Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the borough of Rochester, in the room of Horatio David Davies, esquire, whose election for the said borough has been declared void."—(Mr. Akers-Douglas.)
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORrose to move an Amendment to the Motion in the following terms:—
  "That the issue of the Writ for Rochester be postponed until the evidence in the recent Election Petition has been received and considered by the House."
  He said that at Question time he asked the First Lord of the Treasury whether the evidence in this case had been received, and he received an answer in the negative. He was quite alive to the inconvenience of discussing beforehand in that House election petitions, but already in the course of the present Session they had had two discussions on an Election Petition, and they were threatened with a third. He guarded himself from saying that he desired this Writ should be indefinitely postponed. He did not wish to visit on the Voters of Rochester generally the crimes and the sins of a small corrupt number in that constituency; in fact, he was sure that if it had not been for those corrupt practices, Rochester would have been represented in this Parliament, as in the last, by a Liberal Member. The ease of Rochester was peculiarly significant. He ventured in the last Session of Parliament to make the statement that there had been more widespread and general corruption, more illegal treating, and more corrupt practices generally at the last General Election than at almost any preceding Election in the history of the country. He was denounced in Tory organs and speeches for making a statement which they described as extravagantly wrong, but fortunately, since he
  418
  made that speech, several Election Petitions had taken place which showed that much bribery and corruption was practised by the Tory Party generally. In some of those Election Petitions, partly owing to the stupidity of the legal advisers of the Petitioners, Tory Members had been able to escape by the skin of their teeth. Fortunately, at Rochester the means were at hand to bring home to the Tory Party the practices which had been going on. The Tory Party in Rochester delighted to call itself constitutional. They had a constitutional association, a constitutional birth night club, constitutional teas, constitutional beer, and constitutional sandwiches. The constitutional association gave entertainments in the old Corn Exchange, and they were kind enough to provide what was euphemistically described as light refreshments at the figure of threepence. There were light refreshments in one room while performances were going on, and there was another performance in another room, also under the auspices of the association, and at these entertainments no less than 200 sandwiches, 85 dozen of bottled ale, and a small quantity of claret and mineral waters was served to the members and friends of the constitutional association. With regard to the birth night club, a certain number of gentlemen born in the month of October, agreed that on a certain night in October they would meet to celebrate their birth night; the club consisted of what were called rich birds who provided the entertainment, anal poor birds who partook of the entertainment, and for the small subscription of threepence a person could get an entertainment that would Le very moderate at half-a-crown. That was the way in which the work of registration was carried on; it was continued from one year's end to another, with the result that a large number of the poorer voters were constantly employed and paid as registration agents, and voted, of course, the constitutional ticket when an election came off. The Constitutional Association was not an Association in a very good financial position. In 1890 its total income was not more than £299 and a few shillings. Of this£299, £250 were subscribed by the Tory candidate. In 1891 the finances went up, reaching £315, but again the Tory candidate

  419
  figured for £300 out of the entire total. What was the result? One of the Judges at the Election Petition declared that the Constitutional Association was a most unconstitutional body, formed and carried on for purposes of corruption. But there were other methods of corruption. He might allude to one. A brewer's agent was brought before the Petition Court, charged with having gone into a public-house and stood drinks. He acknowledged the charge. He might mention that the very same thing took place in Montgomeryshire, where, by a modern miracle in the shape of an equal division of opinion between two Judges, a gentleman continued to hold a seat in that House who was described by one Judge as legally disentitled. In Montgomeryshire the same thing, occurred with a brewer's agent. And what was the defence? It was that as the representative of a brewer it was part of his business and within his right, and, indeed, one of his duties, to stand drinks for the customers of the house for the good of the house. The agents of the brewers had gone up and down every part of this county standing free drinks for the good of the house and the Tory party. He came, finally, to what the Judges said in this most remarkable Election Petition. They said that facts were proved before them which precluded their reporting that they had no reason to believe that corrupt and illegal practices prevailed at the election, but these facts were not such as to support a Report to the effect that corrupt or illegal practices had extensively prevailed at the election. He thought there was enough to show there was a strong presumption for believing a large amount of corrupt practices existed at this election, and under these circumstances he considered he was justified in asking the House to suspend the issue of the Writ until they had had time to peruse and consider the evidence. He made this Motion purely in the interests of electoral purity, and by way of showing how deeply he sympathised with those political purists who desired to clear the electoral atmosphere of anything like a tainted element. At the same time his Motion was not unconnected with a desire to bring home to the minds of the people of this country that if charges could be proved of men in Ireland giving votes in obedience to
  420
  spiritual influence, at least, their votes were quite as respectable as those of the gentlemen in Rochester who voted for the party who gave the two thousand sandwiches and the bottled beer. He begged to move his Motion.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the issue of the Writ for Rochester be postponed until the evidence in the recent Election Petition has been received and considered by this House."— (Mr. T. P. O' Connor.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  *THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir CHARLES RUSSELL,): I believe it will be convenient that on the Amendment of my hon. Friend the view the Government takes of this matter should early be explained to the House. I do not think anyone can justly complain of my hon. Friend for moving this Amendment, for I think it must be conceded on all hands that there were some very extraordinary features in connection with the Election as disclosed by the learned Judge's Report; but while my hon. Friend gave the House some portions of the evidence, it is not possible to consider in all its fulness that evidence unless it is fully before the House, and even if it were, it would be impossible for this House to constitute itself the judge of that evidence and go behind the Report and the results founded on the evidence by the learned Judges whose responsible duty it was to try this Petition. I should like to recall to the recollection of the House the mode in which legislation has proceeded in questions of this kind. Under the old system preceding the Act of 1852, the House used by its own Committees to inform itself of what the facts of the case were, and upon the Report of that Committee it judged, reported, and decided upon the matter; and if the House came to the conclusion that the evidence in the case was such as to justify the imputation of the existence of widespread and general corruption in the borough, the Government of the day, on whom the responsible duty was imposed, under the direction of the House, proceeded to the next step, which was to bring in an Act for the disfranchise-

  421
  ment of the borough. The Act of 1852 altered that machinery in some respects, for it provided that when by the joint Address of both Houses it was set out that a Committee of the House of Commons had reported that corrupt practices had, or that there was reason to believe that corrupt practices extensively prevailed in any constituency, and the House of Commons prayed Her Majesty to cause inquiry, then Her Majesty issued her Commission for the purpose of inquiry into the matters in question, and that Commission became the foundation of further action by Parliament. The House will recollect that under the more recent Acts the mode of procedure has been entirely changed; and now, instead of a Committee of the House having cast upon it the duty of inquiring into alleged corrupt practices, that duty is performed the Judges of the land, and their report takes the place formerly occupied by the report of a Committee of this House. But I have to call the attention of the House to this fact, that both according to the old procedure, and under the Act of 1852 and the later Act of 1868, the foundation for any proceedings in the direction of the issue of a Commission must have been based upon the proved fact of the existence of general corruption, the words of the Statute being
  "that there is reason to believe that corrupt practices have in fact, or that there is reason to believe that corrupt practices have in fact extensively prevailed in the borough."
  My hon. Friend is now asking the House, who have not the evidence before them, and who, if they had the full evidence before them, are not, I venture to say, competent to judge of its effect in the same sense as the Judges whose responsible duty it was to do so—he is asking this House to arrive at a conclusion contrary to the conclusion arrived at by the Judges, and to ask this House to assert that in point of fact, although the Judges have not so found, that there was reason to believe that corrupt practices did extensively prevail. The view the Government takes of the matter is that this is not an Amendment which can be supported by the Government, and I have to point out that there is no case since the Act of 1868—I might go much farther back, and I think I might say
  422
  since the Act of 1852—in which this House has ever postponed the issue of a Writ because of allegations of corrupt practices, except in a case where there is an allegation of the extensive prevalence of such corrupt practices, and then only with a view to ulterior proceedings in had, the direction of the issue of a Commission of Inquiry. I, therefore, thought it is right to intervene in this Debate, and to say that, although my hon. Friend has thought it right to propose his Amendment, it is one which the Government cannot support.
  *SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: I have to add very few words in consequence of the views expressed by the Attorney General on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. I do not think we have any right to find fault with for the Scotland Ward Division for having called the attention of the House to certain incidents in connection with the Rochester election petition. I do not know that I could have expressed, or should wish to express, my under-standing of the law in regard to this matter in better or clearer terms than the Attorney General has used. I only desire to say this, that in the first place the interference of this House, whether based upon the Report of the old Committees or upon the Report of the Election Judges, has, so far as I know, never gone the length of interfering with the issue of a Writ unless there has been a distinct report that corrupt practices have extensively prevailed in the borough; and it is worthy of note in this case that the language to which the hon. Member referred to clearly indicates—whatever may be their criticism of certain practices—that neither of the learned Judges thought there had been extensive corruption ill this particular case. I should be disposed to say this, adding my observations merely to what the learned Attorney General said, I believe the House has never for a great many years suspended the issue of a Writ unless prepared either to direct a prosecution or to order an inquiry or to direct a Bill to be brought in by the Government of the day with the view to the disfranchisement of the borough, and I think the general sense of the House would be, general sense of the House would be, that while every Member of the House would be anxious that corrupt practices

  423
  at elections should be put down and the purity of elections secured, still upon the other hand it would be an undesirable and an unwise thing if disfranchisement of a borough should take place because an individual Member of the House might desire to criticise and to examine the evidence. I am glad to think that there is no difference between those of us who speak on the legal aspect of the ease, and after what the learned Attorney General has said I trust the House will come to the conclusion that no reason whatever has been given for postponing the issue of the Writ.
  MR. W. M. HEALY: I think the fact is worthy of notice that the person selected for this corrupt borough is the son of the late Prime Minister. It is very instructive to find of all persons in the United Kingdom selected to take advantage of the expenditure of beer and money old other corrupt machinery that person was one who was, or supposed to be, one of the most trusted Members of the Tory Party, namely, Lord Cranbourne. That will be very instructive to us. I should have imagined that the late Prime Minister would have been most solicitous that anyone connected with himself should be kept aloof and apart front anything savouring of corruption. When we hear, as I suppose we shall, in a few days, some homily on the action of the priesthood in the county of Meath, I shall put this constant question—what about the sandwitches? I think it would be a most pertinent question, tool it is not to the credit of the Tory Party with regard to a borough of this kind, that they should have put before the electors of this kingdom that Lord Cranborne, the son of a gentleman who was recently the Prime Minister of this country, should be the proper person to take tot vantage of this corruption. I think the House and the country will take general note of the fact that the Tory Party has selected their most conspicuous figurehead to float in again on this sea of beer in this borough of Rochester. They would know how to appreciate in the proper manner the slanders directed against us in Ireland in regard to certain recommendations which were practically the recommendations that have been made in Tory churches and Presbyterian churches in the North of Ireland. I
  424
  think the time will soon come when the House should reconsider the question of referring these elections to Judges. I think the House made a profound mistake when it ever surrendered to Judges the right of trying the case of its own Members. There are as honest men in this House to decide these questions as any Judges in the land; and I say furthermore, that after the decisions which we have had, especially where there has been differences of opinion, and in. some cases where the Judges have gone in thievery teeth of former decisions, that they give us cause to consider whether these Reports ought to be acted upon in all cases by the House, or whether the House should not revert to, its ancient practice and order au independent investigation. When I am confronted in the Queen's Bench in Dublin with four ex-Attorney Generals of the 'Fury Government, and when I hear on the other hand men like Sir James Mathew attacked, I have grave doubts whether there are not men in this House quite as capable of exercising au independent opinion as any four ex-Attorney Generals of the right hon. Member for East Manchester. I do not believe that ermine is a specific against, partiality. I have grave doubts on that point. I believe that when we pat Judges into ermine they remain Tories or Liberals, just as they were all their lives, though they never were Nationalists. I think the case of Rochester, and especially the case of Montgomery, ought, if possible, induce the House on the first available opportunity to repeal this Act of 1868, which has been the cause of large expense, and which has resulted most unsatisfactorily, and that we should ha ye Commit tees which may be open, no doubt, to the charges of partisanship, but they would be frankly and hot hypocritically partisan, and when they gave their votes everybody would say "there are three to two," and so on, as the case may be; and they would not be able to invoke any sanctimonious pretence, that putting men into wigs and gowns robbed them of partiality.
  MR. PICTONsaid it would be a mistake to suppose that many of them were entirely satisfied with the condition of affairs as regards these election petitions. In this case they

  425
  were told that the Judges had reported substantially to this effect: that certain circumstances or facts which had come to light prevented their reporting that corruption had not extensively prevailed; but, on the other hand, they had not had evidence before them which would enable them to report positively that corruption had extensively prevailed. What struck him was this—that in bringing the ease before the Judges the petitioners only desired to adduce as much evidence as would cause judgment, to be given in their favour; that was to say, what would enable the Judges to decide that the election was void. They need not go farther. They had no need to prove that corruption extensively prevailed. It was a very expensive thing to conduct au Election Petition, and he supposed all parties were glad it should be as brief as possible. If, in the Rochester case, the matter had been carried further, and a thorough inquiry had been conducted, he could have little doubt from the evidence that had been adduced that a very large number of other incidents would have been proved, and it would have been seen that corruption extensively prevailed. So that they were in this position by the present mode of conducting election inquiries—that only sufficient evidence was adduced to enable the petitioners to prove their case. Corruption might pervade every purlieu or the town, but it would never be brought to light because it was not to the interest of the petitioners to bring it to light. This was a very unsatisfactory state of affairs, and he earnestly hoped the Government would endeavour somewhat to amend the law relating to elections.
  MR. MACNEILLwished to allude to one or two facts in connection with the Rochester Election Petition. It was proved and stated by both the Election Judges that the agent of the Rochester Constitutional Association and the agent of the Rochester Publicans Association was one and the same individual. Here they saw the close connection between the Conservatives and beer when they went to the polls. Both Judges stated that the three Associations which, as they said in
  426
  America, were run in favour of the Tory Party—namely, the Constitutional Association, the Publicans Association, and the Birthright Association, were mere machinery for corruption. But there was another expression in the judgment of one of the learned Judges, which was endorsed by the other. He said that although they would not find that general corruption extensively prevailed throughout the borough, they had the strongest suspicion that it did. One of the Judges stated he was sorry one branch of the case was not brought forward further, through some technicality, because particulars had not been given, a large period over which corruption was stated to have been exercised being thereby kept from the purview of the Judges. Some bogus voters were said to have been paid five shillings per day as canvassers, and one of the Judges said it they could only prove that, it would be a sorry job, not only for the agent who had so employed them, but also for the candidate himself. He was certain that, both t he present and flue late Attorney General would agree with him that an Election Petitions Act, which tally gave to flue Election Judges powers and functions of the old Committee to try Petitions under Sir Robert Peel's Act, and did not go any further, was not sufficient. What was the benefit of the inquiry given to them under the Act of 1868 if it were not further to elicit facts of which there was strong suspicion. The Judges had both agreed there was a case for strong suspicion in the present instance, although they had not sufficient evidence to enable them to report that corruption extensively prevailed. They gave up a good deal by the Election Act of 1868. They gave rights to Judges to hear cases when there were legitimate causes for inquiry, in order that in boroughs like Rochester, where these practices were known to extensively prevail, they might be checked and stopped.
  SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, he did not think, even if they did postpone the issue of this Writ, they could constitutionally grant any inquiry. They had long ago taken a course which prevented them very substantially from doing this. The Attorney General had stated the effect of the Act, and the only course now was, he (Sir Henry James)

  427
  believed for two electors to send in a Petition to the House, upon which Petition it would be in their power to issue a Commission. Upon the Report of the Judges, had they reason to believe that corrupt practices extensively prevailed? There was no evidence given to show that they did. If they did, they should be asked to take upon themselves the duty of reading this evidence, and stating whether a Commission should issue or not. He refused to entertain the idea that the House would be influenced by political feeling in a question of the kind. He would remind them of a case that arose just as soon as the Act was passed, and which came before the House on the issue of a Writ for Norwich. The Report was that corrupt practices extensivly prevailed. There was a Motion that a Writ should issue, and it was passed, and on the question of a Commission it was shown that Parliament had no power over the matter. They had also the case of Wigan in 1882, and the decision given by Mr. Gathorne Hardy. In fact, the House in 1868 gave up its right to determine in these cases, and left the duty to the Judges. If they were to go beyond the Judges they would depart from a practice which Parliament had laid down. It was a matter of congratulation that House did not show itself disposed to do so in this case. There had not been in the slightest degree any evidence on its part that it intended to act otherwise than perfectly impartial in the matter. It seemed to him that the desire was that the House of Commons should remain impartial, and take no part in these matters.
  MR. CHANCEsaid, he listened to the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, and he had listened to him with some surprise. One of the duties cast on a Judge was to report on the election; but where the election was voided, there was a second one—that of reporting on the evidence. If the Judges reported that corrupt or illegal practices extensively prevailed that voided the election. When the petitioner succeeded in his case, he had absolutely no inducement to go any further—first, on the ground of expense; and, second, on the ground of unpopularity, for in nine cases out of ten he was the unsuccessful candidate, and
  428
  he was anxious to raise as little trouble for himself as possible. He would point out, also, that the moment the Judges had decided their power of examination was over. He had never known a case where the Judges had power to act as detectives—though some of them would like to do that; some of them were anxious to have the power. The duty of the House, then, was purely Ministerial; and, so far as inquiry into illegal practices was concerned, the House ought to provide every weapon for the purpose of discovering, for in his opinion it had not deprived itself of the right of holding inquiry. It was admitted that the Act of 1883 did not provide sufficient powers to bring certain sources of corrupt practices to light. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that, and yet he said that because the House asked the Judges to report upon this one subject, the House being seised with a knowledge that there hail been a great miscarriage of justice, and seised with the knowledge of a great scandal, this grave scandal was to go unchecked and unpunished. That was a dangerous course. He did not think there was any point in I he matter for the Select Committees. The action of those Committees had nothing to do with another tribunal which was insufficiently equipped for the purpose of discovering a certain state of facts. He disclaimed any intention of interfering with the Judges, and hoped the House would see its way to adopt the Amendment of his hon. Friend.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he was satisfied with the discussion that had taken place, and, with the permission of the House, he would withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Ordered, That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a New Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the borough of Rochester, in the room of Horatio David Davies, esquire, whose election for the said borough has been declared void.

  NEW WRIT.
  For Pontefract, v. Honorable Rowland Winn, now Lord St. Oswald, called up to the House of Peers.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH.

    MOTION FOR ADDRESS. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [31st January], "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as followeth:—
    Most Gracious Sovereign,
    We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain Ireland in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the Most Gracious Speech which lour Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."—(Mr. Lambert.)
    Question again proposed.
    Debate resumed.
    *MR. CARSON: I am not disposed to follow the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland very minutely through the mass of figures which hr gave in relation to that country. But I find it hard to reconcile some of the facts stated by him with others which I shall briefly refer to. The reason I do not take the course of following Iona at any length is this: It has always been the case of the Party to which I have the honour to belong, that the recrudescence of crime in Ireland depends largely on the course the political agitators find it convenient to take at a particular moment. If these political agitators have decided that it is right to say that the government of Ireland is to be made impossible, then there will be a recrudescence of crime; but if, on the other hand, they have not, you may be perfectly certain that crime will decrease in the country. The right hon. Gentleman points out the fact that even this year rents are being better paid than heretofore, which shows that the payment of rent is dependent not on the state or condition of the tenant farmer, but on whether men like the hon. Member for East Mayo is prepared to say, ''I know a man who can pay, but who won't pay, because I tell him not to pay." But I desire to mention one or two matters which require explanation, but which, as I shall show the House, have been absolutely unexplained by the right hon. Gentleman. While he quoted the
    430
    Charges of the Judges at the Winter Assizes he forgot the Charge of one Judge who, in the County of Leitrim, drew attention to the substantial increase in the more serious class of crime. He said he understood that bail eases had been sent forward in serious cases at the Winter Assizes, but he did not tell us that Her Majesty's Judges, in two out of the four circuits, drew attention to the fact that cases of serious crime—intimidation and the raiding of houses at night had not been sent forward as they ought to have been. There is one other case, too, that must have escaped his memory or his notice—the case of the Rev. Father Clarke, in the County of Meath, who was sent forward last July on a charge of doing grievous bodily harm to an old man voting, in the district. Why did he not send him forward? Why, because it would be inconvenient to try him out of his own parish, and he will he kept there to be tried, as he is hound to be, in March. I desire to pass from these matters, and I believe the House Will bear with me while I proceed with a few observations upon that grotesque performance, the Evicted Tenants Commission. I happened to be one of the counsel who attended upon the opening day of the sittings of the Commission. The right hon. Gentleman did me the honour of saying he should not refer to the urbanity of counsel on that occasion. Well, following the taste of the right hon. Gentleman, I shall abstain from referring to the urbanity of the Judge. But, Sir, it is not upon the urbanity of the counsel or the urbanity of the Judge that the serious question in relation to this Commission at all depends. In its conception, in its proceedings, up to the day it left Dublin, t he whole thing was a monstrous pretence. Why did the right hon. Gentleman appoint the Commission at all? The right hon. Gentleman tells us he was anxious to heal up old sores, and to find a basis upon which these evicted tenants—these fraudulent evicted tenants—could be restored to their holdings. He tells us he does not like the crambe repetita of his own speeches. Perhaps he does not like the crambe repetita of his votes in this House. While he was casting about to accomplish t his object the right hon. Gentleman must have forgotten that he voted last year in favour of Mr. O'Kelly's Bill for the

    431
    compulsory restoration of these tenants. I would also remind him that another Member of the Government—the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Shaw Lefevre)—went down to a district in Ireland and made these promises to the tenantry on behalf of the Government should they prove victorious.
    "There can he no doubt that within a month of such a victory every emergency man will have fled the country, and every bogus tenant will have resolved himself into his original element, and agreements will be come to, if not voluntarily by some legislative process. Every tenant who has been evicted may confidently hope to he reinstated in his holding, and those who have suffered eviction from honourable motives will ever stand high in the memory of their own countrymen."
    I want to know, in the face of that statement, and in the face of the vote give by the right hon. Gentleman himself, and I think also by the present Leader of the House, what was he casting about for when he thought fit to appoint this Commission, and what was the exact information he expected to get? I therefore, venture to say that the right hon. Gentleman, when he comes forward and argues seriously before us that he wanted to heal up these disputes existing between landlords and tenants, is not giving us the real reason I full existed for the appointment of this Commission, which was to avoid an ugly question coming forward, and which was to enable him to extricate the hon. Member for Meath and the hon. Member for Cork from the difficulty in which they had placed themselves by procuring that these tenants should he evicted. When the right hon. Gentleman did think fit to appoint this Commission I think the least he might have done was to try and appoint it with some of the externals of decency. The right hon. Gentleman—and I think it does him credit—did not follow the course last night that he did at Newcastle. At Newcastle certain matters were not known which he has been since informed of, and he took it upon himself there to allege dud the Commission as appointed was more of a landlords' Commission than a tenants' Commission. I must say he had not, the indecency to repeat that statement in this House. What was the character he gave the Commission himself last night? I think he almost conceded that it was a partisan Commission. No
    432
    doubt he did say that "two of the members were officials of the very highest competence, experience, and responsibility in connection with the land question in Ireland;" but one of these gentlemen he took care, by giving him an appointment, to remove on the second day they sat, and as regards the other gentleman of the "highest competence, experience, and responsibility in connection with the land question in Ireland," he found the conduct of the President so distasteful to the feelings of any honourable man that he had to withdraw on the third day of the sitting. Now, the right hon. Gentleman has, as far as he could, attempted to defend the remaining Commissioners. He made an elaborate defence of Mr. Redington. Mr. Redington, he says, has been misrepresented. He says that gentleman never did assert that the "landlords of Ireland were the worst enemies of their class and of their country." He made this remarkable correction. He said that Mr. Redington's words in reality were that the "landlords of Ireland who follow Lord Salisbury are the worst enemies of their class and of their country." I make the right hon. Gentleman a present of the correction. I shall be glad if he will point out to tire one single landlord in Ireland who is not a follower of Lord Salisbury, except Mr. Redington himself, who has become a follower of the right hon. Gentleman since he sold every acre of land he possessed in Ireland. Now, there was one matter as to which I was exceedingly anxious to hear what the right hon. Gentleman would say, and that was the opening statement of Justice Mathew—a statement which I venture to think will not be defended in this House, alai which, although there w ere many noble Lords who have been ornaments of the Bench in England present in the other House when it was challenged the other night, not one of them stood up to support. What was the opening statement The learned President, who, to do him justice and to do the English Bench justice, took care to say that he was not acting as an English Judge, commenced his opening statement in this way—
    "We must first, we very much regret, take the case of the Clamicarde estate. Urgent representations have been made to us that Parliament should be frilly informed as to the

    433
    mode in which Lord Clanricarde has used the powers which the law has entrusted to him as a landlord. For the present, so far as we know, Lord Clanricarde stands alone. No other landlord makes common cause with him. Even at the eleventh hour he may see the wisdom of permitting us to extricate him from Ids position, which, it would seem, great as is his risk, no loan need envy him…If Lord Clanricarde in person refuses to attend and explain his conduct he must he prepared for the assumption that arises and the inference that is properly drawn where evidence is deliberately withheld."
    The right hon. Gentleman truly said last night that he did not appoint this Commission to try the Irish landlords—I think he appointed them, Sir, to condemn the Irish landlords. But, Sir, I venture to characterise that opening statement of time President not only as scandalous, but as incompetent, and I shall tell you why. What was the foundation for this charge that was matte in segregating the case of Lord Clanricarde, for whom I appeared at the Commission [Ministerial cheers] from that of the other landlords? Yes, I am not one of those counsel who selects his clients when they are on their trial. I always quite willing to appear, to see that justice is done to any man. But what was the basis of the charge made against Lord Clanricarde? In a very humble way. I ventured to say that I appeared for the noble Lord, and that I did not understand why his absence from the Commission should be commented upon iii this way, I was courteously told to sit down. But what turned out to be the fact? The President went on to say that Lord Clanricarde had been invited to attend, and that in an insulting way he had said that he would not attend. I think the House will be surprised to hear that, as a matter of fact, Lord Clanricarde was not invited to attend, and had not refused to attend. On the contrary, he instructed me to attend for him, and to examine him when he came before the Commission, to see that fair play was done to his case. Therefore, so far as the opening statement of the learned Judge—if I may call him a Judge—was concerned, I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman, the Chief Secretary for Ireland, has thought proper, by his silence, to show his condemnation of the performance of that gentleman. There is another serious question, and I should
    434
    certainly like to explain the view that I took of it at the time and the view that I take of it now. I mean the question of cross-examination. I never stated to the learned Judge that I thought there was an absolute right to cross-examination. At the very outset, when we were discussing procedure, I suggested to the learned Judge that, at all events, somebody ought to cross-examine the witnesses, and I suggested that a convenient course would be that the names of the witnesses to be examined ton behalf of tenants should be submit edt to the landlords in proper time, and that they should supply a brief to the Commission for the purpose of having certain questions put. I was told in answer to that, which seemed to me to he a practical suggestion, that I was looking for a grievance. Well, hut ought a witness to be cross-examined, or ought he not? When the matter arose at a subsequent stage, with reference to the first witness, I asked to be allowed to cross-examine. Before lunch I was told that I might cross-examine. After lunch, I suppose wiser counsels prevailed, and I was not allowed to cross-examine. When I was refused the right to cross-examine I made what I think was a very moderate request to the learned President, and it was this: Having regard to the particular facts of the case, I asked would he allow me to state my reasons why I thought cross-examination was essential, and he said he would not. I, therefore never had an opportunity of stating to the learned President why I thought that cross-examination was essential, and I purpose now to state to this House the reason I was not allowed to give. The first witness examined certainly rather astonished me. I bad had smile experience of that witness. I was present in the Court on the occasion of the trial of "Blunt v. Byrne," which went on for eight days in the Superior Court before the Lord Chief Baron, whose charge, by the order of this House, has been laid on the Table. I saw this first witness called before the Commission sitting seven or eight days in the Court while the case to which. I refer was being tried. I heard matters of the gravest responsibility proved against him in relation to the Clanricarde estate. I saw him challenged to go upon the table and stand the test of cross-exami-

    435
    nation, and I saw him refuse; and, whilst I make no accusation whatsoever against the witness, I think, at least, the House will say that, under these particular circumstances, and in relation to this identical estate, there were at least some grounds for sifting the honesty of the evidence. Some reference has been made by the hon. Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson) to the speech of the first witness examined before the Commission. Let me read to the House what the Lord Chief Baron said with reference to that speech, and then the House will see whether the gallant Colonel and I myself are too persistent in endeavouring to bring this matter under the notice of the House. The Chief Baron said that—
    "Upon the first night after the service of the processes another meeting was held, and John Roche, one of the leading spirits at Woodford, on the 23rd October, said the authorities had had their Balaclava that day, hut the people would have their Fontenoy another day, and thereupon the name of an unfortunate Mail was groaned at. Within a period of two more months—he did not know whether they considered it their Fontenoy or not—that unfortunate man was, without a moment's notice, sent before his Creator, and within half an hour of it becoming known that his body had been riddled with shots, his widow was publicly groaned at, and hooted through the streets of Woodford. Oh! what a lesson for moderation of language! Oh! what a lesson as to the effect of the exciting speeches made in Woodford on the 23rd September!"
    But it was not simply in reference to these matters that I desired to cross-examine. The witness stated in his direct examination that if at a certain date Lord Clanricarde had given a reduction of 15 per cent. all the trouble would have been avoided. It had been proved before the Special Commission that at the very date at which the witness averred that 15 per cent. would have been accepted the witness himself had been chairman of a meeting, and had signed a resolution pledging all those present not to accept less than 50 per cent. for a reduction. Now, Sir, before the Special Commission the witness was confronted with that resolution. He was cross-examined as to it by the Attorney General of the late Government, and I merely mention this as one of a number of incidents. I want to know was that a material circumstance when you were finding out the right and wrong of these
    436
    evictions? But there was another matter in one of the things referred to before the Evicted Tenants Commission, and which I have no doubt we shall hear a great deal about from the right Iron. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, and that was the cost of those evictions to the country. Well, the witness deposed to the great cost and expense incurred through resistance to the law and the Sheriff. On cross-examination before the Special Commission he admitted that he was at one of the most disgraceful scenes that ever took place in Ireland—the Scene at Sandy's Fort. The witness said that he was one of those who had been there to help in resisting the Sheriff in the eviction.
    MR. ROCHE: I have just come into the House, and I understand that the hon. Member is referring to me. I have to say that his interpretation of my evidence is totally inaccurate. I defy him to find out where I said I was there for the purpose of resisting. I said that I was present at the eviction—and I was proud to be present.
    MR. CARSON: Exactly; the hon. Member was present, and proud to be present, at the evictions that were costing so much expense to the country. I make no charge against the hon. Member. I am not accusing him of resisting the eviction, but having regard to the fact that he was there, and proud of it, I suggest that at least I was entitled to put one question in cross-examination. But I will give one other instance, and this is the last I will refer to. The hon. Member was called to prove a case on behalf of the tenants as against a gentleman or a lady, I forget which, of the name of Lewis, and he had made a speech to Lewis's tenantry, in which he told them that they ought to throttle a Mr. Lewis until the glass eye fell out of his head.
    MR. ROCHE: Mr. Speaker, I did not tell the tenantry to throttle him; but I told them that by adopting the Plan of Campaign they would adopt a means and method by which they would throttle him. And I admit that in the heat and excitement of the moment I did go so far as to say that by adopting that method—I was led away to an extent, and I did make use of the expression that by adhering loyally to their pledges they would throttle him, and I hoped

    437
    they would not loose their grasp until the glass eye fell out of his head.
    MR. CARSON: Well, I really will leave it to the House whether that was a matter upon which one might have been allowed to put a question to the witness. But, Sir, the important point of my argument is to come yet, and it is this, that all I have been stating as material for cross-examination was known to Mr. Justice Mathew, and he had it on his desk before him. While the learned President thought fit to make use of the direct evidence given before the Special Commission, for the purpose of proving a document, he never thought fit to ask one single question of the hon. Member of the several hundreds which had been put to him in cross-examination. Therefore it was that I did venture humbly to suggest to the learned President that I ought to be allowed, when he would not take the obligation upon himself, to sift to the furthest the evidence on which this House was to he asked to legislate. But, Sir, the Commissioners were only anxious to heap up the agony against Lord Clanricarde. There were many other matters that were not touched upon that seemed to me most material. This House has passed a large number of safeguards for the protection of tenants in Ireland. You have passed safeguards which render it impossible for landlords to evict tenants wholesale unless they wish to ruin themselves if the tenants are in the right. There are provisions in the Act of 1870 which would have enabled almost all the tenants on the Clanricarde property to bring before the Court any unjustifiable conduct on his part, and to have had compensation assessed, even where evicted for non-payment of rent, if Lord Clanricarde was in the wrong. There are also provisions in the Act of 1887 enabling the Court in certain cases, if judicial rents have not been fixed—as they were not in Lord Clanricarde's case—to stay the execution pending the fixing of those rents. I should like to know, before this House is called upon to pass additional legislation and to vote away public money, whether it would not be well to inquire why these tenants had not availed themselves of the Courts. Not one single question on any one of these points was
    438
    asked while I was there. Now I pass away from that matter, mid I have explained, I think, the reasons why I ought to have been allowed to cross-examine. I rely upon no precedents, but as the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned them I may say that so far as we have been able to ascertain every single precedent that exists is in favour of allowing cross-examination, in Commissions under Viceregal warrant. The right hon. Gentleman said last night there were seven one way and six the other in twenty-five years. But I asked him across the table whether in the cases where there had been no cross-examination it had been asked for and disallowed and he said he could not say. I am glad that he has not ventured to say in this House what he said at Newcastle —when he spoke away from the records of Dublin Castle. This is what he said—
    "Well, then as to precedents I state without fear of contradictive that the procedure followed by Mr. Justice Mathew was in accordance with every precedent to be found, and that counsel have been allowed to intervene, if at all, only as friends of the Court and not -la attack or protect witnesses. The whole of this clamour and uproar has been got up for party purposes."
    ["Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members may cheer that, but the Chief Secretary for Ireland did not venture to assert that last night. On the contrary, be admitted that the landlords were willing to attend and to give every information, and had not objected even to the constitution of the Commission. No, Sir; the right hon. Gentleman was strictly correct in that. The landlords did not object though they did protest that there was nobody to represent them on the Commission. They thought that even the body of Nationalists, as the right hon. Gentleman called them, would be able to take evidence—if they were not to form a judgment—and to submit that evidence fairly to the House for its consideration. All I can say is that while the right hon. Gentleman boasts that they were all Nationalists, I should not complain of the fact that they were all Nationalists if they had acted fairly; but it certainly is not likely that this body of Nationalists, if it is the best the right hon. Gentleman can obtain, will inspire much confidence in the Loyalists of Ireland as to the administration of the law in the future when we are blessed with this. Home Rule scheme of the Government.

    439
    Now, Sir, I pass on to another question, upon which I venture to think the right hon. Gentleman gave the House but scant information—I mean the Gweedore prisoners. I was very reminded by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman of a speech I heard at Mary borough, pronounced by the gentleman who is now the Attorney General for Ireland, in connection with the trial of those prisoners. What we challenge in this matter is, not the right hon. Gentleman's right to see that the clemency of the Crown is exercised, hut that the exercise of the clemency of the Crown in the present case was not a bonâ fide exercise of the clemency of the Crown. The right hon. Gentleman says that he examined into the merits of the case; hut I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that at the time when these trials took place, before he had any opportunity of examining into the merits, he went about the country from one place to another denouncing those trials and verdicts, saying that the verdicts were tainted and when the right hon. Gentle man says teat for the purpose of exercising the clemency of the Crown he examined into the merits of the ease, I should like the House to note the judicial frame of mind of the right hon. Gentleman who had prejudged the matter three years previously. I was anxious to see what were the exact grounds on which the right hon. Gentleman would state that the clemency of the Crown was exercised in this ease. I must say, having listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman, I have not been able to follow him as to what those grounds were. Does the right hon. Gentleman say that there is any doubt of the guilt of those prisoners—of all or any of them? Was that the ground on which he went? I have always understood that the clemency of the Crown in overruling the constituted tribunal set up by Act of Parliament was not to he exercised unless on some special ground, either as regards failure of justice or by reason of some doubt being thrown on the guilt of the prisoners who have been incarcerated. But, Sir, in the present case the right hon. Gentleman will admit that the Judge who tried the case not only was perfectly satisfied with the verdict that was pronounced—["No, no!"] Does the right hon. Gentleman dispute
    440
    that? Then I will read the words the Judge used in passing sentence—
    "Every one concerned in the resistance to the police in the execution of their lawful duties is responsible in the eye of the law for murder if any policeman is slain in the discharge of his duty. And I had to lay down that law to the jury, and to explain to them the circumstances of provocation which the law recognised as sufficient to reduce the crime from Murder to manslaughter, telling them that I was hardly able to discern myself—and, in fact, could not discern—any evidence upon which such mitigating circumstances of provocation could rest, but adding that there were matters in this case which might induce them to bring forte and strain upon the evidence, so as to bring in a verdict for the lesser crime. They adopted the merciful view. Of their action I make no complaint what they did I agree with; lint I cannot shut my eyes to the fact that but for their mercy it would now be my duty to pronounce sentence of death upon you and that the only mitigation you could expect would be to have that sentence changed from death to penal servitude for life."
    Not only does the Judge there approve of the verdict, but he commends the jury for having brought "force and strain upon the evidence so as to bring in a verdict for the lesser crime," but for which they would have had to expiate the murder of that policeman by the penalty of death. Well, Sir, were these prisoners guilty, or is there any doubt of their guilt? The right hon. Gentleman said last night that there was some difficulty about the evidence as to identification, as to places and persons. But did the right hon. Gentleman forget that the prisoners had pleaded guilty? It. strikes me as a curious feature in this case that we should be inquiring here not only into a case in which there was no miscarriage by the jury, but actually into a case where the prisoners themselves pleaded guilty. [Mr. JOHN MORLEY: Coll.] I do not know why the right hon. Member interrupts me, because he let out the other three as well as Coll. Well, but something was said as to the prisoners pleading guilty on the suggestion of counsel according to some arrangement or compact. Well, I must say that I do not think the counsel who defended them—the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Attorney General for Ireland and the hon. and learned Member for Louth—were at all the counsel who were likely to suggest to innocent men that they should plead guilty. But that this was not so is absolutely shown by the fact that the hon. and learned Member for

    441
    Louth himself, speaking a few days afterwards as regards this very matter of the plea of guilty at a meeting of the National League in Dublin, said—
    "It was said that counsel exercised their judgment wrongly because they recommended the prisoners to plead guilty. That statement was absolutely false. They gave no such recommendation. It was the law in felony cases that counsel could not plead guilty for a prisoner. Their action was to consider all the facts, and leave the defendants in the case to come to their own conclusions."
    Therefore, you have it upon the statement of the hon. and learned Member that the act was a voluntary one on the part of the prisoners themselves. I cannot understand the point made by the right hon. Gentleman in answer to the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), as to the evidence given by the Attorney General for Ireland and the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. T. M. Healy) upon the hearing of the libel action. I think there is a strong contrast between the way in which those trials and verdicts were treated by the right boll. Gentleman when he was putting himself into a judicial frame of mind immediately after the trials, and that in which they were treated by the two eminent counsel who defended the prisoners at Maryborough. The hon. and learned Member for Louth was asked this question—
    "In your opinion as counsel, knowing the strength of the Crown case and the strength of your own, were they getting off easy?"
    How could that have relation to men who were being acquitted? It must have had relation to those who were being convicted. The hon. and learned Member said in reply—
    "We originally believed that some of them would Le convicted. I think, to use a popular phrase, they got off 'in a coach.'"
    Now, is it suggested that the statement of the hon. and learned Member had not reference to the men who pleaded guilty?
    MR. T. M. HEALY: do not desire to intervene in this Debate, as I was counsel in the ease. I have never spoken in any Debate respecting a case in which I have acted as counsel, and I do not propose to speak in this. But as the right hon. Gentleman asks me a question I will reply. I was put in
    442
    the witness box with reference to 24 men, and in my reply I was speaking of the whole body of men. According to my recollection of the whole of the men, all except four escaped without penal servitude. Gallagher, against whom there was the most terrible evidence, was left out by the Attorney General, while Ferry, about whom the evidence of the policeman was that he had danced on the man's head, was absolutely discharged. Others were discharged, and six got off with sentences of two or three months' imprisonment. Therefore, speaking of the entire body of 24 men who were originally indicted for murder, I said they got off "in a coach." I would add, having resisted this compromise, though for months I bore in silence the slander that I had been a party to it, that the compact which wits entered into by the representatives of the Crown was not kept, and the men got monstrously severe sentences.
    MR. CARSON: I do not know that the hon. and learned Gentleman really given any answer on the point. The phrase he used is before the House. I do not wish to press it further than Iris explanation will allow, hut it certainly does occur to me to be a strange thing that it should be suggested that the nature of the bargain or agreement with the prisoners' counsel was that, in consideration of men whom they knew to be absolutely guilty getting off, other prisoners whom they knew to be innocent should agree to plead guilty. I want to know, Where is the evidence which throws doubt upon the verdicts? There is absolutely none. The right hon. Gentleman says that he passed over his own Lord Chancellor in Ireland, who is well acquainted with the state and condition of Ireland, and he passed over his own Solicitor General in Ireland. He thought fit to erect in England a Court of Criminal Appeal front the sentences passed in the Superior Courts in Ireland. When the right hon. Gentleman tells us he found elements of doubt in the case, is it not a curious thing, that the Lord Chancellor of Great Britain, speaking in the other House last night, said he did not impeach the original sentence? The right hon. Gentleman said be took into consideration the time and place, and also

    443
    the fact that none of the three men had been guilty of any physical injury to this unfortunate police constable.
    MR. MORLEY: The actual murder.
    MR. CARSON: Well, it is difficult to say when a number of blows are struck which of the men is the actual murderer. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman ever read the injuries inflicted on this unfortunate man. I will read them for him. One of the witnesses at the coroner's inquest on Inspector Martin said—
    "There were four lacerated wounds, three inches, one, and one-and-a-half inches respectively in length, and the top and back part of the skull was completely smashed in. There were nine fragments of bone completely detached, and two portions driven into the substance of the brain. A large portion of the bones of the skull were almost detached. The bones of the nose were broken. There was a punctured wound on the left forehead, with extensive bruising. There was a bruise on the left cheek. There was a circular wound one inch and a half in diameter on the right elbow, and there was a contusion on the hip."
    Well, I cannot tell the right hon. Gentleman which of these men it was who inflicted the wounds. That they were all there engaged in a common object which resulted in the death of this unfortunate constable is beyond doubt; and certainly the law will become ridiculous if it is to be suggested that there is to be any palliation, whether in the verdict of the jury, or in the exercise of the clemency of the Crown, because you have not been able to put your hand upon the man who inflicted the actual wound that caused death. I cannot at all agree with the right hon. Gentleman that, having regard to the time and place, there were any mitigating circumstances whatever. And even if there were, if he had read the judgment of the Judge who had tried the case he would have seen that every one of the elements in the case had been carefully weighed and considered in estimating the sentences. In his evidence given at the libel trial the Attorney General admitted that the reason why he had advised Father M'Fadden to plead guilty was, that the rev. gentleman had admitted to him that for three days previous to the occurrence he had been obstructing the police in the execution of this very warrant; and it had been proved that a few nights before the crowd which assembled ren-
    444
    dered it absolutely impossible for the police officer who had gone there to serve the warrant, to do his duty. If, by reason of the conduct of the person against whom the warrant was issued, by reason of the way in which he had tried to evade the police, and by reason of the way in which he had organised his parishioners, it was found impossible to execute the warrant on any day but a. Sunday were the Government to be frustrated, was the warrant to be allowed to be set at naught, and was the rev. gentleman to be allowed to assert once more as he had frequently asserted during these troublesome times that "he was the law in Gweedore? "That the thing was premeditated is placed beyond all doubt, if you read some observations extracted from the speeches of the rev. gentleman himself. On the 19th July, 1887, he said—
    "I expect to be arrested in a short time, and even if I be arrested I can console myself with the thought that within the four seas of Ireland there is not one priest deserves it more than I. I will treat any summons that is issued against me with the utmost contempt. I will not attend on such summons, and I will never divulge one word as to the Plan of Campaign."
    On the 12th September he said—
    "I will not appear upon their summons. Then they will issue a warrant for my arrest. Will they dare arrest me in Gweedore amongst my people?"
    See how pathetic he is. He goes on—
    "It would take the whole British Army to do it. There will be some blood spilt before they take me out of it."
    The epithets of the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson) were indignantly heard by a section of the House yesterday. I am not myself in favour of using such strong epithets, which probably lead to no good result, but in the next paragraph I read I will ask the House to mark how carefully this minister of religion and charity was as to the epithet he thought fit to use towards the police. On the 16th January, 1888, he says—
    "I do not agree with Father Stephens that the landlords are the only murderers. The police I regard as murderers, and they will have vengeance to fall on them in this world or in the next."
    I ask the House whether if, after these statements of the rev. gentleman, there was blood spilt it was not through the organisation of the rev. gentleman. An

    445
    hon. Member yesterday made a most brilliant speech in this House, and I believe what chiefly brought forth the cheers of hon. Members below the gangway on this side was his statement of his great regard and friendship for Father M`Fadden. After all the hon. Gentleman is quite entitled to make his own friends. It is purely a matter of taste. I have gone into these matters because I thought it was well that the House should know that in persisting in making the charge that this was not a case of bona fide exercise of the clemency of the Crown we desire to go upon facts which are unanswerable and unanswered by the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham asked for an assurance that the release of these prisoners was to be no indication of the policy of further releases. I attended carefully to the speech of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and although the right hon. Gentleman assailed my right hon. Friend with reference to several matters, he sat down without giving any answer whatever to that question. I have seen it stated in the papers that the right hon. Gentleman either has released or has in contemplation the release of a prisoner who was tried for having explosives in Tipperary during the outrages committed there while the Plan of Campaign was in full force. The sentence on this man was one of either seven or five years, and be has only been imprisoned one or two years at the outside. I want to know whether it is a fact that he is now to be released from prison. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we Irish Unionist Members are only too anxious to aid him in every way in carrying on the Government of Ireland, but I can also assure him that as surely as he abuses the powers that are entrusted to him, so surely will we upon every occasion, before the House and the country, call upon him to defend his action. The right hon. Gentleman says that he has not a magician's wand to bring peace and prosperity at once to Ireland. I should like to know what single act he has done during the six months he has been in office to increase the material prosperity of that country. I looked with anxiety in the Gracious Speech from the Throne for some indication of au intention on his part to ex-
    446
    tend the useful measures which had been set on foot by his predecessor my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, but I found that the only hope held out to Ireland was this miserable Home Rule Bill. And while the right hon. Gentleman knows that there is not the slightest chance of the Home Rule Bill becoming law until he and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian summon sufficient courage to put the issue before the country, he is not able to announce to the people of Ireland one single measure which he proposes in the interim to bring forward in this House for the material benefit of that country. This Home Rule policy has been before Ireland for the last six or seven years, and I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what progress he has made in that country towards bringing the different Parties together? Six years of so-called coercion under the right hon. Gentleman, six years in which we have had time to consider, as against it, his Home Rule policy, and what is the result? After the six years of coercion we Unionists for Ireland come back here stronger by five seats than we were, and I do ask the right hon. Gentleman in all honesty and sincerity, in the interests of Ireland, if this policy is to be adhered to, not to keep the matter open one day longer than is necessary, and to take the verdict of the country upon the net issue. I have only, in conclusion, to say I feel under a deep obligation to the House for the manner in which it has received me.
    MR. D. RANDELLsaid, that the part of the speech to which he wished to specially direct the attention of the House was of momentous importance to Wales—to Wales, which had been more loyal to the Liberal Party than any other section of the United Kingdom. Since the 1868 Election the Welsh Members had been practically a united Party, and all returned at the last Election—with two exceptions—were Liberal; they constituted a solid phalanx of Liberals pledged to support Her Majesty's Government. But whilst Wales was prepared to concede to Ireland the first claim, having regard to the long and great struggle which Irishmen had been engaged in asserting their nationality, they were very jealous of

    447
    precedence being given to other measures than Home Rule over Welsh questions. The question uppermost in their minds was the disestablishment and disendowment of the English Church in Wales. In regard to that, they had hitherto exhibited great patience, and he did not think that that patience should be too long tried. Up to the present they had had little return for the support they had given to the Liberal Party; and as for the immediate future, it had in it very few signs of encouragement for them. It was only in the last paragraph of the Speech from the Throne that they found a very indirect reference to the question of Welsh disestablishment; they were promised that at some time or other during the Session a Suspensory Bill should be brought in, and even in that matter there was an indication of an intention on the part of the Government to give Scotland priority From a Liberal Government that was the unkindest cut of all. While we admitted that the question of precedence for political questions ought not to be governed by the measure of support the Government received from one part of the country as compared with another, he did think Ministers should not be unmindful of such circumstances. He was not aware that a Suspensory Bill was at all necessary for Scotland; he was under the impression that there the appointment of parish ministers was by Statute vested in the parishioners, and there was, therefore, less need for a Suspensory Bill for Scotland than existed in the case of Wales. He supposed the object of giving Scotland precedence was to show the Scotch people that they were not forgotten. Why should not a like assurance be given to Wales? The Welsh people showed far larger majorities than the Scotch on the question of disestablishment. Was precedence given on the principle of political expediency, or on the Hartingtonian theory of decisive majorities? On this subject Wales had spoken with no uncertain voice; but the case was different in Scotland; even the majority of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian himself was reduced to a significant extent owing to his views on the disestablishment question, and other Scotch Members suffered in a like manner. The Liberal Federation, which did the propaganda work for the Liberal
    448
    Party, had from time to time promised Wales the second place in the Government Programme; had promised that her claims should be first considered after Home Rule; but evidently that promise was not to be fulfilled in regard to disestablishment, and the draftsman of the Speech could not apparently have been aware of the pledge. Little regard, indeed, seemed to be shown for the Welsh people, and his object in now speaking was to give voice to the disappointment they felt in consequence. He had hoped that a Disestablishment Bill would have been introduced this Session, or that the Government would have brought forward a Resolution pledging themselves to the people of Wales, and that they would have followed that up by a Suspensory Bill; but they had not, and there was deep and widespread disappointment as the result. He trusted they would not be kept too long in suspense, but that they would have more satisfactory assurances from the Treasury Bench as to the intentions of the Government. He noticed an interesting circumstance the previous night which was not without significance. A Motion by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board for leave to introduce a Registration Bill—one of the leading Bills of the Government—was resisted by the Irish Members because they could not obtain a pledge that its provisions should be extended to Ireland. He had no desire to follow too closely the policy of the Irish Representatives, but he thought the Welsh Members would be justified in pressing for an explicit undertaking which would remove the prevailing dissatisfaction and which would prove that their sacrifices on behalf of and their allegiance to the Liberal Party would not go unrewarded.
    *MR. BARTLEYexpressed his surprise that no Member of the Government had risen to reply to the marvellous speech lately delivered from the Front Opposition Bench, for it was a speech which required to be answered. He himself desired to deal with the variety of the subjects touched upon in the Queen's Speech. Ireland was not the, only topic dealt with in the Speech. There were also mentioned a Registration Bill, a Disestablishment Bill, the Law of. Conspiracy, the Liquor Traffic, and a large number of other subjects—a vote-

    449
    catching collection, brought forward with the hope apparently of securing support at the next Election. The Speech reminded him of one of those useful, but not very ornamental, instruments used in the summer for the purpose of catching innocent flies. It was like a paper covered with a sugary and sticky substance, which attracted the flies to their doom. Several of the questions, as, for instance, that of Disestablishment and the Liquor Traffic, were sufficient to occupy the attention of Parliament for a whole Session at least, and he thought, therefore, the House had a right to ask if they were mentioned in the Queen's Speech with a view to being legislated ii pot this Session, or if they were only touched upon in order that the Government might hereafter say, "See what we would have done if you had only left us in Office. "What was the Party which expected to pass that Programme? It had at the best a majority of 40, and a shrinking was setting in from day to day. It was not a homogeneous Party; it was made up of different bodies, each having a different object; it was a combination which the least friction or heat might separate. Was it not unreasonable to put before the country such an enormous Programme, seeing that a Party so constituted could not possibly expect to carry it through? An analysis of the Party exposed its weakness at once. There were the specially Gladstonian Members, the men who saw with the eves and heard with the ears of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian. They, of course, would support any measure he brought forward. But they were comparatively few in number. They were not all always so docile as at present; a few years ago even the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not so subservient or amenable. The Secretary of State for Scotland was a few years ago a staunch Unionist, and the Home Secretary was not even last year so obedient as now. Taking all the sections of that Party, and including the prodigals who had returned to the fold, they did not number more than 150. They could not pass a measure without the aid of the other sections with which they were allied with the object of keeping the Unionists out of Office. They had heard a great deal about the Irish Question, but was it
    450
    certain that the Government could depend on their Irish followers? Could they depend on the solid support of the 80 Home little Members? There were indications of doubt even as to that. When an arrangement was made with them last August two conditions were insisted on by the Anti-Parnellite Party before they would give in their allegiance. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister himself read the conditions out at the Table. One was the reinstatement of the evicted tenants under the Plan of Campaign. They had heard a good deal about the Evicted Tenants Commission, and would, no doubt, hear much more. By what authority had a Minister of the Crow taken a Judge from his duties and converted him into a. partisan? They had in the Government, too—at the head of the Office of Works—a gentleman who was specially interested in the Plan of Campaign. He went over to Ireland to look into it; he tried to get into prison, but did not succeed, and at a time when he was a pensioner of the Crown he subscribed £50 in aid of the Plan. He might be called a "Cabinet Campaigner."
    MR. T. HARRINGTON: it is due to the right hon. Gentleman that I should state he has not subscribed any money whatever to the Plan of Campaign. He subscribed bathe relief of evicted tenants in Ireland, which is quite a different thing.
    MR. BARTLEYreplied, that the two things were closely allied, and that, practically, the money was given to the support of the Plan of Campaign, because it went for the relief of the tenants who were evicted under that Plan. It was only a quibble of words to say that the right hon. Gentleman gave the money for one purpose when it was really for another. Was the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that he had, in the Commission of Inquiry, got a fair return for his money? Clearly, he had not. Some of those among them who lived in London could not understand why the Irish tenants who could, but, would not pay their rents should he treated better than unfortunate tenants in London, who if they could not pay were evicted. Were the evicted tenants themselves satisfied with the Commission presided over by Justice Mathew, and with its result? Could the Government

    451
    calculate with certainty on the support of the Anti-Parnellite Members, who made it a condition of their allegiance that these tenants should be reinstated? The second condition on which they promised their support was that the dynamiters should be released. It seemed remarkable that the prerogative of mercy should be debased as it had been in this respect. The great quality of mercy was never intended to be used for political purposes; it was never intended to be almost prostituted for political objects. But even the release of some of the prisoners had not satisfied the people of Ireland, and there was an Amendment on the Paper calling for the release of the other dynamite prisoners—of men who were the most unmitigated scoundrels on the face of the earth; of men who sent dynamite in packages to railway stations in London with a fuse attached to them so arranged as to explode and injure men, women, and children when returning from their work. Surely men of that class were villains and demons of the worst kind. Were they to be released at the demand of the Irish section? Why, if one's own brother committed such a crime it would be felt that, instead of releasing him, he should be kept in prison all his life, so that he should not have another opportunity of so sinning. In addition to getting America to interfere on behalf of these men, the Parnellite and Anti-Parnellite Members were holding meetings all over Ireland to demand their release. He repeated that, as the Anti-Parnellites had not got what they demanded in respect of the release of the dynamiters and the reinstatement of the evicted tenants, the Government could not be quite sure of their support. Then he came to the Parnellite Party; it was a small Party, but it was a pugnacious body, and the hon. Member for Waterford, who led them, evinced no weakness in stating what he meant and what he wanted. What did he say was the price of the support of the Parnellite Party? He had distinctly laid it down that the Irish Parliament was to be supreme, that the veto of the Crown should be exercised by the Irish Ministers alone, and that Irish Members should still come over to this country and vote upon such questions as disestablishment and finance, and upon all subjects of importance. Was he going to have his own way? Was it
    452
    certain he would support the Government unless he did get his own way? They knew it was only a year ago since the hon. Member for Waterford put this question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he sat on the Front Opposition Bench, and they knew that it so frightened the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he ran away. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, when speaking before the meeting of Parliament, said the Home Rule of Mr. Parnell was Fenian Home Rule, which he and the Liberal Party would never support. He (Mr. Bartley) wanted to ask whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given up his view in deference to the view of the hon. Member for Waterford? If so, he would have to settle with the hon. Member for Cardiff (Sir E. J. Reed) and those of his friends on his own side of the House; or was it that the hon. Member for Waterford had given up his scheme in deference to the Chancellor of the Exchequer? But until one or other of these questions was settled, it was clear that the Government could not depend for certain on the support of the Parnellites. Then there was another section—the section of the Anti-Parnellites, which was influenced by Mr. Davitt. Mr. Davitt had been employed recently in recommending magistrates in Ireland, which was a very peculiar thing when the antecedents of that gentleman were remembered. Mr. Davitt was an able man, and some said a conscientious man, and he might be expected back to the House again very soon. Mr. Davitt had taken the oath of allegiance already at the Table of the House, but he had taken an oath of allegiance elsewhere besides, and they had a right to ask whether he had given up being a sworn Fenian, whether he had given up demanding the absolute independence of Ireland, whether he had given up working with Devoy and other members of the Clan-na-Gael, who promoted the Land League of Ireland, and whether he was still a friend of the man Ford? He (Mr. Bartley) thought it was impossible for the Government to reckon on the support of Mr. Davitt and the support of Ids followers, unless this Ethiopian had changed his skin and the leopard his spots. Looking, therefore, at the measure of Home Rule, it was plain that the Government could not depend even on the support of the

    453
    Irish Members for its Irish scheme. But there were other questions on which the Government relied. They had put off the question of the disestablishment of the Welsh Church. Now they depended entirely for their majority on the 28 Welsh Members. They knew that a Welshman was a very stubborn and a very determined man. They had an example last Session of the determination of Welshmen when hon. Members from Wales, young enough to be grandchildren of the Prime Minister, set the Prime Minister at defiance, and all the efforts of the friends of the Prime Minister to subdue their insubordination were fruitless. The House, therefore, knew the price of time Welsh Members. Their support could only be got if they obtained the absolute disestablishment and disendowment of the Church in Wales. But were they going to have that? The Prime Minister had done his utmost to give the Welsh Members a sop. The Prime Minister was like the woman in the sledge, who threw out one of her children to the wolves hoping it would quieten them. He had thrown over the Welsh landlords, anal it was extremely good of him to do that, because if he was not a Welsh landlord himself, he was very nearly one. But though the Welshmen were to have the three F's, or any number of F's, the price of Welsh support was the disestablishment and disendowment of the Church; and unless they got them, it would be impossible for the Government to reckon on the support of the 28 Members from Wales. Then there was another great question referred to in the Queen's Speech—the question of the liquor traffic. It was trot certain that the Government would get the support of the Liquor Traffic Abolitionists. There were no less than 27 Members on the Government side of the House belonging to the North of England Temperance League. Was it certain that these men were going to support the Local Option measure of the Government? Their leader was the hon. Member for East Bradford (Mr. W. S. Caine), who was at one time a tremendous Unionist; but he had given up his views on that subject, and swallowed Home Rule. But why had he swallowed Home Rule? Because he wanted it advocated
    454
    that nobody should be allowed to swallow a glass of beer. He and his friends would not be satisfied with Local Option. What they wanted was what the United Kingdom Alliance demanded—the power to prohibit the sale of alcohol in every district. It had been said that the Local Option Bill of the Government was to be a half measure; but in order to satisfy the Member for East Bradford, the Government must abolish the sale of alcohol, and in doing that they will have to settle with their own friends who were interested in the liquor traffic. Then there was the Nonconformist section to be reckoned with. The Nonconformist conscience was a troublesome element to the present Government; it played a very important part in the downfall of Mr. Parnell. But it should he remembered that two of the present Ministers of the Crown—the Attorney General and Lord Chancellor of Ireland—had been supporters of Mr. Parnell. At the meeting held in Dublin after the divorce proceedings, the present hon. Member for Louth (Mr. T. M. Healy) said that they would never give up the leadership of the man who load, under unparalleled difficulties, done so much for Ireland. The present Attorney General for Ireland (The MacDermott) and time Lord Chancellor of Ireland (Mr. Walker) spoke at that meeting, and said nobody had any right to interfere in the question of Mr. Parnell's leadership but Irishmen. He (Mr. Bartley) wanted to know whether these two Members of time Government were Parnellites still? If they were Parnellites, the Nonconformist conscience would have to see to it; and if they were not Parnellites, they would have to reckon with their own followed in Ireland. Mr. Parnell was sent adrift after the result of the Divorce Court proceedings; but will the Nonconformist conscience allow to sit on the Government side of the House and support Government measures for social reforms a coati who had been tried by his own Peers, and had been adjudicated in the same way as Mr. Parnell. That was a great question, and should come up again. It was a question of great importance to the country, and he did not think the Nonconformist conscience were so fickle or unreasonable as to

    455
    swallow this camel after straining at a gnat. There was another section of the House which he called the "Discontented Brigade"; it was said to number 40. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) was the leader. The hon. Member for Northampton was not included in the Cabinet—he (Mr. Bartley) wished he had been included—and he wrote some remarkable letters about his exclusion. But he was not the only discontented man in the House; there were a large number on the Government side of the House who were also discontented. With a large amount of discontent in the House was it hopeful that all those vast measures in the Queen's Speech could ever be considered. Then the Scotch Members were said to be in revolt, but he did not think the revolt of the Scotch Radicals a very serious thing. On all these grounds, therefore, he thought it would require extreme measures to keep the Liberal Party from open revolt. He remembered that one section of the Party was soothed by tea parties in the afternoon, but the Prime Minister would have to go to tea parties without end in order to keep the entire Party quiet. One thing was certain—it was impossible to consider the Programme of legislation in the Queen's Speech as a practical Programme. It could root be considered, and it would not be considered. The only purpose it served was to raise false hopes, to help to keep the Government a little longer on the Benches opposite, and that in the coming Election that these attractive things might possibly win a few votes. It was impossible that the Government could last, and they knew perfectly that this Programme of legislation, which was so attractive to some persons, would very soon whittle down. It was never intended to be passed. It was merely propounded in the hope that it would catch votes.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Devonport (Mr. Morton) yesterday, at the commencement of his very able maiden speech, said that in his opinion anyone who called attention to matters of foreign policy at the present moment was impeding the march of domestic reform at home. I should have put it rather that if we engage in interventions
    456
    and protectorates abroad at the present time we impede, the march of domestic policy at home. Whenever the heart of the nation is set upon Radical reforms it becomes the duty of every Radical to see, as far as he possibly can, that we do not drift into responsibilities abroad which may come in advance of these reforms at home. Now, Sir, I have always been one of those who have thought the House of Commons ought to have the same absolute control over questions of our foreign policy as our domestic matters. I do not think that any Treaties ought to be ratified, that any wars ought to be undertaken, that any protectorates ought to be assumed, and still less that any Charters giving sovereign rights to private companies ought to be given without the full absolute preliminary assent of the House of Commons. Mr. Speaker, I rejoiced when the Election took place and resulted in a Liberal victory; I rejoiced, not only because I anticipated that all those great reforms we desired would be carried, lint also that an end would be put to the immoral continuity of Jingoism abroad. Sir, I am beginning to Fear that I was a little anticipatory ill my rejoicings. Be that as it may, whether the Liberal Party is in power or out of power I trust there will remain Members of this House who will never bow the knee to King Jingo, and will always protest against any of these acts abroad which cost vast amounts of money, and which in the end demand a vast expenditure of British blood. Before entering upon the subject on which I have given notice of Amendment, as I see the Prime Minister in his place I would like to ask him one or two questions on other matters of foreign affairs. I do not complain of what has recently occurred in Egypt. I think we are there to maintain order, and are bound to see what that species of order is, and have some control over it; I think if we have even a corporal's guard there it is a great advantage to the place; if we do not think the number of soldiers there sufficient, that they should be augmented; but, Sir, I was surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) say that in consequence of what had recently taken place in Egypt he hoped that the Government would inform

    457
    the French Government and inform the Khedive that we intended to remain there for an indefinite period, because Lord Cromer had reduced the position of the Khedive to what was practically a dummy position. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham thought he would improve the position by adding insult to injury in attacking the Khedive personally. My reading of what has recently taken place is that the Khedive and the people of Egypt are against our continued occupation. They have a laudable desire for national independence; they want Home Rule, precisely as the Irish want Home Rule, and to my thinking they ought to have it, just as the Irish ought to have it. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, as the Member for West Birmingham pointed out, did say in a speech delivered a year or two ago in Midlothian, "Our occupation was a source of weakness and a source of embarrassment." In 1892, I remember, on the Estimate for the number of men in the Army, I divided the House against the exact number that were in Egypt. I did that in order to put, as broadly as I could before the House, the question of evacuation. A very considerable number of Gentlemen on those (the Ministerial) Benches, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary (Mr. John Morley)—I am not quite sure whether my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir W. Harcourt), but anyhow, many eminent Gentlemen voted with me, and every single Liberal voted with me on that subject. I think, therefore, we have a right to know what is doing at the present moment; whether any negotiations are taking place with a view to our evacuation of the country. I saw in the newspapers to-day a telegraphic report of a speech of a French Minister. It is conceived in the most conciliatory terms, and expressed the hope that we should enter into that conciliatory spirit in order to settle the period of our evacuation of the country. When Lord Salisbury came in in 1885 he at once initiated negotiations with the Sultan. In 1887 Lord Salisbury declared himself in favour of what is called the Wolff Treaty, and the only reason why that Treaty was not signed and we are in Egypt at the present was because the Sultan refused to sign it. I
    458
    really think, in view of all the declarations that have been made by eminent Members of the Liberal Party, that it would be a disgrace for the Liberal Party if they were to go out of power without having done something to bring to an end that evacuation which the Prime Minister said was a source of danger and embarrassment to us. I have no doubt the Liberal Party will remain in power during the natural term of the present Parliament, and I do not entertain a doubt that die next General Election will result in another six years for the Liberal Party. But still, accidents sometimes do happen in the best regulated families. Dissolution may come upon us like a thief in the night; therefore, I do trust the Government will not risk anything by delaying too long entering into some sort of negotiations in order to put an end to our evacuation. The other question I would ask the right hon. Gentleman concerns the Triple Alliance. The right, hon. Gentleman will remember that during the last Parliament it was asserted in this House and in the newspapers that Lord Salisbury had given some sort of assurance to Italy as to in some way coming to her and should she join the Triple Alliance, and if in consequence of joining that Alliance she found herself at war with France, because France wished to re-acquire Alsace and Lorraine. At, that time I remember the right hon. Member for West Birmingham saying, in the House that whether Lord Salisbury had given this assurance Or not he has not, informed the House of what he has lone, and therefore we are in no way responsible. I should like now that the right hon. Gentleman as Prime Minister should make it clear to us that whatever assurances were given—if any were given by Lord Salisbury—that the Government is in no way responsible for them, that the Government does not recognise them; and ill the event of Italy being involved in war with France owing to the action of Italy, she must, protect her own coast, awl take the consequences if she is beaten. I ask these questions in no spirit of hostility to the Prime Minister. In foreign politics I am Gladstonian, and I hope and trust the right hon. Gentleman will not himself turn his back upon that most excellent and respectable Party. Now I come to

    459
    the subject of my Amendment, and I may also say that my Amendment is a thoroughly Gladstonian Amendment. It refers to Uganda. I must go somewhat in detail into these matters, because the whole subject is very much a question of detail. Uganda, as the House knows, is a kingdom in Central Africa seven hundred miles from the coast, and separated from the coast by a tract partly deserted and partly inhabited by wild and savage tribes. It was discovered in 1862 by Speke, and in 1874 Mr. Stanley visited it. In 1877 certain Protestant missionaries went there, and they were speedily followed by Catholic missionaries. When Stanley went there, the King of the country was named Mtesa, an able and powerful Monarch who died in 1884, and he was succeeded first by one son and then by another, all heading different factions. But in 1890 the King was King Mwanga, who was the present monarch of the country. In 1890 Mwanga's Throne was in danger, and he made application to the East Africa Company in order to induce that company to give him their aid. This matter is somewhat important, because it has been vaguely asserted that the East Africa Company went there out of pure patriotism, and were urged, directly or indirectly, to go there by Lord Salisbury in order to prevent the Germans from going there. I will read to the House a statement issued by the Church Missionary Society—
    "The critical condition of things made Mwanga and the Christians look for help to Mr. F. J. Jackson, of the Imperial British East Africa Company, who was heard to be in Usoga. They sent to him for assistance, and Mwanga accepted a flag sent by hint as a token of alliance. The missionaries preserved a wholly neutral attitude in these negotiations; they simply, as Mr. Walker said, have told Mwanga the truth as far as we knew it, and have explained the meaning of the company's offer, and their flag which they have sent. We have done this not as political agents,' but merely as Mwanga's and the Christian party's friends, being, moreover the only people in the land who could have done it. We have also been Mwanga's mouthpiece in writing to the company's agents, and we have done our best to give them a true account of the present state of the country.' In May, 1890, Messrs. Jackson and Gedge, of the I.B.E.A. Company, appeared in Rubaga (now called Mengo), and endeavoured to come to terms with Mwanga, the company to render help against the Mohammedans and Kabarega, and in return to receive the tames of the country. Although
    460
    supported by the Protestant, or rather English party, Mr. Jackson had to retire without effecting his object, and no control of the country was exercised by the company until December 29, 1890, when Captain Lugard arrived."
    The House will see by the statement that the proposal was a purely business and commercial one on the part of the company. They were asked to go there and defend the Throne of King Muringa, in consideration of which they replied they must have the collection of the taxes of the country. As these modest proposals to collect the taxes of the country were refused these gentlemen, Messrs. Gedge and Jackson did not go there as representatives of the company. But in December of that year Captain Lugard arrived in the country. He was closely followed by a considerable force of Zanzibaris with breech-loaders, and two Maxim guns. I derive my knowledge of what took place front the Reports that had been presented to this House. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham said that I was in the habit in writing upon the subject of alluding to a private document. Sir, the document was not private. I will explain what it was. The right hon. Gentleman further said that Captain Lugard had altered his views since that document was written, and since he first came to the country. All I can say is that in the Blue Book to which we were obliged to refer for information, I find not only this Report which was written by Captain Lugard immediately on his arrival in the country, but I find that the Reports went on until August, 1891, and that Captain Lugard in no sort of way in subsequent Reports contradicts his statement in the first Report, except that he once says if the people of the country are industrious they might produce cereals and export them. The House will remember that in the last Parliament there was a Debate upon the proposal to vote £20,000 for the survey of the Mombasa Railway, and the present Chancellor of the Exchequer quoted largely during the Debate from this so-called private document, which was a Report of Captain Lugard to this company. That Report has appeared in "Africa, No. 4." The House will hardly believe that almost all the passages which were referred to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to prove his case against this

    461
    railway, and against any intermeddling Uganda, are absolutely suppressed from the Report. The Report was prefaced by a letter of the Company, and a more impudent letter, considering the Company asked Parliament last year to aid them in building the railway to this country, and would have us now take over the country—a more impudent act on the part of the Company than is shown by the letter never took place. The letter is as follows:—
    "Sir, in view of the demand made in the House of Commons by some Members during the recent Debate on the Survey Vote, that the Reports to the Company by Captain Lugard should be laid upon the Table of the House. I am instructed to inform you that my Directors had no objection to that course being taken, provided the passages marked in red ink in the accompanying Reports are kept out."
    Here this information was given us by the right hon. Gentleman who, fortunately for us, hail, I think, been sent one of these Reports—one of these private documents. If he had not received it, and had not had an opportunity of reading out in the House from this private Report, we should have known nothing of the series of the most monstrous atrocities that had taken place in Uganda. I will return to what occurred after Captain Lugard's arrival in the country. A few days after' his arrival he determined to make a Treaty with the King of Uganda. It is important to look at this Treaty, because, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said last year, it will explain any possible right of the Company to exercise sway in the country, and is necessarily the keystone of any possible right that we may derive from the Company. The right hon. Gentleman the present Prime Minister said this Treaty was obtained by threats or compulsion, and I think, when I read what really Captain Lugard wrote respecting what he did, that the House will agree with the Prime Minister. This is how the Treaty was obtained—
    "A warm discussion arose on many points. Then the chiefs were for signing, but the King held back, and giggled and fooled. He demanded time. I replied by rapping the table, and speaking loudly, said he must sign now. I threatened to leave the next day if he did not, and possibly to go to his enemies. I pointed out to him that he had lost the southern half of his kingdom to the Germans by his previous delay, and that he would lose more if he delayed now. He was, I think, scared at my
    462
    manner, and trembled very violently, and was on the point of signing, when a rabble with guns which crowded the doorway threatened, I understand, to shoot the first man who signed, shouting that they were selling their country. I had increased my Soudanese escort to 20 men, and they were drawn up on one side with fixed bayonets. Seeing that an immediate signature was hopeless, I said that to-morrow, being Christmas Day, we should not act on it, but the day following I must have his reply. On Christmas Day there was much excitement and dissension and a fight seemed imminent; but late at night I heard that the Catholic chiefs had agreed to sign, and that the King would do so too …No sooner had the Treaty been signed than the King began to repent of his act, and sent a paper to me to sign, stating that all the States therein named should be subject to Uganda, together with other stipulations of a vague kind. I declined to sign it, but made many explanations. Consequently, to the present day, I have managed to avoid another interview, and hope to do so until I have the Treaty well on its way to the coast."
    MR. BURDETT-COUTTS: May I ask the hon. Gentleman what is the date of the Treaty he is referring to?
    MR. LABOUCHERE: December, 1890. December the 26th or 27th.
    MR. BURDETT-COUTTS: As the hon. Member probably knows, that was the first Treaty, and was obtained under exceptional circumstances.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: Very.
    MR. BURDETT-COUTTS: And there is a second Treaty with King Mwanga of a very different kind.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I will come to that. This shows how very eager they were to secure the presence of Captain Lugard. Captain Lugard said the heathen and lawless party, also the Catholics, were not well disposed, whilst the Protestants were bitterly disappointed when he signed. In fact, so far as I can see, except the Zanzibaris with fixed bayonets, there was not a single man in the country in favour of the Treaty. Well, Sir, not one of these extracts is contained in the Report of Captain Lugard to the Company that is submitted to the House of Commons. They were absolutely suppressed till now. The Report had not been submitted to the House of Commons, but according to this letter they were part of the passages in red ink, and I think the House can pretty well understand why they were suppressed. During the Mombasa Debate the Treaty itself was not known to the House. Since then Captain Lugard

    463
    has been careering about the country, saying everywhere that he acted as an English officer, and that he pledged the honour of England always to remain in Uganda. Of course he had no right to pledge it. The first article of the Treaty says—
    "Acting solely on behalf of the British East Africa Company, with fall powers to conclude and ratify the same on behalf of the Company."
    Moreover, this Treaty, which was the only Treaty which was spoken of at the time we were asked to make the railroad, contains the following clause:—
    "This Treaty shall be binding on both parties for a period of two years, after which be renewable or subject to revision as the change of circumstances may require, so that this Treaty would have expired in 1892."
    But I must call attention also to the language of this poor unfortunate savage King. He seemed to recognise himself that he was, as Captain Lugard suggests the people around him said, selling his country. He, when the Treaty was made, says this—
    "An agreement we now make between the white man and ourselves; and I also, in icy own person, King Mwanga, the Sultan, anti all its territories, make another agreement,— namely, should another white man, greater than this one, come up afterwards, these words shall be wiped oat, and we make another."
    I do not know how we can in any sort of way be supposed to derive any right to interfere with the internal polity of Uganda with I his Treaty extorted from the king by Captain Lugard. Captain Lugard having made the Treaty then erected a force. Having got his Zanzibaris with him he enlisted the riff-raff of the country left by Emin Pasha when he left it. I will give an example of how this man—whom we are ail asked to admire—ruled in that country. I will take an extract from Captain Lugard's reply to the French. Missionaries—
    "Père Gaudibert told me at first that when they (the French missionaries) walked about, the Waganda used insulting words to then.…I said that, not only were they my guests, but I would not allow a European to be insulted by a Waganda. I told him that I would station a sentry close to where they walked, with orders that if any of the Fathers pointed to a man (for my men, not knowing Kuganka, were ignorant of anything that might be said) he should be seized. I said I would dearly like to catch a man, and begged Père Gaudibert to have one seized, that I might publicly flog him."
    464
    That is how he carried on the government of the country. The Gentlemen Trout Ireland complain most justly of the way the late Government acted in Ireland with their Coercion Act, but I ask them what would they say if the Irish Secretary stated in this House that he would dearly like an Ulster Member, we will say, to seize hold of a Nationalist, as the right hon. Gentleman himself would like to publicly flog him. But it is only in Africa where monstrosities of this kind take place. Naturally the king and people did not like this species of rule. Captain Lugard descended, so far as they knew, from the skies, and inaugurated this system of government. A tight took place in the town against Captain Lugard. He calls it a rebellion. The establishment of the Catholic missionaries was looted, and the king and his subjects fled to an island. There is some difference in the statements of Captain Lugard and the French missionaries on the subject. I will not cite the account of the French missionaries, but I will cite the statement of the English Missionaries. Here is Mr. Collins' account of it as given to a Renter's agent at Zanzibar—
    "When the Protestants heard the sharp rattle of the big guns they burst into rounds of cheering. A few minutes later we saw that the Catholic Mission station out Rubaga Hill was on fire, and that their new church was also ablaze, and we knew that our people had taken Bubaga. Captain Williams, in command of a huge force of Soudanese and Baganda, left the fort for a spot on the lake shore opposite the island which was only about the length of a rifle-shot distant. Captain Williams at once got his Maxim in position, and seeing this the king's party tried to escape from the island in their canoes; but no sooner were the boats tilled than they were sunk, one after the other, by the Maxim, and an immense number of the natives were drowned, going down in boatloads. King Mwanga himself managed to escape in a canoe, accompanied by the Catholic Bishop."
    I am bound to say that Mr. Collins does not quite accept the accuracy of the statement of Renter's agent, but in his denial he practically admits the main facts. He says—
    "I was pressed for time, and could only give him my diary, and ask him to make some extracts. When I read the article in the paper I was surprised to find that the extracts had not been male verbatim, but that a considerable amount of colouring had been given in several places. This was the case in connection with the event you name. No such expressions

    465
    as 'going down in boatloads,' &c., occur in my diary; but I find that I have written that it was reported to me by native chiefs who were present on the occasion that several canoes were sunk, and a considerable number of natives drowned, and this I believe was the case."
    I really do not see much distinction between the first statement and the amended statement. The King, of course, had no choice. This unfortunate King returned, and accepted the necessary facts that Captain Lugard, with his Maxim guns and breechloaders, was the absolute master of the situation. Then comes what I think the hon. Gentleman opposite alluded to as the new Treaty with King Mwanga. I do not see, as fur as I can make out, that King Mwanga signed the Treaty himself; I think it was a chief. But in event the Treaty amounted to this: that Captain Lugard divided the country between the rival factions of Mahomedans, Catholics, and Protestants. When I use the word Protestant I would add that the word must not be understood as we understand Protestant, for Captain Lugard himself says it was a mere political name for one of the factions, and the word Protestant actually was not known until he came into the country. Now, Captain Lugard frequently said his action in Uganda obliged us to remain for ever there, that if the Company was not prepared to remain there the Imperial Government must take its place. But it is a remarkable fact that Captain Lugard himself did not take that view. When he was there he was prepared to throw over the Treaty and retire when he found it was not a paying speculation. Captain Lugard wrote to his company stating—
    "It occurred to me that it might possibly, be better to transfer the centre of European control and administration to a new position."
    What is more, the company adopted this, and announced about the end of 1892 that they intended to withdraw from the country on the very practical ground that it did not pay them to remain there. They said they intended to withdraw from the country in July, 1893, and they would have done so had it not been for the Church Missionary Society, who came forward, and said they were anxious they should remain there another six months, and that if they would remain they would pay the cost of their re-
    466
    maining. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham says that Lord Salisbury intended to take over the country, and he seems to imply that that bound us to do so. I have carefully looked through the whole statement Lord Salisbury made, and I timid no sort of sign or indication that he intended to take over the country. He was informed that the Company were going to withdraw in 1892, but he made no sign then, and did not say for a moment that if they withdrew the country would have to betaken over by the Imperial Government. He made no sign when the Church Missionary Society was going to provide the funds for the Company to remain there another six months, and he did not indicate at the end of the six months that he would be in favour of taking, over the country. The Member for West Birmingham, in answer to some interlocutory question during his speech, said—
    "Well, but remember that he intended to take over the country because he asked this House to give £20,000 for the survey of the country for the purpose of the railway."
    I have gone over the Debate this morning, and have been unable to to see one single word in it with reference to the question of taking over the country. A speech was made by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, and speeches were made by other gentlemen, but I do not think the word Uganda was once mentioned. The grounds for giving the money were that we were bound by an arrangement made at the Brussels Conference to make a railway, because it was thought that a railway would tend to diminish in some way the Slave Trade. The first time that Lord Salisbury had an idea of taking over the country was, I gather from a. letter in The Times newspaper, some time about September last, after the noble Lord had left Office. Some one wrote to Lord Salisbury inquiring what he had intended to do, and Lord Salisbury replied that he had always contemplated retaining the country. Now, I cannot really enter into Lord Salisbury's mind of the minds of anyone else. He may have contemplated retention or he may not but when a man has occupied the position of Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, we must not go by what

    467
    he contemplated in his own mind, but by his public words and acts, and there is no public word from Lord Salisbury which bound him to take over the country. The Prime Minister has suggested another reason why we might not have our responsibility involved. He dealt with the charter of the company, the terms of which he described as remarkable by reason of the largeness of the powers conferred on the Secretary of State for controlling the Company. It was perfectly true that there was an agreement with Germany that certain territory should be within the sphere of our influence. Germany was to go one way and we another, but no responsibility was to be involved. It was to be much like the arrangement made after the Fall of Sodom and Gomorrah between Abraham and Lot. Abraham went his way and Lot went another. They were responsible for nothing that occurred in regard to that. The agreement of 1888 was based upon existing arrangements with the Company, made by the Sultan of Zanzibar and the Sultan of Witu. It gave the Company no right to acquire territory by Treaties made with the sovereigns of the country, and there is a clause in the Treaty that these new Treaties must be approved by Her Majesty's Government, but the object of that clause, as far as I can understand, is to prevent anything which might be deemed unfair from being, done under those Treaties. This particular Treaty was numbered 25, and I think there were upwards of 100 Treaties. No one could say that we were responsible for the Treaty, or that we approved of everything negotiated by the South Africa Company or the Borneo Company, and if we had no responsibility for those Treaties—the Treaties of those two companies—it cannot be said that any approval rendered us responsible for the Treaties of the East Africa Company. Now, this was the position of affairs when the Liberal Government came into power. We were not bound by any Treaty by the action of Lord Salisbury or by the Charter to interfere in any way. The Company announced that it was going to leave Uganda at the end of last year. The better course would have been to let well alone and allowed the Company to withdraw. But in Sep-
    468
    tember a deputation from the Church Missionary Society waited upon Lord Rosebery, asking him to take over the country. His reply was somewhat ambiguous. Shortly afterwards a Cabinet Council was held. I do not know what occurred then, but I suppose the reply of Lord Rosebery was discussed. Then a circular was issued to the East Africa Company by Lord Rosebery, which, I presume, contained the intentions of the Government. Three months more were given to them for evacuation. The Company were told to evacuate the country on March 31st. Lord Rosebery said that his predecessor had accepted the principle of evacuation, and that continued occupation would be arduous and dangerous, if not impossible, in the present state of our relations. After this letter another deputation—it was from the Anti-Slavery Association—went to the Government and protested against the decision that had been arrived at. Lord Rosebery made a reply in which he appeared to separate himself from the decision of his colleagues, for in one sentence he spoke of "I" and in another of "we," and the noble Lord seemed to suggest that some agitation should take place in order that the decision of the Government should be altered. I defy any one to read that reply without coming to the conclusion that Lord Rosebery was urging agitation in favour of retention. One gentleman who was there subsequently told his friends the effect of Lord Rosebery's reply when he said at a meeting that
    "Lord Rosebery's magnificent setting of this country's duty toward the poor nations of the earth with whom God had placed us in bond, mad every one leave the country a better Englishman than he had entered it."
    The Captain Lugard went about the country, and the big drum was beaten. He went about saying that we would be disgraced if we did not take over the country. He not only contradicted his own Report, but contradicted in one speech what he said in another. ["No, no!"] I can show any Gentleman absolute contradictions, if you wish I shall go into details, but I do not want to detain the House. Well, in December last this agitation bore fruit; the Ministry did,. apparently, reconsider its decision, and it was announced that a

    469
    Mission of Inquiry should be sent out. The gentleman selected was Sir Gerald Portal, a very able administrator, I believe, but a man of not absolutely independent judgment in this matter. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister said the other day that if Sir Gerald Portal was an advocate of annexation he did not know it. The following letter, dated Mombasa, September 14th, appeared in The Times from a gentleman who had received it from Sir Gerald Portal, and The Times, after some past experiences, was rather careful as to the letters it inserted, and have, I presume, authenticated it, and know the name of the author—
    "I have come up here for a few days to do a lot of business in my dual capacity of Consul General and Her Majesty's Commissioner for the Interior. The question of Uganda is of vital importance. The Company say they are determined to go, in spite of their promises and treaties of protection to King Mwanga all the Protestants and others Lugard, Martin, missionaries, natives, and everyone who has come from there are unanimous in saying that the withdrawal of the English officers will be the certain signal for a general war and the inevitable massacre of Christians—a massacre such as the world has not seen for centuries."
    The point is, that Sir Gerald Portal is not a man of independent character. Probably this was a private letter, but the mind of the writer was filled with the idea that they were bound to take over the whole country. This letter has been discussed in the newspapers, and given as one of the grounds why we should take over the country, and it was cited also in the Manifesto issued by the Church Missionary Society. If the Government wished for or wanted more information in September last, they should have sent out their Mission in that month. Then, at least, they would have had time to consider whether they ought to take over the country or not. But now the position is that Sir Gerald Portal will only arrive in Uganda on the 26th of March, and on the 31st of March the company will evacuate. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham asked last night what was going to take place between the period when the company was to evacuate the country and the time when Sir G. Portal's Report would be received. As the right hon. Gentleman said, in all probability that Report
    470
    will not be received until August or September next. It would then be unnecessary for the Government to write back to Sir Gerald Portal, for if he did take over the country, even provisionally, when the company left, then our responsibility would be actual, and it seems to me that if we once took over the country, though only temporarily, it would be exceedingly difficult to withdraw afterwards. As to the grounds on which it has been said by Captain Lugard and others at public meetings that we ought to take over the country, we are told, in the first place, that Uganda would be a great market for their goods, that it would raise large exports and would receive large imports from England. But Captain Lugard himself said on this point—
    "As regards the value of Uganda to the company, I hold the opinion, which Seems to me to be shared alike by the English and French missionaries, the Germans, and Messrs, Jackson and Gedge, that Uganda per se has been much overrated. At present there seem to be few or no products suitable for exportation except ivory, and that almost entirely comes from the tributary States. Nor can the country, I understand, supply much labour for the construction of outside works. The company should go further, to a place not divided up into factions or spoilt by the veneer of civilization, which has been the bane of Uganda."
    Yet Captain Lugard and others have represented Uganda as a country flowing with milk and honey, and the single fact given by Captain Lugard to justify this is, that some chief asked bins when he left to be good enough to send hint some opera glasses and white donkeys. It is well known that the natives do not work hard in any part of the country. There is no such capacity for work in them to make the country productive. There is a slave population, it is true, and I can only say that, if this population raised crops to enable other persons to have opera glasses, the slave raised the crops and the slave master got the glasses. But the absurdity of the statement that Uganda would be a market for their goods is shown by the fact that the cost of carriage to send up goods from the coast is £300 a ton. This is a prohibitive rate, and there can be no such importation of goods into the country as was spoken of. We will be told that a railway is to be constructed to the country, but I cannot believe for a moment that it will be done. The present Chancellor of the Duchy of

    471
    Lancaster (Mr. Bryce) spoke on this matter in the course of the Mombasa Debate, and he said that it was absolutely impossible to make such a railway. The words of the right hon. Gentleman were—
    "There were no means of obtaining indigenous free labour to make this railway. They would have to import coolies from India or Chinese, to make the railway or to make it by slave labour. The Committee would notice that the Government had but their case as an alternative to establishing garrisons and flying columns. It was clear that they should have to guard the railway when it was made. There were warlike tribes along the route, to whom the iron rails would be as valuable as a gold mine. Nothing less than a line of forts would be sufficient to protect this railway. They should have all the expense in addition to the construction. He should like to point also to the want of any jurisdiction. They had no jurisdiction in the territory except over British subjects. It seemed to him that the guarantee involved intervention, and that the involved annexation. They were now asked to take the first steps in annexation. There was no stopping place in the fatal descent."
    The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister went further, alai pointed out that if we were to make the railroad we should have no sort of legal jurisdiction over the tribes of the country through which it would pass; that any species of crime might be committed by them, and we should have no power to punish or prevent these crimes. In those circumstances I should like to know from the Government whether they are going to construct this railroad or not. It must cost about £3,000,000, and it would not pay working expenses, and would probably cost a subsidy of £300,000. Hon. Members opposite will agree that if the Government are not going to make the railroad any intermeddling with the affairs of Uganda by them would be unwise and ridiculous. If they were going to construct it, they would have to eat their own words and do what last year they said was a monstrosity. It will be said that we are bound to make the railroad by the terms of the Brussels Conference, but this county is under no such responsibility. With regard to the statement by Captain Lugard that settlers might establish themselves in Uganda, the nature of the climate made this very improbable, if not impossible, especially when there were more attractive lands in the south—Mashonaland and elsewhere.
    472
    The only "settlers" who will go to Uganda are those whom I cannot look upon as better than swindlers—those who would go out and dig a hole, declare there was gold in the hole, then bring out a Company and sell the hole to foolish' and confiding British orphans and widows for, perhaps, one or two hundred thousand pounds. Then it is said by Captain Lugard that Uganda should be taken over on account of the slave trade. He has also said that the slave trade did not now exist in that country, but that there are a great many domestic slaves, and, as far as can be understood, these people would remain slaves under the aegis of the Government of Great Britain if the country were really taken over. What is the fact? It is that the only labour in the country is slave labour, and the East Africa Company make use of that for the conveyance of their goods from Uganda to the coast. It is held by some that those unfortunate people are permitted to work out their own salvation or freedom, but the system is very wrong—it is absurd, for the men are brought down from the coast by the slave dealer and sold, and what does it matter to the dealer whether they are purchased to work out their salvation or to continue in slavery? While the system lasts we will have slaves sent down the coast. Now, we have heard a great deal about the missionaries who went out to Uganda in 1877. I do not complain of them. It has been stated that 18 missionaries were murdered, but that is not so. Eighteen died in Uganda or going, to it, but 15 of them died from illness brought on by the nature of the climate. Only three were killed, but not even one of them was killed as a missionary. Bishop Hannington was believed by the King to be an emissary from the Mahdi, and the two missionaries declared that they could not convince the King that the Bishop was not a Sheikh sent by the Mahdi to take the country. [Laughter.] Of course, Gentlemen laugh. They have been humbugged and fooled and cajoled during the last six months by persons who have been going about the country speaking on this question. Let them do as I did—go to the original sources for their information. I got this information from the statements of the Church Missionary Society. Well,

    473
    Bishop Hannington declined to wait outside the country. On the other hand, orders had been sent to prevent his advancing into the country. A conflict consequently ensued, and the Bishop was killed. The other two missionaries, who were most estimable men, were going up country, and while they were in the territory of some Chief a fugitive from justice got into the camp. They were actuated, no doubt, by the very best feelings, and they would not give him up when asked to do so. A fight ensued; a number of natives were killed, and the two missionaries themselves were killed. At present there are about 1,000 converts, so far as I can gather, who tire members of the Church of England. We are told that a terrible massacre will take place if we withdraw from Uganda. Well, I have never seen any sort of evidence of it; but if it is so, surely it would be much better to instruct Sir Gerald Portal to pay for bringing away those 1,000 persons than to stop there. [Laughter.] Gentlemen laugh; but, surely, when it is a question either or taking a kingdom with 2,000,000 inhabitants in order to prevent 1,000 persons front being massacred or of bringing the 1,000 persons away, the more reasonable course is to bring them away. There is, however, no quarrel with the missionaries of the Church Missionary Society; the quarrel is with the Catholic missionaries. I think it was very unwise of the Church Missionary Society to explain the political ditties of the Government in their Manifesto, to tell us it was a disgrace to England to withdraw, and to say that those who wished to withdraw have "petty and parochial minds." Mr. Speaker, I glory in the fact of haying, the "petty and parochial mind" which induces me to protest against such vast expenditure. I do not consider it to be our duty to annex a kingdom with 2,000,000 inhabitants in order to aid missionary labour. That sort of thing rat her impedes than benefits missionary labour. What does Mr. Mackay, a most estimable and respectable missionary, say? He says—
    "We are suspected of political aims, and are called spies awl pioneers of invasion. Our people are believed to be won over to English rule, and to be false to their country."
    474
    I will also cite a very much higher authority upon the best way of converting Africans and other pagans than I am myself. Mr. Guinness Rogers, a leading member of the Nonconformist Body.—
    An hon. MEMBER: A Gladstonian Radical.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: Well, I remember complaining of him because he hacked up my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in his Soudan expedition, so that he cannot be suspected of being a man who is opposed to every species of African buccaneering. Writing in the Nineteenth Century, and contrasting Mr. Moffat with the missionaries of the Maxim Gun School, he says—
    "To me that is the truer ideal of a missionary than the man who is full of large ideas of the mission or his country, ever speculating on the comparative merits of different lines of policy, sighing for British protection, and thus with or without his awn purpose, becoming continually involved in entangled controversies, which it should he his purpose rather to avoid."
    America has missionaries in Africa, but if an American missionary were to go hack into his own country and suggest that the United States should annex a country with a, population of 2,000,000 in the centre of Africa in order to aid American missionary enterprise, he would certainly be removed to the nearest lunatic asylum. The Church Missionary Society is, of course, a Church of England Society, and I consider that this demand is the very last outcome of Church and State. Captain Lugard actually suggested that the King's son, who was a Catholic, should be brought to England, and educated as a Protestant. I myself admire missionaries like Moffitt and Livingstone. They never started those Church and State doctrines. They never advocated annexations, and we must really go back to the time of Peter the Hermit and the Crusaders to realise what an extraordinary thing it is that people should advocate the sending of armed forces to foreign countries in order to aid missionary labour. The company was founded on the basis of commerce and philanthropy. It issued a prospectus in which people were asked to subscribe for shares, and were told they would in all probability get 8 per cent. for their money. Behind the 8 per cent.

    475
    there was the old trick of founders' shares, half of the profits of which was to go to the shareholders and half to the founders. Indeed, it was a sort of company that Mr. Bottomley might have put his name to and been proud of it. The company has a port at Mombasa, and is able to levy duties there. Naturally, they want the Hinterland to be opened out so that imports and exports may pass through Mombasa. They want us to sow, in order that they may reap. I can perfectly understand the position of the company, and, speaking of the commercial gentlemen, I think they are, front the Bottomley point of view, as wise as we should be foolish if we acceded to their proposal. Behind the company are the "Jingoes," the people who suffer from the disease of earth-hunger, and are under the impression that if any other country annexes any part of the globe that country is a disgrace to civilisation, but that we have a sacred and divine mission which imposes on us the duty of annexing wherever we can. I really believe that if the North Pole were discovered we should have hon. Gentlemen opposite immediately insisting on its annexation. People who do not agree with them are traitors, or have "petty and parochial minds." I can only Say, Sir, that if some step is not taken to prevent these "Jingoes "carrying out their views, we shall get into trouble with every other country on the globe, and the British Empire will burst into fragments like a balloon that is blown up. Africa is now the great field for annexation. The "Jingoes" want to go up from South Africa first to the Zambesi, and then beyond it. In the north they want us to remain in possession of Egypt. I have no doubt they would admit that they had not any idea of our leaving Egypt. [An hon. MEMBER: Hear, hear!] Hear, hear! Then they want communications between Egypt and the Cape Colony, and in their idea Uganda is the key of the position. Hear what Captain Lugard says. He writes—
    "If Uganda is to be held, a line of forts, with an organised system of defence, I look upon as a necessity, sooner or later, against the Wave of Mahomedan fanaticism and power from the north, which is encroaching further mid further south, and must sometime come into collision with the influences of European civilisation,
    476
    which, happily for Africa, are spreading towards south, east, and west. When the two waves meet—Islam from the north, and British influence front the south and east—it will be of vital importance, not only to the territorial interests of the company, but to the cause of Christianity and of civilisation, that the company be found ready to meet force by force, complete and organised in itself up to its furthest frontier. Within the limits of this frontier would be enclosed a vast territory the development of which will tax the resources of the company to the uttermost, and, meanwhile, the battle can be fought out between the rival sects of the Mahdi and Sennousi, and an opportunity may then offer for any advantageous advance, when the forces of Islam are divided against themselves. I was informed by Dr. Shulhmann of the report that the forces of Sennousi are slowly advancing southwards sweeping all before them. They are hostile to the Mandists, and are still more antagonistic than the latter to the white men and Christians. Their organisation and equipment are wonderful, and they have enormous stores of ammunition, breech-loading rifles, cannons, and steamers."
    Lord Salisbury, as I understand it, is in favour of the retention of Uganda at present. There are a few Radicals, I suppose, in this House who are also in favour of its retention. There are always some weak Radicals. Lord Rosebery is, I take it, somewhat in favour of retention. The Tory Press—I do not know whether rightly or wrongly—has put forward Lord Rosebery as a sort of guardian of the honour of England against the "pernicious and unpatriotic designs," or Prime Minister (Mr. Gladstone), the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir W. Harcourt), the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. J. Morley), the Postmaster General (Mr. Arnold Morley), and most of the other gentlemen who sit upon the Treasury Bench. Sir Gerald Portal has been sent to Uganda, and unless he is told to evacuate the country the necessary result of his mission will be that Uganda will be annexed. I really must trouble the House with one further extract. I run very sorry to do so. It is from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister in the Mombasa Debate, and it puts the case very clearly against our getting mixed up in the affairs of Uganda. The right hon. Gentleman said—
    "Are you better off when you get into that country (Uganda)? Can you count upon friendship there? Is the King of that country friendly to you? Captain Lugard says we have

    477
    framed a Treaty with him. But he obtained that Treaty by threats and by compulsion. He admits that it was with the greatest difficulty that it was obtained, and that every effort was made by the wretched Sovereign who signed it to escape from it, and that the Sovereign will make any effort to escape from it in the future. But even Captain Lugard in that Treaty does not venture to include the slightest reference to the acquisition of land. Captain Lugard says that he effected his point by going into the country with extreme rapidity, and that it was the extreme rapidity of his movements that prevented the natives from getting out their troops to oppose him, as they had not time to do it. On whose friendship do you rely The bulk of the country is inhabited by natives absolutely savage, but not, I believe, incapable of being stirred up by an alarm in respect of the land upon winch they depend for their subsistence. Captain Lugard says that from the north there is a wave of onward Mahomedan progress, and another great tribe, called Unyoro, agreed with Uganda in its opposition to the English. It is a most singular thing that, according to this Report of Captain Lugard, almost with one exception, all these people who are at variance with one another, yet are agreed on being hostile to the admission of English troops. What is the exception? There are strong religions influences at work. There are Roman Catholic missionaries in this sphere of influence; and it appears that the East Africa Company takes upon itself to inform French missionaries where they may go, and where they may not go. They happen, however, to be a very powerful body, and between them and the Protestant missionaries, who are much fewer in number, there is rivalry, and the Protestant missionaries welcome our interference, hoping that it will be backed by force of arms; whilst the Roman Catholics, who are the large majority, are very averse to it. We are obliged to act upon presumptions, and all these presumptions converge to show that what you have to expect from the mass of population in this region of Africa is bitter and, generally speaking, united hostility."
    Could anyone put the case more strongly? I apologise for having occupied the attention of the House so long. I have never concealed my view; I have always objected to all these Protectorates and all these annexations, and I mean to do so as long as I am in this House. I know it is said I am a false and base Englishman because I do not agree in these grand Imperial schemes of expansion. I am perfectly satisfied as au Englishman to look after the interests and well-being of the British Empire. I consider that is a large enough business. If people like to civilise Africa and to subscribe money for christianising any other part of the world let them subscribe to do it; I may do it myself; but when it comes to the money of the taxpayer, I consider that we ought to
    478
    take the beam out of our own eye—God knows we have many beams—before we wander about the globe taking the mote out of the eyes of Chinese and Africans. We have want and misery here; we have great labour questions, and if we have money to spend—it is money taken from the mass of the people—let it be spent on the well-being of the mass of the people. I know perfectly well that the Debate on the Address is not an opportune time to ask the House to divide, particularly when you are a supporter of the Government. I am not going to divide. I am perfectly willing to accept the responsibility of any division against the possibility or probability of annexation. But I am practical. I know a Supplementary Estimate will soon be brought in to cover the expenses of the Sir Gerald Portal's Mission, and if I divide on that I shall get a better Division. We must be strategical in these matters. My object is to prevent these annexations and to get as many people as possible to vote with me. In order, however, to concentrate the attention of the House on the question, I beg leave to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
    Amendment proposed,
    At the end of the Question, to add the words, "And humbly ventures to express the hope, that the Commissioner, who has been sent by Your Majesty to Uganda, will effect the evacuation of that country by the British East Africa Company, without any increase in Your Majesty's Imperial responsibilities."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    *MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: When I heard the ingenious argument by which my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton made good his proposition that it was not wise for him to divide, another question arose in my own mind, whether this argument ought not to have gone a little further, and to have suggested to him that this was not the proper occasion to move his Amendment. He expects there will be some Supplementary Vote upon which he will be largely supported, but surely he would have been much better supported upon the Supplementary Vote if he had reserved until that period the animated and interesting speech which he has favoured us with.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: My speech is so long; this is only half of it.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: The statement that my hon. Friend has just made stirs in me another fear, and that is that, he having given us fair notice that when he makes his Motion upon some Vote still in nubibus he has another speech approaching two hours ready to be delivered, it will be in the power of every Member to determine for himself whether he will have the will fruition or whether he will omit a portion of the enjoyment. My hon. Friend will excuse me if I refer very shortly indeed to the matters, independent of Uganda in Africa, which he introduced into the discussion. I think I need only say, with regard to the Triple Alliance, that I am not aware that anything has occurred since the accession of the present Government to power which ought to give uneasiness either to him or to any Member of this House in respect of the Triple Alliance. With respect to Egypt, he asks us what are we doing there? My answer to that is simple. We are doing these two things: We are striving steadily to fulfil that absolute duty which is incumbent upon us of maintaining not only the external security, but the internal peace of the country so long as the British occupation lasts. And together with that we are endeavouring to prosecute or to restore, whichever you please, that system of thorough harmony and concord between the native Government and the occupying Power, which has been the basis of all our proceedings heretofore, and which, has alone enabled the successive Governments to neutralise and qualify the inconveniences of a critical situation. My hon. Friend has referred to the language of the Government of the French Republic in the Chamber of that country. I cannot but observe the temperate and guarded and friendly language in which the Foreign Minister of France dealt with the subject. I do not doubt that the same spirit will continue to animate him and his colleagues and any French Administration which is likely to come into Office in the regulation of the relations, which are happily most friendly, and which might become most difficult were there a want of judgment in the steps taken upon either side. My hon. Friend, I think, signified that we,
    480
    having been in Office now for such a lengthened period, and having nothing to occupy our attention of any consequence at home in connection with the Session, ought to have made great progress with the settlement of foreign affairs. My hon. Friend appeared to think that it was our duty to initiate some correspondence or proceedings on the subject of the Egyptian occupation. On that matter I shall give no opinion which in any way may restrict our liberty of action for the future, either remote or immediate. But I would point out to my hon. Friend, in reference to the words which fell from me the other night, that it is not a very long period since we received from the Government of France a friendly inquiry as to the reception which we should be disposed to give to some overtures on their part for re-opening the negotiations which it is perfectly true to say never were entirely dropped by Lord Salisbury, and could not have been said to have passed out of existence at the time when tile, late Government resigned. Under these circumstances, I think, when we consider what has happened as to the internal politics of France during the last month or six weeks, my hon. Friend will feel that it would not have been very courteous or wise for us, after the friendly communications which had taken place, hastily to step in and take the new initiative in the matter without any menacing or embarrassing circumstances. So much for this subject. Now I pass to the main point of the speech of my hon. Friend. He has traversed a very wide field indeed, over which it is totally impossible for me to follow him. Let him recollect a fundamental proposition as determining our situation at the moment. It is this. No doubt, as he says, gentlemen have been careering through the country representing this subject front one point of view and another point of view, but those points of view are not the points of view from which it is possible to tender sound and weighty advice for the purpose of guiding the policy of England. It is very well, no doubt, that the British East Africa Company should be active, and should have its agents in activity, and should possess the public mind in its own interest, and on its own behalf with the views it is inclined to take. I recognise the difficulties of the position of the

    481
    Company, though I shall give no opinion whatever in regard to it or its proceedings at the present time. It is also most natural that those who are connected with the religious interests embarked in this portion of Africa should with earnestness, and even with enthusiasm, present their view, or points of view, to the country. But I must say I cannot help sympathising in some degree with the reference my hon. Friend has made to some statements of the Church Missionary Society, which I have read with great regret. For I very much indeed doubt whether observations of that kind upon the external policy of this country are observations which can wisely proceed from a strictly religions body, which has its own exclusive functions in t he interest of the propagation of the Gospel.
    SIR J. KENNAWAY: May I be allowed to say—
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: My hon. Friend will have his opportunity later on in the discussion. There is one passage in the speech or my hon. Friend which I regret, and which I do not think he himself can Inc very well satisfied with. It was Ins reference to Lord Rosebery—it was his favourite reference to worthless passages in articles written for a momentary political Party purpose. My hon. Friend cannot have failed to remark the naturally enthusiastic approval with which that portion of his speech was received by all those whom he does not wish to cite as Iris political friends. My hon. Friend would ham a very mean judgment of me if I were to treat those speculations as worthy of a single moment's notice. I pass from them to the main subject which is before us—a subject which we debated at length last year, and which we may very possibly have to debate again, but which at this moment it is not in our power to debate. We cannot eater fully into this question, and for what reason? Because, as we have stated frankly to the House, we are almost entirely destitute of such informa1tion in regard to the internal condition of Uganda and tire transactions which have taken place there as alone could form a firm basis for us to stand upon in I taking decisions, and announcing decisions, and recommending them to Parliament, which may deeply involve the interests of this country. I was struck
    482
    with the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham wirer Ire said that he hoped that, whatever we did in this matter, we should not drift. I share that hope. We are determined, so far as depends on us, not to drift, and tire best way of taking security against that condition of helpless drifting is to refuse steadily to act until we are in possession of tine data which will supply us with the necessary information. Moreover, I think until we have acquired those data there will be little or no advantage in entering upon a discussion which must necessarily be loose and superficial. In the speech which my hon. Friend delivered last year there was a multitude of presumptions and difficulties in regard to which our information is not such as to enable us to convert them either one way or another into certainties. The general dicta of my hon. Friend command a great deal of my sympathy. The question is the application of general dicta to a particular case in a remote country with which the time of our communication is counted, not by days or weeks, but by months, and where the whole stock of information that we have, being scanty, is of a partial and unauthoritative nature. It is totally distinctive from such authority as alone Governments can recognise and act upon, and this tends to increase the responsibility which we should incur were we to take any premature steps in the matter. I wish to express as exactly as I can the full extent of the difference between my hon. Friend and myself at this moment. Into what forms this question may develop itself hereafter it is impossible for me to tell. The Speech from the Throne distinctly explained to the House and to the country that we have sent a Commissioner of great ability to Uganda for the purpose of inquiring into the best mode of dealing, with the country and for the purpose of examining into its condition. My hon. Friend's position, I understand, is this: "Consider all the transactions in Uganda as being now, once for all, absolutely at an end; close the book; say this is res acta; whatever may happen, we have no more to do with it in any shape whatever; we have no more concern with Uganda than rye have with Kamschatka." I do not think that I can go quite so far in that direction as my

    483
    hon. Friend. A Charter has been given to the East Africa Company. But that Charter, my hon. Friend says, involves nothing whatever, involves no possibilities of obligation or responsibility on the part of this Government. I am very far from saying that it involves facts of obligation or responsibility, but I do say that before we can adopt the sweeping negative of the hon. Member we have to judge that there are matters to be examined and ascertained. This Charter, as my hon. Friend is aware, confers on the East Africa Company powers to govern, to make Treaties, to discharge all those high functions, and likewise places the exercise of those powers, in terms extremely large, under the direct control of the Secretary of State. It is not, I think, an unreasonable proposition that we should have authentic information, not merely ex parte, but some authentic and responsible information as to the mode in which those governing powers, those Treaty-making powers, have been exercised, and as to the mode in which that authority to control has also been put in practice before we can form a complete and conclusive judgment on those questions. There is another point on which I ought perhaps to say a word. Some time after we came into Office we found that the French Government were disposed to advance claims on England, not absolute but contingent claims, on behalf of the Roman Catholic missionaries. The contention of the French Government, as I understand it, has been this: that if in the course of the deplorable proceedings—and those who predict massacre in certain contingencies ought to recollect that something which may be called massacre has been happening under arrangements made by other parties—that if it should appear that those missionaries, especially those French subjects, had grievously suffered through transactions in which the Company was the representing agent, and not by their own fault, we should acknowledge in some shape or other, subject to future definition and fuller examination, some obligation to make good any injury so sustained. Looking at the question on international grounds, we have not felt that we could at once say that there is no such responsibility. Does not my hon. Friend see that unless he is
    484
    prepared to say, "You are totally wrong, and you ought to have said to the French Government, whatever the terms of the Charter may be, whatever the proceedings of the Company under the Charter may have been, we disclaim all responsibility, and you may go and ask for indemnity where you like, but do not come and ask it from us." Unless the hon. Member is prepared to go that length, he will see there are matters in Uganda which it is not only prudent, but absolutely necessary for us, as well as we can, to probe to the bottom in order to ascertain whether any responsibility, and if so what responsibility, has grown up out of any proceedings taken in this country, and if there be a debt of honour incumbent upon us—I am far from saying that there is such a debt—we should meet that debt and satisfy it in the spirit of honour which directs all the transactions of this country. As to the claim of the French Government, I do not think I am making a tu quoque. On the contrary; as far as I understand the matter, I am quoting a proceeding of our predecessors for the purpose of expressing approval of that proceeding. I believe that what we are now doing with regard to the subject at large is what Lord Salisbury has done with regard to this particular, and apparently now, but at the same time claim of the French Government in respect of the Roman Catholic missionaries, especially the French subjects. We learned—I think about two or three mouths after we had been in Office—that a gentleman of his ability, a young man, but, I believe, competent from his qualifications to do his work—Captain Macdonald—who had been sent to Uganda for the purpose of making a survey of the railway, bad at a later period received instructions from Lord Salisbury desiring him, at a point midway between Uganda and Mombasa, to proceed up the country and examine into the conduct of the agents and officers of the Company and of all others concerned bearing on the question with regard to the damages which may or may not have been sustained by the French missionaries. The question was, whether we should acknowledge that proceeding of Captain Macdonald, or whether we were to ask Captain Macdonald to desist. We took up the proceedings of Lord

    485
    Salisbury, and Captain Macdonald was instructed to proceed to fulfil the task which Lord Salisbury had laid upon him. We have not yet received his Report, and I am not certain in how many days or weeks it will be received. But I refer to the point in order to show how many matters of delicacy and difficulty are involved in this subject, and how unwarrantable and inexcusable it would be if we were by premature action to prejudice our own liberty or that of the House or the country with regard to any portion of what seems to be, on the whole, a complicated question. Whatever the country may be—limited in its relations, in population, limited in the actual extent of the British interests connected with it, yet when they come to be taken with the religious and secular interests of all parties, and the unhappy condition of the Company, which, after having undertaken a great task, has been obliged to recede, a situation of great difficulty—our duty is to put ourselves in full possession of the facts before we allow ourselves to be driven to a premature conclusion, or by a premature and anticipatory discussion we do anything to prejudice the future. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham referred the other night to the policy of occupation or annexation. That is a policy I need not say which we have not proclaimed, and with respect to which we have done nothing whatever, direct or indirect, to prejudge the future or to prejudice our own liberty. My hon. Friend asks me what was the state of facts with regard to the railway? I believe the state of facts with regard to the railway is that a survey has been made, and that the first estimate has been doubled, which is the regular and normal state of affairs, and it would not perhaps be hazardous to predict that the second estimate may be followed by a further addition before we are done with it. Nothing whatever has taken place except the survey. My right hon. Friend, it appears to me, invites us to adopt this policy of occupation, which means annexation, even at the very moment when we ourselves are declaring we have not sufficient information, and that we have appointed a person, whom we think a competent and able Commissioner, in order to ascertain arid examine what course is the best course
    486
    to take. My right hon. Friend appeared to be under the supposition that Sir G. Portal had gone to Uganda as Administrator of the country, and to exercise functions of government. There cannot be a more complete mistake.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I understand that until March 31st the administration of the country is in the hands of the British East Africa Company, and all I asked was what was to take place after their administration ceased, and until the Government came to a final decision.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I understood the point of the question was what was to take place in the country after Sir G. Portal's inquiry was at an end, and it appeared to me the right hon. Gentleman thought that Sir G. Portal was to administer the country in the meantime. Sir G. Portal has from us no such commission, and the withdrawal of Sir G. Portal will create no such vacuum. You may say we ought not to leave the country without some administration. Well, when that battle comes to be fought, we shall fight it in common in the same ranks as right hon. Gentlemen and noble Lords opposite. I do not deny that certain disadvantages may arise from an interval of that kind. I do not at all deny—I think it very possible—that Sir G. Portal may unofficially and gratuitously, so to speak, be of use in transactions that may arise here or there while he is in Uganda. But Sir G. Portal has no commission as Administrator. Neither is there any commission of administration to follow. If we had made Sir G. Portal the Administrator of the country, our inquiry would have been a pretence and a mockery, for we should have come to a foregone conclusion. That I hope will be clearly understood. [Opposition laughter.] Gentlemen opposite are merry upon the matter. They do not understand it. If my language has been deficient in perspicuity I shall endeavour to the best of my poor ability to make a further effort to meet their extreme needs in any quarter where it may be needed. My hon. Friend has moved an Amendment which, it appears to me, does not deserve his own support. I will give him my reasons. He has not stated in distinct terms his disapproval

    487
    of our sending a Commissioner to inquire and supply us with what I may call responsible information. If he had been bold enough to grapple with that proposition, and said—"It is no affair of yours at all; you have no more business to send a Commissioner to inquire into the facts of Uganda than into the facts of the icy barriers at the South Pole "—I could have understood his Amendment. It seems to me that by failing to disapprove of this determination of Her Majesty's Government to send a Commissioner my hon. Friend thinks the act is unassailable. Further than that, what does my hon. Friend say? He hopes that Sir G. Portal will effect the evacuation of that country by the British East Africa Company in such mode as not to increase the responsibilities of Her Majesty's Government. Now, I say that we have not sent Sir G. Portal to effect the evacuation of the country, and here I retaliate a little upon my hon. Friend. I carry the war into his camp. I say that if we had sent Sir G. Portal for the purpose of effecting this evacuation, of prompting, guiding, and controlling the measures of the British East Africa Company in the evacuation, we should by that fact, which my hon. Friend by his Amendment asks the House to adopt, greatly have increased the responsibilities of Her Majesty's Government. I commend that to my hon. Friend, for he is the man of all others who ought to vote against this Amendment. Sir G. Portal has been referred to in terms of honour so far as regards his ability and character, but in terms which I feel bound to repudiate so far as regards his opinions and prepossessions. My hon. Friend thinks, and virtually said, that the question now at issue is annexation. On our part I entirely repudiate that allegation. I say Sir G. Portal has gone freely in his own mind, as well as freely towards us, to examine into all the alternatives that may present themselves. These alternatives are more than one or two; but I do not intend to enter on them at this time. My hon. Friend says that the opinions of Sir G. Portal are known to be favourable to annexation. I stated the other night we did not know that my hon. Friend seems to have better means of knowing than we have. He
    488
    says he can give us information, but he has not given us any. The information he has tendered is third or fourth hand information. I can only say that Sir Gerald Portal has himself sent a message to this country, and the terms in which he speaks of his information are incompatible with the idea that there is all atom of representation of his opinions in the reference of the hon. Member. Sir, I do not stand merely upon negative histories. Sir Gerald Portal has not been sent on this very important duty as a venture. He has been sent by a Government who before they sent him had been placed by him in full possession of his views—I mean of his general views, the general spirit with which he would approach the task—and it is because we were satisfied these were views which entitled him to confidence, and that he was the best man to give assistance in a most difficult task, that we selected him to discharge duties that must undoubtedly be difficult under all circumstances, and as to which any act of carelessness or of misjudgment would render almost hopeless. I apologise to the House that I cannot enter into the multitude of topics of a most interesting character that could be dealt with in a Debate of this kind, or that I cannot say anything to lead hon. Gentlemen to the point at which they can say, "Now we see our way; now we have clear ground before us, a well-defined path, and we have nothing to do but to travel along it." At the present moment I am obliged to speak on insufficient information. But I am able to say, in conclusion, that no one has shown that better steps could have been taken for the purpose of bringing our information to efficiency, and for the purpose of arriving at a most clear judgment in a difficult a matter, without forming which we should not be justified in recommending a policy to the House.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not propose to intervene in the domestic quarrel between the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down and the hon. Member for Northampton; nor do I mean to make a speech on the subject of Uganda. But I do think it necessary, after what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, to press him upon a most important point which has been

    489
    pressed on him in this Debate, and on which, after all, he has returned no answer whatever, good, bad, or indifferent. The right hon. Gentleman is a master of safe phrases; phrases that can under no possible circumstances at any future time be turned against him; phrases the full meaning of which it is perhaps difficult to grasp at the moment, but which, whether easy or difficult to grasp, cannot by any ingenuity be brought home to him at any later stage of a controversy, or at any future development of the question we have to discuss. Now, the right hon. Gentleman was asked by myself on the first night of the Debate, and by the right hon. Member for Birmingham on the second night, what provision, if any, the Government contemplated making after Sir Gerald Portal's mission was accomplished. We are told in the Speech from the Throne that Sir Gerald Portal is to be supported by material force. He is to go up to this country, having behind him a force adequate to support the dignity of the Empire. He will make an inquiry lasting over weeks or months. When the inquiry comes to an end, and when Sir Gerald Portal returns to Iris ditties at Zanzibar, what provision, if any, do the Government propose to make for the administration of the affairs of Uganda until they shall have had tine to discuss and decide upon the permanent settlement which they propose to adopt in that country? That was the question that was asked. Has any answer been received to it? ["No."] Neither in the first speech which the right hon. Gentleman made upon this subject, nor in the second speech which he has just delivered, has he given any answer whatever to that question. He tries to shelter himself under the ægis of the late Government, anxious, at all events, to show how carefully he follows out their policy. He has told us that when the late Government left Office they had no plan, and he leaves it to be inferred that that justifies him in having no plan himself. But the right hon. Gentleman should remember the dates affecting this case. Our desire with regard to Uganda was that it should be administered by the Company, and we really felt that it would be difficult to administer it by the Company or by anybody
    490
    else unless the railway was constructed, and we desired to see the railway constructed. That was an essential part of our policy. As I understand, the right hon. Gentleman does not commit himself to the railway, and, as far as he has alluded to the railway at all, he has alluded to it in disparaging terms, and therefore if he desires to retain any Imperial control over Uganda he evidently contemplates doing so without the assistance of a railway, a task which is undoubtedly one of great magnitude and difficulty. Our policy, at all events, was the railway and the Company. Shortly before we left Office it became quite clear that the Company could not carry on their duties—in fact, the Company declared that they could not carry on their duties—and we had no power to compel them to do so. A question was put to me on this subject on June 16th by a gentleman whose decease we all deeply regret—Sir W. Barttelot. On June 16th, which was the day on which the date of the Dissolution of Parliament was announced, I gave this answer—
    "I have to say that I believe the Company have sent instructions to their agents to retire from Uganda at the end of the year. The Government have not, as I understand the matter, any power to compel them to stay, but it must be borne in mind that the withdrawal of the Company's officers by no means implies the abandonment of the country…I may remind my right hon. and gallant Friend that in our opinion the proper way to maintain our position in Uganda is to construct a railway to the eastern shore of Lake Victoria Nyanza; that the surveys are being rapidly proceeded with, and would so far seem to show that the prospect presents no engineering difficulties."
    I was then asked by Colonel Barttelot whether he was to understand that it was the intention of the Government to maintain the sphere in which Uganda was situated, and I replied—"I apprehend there is no intention of altering the sphere of British influence." That was the policy of the late Government as stated on June 16th; and because of that date, which, as I said before, was the date of the Dissolution of Parliament immediately after the Company had announced their intention to depart, we produced no policy dealing with the country after the Company had left. Therefore, apparently, the right hon. Gentleman considers that he, after six

    491
    months of Office, is also absolved from having any policy upon this all-important question. Had we remained in Office until the present date, we should, of course, have made up our minds what policy was to be pursued, and we should be prepared to state to Parliament what that policy was. I fully allow that the right hon. Gentleman has a right—it is, perhaps, his duty—to send up Sir Gerald Portal to make investigations into the condition of Uganda and into the various policies which might, in his opinion, be with advantage pursued in that country. But that does not absolve the Government from endeavouring to make up their minds as to what they mean to do when this officer, who is sent up for purposes of investigation alone, leaves the country and comes back to report. What are you going to do in the interval between his making that Report and your making up your minds what to do upon it? That question has been put two or three times in clear and specific language to the Government. It was put by myself in the first place, it was put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham in the second place, and it has been put by other speakers on this side of the House at a later stage of the Debate. No answer whatever, except what we have obtained from ambiguous utterances of the hon. Member below the Gangway, has been vouchsafed to us by the Government. Are we to infer from that silence that the Government have not yet made up their minds? Surely, that is the very drifting against which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham warned the Government, and against which the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister declared he was on his guard. And yet it appears that, with all these facts before them, and with all their knowledge of the difficulties of the situation, the Government are content to send out an armed investigator, and to make no preparations, no arrangements, and no forecast of the difficulties which are to ensue when that investigator shall have left the country. I do ask the Government to give us some indication both as to what their policy is when Sir G. Portal shall have left the country, and as to what are the instructions they have given to him in the meanwhile.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: You will see on Monday.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Is the Debate to close to-night, or to go over to-night? If it goes over to-night, the reply of the right hon. Gentleman that we shall see the instructions on Monday is a pertinent and relevant reply; but if the hon. Member below the Gangway is going to withdraw his Amendment to-night, and if we are to have no further means of questioning the Government on this legitimate and Constitutional opportunity, then we have a right to demand from one of the right hon. Gentleman's Colleagues who has not already spoken on the Amendment what is the general substance, the broad fellow of the instructions given to Sir Gerald Portal, and what are the plans of the Government for dealing with the country when Sir Gerald Portal has left it.
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,): Derby): I think it extremely easy to answer the question of the right hon. Gentleman as to what course we shall take after Sir G. Portal has made the inquiries he is commissioned to make. That course depends upon what he reports to us. Either you are to inquire to some purpose or you are not. Are you going to determine before you receive that Report what you will do when the inquiry is made? It is impossible to conceive that you could take any other course.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not wish to interrupt, but that is exactly what I did not ask. I asked, What is to be done between the conclusion of Sir G. Portal's Mission and the time when you choose to make up your minds as to what is to be done? That is all I ask.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: The right hon. Gentleman comes from north of the Tweed, and I will give him an answer after the manner of his own country and that is, by asking him a question. What did you intend to do to Uganda between the time when the Company had retired, which they were with your consent to do in December last, and the making of the railway? When you were asked in this House what your policy was in Uganda when the Company retired you said, "Our

    493
    policy is to make the railway." What where you going to do during the three or four years between the evacuation by the Company and the making of the railway? That is the thing you were asked. That question was put in June last to Lord Salisbury in the House of Lords, and he refused to give a reply. Now, the right hon. Gentleman has spoken of the relations of the late Government to the Company—he said that the Company could not hold its own. That is true. The Company gave notice to the late Government that they were going to evacuate last year—the first notice to evacuate, in fact, was given the year before. When these Papers are produced (and I am entitled to refer to them as they are going to be produced at once), the House will find that the late Government simply accepted the notice of evacuation without a single word to the Company, or to anyone, of what they were going to do when the Company left. They received a second notice in last May, intimating that the Company were going to evacuate on the 31st December. They accepted that notice in a simple letter, without any intimation that they were going to do anything, or what they were going to do on the evacuation. They left matters in that position when they quitted Office in August. The Company was going to evacuate on the 31st December. It takes three months to communicate with Uganda, and the position of the late Government was this, that they had made no provision for what was to take place when the Company left Uganda. That was the position they occupied. That is not the position we occupy. We were informed that there would be danger to the people in Uganda unless some precautions were taken in order to facilitate evacuation, and upon that information we requested the Company—a request the late Government never made—that they would continue occupation until the evacuation was safe. That is the difference between our conduct and theirs. They accepted evacuation without a word, without a measure, without a plan, without any intimation of what they were going to do, except that in four years time a railway would be made to Uganda. These are the gentlemen who come and ask us,
    494
    "What are your plans?" What were your plans? What did you contemplate was going to happen when the Company, whose proceedings you dismissed with the silence which I daresay they deserved, left Uganda? The Company said, "We are going," and the late Government said, "Then, good bye." They did not say—"What are you going to do when you leave, what is going to be the condition of the missions, or of the slave trade, or what is going to be the condition of anything at Uganda?" They simply said, "Take your departure," and nothing more. That is what you will find when you read these Papers. The Chancellor of the Exchequer shakes his head. [Laughter.] [The Chancellor of the Exchequer was here referring to Mr. Goschen who had been Chancellor of the Exchequer in the late Government.] Let him tell us what more there is in these Papers, and then we will judge by the Papers when they appear. Let him say whether there is a single word on the record which shows that when the late Government said "We accept your evacuation" they suggested for a moment anything in the nature of an interim occupation by themselves, or that they took any measure whatever for such an occupation. That is the position of the late Government. That is not the position we have taken up. We have made a provision up to March next in order that the dangers of evacuation in December should not accrue. The late Government made no such provision. We have made provision to inform ourselves as to the condition of Uganda, and wad that information is given us we will not bind the country to any such policy as that which the late Government now pretend they had, and which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham wishes us to adopt. Let me correct myself. I stated that the late Government had said nothing more to the Company except that they should lake their departure. There was one thing more, perhaps, and that was what the Chancellor of the Exchequer was thinking of. [Renewed laughter and cries of "The late Chancellor of the Exchequer."] The Company had proposed that they should leave their arms behind them for their friends the Protestant party to defend themselves

    495
    with, and the late Government said, "Don't leave your arms behind you for such a purpose."
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Speaking for myself, I can honestly say I desire that this question, which at present, I believe, divides not only the two sides of the House but different Parties in the House, should not be treated as a Party question. I care very much more for what, at all events, I believe to be the true interests of the country than I care for any of Party game in the matter. And I confess that while I make absolutely no complaint of the tone and spirit of the argument and observations of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, I regret very much the recriminatory tone in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has just spoken. I agree with the Prime Minister that the discussion which has been raised by the hon. Member for Northampton is a little premature. No doubt the Party in this House which the hon. Member for Northampton represents—and I am sorry he is not going to divide that we may see how numerous it is—has determined, without any fair information or inquiry, that Uganda ought to be immediately abandoned. Well, Sir, there is another Party in this House with which I have already identified myself, and winch I believe is more numerous than the Party of the hon. Member for Northampton, winch believes that it already has information enough to justify it in coming to the conclusion that Uganda ought to be retained. But between these two Parties we have the Party led by the Government, who tell us, in the words of the Prime Minister, that they are destitute—they frankly say, I admit, that they are destitute—of information which would form the basis of a safe judgment. We cannot get over that, and under these circumstances I do not see for a moment how we can dispute their right to make a full and careful inquiry in order that, with all knowledge in their possession, they may come to a right decision. I for my part make no complaint of the mission of Sir G. Portal. But the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby is entirely incorrect in imputing to me, as he did just now, that I desire to commit the Government prematurely to any policy one way or the other. They
    496
    say they are ignorant; I cannot contradict them. I am perfectly willing that they should be educated. They have a perfect right to inform themselves upon the question, but they have no right to prejudge the matter, and that is what they are doing. Now we have the information we have vainly attempted to gain during the last two days' debates—we have the information from the mouth of the Prime Minister that they have made no preparation whatever for the state of things which will arise when the evacuation by the Company takes place. And what says the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He indulges in recriminatory language, and says "you," that is to say the late Government, "made no provision." Granted, for the sake of argument. Does that make it right? I contend that on the evidence we have it is perfectly clear the late Government would have made some provision. But, grant that they did not and were guilty of the inconceivable folly that the right hon. Member for Derby attributes to them of proceeding to make a railway at the expense of. £3,000,000 through a country that might be hostile to a country, and taking no steps to secure peace in either country—grant that they were so foolish as that, does the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby mean to tell us he is going to be equally foolish? They are no longer responsible. You are. Now, let me again point out this state of the case. Here we have a Mission accompanied by some 220 armed men, composed of a few Englishmen and 200 natives, and if that force is considered adequate to protect the honour of England, I draw the conclusion that the protection of our interests in Uganda is not so difficult as the hon. Member for Northampton seems to think. I do not dispute that the Government have taken sufficient precautions to protect the Mission. The Mission will get to Uganda as the evacuation of the Company takes place. As long as the Mission remains in the country the country will be peaceable. I have no doubt that the force of 200 men, led by Sir Gerald Portal, with such armed forces as there are in the country, will be sufficient to preserve the peace of the country. Bur when Sir Gerald Porta comes home there must,

    497
    then, necessarily be an interval—it may be of many months; it must, of necessity, be at least four months—during which there will be no such force in the country, and you may, as I said last night, have a massacre such as has not yet occurred in that country. The Prime Minister, who I do not think has been directly informed on this subject, said I referred to massacres, and appeared to argue that something that might be called a massacre bad taken place in that country. There have been two battles in recent times, but I am assured by those who have the best right to speak on such matters, because they were present at the battles, that the loss of life, however much we may regret it, was comparatively trifling; and if you look at the results which these battles secured, I believe the loss of life will be looked upon as inconsiderable. These battles have secured the absolute peace of the country. At the present time the country is perfectly safe under the advice and guidance of the officer who has been left in charge. Is all that to be destroyed when the evacuation takes place? I am not putting this question in any hostile spirit, but I do ask again, is it possible that you are going to allow a state of anarchy, and possibly a public massacre, to ensue from the moment the Commissioner leaves the country? If so, his report will be a dead letter, and any recommendation he may make for the retention of the country can then only be carried out by sending an enormous expedition to the country, at an immense cost.
    MR. GOSCHEN (St. George's,): I see no symptom of any right hon. Gentleman rising from the opposite Bench to answer the question put to the Government. One question is this—and I venture most humbly to put this point once more to right hon. Gentlemen opposite—will they, before this Debate closes, tell us whether Sir Gerald Portal has any instructions with regard to making any arrangements on his departure to secure the administration of the country, or for taking any measures necessary to secure the peace of the country when he departs.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I said that he will make his own arrangements.
    MR. GOSCHEN: Then he has power to make arrangements for the interval? Has he that power or not?
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I do not know what the interval is.
    MR. GOSCHEN: The interval is the time between the time of his departure from Uganda and the time that the Government will make up its mind as to the course that must be taken in the matter, and what we wish to know is, Has Sir Gerald Portal got instructions which will enable him to make arrangements for the temporary administration of the country when he departs, and if the officers of the Company have then also left? We hold in the strongest way that we have a right to an answer to that question. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is the last person who I should have thought would forget that he is in Office, and yet he retained tonight both the manner and doctrines of a Member in Opposition. He seemed to think that we were still in Office, and he once or twice called me the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He has charged me with indulging in tu quoques. But when he and Ids colleagues in the Government are responsible, is it enough to ask what we should have done if we were in Office? Were we in Office we should have felt the responsibility. We now put it on the Government. Had the Chancellor of the Exchequer attended to the quotations that were read by my right hon. Friend (Mr. A. J. Balfour) he would have known that on the 16th of June my right hon. Friend distinctly announced to the House that the retirement of the Company did not mean, in the opinion of the Government, the abandonment of Uganda. Could a stronger declaration be made of the views and sentiments of the Government on the eve of a General Election? I put it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Would it have been right, under the circumstances, when a General Elect ion was about to take place, to pledge the Government of the day to a more decided plan? I think we should have been wrong if we at that time attempted to commit Parliament mid the country to a course which we should not have been responsible for carrying out, and, therefore, we put no definite plan before the country in regard to Uganda. But every

    499
    phrase, every sentiment which we uttered, showed that we should have felt the immense responsibility entailed upon us at that time had we come back to power. The Government have increased their responsibility in this respect by the step—possibly the wise step—they have taken in sending Sir Gerald Portal to Uganda. Will the right hon. Gentleman tells us, is it the policy of the Government that Sir Gerald Portal should came away from Uganda, the Company having previously retired, and then allow events to take their course?
    SIR W. HARCOURT: How can we tell you that?
    MR. GOSCHEN: Well, you can tell us this. If Sir Gerald Portal believes that there is danger to the communities and to the missionaries, will he be empowered to leave his force there while he returns home to make his Report, and to make temporary arrangements with the authority of the Government for carrying out the administration of the country?
    SIR W. HARCOURT: No doubt he will.
    MR. GOSCHEN: The right hon. Gentleman says "No doubt he will." Then, at last, we have extracted information from the Government. Then this Debate has not been fruitless. I am glad the Government have given a free hand to Sir Gerald Portal. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the Debate has not been raised by us, and that we are anxious to support the policy of the Government in despatching Sir Gerald Portal to Uganda. We know now that after Sir G. Portal has left Uganda in order to make his Report, he has received powers from the Government to make arrangements for the temporary administration of the country.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I never said anything of the kind.
    MR. GOSCHEN: I am anxious not to misrepresent the right hon. Gentleman. I think he said Sir Gerald Portal would have to make his own arrangements. Does the right hon. Gentleman admit those words?
    *SIR W. HARCOURT: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to ask me whether, if the occasion arose when it would not be safe for Sir G. Portal
    500
    to go away with his force; he would have the power to keep the force there for the purposes of safety. I said he had. That is a very different thing from making arrangements for the administration of the country.
    MR. GOSCHEN: I do not in the least wish to press the Government, to whom we are grateful for the attitude they have taken in this matter, looking to their rather questionable antecedents; and we are only anxious that they should not, under the pressure of hon. Members below the Gangway, in any way diminish the influence of this action by any demands that might arise as to the position in Uganda before Sir G. Portal returns. There must be no misunderstanding on this point. I think those of us who take an interest in the security of the position in Uganda are entitled to a distinct declaration of policy of the Government in this matter. I understand—and should be corrected if I am wrong—that Sir Gerald Portal has, however, not to take over the administration of the country, during the absence of the British officer, but to make the arrangements; that he has got distinct instructions in this direction—
    "You are going on a Mission of inquiry to Uganda. The Company have told us they propose leaving in a short time. That retirement of the company and your departure together might produce a disastrous effect upon the various parties in Uganda. Consequently, you have the power and the authority of the Government, and you will have the support of the Government, in making the necessary arrangements for the protection of all interests."
    If the right hon. Gentleman or one of his colleagues can give us any assurance to that effect it will relieve the very considerable anxiety that oppresses many.
    Motion made, and; Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. G. Wyndham.)
    Motion agreed to.
    Debate adjourned till Monday next.

  FOREIGN GOODS (MARK OF ORIGIN) (No. 2) BILL.—(No. 63.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Colonel Howard Vincent.)
    MR. CONYBEARE: On a point of Order. Is this Bill printed?
    COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: It is printed. It has been before the House several Sessions.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MUNDELLA,): I have not seen the Bill, and therefore cannot agree to the Second Reading. I do not believe the Bill has been delivered; it certainly has not come into my hands.
    COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: It has not been delivered, but it has been in the Vote Office all the evening. The President of the Board of Trade is acquainted with its provisions, for it is the same Bill that has been before the House for the past four Sessions.
    MR. CONYBEAREsaid, that not a single Member he knew of had seen the Bill. The very fact that the Bill of such a notorious Fair Trader as the hon. Member had been before the House for four Sessions, and had not been adopted, was sufficient to condemn it as worthless. He strongly suspected he Bill was sustained by the Protectionist heresy, and he would, therefore, oppose its Second Reading.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Second Reading be deferred till Monday next."
    Motion agreed to.

MOTIONS.

  VOTERS' REGISTRATION BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Henry Hobhouse, Bill to amend the Laws relating to the Registration of voters in England and Wales, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Henry Hobhouse, Mr. Albert Bright, Sir Albert Rollit, Mr. Bolitho, and Major Darwin.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 145.]

  HERITABLE SECURITIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Alexander Cross, Bill to amend the Law relating to Heritable Securities in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Alexander Cross, Mr. Cameron Corbett, and Mr. Mains.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 146.]

  CORPORATE ASSOCIATIONS (PROPERTY) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Howell, Bill for the better securing their Property to Corporate Associations, and for preventing the alienation of their Funds, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Howell, Mr. Barrow, Mr. Beaufoy, Mr. Benn, Mr. Thomas Henry Bolton, Mr. Cremer, Mr. Frederick Frye, Mr. Montagu, Mr. Pickersgill, Mr. James Rowlands, Mr. James Stuart, and Mr. Stewart Wallance.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 147.]

  TRADE UNION PROVIDENT FUNDS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Howell, Bill to exempt from Income Tax the invested funds of Trade Unions applied in payment of Provident Benefits, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Howell, Mr. Arch, Mr. Cremer, Mr. Fenwick, Mr. James Rowlands, and Mr. John Wilson (Mid-Durham.)
  Bill presented, and read first time.[Bill 148.]

  CORONERS' ACT (1887) AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Thomas Lewis, Bill to amend The Coroner's Act, 1887, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Thomas Lewis, Mr. Bryn Roberts, and Mr. Alfred Thomas.
  Bill presented, and read first time, [Bill 149.]

  MERCHANDISE MARKS ACTS (1887 AND 1891) AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Bernard Coleridge, Bill to amend the Merchandise Marks Acts, 1887 and 1891, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bernard Coleridge, Mr. Henry J. Wilson, and Mr. Howell.
  Bill presented, and read first time.[Bill 150.]

  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (VOTING AND QUALIFICATION) (NO. 2) BILL.
  On Motion of Sir Charles Dilke, Bill to amend the system of Voting at Local Elections, and to abolish Property Qualifications for Local Authorities, ordered to be brought in by Sir Charles Dilke, Mr. Francis Stevenson, Captain Fenwick, Mr. Caine, Mr. Hopwood, Mr. Jacoby, and Mr. Matthew Fowler.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 151.]

  RIGHTS OF WAY (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Buchanan, Bill to confer on County Councils in Scotland the power of maintaining and protecting Rights of Way, and otherwise to amend the Law relating to Rights of Way in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Buchanan, Dr. Farquharson, Mr. Donald Crawford, Mr. Shiress Will, Mr. Thomas Shaw, Mr. Wason, and Captain Sinclair.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 152.]

  HYPOTHEC BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Cameron Corbett, Bill to effect the complete abolition of the landlords' right of hypothec for rent in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Cameron Corbett, Mr. Cochrane, and Mr. Cross.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 133.]

  LEASEHOLDERS ENFRANCHISEMENT (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Dr. Kenny, Bill for the Enfranchisement of Leaseholders in towns in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Dr. Kenny, Mr. Clancy, Mr. Timothy Harrington, Mr. Field, Mr. Hayden, and Mr. John Redmond.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 134.]

  CROFTERS' HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) ACT (1886) AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Dr. Clark, Bill to amend the thirty-fourth section of The Crofters' Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1886, ordered to be brought in by Dr. Clark, Mr. Angus Sutherland, Mr. Weir, Dr. MacGregor, and Mr. Macfarlane.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 135.]

  POST OFFICE (ACQUISITION OF SITES) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Arnold Morley, Bill to enable Her Majesty's Postmaster General to acquire lands in London, Liverpool, and Leeds for the Public Service; and for other purposes, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Arnold Morley and Sir John Hibbert.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 156.]

  BUILDING FEUS AND LEASES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Donald Crawford, Bill to amend the Law relating to Fens and Leases for Building in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Donald Crawford, Mr. Munro Ferguson, and Mr. Philipps.
  Bill presented; and read first time. [Bill 137.]

  DAY INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Donald Crawford, Bill to make provision for the establishment of Day Industrial Schools in Scotland, and to amend the Education (Scotland) Acts, 1872 to 1883, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Donald Crawford, Mr. James Campbell, Mr. Buchanan, and Mr. Munro Ferguson.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 158.]

  MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS ACT (1882) AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Sir Albert Rollit, Bill to amend The Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, ordered to be brought in by Sir Albert Rollit, Sir Julian Goldsmid, Mr. Roe, Mr. Beckett, Mr. Brunner, and Mr. Morton.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 159.]

  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (VOTING AND QUALIFICATION) (NO. 3) BILL.
  On Motion of Sir Charles Mike, Bill to amend the system of Voting at Local Elections, and to alter the Qualifications for Local Authorities, ordered to be brought in by Sir Charles Dilke, Mr. John Wilson (Mid-Durham), Mr. Thomas Bayley, Mr. Byles, Mr. Brunner, Mr. John Burns, and Mr. J. H. Wilson.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 160.]

  LEGITIMATION OF CHILDREN BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Walter M'Laren, Bill to alter and amend the Law by Legitimating Children born before marriage on the subsequent marriage of their parents, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Walter M'Laren, Mr. Neville, and Mr. Bowen Rowlands.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 161.]

  STATUTORY RULES BILL.
  On Motion of Sir Albert Rollit, Bill for the publication of Statutory Rules, ordered to be brought in by Sir Albert Rollit, Mr. Hobhouse, Mr. Whitmore, and Mr. Arthur C'Connor.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 162.]

  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES BILL.
  On Motion of Sir Albert Rollit, Bill to amend the Law relating to Weights and Measures, ordered to be brought in by Sir Albert Rollit, Mr. Roe, Mr. Brunner, Mr. Stanley Leighton, Sir Henry Roscoe, and Mr. Chance.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 163.]

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Resolved, That this House, at its rising, do adjourn till Monday next.— (Mr. Marjoribanks.)
  House adjourned at Twelve o'clock till Monday next.

Preamble
Several Lords—Took the Oath.
ROLL OF THE LORDS.
The Lords Chancellor acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments has prepared and laid it on the Table: The same was ordered to be printed. (No.3.)

INDIA COUNCILS BILL.
VISCOUNT CROSS: My Lords, seeing the Leader of this House, the Secretary of State for India, in his place, I wish to ask him a question of which I have just given him private notice. It is whether he can tell the House when he will be able to make any statement with regard to the regulations for putting in force the India Councils Act of last Session>
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of KIMBERLEY): My Lords, I daresay the noble Viscount has observed that two of the rules have been brought into force already, the Rule allowing discussion on financial statements and the Rule allowing questions to be addressed to the Government with regard to the other regulations have been sent home by Lord Landsdowne, and have been for some time under consideration. We have not yet completely arrived at a conclusion with regard to one of them, but there is no serious difficulty in the way, and I have no doubt that in a short time I shall be able to announce the whole of the regulations and to lay the Correspondence before the House.

ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH.

  ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  Order of the Day for resuming the Debate on the Motion for an humble Address to Her Majesty, read.
  Debate resumed accordingly.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVENsaid, before entering upon the question of Ireland, the topic which had absorbed
  358
  most of the Debate on the Address in their Lordships' House, he desired to make a few remarks on another subject. He was not going to investigate the heterogenous materials of which the Programme of Her Majesty's Government, as set forth in the Speech from the Throne, was composed. Doubtless the House was not supposed to take that Programme very seriously, as, indeed, Lord Spencer had frankly stated. The noble Earl last night, in the name of the Government, explained quite frankly that, have pledged themselves to a great many measures during the last six years, the Government thought it advisable so far to fulfil those pledges as to make mention of many measures in the Queen's Speech, although there was no possibility whatever of those measures ever becoming law. He thought the proper moral of that was not that au impossible Queen's Speech was desirable, but that it was undesirable to give pledges to the constituencies which they knew perfectly well they had no intention or power of fulfilling. It was all very well making these candid and somewhat cynical avowals in that House; but why were not noble Lords and their friends equally holiest to their constituencies in explaining that their pledges meant nothing more than the shadowy satisfaction of a mention in the Queen's Speech, and that they had no intention whatever of attempting to carry those promised Bills into law or even of placing Bills upon those subjects upon time Table in either House of Parliament? Not content, however, even with the immense volume of the Queen's Speech, it appeared that the Prime Minister had stated, in another place, that it was the intention of the Government to issue a Royal Commission to inquire into the land question in Wales. He should like very much to know what the land question in Wales was, wherein it differed from the land question in England, whatever that might be, and, if so, in what way? If the Government were of opinion that agricultural distress was in any way due to anything faulty in the system of land tenure in these islands, let the Government issue a Royal Commission to inquire not only into the system of land tenure here, but also in the Colonies, the United States, and

  359
  Continental countries, and let a thorough investigation be made of the subject. But this Commission was of quite a different complexion, and must be looked at in the light derived from the speech that Mr. Gladstone made amid the appropriate mists of Snowdon some little tune ago. It appeared that the owners of landed property in Wales had been unfortunate enough to incur Mr. Gladstone's displeasure. He was not satisfied with the deductions they had made from their rents, and, therefore, their conduct must be inquired into. This Royal Commission to inquire into the land system in Wales was a direct outcome of Mr. Gladstone's Speech. He protested against such interference with the exercise of private rights. The proposed Commission was nothing more nor less than an inquisitorial visitation into the private business of certain private individuals—men who were not accused of doing anything in any way beyond the law, but who had not administered their properties in a way which the Prime Minister approved of. However tempting it might be as an owner of land in Wales to court full inquiry, he protested against this proposed action. He protested against Parliament turning itself into a sort of private inquiry office; he protested against such interference in the private affairs of private individuals, mid against such arbitrary, despotic action on the part of the Executive. This looked ominously like taking a leaf from the Parnellite book. That most astute organiser of men bought the adhesion of one class in Ireland to his political Separatist ideas by money obtained for them from the pockets of another class in Ireland, a very simple and efficacious, but, he ventured to say, an exceedingly immoral proceeding. He protested against this on account also of the injury to agriculture that must ensue throughout the whole country. The noble Earl the Lord President of the Council (Lord Kimberley) made light of the effects on agriculture, that doubt and distrust as to the security of capital could produce. Did he think that owners of land in Wales would be encouraged to invest their capital in keeping their estates and farm buildings in good order and that they would be encouraged to assist farmers by liberal reductions in
  360
  their rent with such an inquiry as this hanging over their heads? Did he think that such an inquiry would inspire confidence among landowners in England? There was no difference whatever in the system of laud tenure, or practically in the system of management of lauded estates in England and in Wales. A similar inquiry might be undertaken tomorrow in England or in any county in England at the pleasure of the Government. The proposed action on the part of the Government could not fail to react injuriously on agriculture, and he would be glad to be informed by Her Majesty's Government what they considered the land question was in Wales, and in what way it was different from other parts of Great Britain. Landowners in every part of the country had a right to expect information on those points. And now, with regard to Ireland, he did not intend to occupy the time of the House in going over the ground that had been so well explored by his noble Friend the Marquess of Londonderry, in making good his general contention that the action of the Government during the last six mouths had been detrimental to the peace and prosperity of Ireland. The noble and learned Lord upon the Woolsack took great exception to the facts and figures quoted by the noble Marquess as being unofficial, and grew eloquent on the theme that they had no right to rely on figures as true which were not derived from an official source, or on anything stated in the public newspapers—that, in fact, nothing in the world was reliable except statistics in Blue Books. He was always glad to quote from Blue Books where possible; but really the noble and learned Lord appeared to carry his reverence for Blue Books to the verge of superstition, and whether the statistics there to be found were accurate or not, it was scarcely the fact that truth was not to be culled from other sources also. They on that side of the House were not to blame if they could not quote from official Returns of the last six months during which time the Government had been in Office; they were not yet published, but the noble Marquess (Lord Londonderry) had referred to sources not unreliable, the Charges of Judges, the records of outrages derived from the ordinary source of information—the newspapers—and he had

  361
  adduced in evidence a meeting of the magistrates of the County Clare convened by the Lord Lieutenant of that county. Whether such evidence was in every item absolutely correct or not, their Lordships must admit it carried so much weight that the onus of proof to the contrary lay with the other side of the House. If they could prove that that information was incorrect, well and good; but he submitted they had done nothing of the kind, and it therefore deserved to be accepted as fairly accurate by their Lordships' House. He had some knowledge and some little experience of the southern and western portions of Ireland. He had the doubtful privilege of possessing some little property—very little, he was glad to say—in the Counties of Kerry and Clare, and a little more in the adjoining County Limerick. In that county he was born, and there he principally lived and lived, he was thankful to say, in peace. Thought he might have no intelligence, he had at least some local instincts, and it would take many columns of statistics to convince him that, as far as agrarian crime was concerned, the country had not deteriorated during the last few months. A great deal was said about the fact that agrarian crime throughout the country generally had diminished, and that they had no right to pick out particular counties. He entirely denied that the condition of crime throughout the whole country should alone be considered, and no Government had a right to dispense with powers which would enable them to detect and prevent crime in particular districts or counties or parts of them. He would not argue the point whether crime of this nature had diminished or not throughout Ireland as a whole. His point was that, whatever might be the condition of crime throughout the country, if it was increasing in any particular county or district, if it could not be dealt with by ordinary powers of the law in any particular county and district, the Executive were not justified in abandoning powers which in that particular county or district would enable them to put down crime. What comfort was it to a law-abiding citizen in County Clare, who went about in terror of his life, to be told that agrarian crime was diminishing in Ireland? The first duty of the Executive, the main end and
  362
  object of any Government, was to afford proper security for life, property, and liberty in every portion of its jurisdiction. The system of averages might be very conveniently adopted in some cases; hut it was a poor consolation to the unfortunate persons whose lives and properties were insecure in certain districts in Ireland. The noble and learned Lord upon the Woolsack spoke about the Gweedore case, and appealed to their sense of humanity whether he was not perfectly justified in letting those murderers loose upon society. He informed their Lordships, also, that the ordinary course had been pursued, that the Judge who had tried the case had reported, and that he was fully justified in recommending the clemency of the Crown. But the Judge reported two years ago. Why was he not asked to report again? Why was an unusual course pursued in this case? He knew of no instance when the Lord Chancellor of England had been consulted as to whether the clemency of the Crown should be extended to prisoners convicted in Ireland for an offence committed in that country. Was the Lord Chancellor of Ireland consulted in the matter? If so, what did he say? And if not, why not? Under ordinary circumstances the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, not the Lord Chancellor of England, would have been the proper person to consult. That would have been the ordinary course.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I believe he was consulted in addition to myself.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVENsaid, that the substitution of the highest legal authority in England for the highest legal authority in Ireland was a somewhat strange and curious comment upon the Government's idea of Home Rule. Her Majesty's Government appeared to think Ireland perfectly capable of managing her own affairs, and that her dependence upon England should be of the most slender kind, but the course they had adopted in this matter seemed hardly consistent with that idea. The noble and learned Lord had appealed to their Lordships' sentiments of mercy and charity; and they must have been touched by the pleading of the noble and learned Lord that a man might in a moment of passion

  363
  commit a terrible offence and be convicted for a long term of penal servitude which might justly be commuted in consideration of the fact that the offence had been committed in a moment of great excitement. These facts were generally taken into consideration by the jury and by the Judge. But this was a peculiar case. The case of the murder of Sub-Inspector Martin was no ordinary one. He was executing a warrant, and was killed in the execution of that duty. It was no private quarrel. It was a case of resistance to the law. The noble and learned Lord said that this release would have attracted no attention if it had occurred in England. Would the noble Lord give an instance where a man in the position of Sub-Inspector Martin had been murdered in England in executing a warrant and where the murderers had been similarly released? Though the noble and learned Lord might not have been actuated by political motives, he must have known (at any rate, he ought to have known) that his action would lead to grave political and social consequences. He absolved the noble and learned Lord at once from any sympathy with crime, or any desire to extenuate crime, but he could not suppose the noble and learned Lord had failed to apprehend the inevitable consequences which his action must have upon Ireland. The noble and learned Lord spoke of the Commission for the reinstatement of the evicted tenants, and attempted to traverse the argument that it was a partisan Commission by stating that it could not be partisan, because neither landlords nor tenants were upon it. What had that to do with the matter? What they contended was that the Commission was partisan in its constitution, that it was composed of individuals perfectly well-known to be partisan in their proclivities, whereas the landlord's interest was not in any way represented on the Commission. It might as well be said that a Commission to inquire into vivisection was not partisan, notwithstanding all its members were Anti-Vivisectionists, because the dogs, cats, and other animals to be operated upon were not upon it. He presumed the object of a Commission, whether it was Viceregal or Royal, was to arrive at the truth; and in a case like this, to forbid cross-examination by counsel, was to make it absolutely im-
  364
  possible to arrive at the truth. But what he mainly objected to about this Commission of Mr. Morley's was not so much the method as the nature of the Reference. It was supposed to be instituted to carry out Clause 13 of the Act of 1891. That clause enabled landlords, if they thought fit, to sell their property to tenants who had been evicted; but the arrangement lay with the landlords. If the tenant had been evicted through misfortune, through no particular fault of his own, the landlord could, if he chose, still avail himself, and allow the tenant to avail himself, of the privileges of the Land Purchase Act. This Commission was an entirely different matter. It was to be compulsory, and evicted tenants were to be put back again, though, as Lord Londonderry had said, they were fraudulent bankrupts. It was not instituted to discover whether a tenant should be reinstated or not. It was instituted to find out the best means of reinstating them. It was appointed with its finding stated for it in the Reference, and he did not believe that a Commission of that kind, whether Viceregal or Royal, had ever before been issued in the United Kingdom. The noble Earl (Lord Spencer) spoke about the Lunatic Asylums Boards. He appeared to think that a man's religion qualified or disqualified him from serving on any Board of Administration, and lie attempted to prove the righteousness of having a proper proportion of Protestants and Catholics upon these Boards. But what on earth had religion got to do with a thing of this kind? The noble Earl went so far as to say that because the majority of the lunatics were Catholics the majority of the Board ought to be Catholics. He might with equal logic have said that because the majority of the lunatics to be dealt with were insane therefore the majority of the Board should be insane. He could not conceive anything more utterly unreasonable, more utterly contrary to all the dictates of the most ordinary commonsense than the process which the Government had carried on of turning out men of proved integrity and proved intelligence, who had devoted long lives to doing excellent work, simply on account of their religious belief. Her Majesty's Government were indignant at the idea expressed of their sympathising with crime. He did not for a moment

  365
  accuse the Government of sympathising with crime, but simply with what their actions had shown—namely, the most complete ignorance on the subject of Ireland, and an absolute incapacity for governing that country. He wished to treat the Gracious Speech with the utmost respect; but it was evident that the paragraph in the Queen's Speech relating to the improvement as regarded agrarian crime had been dictated by Her Majesty's advisers rather in a sense of humour than with a full and clear appreciation of the facts. The fact that their sympathies appeared to be with criminals was, no doubt, due to coincidence. It was a coincidence, no doubt, that Mr. Morley issued this Commission to reinstate evicted tenants, members or dupes of a criminal conspiracy, at a time when the reinstatement of those evicted tenants was a financial and political necessity for the allies of the Government in Ireland. It was a coincidence that excellent men who happened to be Protestants were removed from the Asylums Board to make room for Catholics at a time when the clerical party, supporting Her Majesty's Government, demanded consideration at their hands. It was a coincidence that prisoners had been released at a time when the release of those prisoners was clamoured for by an Irish Party upon whose votes Her Majesty's Government depended for their maintenance in power. Those were mere coincidences—unfortunate ones, no doubt. He noticed that the noble Lord who moved the Address, in speaking on this question, used the expression "local self-government," while the noble Lord who seconded it invariably adopted the expression "Home Rule." Now, there was an enormous difference between the two expressions, as they were generally understood. With regard to local self-government, lie entertained very strong, and what some of those among whom he lived in Ireland might regard as very advanced, opinions. He was warmly in favour of a large and liberal measure of local self-government being granted to Ireland, for he had great faith in the educating effect of responsibility, in the advantages to be gained by affording useful employment for the energies of people, and by gratifying their natural ambition to manage their own local affairs. There might be some trouble
  366
  and difficulty at first, there might be to some extent maladministration, and difficulties might arise from the natural results of a delight in the exercise of unusual powers, but he had not the slightest doubt as to the ultimate result. The Irish people were certainly not fools. They were by nature aristocratic in their ideas, and if they were administering their own local affairs they would in a very short time take good care to administer them well. The course now pursued for instance in Private Bill legislation was a great grievance to Ireland. But between the devolution of powers to Local Bodies in Ireland under one supreme Parliament and the creation of another and a separate Parliament, controlling and practically selecting its own Executive, there was a fundamental difference a difference not of degree, but of kind. Even if he had time he would not attempt to discuss Home Rule. It was, in his opinion, little better than a waste of time to discuss that impossible craze, Home Rule. What was the condition of public sentiment on that question? Home Rule as the Irish understood it, and if it were to be anything like that proposed by the former Bill, was what had been ardently pressed for by the open and avowed enemies of England and America. It was ardently desired by some honest but mistaken enthusiasts in Ireland, and it was rather languidly acquiesced in by the majority in that country. It was vehemently repudiated by the minority—not a small one, and one they must remember that comprised practically all the wealth of the country, not only in capital, but in skilled industry, and cultivated intelligence. Great Britain had pronounced against it, and England had done so in words to which they could not possibly shut their ears. How was it possible, therefore, to dream of carrying a great constitutional change in the system of union that existed between the different parts of the United Kingdom in the face of such forces and such opposition as this? It was because Ireland was deprived of constructive legislation she needed while the Government persisted in an impossible policy, and because he knew the evil results that would be produced by Home Ride that he so strongly opposed it. Ireland was to

  367
  wait for relief in matters which pressed hardly upon her, such as the inconvenience and cost of attending at Westminster in Private Bill legislation while Government were insisting upon carrying out their idea of Home Rule. The Party opposite seemed to think that they had some kind of monopoly of sympathy with the Irish people. Nothing of the kind. Many of their Lordships were born in Ireland and had lived there for the greater portion of their lives, they knew the country and loved it, knew the people and loved them, and in spite of the enormous temptation, especially amongst the smaller landed proprietors in Ireland, to make friends with the Mammon of unrighteousness, they had stoutly resisted temptation. They were opposed to this measure of Home Rule, and as long as they could they would continue to oppose it.
  THE EARL OF BELMOREsaid, he would first refer to certain matters relating to the Evicted Tenants Commission, as he happened to be a member of the Landlords Convention Executive Committee, which was responsible for the advice given to the Irish Landlords, and taken by the majority, not the whole of them, not to appear before the Commission. Several objections to it had been already pointed out by previous speakers, but he would only refer to what he considered the two principal ones. He complained of the course adopted by the Commission in refusing to comply with a respectful request made to them that no evidence against a landlord should be published until he had been heard in reply. Another cause of dissatisfaction with the Commission arose in connection with the right of cross-examination, and, though he confessed that he had himself some doubt as to that right, it had certainly been admitted on many Commissions held in Ireland during the last 20 years and more, including the Belfast Inquiry Commission in 1864, the Londonderry Riots Inquiry Commission in 1869, the Dungannon Inquiry Commission in 1871, the Municipal Boundaries Commission in 1878, and the Lurgan Riots Inquiry Commission in 1880. On the Belfast Inquiry, of which Baron Dowse was one of the Commissioners, Serjeant Armstrong examined and cross-examined witnesses, mid Mr. Commissioner Barrow said with regard to the
  368
  course of procedure "We shall place ourselves entirely in the hands of professional gentlemen present" and he allowed them to take part in the Inquiry. At the Londonderry Commission, of which Mr. Wrexham was one of the Commissioners and the present Justice Murphy another, the witnesses were examined and cross-examined in the same way, and Mr. Wrexham said as to the course to be adopted—
  "I am glad to see professional gentlemen present, and to state that we shall suit their convenience on both sides."
  Mr. Wrexham also presided on the Dungannon Commission, and Serjeant Armstrong again appeared there with other professional gentlemen, the Commissioners stating that their presence "would ensure that the matters complained of would receive the most complete and searching investigation." There appeared before the Municipal Boundaries Commission in 1878 the present Lord Chancellor of Ireland, the present Master of Rolls, and other distinguished Queen's Counsel. On the tinge n Commission, the parties concerned were represented by solicitors, and the Report concluded—
  "We desire to say that the Inquiry has been greatly facilitated by the manner in which the professional gentlemen concerned discharged the duties devolving upon them."
  He had read sufficient to show that the privilege asked on the part of the landlords of cross-examining the witnesses could not have been considered unreasonable. The first witness called before the Commission was Mr. Roche, a Member of the other House, who had been called as a witness before the Parnell Commission, and his evidence and cross-examination were given at great length in the Report of that Commission. Mr. Justice Mathew had the Blue Book containing the former examination before him. Certainly, upon one important point, Mr. Roche had, in his cross-examination, contradicted his evidence in chief out of his own mouth; but that cross-examination was not made use of by the Commissioners, nor was cross-examination on behalf of the landlords allowed. Thereupon, Counsel having consulted together, thought it their duty to withdraw, and upon hearing the circumstances of the case the Committee of the Landlords Convention thought

  369
  they were justified in advising their friends not to appear. Although 15 out of 18 had taken that advice, they had watched the case very closely, and when the Commissioners Report should have appeared he trusted and believed that the landlords would find some way of answering any material allegations against them that it might contain. With reference to the recent appointments to Lunacy Boards in Ireland, which had been the subject of an explanation by the First Lord of the Admiralty on Thursday, he wished to express his agreement with the view, that a fair amount of representation on these Boards should be given to the Roman Catholics. No Member of the Conservative Party would have objected to the Members appointed, provided competent persons had not been thereby displaced on the Boards. He agreed that as the main business of the Boards was financial in administering funds largely provided by the cess-payers of the county or united counties from which the lunatics came, it was only fair that the Roman Catholic cess-payers should be properly represented. What he objected to in the action of the Government in the matter was the capricious exclusion from the Boards of gentlemen who had done good work upon them in the past. Several cases of the kind had been brought to his notice in the counties of Armagh, Monaghan, and Down. In Donegal, also, a striking instance had occurred in the case of a gentleman well-known in the North of Ireland for his business habits and capacity, Colonel Montgomery; and it was remarkable that the first act at the new Board, including all its Nationalist Members, was to unanimously memorialise the Lord Lieutenant to replace the gentlemen. The noble Lord who bad seconded the Address (Lord Thring) had argued that there was no ground for supposing that under a system of Home Rule the majority would oppress the minority; hart he could assure the House that the minority, who were devoted to the principle of un-sectarian education, felt a genuine fear lest their interests should suffer in educational matters. But beyond the questions of Worship and of education, there were those of commerce and of the land—the agrarian question. Many people in a position to form a just opinion held that the effect of Home Rule upon the com-
  370
  merce of the country would be disastrous. There had been several important meetings lately in the North of Ireland, and this view had been expressed at all of them. It was well known that the main commerce of the country was carried on in Dublin, Belfast, Londonderry, and neighbouring towns, and the great manufacturers there were against Home Rule. If a Home Rule Government, in which those engaged in trade had no confidence, was established in Ireland, trade would be withdrawn from the country and established elsewhere. The figures of that trade were very large, and if the trade went, of course the artisans would go also. Some of their Orange friends lied talked of "dying in the last ditch," but the artisans at any rate would not die in the last or any other ditch. His own opinion was that the artisans generally would follow the trade across the Channel and would flood the labour markets of England and Scotland. After all, the land was the pivot upon which the whole of this question of Home Rule turned. The land must remain whatever happened to trade and commerce and the great fear was that with a Nationalist Legislature, however it might be nominally guarded, it would be impossible to collect rents. Having lived long in Ireland and knowing the country well, He strongly recommended these points to their Lordships' consideration; and as regarded religious differences, the differences were not on the part of the Protestants against the Roman Catholics, but that the Roman Catholics were against the Protestants. In the south the people were afraid of the priesthood, but in the other parts of Ireland they were afraid of each other.
  LORD MONKSWELLsaid he could not refrain from speaking in this Debate after the invectives directed to that side of the House by the noble Marquess, who had held high office in Ireland (Lord Londonderry). He would first, however, deal with the proposed reform in the registration laws, which was in London a very burning question indeed, whatever it might be in the country. In London about one person in nine only of the population was on the Register, while in quiet country towns in which the workmen did not move about the proportion was one in five.
  EARL CADOGAN: When the noble Lord speaks of the population, does he mean the adult population or the population generally, including women and children?
  LORD MONKSWELLreferred to the population generally. The result of the present state of the law was that in London nearly one-half of the working men were not on the Register, and many of those who were on it were obliged before election time to go away in search of work. Of course he knew how this Registration Bill would be met. It would be said, "If you have a reform of the Registration Laws, you must also have Redistribution with it." In answer to that he proposed to quote the opinion of a very distinguished Member of the Unionist Party, which was expressed when this matter was so much discussed in 1883. The case was put so well in the extract he was about to read that he would add nothing of his own to it. Speaking in 1883, Mr. Chamberlain said—
  "The two questions are, to my mind, independent and distinct. There are two benefits to be conferred on the people of this country, two wrongs to be redressed. The first is an Injustice which is done to many of our fellow-countrymen who have no votes at all; the second is an injustice done to those who have votes and whose political influence is nullified by the excessive weight awl power given to the smaller constituencies. It may, and probably would, be impossible to carry both these reforms in a single Session, but why not carry one of them? Why should we delay giving a vote to men who are absolutely at the present moment outside the pale of the Constitution because we have not yet agreed among ourselves as to the machinery by which we will endeavour to estimate the proportionate weight and value of the vote which should be given"?
  The right hon. Gentleman went on to say—
  "Those who are honestly anxious for reform should do all they can to secure it step by step. Those who are opposed to reform in any shape, but are afraid of saying so, will no doubt be very wise if they can contrive to jumble the two questions up together, so that the one that is plain and simple may be overlaid and stifled in the embraces of the one that is difficult and complex."
  That was Mr. Chamberlain's opinion in 1883. He would now turn to the very temperate speech of the noble Earl (Lord Dunraven) who, in opening the Debate, fell foul of the Land Commission for Wales. It was difficult to understand why the noble Earl should object to the
  372
  appointment of the Commission to inquire into the conditions of laud tenure in Wales if he was right in the facts he had himself given, because he had declared that everything was going on smoothly in that part of the country.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVENsaid he thought that was the case.
  LORD MONKSWELLsaid if it were the fact the Report of the Commission would demonstrate that that happy state of things existed in Wales as the noble Earl supposed, then why should he object to it? It seemed to him that the Commission might be the means of making capital invested in land more secure. With regard to the noble Earl's remarks on Clare and Kerry, his noble Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty had distinctly shown that there had been an appreciable diminution in crime. As to that part of the noble Earl's speech which referred to the release of the Gweedore prisoners, he thought it was rather bold on his part to venture a fall with the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack as to the law of murder, especially after the duel which took place last night on the subject between the late Lord Chancellor for Ireland and the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. The noble Earl also fell foul of the Commission of which Mr. Justice Mathew was President, but that was simply a Commission of Inquiry, and was not bound to do anything, and. it might show that some tenants, at all events, could be reinstated without doing injustice. The noble Earl could not have been present when the First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord Spencer) quoted Mr. Balfour's own words, to the effect that he would desire to restore peace to that part of the country in which his property was situated, and to see that on fair and equitable and even generous terms the tenants were restored to their homes. It was plain, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman in the House of Commons had expressed himself in favour of something being done to reinstate the tenants on the land. The noble Earl made a very considerable admission when lie said he was in favour of giving Ireland Local Government, for Local Government would do much to pave the way for Home Rule. Then the noble Earl called attention to the fact that the majority of the electors in Great

  373
  Britain declared against Home Rule at the General Election. No doubt that was true; but the majority in 1892 was very much less than it was in 1886; and, therefore, though opinion on Home Rule might not yet have reached the high-water mark, the tide was still advancing. He had very little knowledge of Ireland, and would not have said more on the subject bat for the tone of Lord Londonderry's evidently very carefully prepared speech. The noble Marquess made a terrible indictment against all who disagreed with him on the subject of Home Rule, and talked of the "depths of degradation" to which noble Lords on the Government side of the House had fallen, adding that he would not exult over it. That was very kind of him. He also charged them with "truckling to lawlessness and outrage." Those were strong words. Well, it had been said if an Irishman was to be abused another Irishman could always be got to do it. But on his own showing be should be a little more charitable. The noble Marquess said he was willing to fight on behalf of his opinions. That was a very serious announcement. It might be assumed that the noble Marquess seriously held such strong opinions as to Home Rule that he considered everything ought to be clone to avert it. But supposing things came to the worst, supposing that there was a rebellion in Ulster, and, which Heaven forbid, that the noble Marquess should "die in the last ditch," would the noble Lords who differed with him say that in taking the course he did the noble Marquess was a "murderous ruffian"? On the contrary, they would admire the noble Marquess for his courage and deplore his fate; and why should the noble Marquess not extend the same charity to others that he wished extended to himself? Home Rule was just as sacred a cause to many persons as the Union was to the noble Marquess. The noble Marquess intimated that he considered the tenants who did not pay their rents were mere vulgar robbers. On the other hand, a very large number of tenants in Ireland, who did not belong to the criminal class at all, firmly believed that the greatest robbers in Ireland were the Irish landlords. He did not suggest that was the case, or that they had any right to say so; but when noble Lords talked of hundreds of thousands of
  374
  tenants in Ireland as mere robbers because they did not pay their rents, he ventured to think they took a very uncharitable view of the case. The Liberal Party had been accused by the noble Marquess, and to some extent by the ex-Lord Chancellor of Ireland, of having concluded au unhallowed alliance with ruffians; but he would remind noble. Lords opposite that the same thing had been said of themselves. He did not suggest that the Conservatives, in allowing coercion to elapse in 1885, were animated by other than purely patriotic motives, but persons now holding high and distinguished positions in the Unionist, Party believed that they were truckling to crime and to lawlessness. In a speech delivered in July, 1885, by Mr. Chamberlain, now a light in the Unionist Party, the right hon. Gentleman stated that the Conservatives had received with laughter and disapprobation an Amendment by Mr. Morley against the renewal of the Crimes Act; and that, subsequently, Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, on behalf of the Tory Government, announced their adhesion to the policy of Mr. Morley. The reason, Mr. Chamberlain continued, for this astounding tergiversation was to be found in a Circular issued by the Central Conservative Association inquiring how many Irish voters there were in each constituency, and whether their number was sufficient to turn the balance at the next election. "A strategic movement of this kind," Mr. Chamberlain added,
  "Executed in opposition to the notorious convictions of the men who effected it, carried out for Party purposes, and for Party purposes alone, is the most flagrant instance of political dishonesty and of political immorality that the country has ever known."
  These extracts were quoted from the revised edition of Mr. Chamberlain's speeches. Next he would remind their Lordships of what was said of the Maamtrasna Debate by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the late Government. Speaking at St. Leonards on September 18th, 1885, Mr. Goschen said—
  "I wonder if they (the Conservatives) have forgotten what the Conservative Press to a greatextent wrote after that famous Maamtrasna Debate. I was in the House that night, and as I stood at the door of the House some Conservative Members rushed past me saying, when they had listened to speeches which hail been made from the Front Bench, 'We cannot stand this.' They did not understand, they could

  375
  not understand, the attitude of their leaders towards Lord Spencer. They could not understand how a man who had come back, having held his life in his hand in Ireland, having done a great service to the Crown and country, should be met with such cold praise, if praise it was, and with such sneers, for sneers they were, at the hands of different members of the Conservative Party."
  And what said one of the most influential organs of the Conservative Party after that?
  "We say, without the least hesitation, that it would be a thousand times better that the Conservative Party were once more in Opposition, rather than we should be again exposed to the humiliation of such a speech as that which Lord Randolph Churchill delivered. The National conscience has been shocked by the ungracious requital of the difficult and dangerous services which Lord Spencer has discharged with as much success as intrepidity.''
  He would not say anything half so damaging as those words of Mr. Goschen, spoken no longer ago than September, 1885, but would only suggest that when noble Lords opposite found that Party rancour was capable of representing what they admitted to be a most innocent and meritorious transaction as evidence of a culpable motive and spirit, to say the least of it, they should give to their opponents some portion of that charity of which they themselves stood somewhat in need. Surely after this it behoved the late Lord Lieutenant and the late Lord Chancellor of Ireland to be careful how they threw stones in the matter of truckling to crime and lawlessness. He did not ask noble Lords opposite to become converts to the principle of Home Rule, but he did ask them to extend to the Government a reasonable amount of charity, and to believe that the Government was actuated by patriotic motives in advancing Home Rule and by as honest and earnest a desire to do their best for Ireland and the honour and fame of the Empire as were those who disagreed with them as to the best method to be pursued.
  THE EARL OF KILMOREYsaid, the quotations which bad been made from Mr. Chamberlain's and Mr. Goschen's speeches delivered some years ago were hardly applicable to the policy adopted by Her Majesty's Government at the present day. Before touching upon the affairs of the most distressful country the world had ever seen, he would turn to another country which, if history were
  376
  to be credited, had in its time suffered a good deal of distress. Egypt, for he supposed, not excepting Nebuchadnezzar and Nero, two of the most extreme types of cruel rulers—of absolute typical brutality—the Pharaohs must take the first prize. He had visited Egypt when he was younger, and also not long ago, and the differences which he had observed in the condition of the country and its people were such as we have every reason to be proud of. There was an extraordinary improvement in the manners and customs of the people, and it was to be accounted for by the humanising effect of a closer connection with the more civilised nations of Europe. He quoted in support of this view a passage from a new work on the English in Egypt, to the effect that without the English nothing could have been accomplished, and that if they were to withdraw now all that had been won by our long and patient endeavours would be lost. Turning to the Irish Question, and as to what, we were permitted to know about the Government measure relating to the government of Ireland, he was rather surprised at the leaders of the Opposition criticising a secrecy which they would have observed themselves; but, while he censured the policy adopted on his own side of trying to force the hands of the Government, he reserved to himself the full right to criticise, and all the more freely on account of the reserve that had been maintained, the measure when it was produced. He had come to the conclusion that the Government were not quite as hopeful of success as they wished to be. For the big jump of the Session they lied constructed a high stone wall for themselves, and it was a question whether they would clear it, scramble over it, or fall in the attempted leap—whether the crumbled stones of the fence should form for them a triumphal arch or a funeral vault. The noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition gathered from the words of the noble Lord who moved the Address that the Home Rule Bill was to be a measure of a very mild character, and he further presumed that its proportions would be represented by zero. He ventured for once to disagree with his leader, for he drew from the speech in question a totally different conclusion that its proportions in no way resembled zero, but that on

  377
  the contrary it was of such unusual substance and proportions that it would be impossible for an unassisted Minister to get it through the Second Reading. He gathered that the noble Lord who deeply oppressed with a feeling that the grant of legislative autonomy to Ireland in harmony with the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament was a problem which it passed the wit of man to solve. The excuse put forward by the advocates of Home Rule was that it was demanded by the majority of the Parliamentary Representatives of the Irish nation; but he denied that Ireland was in any true sense a nation, as the Portuguese, the Dutch, or the Danes were each a nation, having separate and distinct languages, laws, customs, blood, and appearance. Lord Thring, in seconding the Address, mentioned the fact that Ireland had been conquered three times. Poor Ireland! Conquering armies left their mark behind them. Pure Celtic blood was a thing unknown, and Ireland had no right to call herself a separate nation; and certainly those who called themselves her Representatives in another place, did not represent what was best and truest in that unfortunate island. This comprehensive remedial measure which was to do good to one part of the country would do harm to another. The principle of the forthcoming measure, as he understood it, was unconstitutional. It proposed to give to one portion of Her Majesty's dominions—namely, Ireland—privileges which were denied to the remainder—namely, England, Scotland, and Wales; and at the same time English, Scotch, and Welsh Members were to be liable to interference in their domestic affairs from Irish Members, without having, in turn, a similar right of interference with the Sister Isle. Such a measure, giving exceptional privileges to one portion of the country over another, would never hind favour with an Assembly whose business it was to conduct its proceedings with even-handed justice and strict impartiality. Ministers who had climbed into office with the assistance of those who had given them a very slender majority should remember that the day might not be very far distant when, betrayed by those same men, they would be hurled to the ground by the fall of the treacherous ladder on which they stood.
  THE EARL OF DUDLEYsaid, that in view of the fact that during the last six months Her Majesty's Government had enjoyed unrestricted and unquestioned power, it might not be waste of time on his part if he brought under notice one or two points in its action during that period which seemed to him, as one of the younger and more inexperienced Members of their Lordships' House, to stand in need of some justification. In the course of these last six months, considerable complications, more or less serious, had arisen. Some of these seemed to have been dealt with by a firm hand; but in other instances the remedies applied seemed more vague and success less marked. The policy adopted by Her Majesty's Government with regard to Uganda, leaving aside the question of the Slave Trade about which he felt sure there could be no difference of opinion between either Party, seemed to him vague and undefined. What was to happen in the interval between the evacuation of the country by the British East Africa Company and the arrival of the Commissioner's Report? In any case some months would be required for the completion of Sir Gerald Portal's Mission, and by that time, under the present arrangement, no trace would remain in Uganda of the British East Africa Company. Their stores, their agents, their implements would all alike have disappeared; and the maintenance of peace and order, the protection of the lives of the Europeans there, and the whole possibility of the future peaceful development of the country would depend upon a British Commissioner supported only by a small force, surrounded by tribes which at any moment might become hostile, and with a line of communication 700 miles in length to keep up through an arid and more or less unsettled country. Did not such a state of things seem very like the first step towards a repetition of the lamentable events which occurred in the Soudan in 1885? Or, looking at the question from another point of view, supposing the Commissioner's Report were such as to induce the Government to retain possession of Uganda, and directly or indirectly to open it up to British commerce and enterprise, would the fact that in the meantime the East Africa Company had its

  379
  whole commercial apparatus make these objects more easy of attainment, or would such a state of affairs be likely to afford inducements to private enterprise to step in where the operations of the East Africa Company had proved such a disastrous failure? Would it not be better, pending the Report, that Her Majesty's Government should come to some understanding with the East Africa Company to induce them to retain, for the next few months at all events, their position and influence in Uganda? Then, with respect to the difficulty created in India by the heavy and continuous fall in the value of the rupee, some information ought to be given as to when the Committee on Indian Currency would have completed their labours. It was reported that the Viceroy of India had expressed to a deputation the sympathy of the Government on this subject, and implied that when the Report of the Committee was produced steps would be taken to relieve the distress caused by the present state of affairs in regard to the fall in the exchange. If these steps involved any alteration in the standard of value in India, he would like to know whether they were to have any opportunity of a full discussion of the subject in Parliament before any decision was taken?
  LORD MUSKERRYsaid, as to Ireland's monopoly of misery among the nations, surely the noble and learned Lord who seconded the Address could never have lived for any time in that country; and the restlessness among a portion of her people had been fostered by an injudicious and over-zealous course of legislation. For 17 years he had been constantly resident in the South of Ireland, and every day of his life he mixed with the people; and he could say that among the greater part of the tenant farmers in that country there was no desire for Home Rule. Knowledge of the country and people could not be obtained by a short stay in Dublin, by reading Reports in Blue Books, or by drafting and preparing Bills on Irish affairs. A prominent politician had made up his mind on the Irish Land Question simply from the knowledge he had gained during a short yachting tour round the coast of Ireland. Certainly he must have possessed great powers of observation. Why should the tenant farmers of
  380
  Ireland desire Home Rule under the present system of land confiscation? The land system had left the Irish tenant very little to desire in the way of legislation. The Irish Members professed to have great sympathy with the farmers, but they did not seem to have any with the Irish landowners—men who had always had the best interests of Ireland at heart. A great deal of generosity had been shown to the Irish tenants, but very little justice had been dealt out to the Irish landlords. If Home Rule was given, it would be for the Irish landowners a question not of their property, but of their lives. Let the Government ask the opinion of the Resident Magistrates or any persons who knew the country, and they would tell them that Home Rule meant in the North of Ireland civil war, and in the South the extermination of everyone who was loyal to England.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid, it was some years since he had taken part in an Irish Debate in that. House, and it was possible that a very long period might elapse before their Lordships would again have the opportunity of discussing this very important subject. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had denied that the Government had any political object in releasing the Gweedore prisoners; but the political situation, particularly in Ireland, should have been taken into consideration. Anyone who understood Irish affairs would know that to liberate men of this character was a direct incentive to persons of the same class to act in a similar manner in opposition to the law; but he was glad to hear the course adopted by the Government in these cases was not the beginning of a general amnesty. The noble and learned Lord stated that this proposed policy was the only one that had been left untried, and he further begged them to bring calm and judicial minds to the consideration of the question. In that last remark he would thoroughly agree, but an examination of the events of the last few months would show how far the minds of the Government supporters had been calm and judicial in their proceedings for paving the way for the great measure to be introduced this Session. What had been the effect of Mr. Morley's methods in Ireland during the last year?

  381
  Mr. Morley had himself represented that his mission in Ireland was to show as striking a contrast as he possibly could between the policies of Coercion and Conciliation. It had been plainly declared, both in the House and in another place, that the release of these prisoners was not to be taken in any way as the opening out of a general amnesty policy; but, as the Irish Party had been clamouring all round for a political amnesty, he was inclined to think that the support Her Majesty's Government looked for in that direction, and were so dependent upon, would not be likely to be much strengthened by such a declaration. As showing the not very gracious way in which their Irish supporters had received the concession made to them by the repeal of the Coercion Act, he would quote Mr. Redmond's statement last September that it would not benefit the people one way or the other, because that Act had long since fallen out of use. As to the Evicted Tenants Commission, he had never clearly understood what the Government wanted it for, and he doubted strongly whether it would result in any real practical good. With regard to Home Rule, he urged that it was of great importance that the subject of national education in Ireland, and the system and control of the Imperial Grants in connection with it, should be seriously considered before that question came on for discussion. A curious friendship seemed to exist between the Chief Secretary and the Clerical Party in Ireland, and it was remarkable that while information on the Home Rule Bill had been withheld from all others, the details had been confided to the Nationalists. That Party seemed to acquiesce in the Bill, and this was calculated to raise serious doubts on a very important point. The various members of the Government and most of their followers had admitted the absolute necessity of maintaining the Imperial supremacy in any Home Rule Bill; but, remembering the statement of the Nationalists on this point, the fact of their acquiescing in the details of the coming Bill appeared to indicate that either the Nationalists had, to use an American phrase, "considerably climbed down," or that the Government had thrown their declarations on this cardinal point to the winds. He would not express an opinion -upon the matter one way or the other,
  382
  but one thing was plain: there never would be a final settlement of the Home Rule question except upon the terms agreed upon. The Lord Chancellor had said that no human being on the civilised globe would say that in Ireland there was no problem to solve. He would join issue with the noble and learned Lord, and ventured to say that the problem had been solved. When Her Majesty's Government took over Ireland from their predecessors she was in a state of unexampled quiet and calm, and it had been distinctly proved that the country could be governed without coercion, though the resources of law and order were not extinct. He trusted she would be so governed again, and not abandoned to a large and factious majority and an unscrupulous priesthood; and he would reecho the words of the noble Marquess from the North of Ireland, he coining from the South, that it was a disgrace to see such a policy put forward by English statesmen.
  THE EARL OF ARRANasked the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack whether he had said that the Lord Chancellor of Ireland was consulted with reference to the proposed release of the Gweedore prisoners; and whether the Lord Chancellor of Ireland was consulted before or after the noble Lord on the Woolsack had had the matter brought before him?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That he was consulted, I know; but to the second question of the noble Earl I am unable to give any answer.
  Address agreed to, nemine dissentience, and ordered to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

  MERCHANDISE MARKS ACT, 1887, AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887, and to extend the provisions thereof to imported meat—Was presented by the Earl of Onslow; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 4.)
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.