said, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps had been taken, or were intended to be taken, by Government to induce the Government of the United States to compensate Mr. Geddes, Her Majesty's Consul, for the loss of property at Greytown?

stated in reply, that it was the opinion of the Government, formed on legal advice, that in the case of regular hostilities by a Foreign Power, no compensation could be demanded for any loss of property which might be occasioned thereby. It was impossible, therefore, to make any official application to the Government of the United States in favour of Mr. Geddes.

Sir, I gave notice last night that I should take an opportunity, before the House separated, and on this evening, to call the attention of the House to the position in which we stand with regard to a matter which has excited great interest during the Session—to the question of the Excise duties on paper, and the effect which the course taken upon that measure has had upon the position and privileges of the House. I cannot say that I have any very definite question to put to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. What I want rather is to make two or three suggestions to the Government and to the House. I have abstained, since the discussion on the Resolutions proposed by the noble Lord at the head of the Government, from taking any part in this matter, because I did not think it wise for an independent Member to submit to the House a Resolution, or to ask the House to come to any decision or division upon a Resolution, as I was sensible that unless the Government took part in such a division, and in favour of such Resolution, in all probability the division—if the House were to divide—might place the House in a worse position, with regard to this question, than it occupied after having accepted unanimously the three Resolutions which were proposed by the noble Lord. I do not know whether the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone (Lord Fermoy) is in the House, but if he had been here I should have suggested to him that he should not persevere in the proposition he has given notice of, or ask the House to divide upon it, unless, at any rate, he had the consent and support of the Government, which would enable that Resolution to be carried. I am myself so conscious of the delicacy of the position in which we are placed that I would much rather stay where we are, awkward as is the position, than do anything to make it worse, and therefore I have come forward with a view of making two or three suggestions, which, I think, if the Government and the House were willing, might still lie adopted with a view to save us from the painful and perilous predicament in which we have been placed during the Session. Now, I think it is worth while for a moment to advert to the two parties who may be said to be damaged by the present state of things. Those persons throughout the country who are engaged in a most important trade—the manufacture of paper—have themselves suffered grievously from the transactions of this Session, and I think the House of Commons itself has suffered not less. When the Session commenced—when the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced his Budget—his proposition was this, that the Excise duties upon paper should be entirely abolished, and the import duties on paper also abolished. Papermakers, therefore, would by that proposition have got rid of the grievance of the excise, and would have been of course deprived, for the future, of whatever advantage they had in the protection they enjoyed in an import duty over and above the amount of Excise duty. Well, what have we done? The conjoint action—it was not exactly a conjoint action of Parliament—is this, that the papermakers are left with the grievance of the excise; but they have been deprived of whatever advantage they enjoyed from what they considered to be a compensating protection. Now, I am of opinion that an excise—that the grievance of an excise—cannot well be measured in so many farthings per lb. in respect to paper, or anything else. I think it one of those tyrannies which never ought to have been established, and never should be tolerated in a free country. Men in the pursuit of their daily and honest industry should not be tracked about, interfered with, overlooked—and, I will say, damaged in a very large degree—by officers of Government, who have no natural right whatever to he upon their premises or take any part whatever in their transactions. But these paper manufacturers are in this unfortunate position at this moment. I have heard some people say, "Serve them right, for they have not shown themselves very wise during this Session." I admit they have not been very wise, but I am afraid men are very seldom wise in their own affairs, and also not willing generally to take good advice. The papermakers committed this unfortunate mistake. To maintain their protection they went into partnership with The Times newspaper. The Times was afraid of the cheap papers, and the papermakers were afraid of free trade in paper, so they clubbed their interests together. There has been nothing for many years which has been so obnoxious and so worrying—I will undertake to say—for Members of Parliament as this partnership action of The Times newspaper and the paper manufacturers. No Member could get into the House or out of the House without having them upon him, and I am told that hon. Members on this side of the House—there may have been some on the other side—have been canvassed by persons connected with the staff of The Times newspaper, even from the hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter) down through all the ranks of its editors, and I do not know-that there is anybody connected with the paper that has not been canvassing with regard to this matter. We have had, at the same time, as the House knows, in the columns of that journal, the most violent and malignant attacks on the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as if the right hon. Gentleman were about to do something contrary to the public interest in abolishing the paper excise, and in allowing foreign paper to be introduced. That, I have no doubt, is the secret of the abundant malice with which the right hon. Gentleman has been attacked during the whole of this Session by the writers in the columns of The Times. But passing all this by—and I am willing to forgive and forget it all—there remains this fact; that this large industry—these 300 or 400 firms in the United Kingdom—are at this moment suffering, or will be after the 15th of this month, from an excise which is kept on solely by the authority of the House of Lords, under circumstances most grievous, because it is admitted on all hands that the excise cannot, and will not, be fairly levied. There are exemptions which act with great injustice to persons who are not exempt, and there are certain articles which the courts in one case have decided to be paper, and in another case have de- cided not to be paper; and it is extremely difficult for the Inland Revenue officers to know whether certain articles ought to be charged with excise or not. Well, that being so, I say that these paper manufacturers have a real and solid complaint to make to Parliament on account of the position in which they are placed. The Inland Revenue Department has condemned this tax; the House of Commons has passed a Resolution—and I call the attention of the noble Lord at the head of the Government especially to this—the House of Commons passed a Resolution two years ago that this Excise duty on paper was not a fit matter from which to raise a permanent revenue. Therefore, it has been condemned in a most emphatic manner, even before this Session commenced. This Session has seen it not only condemned by the House of Commons, but a Bill has passed through all its stages in this House abolishing the excise, and on the 15th of August—some day next week—that excise was to have terminated, 'and so it would have terminated but for that which has not happened before in this country for 500 years past. But for the interference of a branch of the Legislature which has never heretofore, within historic period, done such an act as this—but for that interference, unexpected by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and hardly to be credited throughout the country, this excise would have been abolished. Now, however, instead of that, from those papermakers, after next week, will be collected about £30,000 per week, or £1,500,000 per annum in the shape of a tax for the public Exchequer—a tax which this House has not only not sanctioned, but which it has condemned emphatically, and has passed a Bill to repeal, and they will be paying it solely by the authority of a vote of the other House of Parliament. I say, then, that we ought, as the House of Commons, to take into consideration the grievous nature of the injustice which is inflicted upon this important industry, and it is partly on this account that I have risen for the purpose of asking the House if it is not worth while to consider whether a course might not he taken even now, before the Session of Parliament ends, to put an end to what I think is a monstrous injury to a most important class of manufacturers in this country. But then conies the other and I admit a much greater evil—one in which we ought to take more interest—and that is the damage which this House has suffered by the course which this affair has taken. Now, let me appeal to hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, because they, from their silence, are supposed to have approved what has been done—I appeal to them as Members of this House, and as representatives, at least, of some portions of the English people—do they not feel that the House of Commons, now, within a fortnight, it may be, of the end of the Session, is in a very different position with regard to its rights and its power over the taxation of the country, from that which it occupied when the Session opened? I think it is impossible, whatever any man may say, as to the paper excise, as to the Government, or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or the House of Lords—I think it impossible for any man to conceal from himself the fact that the House of Commons at this moment is shorn of a portion of its power, and that it has permitted itself to be hustled out of—if I may use the expression—and deprived of an authority which for 500 years past our predecessors in this House have exercised without contradiction and without control. Now, your Chancellor of the Exchequer—and hon. Gentlemen opposite have shown sometimes not a very favourable feeling towards the Chancellor of the Exchequer this Session—but your Chancellor of the Exchequer, be he the right hon. Gentleman or anybody else, is an officer now, at this moment, in a position inferior to that which he occupied at the commencement of the Session. Both the House and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have been subjected to a new authority, and an authority, I will undertake to say, which, if it be permitted to work, and be not manfully resisted, is one which will bring not only this House, but itself—before any very long period—into great difficulty, and it may be, into serious disasters. I will ask hon. Gentlemen, whether they believe that a majority of the House of Lords is likely to work well in financial questions with the majority of the House of Commons? There has been no Liberal majority in the House of Lords since the Reform Bill, or long before. There is no probability of there being such a Liberal majority. There is every probability that the majority of this House, whatever it call itself, will not be of the same political complexion as the majority of the other House of Parliament. Therefore you are establishing, in this respect, a permanent, a chronic dissension between the two Houses, which may lead to difficulties that every man in the House, I think, would wish to be avoided. If any hon. Gentleman here thinks I am at this period calling the attention of the House to a subject which is not worthy of attention, or which is absolutely settled, I would refer them to the language of Ministers of the Crown in the last discussion, if I am not out of order in so doing. I am, indeed, afraid it is not sufficiently in order, and, therefore, I will not refer to the discussion, but will simply refer to expressions which Ministers of the Crown have used on this subject. The noble Lord at the head of the Government told us that if he thought that course, that is, the course pursued by the House of Lords, was the beginning of a new practice on these questions, he would advise the House to resist it by every constitutional and legal means in its power. But if the noble Lord were to turn back to a man to whose authority he will probably pay some respect—I mean Lord Chatham—he would see that Lord Chatham declared if you admit a principle like this, you may rely upon it that that principle will be constantly put in practice so soon as it can be supported by power. That is precisely the dread which now I have before me, that if this be permitted, so hungry is the appetite for power in all bodies of men, we shall before long have this pleaded as a precedent, and that we shall have the principle supported by power, and that unfortunate state of things which Lord Chatham hoped might never arise will arise under the Government of the noble Lord and by the permission of the Parliament in which we are now sitting. Well, the noble Lord, the Member for the City of London, who is a great authority on questions of this nature, told us that he believed no question so grave had happened in his life time; and he said on one occasion, he considered it equal to a total change in our system of government. It must be a matter of some importance that would draw from the noble Lord—from one so cautious and so experienced—words so grave as those. The Chancellor of the Exchequer evidently held the same opinion, for he said this was a gigantic and dangerous innovation.

I must remind the hon. Gentleman that it is out of order to quote words used in a previous debate during the present Session.

I thank you, Sir, for the intimation; I have no other reference to make to those speeches; and I thought I was not trespassing upon the rules of the House in bringing the evidence of Her Majesty's Ministers to bear in favour of a conclusion at which I wish the Ministers and the House to arrive. The question is what, under the circumstances, have we done? We have passed three Resolutions, very harmless, it may be; but they were introduced in a speech which was far from harmless. If in the search which we made in that Precedents Committee, we had found, within the last fifty years, three cases like this, I will undertake to say that the Committee would have been forced to admit that there were precedents of a very overwhelming description regarding the power of the Lords to deal with questions of this nature. Well, fifty or twenty years hence, if this matter remain as it now stands, there may be another Committee, there may be partisans of the policy of the Lords upon that Committee; they will light upon the Resolutions which the noble Lord has proposed and the House agreed to; but they will say, what matter these Resolutions? The Resolutions of this House or the other do not make a precedent—but the thing done, the final conclusion—where the matter rests—that is the precedent as to the action of the two Houses; and, therefore, they will look upon this as a precedent a hundred times more fatal to the powers of the House of Commons than any of those that were produced by the diligent researches of the officers of this House, and which have been laid upon the table. Now, I may be asked what would I have done in this matter. There are several things which might have been done. If the noble Lord had been a man of the spirit of Chatham, or of the spirit of Canning, in a matter of this nature, he would have come down the day after the rejection of the Paper Duty Abolition Bill, and he would have asked the House—not because the Excise duty on paper was a great question, hut because the rights of the House were something of still greater value—immediately to have suspended its Standing Orders, in order to permit him to pass a new Bill, re-affirming that which had been declared in the Bill just rejected. But the noble Lord was afraid to do this. I am told that there were great doubts whether it could be done. It was said that more money was wanted for the China war, and that you could not ask the House to do this. But after all the money was a mere bagatelle in the £70,000,000 you are voting and spending. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, I think, says it is only £700,000 up to the commencement of the next financial year, and, therefore, it is perfectly idle to say that it was worth while for the sake of that sum to put in jeopardy the rights of the House of Commons, and to resign that authority over the taxation of the country into the hands of the other House, which this House has exercised, without question, for a period of not less than five hundred years. But there was another course, and it is still open, which the noble Lord might take, and for which he could find a most conclusive precedent if he were anxious for it. In the year 1734 there was a case in which the Government of the time wished to save the country gentlemen from the pressure of a heavier land tax, and they agreed to take not less than £1,200,000 for the service of the year out of the Sinking Fund, and apply it to purposes for which, of course, it was not originally intended. When they brought that Bill into the House it consisted only of two clauses. They moved, on going into Committee, that the Committee should be instructed to receive clauses of appropriation; and they hound up the appropriation clause of the year with those two clauses. They took £1,200,000 from the Sinking Fund and appropriated it to the service of the year, and the two matters together in one Bill went up to the House of Lords, and were passed by that House. Well, there is an appropriation Bill to be yet passed by the House of Commons this Session; and I say the House of Commons itself, if it possesses, as Mr. Canning said in 1827, a spark of spirit left in it to maintain its own privileges and rights, will avail itself of that, or of some other equally proper mode, for the purpose of restoring itself, at the end of the Session, to the independent position which it occupied when we met. But there is another mode which I would recommend to the noble Lord. He will see that I am merely offering suggestions for his consideration and for that of his Colleagues in the Cabinet. There is a mode, nearly resembling that which Mr. Canning adopted in 1827. On that occasion the House of Lords rejected, by a substantial alteration, a Bill which modified the duties leviable upon foreign corn. Immediately afterwards—I think the very next day—Mr. Canning came down to this House, and in language of a severity ex- cecding anything that has been used with regard to the Peers during the discussion of this question, asked the House of Commons to take a course to maintain their rights. But he said, as Minister, he felt that it was his duty, if possible, to prevent any collision between the two Houses; and, therefore, he asked the House not to pass exactly the measure which had just been rejected, but to pass another Bill, including its provisions, but limited to a duration of nine months. And I think he expressed a hope that Heaven in the meantime might' grant intelligence and good sense to the legislators in "another place"—so that at the end of nine months they might agree without discussion to that which the Commons had determined on. Now that was in point of fact very much like a Bill of suspension. I would suggest to the noble Lord and his Colleagues, that they might, if they thought proper, introduce into this House a Bill—and I am sure the House would sanction it—for the suspension of the collection of the Excise duties on paper until the month of March or April next, which would allow time when Parliament met again for the reintroduction and passing of a Bill abolishing the Excise duty upon paper for ever; and I think such a course as that would be judicious in every way. There is one other course which might be pursued, and that is the one which was recommended by the hon. Member for Finsbury, at the beginning of these transactions. My hon. Friend proposed a Resolution, and though it was not in a form whip' could be accepted, its intention, the House will remember, was, that steps should be taken—I presume by an address to the Crown—that Parliament should not be prorogued as usual, but adjourned till November, to allow the postponed Bill to be reconsidered by the House of Lords, and by taking up this Bill and passing it, as I believe they would do, to restore harmony between the two Houses. Now both of these two courses—that of suspension, and especially that of adjournment—would be propositions of conciliation as between the two Houses, and not propositions which might be said to bear this character that the House of Commons was endeavouring to override the House of Lords. One of these courses, I think, the Government ought to take, and I believe the House would support them. The Government had just the same fears the other night about that question of seven-eighths of a penny in the pound of Customs' duty on paper. How many weeks did they hesitate in their course respecting his questtion? Nobody knew why they hesitated, unless it was because they doubted whether they could carry their proposals, and did not like to run the risk of defeat. Why, in one night's debate, the argument being triumphantly in their favour, the good sense of the House of Commons gave them a majority which is three times the majority that the noble Lord believed he possessed when first he met Parliament. Sir, I think that if an equally direct course had been pursued with regard to the paper duty abolition, the House of Commons, disregarding the question of £600,000 or £700,000 of revenue, would have risen to the height of the occasion, and would have supported him in maintaining their privileges as representatives of the people. Now, I want to put this question to the House—Are they willing to sustain their rights, or are they willing that the year should be marked by a concession of this dangerous, and even of this ignominious character? The Government is the depositary of the rights of the House; and whatever the Government determines upon a question of this nature the House is generally disposed to follow. If hon. Members have read any foreign newspapers, whether American, French, or Belgian—the newspapers of any country where there is freedom of discussion on subjects of any kind—they will find but one opinion expressed with regard to this question—an opinion that the House of Commons have made a great mistake during this Session; that we have had a fall; that we have not risen from it; and that rights which belong to the representative assembly of a free nation have been needlessly surrendered to a power against which the House of Commons, whenever they choose to meet it, can always fairly assert their rights. As the matter stands, we have not been faithful to those who have sent us here. I believe—I never believed anything with a firmer conviction—that if the noble Lord had dissolved Parliament upon the question of privilege as connected with the Excise duty question, he would have met with a response from all the constituencies of the country, and would have gained a majority such as there has not been in Parliament for many years, to carry out his policy, and to sustain the rights and interests of the House of Commons. I have said I should recommend, as I have recommended my noble Friend (Lord Fermoy), not to ask the House to come to a decision upon any question of this nature. I prefer to remain where we are unless we can take steps in advance, and I am so tender of the rights of the House of Commons that I know of no greater calamity that can happen to the country than that we should impair the confidence which the people should have in us, and that we should lessen our power over the great and constantly increasingly great questions which affect the finances and the taxation of the country. Now, there is such a thing as treason. It is a crime which is probably known to the law of every country. We have it in our law. It is committed generally against a Monarchy or against a State. It may have in it much that is evil, and it may have in it much that is good. Treason of that kind is a crime that may load a man with shame for ever, or it may cover him with lasting renown. But there is another kind of treason, which is treason against a people, which may be committed by a Minister of the Crown, by a consenting Cabinet, and by a compliant Legislative body; but that is a treason which is all evil, which has no good whatever in it; it covers no man or body of men with renown; but it covers them with contempt and infamy, decreed, I believe, by the just judgment of posterity. I hope and pray that when, the impartial pen of history in after times shall tell the story of our doings in this Session of the British Parliament, it may not have to say that the Prime Minister and his colleagues, and the House of Commons supporting them, let down the power of the House of Commons, and sacrificed and betrayed—as I fear we are in danger of sacrificing and betraying—those most solemn and important rights which we are bound to maintain, I undertake to say, by sanctions and engagements stronger than any which oaths can give. We are bound to maintain them by all that our forefathers have done upon this question, and by that which all those who may come after us will have a right to expect at our hands. I ask the noble Lord and the Government a question. I do not say he should answer me now—that he should rise in his place and say, "It is impossible that anything can be done, and that we have given a final opinion upon this matter." The noble Lord is not infallible, any more than any of us, but he might do much to band together those who, for the most part, have cordially supported the Government during this Session; he could do that which would be approved by the great party in the country which has sent us to this House; and I say, moreover, I believe, to the credit of hon. Gentlemen opposite, that if he would do this he would have the support of many on that side, and Parliament would unitedly rejoice that we could separate having left the same powers in the hands of the House of Commons undisputed, uncontrolled, unimpaired as it had when we began the Session.

Sir, I had hoped that the House had sufficiently discussed, and, at all events, disposed of for the present Session, a question which threatened to bring about a serious collision between the two Houses of Parliament. It is allowable, no doubt, for those who, like the hon. Gentleman, entertain very strong and extreme opinions upon this matter, to take advantage of any fair and proper opportunity for impressing those opinions upon the House, and urging that they should be carried into practical execution. But, I must say, if the hon. Gentleman entertains those strong opinions, which he has expressed to-night as to the consequences upon the character of this House, and upon the constitution of the country, which would follow from nothing more being done than that which the House, by a majority of, I believe, 400, agreed to do—it would have better become the hon. Gentleman if he had produced his opinions, and proposed his course of conduct at the time when the matter was under the consideration of the House, when the House was full, when the events were recent in the minds of hon. Members, and when, therefore, this, House was more in a condition to determine, and the country more in a condition to accept a Resolution than they can be at this moment. I think that I performed my duty to this House and the country by the course I conceived it right to recommend the House to pursue; and that opinion has, I think, been confirmed by the immense majority by which those Resolutions were sanctioned. If I had thought that measures such as those to which the hon. Gentleman has adverted as having been adopted by Ministers in former days, would have been proper for this occasion; and that it was necessary to propose them to the House, I trust I should not have required the stimulus of the hon. Gentleman's advice to point out the measures and the course which, as the responsible Minister of the Crown, I should have deemed it my duty to recommend to the House. I did not think the occasion required more than that which I proposed, and which the House adopted. I think we did sufficient to maintain the dignity and assert the privileges of this House of Parliament. But I think that, if there is one thing which is more undignified than another, more humiliating and degrading than another, either to individuals or to assemblies, it is to resort to puling lamentations, to fruitless complaints, well knowing at the time such lamentations are uttered, and such complaints are made, that no practical result can follow, except that of declaring to the whole world that, in the opinion of the speaker, an injury has been sustained for which, at the same time, he admits no remedy can be obtained. I think the hon. Gentleman would better have consulted his own character and the dignity of Parliament—he would have shown more regard for the constitution of the country, if, not choosing to make these proposals when the matter was under consideration—he had been content to let it rest upon what a numerous majority of this House deemed to be a satisfactory footing, and which I take leave to say was approved by the great bulk of the nation. The hon. Gentleman says that if we had dissolved Parliament, and appealed to the country upon this question, we should have had a large majority; but I will tell him that I am of an entirely different opinion. I am persuaded that the country would not have supported a Ministry who deemed that, under the circumstances of the case, it was a question upon which to place the issue before the electors of the country. I am not prepared for any of those courses which the hon. Gentleman has proposed. Towards the conclusion of his speech he has been pleased to tell us what, in his opinion, constitutes the crime of treason. There are those who think that men who would wish to overthrow, one by one, every component part of the institutions of the country—who, whether in Parliament or out of Parliament, in their minds conceive plans, which, if carried into execution, must come under that denomination, deserve to have that appellation applied to them. But all I take leave to say is, that when the hon. Gentleman says that the course which the Government have taken, is, in his opinion, a treason against the people which would cover that Ministry with contempt and infamy—I say I leave with confidence the question between the hon. Gentleman and myself in regard to this matter to the deliberate judgment of posterity—aye to the judgment of the present time and of all future ages—and I am not at all afraid as to which of us two will be deemed to be deserving of the epithets which he has bestowed upon me.

said, that as he had been appealed to by the hon. Member for Birmingham with regard to the Instruction he had put on the Notice Paper, he thought it only fair to state the course he meant to pursue upon the paper duty.

said, the noble Lord was entirely out of order in explaining what he intended to do in regard to a Motion of which he had given notice.

said, after the speech made by the noble Lord at the head of the Government, and the very able speech made by his hon. Friend below him (Mr. Bright), he had a right to make a few remarks. He thought, since the question had been raised in the House, and particularly since the Resolutions of the noble Lord had been carried, that the House of Commons and the other House of Parliament did not stand in a satisfactory position. Either the House of Lords had infringed the privileges of the House of Commons, or it had not. If it had not infringed the privileges of the House of Commons, the Resolutions of the noble Lord were superfluous. If the privileges of the House had been infringed, the passing of the Resolutions had not redressed the position in which they were placed; and therefore he thought it would be more expedient that they should take some further movement. The noble Lord at the head of the Government in his speech said his own opinion, and the opinion of the Government, with regard to the present position of the House, was unchanged. The noble Lord had declared his determination not to take any further steps; and therefore, if other steps were taken, they would be met with the united opposition of the Government. His hon. Friend below him (Mr. Bright) occupied a very important position in the House of Commons as regarded this question; he also occupied a very prominent position in the country with regard to many questions. The hon. Gentleman was followed by a number of Gentlemen who placed implicit confidence in him. He (Lord Fermoy) was in this position. If he pursued the course of which he had given notice, he would be opposed by Her Majesty's Government; and therefore, in order not to inconvenience hon. Members, and in deference to the advice of his hon. Friend below him, and others in whom he had confidence, he felt he had no alternative but to abandon the question during the present Session.

said, he rose to call the attention of the House to the enclosure, which was rapidly going forward, of forest ground in the neighbourhood of London. He might say at once that he found, as usual, the blame shifted from one Department to another, so that he could not fully ascertain who really was responsible. The first question which he would ask the right hon. First Commissioner of Works was, by whose authority those enclosures were carried out? He wished to ask next, whether the Government intended to continue them. Epping, Hainault, and Wanstead forests formed a range of forest reaching up to within six miles of the east end of London. They were crossed by several lines of railway from different points of the East end. They were, therefore, singularly accessible to the hundreds of thousands of hard-worked shopkeepers and working men in that aggregation of great cities, Spitalfields, Whitechapel, Mile End, Stepney, Shoreditch, Hackney, and other parts, crammed with human beings, who were thus provided with noble and beautiful parks, which cost nothing to buy and cost nothing to keep up. He could speak from personal experience of the immense use which was made of them. He understood that last year upwards of 100,000 persons went down by rail alone to enjoy them, and nearly as many more by vans, carts, gigs, and other conveyances. He had spent many summer evenings in those forests, and could only say that he had never seen any spectacle that had given him greater satisfaction than the thousands upon thousands of pallid, over-worked mechanics, with their wives and families, enjoying themselves among these beautiful glades. On Sundays, especially, there used to he tens of thousands diverting themselves, some quietly, some noisily, but all happily and harmlessly, and inhaling health to body and soul. But all this was now rapidly coming to a close. These lovely forests had by ill-luck fallen into the hands of red-tapists of the deepest die. At the very time when they were spending hundreds of thousands of pounds to form and maintain parks for the people, at that very time the authorities, whoever they might be, had chosen to sell the Crown rights over these natural parks, the delight and comfort of hundreds of thousands of Londoners, and which cost nothing whatever for their maintenance, There might be some shadow of excuse if they had sold those rights for an important consideration. But the fact was that the Crown rights over Wanstead Forest—the loveliest part and the nearest to town—were actually sold for less than £3,000 to the EARL of Mornington. For that wretched pittance the Commissioners had for ever deprived the public of as delightful a part as could be found. He had visited Wanstead Forest the other day, and was filled with indignation to find the trees cut down, the ground ploughed up, and great palings erected to keep the public off from what they had lately possessed and so highly valued. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would put a stop to what ho considered one of the stupidest of the stupidities that had been done in the present day.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury on what principle the Woods and Forests having taken 1,873 acres of the King's Woods of the late Forest of Hainault, in full satisfaction of all Her Majesty's rights over the said King's Woods, now claim a further portion of the residue of the King's Woods that the Crown gave up for the benefit of the Commoners; and also on what grounds they included in the Bill, which they promised the Commoners of Chigwell and Lam-bourn to bring in for the division of the part of the King's Woods so given up by the Crown, the manorial wastes of Chigwell and Lambourn, and this without the consent of the Commoners of Chigwell and Lambourn?

said, it devolved on him, and not upon the First Commissioner of Works, to reply to the two questions put respecting these forests, because they were not public parks but private portions of the hereditary estates of the Crown. If they were public parks, he admitted that in many respects it would be desirable to preserve them for the purpose of affording recreation to the public. But being private property, very different considerations supervened. Those grounds were to all in tents and purposes the property of the Crown. That being so, it was the duty I of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests to manage those estates for the benefit of I the property, as might be the case with any other private property. As regarded the last question relating to the division of the forest of Hainault, it was partly a question of the rights of private property. The rights of the Crown were of two sorts. The Crown had a right of soil and a right of forest over a large portion of the forest known by the name of the King's woods, and the Crown was proprietor of certain enclosed land in the adjoining parishes, possessing the ordinary rights of common over the unenclosed land in the neighbourhood. Some time ago an arrangement was come to by which the right of soil and of forest in the King's-wood was commuted into a specific grant of upwards of 1,800 acres; but it was duly recited in the Act that the rights of common of the Crown were not in any way affected. In 1851 another Act was passed for apportioning a large mass of common land, in which the Crown obtained a certain interest as one of the landowners in the district. The Commissioner appointed under that Act made a certain award; but an appeal from his decision, raising the question of the legal right of private individuals, was now pending in the Court of Common Pleas. The case of Epping Forest was somewhat different. The Crown had no right there over the soil, but simply a right of forest. That right was for a long time quite unproductive, and the Commissioners of Woods thought it their duty to make it profitable for the estate of the Crown by selling it to the adjoining proprietors. They were doing nothing themselves to enclose any portion of the forest, hut by the sale of the right of forest they had indirectly put the adjoining proprietors in a position to obtain enclosures, which might not otherwise have been available. He admitted, however, that it was highly desirable that some portion of the district should be preserved for the use of the public, and, although he saw considerable difficulties in the way, he should be happy to communicate with the Commissioners for the purpose of ascertaining whether, consistently with the rights of the Crown, a satisfactory arrangement could not be made.

moved the second reading of this Bill.

said, he would propose that the Bill should be read a second time on that day three months. He submitted that no grounds existed for asking for the strong repressive powers which this measure would confer on the Government. They had the evidence of the Prime Minister himself, and of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, that the people of Ireland were well affected. He admitted there had been times in Ireland when, owing to misgovernment, it was necessary that the Executive should be armed with stringent repressive powers; hut, although the misgovernment still remained, the diminution of crime and the absence of outrage rendered quite unjustifiable the proposal to renew the obnoxious Act of 1856. In short, there was no country in Europe in which the records of crime were so small as in Ireland, and in support of the statement he referred to the addresses delivered in various counties by the Judges of assize during the late circuits in Ireland. He quoted the addresses of the Judges to the Grand Juries in Monaghan, Roscommon, Clare, Meath, Limerick, Wexford, King's County, Westmeath, Down, Wicklow, Leitrim, and Waterford. In all those places the Judges congratulated the Grand Juries on the lightness of the calendars. Under these circumstances, it was a strange proceeding on the part of the Government to ask for repressive powers from Parliament.

seconded the Amendment.

submitted that it was impolitic on the part of the Government to press this measure, because by doing so they would give the people of Ireland to understand that they had no claim upon their affection, and could not trust them.

said, he wished to ask why the Bill was brought forward, because, as far as his information went, there was no necessity whatever for it. In every county in Ireland the Judges had congratulated the Grand Juries on the absence of crime and the great contentment of the people, and he was, therefore, astonished at a measure which, as far as Ireland was concerned, suspended the British Constitution. Moreover, the Act itself was totally unintelligible. It vested powers in the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland of a most objectionable character. Not only had he the power of transferring forces—police and military—from one place to another, whenever in his judgment he deemed the peace to be in danger of being disturbed; but he had the power also of levying a tax for their maintenance. He also had the power of ordering any person suspected of possessing arms to be searched, and likewise the power of ordering prisoners to be moved from any one part of the country to another. Now, was that the case in any other part of the United Kingdom? For these reasons he should support the Amendment.

denied that the Peace Preservation Act had anything to do with the pacification of the country, and the prevention, detection, or punishment of crime. It was often a mere excuse for laziness on the part of those whose duty it was to enforce the general law. Wherever the ordinary powers of the law had been put into force, they had been found quite effectual. Within the last few years there had been in England crimes of greater magnitude than in the sister country, such as the Chartist riots, the insurrection at Monmouth, Thorn at Canterbury, and the Stockport riots. He repeated that this measure operated only as an excuse for apathy and negligence on the part of the authorities. For an offence which in England would only give rise to the interference of the ordinary authorities, all Ireland was degraded in the eyes of civilized nations by an Act which, from long experience, he believed to be utterly useless and inefficient. Believing that no case had been made out for this exceptional and degrading legislation, and that in point of number, magnitude, and atrocity, crimes in England had, within a given period, exceeded those in Ireland, he should also support the Amendment.

said, ho hoped that it would not be considered an insult to the people of Ireland that he should propose to continue for a limited period an Act which experience had shown to be productive of good effects. He gladly recognized the fact of the satisfactory state of Ireland in respect of crime; but he could not understand why the continuance of these powers should be construed into an impeachment of the people of that country. While he admitted with great pleasure the satisfactory state of Ireland in that respect, he could not overlook the fact that there were circumstances occasionally occurring in Ireland which did not occur in this island—circumstances which it was the duty of the Government to guard against in the interest of the peaceable and well-disposed portion of the community. They had all heard of recent occurrences, into which he would not then enter, and he had received information that "there was a sham fight, at which 500 or 600 persons were present, with an immense quantity of arms." That was contained in a Report from a Government officer, dated August 4, 1860. [Mr. BUTT: Where was that?] At Scarvagh. The Bill which he asked the House to accept contained only two powers—one to enable the Government to take away arms in proclaimed districts; and the other to impose the expense of an additional police upon the proclaimed district. He thought there was nothing unreasonable or unjust in either proposition, but that both powers were essentially for the interest of Ireland, as tending to insure the maintenance of peace and tranquillity. It was said that the powers of the ordinary law were ample; and that might be if the object in view was only to punish crime; whereas the powers of the Bill he proposed were intended and calculated rather to prevent crime. What had been the state of the town of Belfast in 1857? There were continuous riots, which were not put an end to by either police or military, but by the simple proclamation of the town. He repeated that the Continuance Bill before the House could not be regarded as an insult to the people of Ireland, but as a protection for the peaceful and quiet inhabitants. It was said, too, that the police had no influence on the repression of crime; but what had been the case in King's County? At the Summer Assizes of 1858, it was determined to withdraw the additional constabulary. In 1859, there were no less than forty-three serious outrages; and in December, 3 859, the magistrates applied for additional police. The Chief Justice, in the present year, noticed the heavy nature of the calendar, but congratulated the county upon an increased activity on the part of the police, and, consequently, greater success in the; detection of crime. The principle of the Bill was, first, that a district should be held responsible for any extraordinary amount of crime committed within it; and next, when large numbers of persons possessed arms which it was likely they would use to the injury of themselves or others; then there was a power not of punishment, but of prevention. It was only desired to continue the provisions of the present Act for a limited period, and that there was no wish on the part of the Government to enforce those powers unnecessarily was evident from the fact that at present there was not a single constable charged upon any district in Ireland. He hoped, therefore, the House would assent to the second reading of the Bill, which the Government had felt it their duty to introduce to meet any occasional outbreaks.

observed, that the sincerity of the right hon. Gentleman would he tested by one question. Had Scarvagh been proclaimed?

said, that Scarvagh was situate on the borders of Down and Armagh, and the whole of the latter county was under proclamation.

said, he would then further ask, whether it was intended to take away arms from the people in the North of Ireland? He did not believe it, for the Protestants had never been deprived of their arms. This Bill, which had been renewed from time to time, was originally that Crime and Outrage Act of 1847 which, like the Coercion Act of 1841, was passed to meet anticipated disturbances. But now there was no such state of things, and he could not 3ee what necessity there was for this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to the King's County; but the reason why crime had diminished there was not the proclamation, but the greater attention which the police had paid to their duties. The disturbances at Belfast in 1857 were traceable to the fact that the police of that town were appointed by the corporation, and were all connected with the Orange body. The Bill was distasteful and unnecessary. The argument that it was intended to prevent crime was the old argument which was employed to stifle liberty everywhere. The true principle to go upon in regard to Ireland was, to allow to the people their common and ordinary rights, and when they abused those rights then to punish them. But let them not, on the pretence of preventing crime, cast a slur upon four or five millions of people, and make it a misdemeanour for any man to carry a gun or pistol in any district which the Lord Lieutenant may have proclaimed. He trusted that the Government would reconsider the whole matter, and satisfy themselves that there was really no necessity for a renewal of the Act.

said, that when he heard the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland declare that Ireland was a peaceable country, and that this measure was taken as a matter of precaution, he thought the right hon. Gentleman would have also said that it was the intention of the Secretary for the Home Department to have introduced so admirable and excellent a Bill into England. If that were not done, he (Mr. Butt) asked the right hon. Gentleman what had he said to justify his exceptional legislation for Ireland? He (Mr. Butt) could term this measure nothing but a coercion Act. It belonged to that code of legislation which a great Irishman in that House had stigmatized as "Algerine." The whole purport of the Act was, that no Irishman should be entitled to have a gun in his House unless he obtained the permission of the Lord Lieutenant. The only justification offered for this Bill was the fact that 700 or 800 persons assembled at a place in the county Down, and had a sham fight, but which was followed by no breach of the peace. He asked was there ever heard such a justification for such an Act? Assize after assize in Ireland, the Judges congratulated the people on the diminution of crime, and it was under such circumstances that the right hon. Gentleman asked the House to renew an Act, the preamble of which set forth that it was necessary because, "crime and outrage are generally prevalent in Ireland." Measures such as that before the House were mischievous to the peace of Ireland, unless some strong necessity was shown for it. Unhappily, there was a tendency in Ireland, fostered by misgovernment, to throw everything upon the Government and to do nothing for themselves. It was a tendency which unhappily prevailed through many departments of Irish business, and therefore, the moment they told a magistrate of a county that when an outraged occurred, instead of exerting the powers of common law, he had nothing to do but to call for measures of coercion, he (Mr. Butt) said it was a premium upon that tendency which of all others it was their duty to discourage. It appeared from a return of the number of counties in Ireland that had been proclaimed that nearly every one had at one time or other been subjected to that indignity; and in a large proportion of cases the reason assigned for the step was of the most frivolous kind. It was an accusation against the Austrian Government in Italy that a native was liable to punishment who had arms in his house without the licence of the Government; yet that was the system which it was proposed to revive in Ireland. This measure was proposed in 1848, renewed in 1852, again in 1856, and now in 1860 it was again proposed to renew it for two years more. No one could doubt that in 1862 the Chief Secretary for Ireland of the day would again come down and propose that the Bill should be, as a matter of course, renewed again. He asked English as well as Irish Members—Protestants as well as Roman Catholics—whether any justification had been shown for continuing this Algerine measure in a time of profound tranquillity? He would make the Chief Secretary for Ireland a proposal which must be admitted to be a reasonable one. If the Government would limit the operation of the Bill to a few months, and let it expire on the 1st of May next, so that the House would have an opportunity of discussing the Bill in the month of April, and not in the month of August, he would not object to the reenactment of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had attempted to justify this Bill in consequence of a sham fight. But what was a Government worth if it could not prevent a few hundred men from having a sham fight in Ireland? The sooner those who made this admission gave up the Irish Government the better. In 1846 a similar Act broke up the strongest Government this country had seen for many years. Lord J. Russell, who then came in, proposed an Arms Act, which was to expire on the 1st of May, but at the close of the Session he was obliged to give up that measure. He called upon the House to declare that the day was gone by when Coercion Acts were required for Ireland.

said, he could not congratulate his hon. and learned Friend on the consistency of his speech, because, after speaking of this as an Algerine Act, a measure of coercion, an insult to Ireland, and a suspension of the Constitution, his hon. and learned Friend ended by proposing that this measure, introduced, as he said, without any justification or reason, should be enacted for the whole of the ensuing winter. When the hon. and learned Member read to the House a portion of a return, he scarcely acted quite fairly to a preceding Government: for he omitted the fact that the proclamations had been withdrawn.

I beg pardon; they have not been withdrawn.

said, many of the proclamations had been withdrawn. The proclamation, for instance, with regard to Cork was withdrawn in 1851. The hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. Longfield) had complained of the inefficiency of the local and stipendiary magistrates in Ireland. Ho differed with the hon. Gentleman on that point, and thought his remark most unjust to the Magistracy of Ireland. The hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. M. Mahon) had stated that if there were as efficient a police force in Ireland as in England, all crime and outrage would be detected and prevented. He (Mr. Deasy) held in his hand a resolution passed at a meeting of the magistrates of Tipperary, presided over by Lord Ha-warden, declaring that the present tranquillity of the country was owing to the efficiency of the police. He believed the Irish constabulary to be as efficient in the detection of crime as any men could be. The Bill had excited displays of feeling not warranted by its provisions, or by the circumstances under which it was introduced. In 1846, when the Peel Government was displaced, there was, in consequence, a cessation of the provisions which had previously existed restricting the use of fire-arms. But, in 1848, the Whig Government, which had succeeded to power, introduced a Bill reimposing the restrictions; and they had been continued by every successive Government from that time to the present. Speaking on his official responsibility, he believed that the rejection of the present Bill would be attended with mischievous consequences, and that the security of life and property during the coming winter might be seriously endangered if the House were to refuse to the existing Government those powers which Parliament had conceded to successive administrations and which had never been abused. Nothing was further from his intentions than to appeal to religious prejudices, but there were two grounds upon which the Government had a right to ask for a continuance of the Act of 1856—first, the unfortunate excitement which at present prevailed in the north; and, secondly, the existence of the Ribbon confederacy in many districts of Ireland. The Ribbon confederacy was gradually being suppressed, but if the House rejected the present Bill it would spring up again with renewed vigour. King's County and Westmeath might be mentioned as districts where Ribbonism existed. What was the state of things in the north? lie recently received a report, stating that an assemblage of Roman Catholics, armed, had created terror among the Protestants, and had produced a counter assemblage of armed Protestants in the neighbourhood of Armagh. Was that a state of things which, particularly in the present condition of Ireland, ought to be allowed to continue? Without the powers now sought the Government would be unable to put a stop to it, and therefore he hoped the House would read the Bill a second time.

said, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had defended the unpaid magistracy, the stipendiary magistrates, and the police—a proof that the ordinary law was sufficient for the repression of crime. Every Judge in every assize town concurred in stating that the country was unusually free from crime. Where then was the justification for the Bill? It was said certain things might happen next winter; but there was nothing in the present state of the country to render such occurrences probable. If the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. and learned Gentleman had been out of office, they would have opposed the Bill vehemently. [Mr. DEASY: I supported the Bill of Lord Derby's Government.] He must contend that the facts cited by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cardwell) were proof that there was no necessity for the Bill. He said that the Ribbon conspiracy was dying out. If the police and magistrates were so efficient, why could not they put it down altogether? It had been suggested that the Bill should be accepted, if its operation were limited to the 1st of May next, hut although he had no sympathy with crime or criminals, he would oppose the renewal of the Act for a single day. Whatever the intention of the Government, the Bill was a practical insult to the country. The opinions of the Judges cut the ground from under the feet of the Government. It was a lamentable comment on English Government in Ireland, that after sixty years of the Union, such a Bill as this should be necessary. Were a case made out he would vote for the Bill; but as it was, ho considered it wholly unnecessary and mischievous. He did not believe that the magistrates and police had been rendered more efficient by this Bill; it was rather attributable to a rebuke by the Lord Chief Justice from the Bench. Because there were a few isolated crimes in Ireland, was the whole country to be stigmatized and scandalized in the eyes of Europe? Were there no crimes in this country? Look at the Road murder. Had not the police and the most intelligent persons been baffled in the discovery of the murderer? And yet who would propose that all England should be stigmatized on that account? The Bill was a piece of insulting irritating legislation; it had done no good, and was a disgrace to the Government.

said, he did not agree with the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland that a meeting of armed persons, threatening to the public peace, could not be prevented without the provisions of the present Bill. By the common law any meeting, especially a meeting of armed persons threatening to the public peace, was illegal, and the magistrates had the power to put a stop to such meeting. No exceptional laws were required for that purpose; the common law was sufficient to preserve the peace, except in cases of an extraordinary description. Now, did such cases exist in Ireland? The county of Louth, in which the borough he had the honour to represent (Dundalk) was situated, though it was perfectly tranquil and peaceable, was a proclaimed county, not, as was stated, on account of any particular crime, but of confederate societies. Now, he did not believe there were any Ribbon Societies in Dundalk, and that was confirmed by the fact that of eleven men who had been arrested and tried there on the charge of being Ribbonmen every one of them was acquitted. Throughout Ireland no reason could be adduced for the continuance of this exceptional law. They were often told about tyrannical proceedings in foreign countries, and if they had heard that such a law existed, say in Italy, to what a great deal of declamation it would give rise! Hon. Gentlemen should look at home. He objected to the measure, because it was unnecessary, unjustifiable, and insulting; because it gave the people to understand that the Government did not trust them, and, in fact, treated them as criminals; and because the Government thereby stimulated the very crime they vainly attempted to extinguish.

said, he thought he should fail to act a manly part if he concealed his opinions on that question. He should support the Government in the course which they proposed. He agreed that exceptional laws were objectionable, and that the burden of proving their necessity lay on those who proposed them. But such proof might be furnished. The hon. Gentleman had referred to the county of Louth. In 1852, when he (Mr. Whiteside) was Solicitor General, and was on that circuit, he was waited on privately by a grand juror, who said, "My life is in danger; every hour of my life I am a miserable man. I have received notice that I am to be shot." This gentleman, in the management of an estate, had done something which offended the confederacy, and he received notice—they were courteous then—that he would be murdered. Prom the circumstances that transpired at the time, he (Mr. Whiteside) believed that it was not the grand juror whom it was intended to kill, but a relative of the present Under Secretary of the Colonies, than whom he did not believe a more amiable gentleman could be found, and there were several other gentleman in Louth whom it was also intended to murder. It was necessary to institute a prosecution, and an opportunity was afforded. Three men came to murder a gentleman whom they did not know. The difficulty was not to kill the wrong man, because that would render it necessary to kill the right man afterwards, so they got hold of a railway labourer, who was at work near at hand. This man was well paid, well fed, and clothed, and he was to point out the victim to the persons who were sent to hill him. The labourer did as he was requested, and the men dogged Mr. Eastwood's steps as he was going home at night, until, finding a favourable opportunity for their purpose they sprang upon him. But although armed they did not use their arms. The place in which they committed the deed was of a populous character, and they feared that if they had resorted to firearms disagreeable consequences might ensue to themselves; so they determined to stone him to death. As ho lay upon the ground, however, one of the men plucked from his pocket his gold watch, and gave it to the railway labourer for the civility with which he had assisted their designs. The man concealed the watch in a feather bed; the police discovered the watch there, and arrested him. He disclosed all the facts of the case; the murderers were arrested, tried, convicted, and executed. During that trial the whole nature of the Ribbon confederacy was disclosed. The law was put in force; the county of Louth was proclaimed. The hon. Baronet was right in saying that crime had ceased in the county, but it ceased by reason of the vigorous enforcement of the law and by the application of the powers of this Act—an Act which every gentleman of every persuasion who had any property in the county wished to see enforced, if they desired to retain their property or their lives. He believed that no Government would ask for powers of this kind unless it were necessary. The prosecution of Ribbon men at the last assizes had been adverted to. The Judge had tried the case fairly, and, although the men got off, that by no means proved that the confederacy did not exi3t. The hon. Gentleman had asked what would be said if there were such a law in Italy. There were strange laws in Italy, and, taking all in all, he should prefer to take the Parliament and system of England rather than all the advantages enjoyed in any part of Italy. With a free press and a free Parliament to point out grievances and rectify any evil, there was no danger of the abuse of such a law as the present. For a short time it might be necessary to pass such a Bill. He had refused for a long while to believe in the insurrectionary movement in the county of Cork; but what were the circumstances of that affair? A man sent to Lord Eglinton a long case and a letter, and inside the case was an improved model of the old Irish pike. The writer said in the letter, "It is the only-model I have," and using a well-known Irish term—"It is a needle you will find sharp and penetrating, and I recommend you to get a stock made, for they will be useful." Other persons swore that at night they had seen by the light of the moon bayonets glistening, men actually under arms, and had heard the word of command given. All that was proved at the trial. The men prosecuted were convicted, and the Judge pronounced a sentence of fourteen years' penal servitude, for he said, in passing sentence, "conspiracy struck at the root of government, and must be checked." It could not he said that the law of this country, particularly when it approached to treason, was enforced with severity. On the contrary, so safe was the monarchy in the hearts of the people that no offence was more leniently regarded. The hon. Member for Dungarvan was right in saying that there were many counties in Ireland in which scarcely any crime appeared to have been committed at the last assizes. Well, if the hon. Gentleman could show that the Government were about to apply the present Act to those counties ho would vote against it. Something, however, must be trusted to the discretion of the Government. They must give to every Government the credit of believing that they would not pervert the law or act despotically; and, although he was opposed to the present Government, he did not believe they would act in such a manner—least of all did he believe that the law officers of the Crown would act otherwise than from a paramount sense of duty. That was a matter in which he disclaimed anything like party feeling. He was prepared to leave it to the judgment and discretion of the Irish Government whether the Bill ought to be renewed or not for a short time, feeling satisfied that they would use the powers intrusted to them with moderation and forbearance.

held that it was a serious matter to apply exceptional legislation to one part of the United Kingdom. It was melancholy to think that, while England and Scotland was allowed to join in the Volunteer movement for the defence of the country, it should be considered necessary to prevent the people of Ireland from testifying their loyalty and patriotism in the same way. The Judges on circuit were unanimous in congratulating the country on the absence of agrarian outrage; and, in order to instance any cases of the kind, the right hon. Gentleman opposite was driven to ransack the annals of the past. The only justification for the measure was the unfortunate religious contests which were prevalent in certain parts of Ireland; and he believed that these differences were attributable solely to the distinction which was drawn by the laws and institutions of the country between people of different religions. In the Colonies, where no such distinctions were established, Irish Protestants and Roman Catholics lived together in peace and harmony. If the Government believed that these religious disputes could only be suppressed by the continuation of this Act, he would not venture to oppose it; but he hoped that when the time came for the next renewal, there would not exits in the state of the country even a shadow of an excuse for it.

said, that he found in the speech of the Attorney General for Ireland a confirmation of the prediction made at the time of the Union that no Irish Member would be admitted into the Government until he had ceased to have the feelings of an Irishman. It was admitted on all hands, that neither as regarded disaffection nor crime was there any ground for the measure; and it was only that ungenerous distrust of the people of Ireland which debarred them from being allowed to join in the Volunteer movement which animated the promoters of that measure. He wished to see political distinctions put aside, and that his fellow-countrymen should remember, above all, that they were Irishmen. He should not be induced to support the Bill, by the promise that the Party Emblems (Ireland) Bill should be carried against the Orangemen. He did not think any Gentleman would stand up and say he thought it was necessary for the security of property and life that this Bill should pass.

opposed the Bill. If the measure was such an excellent Bill as it had been described, why was it not applied to England as well as to Ireland? He ventured to assert that the Attorney General for England would not propose its application to this country. The argument in support of the Bill was of the weakest character possible, and resolved itself into an Hibernianism, that because the sham fight referred to was not a real fight, therefore the Bill was necessary. The common law of the land and the police force in Ireland were sufficient to preserve the peace of that country. Westmeath had been under proclamation since 1848; but it had failed to accomplish its object, though the common law had been found sufficient for the preservation of the peace of that county; and the same applied to other counties in Ireland. The county of Tipperary, which was now peaceful and remarkably free from crime, with no trace of Ribbon conspiracies, and no Orangemen, was placed under proclamation in 1847, and had remained under it ever since. That, he maintained, was a gross abuse of the Act. Yet the hon. Member for Liskeard would, no doubt, vote for this Bill; because that hon. Gentleman would rather go wrong with the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary, than go right with him. No Irishman spoke in favour of this measure, except the Attorney General who was in, and the Attorney General who expected to be in. The proposal was supported by those who knew nothing of Ireland, and he would not say cared less. Hon. Gentlemen came from libraries, smoking-rooms, and cups of tea, to outvote the Irish Members. The House had two Coercion Bills before it; the one to put down the Ribbonmen, the other to put down the Orangemen. Let them have nothing to do with either Bill, but be all friends, and seek to suppress disorderly conduct by moral suasion, and the influence of a good example.

observed that his own county was eminently tranquil. The Judge at the last assizes sat only half a day; and yet it had remained proclaimed during the last thirteen years. And so of Donegal and other counties. He wa3 determined to oppose the Bill to the utmost of his power, not because it was brought in by the present Government, because it was totally uncalled for by the present circumstances of Ireland.

remarked that he should support the measure, not as a means of putting down one party or another, but as necessary for the preservation of the peace of Ireland.

moved the adjournment of the debate.

said, he could hardly believe that the hon. Member was serious in making such a Motion, which was, in fact, seconded by an hon. Gentleman who had already spoken.

said, he had actively opposed the Bill throughout, hut he believed the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hennessy) was doing the very worst thing he could in moving the adjournment.

said, he rose to move the second reading of this Bill, which had been introduced into the other House and passed with the concurrence of both parties there. The circumstances which led to the introduction of the Bill were so well known that it would be wholly needless to refer to them, even if it were not advisable to refrain from reviving feelings of animosity by a lengthened reference to them. The object of the Bill was to amend the existing law by prohibiting demonstrations calculated to provoke animosities between different classes of Her Majesty's subjects. The existing statute law prohibited processions; but it did not prohibit certain other public displays and manifestations, such as exhibiting flags of a party character, using emblems and symbols of a party character, playing music, singing songs, ringing bells to tunes of a party character. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Recent experience made it impossible to deny that even the ringing of bells might be made as effective for party purposes as any other display. The object of the Bill, then, was to put down all such manifestations having a tendency to provoke hostility between different classes of Her Majesty's subjects.

said, he would oppose that penal measure for the same reason that he had opposed the penal measure which the House had just disposed of. It was said that the main object of the Bill was to repress Orange demonstrations. He was no Orangeman, and had no connection with Orangemen; hut he opposed the Bill because, according to the opinion of the Irish Judges, the law was already strong enough to put down party processions. Mr. O'Connell had no connection with Orange- men, and yet he opposed the very Processions Act which it was the object of the Bill to amend. The House ought to proceed very cautiously when asked to put down party emblems. The Bill would make penal even the singing of party songs. The most despotic monarch in Europe would he deemed insane if he proposed a penal law to prevent the singing of party songs. Bid the right lion. Gentleman think that he would be able to put down the playing of "St. Patrick's Day?" He should conclude by moving that the Bill he read a second time that day three months.

seconded the Amendment. He disclaimed all sympathy with the ridiculous displays of religious feeling which had led to the recent disturbances in Ireland, but he did not think that penal legislation ought to be resorted to against the persons who were guilty of them. The Bill was offensive to all classes of Her Majesty's subjects, and there was no use of going into Committee on it, for it could not be amended. Public opinion would be more effectual than penal laws in putting down party demonstrations and insults. Party spirit was, he rejoiced to say, dying out in Ireland, but so far from tending to allay that spirit, the Bill would foment irritation, and increase party animosity. It might be made a disgraceful instrument by which each party would annoy the other; it might be applied to temperance bands, and to the prevention of much innocent amusement; and he hoped it would be rejected by an overwhelming majority.

said, the Government had been appealed to from both sides of the House to bring in some Bill for the purpose of extending the provisions of the Party Processions Act, in order to meet a state of things which had developed itself in the North of Ireland to an extent which called loudly for legislative interference. The measure had come down from the Lords, where it had met with general assent, and he hoped the House would at least agree to the second reading; The Party Processions Act, which was made perpetual in 1850, though it. had had a useful effect, was not found sufficient. From the 1st to the 12th of July Orange flags were hoisted and kept flying from all the large churches in the Orange districts in the North of Ireland. This display caused the greatest excitement, and was regarded as an insult by the Roman Catholic population. Many of the clergymen disapproved those displays, hut were powerless to prevent them, when sanctioned by the churchwardens. Nothing certainly could be more derogatory to the Church than such exhibitions, which were discountenanced by all right-thinking people. There was no wish, whatever, on the part of Her Majesty's Government to do anything calculated to annoy the Protestant population. All they wished to do was to arm the authorities with power to prevent displays of an offensive character, which endangered the public peace, and were discreditable to the country.

said, if the right hon. Gentleman had confined the terms of his Bill to the prevention of party displays by hoisting flags on churches, beating drums in places of public resort, and similar practices, he should, at the request of influential gentlemen in the part of the country which he represented, have given it his support; hut matter which he believed to be not only objectionable, but improper, having been introduced, he felt bound to vote against the measure. Several gentlemen with whom he usually acted and himself waited upon the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and endeavoured to induce him to withdraw those portions of the Bill to which they objected; but, as he had refused to do so, they were at perfect liberty to take any course they thought proper.

said, he trusted Her Majesty's Government would not press such a Bill as the one before the House. Had the question been one merely relating to the internal economy or social improvement of Ireland, he, as an English Member, should not have intruded himself in the debate; but when the House was asked to sanction a Bill which appeared to violate every principle of liberty, and placed such extravagant powers in the hands of magistrates and common constables, he felt bound to protest against a species of legislation for Ireland which Her Majesty's Government would not dare to propose either for England or Scotland. He wished to know who was responsible for a measure which suggested to any one who read it over that it had been drawn by an attorney's clerk. It not merely prohibited the singing of certain songs, but persons were not even to sing "in a manner calculated to give offence." So that a person might be singing the most loyal song—"God save the Queen," or "Rule Britannia," for instance—and yet a constable might come up and object to the manner of the vocalist, and say, "You have been singing that through your nose," or, "You gave a curl of your lip, and I shall therefore seize you and your music too." As the Bill had been drawn by a lawyer, there ought to have been at the end a schedule of prohibited songs, and some kind of suggestion as to "the manner" with which those otherwise harmless might be sung. In this year of grace, 1860, any Government should blush to propose such a measure, and after the expression of feeling on the part of the House, it ought to be withdrawn.

said, he most heartily coincided in the remarks of his hon. and learned Friend who had just sat down. He should feel degraded as an Englishman if such a law were passed for this portion of the United Kingdom, and he hoped Irish Members with a like feeling of indignation would reject the Bill. Power was to be given to the police to enter "any place," whether a man's private house or not, where a party flag or emblem was exhibited, and any opposition to its removal was to be a misdemeanour. In fact, the whole Bill was absurd. It came down from "another place," hut no one would own its parentage, and, as it was opposed to all sense of justice, he hoped it would not be pressed further.

said, he thought the Bill was very important, and should be fully discussed; but out of consideration to the Speaker, he should move that the debate be adjourned.

said, that it was inexpedient to postpone the discussion of this question; and though he thought this Bill went a great deal too far, yet he considered that after the discussion which had that evening taken place upon it, they could not have a better opportunity of coming to a vote upon the question than they had now.

observed that the Bill was worse and more mischievous than the Rill which went before it. He admitted that the display of banners on churches were breaches of good taste, but they were not illegal; and he thought it unfortunate that Chief Justice Monaghan should, in his address to the Grand Jury at Fermanagh, have meddled with matters that were not illegal, and with which, therefore, he, as a Judge, had no concern. He held that the Bill would check that good feeling which it was admitted on all hands was growing up in the North of Ireland.

said, he feared that this was only one of many proofs of the inconsistency of the House. It was hut the other day that there was a universal call upon his right lion. Friend the Secretary for Ireland to introduce some legislative enactment to prevent the party demonstrations that had produced such a lamentable result. His right lion. Friend did not volunteer in the matter, hut it was in compliance with a call on both sides of the House that this Bill was proposed to Parliament. Now, the House, in consequence of the lateness of the hour, seemed indisposed to entertain it, and perhaps the best course would be to adjourn the debate. The matter, however, was one of great importance. Any one who read the newspapers must he aware that these party demonstrations were producing great local disorders in Ireland. The Bill might be susceptible of improvement in Committee, and his right lion. Friend was ready to consider any suggestions with a view to its improvement. If, however, the Bill was to be debated, they might go on till eight o'clock. He could not agree with the noble Lord (Lord Naas) that there would he no other opportunity of considering the Bill, for, as it seemed to be the intention of the House to sit far away into October, there would be ample time to give it full consideration. He trusted the House would agree to the adjournment of the debate.

said, that the Bill was a bad Bill, and would produce twenty times the confusion and animosity it was intended to put down. They were told the Bill came down from the House of Lords. Now, he respected the House of Lords when ho agreed with the House of Lords. But lie trusted that by rejecting this Bill they would not be doing the least disrespect to the other House.

said, that the Bill aimed at putting down the mischief that prevailed in the North of Ireland from party demonstrations and the use of party banners, such as took place on the 12th of July at Derry. It was for the purpose of checking this evil in the bud that the Go- vernment had responded to the appeal of both, sides of the House by bringing in this Bill. He was astonished after what had passed in the House at the opposition which was offered to the Bill. As to "singing songs in a manner calculated to excite animosity," words on which lion, and learned Gentlemen made so merry—"Nobody but an attorney's cleric," said one hon. and learned Gentleman, "could have introduced such ridiculous words into a Bill"—-the identical words were in the Party Processions Act. On those who, after appealing to the Government to bring in a Bill; now joined together to oppose it, would rest the responsibility of any consequences which would ensue from its rejection.

said, he should support the Government on the general principle of the Bill, having been one of those who originally called on the Government to interfere. He had certainly expected to hear Protestant Members from the North of Ireland get up and promise that they would use their moral influence to put an end to these offensive demonstrations. In that case the Catholic Members would have said at once "Away with the Bill." At the same time he should support any attempt to make the Bill as little objectionable as possible.

said, he was not one of those who had asked the Government to bring in this Bill, hut he strongly felt its I necessity; and he was surprised that any Roman Catholic Member should oppose it.

also insisted on the necessity of the Bill to Roman Catholics in the North of Ireland.

said, the Orange commemorations which had been so much sneered at were supported till lately by the Government. He should oppose the Bill. He had no doubt that if the Orangemen of the North of Ireland thought the display of Orange flags from churches was universally offensive they would, to a great extent, desist from such displays.

charged some lion. Members on the Opposition side of the House who now opposed the Bill with having only a few hours before expressed their intention to allow it to pass without discussion.

suggested that as the debate had been continued on the general question, and not on the Motion for adjournment, that Motion had better be withdrawn, so that the House might divide at once on the second reading.

said, he and some other hon. Members would have willingly supported the Bill on the condition that certain alterations should be made in it, and he regretted that the Government had not consented to those alterations.

characterized the Bill as a Coercion Bill for the North of Ireland. He wished to see the peace preserved, but he did not wish the Protestants to be coerced in the North any more than the Catholics in the South of Ireland. He thought that the common law was sufficient to prevent any action tending immediately to a breach of the peace, and that the Bill required more consideration.

said, he objected to all Coercion Bills. He did not believe that the passing of the Bill would induce people in authority to enforce the law, and that the rejection of the Bill would be more likely to have that effect.

said, he would withdraw his Amendment.

said, if the Government consented to withdraw from the Bill those sections which imposed penalties for hoisting flags on public places of worship and party drumming, he thought the House might safely agree to the second reading of this Bill.

repeated that he was ready and willing when the Bill was in Committee to consider any amendments which might be proposed by hon. Members.