moved the Second Reading of the Collieries Bill. He had introduced it in consequence of a larger measure on the subject having been rejected by the House. The present Bill applied only to certain collieries in Lancashire and Staffordshire called "firing collieries." They were well known to be so dangerous that safety lamps were always used; but yet gunpowder was still employed in them for blasting the coal; it was the object of the Bill to protect the workmen against the danger arising from this practice. It was divided into two parts: the first four or five clauses gave power to the Secretary of State to demand information as to these mines and collieries, and to be furnished with a map of them; in case of any accident, it was then proposed that he should appoint an inspector to inquire into the state of the mine, and report upon it. If the 5th and 6th Clauses were objected to in Committee on the ground of their too stringent character, he would have no hesitation whatever in withdrawing that portion of the Bill; but he believed the House ought, before the close of the Session, to pass some measure of this kind to protect the lives of that meritorious and industrious body of men, the miners, in their useful but dangerous occupation. The Bill which he now asked the House to read a second time had been drawn up with a view to making it as satisfactory as possible to the owners of the collieries; and there was every desire on his part to make such alterations or omissions as the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department might think most conducive to the object contemplated.

greatly regretted that the hon. Gentleman had again proposed a Bill of this character at so late a period of the Session, and after the very decisive opinion on this subject which the House had already pronounced. He believed that legislation in this direction, at the present moment, however desirable, would be exceedingly dangerous; and when full time had been permitted for consideration and inquiry, he did not doubt that interference for the purpose of preventing accidents in collieries and mines would be much more effectual. The propositions of the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the 5th and 6th Clauses would not remove the objections inseparable from the Bill, because the 4th and 5th were those which really applied to the restrictions proposed to be placed upon the use of gunpowder in collieries; and while the question was under consideration, and while the opinions of the owners of collieries were being consulted, and the fullest inquiries were being made into the best means of attaining the end in view, it would not be desirable to pass a Bill so stringent and so ill considered as this. The hon. Gentleman proposed to empower the Home Secretary not only to give orders for inspection on the occurrence of an accident, but to issue those regulations which might seem best adapted to the state of the colliery; and, should those orders be disobeyed, the owners of the colliery would be liable to be prosecuted for a misdemeanor. The Secretary of State would, of course, use his discretion; but he might not be in a position to draw up the best possible regulations; and if, in consequence of the neglect of the precautions which he had required, an accident should occur, and with a fatal termination, the offence no doubt would he manslaughter. Now, to this proposition, he (Sir G. Grey) was not disposed to agree. He fully admitted the importance of the subject, and the absolute necessity of taking some measure of general precaution; and he had no hesitation in saying that the colliery-owners were most desirous of co-operating with the Legislature to insure the greater safety of life in mines and collieries. He therefore trusted that the hon. Gentleman would rest satisfied with attention having been directed to the point, and for this Session withdraw the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman moved that the Bill be read that day three months.

stated, on the part of the colliery-owners, that the strongest objections were entertained to this Bill. They were willing to be bound by such regulations as, after due consideration, the Legislature might enact, knowing that their interest, not less than that of their workmen, was involved in the safety of the occupation in collieries; but they altogether denied that the proposition of the hon. Gentleman was applicable to the circumstances, or was likely to insure that result.

hoped that the hon. Gentleman would withdraw the Bill, as the Government had now taken the subject into consideration.

was convinced that no proposal involving interference in collieries would ever be submitted to by colliery-owners, or by their representatives in that House; and he entreated the right hon. Gentleman to take up this Bill, and, in Committee, effect the alterations which would best adapt it to the accomplishment of the humane object of saving human life in collieries.

denied the assertion that no Bill could be brought in for the prevention of accidents in collieries which would not be accepted by the owners. They especially desired that limited interference which was called for; and to a carefully-weighed measure, introduced on the responsibility of the Government, they would have no objection. It could not be expected that such a hastily-prepared Bill as this, proposed at the very close of the Session, and on the eve of the expiration of Parliament, could receive the approbation of the parties interested; and he hoped the House would reject it.

said, that although his name appeared on the back of the Bill, he did not approve of all the clauses. One good point in the Bill was the power of supervision given to the Secretary of State. Now, although it might be said that the Secretary of State could not know the peculiar requirements of various districts, yet why could he not avail himself of the experience and knowledge of persons locally connected? His hon. Friend had been charged with bringing in this Bill at too late a period of the Session; but it should be remembered, he had been forced to do so by the late colliery accident near Wigan, which terminated in such fatal results. Although he approved of much of the principle of the Bill, still he suggested to his hon. Friend the propriety of postponing it until the next Session, as it could not be expected that he could gain any advantage by pressing it on the 14th of July. If his suggestions were complied with, he would promise his support when the measure should be again proposed.

inquired whether the hon. Gentleman had considered the evidence adduced before the Committee of 1835? He had been a Member of that Committee; and the result of his labours only went to show the necessity of proper inspection. To that principle, then, he gave his cordial support; but he could not go the length of the 5th and 6th Clauses of the Bill. Inspection should be directed to the subject of ventilation, as to the want of it was traceable the great majority of accidents.

hoped the House would bear in mind that the Bill applied equally to masters and workmen—that it proposed to punish masters and workmen alike for violation of its provisions; and that was one of the reasons why he supported it. The accidents that had of late taken place in coal mines were disgraceful to the country. He was himself interested in coal mines; but he felt himself so much the more called upon to support a measure of this kind. He should like to hear a statement from the Secretary of State that he would certainly promote a measure giving him the power of inspection. If he had not such a power, the House ought to put it into his hands. He asked if it was surprising that the colliers throughout the country should be in a dissatisfied state, when the petitions which they had presented, signed by thousands, had constantly been refused? and could the House be surprised if during the recess there should be large meetings of that class, and that perhaps the Secretary of State might be called upon to send down the military to keep the peace, and all this because the House refused to legislate for their benefit?

, if the right hon. Baronet (Sir G. Grey) would give a guarantee that he would introduce a similar measure to the present, would advise the hon. Member for Finsbury to withdraw his Bill; but, if not, he would recommend him to press it to a division.

was anxious that protection should be given to the persons working in collieries; but he considered that the provisions of this Bill were altogether of too stringent a, character. He was in favour of inspection; and he hoped that the Secretary of State would exercise vigorously that power of inspection which he already possessed. As one who was himself connected with this important interest, he could not refrain from expressing his opinion that the imputations cast on the coalowners were most unfair and undeserved. If the hon. Member for Finsbury was anxious to do good, let him look to the nature of the provisions he was anxious to introduce.

said, there seemed to be little objection to the general principle of the Bill, and that the question, therefore, resolved itself into one of time alone. He considered that in providing for the safety of the lives of the labourers in collieries, they ought to guard against any invasion of the rights of private pre- perty in those important interests. He admitted the necessity of adopting the principle of the Bill; but he considered the measure was one which ought to proceed from the Government of the country. He gave the hon. Member for Finsbury credit for the best motives in introducing the Bill; but it was not fair for him to charge the House with indifference towards the interests of the working classes of the country. It should be borne in mind that in the present Session the Parliament of the country had passed a Ten Hours Factory Bill, in order to ameliorate the condition of the numerous classes employed in factories. As the power of inspection was at present vested in the Secretary of State, and as that right hon. Gentleman had stated his intention to consider the measure in all its bearings in a future Session, he hoped the hon. Gentleman who had the charge of the Bill would leave the matter in the hands of the Government. If the House went to a division, he would vote against the Bill, although he approved of its principle, because he considered it would interfere with the rights of private property, and was not the measure required to meet the case.

denounced the Bill as the most absurd and useless Bill that ever was laid upon the Table of the House: indeed, he was surprised to see the names which were appended to the Bill; for only in addition to the names of the hon. Members for Finsbury and Weymouth, he found the name of Mr. Aglionby. He was sure Mr. Aglionby had never read the Bill. The measure, in point of fact, was the production of a Mr. Roberts, who had visited the counties of Durham and Northumberland, with the motive of getting the grievances of the people redressed, but who appeared to have ill considered the subject when he proposed a measure of this nature. He (Mr. Forster) knew that the coalowners were anxious for inspection; and, although this Bill included inspection, still he believed it was not framed in a manner calculated to meet the object in view, and he would oppose it.

expressed his intention to oppose the present Bill on the same grounds that he opposed other measures of a similar nature, namely, that he was opposed to all interference between masters and men.

said, that he would support the second reading of the Bill if the hon. Gentleman pressed it to division, because, after the late accidents which occurred, he thought that some legislation was absolutely necessary, although he did not think that any interference would altogether prevent their occurrence. He thought that coalowners should be made responsible in the courts of law for the injuries which the men received in their works, as was the case in France.

replied, and defended his motives for introducing the Bill. He reminded the House, and those hon. Gentlemen who were interested in coalmines, that his reason for introducing the Bill was, to protect the lives of hundreds of thousands of their fellow-creatures engaged in collieries. He admitted that the observation of the right hon. Secretary at War (Mr. Fox Maule) was quite correct, that the measure ought to be brought forward by the Government; but the Government had not undertaken it, and it was upon that account he had introduced a short Bill to protect the lives of those unfortunate persons until the Government could introduce a measure of their own. It was not fair to compare the condition of those men with the condition of the slaves employed in factories, for the former were bound down by stringent contracts to work for a twelvemonth, and therefore had not the opportunity of escaping from danger. He implored the House to pass the Bill for one year, in order to see how it would work; and in the meantime the Government could propose a more comprehensive measure of their own. he contended that in the case of the late accident near Wigan, the Secretary of State had not the power to order immediate inspection; for when he was asked to do so, he declared he had not the power. In that case an act of great inhumanity, disgraceful to the country and eminently disgraceful to the coalowners, had occurred in bricking up the mine and consigning the unfortunate men to a horrible death, in order that a small portion of coal might be saved. How would hon. Gentlemen like to be treated in such a manner themselves? If six of them were in the next room, and a fire broke out in it, would it not be considered monstrous and inhuman that the other Members of the House should order the door to be bricked up on the supposition that the men were dead? Feeling assured that the principle of the Bill was correct, and that its provisions were urgently called for, he would be no party to the continuance of a system which annually caused such a dread- ful sacrifice of human life. Whatever was considered objectionable in the details of the Bill, he was prepared to alter; but he would press the second reading to a division, and thus throw upon the Government the responsibility of rejecting the measure, and the responsibility of the human life that might be lost.

expressed his astonishment that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) and other Members should vote for the second reading of a Bill the details of which they disapproved. In answer to the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Duncombe), he denied that long contracts were now in existence in the north of England. As the right hon. Gentleman below him (Sir G. Grey) had announced his intention of bringing forward a Bill on this question next Session, and as it was so much more advisable that Bills of this nature should be introduced by the Executive Government, he trusted few Members would be induced to vote for the second reading.

said, that the question was whether or no immediate legislation was necessary; and he thought something ought to be done, as the loss of lives amounted to 600 annually.

moved the Second Reading of the Parliamentary Electors Bill. He thought the payment of rates, as affecting the vote of the elector, ought to be regulated by the same principle in towns as in counties; and characterized the working of the Reform Bill in this respect as absurd and unjust. In many parishes there was but one rate made in the year, and in others one in six months, in three months, or in some cases once a month; the law as it stood was, therefore, not equally applicable to all these different practices. The Bill was so moderate, that he must say hon. Gentlemen who would oppose so mild and moderate a proposition, would also restore again the days of Old Sarum and Gatton. He was anxious again to see in the next Parliament the agreeable countenances of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and he, therefore, thought they had better support this Bill, as it would give rise to disagreeable questioning on the hustings if they did not. An hon. and eloquent Gentleman not then present had drawn very nice distinctions between liberal professions and popular principles; but this Bill, he would contend, was really liberal, and he was equally certain that it would be popular. The object was to give six additional months for the payment of rates.

said, the gallant Officer had disclaimed being a party to an understanding which existed in that House. The hon. and gallant Gentleman was not present, and therefore he perhaps had a right to repudiate. But, at the same time, the understanding did exist and had been acted on. Instead of moving that the Bill be read that day three months, they had on that occasion merely divided as to its postponement with a view to its being withdrawn; but when he saw that the gallant Officer named an early day, he (Mr. Newdegate) regretted that division had not been on the merits of the Bill. His object, however, in rising was to call the attention of the House to the circumstances under which this Bill was introduced. A Bill connected with the registration of voters, had been introduced two months before by his hon. Friend the Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole), and it was read a second time without a division. They were then told that it was too late to proceed with that Bill, as it would-open the whole question of the franchise immediately before a general election. Her Majesty's Ministers proved that they were in earnest in making this objection, by withdrawing a Bill of their own of a similar character to that now pressed by the hon. Member for Westminster. These, he thought, were valid objections to any legislation on that subject at that time; and they applied with equal force to the Bill now proposed to be read a second time. It might or it might not be desirable to repeal the ratepaying clauses of the Reform Bill; but if there was any period at which it would be unfair to do that, it was immediately before a general election. [Mr. WAKLEY: The Bill would not apply at the ensuing general election.] He saw no reason, then, why the Bill should not be deferred until a future Session. He objected to proceed one stage with the measure, because its passing into a law would have no immediate results; and he thought it very unfair that it should now be brought forward merely for the purpose of raising an election cry. His own opinion as to the franchise was, that it should be held sacred; and in this Bill the principle of the franchise was invaded. The necessity of having paid the taxes as a condition was one of the principles on which the franchise rested; and any attempt to alter it now from any desire of a temporary popularity was unworthy of the House. He trusted after what had passed the Government would lend no hand to any such proceeding, The House had divided on the subject, and had decided that this measure should not be pressed. What good could result from pressing this Bill now? The Government were pledged to bring in a measure on the subject next Session; and such a measure was best in the hands of responsible parties. The hon. and gallant Member had stigmatised the 101. occupancy as absurd, and said that it was still more absurd to insist on the payment of rates and taxes. There were but two principles on which the right to vote were based—that of value, and that of having paid the taxes—and if the hon. Gentleman objected to both these, he was at a loss to conceive on what principle he would place the franchise. [Sir DE L. EVANS: Household suffrage.] The natural termination of such an attempt would, if successful, be universal suffrage; and he should therefore oppose it still more strongly. It was true that the Bill only contained one clause; but it contained a principle on which might be founded an alteration of the present system. In short, after the decision of the House, that it would not open this grave question at that period of the Session; after the Gentlemen on his side of the House had withdrawn a Bill on this subject on that account, which had passed its second reading, and had been approved by a Committee; after the Government had also sanctioned the policy of not interfering with this question, so near the dissolution, by withdrawing their own Bill; after they had been told by the hon. and gallant Gentleman that its intended effect was to get up an election cry very unfairly, he trusted the House would agree with him and throw out the Bill.

supported the Bill. The ancient system of voting consisted in possessing the franchise by occupation and the payment of taxes; but he defied any one to say, that before the passing of the Reform Bill, the one was conjoined with the other. He supported the Bill, not because it accomplished all he wished, but because it would take away an unfair restriction. The hon. Gentleman said, that the Bill was brought forward as an election claptrap. It was by no means an unwise step, at the end of a Parliament, to show the people of this country who were their friends, and who were opposed to their liberties. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) who used the expression "popular principles and liberal principles" was more noted for mooting difficult political problems than for answering them. It was far easier to ask questions than to answer them; but he thought it was a distinction without a difference. No principle, in his opinion, could be popular without being liberal, and every liberal principle would sooner or later be popular.

supported the Bill, as he considered that it would enfranchise an immense body of properly qualified persons. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) was no doubt a just man and a friend of the peo- ple, for he had voted for the Ten Hours Bill, and had on many occasions shown towards large classes of the community a kindly disposition. He believed the hon. Gentleman to be a strictly just man; but he had got a crochet on this subject, which it was to be hoped he would soon get rid of. The Reform Bill was very liberal to voters who obtained that right by descent, by marriage, or by gift; it said nothing about rates on any particular day; and why should there be such an odious distinction between them and other classes, who as householders had a right to the privilege? Why should there be this anomalous distinction between county and borough voters? He wished to see the ratepaying clauses of the Reform Bill repealed, because if a man did not pay his rates he was answerable to the law, and his goods might be distrained upon; and surely this was an unfair restriction to continue when they had such a power. He did not object to annual Parliaments, because "short reckonings made long friends;" and the character of the House would be elevated by more frequent communion with those who sent them there. When a Member was about to meet his constituents, it was astonishing what attention he paid to questions which his constituents were likely to discuss with him at the hustings. Under the present law many persons of property were disfranchised. The Governor of the Bank had his vote disallowed on one occasion, because he had not paid his rates by a certain day. He trusted the opposition would be withdrawn, and that the Bill would be carried.

hoped, that if the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Wakley) brought in a Bill for annual Parliaments, he would also propose that the office of county coroner, which was one of considerable emolument, should also be made an annual appointment. [Mr. WAKLEY was ready to resign that office whenever he was called upon.] The hon. Gentleman had argued that there should be no distinction between county voters and town voters; but the two cases were not in the slightest degree analogous. There was as much difference between them, as between a voter for an East India Company's director, and for a county coroner. A person might be an elector for a county without being liable to pay a tax of any kind whatever, while the borough voter rested his privilege solely on the amount of rates and taxes he paid. He thought the three months mentioned in the Reform Bill, which was merely an allowance of time to the voter, was quite sufficient. When he heard the speeches of hon. Members on former occasions on this subject, he thought that vast numbers of the constituencies were disfranchised; but he was surprised when he examined the return moved for by the hon. Gentleman opposite to find that there were a mere nothing, something like 20,000 in the whole of the country; and it was well known that a large proportion of every constituency voluntarily allowed themselves to be disfranchised by that clause, in order to avoid the trouble of voting, and the risk of disobliging friends. He moved that the Bill be read that day six months.

believed that the number of electors would be doubled in Marylebone if the ratepaying clauses were abolished. He was decidedly in favour of the Bill, as it gave the electors a greater margin as to time; indeed, its only fault was that it did not go far enough. He hoped the gallant Officer would take the sense of the House upon it,

opposed the measure. He thought this matter should be left as settled by the Reform Bill, when the Liberal party had the stick in their own hands. He also disapproved of the Bill, because it held out an inducement to the poor to run into arrears with respect to rates and taxes. No friend of the poor would encourage anything so detrimental to their interests.

remarked, that the parish officer would always take care that the poor owed as little rates as possible, and that this matter would not have been left unsettled by the Reform Bill, if a certain Field Marshal in another place had not designated the principle now proposed as another step towards universal suffrage, and declared that it was calculated to upset our glorious Constitution.

declared himself with the Ayes.

stated he had now to move the Clause of which he had given notice. The object of the clause was to declare that wherever the word barrister or attorney was used in the Bill, it should be taken to mean a barrister called to the bar either in England or Ireland; and the word attorney, in the same way, should mean attorney at law either for England or Ireland, The subject involved in this clause was very fully discussed in the House of Lords when the Vice Chancellor's Bill was before it in 1841; and a clause was then added to the Bill, moved by Lord Campbell, in which it was declared that wherever the word barrister was used, not only in that particular Bill, but in every Act of Parliament passed up to that period, it should be held to mean a barrister equally of England or Ireland. That clause was supported by the most eminent of the law Lords. It was supported by Lord Cottenham, by Lord Lyndhurst, by Lord Brougham, and was supported also by the Duke of Wellington. The clause, of course, applied only to Acts passed previously; but since then several most important Acts had passed, especially the County Courts or Small Debts Act of last Session, to which the principle was equally applicable. A very important Select Committee had sat last Session on legal education, of which Committee he was a Member, and had examined several witnesses on the subject of an interchange of legal functionaries between the two countries; and, amongst other eminent men, they had examined Lord Brougham and Lord Campbell. Both those learned Lords recommended the principle of this clause, namely, that barristers of each country should be placed on precisely the same footing with respect to eligibility for office. He, under these circumstances, hoped the Government would not object to the clause he had described which he would conclude by proposing.

said, he was sorry to be obliged to oppose the clause proposed by the hon. Member for the University of Dublin. He objected to it as being contrary to the rules of the House, not coming within the preamble of the Bill; and he appealed to the Speaker on that point. He objected to it also as opening again the question which had been discussed last Session, and which the House had already on that occasion decided, namely, that the Irish barristers were not to be eligible for judicial offices in county or local courts in England.

also objected to the clause. He was sorry he could not give it his concurrence, at least at present; it involved many important considerations. The clause went to render not only barristers, but attorneys eligible to offices in England. He hoped his hon. Friend would not press his Motion to a division; if he did, he should be obliged to vote against him.

said, that if the sense of the House was against him, he did not wish to give them the trouble of dividing; but he felt strongly on the subject. Perhaps, as there was some confusion in the House when he had taken the liberty of stating the reasons on account of which he had proposed the clause, he might be allowed to repeat that it was simply to carry up to the present time the operation of a clause which no one had objected to in 1841, and by which barristers in each country were respectively made eligible to appointments in the other. Since then, Lord Campbell, Lord Brougham, and other eminent men, had declared themselves in favour of a complete assimilation in those respects between legal functionaries and the legal profession in England and Ireland. Lord Campbell had stated in evidence that Lord Wellesley was of opinion that it would tend very much to benefit the United Kingdom if there was one law for England and Ireland, and that there should be, in interchange, that English barristers should he appointed Irish Judges, and that Irish barristers should be appointed English Judges.

wished to ask a question of the Attorney General, respecting which he would have given the hon. and learned Gentleman notice; but the matter to which it referred had only become known to him within the last twenty-four hours. He had heard that one of the Judges appointed to one of the county courts was now a candidate for a seat in that House during the next Session. Now, so far as he was concerned, he by no means contemplated any such eligibility on the part of any of these judges. He supposed that their time would be too fully occupied in the discharge of their duties. The Bill which was now passing the Legislature imposed fresh duties upon them, and there was no doubt that they would be fully occupied now. There was no actual disqualification in the Act of last Session. Yet this was a new office, and although the judges of the county courts were appointed by the Lord Chancellor, and not by the Secretary of State, the question might arise whether they were not officers appointed by the Crown. He wished to ask the Attorney General whether these officers were eligible to sit in Parliament?

said, his attention had been directed to this matter. The Act of Parliament did not give to the Crown the power of appointing the judges of these local courts, but gave the appointment to the Lord Chancellor. The question then arose whether they were not "places or offices of profit under the Crown." Parliamentary precedents might be cited both on one side and the other, a Select Committee of that House having given an opinion one way, and an Election Committee having given an opposite decision. If he gave an explicit answer to the question, he might, by giving an opinion which might not be upheld by an Election Committee, compromise the exercise of the franchise by the electors; and if, on the other hand, he should say that the candidate was qualified to sit, and the Committee were determined that he was not, the candidate and the Committee would both have cause to complain. For these reasons, if the House did not think it would be inconsistent with his duty, he must beg to decline answering the question.

at once yielded to the reasons given by the hon. and learned Gentleman, and would not press for an answer to his question. But, as the law was so doubtful upon this point, he thought it would be the duty of the House to clear it up. And, although he disapproved of the practice of moving Amendments of importance upon the third reading of Bills, as cutting off the opportunity which hon. Members ought to have of expressing their assent or dissent respecting these points upon the different stages of the Bill, he gave notice that he would, on the third reading of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Bill, bring up a clause disqualifying the judges of county courts from sitting in Parliament.

could say that, whether the judges of county courts were legally disqualified or not from sitting in that House, the Lord Chancellor was of opinion that their duties would be so onerous that he had never contemplated their having a seat in Parliament.

said, he would take the opportunity of asking the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department the question of which he had given notice, namely, the amount received under the Queen's Letter in the different churches in the United Kingdom, for relief of distress in Ireland, and through whom that amount had been distributed?

said, that the total amount collected under the Queen's Letter for the relief of distress in Ireland and Scotland was 170,533l. 16s. 2d. This was exclusive of a Bill for 1,000l., remitted by the Bishop of Calcutta, which would not become due until the 10th of September. The sum of 170,000l. had been paid over (as the Government had stated it was their intention to do) to the Committee of the British Association for relief of the distress, and had been by them applied to the objects for which it was collected. The sum of 209l. had been paid over to the Paymaster of Civil Services for expenses incurred by that officer, and there was a sum of 324l. now in the Bank. In addition to the sum of 170,000l. paid under the Queen's Letter, the Committee of the British Association had themselves received in subscriptions the sum of 254,754l., making a total of 424,764l. This sum was exclusive of other channels, through which very liberal and munificent donations had been sent for the relief of Irish distress.