, in moving that the Orders of the Day be postponed until after the Notice of Motion for leave to bring in O'Sullivan's? Disability Bill, said: I will only say I am sure it will be the general conviction of the House that, when an exceptional measure of this kind is about to be proposed, it should be brought before the House at the earliest possible moment after the announcement of the intention of the Government, with a view to the proceedings being brought to an issue with as much expedition as possible, in order that full justice may be done to the individual concerned. I therefore hope that those Gentlemen who have Notices on the Paper will not grudge the time occupied in introducing this Bill.

said, the measure about to be proposed was one of the greatest consequence. He would say nothing as to the merits of the case. No one in that House would suppose he held any opinions in common with the Mayor of Cork; but this was a grave constitutional question, and he wished to ask the First Minister of the Crown what time would be given to the House to consider it—whether the subject would be fully debated, or whether it was to be carried through in the same way as Bills relative to Imperial policy, such as the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act (Ireland), had been passed?

My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland will state the intentions of the Government on this subject. Our view is—without attempting to shut out the further judgment of the House, if grounds are made out for a longer time—that if permission is given to introduce the Bill it will be read a first time today: it will then be sent by the post this evening to the person immediately interested: it will be in the hands of Members to-morrow morning, and also in the hands of the Mayor of Cork. We think that on Tuesday next, perhaps, it will be convenient to have a Morning Sitting for the purpose of the second reading. That arrangement would give ample time to the Mayor of Cork to make an application praying to be heard by counsel at the Bar of the House, if he so desired it. That is the best judgment the Government can form of the course to be pursued in the matter; but, of course, that will not preclude us from considering any other steps that further consideration may suggest.

said, he was perfectly satisfied.

Sir, I rise to ask for leave to bring in a Bill to disable Daniel O'Sullivan, esquire, from holding, enjoying, or taking the office of Mayor or Justice of the Peace, or any office or place of magistracy in the City of Cork, or elsewhere, in Ireland. I must say, before I make any remark to the House on this Motion, that I deeply regret that an exceptional measure of this kind should be felt to be necessary: but I think that, when I have laid before the House the statement of facts which the Government have considered of such a character as to leave them no alternative but to propose this exceptional mea- sure, their conduct in doing so will meet with the approval of this House. It is right, in the first instance, to call attention to the precise position which the Mayor of the City of Cork occupies, so as to explain precisely how this measure is necessary, and how the administration of law and the peace of the city are deeply involved in its passing into law. The Mayor of Cork is, by virtue of his office under the Municipal Act, a justice of the peace of the City of Cork during his year of office, and is irremovable even by the Lord Lieutenant or by the Executive Government of this country. By virtue of his office under the Charter of the City of Cork he is entitled to be named the first Commissioner of any Commission to be executed within the county of Cork, and therefore to be associated with Her Majesty's Justices in the Commission of Oyer and Terminer and Gaol Delivery under which these Justices will sit at the ensuing Assizes for the City of Cork. Prior to the passing of the Municipal Act chartered justices were as irremovable as they are now; but there was a preliminary step by which the Executive Government of the day, under the rules of the statute of Charles II., might exercise considerable control over the persons elected to be the mayors of the corporate towns of Ireland. But all those statutes and rules were put an end to by the 3 & 4 Vict., by one of the clauses of which the election of mayor—over which the Executive has no control—is authorized, and upon his election the mayor becomes justice of the peace, first magistrate, and first commissioner of the city in which he is elected. The present Mayor of Cork, Mr. Daniel O'Sullivan, entered upon his office as mayor in the beginning of the present year, and soon afterwards, in the discharge of the ex-officio office of justice of the peace, he began to sit, as he was entitled to do, in the police court of the City of Cork. From almost the first day he sat on that Bench down to the present time, it appears, from the official Reports in the possession of the Government, that his conduct was systematically devoted to lowering the administration of the law, and bringing it into contempt, and in using abusive and insulting language towards his brother magistrates. I will not weary the House by going through these reports; but I will refer to one or two expressions in the official Reports of the Government, which show the conduct of the Mayor as a magistrate of the city during the period he has been in office. He said—"I am here by the will of the people." "My opinion on this Bench is as good as the biggest Orangeman in the country." "Here in this city there is no freedom for the people. The prejudices of the other magistrates are against the people." "The administration of the law in this court has been unconstitutional." "I will apply to have all the magistrates suspended." "I should like to see the City of Cork without a single policeman." Several of these observations were followed by applause from the galleries; and the scenes in the court are stated to have baffled all description, and to have been a scandal upon the administrators of justice. With this state of things, as I have already stated, in the present condition of the law, the Government and the Executive are perfectly powerless to deal. It was possible, perhaps, for the Government to have indicted the Mayor for misdemeanour for misconduct in his office; but that is a course which, having regard to the position of the Mayor, is one which I could not recommend. The delay which must necessarily have occurred in such a proceeding would have been such that no trial could possibly be heard before the month of July, and, in all probability, not until November; and, having regard to that consideration, although I most seriously considered the matter, when I saw that the evil could not be stopped or diminished by the institution of a prosecution, and that the Mayor of Cork might insist on sitting upon the Bench, and that there were no means known to the law to prevent him from sitting, it was not thought advisable to institute a prosecution in relation to his conduct. However, on the 27th of April last, another circumstance occurred. The Mayor of Cork, as chief magistrate of that city, and charged with the preservation of the peace, and with holding out to everyone an example of law and order, presided at a banquet given in that city in honour of two discharged Fenian prisoners, called Colonel Warren and Costello. On that occasion, in the course of a speech delivered by him, the Mayor of Cork made use of the following language:—

"The Mayor, in proposing the toast of 'Our exiled countrymen,' expressed his pleasure at having had so beautifully rendered a song which reminded him of many historical incidents of his country's annals, the bravery of Irish soldiers at home and abroad, their gallantry at Cremona as well as at Limerick, whose shamefully violated treaty he believed the energy and moral force of Irishmen would yet exact the fulfilment of. He believed that a spirit of concession had been aroused on the part of the dominant race. He did not say whether it was owing to Fenianism or to the barrel placed under the prison at Clerkenwell; but he believed he paid a solemn act of justice to his own countrymen—as solemn an act of justice as if he were a high priest—when he said those noble men, Allen, Barrett, Larkin, and O'Brien, who sacrificed their lives for their country, ought to be remembered and respected as good Catholics and good patriots. (Cheers.) There was at this moment in the country a young Prince of the English nation."

Then a person uttered a remark which I will not read, and another voice said, "No, he is welcome." Then the Mayor continued to say that—

"When that noble Irishman, O'Farrell, fired at the Prince in Australia, he was imbued with as noble and patriotic feelings as Larkin, Allen, and O'Brien were. (Great cheering, and cries of 'He was.') he believed that O'Farrell would be as highly thought of as any of the men who had sacrificed their lives for Ireland. (Loud shouts of' Bravo!') They all saw how a noble Pole had fired at the Emperor of Russia, because he thought that the Emperor was trampling upon the liberties of the people. (Cheers.) Well, O'Farrell probably was actuated by the same noble impulses when he fired at the Prince. O'Farrell was as noble an Irishman as the Pole, and as true to his country, for each was impelled by the same sentiments to do what they did. (Cheers.)

I do not think that any comment on that language is necessary; but it is language uttered by the Mayor of Cork, and it becomes most essential to the administration of the law that he should not be a person associated with Her Majesty's Judges in the Commission of Assize during the ensuing summer, and that he should no longer preside over the police office as a magistrate, or be held a person fitted for the administration of the law. It is right to state that the Mayor of Cork has put in print, what has been called in "another place," an explanation of his language, and it is due to him that I should read his letter. He says—

rose to say that, although he did not rise to oppose the introduction of the Bill, he must be allowed to say that he did not, however, approve it. He believed that a general Bill would have been much better. ["No, no!"] As to firing at the Prince, horrible as it was, he was quite certain that the Mayor of Cork never really meant what he was said to have uttered in the papers, and his subsequent explanation was far from being totally unsatisfactory. ["Oh!"] The Mayor denied that he had any wish to see anyone assassinated. He admitted that the Mayor's language was a sort of general apology for political assassination, but an assassin had been held up in all times—["Oh!"] William Tell was held up as a hero when he shot the tyrant of his country. ["Oh!"] During the progress of this Bill, however, he should certainly take the opportunity of expressing his dissent from a measure of this kind respecting an individual, when a general measure, if introduced, would have been perfectly just and lawful.

I may be permitted, I trust, to say to the House that while I must share with every right-minded man and every Member of this House the just indignation and horror with which we have read the language attributed to the Mayor of Cork, apparently justifying and expressing approbation, in the most public; manner, of attempted assassination of the most outrageous kind—still I may be permitted, at the same time, to express my great doubts whether it is wise and right to deal in this exceptional way with any particular offender against what is supposed to be the law. The Bill is, practically, a Bill of Pains and Penalties against the Mayor of Cork, for language of the most outrageous description which he has used, or is said to have used, in the discharge of his office. I believe that since the Revolution only one or two Bills of this kind have been passed by Parliament. The precedents offered in justification of them are precedents of evil times, when the power of Parliament was used to work gross injustice; and all, who have studied the history of those times, must feel regret that the exercise of the power of Parliament was ever made upon such occasions. Such Bills have never been regarded with great favour in this House. Now the very Act put forward as a precedent—that relating to Captain Porteous—was passed in the days of the ascendancy of one of the most powerful Ministers that this House or this country ever saw—Sir Robert Walpole—and yet the Bill passed by a very narrow majority—I believe it was only by the casting vote of the Chairman, that the Bill disabling the Lord Provost of Edinburgh from holding office was passed through Committee in this House. It must be borne in mind that, on that occasion, the Bill was initiated in a far graver and more solemn way than this Bill proposed by Her Majesty's Government. It was introduced in the House of Lords, after evidence heard at the Bar upon oath, justifying, primâ facie, the accusation that was made, not only against the Lord Provost, but the whole, municipal government of Edinburgh, of neglecting their duty in the preservation of the peace upon the occasion of those riots, and it was only after such a solemn investigation that the Bill was introduced, and by a narrow majority carried in this House. [See Hansard, Parl. History, vol. 10; State Trials, vol. 17.] I doubt myself whether it is ever right by an ex post facto law of this kind to deprive any man of his office or freehold contrary to the principles reverenced by our ancestors, and contrary to the spirit of what—although the document is by many now-a-days considered somewhat musty—I still must hold in reverence—I allude to Magna Charta. This officer practically has been guilty of a gross breach of his duty; and I gathered from the Attorney General for Ireland that there was an ordinary proceeding by which he could have brought this officer to judgment in the courts of law before a jury of his countrymen. It may be highly inconvenient—it may be highly detrimental to the conduct of the Executive Government—that, owing to the law's delays, this officer cannot be brought to trial in the ordinary way within a moderate time. This, however, is an argument upon inconvenience—high inconvenience if you like—State inconvenience if you like—but it is merely an argument founded upon inconvenience, and I beg again to say that I doubt very much whether it is wise or prudent for Parliament to pass any extreme measure of this kind directed against an individual officer by name, suspending him from his office, because the course of law is so slow that he cannot be brought to account within a few months by the Attorney General in the ordinary discharge of his duty. I am aware that it may be unpalatable to ventilate these somewhat, perhaps, old-fashioned notions of respect for individual rights and antipathy to Bills of Pains and Penalties which our forefathers strongly entertained; but which we, perhaps, are now disposed—in the pursuit of a valuable object, no doubt—to neglect and over-ride: but I think I should not be discharging my duty to my constituents, or upholding the respect for the majesty of the law, and that hatred of ex post facto legislation where the individual rights and liberties of our fellow-subjects are concerned which have been long entertained in this House, if did not venture, with all humility, to express, as I have done, my doubts about the wisdom of such a course as is now proposed to be taken.

said, he thought every Member would agree that the Attorney General for Ireland had introduced this measure with the greatest consideration and discretion. Hon. Members would best imitate that consideration and discretion by withholding any comments upon the Bill, or upon the causes which had led to it, till the Mayor of Cork had enjoyed the opportunity afforded to him by Her Majesty's Government of stating his own case.

said, that while fully agreeing that the time had come when action of some kind became indispensable, he considered that the Government had brought this unfortunate business very much upon themselves. Looking back at what had occurred during the last few mouths——upon the release of so many of the Fenian convicts, some of whom had been convicted under circumstances of the utmost gravity—one could hardly feel surprise if the Mayor of Cork had really committed the lesser fault alleged on his behalf by some of his apologists. One thing struck him greatly in all the debates relating to the condition of Ireland, and that was the ungenerous treatment the noble Lord the late Chief Secretary for Ireland (the Earl of Mayo) had experienced in that House. It was well known that to many points of that noble Lord's policy he (Sir Frederick Heygate) had been strongly opposed; but it was only just to that noble Lord to re-call to mind the signal exertions which he had made during a period of two years to uphold the administration of justice—exertions which had been crowned with unexampled success, and yet during the whole of that time there was hardly a single life lost. Looking upon the administration of justice and the upholding of the law of the land as matters of primary importance, he (Sir Frederick Heygate) could not but regard the course which the present Government had adopted in this matter as a great mistake—so serious. in fact, did he consider it, that he had always thought there must have existed reasons which were not disclosed—reasons growing out of some difficulty connected with International Law, or with America, which were unknown to the public—leading to the extraordinary course which had been taken of releasing these Fenian convicts—men who were undoubtedly guilty, and were only convicted after long and painful trials. He deeply regretted what the present Government had done; and he took this opportunity of declaring that the Government ought to be very much obliged to the noble Lord—now at such a distance from this country—for his long and patient efforts to defeat and terminate the Fenian conspiracy. During a large part of the time that the noble Earl held Office he had personal knowledge of the fact that the life of the noble Earl was exposed to danger; yet he had never heard from the present Government, or from the Benches opposite, one word of recognition of those services; and from the silence maintained with regard to the conspiracy itself the Mayor of Cork might possibly have supposed that the thing was not seriously disapproved. The result had been that it was now found necessary to introduce a Bill levelled against a particular individual, with the effect, of course, of making a martyr of him in the eyes of a large section of his countrymen. He regretted acts of favour shown to extreme opinions in one part of the country, because they naturally provoked retaliation in districts entertaining opposite opinions. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Chichoster Fortescue) was not in his place that day to give an answer to the Question, of which he had given him notice, as to his reason for asserting that two mobs in Londonderry had fired upon each other, and that the city had in consequence been proclaimed. The coroner's inquests which had since been held had shown that there were not two mobs, and that they did not fire upon each other; but that it was the police who fired. Nobody could regret these things more than he did. He did not justify violence coming from any quarter; but it was too true that outrageous acts permitted and condoned at one end of the country had a tendency to provoke retaliations at the other. He had merely risen to point out what he considered the deplorable consequences of letting out convicts who had been tried fairly, convicted! by juries impartially chosen, in courts presided over by upright and distinguished Judges, for crimes condemned by every man of right feeling in the country. If men so convicted were only sent upon what really were pleasurable excursions to the other side of the world—being only sent there to be brought back again—the common people would naturally believe that the law was not to be maintained; and the consequences which they now saw were the legitimate results of the action of the Government.

said. I shall best consult the feelings of the House if I abstain from any reply to the attack just made upon the Government—for the House, I believe, are not now disposed to enter into a general debate upon Irish affairs. I shall therefore confine the very few words which I have to offer simply to the question that is before us; and I rise chiefly for the purpose of setting my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) right upon the legal question to which he has referred. My right hon. Friend said that in this case we were departing from the precedent afforded by the case of the Lord Provost of Edinburgh, inasmuch as in that case, before the Bill was introduced, an opportunity was given to the accused of being heard in his own defence.

Will the learned Gentleman pardon me? What I did say, or meant to say, was that the Bill was introduced after evidence inculpating the Provost and magistrates had been heard at the Bar of the House of Lords.

That is exactly what I understood him to say. I believe he is mistaken in that. He will find that the Bill was introduced before evidence upon oath was taken; and that time was then given to the Provost to appear before the Bar of the House—I think a fortnight's notice was given him—he then did appear to oppose the second reading, and evidence upon oath was taken, If I am wrong in that I shall be glad to be corrected. I rise merely for the purpose of setting my right hon. Friend right in that matter. After the very prudent suggestion of the hon. Member for Mayo I do not propose to enter into the merits of the case. I shall merely observe that the case against the Provost of Edinburgh was one of nonfeasance, whereas this is a case of misfeasance, and is therefore stronger than the precedent cited by my right hon. Friend the Attorney General for Ireland. In the former instance all necessity for interference had ceased before the Bill passed, whereas here the necessity still continues. We are told that the Bill levelled at the Provost of Edinburgh belonged to an exceptional class of legislation; but it must be obvious also that it dealt with an entirely exceptional kind of offence. From the time the Act against the Provost of Edinburgh passed down to the present hour I trust that no such offence has ever been committed by any person holding public office in any part of the United Kingdom.

thought his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for England was mistaken in his reference to the Bill affecting the Provost of Edinburgh. That Bill, which came down from the House of Lords, was read a first time, he believed, on the 16th of May, and was ordered to be read a second time upon the 4th of June; but with a view to its second reading on that day, the Attorney and Solicitor General for England were ordered, on the Report of a Conference with the Lords on the 18th, to be prepared with evidence in support of the Preamble of the Bill, and it was not until two days after that Order was made—namely, on the 20th, that the Provost of Edinburgh petitioned the House to be heard against the Bill. The materiality of this distinction lay in the fact, that the Bill being one of Pains and Penalties, the promoters were bound to tender evidence in support of the Preamble, independently of whether the persons affected by its provisions appeared against the Bill or not. He wished, therefore, to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland what course it was proposed to take on Tuesday next, when the Bill stood for second reading; and whether, irrespective of any action which might be taken by the Mayor of Cork, evidence would be tendered by the Government in support of the Preamble—following the precedent of the Porteous case?

observed that he had referred to what took place in the House of Lords. The Bill was introduced there, and he believed that evidence was taken, not upon the introduction, but on the second reading".

I do not wish to enter into a general discussion of the very important measure brought in by the Attorney General—that some such measure is requisite I think must be clear to every Gentleman in this House—but I merely wish to call attention to the precedent adverted to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouveric), which seems to me more consistent with the general principles of the administration of justice than the course which, in this particular instance, we are invited to pursue. The Attorney General will find that at the meeting of Parliament, in February, the Porteous riots were taken notice of in the Speech from the Throne. On the 10th of February a debate arose respecting those riots, when Lord Carteret, not then a Minister of the Crown, made a suggestion in the House of Lords that a full inquiry should be instituted: and specific Resolutions were moved and adopted as to the means by which that inquiry should be conducted. That inquiry was prosecuted and witnesses were examined on the 7th, the 16th, and the 18th of March, but no Bill was brought into the House before the 4th of April. I merely mention these facts now in order that the House and the Government may have the opportunity of considering them before the second reading, and so that some greater precautions may be taken than seem to have been taken at the present moment, with a view of insuring that the Mayor of Cork, who is now put upon his trial, shall, at all events, have the fullest and fairest opportunity of bringing his case under the notice of the House.

said, he was sure there was no man of right feeling in that House, or outside of it, who did not deprecate the language alleged to have been used by the Mayor of Cork; but the more they deprecated that alleged language the more necessary he felt it to be to have full proof before the House that the language alleged to have been spoken was really spoken by that official. The House was asked by the Attorney General to act in a quasi-judicial character, and up to this there was not a particle of evidence before them. For the sake of his own deservedly high repute—for the sake of the high character of the Government he represented—for the sake of the judicial reputation of that assembly, he would entreat the Attorney General not to rush hastily to results, but to take each step with that deliberation which the gravity of the case demanded, and not to press on the House the necessity of dealing with a man's character and future status in society without proof, without even the tender of proof, that he had used the language attributed to him. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Walpole) showed clearly that, in the Edinburgh case, the first step taken was the offering of proof, and that then, but not till then, the Bill was read a second time. There was no proof as to the charge brought against the Mayor of Cork save a newspaper report and a personal statement; and he hoped that the House would not proceed with a Bill of Pains and Penalties on the authority of a newspaper report, or even on the hearsay statement of his right hon. Friend the Attorney General. No man ought to be condemned unheard—nor even asked to defend himself, until evidence of guilt was tendered to the tribunal. The. Preamble of the intended Bill alleged that the Mayor of Cork spoke seditious words, and on that unproven Preamble they were asked to degrade him before the Empire. At such a moment as that, if the Mayor used the language palliating the attempt to assassinate the Duke of Edinburgh imputed to him, no degradation the House could inflict would be too severe a punishment, and no Irishman would seek to shield him. A Prince of the Blood has, while they were debating, been sojourning in Ireland. His manly bearing, and generous frank manner, caused him to be welcomed with enthusiasm wherever he went, and if any man, but above all a high official, were proved to have used words suggesting that an attempt to assassinate that noble and confiding youth—who was then the national guest in Ireland—would be ascribed to honourable motives, public detestation would follow him, and the most public degradation from office and the most entire disability in the future which Parliament could inflict would be awarded with the approval of all good men. But before this House, acting judicially, can either punish or degrade it must have proof, and it was not proposed to offer proof, but only to ask the accused to disprove the accusations. He hoped that the Attorney General would tender proof first, and thus give the weight and authority of justice and calmness to the judicial action of the House. He objected to any other course as a matter of justice to the accused; and he objected to a precedent being set now of assuming guilt on the authority of a newspaper report, which would hereafter warrant some future Attorney General in alleging that an obnoxious political opponent had used seditious words and ought to be degraded, without proof, and perhaps contrary to the truth and to justice. He also objected to the proposed form of notice to the Mayor of Cork—the sending a copy of the Bill to him by post. That would not constitute a fair notice to a man about to be put on his trial. He may not be in Cork, and that notice by the post may not reach him for many days, Due time ought to be given him—due notice ought to be given him; and this House would, he hoped, refuse to proceed with the next stage till full proof of the words spoken was laid before it. If the Mayor of Cork used the alleged language, no punishment the House could inflict would be too great; but the House, in sustainment of its own character, must refuse to sit in judgment unless evidence be duly offered on which to act. He hoped, therefore, that there would be no precipitancy, but that a fair trial would be afforded, as much for the reputation of the House as for the sake of justice to the accused.

thought the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock had just added another import ant service to those which he had frequently rendered to the House. The observations of the right hon. Gentleman were entitled to great weight on such a subject. This was a case of ex post facto legislation; and hav- ing often warned the House that they were parting with securities which might be found necessary in troublous times, he felt it his duty to represent to the Government that they would have done better if they had presented the evidence taken before the Australian Legislative Assembly, with respect to the case of O'Farrell; for alluding to which, the Mayor of Cork, as some Members believed had been betrayed into the use of expressions unworthy of his position and his office. He could not but think that it would have been better for the Government to have pursued the course which he had recommended—a course more respectful to the Legislature of Australia, which had to deal with the offence for adverting to which the House was asked to pass an ex post facto measure against one of Her Majesty's subjects. He thought it would be much bettor to extend legislation so as to render any persons holding official positions liable to penalties for offences of such a nature. He understood that Warren and Castello had gone to another meeting, and had again used seditious language. It might have been good to remit the sentences of these men: but when the offence was repeated there ought to be some means of repeating the penalty. He rejoiced that the Government had determined upon some action. He wished that it had been more general and more in accordance with the precedent of the House and of the Legislature; but he should be happy to render his humble support to the Government to remedy an evil the extent. of which he was afraid he did not fully comprehend.

said: Sir, I can as sure hon. Members I rise with feelings of the greatest embarrassment and pain to take any part in this most unhappy discussion; but, in a spirit of fair play, I ask the indulgence of the House while I say a few words on the prospect before it. I have been for twenty years, and I still, though through inadvertance, continue to be a member of the Corporation of Cork, and with my hon. Colleague represent that city.

I am not a member of the Corporation.

My hon. Friend was, but is not, a member of that body. What I say is he represents the City of Cork, as I do. For me personally not to express horror of the meaning popularly attributed to the words alleged to have been used would be a personal disgrace to myself. But, Sir, I feel bound, as a matter of justice to the city which I represent, to say that, in the opinion of the inhabitants generally, the Mayor never intended to convey the moaning popularly attributed to his words, assuming them to have been used; and I express my conviction that, if it were believed by any class of the community that the Mayor did mean to applaud, or justify, or countenance or encourage assassination, there is no class in the community by which he would not be openly and indignantly repudiated. But neither did the Mayor ever intend to convey any such meaning, nor do the people of Cork believe he did. I am in communication not only with the Mayor, but with several gentlemen in my city; and it would be a cowardly and unworthy act on my part if I did not express, not only what the Mayor himself asserts, and what I am certain is true, but what is the general conviction of his fellow-citizens. This is the belief expressed by several influential gentlemen, as well as of the great body of the people. Of the tone and manner of the statement of the Attorney General I have no complaint to make—it was temperate and moderate; but it contained certain misstatements of facts, attributable; to a want of local information. The Attorney General, for instance, was not quite accurate in his statement that the Mayor was "constantly insulting and abusing his fellow-magistrates." No doubt the Mayor, in the early part of the mayoralty made use of one or two expressions which excited indignation on the part of certain members of the magistracy; but there was as much temper shown by them to him as he exhibited towards them. ["Oh!"] I much deplore the scenes which have taken place on the Bench; but I assert that the temper exhibited against him aggravated the squabbles which ensued, and which I deeply regret. It has been alleged against the Mayor that he went on the Bench alone, and liberated prisoners of his own authority. On this point I desire to make an explanation. The fact is, and I state from my personal knowledge, that it has been a common practice, not only of the chief magistrate of the city, but of other ma- gistrates, to go, as an act of mercy and humanity, to the Bridewell on Sunday, to liberate unfortunate drunkards who had been taken up at various hours on the previous Saturday. These people had been in custody for ten or twenty hours, and they would be in custody for ten, or twenty, or twenty-four hours more, if they were not liberated on the Sunday; and as an act of mercy and humanity they were so liberated, provided there was no other charge against them, leaving it open to the police to summon them in certain cases if they thought fit. It has been the custom of the chief magistrate, and I have known the same of other magistrates, to come to the court at a somewhat earlier hour on Monday morning for the purpose, to use a technical phrase, of "clearing the dock." I have done this myself, and without having caused any indignation by so doing. The Mayor has done this. He has dealt with drunkards himself, and discharged them with a caution, or without a fine; but he did not deal with | cases requiring the presence of two magistrates. I myself found that leniency was the most beneficial course in dealing with drunkards, and I have discharged them on promise of amendment; and I have found this plan to be, in many instances at least, as efficacious as fines in addition to the imprisonment they had undergone. I say I have adopted, so far, the same course as the Mayor has done; and by so doing I have! never, to my knowledge excited the indignation of a single human being. So much for the conduct of the Mayor of Cork with respect to the discharge of prisoners; and now what is really the condition of the City of Cork, notwithstanding the language said to have been uttered by the Mayor? I venture to say there is as much peace and order in the City of Cork at this moment as there ever has been in it. [Laughter.] Really I cannot see the cause for laughter. There has been a great deal of exaggeration as to the state of Cork; all kinds of sensational announcements have been made with respect to its condition, and the public mind has been much inflamed with respect to it by those exaggerated statements. But, Sir, the normal condition of that city is one of order and tranquillity; and I assert that life and property are as secure in Cork as in any other portion of the United Kingdom. Even under its present chief magistrate, against whom so much is alleged, I repeat it is as tranquil, and life in it as secure, as in any other portion of the United Kingdom. Therefore I see nothing whatever absurd in the statement I made. There was a meeting hold on Sunday, at a place known as the New Wall, and that meeting was attended by several respectable persons. At that open-air demonstration, at which, as I understand some 1,500 persons were present, it is true the magistrates were denounced for their conduct towards the Mayor. But upon what ground did they do so? Not that they approved of the language said to have, been used by the Mayor, but that they did not believe he used the words attributed to him in the sense which was alleged, and that they did not believe he ever intended, or could intend, to convey the meaning attributed to him. But were the words complained of really used? The Mayor more than once, in public as well as in private, said that, he could not say whether the words attributed to him were those which he used. Let hon. Gentlemen remember that it was late at night and after supper that the words were alleged to have been uttered. [Laughter.] I am intimating as delicately as I can to the House the period of the twenty-four hours, and the circumstances under which the words were said had been used; and the Mayor has declared that he did not know and could not say whether he ever used those words or not. Therefore there was no guilty knowledge of and no adoption of the words alleged to have been spoken; besides there is the distinct and solemn declaration of the Mayor that if they were uttered, he had no intention whatever of using them in the sense attributed to him. There was another meeting in Cork on Sunday last, and it is specially worthy of notice, for we have the Mayor's own sentiments there expressed. Had I known that there would have been any discussion on the subject to-day, I would have brought down with me the extract from the paper containing a. report of what he said. A vast number of people went to his house to express sympathy with him, and a belief in his innocence in this matter; and being compelled to speak, he expressed in the strongest manner his horror of assassination, and declared that if he saw a pistol aimed at any one he would be the first to turn it aside—that not only would he protect a Prince, but even the humblest person in the community, from the attack of an assassin. Surely it is only fair that this much should be said of one who is the subject of the grossest misrepresentation at this moment. To accuse him of sympathy with assassination was to do him the greatest-wrong. ["Oh!"] As to the personal character of the Mayor of Cork, I am in a position with hon. Friends of mine, to give the strongest testimony. And now. Sir. I would mention a very remarkable instance of the feeling entertained towards him personally by those who do not sympathize with him in his strong opinions with respect to existing politics or matters of historical interest. The day previous to his election as chief magistrate a meeting of thirty-five members of the Liberal party was held with the purpose of nominating a candidate, so as to avoid disunion; and not only was he adopted unanimously by that meeting, but his proposer was a gentleman who had made himself conspicuous in the manner I am about to state. Hon. Gentlemen may remember the name of Captain Mackay, one of the Fenian prisoners, respecting whom a very general interest was felt, especially from the modest and respectful manner in which he born himself on his trial before that eminent Judge, Mr. Justice O'Hagan, now Lord Chancellor of Ireland. The prisoner was sentenced to ten years penal servitude; and for his wife—a young Cork girl whom he had married some time before—the deepest commiseration was generally entertained. A sum of money, amounting to £250, was raised by subscription to set her up in business. That I regarded as a very just and humane act on the part of the public. One gentleman, however, in order to show his disapproval of the subscription, ostentatiously contributed to that fund the sum of a single farthing; in fact he forced that amount upon the collectors, and insisted on having his name published as a contributor to it to that extent. And yet Alderman Gould, for that is the gentleman's name, was the very person in that meeting to propose Mr. O'Sullivan as Mayor of Cork. He did so, not because he sympathized with certain opinions entertained by Mr. O'Sullivan, but upon the ground of his being a worthy and honourable man, a good citizen, an upright merchant, humane and kind of heart; and Alderman Gould then predicted—though in this respect he proved himself a false prophet—that Mr. O'Sullivan would be Mayor of Cork for the second year. I mention this fact as indicating the feeling entertained towards him, and the estimation in which he is held, as a private individual. I will only refer to one other point, and that is in reference to the Mayor's alleged conduct towards the police. The Mayor of Cork is charged with having attempted to bring the police into public odium and disgrace. Now, I, for one, have always endeavoured to uphold the police so far as I could justly do so; for not only do T consider them a most valuable body of men. but I believe it would be impossible to do without them. But, at the same time, while I bear my testimony to the general usefulness and good conduct of the Irish constabulary, there are members of that force who have taken advantage of particular circumstances in Ireland, and who have thought more of their own promotion than of maintaining the public peace. It has been too much the practice in my city—possibly it was the same elsewhere—indeed I have no doubt it prevailed in other parts of Ireland—when a man was charged with any offence, not to say political, but in which there was the merest suspicion of its having a political complexion, to remand the accused for a period of eight days, and to do so on the simple statement of a single policeman, hon. Gentlemen must admit that this was a direct and flagrant violation of the liberty of the subject. This constant remanding excited considerable indignation in the public mind, and was felt strongly by many respectable inhabitants of Cork; and the Mayor believed that he was fully justified in raising his voice against it and those who adopted it. Therefore, so far as the police wore concerned, there really is some allowance to be made for the language the Mayor had used with respect to them and the practice to which I refer. And now, Sir, I must express my most solemn belief that that gentleman never meant to use the words alleged to have been used by him in the sense which has been attributed to him. Unfortunately he has not the same power of expressing his meaning—by that I mean the same facility of expressing it accurately—in fact with the same precision which distinguishes so many Gentlemen opposite, and more especially the right hon. Gentleman who leads the Opposition, and which prevents the person so gifted from the risk of raising false impressions as to his words or to his meaning. I shall now conclude, Sir, with again expressing my solemn conviction that Mr. O'Sullivan, if he did use the words, never did so in the sense attributed to them; and my belief that any such notion as that popularly conveyed in them is foreign to his nature and his principles. I must remind the House that the Government are not only bound to afford the fullest possible means to the Mayor of Cork proving his innocence, but that the onus probandi lies on the Government of proving his guilt in this matter. The House owes it to its own character and dignity that unless it is convinced of the guilt of this gentleman—that is of his guilty intention of the meaning attributed to him—it will not support the Government in proceeding with a Bill of this nature.

I need not advert to the important point which has been referred to by the hon. Member for the county of Derry (Sir Frederick Heygate) as to how far the conduct of the Mayor of Cork may have been encouraged by the general policy of Her Majesty's Government. I have no doubt that, in due course, it will be impossible not to bring that subject before the House; but I think that it is unnecessary to introduce it into the discussion now before us. The Mayor of Cork was dismissed from the county magistracy by the late Government for some seditious talk of which he had been guilty. Since he was dismissed a revolution has been commenced in Ireland—I use the language of Her Majesty's Government—a very considerable revolution is now occurring in that country, and, moreover, the gaols of Ireland have been opened, and assassins and traitors have been let loose over the land. I think it not improbable that those circumstances may have acted upon the temperament of the Mayor of Cork—a man who had been dismissed from the county magistracy some months before for seditious talk—and that this may account for any profligate folly that can be alleged against him. But I believe I am correct in saying that, some months ago, the Mayor of Cork commenced using language from the official Bench of a seditious character; and I should wish to know why the Attorney General for Ireland did not then take steps to put a stop to such conduct? The Attorney General for Ireland comes down to this House and says he cannot resort in this case to the usual modes of defending the law and the interests of society, because those modes would occupy too much time before his object could be accomplished. But if months ago the Attorney General for Ireland had done his duty he need have had no reason to allege this circumstance in mitigation of his conduct; neither would the House of Commons have been called upon to consider to-day what, no doubt, all must admit to be a very extraordinary proposition on the part of Her Majesty's Government. We must take care not to allow ourselves to be led away in the present case by any prejudice. No prejudice against the Mayor of Cork or any other persons should influence us; or, if any such prejudice exists, it should rather induce us to be more wary as to every step we take, and to beware lest we forget that the course we may think fit to adopt in this matter concerns not so much the Mayor of Cork as the reputation of the House of Commons. Everyone will admit that we are asked to assent to the introduction into the House and, if the advice of the Government is followed, to pass a Bill of Pains and Penalties. That is a very grave proposition. I do not mean to say that there may not be occasions when it may be our duty to support the Government when it proposes that we should pass such a Bill: but what I say is that we should not do such a thing hurriedly. We should know to what we are going to commit ourselves before we assent to such a proposition. Under these circumstances I must urge the House to consider its position with the greatest deliberation before it agrees to the proposal of the Government in this matter. I speak in the presence of those who have much more knowledge of the subject, being within the range of their profession, than I can pretend to; but I am not myself aware of any Bill of Pains and Penalties having been introduced founded upon merely words spoken, and therefore I should like to hear from some of the high authorities present whether such is the case or not. The learned Attorney General would, indeed, appear to found this Bill not merely upon spoken words, but upon some malfeasance on the part of the Mayor of Cork. Now, malfeasance certainly does not apply to words, and I know of no act of malfeasance on the part of that individual that has been alleged by the Attorney General. If the act alluded to was his taking the Chair at the dinner given in honour of these assassins and traitors who have been let out of prison, at all events let us clearly understand that such is the act. In that event we should, of course, have to consider the policy of the Government, who, by their conduct, have rendered such an act of malfeasance possible. I say that, the moment Her Majesty's Government remitted to these men the term of their imprisonment, it can never be alleged afterwards that, because the mayor of some town chooses to preside over a meeting held for the purpose of celebrating their release—though it might be an act of the greatest indiscretion and folly, and. socially speaking, in no way to be justified—it can be regarded as a political offence upon which a Bill of Pains and Penalties can be based. Although I am not aware that a Bill of Pains and Penalties has been introduced for merely spoken words, I do not mean to say—I give no opinion upon the sub- ject—but I do not mean to say that extraordinary circumstances might not occur that might justify such a course. We will, therefore, assume for argument's sake, that it is an advisable expedient, both as regards justice and policy, that, in consequence of words spoken, a Bill of Pains and Penalties should be introduced into Parliament. But, if you adopt that course, I say that you are bound to satisfy Parliament that your facts are accurate, that your case is grave and substantial, and you are not justified in asking Parliament to agree to a course so extraordinary and in itself so unconstitutional, unless you have taken pains to satisfy the conviction and the conscience of the nation that there can be no mistake as to the facts upon which such legislation is recommended. But what is the statement which has been made by the Attorney General for Ireland this morning? I have never heard such a thing during the whole time I have sat in this House, He asks us to pass a Bill of Pains and Penalties upon the mere ipse dixit of one of the Law Officers of the Crown. He makes a certain allegation—he quotes a certain speech which he says has been made by the Mayor of Cork, and then he says that Her Majesty's Government—believing this to be a correct report of what passed—proposes that the House of Commons shall pass a Bill of Pains and Penalties upon the mere ipse dixit of an Irish Attorney General. He says that, he believes that such a thing that he has read in the newspapers, or which has been communicated to him. by some third person, is a correct statement, and we are asked to assume the correctness of those statements without the smallest proof being- offered in support of them. 'I say, we should have these points put before us in a manner that can admit of no doubt. But. instead of such a course being recommended to us, we are asked to legislate upon allegations which are not even attempted to be proved before us. Are there no modes by which this proof can be offered to Parliament? Such modes have already been referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie). He has brought before the recollection of the House a precedent which may well serve as our guide in this matter. Under these circumstances the House may well hesitate to pursue the course recommended by Her Majesty's Government. The course which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock points out as the proper one to be adopted, if Parliament is to pass an exceptional Act in the form of a Bill of Pains and Penalties to meet this peculiar and individual case, is that the Bill should be introduced in that House of Parliament where evidence can be taken to substantiate the Preamble of the Bill, and to satisfy Parliament that their legislation will be based upon facts, and not merely upon the ipse dixit of the Attorney General for Ireland. When the Attorney General for England rises to split straws about evidence being taken in the case of the Provost of Edinburgh after the Bill was introduced into the other House of Parliament and not before, I ask, what has the House of Commons to do with these considerations? What the House of Commons has to do with, and will insist upon, is that the facts upon which they are asked to legislate in this matter shall be proved to their satisfaction by authentic evidence; and we know that if the Bill were to be introduced into the other House, where evidence can be taken upon oath, we should obtain the authentic testimony which we require. It is no vindication or palliation, of the course that Her Majesty's Government are recommending us to adopt, that the mistake was made of introducing the Bill relating to the Provost of Edinburgh in the reign of George II. into the House of Lords before the evidence was taken, and the evidence was taken afterwards upon it. 'What we require is, that we should have authentic evidence before us before we agree to the introduction of this Bill. In the case of the Provost of Edinburgh the evidence was considerable. I recollect reading that three Judges were brought up from the City of Edinburgh to give testimony to the House of Parliament in which that Bill was introduced. I do not rise for the purpose of opposing the introduction of this Bill—there will, of course, be ample opportunity for the House to consider the propriety of passing it on a future occasion—but I hope that Her Majesty's Government will think again before they ask the House to pass a Bill of this kind upon the mere ipse dixit of the Attorney General for Ireland. Such a proceeding on the part of Her Majesty's Government is not becoming to themselves, neither is it in accordance with what is due to the House of Commons. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, in making his arrangements for the second reading of this Bill, said that he had calculated that if the Bill were sent by post to-night, the person chiefly interested in it—of course, meaning thereby the Mayor of Cork—would have ample opportunity of becoming acquainted with its nature.

I am not aware that I said I should send it by post.

We were under the impression that the right hon. Gentleman had said so. I do not, however, think that the Mayor of Cork is the only person interested, or that he is more interested in this Bill than are the Members of this House; we are all interested in a Bill of this kind. But, if it was the Mayor of Cork to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred, I say that individual will have no opportunity of defending himself, because he cannot adduce, in this House, testimony upon oath in vindication of his conduct. What I wish to impress upon the House is this—that if the Bill had been introduced—as was the Bill respecting the Provost of Edinburgh—into the. other House of Parliament, there would, at least, have been an opportunity for us to have acted on authentic evidence; and even then we should have reserved to ourselves our legitimate right of deciding whether the courses recommended by the Government is one which we con at all authorize. No one can deny that this is an extraordinary measure—and. indeed, I may say, without using the language of exaggeration—that it is essentially an unconstitutional one. It becomes us, therefore, to act. with the utmost caution under these circumstances. But whatever course we may take—even if Parliament be pleased to meet this individual instance by this particular measure, it appears to me that the line on which the Government has introduced this Bill is an erroneous one. and will only lead—I do not say to the discomfiture of the Government in this respect, for that we do not seek—-but not to the credit, of the House of Commons, in which we all have an interest.

I wish, in the first place, to reply to the Question put to me by the hon. Baronet the Member for the county of Londonderry (Sir Frederick Heygate). I fear there is some misunderstanding with regard to the answer I gave yesterday relating to the lamentable riots at Deny. I seem to have been understood to say that the loss of life which occurred in the course of those riots had been caused solely by the filing of the opposite parties upon one another. That impression is, however, inaccurate. We know by the verdict of the jury that at least one life was lost by the firing of the police. With regard to the other life which was lost, and the wounds that were inflicted, it is still uncertain whether they resulted from the firing of the police or from that of the opposite parties. It is, however, clear from the information I possess at present that the two opposing parties were armed to a considerable extent, and that they did use their arms. The noble Earl who is at the head of the Irish Go- vernment (Earl Spencer) and who is consequently responsible for the peace of Deny has thought it necessary to use his powers to put down the disturbances, and in order to effect that object has proclaimed the district, in which arms are possessed to a considerable extent by both parties, and which is in a very excited state. The conduct of the police in the affair, in the opinion of the Irish Government, imperatively calls for inquiry, and, consequently, the whole circumstance will be the subject of a most searching and complete investigation by a Special Commission to be appointed for that purpose. But the hon. Baronet went on to make several further remarks, which. I confess, did not appear to me to be called for upon the present occasion, he thought it necessary to allege that I had shown some injustice and a want of generosity towards the noble Lord who filled the post I now occupy under the late Government. That is surprising, for there has never been on these Benches the slightest want of appreciation of the excellent qualities of Lord Mayo. I am glad, however, of this opportunity of stating my belief that my noble Friend Lord Mayo showed great discretion, firmness, and prudence in his administration of the affairs of Ireland, and I believe that the manner in which he discharged his duty has gained for him the approbation of the country. The most severe remarks of the hon. Baronet were, however, directed against the advice given by the Government to the Crown as to the exercise of clemency with regard to the Fenian prisoners, which he said was a slur upon the government of Lord Mayo. But the fact is Her Majesty's Government did not advise the Crown to exercise an indiscriminate clemency with regard to them: but they did advise that a careful and discriminating selection should be made among the political prisoners, and that all who were likely to be dangerous to the peace of the country should be excluded from that clemency. This course was not recommended by the Government for the purpose of reversing the policy of the late Irish Government; on the contrary, many of the prisoners who were released had been sentenced during the government of Lord Kimberley—and surely we did not desire to cast a slur upon Lord Kimberley—and, indeed, the course adopted by the Government had his Lordship's entire concurrence. So far from that exercise of clemency on the part of the Crown having had an ill effect, I believe that, if the Government had stood simply upon the ground of non possumus, the result would have been much to be deplored. Such a policy would have produced a widespread movement on behalf of what is called an amnesty, in which the great mass of the Irish people would have joined, and an agitation of that character might have had most disastrous effects. By adopting a policy of mercy, however, the Government of Ireland have placed themselves in a position to insist with effect upon the adoption of measures of severity when such may become necessary. It is the opinion of Her Majesty's Government that in these matters it is desirable not to rest upon the more force of a majority in this House, but to rely in taking measures for the defence of law stud order upon the moral support of the Irish people; and I am convinced that, by the course we have adopted with regard to the political prisoners, we have obtained that moral support, and that we have thereby gained a great victory on behalf of the law and of order. With respect to the case before us, I will not long detain the House. It is impossible not to sympathize with the reluctance that has been shown by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmamock (Mr. Bouverie), and by other lion. Members, to adopt an exceptional and unheard-of measure of this kind directed against an individual; but our answer to their objection is that, the circumstances under which the Bill is introduced are of an exceptional and an unheard-of character, and that, therefore, we are justified in asking the House to employ exceptional means. I cannot help saying that, in our arduous endeavours to vindicate the authority of the law and to preserve order in Ireland, we might have expected to, have received a support very different from that which has been given to us by the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition. What line; did the right hon. Gentleman the; Member for Buckingham-shire take? The right hon. Gentleman commenced at once by attacking the, Attorney General for Ireland for not. having taken proceedings against the Mayor of Cork some months ago. The answer to that attack is easy. There were at the time no grounds for proceedings against that individual by way of prosecution or otherwise, the Law Officers of the Crown being of opinion that no words had been used at that time which would justify a prosecution; while he had then not been guilty of conduct which would have justified, us in coming down and asking this House-to pass the extraordinary measure we are now submitting to them. Since then, however, a great deal has happened. The complaint against the Mayor of Cork goes far beyond the speech he made respecting the attempted assassination of the Duke of Edinburgh, His conduct on the Bench, and as a magistrate generally, has gone to such lengths, with that effect upon the public mind which has been described by the Attorney General for Ireland, that that which it would have been impossible and culpable in us to have done some time since has now become necessary and right. With regard to the particular mode we propose to adopt in dealing with the Mayor of Cork now that the Bill is introduced, the cautions and warnings of the right hon. Gentleman are very right, but not very necessary; because we fully understand the necessity of proceeding in this matter with the greatest caution and deliberation, in order to take care that no injustice shall be done. We shall take care that nothing is done in undue haste, and to proceed in conformity with the precedents afforded by former cases of this nature, and we shall prove the Preamble and the recital of the Bill at the Bar of this House. We shall, by adopting every precaution, take care that there shall be no shadow of an excuse for suggesting that our facts are not proved or that justice to the utmost has not been done. I should wish before I sit down to read a communication I have received from the noble Lord the Lord Lieutenant of the City and County of Cork, which is as follows:—

said, that having filled the office of Chief Secretary for Ireland he was unwilling to allow the debate to close without saying a few words upon the subject before the House. He wished that the right hon. Gentleman the present Chief Secretary for Ireland, when referring to the recent riots in Londonderry, had followed the advice offered him, and not entered so fully into that question as he had done. He should, however, pass that part of the subject by, merely observing that he thought he now saw the reason why, on Friday night last, the right hon. Gentleman, for the first time during a Session which had been almost entirely occupied by the discussion of Irish affairs, had made the attack which he did upon the late Government. He would, however, enter upon this subject at another time, and would content himself now by saying that that attack of the right hon. Gentleman upon him (Colonel Wilson-Patten) was wholly unmerited. He was not willing that this debate should pass without expressing his abhorrence of the sentiments conveyed by the language of the individual whoso conduct they were now discussing. He thought that they were deeply indebted to the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie), and to the right hon. Gentleman the head of the late Government for the cautions they had given in this matter. It appeared to him that the House could not be too cautious in the steps they were taking in the present instance, seeing that there was only one case which could be brought forward as a precedent, or which was in any degree analogous to this. Whilst concurring in the advice so tendered to the Government he was free to admit that not one word had been uttered which would exculpate the Mayor of Cork, or render unnecessary the adoption of the strongest measures towards him. He had listener] with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Maguire), and appreciated the painful position in which he was placed in endeavouring to offer sonic palliation for the conduct of the Mayor. The hon. Gentleman had done everything for his friend that a man could do, but he had been unable to suggest anything which would be considered as a valid excuse. The hon. Gentleman had characterized this Bill as being merely an ex post facto piece of legislation. He (Colonel Wilson-Patten) entirely differed from him. He thought the Bill quite as much prospective as retro spective. He hoped, however, that witnesses would be brought forward to prove the case, lest, if they did not take that course, they should lay themselves open to the charge of injustice. When the hon. Member for Cork said that the Mayor of Cork, in using the words imputed to him. had no intention of advocating assassination he (Colonel Wilson-Patten) would contend, even admitting that to be a fact, that a man who could, even incautiously, use such language, was quite unfit for the position he now held, Having been a Member of the Irish Government, although only for a short time, he did not like to let this discussion close without expressing his opinion that it was absolutely necessary that some action should be taken of a more decisive nature than usual to prevent a repetition of that conduct of the Mayor of Cork, which had already disturbed the peace and good feeling of the people of Ireland. He believed that the party who would still be: willing to support the Mayor of Cork or who would not reprobate him was very small indeed. He entertained no doubt of the loyalty of the Irish population generally. They had seen the reception they had given to the young Prince who was now visiting that country. That reception was, if possible, more warm and more, satisfactory than that given to the Prince of Wales. And they had abundant evidence to prove that there was no party in Ireland so disloyal as to countenance, in the slightest degree, the atrocious principles to which it was alleged the Mayor of Cork had given utterance.

Sir, I am sure that the speech just delivered by my right hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Wilson-Patten) requires no other testimony from me than to say that it was such as we should have expected from him under the circumstances in which we stand. But it is very desirable that the House should be placed in possession of the precise nature of the proceedings which the Government propose. I am also anxious to notice some of the comments that have been made on our proceedings, and certain doctrines which have been laid down in the course of those comments. I apprehend that the general rule which has been applicable to all these cases is that the first stage, at least, of These Bills of Pains and Penalties has been taken in both Houses on allegations, or ex parte statements—that is to say, that, though an investigation has been made, the other House has not, in the first instance, allowed the parties implicated to be heard before the House; but that when, in either House of Parliament, the Bill had reached the stage of a second reading, then a full opportunity has been given to the parties to be heard; and that likewise, in some instances at all events, the Government themselves have been called on to substantiate its accusation, and make, out a case for the Bill. In this instance it is quite clear that, at the proper time, the Government ought to substantiate its case, and not seek to throw the onus on the other party, because the proceedings which we now ask the House to take we ask it to take on the faith of the Government. It will be remembered that when this matter was brought under the notice of the House last week we stated that our first duty would be to make an inquiry into the facts. We have done that; and when that inquiry has been made by the Ministers of the Crown I think we do not go too far in asking the House, not—as was stated, perhaps carelessly, by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire—to pass the Bill, but to allow a Bill of Pains and Penalties, in the shape of inflicting a disability upon the Mayor of Cork to be introduced. If leave be given to introduce this Bill, and if it be read a first time, the following Motion will, in the regular course, be submitted when the Bill is ordered for a second reading. The House will be asked to resolve—

"That a copy of the said Bill and of the said Order for the Second Reading thereof be forthwith served upon Daniel O'Sullivan, Esquire, Mayor of the City of Cork:"

And also this Resolution—

"That Mr. Attorney General for Ireland do take care that evidence thereof is produced in support of the said Bill upon the Second Reading-"

This having been done, the House will, so far as its forms will permit, be in a position on the second reading, to pronounce, what may justly be called, a judicial decision. "Hut it has been said by some that we are wrong in the form of our procedure. It is said that we ought to have proposed a general measure, and not a measure to meet a particular case. If I were to discuss this point now. it would lead me into more lengthened comments than I should like to make on this occasion, when we may be said to be interlopers on the ordinary business of the day; but this much I must say, that the Government did consider the point, and that, for reasons which we shall be prepared to maintain by argument, we did arrive at the conclusion that it would be wrong, in consequence of this single, particular, and isolated case, to introduce a Bill bringing the conduct of a whole body of popularly elected civic officers under the supervision and control of the Govern- ment. But besides that, the right, hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) laid down a proposition which merits examination, both as coming from him and on its own account. I do not complain—I am not entitled to complain—of any adverse comment on the introduction of the Bill, nor of any adverse comment on the conduct of the Government. I do not complain of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman—though he commenced with an announcement of his intention to abstain from any such comments, an announcement which certainly was not sustained in his subsequent observations. But I do complain that, in his zeal, so little did the right hon. Gentleman feel himself under restraint in this judicial proceeding, that he could not help referring to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland in a manner that I am sure must have attracted the attention of the House. He said—"Is the House of Commons to be called on to pass a Bill of Pains and Penalties on the ipse dixit of the Attorney General for Ireland"—or "an Irish Attorney General" I think was the phrase. Sir, I have rarely heard a personal taunt delivered in this House that was more entirely out of place. The office of Attorney General for Ireland is a high and distinguished office. The Attorney General for Ireland is the person in whom the Constitution of the country vests the duty of both acting himself and advising the Government of the Queen to act in cases of offences against the State. The holder of such an office, by virtue of his office, does not deserve to be treated with contempt: and, Sir, if the holder of such an office, by virtue of his office, does not deserve to be treated with contempt, I say here, in the presence of this House, that the present holder of this office has sustained its dignity and its credit in a way that still less, perhaps, than any of his predecessors—worthy as they have been, and I do not question that—leaves him open to sneer or sarcasm on grounds such as those alleged by the right hon. Gentleman. But, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman censures the Government for having introduced this Bill in the House of Commons, instead of in the House of Lords, and he founds his censure on the fact that the House of Commons has not the power of taking evidence on oath. Sir, I entirely admit that for the pur- poses of a Bill of Pains and Penalties it would be more satisfactory if the House of Commons were armed with that power. I do not for a moment question that an oath is an element, and a very important element, in an investigation of facts in judicial proceedings; but my answer to the right hon. Gentleman is that Bills of Pains and Penalties have repeatedly been introduced into this House and sent up to the House of Lords. There were the cases of Plunkett and Kelly, in 1723; and that of Mr. Bainbridge, the warder of one of the London prisons, in 1729; and the case of Mr. Rumboldt, all of which cases were dealt with, in the first instance, in this House. Then, if Bills of Pains and Penalties are sometimes to be introduced in this House and sometimes in the other, what are the circumstances which are to guide us in the particular case as to the choice we are to make? We say that in this case of the Mayor of Cork we are sanctioned by precedent and by principle. By principle, because, in opposition to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire, I must contend our proceedings are more in accordance with the spirit of the Constitution than they would have been if we had commenced in the House of Lords. I think it is more in accordance with the spirit of the Constitution to bring the holder of an office conferred by popular suffrage to trial before his Peers—before the Commons of England—before the Estate to which he belongs. As one of them he has offended, and to them we call upon him to answer. I think that the doctrine of the right hon. Gentleman, that whenever you are going to inflict a punishment, such as that provided by the Bill, even though the offence has been committed by a person chosen by the popular voice, and whose official functions are charged with popular elements from beginning to end, proceedings such as these should only be commenced in the House of Lords—I think, Sir, it would be very unadvisable to give effect to such doctrine, because, I believe, our doing so, would form anything but a good precedent. I would first refer the House to the case of Alexander Wilson, which occurred in the time of Sir Robert Walpole. These proceedings were commenced in the Lords: and when the Bill came to this House a Member (Mr. Oglethorpe) rose in his place and opposed its reception because he was of opinion that the Lords would refuse to receive from this House a Bill of Fains and Penalties affecting a Member of their House—that was, any Member of their Order. Now, the Mayor of Cork is one of our Order. There was a discussion in that case of Alexander Wilson, and the King's Advocate for Scotland, Mr. Duncan Forbes—no inconsiderable person—objected to the introduction into the House of Lords of a Bill of Pains and Penalties against Alexander Wilson, and which would also inflict a fine on the City of Edinburgh. Then, Sir W. Young advocated the reception of the Bill in grounds of a somewhat apologetic character; and Sir Robert Walpole excused the introduction of the Bill in the Lords by saying that generally there was a cessation of business in the House of Lords during the first few weeks of the Session: and on that ground he thought the House might, receive the Bill. He was followed by a no less political and constitutional authority than Sir William Windham, who said that the Bill being brought from the House of Lords was a great encroachment on the privileges of this House, and that it was best to conclude that such encroachment was intended and to refuse to receive the Bill. The opposite opinion, however, prevailed and the Bill was read a first time; but the discussion to which I have referred shows that, by sonic of the highest authorities, a scruple was entertained to receiving from the House of Lords a Bill of Pains and Penalties against a civic official, though at that time the mode of electing the Lord Provost was not based upon any very wide basis of popular election. Both in respect to precedent and in respect to principle I maintain that the course we have adopted is the right one. The fact that we cannot take evidence on oath will not prevent this House from dealing with this Bill of Pains and Penalties. I think we have established our case in point both of principle and of precedent; and that we did well not to introduce this measure in the House of Lords, but to submit the case of one of the Commons, against whom we apply for a Bill of Pains and Penalties, to the Commons in Parliament assembled.

Sir, as a constitutional question I think the question now before us is one of extreme importance. The Government propose to introduce a Bill in which is recited the reasons for its introduction. Without a Preamble, containing a recital of what the Mayor of Cork had done, you could not bring the Bill before Parliament. What does the Bill recite? It contains, not a mere general allegation of his misconduct as Mayor of Cork, but a statement that he has used seditious language; in other words, the Bill pronounces on the face of it that the Major of Cork has been guilty of a violation of the law of this country. A violation of the law of this country is dealt with in the criminal courts; and when you say that a man is guilty of such an offence, you say he is guilty of an offence against the law. But I say it is an alarming doctrine to lay down that any man in England can be found guilty of an offence against the own on testimony not sworn to. I make two objections to these proceedings, both of which are sustained by authorities. My first objection is that this House, though it may examine witnesses, cannot administer an oath; my second, that it cannot indict for perjury, before the tribunals of the country, anyone who gave false evidence at the Bar of the House of Commons. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government has referred to precedents. I will refer him to the Porteous case and the case of Queen Caroline. In the former case, in which there was involved a question of status, the Bill was studiously introduced in the House of Lords by Lord Carteret—there was an application to take evidence, and witnesses wore brought from Edinburgh and examined on oath. Then, I am under the impression that the case against Queen Caroline was not a mere divorce case, because the Bill was one which would have deprived her of her status as Queen Consort. In that ease also the Bill was introduced in the House of Lords. As to the rank of the person charged, it will not be contended that a Queen is to be protected to any greater extent than the humblest individual; yet in Queen Caroline's case the witnesses were examined on oath, and that she might have all the advantages afforded by a judicial tribunal the Judges were summoned, in order to guard against the reception of illegal evidence. None of these conditions have been complied with in the present case. In the first place, we cannot take evidence here on oath; secondly, no prose- cution for perjury lies against a person giving false testimony here; and, thirdly, it is a new doctrine, that this House is to judge as to what is seditious. In what may sedition committed by language consist? Why, it may be found anywhere, within a range of language extending almost from words used carelessly in the heat of debate to language deliberately intended, uttered with the intention of bringing into disrepute the great institutions of this country. Sedition in language is an offence so wide in its character that it may consist of words absolutely treasonable or of words not much stronger than the common language of debate. Are you about, without the power of taking evidence on oath, to arrive at a conclusion in a matter such as that? The judicial power is one which the law of England requires to be very jealously exercised. It would be very satisfactory, I think, to have a precedent for commencing proceedings in the House of Commons in such a case as this. In works on the privileges of Parliament it is stated that such Bills as these are generally introduced in the Lords. It is true that these works lay down that "you may" introduce them in the Commons; but the word ''may" shows that it is not the usage or practice to introduce, such measures in the Lower House of Parliament; and, as you have not the power of taking evidence on oath, to say the least, it requires the greatest consideration to determine whether they should be introduced in this House rather than in the House of Lords. I do not make these remarks in a spirit of opposition to the Government, or for the purpose of creating embarrassment to them; on the contrary, I am desirous that the proceedings taken in this matter should be certain and not likely to fail for want of proper form—but I think it would be a great calamity if this Bill or some measure of the kind were to miscarry in consequence of its having been introduced in one House of Parliament rather than in the other, and it is with the object of avoiding anything of that kind we are endeavouring to show you your error at the earliest stage. I think it is more frank and more just that we should at once stale that we have the gravest doubts as to the propriety of your introducing the measure here, and to suggest to the Legal Gentlemen who advise the Government whe- ther it would not be easier to introduce the Bill in the House of Lords, according to the precedent that was set in the case of Captain Portions. I have risen with this object, and not to oppose the Bill or to say anything about the administration of Ireland. Only one word more. It is an entire mistake to imagine that anyone on this side of the House meant to say anything disrespectful of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland. If anything of that kind had been intended it would not have had my approval; because for many years I have lived on terms of close friendship with my right hon. and learned Friend, and I hope I may reckon myself among his most intimate friends. But nothing of the kind was intended by my right hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire;—[Mr. DISRAELI intimated assent.]—the remark was not applicable to my right hon. and learned Friend personally, but to any Attorney General of any Government, and to any proposition to act in such a matter as this on information received at the Irish Office. All that was intended to be said was that we ought not to proceed on private knowledge, but lake care that the facts are proved in the proper manner.

I have no doubt the House will accept in the fullest sense; the statement which I presume, in deference to the unmistakable feeling of the whole House, the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite is instructed to make, that no reflection was intended by the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire upon my right hon. and learned Friend who now fills the office of Attorney General for Ireland. All I can say is that manner is misleading, and that, if manner ever justified an inference, the manner of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire on the present occasion justified the inference which the House has drawn from it. My principal object in rising is to deal with the question which the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Dr. Ball) has put before the House. I understand him to object to the proceeding of the Government on the ground that the Bill of Pains and Penalties is based upon the assertion that an offence has been committed, which is an offence against the law, that such an offence must be proved by means known to the law, and that the only means of proving an offence known to the law is evidence upon oath.. I also understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say that his objection would be met if the Bill of Pains and Penalties, so to call it. had been introduced into the other House of the Legislature, where they have the power of taking evidence upon oath, where the parties could appear, and where the matter charged against the Mayor of Cork could be proved by witnesses who might be sworn at the Bar of the House. My answer to that is that the two Houses—the House of Commons and the House of Lords—are perfectly independent and co-ordinate branches of the Legislature, and that the House of Commons is no more bound to proceed upon what is proved in the other House than the House of Lords is bound to proceed upon what is proved in this House; and if the Bill were to come down from the House of Lords after evidence had been taken upon oath at the Bar of that House, it yet would be right and decent for the Commons of England to be satisfied independently, in the best way the Constitution allows, that there is foundation for the Bill of Pains and Penalties which they are invited to pass. It, therefore, would have been necessary, in any event, that evidence should be taken at the Bar of this House, and this House could only proceed upon evidence not taken upon oath. It comes then to the simple question, where it was most convenient find most proper, under all the circumstances of the case, that a Bill of this kind should be initiated. Now, the House of Commons must proceed upon its own judgment, and not. upon that of any other branch of the Legislature, and the Government intend to proceed in the only way in which the House of Commons could proceed—by evidence. The Government must be satisfied, in the first place, not by the ipse dixit of an Irish Attorney General—as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire was pleased to phrase it—but by making those inquiries which men of conscience and men of responsibility are bound to make before putting forward such a proceeding as this against any man. Before the House of Commons can be satisfied that the Government are right, they must take such course as is open to them to satisfy their own consciences that the proceeding is right and proper. The Government will produce evidence to show that they are justified in proposing this Bill for the acceptance of the House of Commons; and, of course, if the Mayor of Cork should think it desirable to be heard here at the Bar, and should make a proper Petition to the House for that purpose, an opportunity would be given him for appearing, and reasonable time would be given him for preparation. No man in his senses would think of refusing such a request. Every form of justice that the House allows of would be followed; but if the Bill be justified—if it be supported by evidence in the only way in which it can be supported in the Commons House of Parliament—I trust the House will pass it, undeterred by the observations which, whatever they might have been intended to mean, were heard by most of us—and, I believe, with no distinction of party—with very great regret.

No one can suppose it to be disputed in the abstract that either House of Parliament can institute proceedings of this kind. The only question is as to which of the two modes is the more convenient—cpmmencing in this House or commencing in the other House of Parliament. We ought to consider whether in this case it would not be prudent to follow precedent. How does the case stand? Happily these cases for exceptional legislation are exceedingly rare—one instance only has been alluded to. and it is questionable whether in matters so rare it is prudent to follow a single precedent. The argument of the Prime Minister went almost to this—that because the House was dealing with a Commoner it might almost proceed by Resolution, because he said that a Commoner was to be judged by the House of Commons; I do not suppose the right hon. Gentleman really meant to go that length, but his argument did go to almost that length. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General said that the House of Commons must proceed upon evidence. Well, that evidence is to be taken at the Bar of the House, from unsworn witnesses, and I do not think even he will contend that evidence taken on word merely should, if put in conflict with testimony on oath, stand high in public opinion. Taking evidence of that inferior quality, as I may call it, shall we be more likely to arrive at a sound conclusion than the House of Lords would on a superior kind of evidence? If the evidence taken on oath, in "another place" should conflict with the evidence taken here on word, shall we be in as good a position as as we should have been, if the evidence had been taken in the first instance in that mode by which the truth is most likely to be elicited? Shall we be as likely to get at the truth by first having the evidence in the inferior way and afterwards having it on oath, as if it was first taken on oath? I do not think there can be any difference of opinion on the fact that this is a case so exceptional as to require exceptional proceedings; but I think that if the Government had adhered to the precedent referred to by the right hon. Gentle-man the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie), we should have been more likely to come to a sound conclusion on the facts, which must be proved before the House can pass the Bill. I think it is possible that there may be a conflict of facts, because from statements made to-day it would seem that some of the allegations are likely to be traversed. I only hope that the mode of proceeding adopted by the Government will not result in having Parliament placed in this position—that the facts established in one House by one mode of taking evidence will present a different complexion from those proved in the other by a different mode.

I have no doubt it will be readily conceded that, as one of the representatives of the City of Cork, I rise to take part in this debate under a feeling of no little embarrassment, indeed, I may add, under feelings akin to those of shame and humiliation. I feel grieved that a course of proceeding—that events should have taken place in my native city which have rendered it incumbent on the Government to come down to this House and ask its sanction to an act of exceptional legislation. It is a matter which I deplore intensely. I must, however, take leave to say I felt in a condition of considerable embarrassment when my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland gave notice of his intention to bring in this Bill; and now, having listened to his statements of the grounds on which he proposes to have this measure passed into law, I may say I rejoice exceedingly at the course which this debate has taken, because it shows how the Mayor of Cork will be entitled—as he ought to be entitled—to state his case, and that full and ample opportunity will be given to the citizens of Cork, as there should be, to state what their opinion is on the matter. That, I apprehend, is a matter for congratulation, under the unhappy circumstances, on the part of a representative of the City of Cork. I should like, Sir, with reference to an observation of my hon. and learned Colleague (Mr. Maguire) as to the remarks of the Mayor of Cork at a banquet in that city—remarks which have been taken so much notice of—to state what I give to the House as my own sincere and conscientious opinion with respect to them. I beg leave to say, Sir, in the presence of this House, that, having a personal knowledge of the Mayor of Cork, having read a report of observations attributed to him, having read the letter which the Mayor of Cork has written, which was referred to in the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland, and having heard what he has said on another occasion, I say, Sir, independently of all this, I not only do not believe he had any intention of suggesting, propagating, and inculcating the horrible and detestable idea of assassination, but I do believe he had not the most remote idea of the effect the words he had used would produce when he did use them. To those who know me, possibly from personal reasons with which it is not necessary to trouble the House, this statement coming from me will give weight to any other testimony that may be adduced upon this portion of the subject. But, in thus stating my opinion of the Mayor in what I may term his individual capacity, it is quite impossible to ignore the serious effect and grave consequences of the acts and expressions attributed to him in public, and which derive? weight from his position as chief magistrate of a municipality like Cork. I accordingly think the Government are quite warranted in taking up the question, so as to afford all parties concerned, and the public at large, the most ample means of forming a judgment upon it. It is, Sir, an un-undoubted fact that I have not had the slightest communication made to me by any of my constituents relating to this matter since Tuesday last. No consti- tuent of mine has corresponded with me, either by telegraph or letter, and the only way in which I have become acquainted with the matter is by reading the newspapers. And therefore, Sir. because I am removed from the local excitement that exists in the City of Cork, I am in a bettor position to speak on the subject than if I had been the receipt of ex parte statements. I have, indeed, Sir, great reason to express my heartfelt grief at what has taken place; but I have also good reason to express my profound satisfaction at the course this debate has taken—that an ample opportunity will be given to the Mayor of Cork and to the citizens of Cork of being heard at the Bar of this House prior to the passing of this Bill. And that being the case, the Bill, should the House pass it, will be more satisfactory to the citizens of Cork themselves than if it were passed upon the foundation of ex parte statements, or than if a criminal prosecution had been instituted. I do not wish to trouble the House further, except to refer, for a moment, to an observation of my hon. Colleague (Mr. Maguire). In speaking of the Corporation of Cork, he mentioned that I was a member of that corporation. I had certainly been a member of that body, but last year I resigned the position, on account of public and pressing business, and without any reference whatever to anything that had taken place in the corporation. I simply mention this. Sir, lost it might be supposed I left the corporation because of anything that may have occurred in respect of it.

said, he wished to express his dissent and that of many other Irish Members from the doctrine put forward by the right hon. and learned Member for Dublin University (Dr. Ball). He (Colonel Knox) could not regard this subject as one on which they ought to entertain any legal quibbles. According to the statements of the Attorney General it was plain that this course ought to have been pursued months ago, and, though at the eleventh hour, he thought the House was bound to give its support to the proposal of the Government. He believed, moreover, that in the interests of the City of Cork and of Ireland, the sooner this was done the better. He regretted that the hon. Member for Clomnel (Mr. Bagwell) should have taken the line he had adopted. Nobody would suppose that his hon. Friend had had any communication with the Mayor of Cork, or had anything to do with him, or agreed in his views; but if his hon. Friend desired to say anything in favour of the Mayor of Cork he should have stated that, on every occasion when he (the Mayor of Cork) spoke in public, "he always asserted that he acted under leaders." He presumed those leaders were local celebrities, but curiously enough the names he always mentioned wore Gladstone and Bright.

desired to correct a mistake into which the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire had fallen with respect to the Mayor of Cork. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that that gentleman was deprived of the Commission of the Peace for the use of seditious language. That was not the fact? He was removed from that position because he subscribed to what was called the Fenian fund; and when called upon by the Government to give an explanation of the object of such subscription, he refused to do so. He happened to have the pleasure of knowing the Mayor of Cork for many years, and up to a re- cent period no gentleman in the City of Cork held a higher position or was more respected. He was engaged in an extensive business as a merchant, was possessed of considerable private property, and was a gentleman by birth. Up to the time of the Fenian movement he did not believe that the Mayor of Cork had taken any part in political matters. He deeply regretted to be compelled to admit that the language attributed to that gentleman—if really used by him—was such as it was impossible for anyone to defend. As precedents were of some importance in this matter, he would refer for a moment to the case of Thomas Bainbridge, who was a warder in the prison of the Fleet, and who was accused of misbehavior in his office, with having inflicted cruel treatment upon a prisoner confined in gaol. He found that a Bill was introduced by Mr. Ogilvy in 1729, and presented to the House according to Order. The Bill was read a second time on the 3rd of April; on the 12th a Petition from Mr. Bainbridge was presented. The result of that Petition was that Mr. Bainbridge was allowed to be heard by counsel and solicitor, and a Conference was subsequently held between the House of Commons and the House of Lords. He believed that the Attorney General for Ireland would find this a case in point, and one that would show that this House was a proper place for proceedings of this kind to be initiated.

I rose. Sir. immediately after the hon. Member for Dungannon (Colonel Stuart Knox), because I think it desirable that there should be no misconception about the motives of the jealousy exhibited by several Members as to the form of procedure to be adopted on this occasion. I apprehend there is no difference of opinion whatever in any part of the House as to the demerits of the Mayor of Cork, or as to the necessity of proceeding against him. assuming that the circumstances alleged against him be true. But the point to which attention has been very properly directed is that of procedure; and for this reason—that in all these eases we are laying down precedents; and it is at moments like the present, when acts exciting strong feeling are brought under notice, that it is necessary to be careful that we lay down no precedent and admit no doctrine which may be inconvenient at future times. I would point out to my hon. and gallant Friend and to other Members that the course which is to be taken on the present occasion—upon an occasion that has actually excited a great deal of indignation in the breasts of hon. Members in all parts of the House—is a course which may possibly be followed hereafter under different circumstances, and which may prove to be very detrimental to the liberties of the subject or to the privileges of Parliament. But I do not rise for the sake of going into any general discussion on the question, but rather to challenge, if I rightly understood it, the doctrine laid down by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General with regard to the proper separation of the functions of the two Houses of Parliament. As I understood him he laid down the doctrine that one House could not proceed upon evidence taken in the other. [The SOLICITOR GENERAL explained that what he said was that one House was not bound to proceed on evidence taken by the other.] That alters the question, and I am glad to hear my hon. and learned Friend put it in that way. It was urged that it would be better to proceed in the other House, because you could by so doing in all probability obtain the best kind of evidence. My hon. and learned Friend appeared to think that the two Houses ought to proceed separately, and that evidence taken in one could not be produced in the other. If that doctrine were laid down it would have a material bearing upon this case—though I think that argument was to some extent answered by my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford shire (Mr. Henley). But, as a matter of fact, evidence given before the House of Lords may be admitted before this House, and in certain cases it is so taken—I refer especially to the case of a Divorce; Bill. I understand that the practice is that the Bills for Divorce originate in the House of Lords, that evidence is there taken upon oath, that that evidence is communicated by the House of Lords to the House of Commons, and is anted upon here without any fresh evidence being taken. If that is the practice it seems to furnish a precedent for the proper mode of proceeding when Bills with Pains and Penalties—and Divorce Bills must be regarded as such—are concerned. The rule relating to this subject is thus laid down in a book which we are all of us accustomed frequently to consult—

"Bills of Attainder, and on Pains and Penalties, have generally originated in the House of Lords as partaking of a judicial character."

One would have thought it, therefore, a convenient practice that Bills of this character should originate in the House of Lords. At all events it was, I thought, advisable to take some notice of the statement of my hon. and learned Friend. I am glad that he has qualified it, but I still think that it would be more in accordance with the ordinary practice of Parliament that a Bill of this kind should be introduced in the House where the evidence could be taken on oath.

said, they were dealing with a matter of the gravest character. It had come to his knowledge that, in consequence of the words attributed to the Mayor of Cork, meetings had been held of a most turbulent character in that part of the country, and threats of violence, only too frequent he was sorry to say in Ireland, bad been held out against loyal citizens. The feelings of the persons who attended had been specially directed against Alderman Lyons, who had thought it his duty to call the Mayor of Cork to account for the language he had used, and to give him an opportunity of acknowledging or denying the sentiments attributed to him. For this manly mode of action Alderman Lyons had been held up to public odium; and his life had been threatened by the mob in the streets and by letter. This was a matter which the House ought not to overlook—especially in the case of a man who had demeaned him-self in all respects as a good subject of the Queen; and he wished to know whether, if the threat were carried out, this amiable and excellent citizen, the Mayor of Cork should not be held personally responsible for his murder? He said that the House could not possibly pass over such a case. With regard to the Bill before the House he thought the Members of the Opposition could have taken no other course than in prescribing that the greatest care should be taken in proceeding in a matter of so much gravity. This was not the first case in which the most violent and seditious language had been used. And it would have been well if the Executive Government had interposed earlier to prevent the use of violent and seditious language, which produced the worst and most baneful effects. This House ought to proceed with the greatest caution and gravity, and hedge itself round with every security, and show to the people of Ireland that they must not be carried away by the exciting statements of such orators.

said, that in common with other hon. Members who disapproved of the Bill, he felt great difficulty in expressing his objections from the possibility of its being supposed that he, in the slightest degree, countenanced the acts or the speech of the Mayor of Cork. He objected to the Bill, not only on the ground stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire that it was in principle unconstitutional, but also because he objected to exceptional and ex post facto legislation. This instead of being a Bill of Pains and Penalties to the Mayor of Cork, would, in all probability, make him more popular. It was known that he had announced himself as a candidate for the City of Cork in a future Parliament, and these speeches abominable and discreditable as they were, were simply delivered for the purpose of promoting that end. He probably thought that by making himself a "martyr" he should obtain popularity with the Fenians, and by their aid coerce the respectable inhabitants of Cork, and so obtain a majority of votes. If this Bill was really brought forward by the Government for the purpose of promoting peace, law, and order, it showed how little the Government really knew of the present state of feeling in Ireland. An erroneous view of what the country required was taken by the Government, and it was a mistake to suppose that the Fenians were a majority of the nation. In America, with all their bluster of 5,000,000 ready for the invasion of England, we find, from the Census lately taken in the United States, that they could not muster 5,000 men, two-thirds of whom would prefer to listen to the advice of their clergymen to embarking in hopeless and reckless enterprizes. In Ireland he felt the vast majority of the people were loyal, and would themselves put an end to the disorders and bloodshed which were so frequently occurring there, if allowed to do so. A reign of terror was established over the peasantry, owing to the inability of the Executive to vindicate the law, from want of knowledge how to go about it. If the Government would listen to advice, and for once in their lives trust the Irish people to protect and defend themselves, he felt that that confidence would not be misplaced, and that the country would speedily present a different spectacle.

, as one of the independent Conservative Members sitting below the Gangway, believed he spoke the opinions of others besides himself when he said that, thoroughly disagreeing with the general Irish policy of the present Ministry, they considered that in this particular instance the Government had come forward in a manly and straightforward spirit to vindicate the cause of peace and order, and to provide for what was recognized on all hands as a great scandal. There was no necessity for scanning legal points and musty precedents. What they desired to do was to strengthen the hands of the natural protectors of order—the Executive Government. And they were glad to hear the ipse dixit of an Irish Attorney General raised from either side of the House in favour of order and against sedition. They looked upon the chief Law Officer of the Crown as the right authority for invoking the sense of Parliament in a matter like this. The hon. and gallant Colonel who had just sat down had said that this was probably an election speech that was delivered by the Mayor of Cork. When, however, they remembered the terms which the Mayor used with reference to a man who had raised his hand against the Queen's son he could not help thinking that such an election speech required a sharp sort of election committee to sit upon it. It was not at all impossible, moreover, that such things as election speeches were occasionally delivered inside St. Stephen's as well as out of it. and that speeches were made out of a regard for seats winch, at another election, might be trembling in the balance. Those who had argued with considerable ingenuity that this speech was made rather late at night, and after supper, somehow forgot to refer to the Mayor's letter published in the Cork paper—a letter which in all probability was written after the morning cup of tea. He had risen for the purpose of stating that, while those who sat below the Gangway on that side of the table reserved for themselves the privileges of Members to form their own opinion of the details of this or of any other measure, they desired not to interrupt the course of substantial justice or the restoration of order to Ireland by any quibbles, and he trusted that similar sentiments prevailed on the front Bench on that side; for nothing would be more dangerous to law and order in Ireland than that it should be supposed that any persons holding themselves up to be the leaders of the Conservative party could, in the least degree, tamper with treason for the sake of a party victory, which, like other party victories, might at Conservative hands, result in the more complete triumph of that policy which the party crossed the House in order, as they averred, to prevent.

The speech we have just heard from the hon. Member for Cambridge University is one I could not have listened to without immediately rising. Those who heard me speak in the House the other night will be aware that I pointed out to the Government the very course in substance that they have now thought proper to take. It is a choice of evils. You have a state of things existing for which the law provides no remedy, and, under those circumstances, any remedy which you may apply must of necessity be in some sense one out of the common course, and must be a sharp and severe one. I have before me the only remedy I am acquainted with. It is under an Irish statute of the 1st George III., and is, I presume, the one to which the Attorney General referred when he spoke of an ex officio information. That, however, would not meet the evil, because the object is not to proceed against the Mayor for the use of seditious language, but to remove him from the position in which he is doing incredible mischief, by leading the people to believe that a man in authority is entitled to hold a place giving him position and influence in the town in which he lives, when it is a place which he ought not to hold if it can be taken from him with justice and reason. I agree that it is essential that we should have evidence at the Bar of what occurred in Cork on which to proceed; but it is at the same time idle to shut our eyes and ears to the facts. The facts are before us. They have been admitted by the chief culprit himself. Let us, however, hear the evidence, and bring judicial minds to bear upon it. But I will for a moment assume that what is stated is correct. When a justice of the peace in the great City of Cork vindicates the conduct of the three men executed in Manchester, as the Mayor of Cork has done, and refers to a man executed in this country for one of the most horrible crimes ever perpetrated—a crime which inflicted suffering and death upon many harmless and innocent women and children—I refer to the Clerkenwell explosion—as of a man actuated by the most noble motives—in that way almost justifying assassination—such a person is not at longer to hold a position in the magistracy. And when he goes on to say that O'Farrell was actuated by as high motives as any patriot was ever actuated by—I say such a man is not fit to hold the place he occupies for one single moment, and that his being allowed to continue there is sufficient in itself to bring any Government into discredit. When I add to that that the person who was appointed to protect law and order in that city allowed to be made in his presence seditious speeches which —though couched in ironical language—could have but one meaning, and that he himself said that if they were strong-enough they would drive the English out of the country—I say that that is not the man we ought to palter with; and though as a matter of policy and expediency, and for the purpose of steadying the witnesses, I think it would have been better that this Bill should have been begun in the House of Lords, yet I cannot admit that the House of Commons has lost its power of initiating because it has not the power of taking evidence upon oath. I wish, as a matter of prudence and policy, that evidence should have been given upon which we could have acted; but I do not think that we are precluded from acting because we cannot take sworn evidence. The effect of such a doctrine would be to deprive us of our highest privileges. I may say. in answer to the remarks of my hon. Friend below the Gangway (Mr. B. Hope), that I do not find that in the course of this discussion anything has been said which would tend in any degree—I will not say to palliate, but to modify or to take away from the language used by the Mayor of Cork; and T feel it so essential that he should be deprived of his office of justice of the peace, and the right of sitting any longer as mayor, that I. shall be prepared to assist in any exceptional course for the purpose of relieving the people of the country from so crying and outrageous a scandal.

said, no one was less open to the taunt of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Beresford Hope) than his hon. Friend below him (Colonel French), for his hon. Friend had retained his seat between thirty and forty years, and was likely, if he lived as long more, to retain it for the period of his natural life. From the speeches that had been made that afternoon he feared that that House could scarcely be regarded as likely to bring a judicial mind to bear upon this ease, because what they had done had been to convict the man before he was tried; and if he were to believe the hon. Member for Donegal (Mr. Conolly) it was their duty, not only to try the Mayor of Cork for sedition, but also for murder. No one, certainly, could pretend to justify the language attributed to the Mayor of Cork, if that language had really been used by him—and no one had attempted to justify it; but if the Mayor of Cork would say that he used the language in a moment of heat, and in the course of an after-dinner speech, and that he never intended to convey the meaning which had been attached to his words, such an explanation would, he believed, be agreeable to them all. But the question was as to the proper nature of the tribunal. There were precedents for proceeding first in that House as well as in the House of Lords; but if he (Mr. Synan) were to give an opinion on which side the balance of convenience lay, he should say the best place would be to try the Mayor upon sworn evidence in the other House. But, at any rate, he ought to have a fair trial; and they ought not to anticipate his guilt, or, in the meanwhile, to exasperate the feeling of the House or the public against him; they ought to deal with the matter as judicially as if they were a court.

said, he rose as representing an important constituency in the North of Ireland, second to none in the intensity of its Protestantism, to express a strong hope that the House would proceed with all caution in this ease. Having been sent to Parliament by an enthusiastic body of Protestants, he was desirous that it should be known that they were not unnecessarily clamorous for the infliction of punishment, before evidence had been taken, in the case even of an individual who had offended so grossly against decency, order, and propriety as the Mayor of Cork. He could not forget that those who were so anxious to punish the Mayor of Cork were also those who were desirous of repressing the expression of Protestant feeling in Ireland; and he had no wish that the Mayor of Cork should be made the scapegoat to carry off into the wilderness the sins of other people. He wished to express his dissent from the course proposed to be taken by the Government, for he shared with hon. Members below the Gangway in the constitutional cautions of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire.

said, he had had, for a period of seventeen years, the honour of sitting in that House, and during that time no ease like the present had occurred. As to the question in which House such a Bill as this should originate, several hon. Members had pointed out the inconvenience attending its introduction in this, on account of the want of power in the House of Commons in such cases to examine witnesses on oath. The question suggested itself to him was there any constitutional reason why this state of things should exist? On this subject Sir Erskine May, in his Law and Practice of Parliament. said—

"By the laws of England the power of administering oaths has been considered essential to the discovery of truth; it has been entrusted to small debt courts, and to every justice of the peace; but is not enjoyed by the House of Commons, the grand inquest of the nation. From what anomalous cause, and at what period, this power, which must have been originally inherent in the High Court of Parliament, was retained by one branch of it and severed from the other, cannot be satisfactorily established; but, even while the Commons were contending most strenuously for their claim to be a court of record, they did not advance any pretension to the right of administering oaths. The two Houses, in the course of centuries, have appropriated to themselves different kinds of judicature, but the one has exercised the right of administering oaths without question; while the other—except during the Commonwealth—has never yet asserted it."

As the inconvenience arising from this anomaly had now been so strongly felt he would venture to suggest to the Government that it was fair matter for consideration whether something should not be done to give the House of Commons that power.

The answer to the question of the hon. Baronet is that the other House is. and that this House is not, the highest court of appeal in the land, and as such administers an oath. There are, I think, two points upon which every one in this House must agree. The first is that, in the Mayor of Cork is legally guilty of having uttered seditious language, condign punishment ought at once to be inflicted, even by means of exceptional legislation. On the other hand, I apprehend that no man in this House, however strongly his indignation may be excited by the language imputed to the Mayor of Cork, is seriously of opinion that that condign punishment should be inflicted except upon evidence received in a proper and constitutional way. Well, these two points being conceded, the real question is, how the House shall act, so as to enable these proceedings to assume a constitutional character? When my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Beresford Hope) suggests that no grave constitutional questions are raised by the question, as to which House these proceedings ought to originate in, and when he expresses a hope that the Conservative leaders will not so act as to appear to tamper with treason, I must profess myself to be totally unable to follow the course of the argument of my hon. Friend. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie), and other Gentlemen, ending with my right hon. Friend the Member for the county of Oxford (Mr. Henley), are. I think, a sufficient proof that we may join with my hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge in the utmost condemnation of the language used by the Mayor of Cork, and yet. without any reference to the Mayor of Cork, may desire to proceed with gravity, if not hesitation, in the course suggested by Her Majesty's Government. I listened to the arguments for the course recommended of the right lion. Gentleman at the head of Her Majesty's Government. He appeared to me to say that it was in this House that exceptional legislation of this sort ought to commence rather than the other House; and he proceeded, as I understood him. to establish his point in the following way:—The Mayor of Cork is a Commoner; therefore he ought to be tried, in the first instance, by the House of Commons, and not by the House of Lords. Sir, I venture to say that this is a doctrine at present unsupported by any precedent in the history of this country; and I venture to think, with all deference to the right hon. Gentleman, that this is a doctrine which, in its possible application, will not be found to sub serve the true interests of the liberty of the subject. The right hon. Gentleman knows that evidence in this House cannot be taken on oath; and the result of the position of the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, will be that a man tried for a very grave offence may be proceeded against, in the first instance, in this House, upon evidence, not of the most satisfactory nature, and that he may have to rely on evidence of a more satisfactory kind, taken in another place, for the rehabilitation of his character. I think, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government failed to show, both in point of principle and in point of practice, that the course recom- mended by the Government was one altogether justifiable. I believe that, in point: of principle, it is not for the real interest of the liberty of the Commons that this House should originate measures of a penal character against individuals belonging to the order of the Commons; and I am quite sure that all who have heard the right hon. Gentleman will admit that the precedent which he quoted, and on which he relied, was a precedent entirely in the opposite direction. As to the general question, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge that there is not the shadow of a shade of distinction among Gentlemen on these Benches, or I believe on the Benches opposite, as to the necessity for inflicting condign punishment on the person who may have used this language, if it should be legally proved that this language has been made use of.

I beg to thank the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. G. Hardy) for his straightforward and manly speech on this occasion. The views he has presented to the House are precisely those which operated on Her Majesty's Government in undertaking this grave matter, and our conviction was that there was no other remedy for the scandal that the Mayor of Cork should continue to hold his position after the de-livery of the speeches that had been imputed to him. I do not mean to enter into some of the matters that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckingham-shire has mentioned; but this I will say—that, while nothing would be further from my mind or from my nature than to do anything that would prejudice this case, I was bound, in common courtesy to the House, and it was my duty as Attorney General for Ireland, to lay before the House the outline of the case on which the Government had to rely in proposing this exceptional legislation. I hold in my hand at this moment a Resolution which I intend to move if leave be given to bring in the Bill, and a copy of that Resolution is to be served on the Mayor of Cork, apprising hint that leave was given to bring in the Bill, that a copy of the Bill is furnished to him, that it is to be read a second time on Tuesday, and that he is at liberty to appear at the Bar of the House and to be heard by counsel. Of course, on that day, or whatever other day the case of the Mayor of Cork may be investigated, it will not be for him to prove that he has not used the words, but for Her Majesty's Government to show that they have evidence to sustain the course they have pursued. That is the course proposed to be taken, and I am quite sure any time the Mayor of Cork will wish to have accorded to him will be granted. I must say that I never in my life had to perform so painful a duty as in making the statement which I had to make this day in asking for leave to introduce this Bill. There are precedents after precedents in the House of Commons for Bills of this description—the Commons' Journals will show that. We have followed the precedents in this case, and as this Bill cannot pass into law unless the House of Lords shall adopt it, there cannot be the smallest chance of injustice being done, as the Mayor of Cork will have ample liberty at the Bar of this House and at the Bar of the House of Lords to defend himself—I hope that the Bill will be dealt with with the greatest caution and the extremist care.

, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that it had been generally understood that the greater portion of that day would be given up to the discussion of this subject, but the proceedings which had just terminated had necessarily occupied so much time that he was compelled to deal with the measure more briefly than he otherwise would have done. The noble Lord the Member for Haddington-shire (Lord Elcho) had put on the Paper a Notice to move that, pending the con- sideration of the whole? subject of hypothec by the Committee of the other House, it was not expedient to proceed with this Bill. Now he (Mr. Carnegie); had introduced this Bill at the earliest possible moment; he set it down for second reading at such a date as would not interfere with the county meetings or during the sittings of the General Assembly. The Lords' Committee was not appointed until after he (Mr. Carnegie) had given notice of his Bill; and therefore he did not think that he should be doing his duly to those whom he represented if he were, because of proceedings "else-where," with which, he had nothing to do, to consent to the postponement of a question of so much importance. It seemed to him that probably the best course which could be taken would be to pass the measure through that House, send it to the other House, where their Lordships could make Amendments in accordance with the Report of their Committee. There was another reason why he considered it unnecessary to postpone the Bill—that was the Royal Commission which sat upon it took ample evidence, having examined no less than 102 witnesses; and it must also be remembered that, these witnesses had the advantage of being examined by gentlemen who held various opinions of the propriety and expediency of amending this law, and not by gentlemen who merely represented one part of the public It was quite impossible that he should go at length into details—he referred hon. Gentlemen who were anxious to understand what the law was, and in what respects it differed from the Law of Debtors, to the Report of the Royal Commission. Subsequent to the Report of the Royal Commission of 1867 the Government introduced a Bill which was subsequently carried. That Bill made the minimum possibly alteration in the law. What it did was to abolish the right of following crops sold to bonâ fide purchasers, to require; that sequestrations should be registered, and to shorten slightly the time during which hypothec could be enforced. Practically this was as little as could have been done; because this right of following the crops was very seldom enforced, and, in fact, was very nearly a dead letter; and practically it abandoned the whole system on which the laws formerly stood—because the theory of the Law of Hypothec was that the fruits of the ground were positively pledged for the payment of the rent. So that so far as that went the produce was not the property of the tenant but of the landlord; and therefore the right of following the crop was a legitimate conclusion from that theory. If the rule was that the crop was the property of the landlord, of course to sell it without his consent would simply amount to robbery; but if they laid down the principle that the crop was the property of the tenant, it was liable to division between the tenant and his creditors. Now a letter appeared in The Times the other day of a rather remarkable character. The writer says—

"The abolitionists seek to place the landlord in the position of a creditor towards his tenant. But he is not a creditor. This is the key of the whole subject. If he were a creditor their argument is sound. But to let land is not equivalent to the lending of capital."

And then he proceeded to write nearly a column and a-half of what he could not help terming simply special pleading. He (Mr. Carnegie) contended that the landlord was a creditor, and nothing but a creditor, and if the law allowed him to be anything more, he said that the law was unfair and unjust. And that the landlord holds the position of a creditor he could show on a higher authority than that of the author of the letter—namely, Ross, On the Law of Scotland, in which he said the Romans created debts on real property of hypothec. Now the definitions of hypothec was a right imposed upon the property of another, and the latter held the position of a creditor. It was the hypothec which burdened the land, and he maintained that the landlord was the creditor of the tenant. He would leave it to the noble Lord and to the writer of that letter, to upset, if they could, the dictum of one of the highest legal authorities in Scot- land; and they must upset his authority before they could make out their case. The real analogy, it appeared to him, was that of the merchant and the seller of the raw material. The merchant who sold cotton and flax, sold that which was not available for general use until it was manufactured; but in order to manufacture it, it must go through certain processes which require machinery. Now, neither the seller of the raw material, nor the manufacturer, nor the maker, or seller of the machinery have any rights for hypothec. He contended that the landlord was very much in the position of the seller of the raw material, or the makers of the machinery, or the manure merchant. It was said that the laud was entrusted to the tenant as a trust. That might he true as regarded the land where there was a good tenant; but it was precisely the reverse where there was a bad one. In that case the Law of Hypothec did not apply because a tenant might deteriorate the land without in the least degree bringing himself under the operation of the law. If the landlord had no remedy against the properly of the tenant, except The right of hypothec, there might be some reason for it; but, supposing there were not sufficient crops on the land to satisfy the hypothec, the land-lord could still come in and rank as creditor in respect to any other property which the tenant might possess. In common justice, the man who owes money ought to pay it; and if he cannot do so, his property should be liable to equal division among his creditors, and no one should have a preference more than another. It had been represented that, the Law of Hypothec was a relicoff feudalism. It was not a relic of feudalism, but a relic of something a great deal worse—namely, of serfdom. Under the Roman law, in which it originated, the cultivators of the soil were serfs, and they cultivated the soil for the landlords, the produce belonging to the landlords: and for them to apply the produce to their own use would of course amount to complete and absolute robbery. As. however, serfdom became abolished, the payment of rent was taken in kind, and then, at any rate, a portion of the crop was the absolute property of the land-lord, and, therefore, his claim over that property could be maintained as easily as that of any other owner. But as it was at present, the process is entirely altered. In the former state of agriculture the matter was of little importance, because the tenant lived principally on the produce of his farm, and had scarcely any other creditor than his landlord. Therefore, the question whether the landlord had or had not a preferential claim affected very few people, and was not raised; but at the present time capital requires to be applied to the land. The tenant must have dealings with the manure merchant, and he must employ the manufacturer of ma- chinery, and many other people, and pay to them a large sum annually, which is necessary for the cultivation of his farm; and he believed that the sum thus paid is frequently in excess of the sum paid for rent. It was perfectly impossible that the rents which were colleted in modern times should be paid without a certain outlay being made. There was evidently a complete change in the state of things from former times; and the question was whether, the state of things being so changed, the state of the law should remain unaltered? He would first consider how the present state of the law affected the landlords, the tenants, the merchants, and the public. To put before the House the landlords' case, he would refer to the statement which was made two years ago by Lord Selkirk, who was directly opposed to any change. Lord Selkirk said it was not from any idea that it would affect the pecuniary interests of the landlords that he opposed the Bill, because it affected them very remotely; but it was in the interest of the tenant, and especially of the smaller tenants, that he opposed it. That was a question which he (Mr. Carnegie) would touch on hereafter. Again, Mr. Dickson who is not in favour of the abolition of the law, and whose words, therefore, would probably be listened to with respect on both sides, says—

"What would be the effect of the total abolition of the law? In the first place, then, it must considerably reduce the rents; but probably after twenty years it would raise the rents, because it would necessarily bring about an application of capital to the cultivation of land, and that capital certainly will not be forthcoming until it is safe."

At present the landlords would frequently take men without capital at high rents in preference to men with capital at lower rents. But the bankrupt tenant was no good to the landlord, and he very seldom did anything for himself. He exhausted the soil, and in the end he generally dragged his friends into his own ruin. It had been frequently said that, under the operation of this law. the landlord was often able to give indulgence to his tenants. But if this Bill passed, the landlord would not be prevented in the least from doing so; only instead of giving indulgence at other people's risk he would do it at his own. By this Bill he proposed to recognize all existing contracts, and, of course, the landlord would in future be permitted to guard himself' by special contracts, and could demand security from the tenant or even forehand rent. One argument used against the abolition of the law was that, as the landlord in Scotland had to pay the ministers' stipends, school salaries, and other charges, it was right he should have security for his rent. But these charges were charges on the land, not on the crop, and the landlord would have to pay them whether he let his land or not. Moreover, he could make his own bargain with his tenant in this respect. It had been said that if this Bill were to pass the landlords would take a great deal of the land into their own hands. If they did, he did not think the country would be any the worse for it—he thought it rather a thing to be encouraged, for it would induce the landlords to live upon their own estates, and to take an interest in country pursuits. He would now take the law as it related to the tenants. A great distinction had been drawn between the large and small tenants; but the only distinction he (Mr. Carnegie) could see was between the tenant who had sufficient capital to farm his land and the tenant who had not. But the tenant of a small farm might be the man who had sufficient capital, while the tenant of a large one might be a man with insufficient capital. The prudent landlord was the man who got a fair rent for his farm; and in such a case as that the law was practically inoperative, and it was practically inoperative so far as the good tenant is concerned. Now, with regard to the small tenant, he believed that every argument that he had applied to the large tenant applied also to him. It was very remarkable that the opponents of this Bill all said they were acting in favour of the small tenant. The small tenants did not seem to see it. At the time of the General Election—though some of the candidates came out very strong on this point—the small tenants did not appear to have any objection to the abolition of the law. On the contrary, the small tenants were, as a class, in favour of this Bill. As to the question of how the law affected merchants, he did not think it necessary to go into that question further than to say that if a merchant, in the case of a bankrupt customer, only received a dividend of something like 3s. 6d. in the £1, they were not likely to be very well satisfied with the present state of the law. He had now endeavoured to show that the present law did no good either to the landlord or the tenant. It did no good to the prudent landlord, while it did mischief to the imprudent one; that it was injurious to the tenant, and, therefore, ought to be abolished, because anything which prevented the application of capital to the land must be injurious to the community. If, on the other hand, it can be shown that the Law of Hypothec is in the interest of the community, he willingly admitted that it would be a good law. At present he had confined himself to the Law of Hypothec connected with agricultural subjects, but this Bill of his also included urban hypothec. He had included it in this Bill, because otherwise it would have been difficult to deal with the question in Committee without a special Instruction; and it would be for the Committee to decide whether they would deal with urban hypothec or not. For his own part, he must express his opinion that urban hypothec was an unfair tax, for he could not see why a claim for lodgings should have a preferential money claim over claims for food or clothing. The writer in The Times, to whom he had before referred, said—" The Law of Hypothec, as a maxim of jurisprudence, is absolutely unassailable." It seemed to him strange that a maxim that was "absolutely unassailable" should never have obtained currency in England, for the Law of Distress has never included the principle of hypothecation or pledging the crop. He said, on the contrary, that as a maxim of modern political jurisprudence it was absolutely untenable. It was useless to conceal that the feeling between landlord and tenant in Scotland was not what it ought to be, or what their best friends would wish. He believed the reason to be that whilst the system of modern agriculture had materially modified the moral position of landlord and tenant with regard to one another, the laws which regulate that relation had remained unchanged. The tenant was not now, and ought not to be considered as. the dependent on the landlord. He was equally a contracting party in the bargain for their mutual advantage. The tenant derived no more benefit from the landlord than the landlord derived from the tenant; and he called upon this House to remove from the tenantry of Scotland the badge of serfdom.

rose to move the Amendment of which he had given notice,—That pending the consideration—by a Committee of the House of Lords—of the whole question of the Law of Hypothec, as existing both in Scotland and other countries, it is expedient to delay the further consideration of this Bill, he did not propose to follow his hon. Friend (Mr. Carnegie) in his inquiry as to whether a certain writer in The Times did or did not take a correct view of this question, nor was he going to enter upon any of the collateral issues he had raised. What he wished to point out was that that if any stranger had come into the House and had not known the subject of the present discussion, he would have supposed that his hon. Friend was speaking of a country where the tenantry were oppressed and for the most part bankrupt, and where, under the operation of a most unjust, oppressive, and impolitic; law, agriculture was in a most depressed and deplorable condition. Now, so far from that being the case, he had always been proud to represent men who were at the head of agriculture in the world—than whom there were none more prosperous, and who Live in a country where agriculture was in a more satisfactory condition than in any other country in the world. His hon. Friend had spoken of the existence in Scotland of a bad feeling between landlord and tenant—a feeling created by the Law of Hypothec. Now while he admitted that there might exist some bad feeling between the two classes in consequence of the excessive preservation of game, for which the landlord class might be to blame, he denied altogether that any blame attached to the landlords by reason of the Law of Hypothec. It was a law that had existed in the country for any length of time, since the days of the Romans, in point of fact—and what did his hon. Friend propose? A modification of the law? Nothing of the kind. He proposed, in order to bring back those kindly feelings, to take away from the landlord the preferential right which he, from time out of mind, had had over the crops of his tenants, and to leave him exactly in the same position with any other creditor. He (Lord Elcho) wanted the House not to give an opinion in favour of the measure, but to pass his Resolution, which he maintained embodied the common sense of the question as it stood at present. The broad issue now before the House was this—the preferential right of the landlord, called the Law of Hypothec, was equivalent to the Law of Distress in England and Ireland; and the Hill of the hon. Gentleman—and he hoped the English and Irish Members would mark it—did not propose to modify this law, but to sweep it away, wholly and entirely, both as regards land and houses in towns. Now, consider the time at which his hon. Friend proposed this sweeping and revolutionary measure. What is the position of the question? In 1865 a Commission was appointed to consider this question, and a majority of the Commission—9 out of 13—proposed certain modifications to the law. The Solicitor General dissented, and two tenant-farmers, members of the Commission, signed a separate Report of their own. When Lord Derby's Government was in Office, the recommendations of the Commission were in the main adopted, and a Bill was passed. Now, in reference to this Bill, he had himself that afternoon presented two Petitions signed by the Lord Provost of Edinburgh on behalf of himself and his brother magistrates, praying that no fresh legislation on this subject may be attempted until the Bill already passed had been fairly tested. Before the hon. Gentleman had any right to ask that House to sweep away the existing law, he should prove that under its operation abuses had arisen; and he maintained that neither he now, nor the witnesses who were examined before the Commission had proved any such thing. Another reason why they should not pass this Bill was that, at the present time, a Committee of the other House was sitting to consider the whole question of the relations between landlord and tenant, not in these islands alone, but in all European countries: and therefore the common-sense view was not to attempt further legislation till after the Act of 1867 had been tried, and until after they had seen. the Report of that Committee. 'What were the points mainly urged in favour of this Bill? It was said that the existing law artificially raised the price of land, made landlords careless in the selection of tenants, and rendered it difficult for a tenant who had a crop liable to be seized to get accommodation from bankers, and that the law was unjust to creditors other than the landlord. Now last night he was reading the debate upon this Bill of his hon. Friend, when it was brought in and rejected in 1867, and in that debate he found a speech of the hon. Member for Linlithgowshire (Mir. M'Lagan), who represented, in a great measure, the enlightened opinion of a large portion of the farmers and tenantry of Scotland, and who was one of the Commissioners, and what did he say? With reference to the Law of Hypothec raising rents, he utterly denied that it had any appreciable effect in that direction, It was due, he said, to other circumstances. Then, with regard to the greediness of landlords, who, anxious to get tenants, did not make proper inquiries, and so got their farms occupied by bankrupt fawners, or farmers on the verge of bankruptcy——

said he did not say so, nor anything to that effect.

Perhaps not in those very words, but certainly his impression from hearing the speech was as he had stated. With regard to the question—the hon. Member for Linlithgowshire (Mr. M'Lagan) said—

"It is said, moreover, that on account of this law landlords and factors are careless in the selection of their tenants, that men of capital and skill are passed over, and mere adventurers chosen if they offer the highest rent. It may be that some greedy and unwise managers of estates may take the highest offerer for a farm whatever may be his qualifications. But we have it distinctly stated in evidence that such are merely exceptions, and that both proprietors and factors are most particular in making inquiries about the character and capital of the men who offer for farms, and that in general they select the best men even though they may not be the highest offerers.—[3 Hansard, clxxxvii. 202.]

The hon. Member for Linlithgowshire said moreover—

"We are told again that the Law of Hypothec prevents farmers getting advances from bankers, between whom and the farmers banking facilities would be very much increased if this law were abolished. The evidence laid before the Commission is at direct variance with this statement: for almost every banker who gave evidence stated that the abolition of the law would make no difference to them in giving credit to farmers. And in addition to this direct evidence we have the strong indirect evidence of experience, from which we learn that nothing has tended mere to the advancement of agriculture in Scotland for the last fifty years than the cash credit system of our Scotch banks, by which farmers were enabled, from the facilities afforded them, of borrowing money from the banks for the improving and carrying on of their farms."—[Ibid.]

And he said—

"We are further told that the law operates injuriously on those merchants who are in the habit of dealing with tenants. But the evidence given before the Commission by merchants favourable to the abolition of the Law of Hypothec was to the contrary effect. It appeared from their statements that during the succession of bad seasons from 1861, the losses their firms had suffered from their dealings with tenants were not greater than from one-third to a little over 1 per cent. Mr. Copeland, of Aberdeen, stated his loss from these transactions in 1863, at seven-eighths per cent. and in 1864, at one-third; and that from dealings with other classes in the same years, at one-half and one-fifth respectively."—[Ibid., 202–3.]

Mr. Hopekirk. a com merchant, who was examined before the Commission, gave evidence, in the course of which he stated that, in mercantile sequestrations, it was frequently found that the bankrupt had made a bond in favour of one particular creditor, to the exclusion of the rest—those rest have known nothing of the existence of the bond until the bankruptcy. By this means the creditors of the bankrupt merchant were placed, so far as the prospect of payment was concerned, in the same position with the creditors of the bankrupt, farmer—with this difference, that in the one case the existence of the preferential creditor was secret, and in the other case it was perfectly clear and open. Moreover, Mr. Hopekirk was favourable to the granting a preferential claim to the landlord, for the reason that he ties up his money in land for a term of years at a very low rate of interest—not more than 3 per cent, taking the taxes into consideration—while the trader, by turning over his capital rapidly, say six times in the course of the year at 3½ per cent, made a profit of more than 20 per cent upon his capital in the course of twelve months. It must be remembered too, that, though the landlord lost his rent, the local burdens remained: so that the landlord would frequently, if this law was repealed, be in a position similar to that of the Irish landlords in the famine time, as he once heard it described in this House by an hon. Member—they would have to spend half their rents in paying the mortgages on their lands, and to live on the other half which they would never get. Now, what was the state of agri- culture in Scotland at that moment? Unquestionably, it was a credit to the enterprize of the farmers. He ventured to say, in the presence of an authority so great as the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. A. Pell), that it was equal to anything that could be found in any part of England. This being the state of things under the existing law, the hon. Member (Mr. Carnegie) sought entirely to abrogate that law. But he (Lord Elcho) hoped the House would not assist him in his intention. He ventured to think that the effect of the hon. Gentleman's measure would be that, in the words of the hon. Member for Linlithgowshire (Mr. M'Lagan), we should have fore-rents instead of back-rents, collateral security required by the landlords from the tenants, and, further, shortened leases. He hoped that when they had granted longer leases to the tenants in Ireland there would be in that country as prosperous and contented a tenantry, and as fine a (lass of hinds, or labourers in husbandry, as they have at the present moment in Scotland. The Royal Commission pointed out that the effect of the abolition of this law would be to drive small tenants out of the market. Some, however, hold a different view, and said that there would be a greater demand for small farms; but, in his (Lord Elcho's) opinion, the demand would come from above and not below—that was to say. the demand would be amongst the wealthier farmers, and not amongst the small ones; and if they drove these small tenants out of the market, they would sweep away a large class which was an honour to Scotland. The small tenant was generally a man who had risen from being a labourer to be an overseer or bailiff, and who then took land for himself. One gentleman who gave evidence before the Commissioner said—

"I now pay a rent of £3,000 or £4,000 a year in Scotland, and I began as a farm-labourer; and it is through this security, and through the credit which I have had given me, that I have been enabled to rise."

Now, he (Lord Elcho) could substantiate the Report of the Royal Commission that the abolition of the law would act injuriously upon the small tenants by quoting figures. There were in eight counties in Scotland 2,543 farms, averaging in rent from £100 to £200; 1.108 from.£200 to £300; 648 between £300 and £ 100; 377 between £400 and £500; 413 between £500 and £700; 261 between £700 and £1,000; while there were only 138 above £1,000. Now, where this change would tell was in the Lothians. It was not in the rich, fertile, and arable land—in the land there would be plenty of competition amongst men of capital for these farms—for, mark this, the tenantry could not pi-event competition; they could not establish, as it were, trades' unions amongst themselves. Nearly always men who had mads money in trade and commerce wished to settle on the land, instead of living in towns all their lives; and they would not look so much to profit as to their residence on the land—therefore, he said, there would always be plenty of competition for these first-class lands—it was in the Border districts, where there were small farms, and where, from geographical causes, large farms could not be got together, that the effect, of the abolition of this law would be most felt. The small farmers there would most suffer, not the larger proprietors. Now, in one district in Scotland—Aberdeenshire—there were, out of a total of 711 tenants, 251 whose rents were between £5 and £20; 217 between £20 and £50; 123 between £50 and £100; 81 between £200 and £500; and only one above £500. This was only one instance of many. It was said by some who call themselves Liberals that this agitation was got up by the large farmers. Well, they were not to be blamed for that. If men believed the law to be unjust, they were perfectly justified in endeavouring to obtain an alteration of it. He wished, however, to refer to the speech of the hon. Member for Fife shire (Sir Robert Anstruther). who, two years ago, said he would support the Amendment for the rejection of the Bill, because, after examining the question, he was convinced it was not one between the landlord and the tenant, but was an agitation on the part of the large fanners as against, the small farmers. He might quote a passage to the same effect from a speech by Lord Dalhousie; and in a speech to his tenantry the Duke of Argyll had said the same thing, quoting the evidence of Mr. Henderson, once a tenant of the noble Duke, and now a tenant under his (Lord Elcho's) family. Mr. Henderson said that the abolition of the law would have a tendency to limit the former class to men of more capital; and the Duke of Argyll added that he was convinced the change was proposed not in the interests of the tenantry as a whole, but in the interests of a particular section of those who were large capitalists. Now in this matter it was proposed to take away the right of hypothec as regards the land and urban subjects. But the Law of Hypothec was not confined to land and houses—it extended to money transactions—it extended to mortgages, and it extended to marine matters. A cargo of sugar transmitted from abroad to this country was not the property of the man to whom it was consigned until the freight had been discharged, and the shipowner had a complete hold of it until the debt was discharged. Further, he was told that nine-tenths of the sugar that came to this country was the property of the agent before it was put on board, and he had a right of hypothec prior to the person to whom it was con- signed. The law in any of these cases furnished a strong argument against the measure. He would now quote an authority against the abolition of this law, which he had kept until the last, because it was one to which this House, especially Members on the other side, would feel bound to submit—the present Lord Advocate. Now, there was no man in this House for whom he had a greater personal regard and respect than the learned Lord Advocate. Twelve years ago he had the honour of being associated with him in Office, and a friendship was then commenced which, he trusted, would last for the remainder of their lives. Well, his hon. and learned Friend said in the debate on his hon. Friend's Bill two years ago—

"I believe that the Law of Hypothec, as it at present stands, is a great deal too stringent, and I desire to see it amended: but there is a great deal of difference between modifying a law and abolishing it altogether. I am not prepared to take that step. This is not a theoretical, it is a practical question. The landlord being only a party to a contract can, even if the law were changed, always make his own terms, and preserve to himself his own remedy. As to preference claims, they are not peculiar to the Law of Hypothec. Instances of their existence in the laws respecting trade, commerce, and manufactures are numerous. There are eases of lien and rights of redemption, which really amount to just as much by giving a preference to one creditor over another as the Law of Hypothec in Scotland is as respects the landlord. The principle of the law is this—That where the risk is more than commensurate with the interest, then the law gives an unusual facility to recover the subject-matter of the interest. That is the principle of the Law of Lien, and it goes through a variety of cases, and it reasonably applies to that of the landlord, who has a lien, and whose means of subsistence for the year depends upon his receiving the rents of the year. But this is a practical matter. The landlord cannot be compelled to let his land. He may choose his tenant—he has ample means to protect his interests—he may, if this law be abolished, exact payment of rent in advance, or require security, and this implies that tinder the then new state of things the general creditor gains no more than at present. Small tenants will not be able to pay rent in advance, nor give security, and this, reducing the demand for farms, would no doubt cause farms to be let at something less than at present. Landlords would get rather less rent than before, and merchants and other creditors of farmers would be as they were before. The Bill, if it becomes law, will create inconvenience, without any benefit, and there is no necessity for it."—[3 Hansard, clxxxvii. 206–7.]

He had not offered opinions of his own upon the general merits of the question, but he had culled from the speeches of others opinions which coincided more or less with his own, and which, he believed, were sound, quoting, by preference, the views of eminent Liberals who held official positions. The House ought to be careful not to indulge in anything like exceptional legislation. He was surprised to hear it stated broadly that the Bill applied the same rule to urban property that it did to landed property; and he was surprised that, for the sake of catching a stray vote or two, for the sake of getting the vote of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Mr. Graham—["Hear, hear"]—he was in order in mentioning the name for the sake of distinction—and urban representatives, they should be invited to vote for the second reading of the Bill and make any alteration in it in Committee. The hon. Member, Mr. Graham, was at first in favour of the measure, but when he found it dealt with urban property he changed his opinion, and said he must oppose the second reading, un-less Amendments, with regard to urban property, were accepted in Committee. The Royal Commission took a wider view, and said that, if landed property were dealt with in this way, the principle must be applied to other property, including goods for sale—which were something like a crop, were they not?—for they were the produce of industry. If the House dealt with this question at all, let it deal with it in a broad, just, and fair, and not in an exceptional manner. He hoped the House would protect the rights of property, whether of the landlord, the shopowner, or the shopkeeper. He was opposed to exceptional legislation, and the existing law, judged by results in Scotland, was proved to be, on the whole, expedient, and, on the whole, he believed it to be just.

said, that not wishing to talk the House out, he would confine ' himself to saying that he was prepared to maintain what he before expressed in that House, that he believed there was an entire difference in the action of the Law of Hypothec as between the landlord of the agricultural produce and the right of the landlord to hold lien over household property, whether in city or in country. This was a matter of great importance to the interests of dwellers in houses.

said, he believed that the complaints against the operation of the Law of Hypothec arose from what it was before 1866 rather than from what it had been since, and urged that there was a difference between a farmer giving nineteen years' credit and a merchant giving fourteen days' credit. This was not a landlord's question but a farmer's question and a poor man's question; and he knew men who had risen from a humble position to affluence mainly through the help they derived from the existing law.