in moving that the House should go into Committee on this Bill, said it was not intended to go forward with any part of the main substance of the Bill, but simply to retain a provision in favour of which there seemed to he a unanimous feeling in the House. He referred to the 4th Clause, which would somewhat enlarge the power of the Commissioners to make purchases and hold investments for the Savings Banks and Friendly Societies. At present they were entirely limited to purchases in the National Debt account; but there were certain stocks and securi- ties which were under the absolute guarantee of Parliament, just as much as was the National Debt of the country, and which at the same time, though they could not be uniformly held in any very large amounts, were more profitable investments than the securities that constituted the National Debt. The purpose of the 4th Clause, as he proposed to amend it, would be to give the Commissioners an uniform power of holding and dealing with all stocks under Parliamentary guarantee, and all stocks and securities, under whatever name, that constituted the National Debt. At present the Commissioners had power to hold terminable annuities, but they had no power to sell them, it was not supposed there would be much occasion for selling terminable annuities on a great scale; but there ought to be an uniformity of power with regard to all these securities, and accordingly this was provided for in the clause.

expressed his satisfaction at the course taken by the right hon. Gentleman. He was glad to find that on both sides of the House there seemed to be a due sense of the importance of dealing with this subject. It was certainly most desirable that the law on the subject should not be left in its present uncertain state. Whenever the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced a general measure on the subject it should receive from him his best attention.

said, that great confusion and inconvenience had already arisen from the definition of the term "refreshment house" in the English Bill. It would be far better if the Government would adhere to the pledge they had given, namely, not to proceed with it any further this Session. He should not much object to the extension to Ireland of the English law with respect to the sale of wine; but by the 6th clause a tax would be imposed upon great numbers of poor persons, who would obtain nothing whatever in return for their money. He begged, therefore, to move, after the word "buildings," in line 32, the insertion of the words, "which shall be over the value of ten pounds." As the clause stood, it should be remembered that it would impose a tax on those who merely sold food.

contended that the clause in this, as in the English Act, was only to apply to places of public resort and entertainment, such as Cremorne, or tea-gardens, and such places, where the proprietors were under a contract to the public, and not to persons keeping ordinary shops, and who were under no such contract with the public.

said, that no particular instructions had been given to the Commissioners of Excise in regard to this clause, because no difficulty had arisen upon the construction of it. If any difficulty should arise in respect to it, he should exercise the best of his judgment in giving the interpretation of it. He could not assent to the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, because this being a provision of police and good order, it would not in his opinion be wise to make the exception which the Amendment proposed, which, if agreed to, would stultify the principle of the measure already assented to. He was, however, willing that the provisions of the Bill should not apply to any towns with a population under 10,000 inhabitants.

said, he was not aware that concession was offered, but as it quite met his objection he should leave the Amendment in the hands of the Representatives of the borough towns. He should not, however, withdraw the Amendment without the consent of those hon. Gentlemen.

complained, that while faith had been kept with Scotland, the promise not to extend the operation of the measure beyond England had been broken with regard to Ireland. He did not see why towns with above ten thousand inhabitants should be subject to the clause.

said, he could not see why a person who sold a bun after nine o'clock at night should be more subject to visits from the police than one who sold a mutton chop. The Commissioners of Excise had sent their agents to persons whom Parliament never intended to make liable to the law, and had endeavoured to intimi- date them into taking out licences. He would, however, take another opportunity of bringing the subject under the notice of the House.

said, that Ireland ought to feel indebted to the hon. and learned Gentleman for the interest he took in this question. There was no doubt but that this was a proposition to impose an additional tax upon the people of Ireland for the supervision of the police, in a manner that must prove most vexatious to the shopkeepers in that country.

said, that to impose a tax of 10s. 6d. on the class of small refreshment houses, which were not allowed to sell wine, would render a measure, in other respects popular, unpopular in Ireland. He hoped, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman would not press it.

moved to substitute the word "eight" for "ten" in line thirty-two. The object was to adopt the same principle as that acted upon in the English Bill, £8 being the Parliamentary franchise in Ireland.

said, he should op-pose the Amendment. He had himself intended to propose the substitution of "twenty" for "ten."

objected to the machinery laid down for the procuring a licence, and argued in favour of adhering to the present mode of granting licences in Ireland. He disapproved the scheme for obtaining a licence from the supervisor, and saw no reason why different courses should be followed with regard to wine and spirits. He proposed the introduction of words to the effect that a certificate should be obtained from two justices of the peace approving the licence.

said, that the principle of the Bill was to encourage a taste for wine instead of spirits. The Amendment proposed, however, would have the effect of throwing unnecessary restrictions in the way of procuring licences for the sale of wines.

said, the Amendment went really to counteract the principle of the Bill, by confirming that disturbing power which the Bill was intended to abolish. Parliament had already decided, in the English Bill, that the principle of constituting magistrates judges ns to the number of places in a district which should supply liquor was objectionable, and, as the Amendment would establish that principle with regard to Ireland, he could not accept it.

moved to strike out the words giving the magistrate power to inquire of a man applying for a licence, whether or not he belonged to an unlawful society.

said, Clause 13 declared that no member of an unlawful society should have a licence, and this power of inquiry seemed to follow as a consequence.

objected to the words of the clause, inasmuch as it would be difficult to prove the fact of a person belonging to an unlawful society, and the provision would give rise to suspicion, and probably to false information.

said, he would consider the suggestion, and, if it were thought advisable, introduce it on the Report. In the meantime he would not further object to the Amendment.

objected that the clause gave power to the police to enter a licensed house at any time, and that on their entrance being refused, a fine of £5 might be imposed for the first offence, and on the second the licence might be suspended for two years.

said, the entrance of the police would be confined to the hours intervening between nine at night and seven in the morning, that being the time which the licence would permit the House to be open, and he proposed words accordingly.

in the absence of Mr. TORRENS, said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether any application or claim has been preferred by the heirs and successors of Lord Clive for the capital of the Fund assigned by Lord Clive as a provision for invalid and disabled officers and soldiers of the East India Company's Army, and for widows and orphans of officers and men of that army, on the ground that the Fund was assigned only so long as the East India Company had an army; and, in the event of such a claim having been preferred, whether the Secretary of State has any objection to lay all Correspondence on the subject before the House?

said, that such an application had been made by the representatives of Lord Clive, in consequence, not of the abolition of the Indian army, hut of the transfer of the Government of India to the Crown. He had no objection to the production of the correspondence.

moved that the Notices of Motion be postponed until after the Order of the Day for the consideration of the European Forces (India) Bill as amended in the Committee.

said, he rose to move for leave to introduce a Bill to ex- tend to Ireland all powers to make rules and regulations for the enrolment and organization of Volunteer Corps, which were now by law applicable to Great Britain. The noble Lord at the head of the Government had already, he regretted to say, expressed his intention to oppose any attempt to raise Volunteer Corps in Ireland; but he had also, in the course of an eloquent speech at a dinner at the Mansion House, pronounced a warm eulogy in favour of the Volunteer movement. How the noble Lord could reconcile that speech with the course the Government had announced their intention to adopt on the subject of Volunteer Corps for Ireland, he was unable to understand. Would the noble Lord take upon himself the responsibility of refusing the aid of 50,000 Irish Volunteers, as efficient for Her Majesty's service as any of the Volunteers embodied in this country or in Scotland? It was clear, from the noble Lord calling on the House to vote £9,000,000 for fortifications, that the noble Lord did not consider the possibility of an invasion a matter to be disregarded; but, while Plymouth, Portsmouth, Dovor, the Thames, and other places were to be fortified, the noble Lord proposed to leave Ireland perfectly defenceless; though during the last great war Ireland was three times invaded by the French, at Carrickfergus, at Bantry, and at Killala. In the event of the invasion of England, every soldier would be withdrawn from Ireland, in order to defend this country; and probably the Irish Constabulary, which was paid out of the Consolidated Fund, would be withdrawn also. All that Ireland would then have to depend upon would be the services of 40,000 disembodied Militia; but if Ireland were also allowed to have the services of 50,000 Volunteers, she, with such a force, fighting for their homes, their wives, and children, would be able to repel any army which the French, or any other Continental nation, could send to those shores; and if a foreign army succeeded even in effecting a landing, but few of the men would return to their own country to tell the tale. Every difficulty had been thrown in the way of the formation of Irish Volunteer Corps; and he believed that the same difficulties would have been opposed in England to the Volunteer Movement, if they could have been ventured on; and it certainly was not owing to any fostering care on the part of the Government that that movement bad succeeded. At a meeting lately held in Dublin a resolution was una- nimously passed, to the effect that the enrolment of a Volunteer force was as essential in Ireland as in Great Britain; and that the refusal or delay to assimilate the law of the two countries on this subject, excited jealousy where union should prevail, and was unconstitutional; and the meeting pledged itself neither at present, nor at any future time, to permit the Volunteer Movement in Ireland to partake of a party or sectarian character. How long, he asked, was this system of insult to Ireland to continue; and how long were Continental nations to be told that Ireland was the weakest part of the Queen's dominions, and that the people of that country could not be trusted with arms? He believed the statement to be totally destitute of foundation; and that there was no part of the Queen's dominions where an invasion would be more strenuously repelled than in Ireland. Was this policy of setting classes and creeds against each other to be continued? The noble Lord at the head of the Government recently alluded to the collision which took place near Lurgan; but let the blame be placed in the proper quarter, on the policy of the English Government towards Ireland, a policy disgraceful to the one and degrading to the other. He might here relate an anecdote respecting two Irish gentlemen—one a Catholic, and the other an Orangeman—who travelled pleasantly together abroad for some days. On the Catholic learning that his companion was an Orangeman, he expressed his surprise, saying, "I always thought you Orangemen were ready to cut our throats." The Orangeman replied, "That is because we believe you are always going to do the same with us,"—a state of feeling which the conduct of the English executive Government goes far to perpetuate. He (Colonel French) proposed that there should be an assimilation of the law of England and Ireland; and that power should be taken to make rules and regulations for the formation of Volunteer Corps in Ireland. He was assured by high legal authority that no Act of Parliament was required for this purpose, and that the Queen, by the common law, had the power to accept the services of her subjects in Ireland, under such stipulations as she chose to establish. Nevertheless, he should ask for leave to introduce a Bill with the object he had mentioned. It was said that it would be dangerous to leave arms in the hands of the Volunteers. But the rifles were not left in the hands of the English Volunteers; they were deposited in depôts, and were only taken out when required for purposes of drill. If his noble Friend would only, as a novelty, try a policy of confidence in Ireland, he would certainly find it answer. At present, the Chief Secretary, from his associations and short experience of the country, could have but little knowledge of the Roman Catholics in Ireland; whilst the latter were shut out altogether from the civil and military Government of the country. If the noble Lord at the head of the Government thought they were going to stand that much longer, he would find out his mistake. Already the separation between the Irish party and the present Government was becoming visible. Unless the noble Lord altered his policy, an Irish Liberal Member sitting on his side of the House would become a rara avis. There was an inkling in some quarters that the Earl of Derby's Government was not such a terrible thing, after all, for Ireland. For the purpose of promoting confidence, bringing together Catholic and Protestant, of preserving life and property in Ireland, and enabling her to assist England in repelling invasion, he hoped the House would give him leave to introduce the Bill.

said, he did not think the House would consider it expedient or judicious to accede to the Motion, nor would it, in his opinion, give general satisfaction even in Ireland if Volunteer corps were organized there. His hon. Friend proposed to assimilate the law of the two countries, and afterwards leave it optional with the Government to carry the laws when assimilated into force and institute these corps; but that was not a position which could be laid down with propriety in the present instance. Had the law been originally the same, it might indeed have been left to the Executive to make a different application of it to different parts of the country, according to the circumstances of the case. But, if the Government were to encourage his hon. Friend to bring in a measure changing the law in Ireland as it had existed from the Peace of Amiens down to the present time, the necessary inference in the public mind would be that they intended to act immediately upon the law so altered, and, in fact, it would almost amount to an engagement to do so. Now, he did not think it would be right to take such a step at the present moment; and the ground upon which the government arrived at that conclusion had been frequently stated. They had not the slightest doubt that it would be possible to obtain in Ireland at the shortest notice as large a body of men devoted to their sovereign and their country as any Government could desire, and they believed the members of both Churches alike would present themselves with that object. Experience justified such an expectation. It was true that at the close of the last century a demonstration of this kind had, in its result, proved in some respects unsatisfactory, yet it was gratifying to find, from the historians of the time, that the moment there was any real apprehension of invasion all party animosities ceased, and though the Catholics were then prevented from bearing arms, they came forward with their subscriptions in order to raise a national force for the defence of Ireland. If that was the case, then the same feeling might, with far more confidence, be expected now. But, though no one need distrust the loyalty of Ireland, it could not be denied that there were other important considerations which it was necessary to bear in mind. What would be the consequence in a, domestic point of view of arming large numbers of people in the sister country? The hon. Gentleman said it would bring together Catholic and Protestant. But would it bring them together in such a way as to promote harmony, or the opposite of harmony? In former times it had been found that great danger attended the possession of arms by those who, not being animated by the best feelings towards each other, perhaps, at any time, were carried away by some momentary excitement, and, as we had recently seen, were then liable to become enemies instead of friends. This was a result which of all others the Government ought most to deprecate and to guard against. The great town of Belfast was at this moment subject to proclamation under the Peace Preservation Act, because, after the party strife which had unhappily arisen there, the rival parties began to form themselves into rival gun-clubs, which led to the most serious apprehensions lest the peace should be broken. It was on account of these occasional and transient animosities existing in some parts of Ireland that the Government hesitated to call upon the loyalty of the people, in which they had as much confidence as in the loyalty of other parts of the Queen's dominions. He believed that this decision gave general satisfaction in Ireland, because it was a fact that, notwithstanding the desire of the Irish people to rally round the Throne, the number of applications for the formation of Volunteer corps had been very small since the determination of the Government not to organize those corps. The evidence of public feeling referred to by his hon. Friend was not such as would induce the House to take a forward step in this direction. He repeated that the Government entertained no doubt that, should an emergency arise. Irishmen would display conspicuous devotion to the Throne, but they were of opinion that in the present circumstances of Ireland the possession of arms by large masses of the people would be undesirable. Whenever invasion appeared imminent they were satisfied that Irishmen would come forward for the protection of their coasts in such a way as would make it unnecessary to take these steps in advance, and, on the whole, they felt they would be acting most wisely for the interests of the country, and most in accordance with matured public opinion in Ireland itself, by refusing their support to the Motion.

Now, Sir, I would like to know whether there is a single Irish Member in the House who is satisfied with the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman? In this House we are accustomed to a certain style of conventional phraseology, and we are often compelled to receive, as valid and sufficient, excuses which are flimsy and illusory. But anything so shallow, so barefaced, anything, in fact, so nearly bordering upon palpable humbug, as the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, I confess I have never heard. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the events of 1798, and stated that at that period, when there was an alarm of invasion, Irishmen rallied round their Sovereign. I ask, Sir, is there an Englishman who can reflect without a blush—provided he has the faculty of blushing—on the condition in which Ireland was left a few years previous to that eventful time. In the year 1782, the whole defensive means vouchsafed by England and Ireland, against a foreign invasion, consisted of half a troop of horse and a company of invalids. No doubt, the spirit of Ireland rose with the emergency, and as gallant an army, entirely composed of volunteers, soon arose in Ireland as ever stood in armed strength upon the soil of any country in the world. But, perhaps, on looking back to what happened afterwards, mainly through the instrumentality of that native army, the right hon. Gentleman is apprehensive of what might again happen under similar circumstances. The Irish Secretary, speaking in the name of his Government, declares that they would only call upon Irishmen to come forward in defence of their country in case there was any real apprehension of danger. But, if there be no real apprehension of danger, such as would justify the Government in calling on Irishmen to arm, why is it, I should like to know, the noble Lord calls upon the overburthened taxpayers of the Empire for a sum of £12,000,000—it really may mean £22,000,000—for national defences? Will the noble Lord answer this question now, or when he is next making the proposal to this House? Against whom or what is the country to defend itself? Why is England to fortify her shores? Whence is she menaced by danger? If there is no danger, there need be no additional defences; but if England is really menaced, is not Ireland also in danger? We all know that the speech of the noble Lord shadowed forth danger from France; but for the Government, at one moment, to say that there is danger of invasion, and then to say at another that there is no danger whatever, involves a monstrous absurdity. After the declaration of the Secretary for Ireland, I cannot see how any representative of the taxpayers of this country, who have already been asked for more than £30,000,000 for naval and military defences, can vote for the proposition of the noble Lord,—for the Government publicly proclaim that no real cause for apprehension exists. But is there any danger? We must suppose that there is; or, if not, then this House has been practically legislating under false pretences for the whole of this Session—from the delivery of the Speech from the Throne, to the demand made by the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government. If there is danger, then, Sir, I must ask the question—is Ireland really a portion of a common empire, or is she not? If she is not, then I can understand the policy of the Government; but if it be said she is, how is it possible to account for it? I confess I am at a loss to reconcile the statement of this evening with what we have been doing for this long Session; because if there is no danger for Ireland, and that she does not stand in need of a volunteer force, why is it that we have heard an appeal in favour of increased national defences? Sir, I believe there is danger, and I ask, why is Ireland left unprepared, while England is preparing for defence? The right hon. Gentleman appeals to the past; but is there any possible analogy between the circumstances of the present time and those of the period to which he refers? If steam power had been employed some sixty years ago for the propulsion of vessels of war, Ireland might at the present day be under French rule. In former times, a contrary wind was sufficient to baffle the best-laid schemes of an attacking force, and a single storm scattered the mightiest armament ever prepared by the genius or power of an invader. But what is the case in these times? There is scarcely a miserable cockle-shell of a packet boat plying between the coast of France and the const of England that cannot calculate her arrival to a quarter of an hour, and it rarely happens that any one of those vessels is an hour behind her regular time. A steam fleet might now reach the shores of Ireland at any point, or at any time, arranged by the invader. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to wait for a sudden danger, and then leave the Irish people unprepared to meet it? Is there any such peculiar aptitude for arms in the Irish people, that they could be expected to repel an invading force, without ever having been taught the use of a musket or a rifle, without once having fired at a mark, or even having acquired the mysteries of the "goose step"—an accomplishment jealously reserved for England? If Ireland is expected to repel an invader, her people must be taught the use of arms in time. My hon. and gallant Friend said that 50,000 volunteers would make short work of any hostile force that could land in Ireland. That, no doubt, is my hon. and gallant Friend's opinion; but notwithstanding my own favourable estimate of the valour of my countrymen, I fear there is somewhat of "bounce" in his statement. The fact is, the people of Ireland must be regularly trained to the use of arms, and if they are expected to resist the invader, they should be well practised in the use of the necessary weapons of defence; and it will not do when perhaps the smoke from a French fleet is darkening the harbours of Ireland, for a Government to send them a telegram from London, telling them to defend themselves. The policy of the Government towards Ireland is a bad policy. It is a policy of suspicion, and not of confidence. It is practically saying to the people of that country—"We don't care about you; we distrust you; we will not give to you that which implies trust or confidence—the right to bear arms for your defence." It is not the way to make Ireland loyal and devoted to the institutions of this country, by withholding this proof of confidence from them, and debarring them from the privileges of their English fellow-subjects. The Government may affect to say "Oh, we have no doubt whatever of your loyalty; we have the most profound reverence for it: we implicitly believe in it." But, Sir, does this impose upon n single human being? No; for notwithstanding your trust and confidence in their loyalty and attachment, you refuse them arms. The reason assigned for this refusal is, that an occasional squabble or conflict takes place between bodies of Orangemen and angry Catholic mobs. But whose fault is it if such scenes occur? If bad blood exists in Ireland, the Government are responsible for its existence. The same power which put down the Ribbon confederacy could and ought to put down the Orange association. The Orange confederacy is as injurious to the interests of the country and as fatal to its peace, as the other; and every man who really wishes to see all classes in Ireland live together in peace and harmony desires to see the Orange Society put down for ever—crushed to the earth by the force and power of the law. I do believe that the formation of Volunteer corps would promote amity and good feeling among all classes, because all classes would thus be associated for a common object and purpose; and, moreover, those who were banded together for the defence of their country against foreign aggression, would prove the best protectors of order and the public peace at home. However, I do not ask the noble Lord to permit the formation of those corps; I leave it entirely to the noble Lord's sense of responsibility, whether he will permit them or not. But I warn him that his policy, in persistently refusing to permit their formation, is unwise and shortsighted. I know my country well, and I know the feeling which such a policy has created, and is certain to strengthen. Shall I tell the House the real truth? If so, then I must say that, after the statements of the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman, if the French were to land on the shores of Ireland to-morrow, a vast proportion of the population would not meet them as foes. Is this, I ask, a feeling which it is wise to encourage? I tell the noble Lord he is adopting an unwise course in proclaiming to the people of Ireland that he will not allow them to adopt means for their own defence, while at the same time he is demanding an enormous additional sum for the coast defences of England. Might it not be a more prudent course for an unarmed people to yield without a bootless struggle to their fate, than to entail upon themselves all the horrors and miseries consequent upon an unequal resistance? The noble Lord who represents his Sovereign at this moment in Ireland, has just been attending a great cattle show, where he mot a large number of persons at dinner, from whom he heard loyal speeches, and with whom he drank loyal toasts in loyal wine; and no doubt that noble Lord will communicate to the Government what he saw and heard as a true representation of the feelings of Ireland. But will that noble Lord venture to rise up in any great assembly of Irishmen, and tell them that they were not fit to be trusted with arms for the defence of their country? Sir, the Government cannot he surprised if their repeated declarations excite a feeling of disaffection in the minds of the great mass of the Irish people. I repeat, I do not advise the noble Lord at the head of the Government to accede to the Motion of my hon. and gallant Friend; that I leave altogether to his own discretion. I do, Sir, however, protest against the insult and mockery of the miserable answer vouchsafed, on the part of his colleagues, by the Secretary for Ireland; which simply means this—that no matter what emergency may arise, no matter what danger may menace, Ireland is to be left in her present unprotected and helpless condition, while all the care, all the solicitude, and all the expenditure—raised, too, from a common empire—are to be devoted by an unwise Government to the protection and defence of the selfish interests of England.

Sir, I cannot say that either the hon. and gallant Gentleman who made this Motion or the hon. Member who has just sat down has held out any great encouragement to induce us to depart from the line of policy declared by my right hon. Friend. My hon. and gallant Friend, wishing to convince the House that there is no possible chance of danger of any hostile collision between various seetious in Ireland, gave us an anecdote by way of illustration. He said that two Irish gentlemen were travelling together for three weeks upon the most agreeable and confidential footing, but one of them happened one fine morning to make the discovery that the other was an Orangeman, upon which he said, "You an Orangeman! I should never have guessed it. I always thought Orangemen were ready to cut our throats.' "But," said the other, "that is only because we think you are ready to cut our throats." Now, if the two great classes of Irishmen had lived together for three weeks—[Colonel FRENCH: I did not say for three weeks]—well, for any time, upon the same agreeable terms of companionship as the individuals referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend, and thus each class had got their minds disabused of the notion that the other class wanted, metaphorically I hope only, to cut their throats, then the policy of my right hon. Friend might be open to question and the danger be deemed chimerical. But as long as there exists, as my hon. and gallant Friend admits there does exist, a feeling of mutual distrust between the two classes, I do not think it would be useful or advisable to follow the recommendation of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and place arms in the hands of those who entertain the feelings of jealous animosity which are sufficiently indicated in the anecdote he has narrated to us. Then comes the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. Maguire), and he goes further, for he says that if the French were to land to-morrow, the majority of the Irish nation would meet them not as foes. He went still further; his imagination led him on, and—I believe that it is only his imagination—he said in a few sentences further, the great bulk of the Irish population are disaffected towards the British Government. Those are strange assertions to make with a view to encourage the Government to organize the Irish in a military body. But I do not believe those assertions. The hon. Member says he knows Ireland better than we do, but in this respect at least, I venture to say, we know Ireland better than he does. It often happens that those who are a little removed from an object see it rather more plainly and more distinctly than those who are in immediate contact with it. The hon. Gentleman may be influenced by local party feelings, in which he does not share, but which have come to his knowledge, and he may generalize erroneously upon some particular iustance; but I utterly deny, on the part of the Irish people, the aspersions—for really such they are—which the hon. Member, in his zeal and in the heat of oratorical display, has cast upon them. The hon. Gentleman has also very much misrepresented the state of things in Ireland. He paid a great compliment to the powers of speech of myself and my right hon. Friend when he ascribed the supposed disaffection of the great mass of the population of Ireland to a speech I made about a week ago, and to a speech which my right hon. Friend has made this evening. He says that these speeches have had the wonderful effect of converting a loyal into a disloyal population, and rendering the bulk of the people of Ireland disaffected towards the British Government and the British Throne. The way in which, according to the hon. Gentleman, this feeling has been infused into the minds of Irishmen, is, that it was proved by what I said that in the event of an invasion they were to be left defenceless and unprotected, and that they would be left, therefore, to the choice either of submitting to the evils of a hopeless resistance, or of bowing their necks to the invader. But is Ireland in that unprotected state? In the first place, in time of peace there are 30,000 regular troops there; and, so far from our showing any distrust of the Irish people, there is an organized Militia of 30,000 more. There are, therefore, 60,000 armed and trained men in Ireland at the outset of a war to oppose-to any enemy that may invade its shores. I think that, with 60,000 good troops in Ireland, it is rather a stretch of fancy on the part of the hon. Gentleman to say that Ireland is totally unprotected and incapable of resistance. There would also be 80,000 Militia in England and 20,000 Militia in Scotland, and if there were any prospect of Ireland being the object of attack a considerable portion of them might be sent across the Channel. A force of regular troops might also be sent from England; therefore, the hon. Gentleman is as much mistaken as to the amount of defensive force applicable to the protection of Ireland in the event of invasion, as I am confident he is in his description of the feelings of the Irish people. I can only say that the reasons alleged by my right hon. Friend for declining at present to accept the powers which the hon. and gallant Gentleman is disposed to give are, in my opinion, perfectly sufficient, and I am content to rest upon the arguments he has used as to the decision we should come to on the Motion of mv hon. and gallant Friend.

observed that he could not help expressing his regret at the course taken by the Government. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman was only calculated to excite distrust. What would be thought if the Government would not allow the Volunteer corps to be formed in Oxford or Cambridge because town-and-gown rows sometimes occurred? There was no better reason for preventing the formation of Volunteer corps in Ireland.

said, he agreed with what had been said by the noble Viscount as to the loyalty of the Irish people; but he could not agree with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cardwell) in the opinion that, because a squabble broke out now and then, the people of Ireland could not be trusted with the defence of their country. These squabbles wore confined to a few localities. No doubt, the real reason for not arming the people of Ireland was a distrust on the part not only of the present Government, but also of former Governments. But in that case it would be better to speak plainly, and say so. What was the state of Ireland? There was hardly any crime in the country. There might be reasons known to the Government which induced them to oppose the extension of the Volunteer system to Ireland. But in that case the responsibility ought exclusively to rest with them. The noble Viscount said there were 30,000 regular troops in Ireland. But would he assure the people of Ireland that none of those troops should be withdrawn if war broke out? As to the 30,000 Militia, they were not trusted with the custody of their own arms. The Government must be left to explain their distrust and settle their refusal with the people of Ireland.

said, that the present prosperity of Ireland was a very good guarantee for her loyalty and attachment to this country. It was admitted that this prosperity was almost unprecedented, and he believed that the time had come when the people of Ireland might be trusted. Irishmen might look all round the world and not find a monarch so worthy of their loyalty and attachment as the Sovereign of this country. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman divided the House he would vote with him.

said, that he felt inclined to support the Motion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman on the good broad principle that if you wanted to make a man worthy of confidence you must put confidence in him. If a husband were uncomfortably jealous, a wife sometimes gave him cause for it, and that was the case in the present instance. He believed that the formation of Volunteer corps would have the effect of modifying and removing the animosity of party feeling in Ireland. He had the honour to hold a commission in the London Irish Volunteer corps. It contained men of every shade of political and religous opinion, but the effect of wearing the Queen's livery was to banish sectarian jealousy, and enable the members of the corps to live in harmony together. Since the Government, however, with their means of information, declined to encourage the Volunteer system in Ireland, he would advise his hon. and gallant Friend not to divide the House. Before next Session the Government would have ample time to reconsider the decision. Let Irish Members tell their countrymen to be "good boys" until Parliament met again, and then, if they behaved themselves, they would be more worthy of confidence by the time Parliament again assembled.

said, that he rose to move certain Resolutions with respect to the conduct of the business of the House. Every hon. Member, he was sure, must take an interest at all times in the conduct of the business of the House of Commons, and if ever there was a time when the people of this country looked with anxiety upon the conduct of public business in that House, it was at the present moment. He should, however, abstain from proposing any sweeping changes, and confine himself to the suggestion of a few practical reforms which he believed would expedite the business of the House, and diminish the evils which resulted from the present system of late hours. It had been suggested that private Bills should be disposed of by a body of a more judicial constitution. But if he could choose his own Amendments he should be strongly inclined to revert to the simplicity of former times. Why should not that House sit in the daytime? Six or seven hours a day steadily devoted to the business of the country would give much more satisfactory results than did the protracted hours through which they were now in the habit of sitting, when hon. Member after hon. Member rose to vex the drowsy ear of night with long-winded speeches. The present system was one, not of economy, but of prodigality of time. Of the Resolutions which he should propose, that to which he attached most value was the last—namely, that in the interval between this and the next Session of Parliament the Government should consider this important subject, in order that any Resolutions at which they might arrive should be submitted to a Select Committee. It had often been suggested that, in order to avoid the frequent divisions upon adjournments which sometimes occurred, the House should adopt the plan of closing the debate upon a question to that effect, which formerly prevailed in Prance, and now to a certain extent obtained in America. He had included such a proposition among his Resolutions, but, as there appeared to be a great diversity of opinion upon the subject, he should not press the House to adopt it. The principle of a Bill was frequently discussed on the introduction of the measure, on the second reading, and on going into Committee, and even in Committee. What he proposed was that there should be only one discussion upon it, and that on other occasions the Speaker or the Chairman of Committee should stop any hon. Member who travelled from the details into the principle of the Bill. When Supply was coming on the paper was almost always crowded with notices to anticipate the House going into Committee. Supply was the very source and fountain of the power of that House, and ought not, in his opinion, to be so dealt with. It was right that some allowance should be made to hon. Members who wished to bring on other subjects before Supply, but their power to do so ought not to be unlimited, and he therefore proposed that if such a discussion was not concluded by 8 o'clock the debate should be postponed, and the House should at that hour at once go into Committee. He had often observed that during the first two or three weeks of a Session no business at all was done, and he therefore proposed that Government Bills should be introduced, and, as far as possible, proceeded with, early in the Session. Had such a course been adopted with regard to the Bankruptcy Bill, the loss of which he deeply regretted, it might now I have been the law of the land. The next proposal was in accordance with one which had been made in "another place,"—that Bills which had reached a certain stage in one Session should be resumed at the same stage in the next. He believed that much mischief was caused by the late hours to which the House sat, and he thought it would be desirable that no new or opposed business should be proceeded with after twelve o'clock. Such a rule existed during the Ministry of Sir Robert Peel, and was practically followed while the right hon. Gentleman opposite was leader of the House. It would economize both time and the health of Members if that rule were generally adhered to. His main proposition, however, was that which bound the Government to consider the subject, and to submit such opinions as they might have formed to be deliberated upon by a Select Committee in the ensuing Session of Parliament. The questions were worthy the consideration of a Parliamentary Government, and he trusted the House would at least display some vigour in endeavouring to amend their rules for the conduct of public business. e therefore submitted the Resolutions with full confidence to the consideration of the House and the Government.

seconded the Motion.

Nothing can be more true than what the hon. Member stated, that the character of this House and its reputation in the country must in the end depend upon the manner in which it transacts its business, and that, therefore, every hon. Member has a personal interest in establishing and maintaining rules for the efficient conduct of our business. It is not a question in which the Government have a peculiar interest; it is the common interest of the whole House. Perhaps it would be a curious matter of calculation to ascertain how much time is lost during a Session in discussions as to the time when measures are to be brought on. Everybody must know that sometimes there are complaints that measures are brought on too soon, that there is not sufficient information laid before the House, and that hours upon hours are lost before the House will consent even to consider a Bill. Again, when a measure is brought on, there are perpetual attempts to obstruct its progress by moving adjournments, by proposing further inquiry, and by complaints that papers in sufficient quantity have not been laid on the table. In that manner a considerable portion of most precious time is occupied, not in discussing measures, but in discussing when we should discuss them. It is quite impossible, I am aware, that we should lay down, as Courts of Justice lay down, an inflexible rule that when a case is called on it shall be proceeded with. We cannot impose an equally stringent rule upon the Members of this House; but I think we must all see that the very essence of the decisions of this Assembly is that the voice of the majority should prevail; that, while we establish safeguards against coercing a minority and proceeding too precipitately to a decision, it is absolutely necessary, in order to maintain the freedom of our discussions, that the voice of the majority should ultimately prevail over the minority. It would be advisable that from time to time a Committee should be appointed to consider whether any improvements could be made in our rules with respect to the transaction of business. A considerable period has elapsed since such a Committee sat. The last time there was such a Committee various wholesome improvements were suggested and acted upon, and I think that at the beginning of next Session a Committee of that sort might be appointed with great advantage. In the meanwhile it would be, perhaps, useless to occupy the time of the House in discussing the propositions of the hon. Member for Dumfries. I understood that he wishes by his first Resolution to exclude the discussion of the principle of a Bill upon the question of the Speaker leaving the Chair, and I gathered from his speech that, in point of fact, he thinks there should be only one discussion on the principle of a measure. That is one of those questions upon which it is difficult to lay down an inflexible rule. Great loss of time is occasioned by a perpetual recurrence in Committee to the principle of a measure; but, on the other hand, if from any accident there has been no sufficient discussion upon the second reading, it is often convenient to be able to discuss the principle upon the Motion for going into Committee, and, at any rate, I think it would be difficult to lay down any absolute rule on that point. In his second Resolution the hon. Member has overlooked the case of the Motion for going into Committee of Supply being made after 8 o'clock, which I am afraid is not a very unusual occurrence now-a-days. If the Resolution were carried as it stands, it would apply to 8 o'clock in the morning and not 8 o'clock in the evening. With respect to public Bills being proceeded with at the stage at which they left off in the previous Session, that is a change which I confess, for one, I should see with great satisfaction. It would lead to a considerable saving of the public time. I am aware there is some difference of opinion on the point, and the proposed alteration could not be carried into effect, at least as respects both Houses, without the passing of a Bill. The next proposition is, "that Bills introduced by the Government be as far as is practicable brought on and proceeded with early in the Session." Hitherto the rule has always been enforced that there should be only two Government nights before Easter. One of these has to a great extent been occupied by Motions upon the adjournment until Monday. That, I hope, will be rectified by the new Standing Order, that the Government night shall be Thursday instead of Friday. But the two Government nights before Easter are often occupied by Estimates, and upon going into Committee of Supply very often half the night is consumed by other Motions. It is, therefore, not easy for the Government to make great progress with their Bills before Easter. With respect to the consideration of this subject by the Government during the recess, that, of course, is easily effected, but the great difficulty is when propositions are made to induce the House to adopt them. I hope, however, that if a Committee be appointed early next Session, they will be able to suggest some practical means for effecting an object which all must desire to see accomplished.

said, the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Ewart) entertained the belief that it was necessary to establish a limit to their proceeding after a certain hour of the night, he (Mr. Newdegate) had previously urged the necessity for a similar limitation; he had proposed a limit after one in the morning. Hon. Members would forgive him for reminding them that one of the best rules would be that Government business only should be taken on Government nights and should be strictly adhered to. The attempt to advance the Bills of private Members on Government nights, necessarily at late hours and in thin houses, frequently led to minorities being forced to use the forms of the House—which, though often abused were, after all, the great protection for freedom of discussion and the protection of the country against hasty and bad legislation. He quite agreed with the two last suggestions of the hon. Member, as he believed that a great deal depended upon the Government introducing their measures earlier in the Session. If it were found that two nights a week before Easter were not sufficient for the Government business he thought that the House would be more likely to consider the propriety of granting the Government more days by being early informed of what Bills the Government proposed. No more important Committee had ever sat on this subject than that of 1848, on which Sir Robert Peel served, and before which M. Guizot, as to the practice in France, and Mr. Curtis, as to the practice in America, gave evidence. That Committee strongly recommended the Government to consider it an important part of their functions to use their influence in regulating the business and proceedings of the House, and he (Mr. Newdegate) believed that they could not better use their power than by adhering to the determination not to allow private Members to usurp the nights allotted to Government business, and, above all by the earlier introduction of such business as they intended to submit to the judgment of Parliament during the Session.

said, he had never known the public business of the House conducted in so unsatisfactory a manner as it had been during the present Session. Hon. Members were called on to assemble at noon, and to continue sitting till 2, 3, and 4 o'clock in the morning; and, after all, there was no time properly to examine the great measures before the House. Consequently a great portion of one Session after another was occupied in amending Bills passed in the antecedent Session. It was the end of July and the Miscellaneous Estimates were scarcely commenced. There was a period when the Government agreed to the principle which the late Mr. Brotherton insisted upon, that no new business should be brought forward after 12 o'clock at night, and then time was not wasted, as it had been in the present Session, by sittings continued until 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning. He entirely concurred in the Motion of the hon. Member for Dumfries. The House had been sitting for six months, and what had it to show for its labours except some important measures brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer? He often felt for the drudgery which Mr. Speaker was called on to undergo, and the noble Lord at the head of the Government exhibited an extraordinary example of industry by sitting in the House till the latest hour. What was wanted, however, was not mere drudgery, but that the business of the country should be conducted on rational principles.

said, he regretted as much as any one the great waste of time which had taken place in the conduct of business. There were certain constitutional rules which should be respected, such as that the statement of grievances should precede the grant of Supplies, but there were besides such a variety of means of throwing dust in the eyes of the House that the House really could not get on with its business. The statement made yesterday by the noble Lord at the head of the Government would be sympathised in by the whole country. Justice was really not done to the Executive Government for their endeavours to carry on the business, and they were literally prevented from passing great measures by the course of proceedings adopted. He thought the suggestion thrown out by the Secretary of State, respecting a Committee sitting from time to time, of great importance, and he implored the noble Lord at the head of the Government to recommend, with his great influence, some mode of conducting the business of the House which would be satisfactory to the country.

said, he felt bound to declare, though no one was more convinced than himself of the great waste of time which constantly took place in that House, that he should witness with great regret any curtailment of those opportunities for discussion which any hon. Member might think it his duty to avail himself of. It must be recollected that the frequent opportunities for discussion, to which allusion had been made, were intended principally for the protection of Members sitting on the Opposition side of the House; and, though it did not now seem likely that a necessity would occur for the use of these' opportunities, still there was no knowing how soon an altered state of things might arise. He should, therefore, be sorry to give up those opportunities, either for discussion, or even for impeding the progress of public business, should a sense of public duty compel hon. Members, under peculiar circumstances, to resort to them. He doubted, too, whether any regulations which might be made would not be easily evaded, and he thought it would be better if the House could be prevailed on to return a little more to what used to be the custom for many years after the period when he first sat in Parliament. There now existed a system of constantly adjourning debates, and with what result? Simply this, that there never was the same audience on two nights, and the House, on every night after the first night's discussion, was almost empty for three or four hours while Members went away to dinner. Such a state of things was most discreditable, and must strike with astonishment the strangers who were permitted to be present to hear the debates. The result of this system of constantly adjourning debates was not to bring fresh light on the discussion, but to give, night after night, an opportunity for prepared speeches to be made by hon. Members, who, perhaps, never heard a word of the first discussion, and who, the moment after making their speeches, went away, and were seen no more until the division. Formerly, no hon. Member thought of speaking on an important question without listening to the debate upon it, or of making an attack on the conduct of any one without waiting to hear his reply. Now everything was changed in that respect. He believed that if hon. Members could only be convinced that these adjournments of debates only wasted time, and could be induced not to speak except when absolutely necessary, it would tend more to remedy the inconvenience now experienced than any compulsory rules such as were now proposed. He thought some alteration in the mode of managing the business was absolutely necessary, and he would not object to the proposition of the right hon. Secretary of State for a Committee, though he doubted whether it would he the means of introducing an efficacious remedy.