asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is true that instructions have been given to the local collector of Property Tax and House Duty for the parish of St. George's in the East, Middlesex, to proceed for this year's taxes upon the same assessment as last year, and not upon the assessment list made under the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, which came into operation last month, by which Act it is declared that such assessment list is to be the basis for all Rates and Taxes, as well Local as Governmental; and, if instructions at variance with the Statute referred to have been given, whether he will take steps promptly to remedy the inconvenience consequent on this proceeding?

replied that if instructions had been given at variance with the statute, steps should certainly be taken to remedy the inconvenience. He had referred the Question of the hon. Member to the Inland Revenue Department, and he had been informed that no such instructions as those referred to by the hon. Member had been issued.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If the attention of the Commissioners of Police has been drawn to the fact that Metropolitan Cabs are used for the conveyance of foul linen from the houses of various persons, whereby contagious and infectious diseases may be transmitted; and if it is his intention to direct the Commissioners of Police to put a stop to Metropolitan Cabs conveying foul linen; if not, what steps he proposes to take in order to put a stop to a practice likely to prove so detrimental to public health?

said, in reply, that an inquiry into the matter had failed to show that the conveyance of foul linen in metropolitan cabs had caused any mischief in the way of the transmission of contagious or infectious diseases. In the case of one establishment cabs were used for the conveyance of the linen of patients; but the cabs were employed for that purpose only. If it could be shown that diseases had been transmitted by the conveyance of foul linen in cabs it might become necessary to introduce an Act of Parliament to prevent the practice in future.

asked the First Commissioner of Works, What prospect there is of Brompton Cemetery being sold?

said, in reply, that the Board of Works had been unfortunately constituted the owners of the Brompton Cemetery by a combination of circumstances which might easily have been avoided. On becoming possessed of it, however, their first duty, of course, was to endeavour to get rid of it as soon as possible. Having no one to bury in it they would be extremely glad to find a purchaser for their acquisition. Offers had been made, but they were not of a character to justify him in accepting them.

rose to move that the House resolve itself into Committee on the Bill that day six months. Complaining that his remarks on the second reading had been misconstrued, he repudiated the charge of inconsistency—namely, that although he now opposed the Bill, he did not do so before the Select Committee. The fact was, that he took exception to that part of the Report which recommended the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, and had not the Chairman ruled that it could not be submitted, he should have moved a Resolution to the effect that the vigorous enforcement of the ordinary laws, the appointment of additional resident magistrates, more united action on the part of the local authorities, and the swearing in of special constables under the statute of William IV., as recommended by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Roscommon (Colonel French), would be quite sufficient to control crime in "Westmeath, and to restore order. Every step he took in Committee was advised or approved by a more experienced Member than himself—namely, the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Maguire), in whose judgment he had the greatest confidence. It had been asked why evidence had not been called to contradict that on which the Government relied for recommending a measure of this stringent character? In reply, he had to say that the Committee was a secret one, and the requisite witnesses could not be examined. Moreover, the tenor of several questions put to witnesses examined by the President of the Board of Trade and the Solicitor General for Ireland showed that neither of those hon. Gentlemen thought at the time of the probability of the Habeas Corpus Act being suspended. He also maintained that the evidence obtained was but hearsay or belief, and that, on such evidence, the Government could not justly urge the suspension of the liberties of the country; and, moreover, the evidence did not bear out the Report, for Captain Talbot referred to information he had received, the accuracy of which he said he could not vouch for. That witness left Westmeath six months before the Select Committee commenced their inquiry. He could not say that the existence of the Ribbon conspiracy was a fact, and both he and and General Wetherall had expressed the opinion that there was no need for the suspension of the Act in 1869, when crime was threefold greater than at present; the number of criminals being, for 1869, 173, and for the last 12 months contained in the Report 57. Again, Mr. Seed, the Crown Solicitor, stated in evidence that the condition of the county had wonderfully improved since June, 1870, and that there was no pressing occasion for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. Mr. Mooney, Clerk to the Crown for Westmeath, when asked what he thought was the best means of applying a remedy to the state of crime in that county, said he had always been of opinion that an efficient police force and a fearless magistracy were quite capable of dealing with the conspiracy. The Rev. Mr. Crofton gave his evidence directly against the efficacy of the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, and Mr. Cusack's evidence did not go to prove, from his own knowledge, the existence of the Ribbon conspiracy in Westmeath. [The hon. Member was about to refer to what he termed the very impassioned speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland, when

said, he wished to point out, that whereas in the several tables relating to crime in Ireland which were appended to the Report of the Committee, there was a head of offence called Ribbonism, not a single figure appeared under that head. [The hon. Member was about to read an extract from a newspaper relating to the speech of the Solicitor General for Ireland when

observed that it was out of Order and contrary to the rules of the House to read extracts from newspapers referring to a debate in that House.

said, he must express his surprise that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland should have been able to extract so much fun and laughter out of a debate upon a Bill of Pains and Penalties, which was to suspend the Constitution in Ireland, but at the same time admitted that the hon. and learned Gentleman's goodness of heart and love for his country were well-known throughout the length and breadth of Ireland. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said that he bore all the signs and tokens of being an Irishman, and no doubt he did. But in former times it was not very easy to satisfy the London public as to what those signs and tokens were, because he found, on referring to an old annual, that, in 1645, a celebrated performing bear was declared by the Londoners to be an Irishman, because it was said to be well known that Irishmen had tails. The hon. and learned Gentleman had omitted in his speech to notice the principal topic to which he (Mr. Downing) had endeavoured to direct the attention of the House on a former occasion. The heavy police tax which had been levied on struggling farmers and others in parts of Ireland under the Peace Preservation Act, and of which he would furnish an instance of 8s. 8d. in the pound being charged on a certain district in Leitrim, instead of producing a salutary effect, had caused disaffection among the people. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford had said that his (Mr. Downing's) assertion that Ireland was in a state of comparative peace and prosperity was an extravagance hardly worthy of the Member of so important a constituency as the county of Cork. That assertion was a quotation from a letter of the Correspondent of The Times, and he maintained that the evidence taken before the Committee showed that Ireland was now in a state of perfect peace and tranquillity. He desired to know whether that was the kind of legislation calculated to inspire confidence in the Irish people, respect for the law, or to give peace to the country? In this great City of London alone there was sufficient to alarm peaceable people. Ladies were knocked down by garotters and robbed of their watches; were assaulted, and no one dared to interfere. Why, then, was not the legislation proposed for Ireland applied to England? Within 10 years coroners' juries in England and Wales had given verdicts in 2,455 cases of murder. But that was only a small portion of the number of murders committed in England and Wales during the last 10 years. During that period the number of persons sentenced to death—not including those guilty of infanticide—in England was 330, of whom 126 were actually executed. Now, he was quite certain that within the last 10 years 10 persons had not been executed in Ireland; nay, he believed that not five had been executed.

continued. The county of Cork, which he represented, was altogether free from crime; and there was scarcely a case of larceny committed in it during four months; yet Cork was amongst the proclaimed districts, and in it there had been arrested, under the authority of the Peace Preservation Act, which received the Royal Assent last year, no less than 341 persons. Of this number, 201 had since been discharged; so that with regard to 201 cases the Government admitted that there was no ground for the arrest which they had ordered. Never was there a more false step taken by any Government than the introduction of this Bill. He had received numberless letters from persons in the highest position in Ireland, protesting against it. In Limerick a monster meeting had been held, and in his own county one was about to be held, in opposition to the Liberal Government, on account of this measure. He regretted the position of hostility to the Administration which he was now compelled to take up, for he had always hoped to be able to go into the Committee Lobby with them; but his duty to his constituents compelled him to take the opposite course; and he was convinced that at the next General Election the people of Ireland would clearly testify their opinion respecting this Bill which the Government had introduced.

, in rising to second the Amendment, said, that by a recent law, executions of criminals in England had been made private, and it seemed to him that, on something of the same principle, the greater part of the House of Commons had absented itself on this occasion, rather than witness the extinction of the Irish Constitution, upon such pretexts as never before in our history had been considered sufficient for such a step. There was no pretence now, in the slightest degree, for saying that the only requisite justifying the adoption of such a course had arisen—namely, that Ireland was in danger of civil or revolutionary outbreak and insurrection. For the first time in their annals, trifling social crimes—trifling in scope both as to number and extent of country implicated—were to be made the occasion of suppressing the constitutional liberties of the country. He protested against the attempt that had been made by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland to classify all those who objected to this Bill with the abettors of crime in Ireland and the stimulators of Ribbon outrages. Perhaps these words were not actually used by the hon. and learned Gentleman; but the meaning which his words were calculated to convey, both to the House and to persons outside, was that anyone who was not ready to adopt the ipse dixit of the hon. and learned Gentleman was, in substance and in fact, an abettor of crime in Ireland and a stimulator of the Ribbon conspiracy. Now, what were the facts of the case? In February last a proposition was made by the Chief Secretary for a Secret Committee on account, as he affirmed, of the appalling condition of Westmeath; but February, March, and April had passed, and now they were at the end of May, and the Government had done nothing whatsoever. The very slowness with which the Government had acted proved that they did not believe a single one of all the statements which they had put forward in public as to the condition of Ireland. If the Government believed that there was real danger in Ireland, it was their duty, as the defenders of order and peace, to act promptly and vigorously, and not to have allowed a single day to elapse without pushing forward this Bill. If, then, what they had alleged was true, they had been guilty of the grossest dereliction of duty—he would rather say they had been guilty of self-deception than impute to them a desire to deceive the House or the public. The people never could have either happiness, peace, or prosperity in Ireland until they had a Government with a strong hand, which would deal vigorously and relentlessly with crime whenever it was detected and proved to exist. And it was not by fits and starts like this that the condition of things in Westmeath could be improved; nor was it by spreading alarm among capitalists and frightening them away from the country. If the state of things—which was proved to have no existence at all by the evidence produced before the Select Committee—did really exist, it would have been the duty of the Government four months ago to have made the offending district swarm with police and with Judges, and there should have been a permanent Commission sitting until every vestige of crime was driven out of the land. In regard to another point, he desired to say that when it was first proposed that the Select Committee should be a secret one, he had strongly disapproved of it; but now he regretted that the Government had not adhered to its original design, because then it would not have been published to the world that the system was habitually pursued in Ireland of packing juries for the purpose of obtaining convictions. A high constitutional authority, speaking of a case in which 11 Catholics had been ordered to stand aside, said—

"That which I then said, and which I think more strongly now, is, that the trial was not a trial by a fair jury, but one elaborately put together for the purpose of conviction"—[3 Hansard, lxxvi. 2006.]

[An hon. MEMBER: What is the date?] The words were used by Lord Russell with respect to a case which occurred in 1844; and now, in 1871, they had Mr. Seed saying—"Leave the matter to me, and I will select the jury." The empty benches which he saw around him showed how little was thought about sacrificing the Irish Constitution; hon. Gentleman thought more of airing themselves on the Downs; and even, by two successive efforts, the Government were hardly able to keep together a formal House. From the evidence, it appeared that a discussion had arisen as to how the men who were to be put on their trial before the Special Commission in Meath were to be dealt with, and no one who read that evidence could fail to see that the question was, how a conviction could be obtained. No doubt, Mr. Seed misrepresented the conversation which he said was held with the Attorney General for Ireland, for it would be a libel on that learned Gentleman to suppose that he would be a party to pack, a jury. However, Mr. Seed said to whomsoever he had the conversation with—"Leave the matter to me; I will select the jury." Mr. Seed did not like the jury panel as provided by the sheriff and sub-sheriff, though the sheriff was neither a wild revolutionist, nor a man without property and ancient lineage. He was the Hon. Jellicoe Preston, the son of Lord Gormonstown, much respected in his county, one of the most extreme Conservatives in the East of Ireland, and had been the Conservative candidate against the right hon. Gentleman the present President of the Board of Trade. Now, the manner in which the jury panel was selected was, by taking the names of two ratepayers from each district in succession—that being the very principle adopted by the present Lord Chancellor of Ireland in a Bill now before the House of Lords. The jury panel so formed was objected to by Mr. Seed, because he thought that proper results would not come out. If it was not stated on oath by the Crown Solicitor himself, no man of right feeling could credit such an interference with the course of justice in Ireland. Mr. Seed said—"I know what you want; not justice but a conviction." [Mr. GLADSTONE: That is a gross imputation for the hon. Member to make.] Mr. Seed accordingly selected the jury, and the jury so selected might be described, in the words of Lord Russell, as one elaborately put together for the purpose of obtaining a conviction. When Lord Russell used that expression, did anyone then exclaim that it was "gross?" What was the constitution of the jury he was now referring to, and who were the jurors put aside? Two of the men set aside held at the present moment Her Majesty's Commission of the Peace, and he understood that they were appointed to the Commission of the Peace since the time of their rejection as jurors. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland had said that Mr. Seed did nothing but his duty, yet the fact was that the dice were loaded, and the result was a conviction. If they wanted to put down outrage, they should first convince the people of Ireland that the law was their friend, and not their enemy. He, therefore warned the Government and those hon. Members who had not thought it necessary to attend to the discussion of this question, that they were preparing dangers for the Irish people, and dangers and troubles also for the English people; and if Englishmen had hereafter to complain, men in Ireland who desired order, and were ready to risk popularity and sacrifice life, if necessary, in sustaining order and protecting property, would be the chief sufferers, living as they did among a people full of discontent and made discontented, by the avowal that the dice were loaded each time the jury box was filled, and that this was the ancient practice in Ireland.

I own I think it ungenerous on the part of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilkenny (Sir John Gray) to refer to the limited number of hon. Members in the House during the early part of the present Sitting, and thus to leave it to be inferred that here was to be found a proof of indifference on the part of the British Parliament to Irish affairs. Has my hon. Friend forgotten that during the greater part of the Session of 1868, during the whole Session of 1869, and during the greater part of the Session of 1870, this House—and it never was more crowded—was wholly occupied with Irish affairs? Has my hon. Friend forgotten that the affairs of Scotland and of England have been suffered to reach a legislative dead-lock solely through the anxiety of this House to deal with the affairs of Ireland? And is it worthy of him to descend to this petty artifice for the purpose of producing in Ireland an impression which he must surely, on reflection, see to be groundless? There were numbers of hon. Members present in the House; but it is not in the power of man to require hon. Gentlemen to remain upon these benches who think the subject of debate has been exhausted, and who, when they remain within the precincts of the House for the purpose of delivering their judgment on the Bill, think they can employ their time more profitably than in listening to repetitions of the very same speeches and arguments, or to topics the whole object of which is to widen the field of debate and render the progress of business impossible. With the greatest regret I did interrupt my hon. Friend, applying the word "gross" to a sentence which fell from him, and of which I am certain he did not himself see the full bearing. I will tell him why. It was because, in his animated recital, he put into the mouth of Mr. Seed, a most experienced and respectable officer of the Crown in Ireland—for such was the effect of my hon. Friend's words, though I am certain he never intended it—a delaration that his object was not to obtain a fair trial or justice, but to load the dice in order to procure a conviction. Against words like these, uttered with respect to a public officer who is not here to defend himself, I felt myself bound, even by an exclamation at the moment, to enter a warm and even an indignant protest. I do hope my hon. Friend will consider the position in which we stand. He has made a speech upon the basis of the defective state of the jury law in Ireland, and that is the reason he gives for renewing opposition to this Bill, on the Motion for the Speaker's leaving the Chair, and at a moment when, as he knows very well, we are endeavouring to amend this very jury law. Is that a fair and legitimate method of opposition? Of course, my hon. Friend knows that it is in his power entirely to disregard the material circumstances of this case, and to protract resistance to the measure by introducing into the debate what I fully allow in the abstract no hon. Member of Parliament can be prevented from introducing—any subject whatever connected with the general condition of Ireland. But is that desirable; after the disposition shown and the Acts passed by this Parliament, is that the treatment which it deserves from my hon. Friend? Let me now endeavour to draw the attention of the House to the point really at issue. I pass by the argument respecting the police tax, a question doubtless of importance for discussion, but not a question on which we are to decide to-day. I may notice, however, that the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. M'Carthy Downing) was quite incorrect in stating that the very same evidence on which we rely with regard to crime in Westmeath was the evidence we rejected with reference to the police tax; and I may mention that Mr. Julian, one of the most important witnesses examined before the Committee, practically declared in favour of the principle involved in the police tax. The Government have been blamed for the slowness of the proceedings of Parliament in this case; but that is no reason for changing a period of three months into a period of four months, a flight of fancy on which I should be sorry to dwell. If we have been slow, that has not been owing alone to the difficulties we have had to encounter in the conduct of Public Business. It is owing to the fact that we do not pretend that the interests with which we are dealing are the interests of a particular moment. We are now proposing a remedy for a chronic evil, not alone for a passing disease; and it is a remedy which we did not desire to pass without being subjected to the most searching scrutiny of Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilkenny says we have done nothing for these three months. Does he call "nothing" the animated and eager debates in this House, keenly criticizing the conduct of the Government, as was very proper, before the appointment of the Committee? Does he call "nothing" the investigation of the Committtee, the production of this volume of evidence, and the Report which the Committee have produced? Does he call "nothing" the debates upon this Bill in the House of Lords, which, so far as I have had the opportunity of becoming acquainted with their tenour, were honourable to that Assembly; because they showed that men of great weight and authority there, while ready to give to the Government the powers they thought necessary for the repression of crime, were deeply sensible of the nature of the sacrifices they were making in the interests of society, and knew how to appreciate the principles of personal liberty, and the value which the British Constitution sets upon these principles? So far, therefore, from nothing having been done, I contend that this interval of three months, since the subject was first mentioned in Parliament, has been well employed. It has produced the evidence upon which this Bill rests—not the mere product of official discussions carried on at the Castle at Dublin or in the Cabinet room in Downing Street, but a Bill which has passed through the searching ordeal of an inquiry, attended by Members of the Government it is true, but likewise by opponents of the Government, whose special duty it was to challence its proceedings; attended by men of judicial minds, who brought together with the highest capacity in the examination of evidence the best disposition to do justice in this case; attended by men like my hon. Friends (Mr. Downing and Mr. Maguire) and others, old and well-tried champions of freedom in the cause of the Irish people, sure to take advantage of every opportunity for searching to the very bottom whatever evidence might be urged in favour of coercion and repression; men in whose participation in the labour of the Committee, ending, as they do, in the presentation of a Report which has undergone the most searching tests. We, therefore, have the strongest assurance that the grounds upon which this measure rests and the testimony on which it is founded are unassailable. I have taken this opportunity of paying a just tribute to my hon. Friends, and I trust they will not think me ungenerous if I remind the House of the proposals which this Committee have unanimously carried, for we have it upon record, that with reference to the main proposals, with the exception of a single one recorded upon the minutes, relative to the amount of participation in these crimes exhibited by the farming classes, all the Committee concurred. The first declares the existence of secret societies, the painful indication of social and political disease. The second resolution declares those societies to have increased in power and influence of late years. In the third it is stated that evidence of crime is not forthcoming, and if that is so, I ask my hon. Friend what is the use of sending Special Commissions and covering the country with a more numerous body of police. The fourth resolution declares that, in consequence of these secret combinations, confidence in the law has decreased among the peaceful. In the fifth they declare that these frightful agencies have extended beyond the class connected with the occupation of land to others. In the sixth, they state that the organization is under persons who are supposed to be known to the officers of justice, but are practically unapproachable. They then state that all classes live in terror of this society; that you can no longer look to local society to furnish that assistance required in order to make the administration of the law comparatively easy; and they then go on to declare, with the assent of every Member of the Committee, that the present state of the law does not invest the Executive with all the powers necessary to deal with organized crime; and, lastly, they declare that the authorities have endeavoured vigorously to carry into effect the existing law, including the Peace Preservation Act; but, notwithstanding that, they have failed to bring to justice the perpetrators of the crimes which have given rise to the inquiry. Is it possible to have a stronger case? Is it possible to have this measure contested? Is it possible, I would add, for a Government to make a proposal with greater reluctance than we feel in submitting this? We are not ashamed of this reluctance, and I am not ashamed to own that, in reading the whole of the evidence, nothing has fortified me so much in incurring the responsibility of proposing such a measure as the evidence of those witnesses, who show beyond all doubt that they have the very same feelings of reluctance, and that nothing but a sentiment of paramount obligation has induced them to overcome that feeling. My hon. Friend has said that there has been no atrocious crime in Westmeath since the meeting of Parliament; but does he not see that, with the disposition towards Ireland for which he gives us credit, that it was our duty to revolve it carefully in our minds, and in correspondence with the Irish authorities, before we could permit ourselves to entertain the idea of coming to Parliament with the measure now before the House? Has not the case been fully stated, fairly heard, and deliberately decided upon, and decided on not by a hostile Parliament? The hon. Member for Meath (Mr. John Martin) has come among us with certain stereotyped opinions, which I will venture to call antiquated, for they are the inheritance of a former people—they are the growth of circumstances that have passed away; but I cannot wonder and cannot complain if he be so far the servant of the evil traditions of his country and the evil traditions of our country—for I fully admit that it is our rather than his countrymen who are responsible for the mischiefs that have come down to us—that he fails to exhibit upon his first coming among us that flexibility of mind which would enable him to appreciate the full force of the efforts, and, I may say, the sacrifices the British Parliament has made for the sake of carrying the spirit of peace into Ireland, and giving strength and unity to the Empire. I tell the hon. Member for Meath that we are not afraid to compete with him for the future confidence of Ireland. We see the nature of the challenge he makes to us; he proclaims himself as one of those who in foreign countries are called "the irreconcilables," and, perhaps, he does not decline the epithet. Well, Sir, he will pass away, and I shall pass away; but there are many who now sit here who, I firmly believe, will outlive the opinions of which the hon. Gentleman is now in this House the solitary organ. It is impossible that acts of justice and goodwill should not bear fruit. If we lose faith in that principle we lose faith in human nature; we lose faith in all that enables us to meet adversity, or makes national prosperity worth having. We acted on all the dearest principles of life and action when we professed our confidence in the people of Ireland, and when we ventured, even in these early days, to say that we constantly received the most gratifying testimony of the effect that is being produced—tranquilly and gradually produced—in the minds and hearts of the people, by the recent Acts of the British Parliament. The question has been deliberately heard, and solemnly decided. There has been no country that has been more happy than Ireland in the ability of its champions, in their eloquence, and their faculty of representing in the warmest and most glowing colours any cause they may espouse; but my hon. Friend (Mr. Downing) will not say I am unjust to him or his Seconder if I remark that this debate, which has been occupying us for the last two hours, has added nothing to our store of information in regard to the condition of Ireland. That is no reproach to my hon. Friends, for we have read in Virgil that if Troy could have been saved by any hand, it would have been saved by the right hand of Æneas; and if anything of novelty could have been imported to this debate by any voice it would have been by the voice and golden oratory of my hon. Friend. The question is an exhausted question, and the whole that remains to be considered is whether, by suffering some inconvenience, hon. Members will make practical progress; or whether, after the whole practical purposes of the debate have been obtained, we are to continue what I may call a repetition of words often used, deliberately weighed, and thoroughly unprofitable? I think something is due to the vast and overwhelming majority of this House. It must be admitted that the divisions which took place on former occasions exhibited what may be called a moral unity. I would put it to my hon. Friend whether any good can be done by producing in this country a public impression, to the effect that delay, and delay by a mere prolongation of discussion, is intended. [Mr. DOWNING: I have no idea of that at all.] Well, my hon. Friend has been with others engaged in this work of pacification and goodwill, and he knows perfectly well that to maintain a sentiment of goodwill on this side of the Channel is just as important as to propagate similar sentiments in Ireland. After the discussion which this subject has undergone in another branch of the Legislature, and in this House upon the second reading of the Bill, I think the time has come when we should best do our duty to the country by endeavouring rapidly to pass this measure, but not to pass it as a remedy. We never proposed it as a remedy. As remedies we look to the other class of measures to which Parliament has in the main given its sanction, and which, upon all other points, we believe it will be ready to deal with in the very same spirit; but we look upon this Bill as a measure which is necessary to remove a certain state of things in a particular spot—which state of things is an absolute impediment to the operation of order—which state of things has been described by my noble Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland as intolerable, and which state of things, as we know from the evidence taken by the Westmeath Committee, and, above all, from the unanimous Report of the Committee, is really intolerable. I, therefore, Sir, while fully acknowledging the right to pursue a different course on the part of those who feel that to be their duty, trust that hon. Gentlemen, in the present state of Public Business, with which the credit, dignity, and character of this House are so closely associated, will show a disposition to forego something of those privileges which they might be disposed to claim under other circumstances; and, submitting their judgment, after the full expression of all they think and feel, to the plain, overwhelming, and almost unanimous judgment of the public, will allow you, Sir, to leave the Chair, and the House to address itself to the consideration of the particular measure which is before it.

, as an Irish Member, opposed to this measure both in principle and detail—in whole and in all its parts—must renew his protest against it at every stage of its fatal progress. He did expect that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government would, on the second reading of this Bill, have come forward to vindicate this exceptional policy, which had been applied only to Ireland, and never to England or Scotland; but he had thought proper to leave this vindication of the policy, for which he was morally responsible, to the talented and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland. That hon. and learned Gentleman had, in his opinion, a very comic way of doing rather tragic business; his statements and arguments might be satisfactory to the Government with which he was connected, and to the majority of the House; but he felt bound to say, however well those statements and arguments, or things which passed for arguments, might be received in that House, they would in Ireland be received merely as the statements of an advocate speaking from his brief. He (Mr. Martin) believed the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government was desirous of conciliating the Irish people by redressing their wrongs, every one of which resulted from the rule of which he was the head, so far as what he and Parliament regarded as English interests would permit. He regarded him as a conscientious man; and they all knew how able and experienced he was in conducting a debate. The right hon. Gentleman began his eloquent speech by administering a rebuke to his hon. Friend the Member for Kilkenny (Sir John Gray), and asked if he had not felt grateful for the time and pains which this Parliament had devoted to the affairs of Ireland. Now, that might be a valid argument addressed to the hon. Member for Kilkenny, if it was not the fact, that the people of Ireland had not asked this Parliament to take charge of their affairs; on the contrary, they had never consented, and he believed they never would consent, that this Parliament should have the charge of their affairs. However the people of Ireland might be forced to submit to the laws of this country, as they had always submitted, they would never acknowledge the right of any other authority to make laws binding on the Irish people, except the Queen and the Lords and Commons assembled in free Parliament of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) had seemed to challenge him as to the reception that would be given by the people of Ireland to his "antiquated policy," as he was pleased to term it. He was willing to accept the challenge of the right hon. Gentleman upon fair conditions. [Mr. GLADSTONE smiled.] The right hon. Gentleman laughed — he hoped he would not sneer. [Mr. GLADSTONE: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon; I did not laugh at him: a smile is not a sneer.] He (Mr. Martin) would accept the right hon. Gentleman's challenge on these conditions—let him suspend for one year the system of illegality by which Ireland was governed—the jury-packing system, which had been the rule in all political trials so long as he had been able to observe public affairs in that country; let the rights of the Constitution, as they existed in England and Scotland, be restored to Ireland—let the people of Ireland be entitled to have arms, to learn the use of them, to form themselves into Volunteer companies; let them have a free Press; let that system be tried for one year, and it would be seen whether the policy of this measure was a wise and patriotic policy to pursue, and whether, on the other hand, the confidence he felt in the ineradicable love of freedom of his countrymen would not turn out to be correct. The right hon. Gentleman objected to the hon. Member for Kilkenny complaining of the jury system, when the Government was about to introduce a measure to amend that system; but why should the jury system of Ireland require amendment? Had not every Irishman a right to a fair trial before his peers as well as every Englishman? There was one remark, which, with perfect frankness, he should like to address to the right hon. Gentleman. The suspension of the Habeas Corpus in "Westmeath and in portions of Meath had been advocated on the ground, that offences against the law were committed in that part of Ireland, and that it was not practicable for the law authorities to obtain evidence by which to detect and punish the offenders. Then it was immediately concluded from that premise, that the Habeas Corpus Act should be suspended, and that the Lord Lieutenant should be enabled to seize and imprison for two years any or all of the inhabitants of these districts. It had, however, never occurred to any of the advocates of this measure, to show in what way the imprisonment of some or all of the inhabitants of these districts would enable the Government in Ireland either to detect or to punish the criminal. Although the people of this country had long ago got rid of the antiquated notion of the Divine right of Kings, they appeared to have supplanted it by the worse notion of the Divine right of Ministers. It had been argued by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland, and also by the noble Lord who introduced the measure in "another place" (the Earl of Kimberley), that the Lord Lieutenant would know whom to imprison and whom to leave untouched; and the former had already congratulated the House upon the fact, that even an attempt to pass this measure had induced suspected parties to fly from the country. If the Lord Lieutenant, assisted by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland and the stipendiary magistrates of Westmeath, Meath, and King's County was as infallible as the Pope himself, and was all-seeing and all-knowing upon this subject, why did not the Government pass a Bill through Parliament empowering the Lord Lieutenant to hang and transport every inhabitant of Ireland whom he might suspect? There would be quite as much respect for constitutional law in such a measure as there was in that now before the House. He was anxious to take this opportunity to state that he had received four letters from his constituents, in which the idea was expressed that the right hon. Gentleman and his party were anxious to pass this Bill in order that they might take vengeance upon those who had voted in his favour; but he begged to assure the right hon. Gentleman that he in no way held such an idea himself, and he merely referred to the fact in order to point out to the right hon. Gentleman the invidious position in which he had placed himself by bringing forward such an iniquitous and absurd measure as that under discussion. He was aware that the House must listen with somewhat of impatience to his remarks, and he thanked them for the indulgence and courtesy they had already accorded him; but while saying that he could scarcely express the indignation he felt at having to express sentiments which were those of nine out of every ten of the Irish people before a careless and an impatient House. He complained, not of the manner in which he had been listened to, but of the gulf of mind that existed between the House and himself on this subject. The people of Ireland were perfectly willing to be the good friends of the people of England, but they would never consent to become their subjects—never! It would be the wiser part for the people of England to make friends of the people of Ireland, and especially of the Catholic peasantry of that country, whom he knew to be the most inoffensive, the most gentle, the most forgiving, and most moral population in Europe. Hon. Members in that House frequently spoke of Irish crime and outrage, of which they spoke with the utmost horror — Pharisaical cant! but what would the simple, noble, pious Catholic peasantry of Meath think of the criminal condition of this country, when they learnt that a Committee was sitting up-stairs to inquire into the best mode of giving protection to infant life in England? He did not expect that that inquiry would result in a Bill being brought into that House with the title "Protection of Infant Life (England) Bill." He thanked the House for the attention with which they had listened to him; but that attention was simply the attention of courtesy, for hon. Members generally were too ignorant of the facts relating to Ireland to be able to follow him closely. They would, however, have their information considerably improved if they would but read two books upon the subject—namely, Prendergast's History of Ireland since the Gromwellian Settlement, and John Mitchell's History of Ireland since the Treaty of Limerick.

said, he most ardently supported the measure, which he believed was rendered necessary by the inadequacy of the existing law.

said, he must express his surprise that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Meath had not thanked the right hon. Gentleman at the head of Her Majesty's Government for adopting a course of conduct which was better calculated to play his own game than anything else that had been done in opposition to the measure. In spite of their repeated assertion that life and property were insecure in certain parts of Ireland, the Government, instead of attempting to pass this measure before Whitsuntide—an attempt which would have been certain to succeed—had proceeded on Tuesday last with a measure with regard to which it did not matter one halfpenny whether it became law 10 days earlier or later. Those whose lives were in danger in Ireland from the attacks of Ribbonmen must feel that the Government cared very little about them. When the Constitution was to be suspended, it ought to be upon a full and strong belief by the Government in the necessity of such a measure, and they ought to go on with it with all reasonable dispatch. Now, this measure came down on the 5th of May from the House of Lords, and no human being could say that the Government had used reasonable despatch respecting it, for it might have been taken last Tuesday, and passed before Whitsuntide. If it had been necessary to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act in England, and the Government, instead of pressing on the Bill, had asked the House to proceed with some measure relating to Trinity College, Dublin, there would have been a universal feeling throughout the country as to the inconsistency of such a proceeding. He repeated, therefore, that the Government had been really playing the game of the hon. Member for Meath by this delay.

said, as he had been pointedly alluded to in the debate, he thought it necessary to make one or two observations. First, he would say he never intended to convey to the House that the hon. Member for Cork county (Mr. Downing) did not make any points in the Committee; what he had said was that the hon. Member, having agreed on the Report of the Committee as it now stood, made no suggestions in this House and opposed the only suggestions that the facts warranted. He also said that the hon. Member for Cork county did not do what he might have done—namely, call and examine witnesses on behalf of his view of the case. As the hon. Member did not examine any of his own witnesses, it did not lie in his mouth to complain of the Report founded upon the evidence produced, to which Report he himself was an assenting party. Now, with regard to what had been said by the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Sir John Gray) that hon. Gentleman said he (the Solicitor General) had laid down a proposition that all Irish Members who did not agree with the Government on this question were aiders, abettors, and sustainers of this Ribbon conspiracy. He had never said anything of the kind, nor intended to convey anything of the kind; for he believed that the Irish Members who opposed this Bill had as great an abhorrence of crime as he had. They exercised the full freedom of debate; but he was not only an Irish Member, but a Member of the Government; and being so, he thought they ought to make the same allowance for him as he was willing to make for them. The hon. Member also stated that he was a friend to the jury-packing system in Ireland——

hoped he had never used the coarse language which the hon. and learned Gentleman attributed to him.

Well, his hon. Friend said that juries were packed in Ireland, and that that system was justified by him (the Solicitor General). His hon. Friend, at the same time, complimented the Attorney General for Ireland, and held him up for the approbation of the House. Now, he had nothing to do with the case in question further than holding a brief at the trial. He had nothing to do with criminal prosecutions unless he was brought in as Solicitor General. The Attorney General was the public prosecutor. He could, therefore, give an impartial opinion on this case. All he did was to defend his right hon. Friend the Attorney General for Ireland against the charge made against him. So far as packing juries was concerned, he was as much opposed to it as any hon. Member of that House.

explained. What he had said was that the Solicitor General for Ireland had defended the course which Mr. Seed described in reference to the packing of a jury in the case so often referred to.

Well, if that were so, it was in effect charging him with defending the packing of juries. He was, however, willing to accept the explanation of his hon. Friend, because it was of far more value to him to preserve his character before his countrymen than to retain the situation which he had the honour to hold. However much he valued that situation, he would at once resign it if he found the holding of it inconsistent with the duty which he owed to his country.

said, he must complain of the Government not pushing this Bill through Parliament with adequate haste. ["Question!"] It was the question; and he would say that four months had been deliberately wasted by the Government before bringing to an issue this question, and those four months had been months of dreadful and deplorable anxiety to all those persons in Ireland who were suffering from the infliction of this Ribbon conspiracy.

, pursuant to Notice, moved the omission of the clause. As the clause stood it did not enable the Lord Lieutenant to arrest any member of the Ribbon conspiracy who might happen to escape from Ireland to England or Scotland. Now, although he was altogether opposed to class legislation of this kind for Ireland, believing that remedial legislation was the best cure for the evils complained of, nevertheless it appeared to him that, as the object of giving two years' imprisonment was to suppress this conspiracy, the measure would prove abortive unless the authorities could put their hands upon the conspirators in any part of the United Kingdom. The evidence before the Committee showed that the conspirators often left Ireland to carry on their operations from England and Scotland, having passwords and changing them every quarter. He need only refer to the evidence of Captain Talbot, resident magistrate, and Mr. Seed, the Crown Prosecutor, in proof of those facts. He had also received a letter from the clerk to the Limerick Board of Guardians, a gentleman who was also a magistrate for the counties of Limerick and Mayo, also bearing testimony to that state of things. If this Bill was intended to suppress the Ribbon conspiracy it must give power to seize the conspirators wherever they might be found; and he was sure the Government would have cause for regret if they did not omit the 2nd clause as he proposed.

supported the proposition of the hon. Member for New Ross, because he thought it important that it should be understood in Ireland that Englishmen were not only anxious to suppress these crimes in Ireland, but also to exclude the machinery of the society from England.

said, he also hoped the Government would assent to the suggestion of his hon. Friend the Member for New Ross, as he believed without the proposed power of arresting suspected persons the Bill would be ineffective.

doubted whether the Amendment proposed would meet the object which the hon. Member for New Ross had in view. No doubt another clause could be framed, but it was not at present before the Committee. Two entirely different matters had been advocated in order to support the Amendment. One was that the Bill should give power to arrest Ribbonmen, whether in Manchester or elsewhere; and the other, that it sought to give power to the authorities to follow suspected persons to this country. But the first of these points related to a power of general arrest, whereas the Bill confined arrests to the county of Westmeath and surrounding districts; and, therefore, the proposition was beyond the scope of the Bill. It might be a question whether it was not advisable for the Government to introduce a clause stating that the Lord Lieutenant's warrant should run in England, and be capable of being enforced in this country. But the Government were the proper authorities to decide that matter. If they thought it desirable he would support a clause of that kind; but if they did not wish for such power he would not press it upon them. This measure was composed of two parts; the first enabling a suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act in regard to persons in the neighbourhood of Westmeath, and the second having reference to the provisions of the Peace Preservation Act, which were of vital consequence, and if not renewed would cease to exist in August. But by omitting this clause, providing that the Bill should apply only to Ireland, some question might arise as to how far those provisions could be extended to England.

stated that his hon. Friend (Mr. M'Mahon) simply desired to accomplish what the right hon. Gentleman said might be done; and he moved the rejection of this clause in order to raise the question whether words could be introduced into the second part of the Bill, confining the application of the Peace Preservation Act to Ireland only. To retain this clause, and afterwards introduce words making the Lord Lieutenant's warrant run in England would be a clumsy mode of proceeding.

said, it certainly could not be supposed that this Amendment was moved in any spirit of hostility to the Bill, for the hon. Mover of the Amendment desired, with the Government, to make the Bill as effective as possible. He would not follow the observations of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Dr. Ball) as to the form in which this power should be given; but he wished to state that in framing this measure they had proceeded on the principle of asking for exceptional powers within as narrow and strict limits as they could possibly devise for the purposes in view; and conforming to that principle the Government had not asked for any power which they did not think absolutely necessary, or which they did not expect to use. The mere extension to England of the power conferred by the Bill would not enable them to seize persons supposed to be leaders of organizations in Manchester or Liverpool; for, unless they had been in Westmeath within a certain time, the authorities could not touch them. All they could do would be to follow to England or Scotland such Westmeath Ribbon leaders or persons guilty of crime in Westmeath who might take refuge in those countries. But he did not think such power would be of great use to the Government, because they would probably be able to arrest those persons before they left Ireland. In fact, they never contemplated enforcing the power given by this Bill except in the district of Westmeath and the immediate vicinity. He could not deny, however, that an extension of power might in some instances be of service, and as the feeling of the Committee seemed to be in favour of the proposal of the hon. Member for New Ross, he would be happy to consider, in conjunction with the Irish Government, in what way such power could be best taken, and he trusted the hon. Member would be satisfied with that assurance.

said, he hoped that the noble Lord the Chief Secretary for Ireland would, in order to avoid offending English feeling, provide that no persons should be arrested in England except Irishmen, or those bearing the appearance or being suspected of being Irishmen.

said, he would not press his Amendment after the promise of the noble Lord the Chief Secretary for Ireland.

proposed the introduction of words applying the clause not only to the Ribbon Society, but to "any other combination having the like nature or objects." The Bill spoke only of the Ribbon Society, which was a recognized organization, but he was apprehensive that if the Bill passed the society would change its name and alter its organization; so that while carrying on the same work it would not come within the operation of the Bill without this Amendment.

remarked that the Amendment ought not to be accepted, because the Bill did not describe the nature or objects of the Ribbon Society.

also thought the Amendment unnecessary, as Ribbonism was a generic name, and would include all organizations of the kind referred to, and the Bill spoke of the combination "generally known by the name of the Ribbon Society."

moved to omit the words "or who on the first day of January 1871, or on any subsequent day," in order to insert "after the passing of this Act," and thus avoid any retrospective operation of the Bill.

supported the Amendment, as being in accordance with precedent.

said, the clause would be wholly inoperative without the words objected to, for a Ribbonman would have nothing more to do than to cross the boundary and yet continue to direct the society's operations.

moved, in lines 37 and 38, to omit the words "judge or," with the view, he said, of leaving the tribunals of the land still open.

opposed the Amendment, and said that the whole clause might as well be left out as the words in question.

thought the hon. Member for New Ross was asking the Committee to decide in his favour, whereas all that the Government had undertaken to do was to consider the matter. They would not, however, adopt the suggestion unless, on consideration, they thought it right to do so. He hoped the Amendment would not be insisted on.

supported tht Amendment, without which the Bill would be worth nothing. He hoped his hon. Friend the Member for New Ross would press it.

hoped the hon. Gentleman the Member for New Ross would not go to a division on the Amendment. Whether this Bill should be made to apply to England was a serious and an important question which would require careful consideration.

advised the hon. Mover not to press his Amendment at present, as, by itself, it would introduce inconsistency between that clause and the rest of the Bill.

hoped that the Amendment would be pressed, unless there was a distinct pledge that the Government would bring up a new clause upon the Report.

said, that there was a pledge by his noble Friend the Chief Secretary that he would, during the Recess, bring the matter to the attention of the Government, and with every desire to give full effect to the suggestion that had been made.

thought that as there were some technical difficulties in the way, the matter had better be left in the hands of the Government.

observed, that it was the almost universal opinion that to give efficiency to the Bill there must be power to arrest the persons complained of in other places than Ireland.

said, he had hoped that the pledge he had already given was distinct. He had tried to explain that that was not a very simple matter, because he supposed that nobody wanted to give the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland an unlimited power of arresting persons in England. But he had undertaken, before the Report, to consider and bring up a clause, which would enable the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to exercise the power—which he understood the Committee desired should be vested in him—of following the persons mentioned in the Bill from Ireland into England or Scotland.

said, upon this assurance, he would withdraw his Amendment.

assured the right hon. and learned Baronet that every care would be taken to secure the good treatment of the prisoners apprehended under the Act. He objected to the Amendment, however, on the ground that it might occasionally be convenient to confine the prisoners in the county prisons.

said, he would withdraw his Amendment referring to the detention of arrested persons in Government prisons, and would proceed to move another referring to the treatment of untried prisoners. He would move to omit the provision that it should be lawful for the Lord Lieutenant to prohibit any prisoner from holding any communication, either by word of mouth or in writing, with any other person who was not in the service of Her Majesty, or duly authorized to make such communication. Those words had been inserted during the passage of the Bill through the House of Lords, and they would prevent a prisoner from, either seeing his friends or consulting a professional adviser. He would propose, therefore, to restore the Bill to its original form, and also to add words providing that all orders made by the Lord Lieutenant for the treatment of untried prisoners should be laid before Parliament, together with a list of the prisoners and a statement of the grounds on which they were arrested. He felt it to be necessary to give to the Government the powers for which they asked; but as those powers were extraordinary, it was necessary to provide safeguards for their proper use.

said, that he had no objection to that part of the right hon. and learned Baronet's Amendment which related to laying on the Table of the House the orders made by the Lord Lieutenant, and the list of prisoners arrested under the Act; but he could not consent to the omission of that part of the clause which enabled the Lord Lieutenant to prohibit the prisoners from holding any communication with others by word or writing. If it was considered for a moment what these prisoners were supposed to be, and who were their friends, the Committee would see that the restriction in question was absolutely necessary. The prisoners that would be arrested under the Bill were supposed to be engaged in the Ribbon conspiracy, and unless the Lord Lieutenant had the power now proposed to be given it would be possible for a leader to direct the proceedings of the conspirators from the prison in which he was confined. There was no desire, however, on the part of the Government to prohibit any communications that might not be dangerous.

rose to move an Amendment. He said, what was proposed in this clause raised a grave constitutional question, for it was proposed to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act for two years. The Bill put forward to effect that purpose was a sort of hybrid Bill, and was the first in which it was proposed to mix up the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act with provisions of another kind—namely, the continuance of the Peace Preservation Act of 1870. The Habeas Corpus Act had been in existence now for nearly 200 years. From 1679 until 1700 it had been suspended in England twice; during the 18th century it had been suspended on eight different occasions; and in the 19th century twice, the last time in 1817 or 1818, when Lord Sidmouth was First Minister. But from the time the Habeas Corpus Act became the law of the land the House of Commons had never consented to its suspension for more than 12 months, and now, for the first time, it was sought to establish a new precedent. The Act was suspended in 1689 for the first time, and never for more than a period of nine months, until 1722, when it was suspended for 12 months. Since that time 150 years had elapsed, and although during those years great difficulties had to be met, the suspension of the Act never extended beyond 12 months. He hoped, therefore, that a Parliament which had been returned on the basis of household suffrage would not set an example for which there was no precedent. He begged to move, by way of formal Amendment to give effect to his views on the point, that in page 5, line 4, the word "three" be omitted and the word "two" inserted.

said, he entirely concurred in the opinion expressed by his hon. Friend, and for the sake of preserving some remnant of the Constitution, and promoting good feeling in Ireland, he should support the Amendment.

said, he must congratulate the right hon. and learned Baronet on the ingenuity with which he had educed a constitutional theory out of a Bill which proposed a breach of the Constitution. Nothing but a grave necessity would lead the Government to propose to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act; but when that necessity existed, it was best to use the means most likely to answer the purpose. Now, in the opinion of the witnesses examined before the Committee, two years were the least period during which the suspension would be of any value; and that being so, the right thing was to make such a proposal in the most open, straightforward manner, not asking to suspend the Act for one year, with a resolve to come again and require the suspension for another year. If the duration of the Bill were limited to one year, the House would be told next Session that there had been no disturbances, and that, therefore, the renewal of the Bill was unnecessary, though the non-existence of outrages might have been owing to the operation of the Bill; or they might be told that there had been outrages, and therefore the Bill was clearly of no use. He wanted to see the people of Westmeath and other parts of Ireland do as the people of England did—preserve the peace for themselves. But before such a state of things could exist there must be a certain amount of confidence and of respect for the law. Unfortunately, in these districts there was no confidence and no respect for the law. The law most respected was the Ribbon law, and until the people had learnt that there was a stronger law than Ribbon law, it was useless to expect assistance from the people in preserving order. The effect of all the evidence was to show that the people were so paralyzed and so submissive to the organization of the Ribbon Society, that nothing but extraordinary powers placed in the hands of the Executive for some considerable period would change the feeling. He hoped that in two years such an amount of confidence would be restored among the better-disposed part of the people of Westmeath, that evidence would be forthcoming against the disturbers of the public peace, and that the Government would be able to obtain convictions. He hoped also that a period of peace and tranquillity of this duration would instil into the minds of the people of Ireland a feeling that it was better for themselves in every way to uphold law rather than submit to the tyranny of the Ribbon organization. This was the most important clause in the Bill, and on the part of the Government he could not consent to limit its operation to one year.

said, he hoped the right hon. and learned Baronet would withdraw his Amendment, as he (The O'Conor Don) entirely concurred in the remark of the noble Lord the Chief Secretary for Ireland, that there was far greater danger to the Constitution in annual Coercion Bills for Ireland, brought forward and passed as a matter of course, than in a measure like this. The right hon. and learned Baronet himself assumed that the Act would be renewed next year; and if its renewal were certain, no matter what the state of the country, there was no earthly use in limiting the duration of the Bill, and producing fresh irritation next year by a revival of the question. He disliked Coercion Bills; but these annual renewals of them were unconstitutionalism made constitutional.

asked why, to meet a temporary difficulty, it was necessary to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act or deny the right of any of the Queen's subjects to a writ of Habeas Corpus for two years or two years and a-half? In frittering away this constitutional safeguard in the case of Ireland, there was a danger of its being disregarded and undervalued in the case of England also. It was impossible to find any precedent or instance in which Parliament had delegated authority to councillors or officers of the Crown to imprison at pleasure the subjects of this realm for two years. According to the history of England—and he wished the Government would sometimes be induced to look to our historical records and struggles, it was a violation of principle as well as of precedent for Government to demand these extraordinary powers for a period beyond the time when Parliament would meet again, or until the end of the next Session. He was of opinion that every patriot—though he confessed patriotism was certainly now at a very great discount—should stand up and say that he would not consent to such a protracted suspension of the Habeas Corpus Acts. On another occasion a proposal might be made to suspend these Acts for three or four years, until at last they might be thought a matter of convenience to obliterate them altogether from the Statute Book. It was stated, as an argument in favour of the clause, that a Committee of Inquiry had been sitting, and had made a Report; but he had not that awful respect, especially on a great constitutional question like this, for proceedings before a Committee which some persons felt, nor did he think that the House was bound to take for granted the accuracy of witnesses produced on one side of the question; and he asked whether there would not be a universal outcry if ever it were proposed to suspend the Habeas Corpus Statutes in this country for two years. For that reason, therefore, he should oppose their suspension in Ireland for more than a year.

said, the Parliament was liable to a dissolution. This year they would have the Ballot. They were promised it by the Prime Minister, and he believed they would get it. If so, the Government would fail in its duty if it did not, in the coming Reform Bill, give seats to Ireland on the same principle as seats had been given to England. The present Bill for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act would expire in June, 1873; but before that time there would, in all probability, be a General Election, and if that occurred, how could they have a free election in Ireland, a portion of the constituency being gagged as it would be by this Bill? Why, the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland would be at liberty to suppress newspapers for sedition; and they all knew how easy it would, be to bring the Press under the penalties of the Act in that respect enacted. Why should they allow the Government to possess the extraordinary powers which would be given them by this Bill for so long a period beyond the constitutional term of 12 months?

said, he had not the slightest objection to the division being taken upon both clauses at the same time, nor had he any objection to the hon. and learned Member for Devonport (Mr. M. Chambers) discussing Irish as well as English subjects; but he protested against his doing the first until he had read his brief, and knew what he was speaking about. He ventured to assert that the hon. and learned Gentleman had not seen the inside of the Bill, or the Report of the Committee to which he had alluded, or he would not have ventured to reiterate the statement that the Bill suspended the Habeas Corpus Act for two-and-a-half years. The Bill, when passed, would not receive the Royal Assent until the 1st of June, and it would expire the 1st of June, 1873; and therefore how it could be made retrospective so as to enable the authorities to apprehend a man on 1st of January last, six months before the Act would come into operation, he was at a loss to understand. It was, however, necessary when it came into operation that it should apply to offences committed since the 1st of January last. This was the first time the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act had been applied to social and agrarian crimes; but it had been demonstrated in argument that it was absolutely necessary it should be so applied. If, then, it was necessary it should be done, it was idle to say it should be done for a short period only, thereby increasing local irritation and discontent. There was a secret and hidden agrarian conspiracy in this part of Ireland smouldering instead of bursting into a flame, creating a system of terrorism, which the well-affected were obliged to bow before rather than the ordinary law of the land. The only way it could be dealt with was by extraordinary powers, and for a defined and substantial period.

said, he agreed in the usefulness of the measure, but he objected to the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act for so long a period. If the Government would undertake to restore peace in that part of Ireland within two years, he would, though reluctantly, consent to the proposal; but there was no guarantee that they would not, at the end of two years, come forward and ask for a further extension of time. The Act had never for 200 year's been suspended for more than a year at any one period, and for that reason he should like to take the opinion of the Committee upon the expediency of prolonging the term.

said, that what he had said with regard to the Amendment did not apply to the clause continuing in force the Peace Preservation Act.

said, he must oppose the clause altogether. He considered its taxing powers on districts where an outrage was committed as one of the most mischievous parts of the Peace Preservation Act. He should, therefore, divide the Committee upon it. When it was proposed to read the Bill a second time, he contended that before the Committee upstairs there was no substantial evidence in favour of the proposal; but that, on the contrary, it showed that the system of taxing a locality for crimes committed therein was fraught with the greatest possible evil. With only two exceptions, the evidence of the witnesses was that the system produced disloyalty and disaffection, and that it had not led to the detection or diminution of crime. He objected to the tax on principle, but he objected still more to the tribunal to which it was entrusted — namely, the grand jury, consisting of 23 gentlemen, for whom no qualification whatever was required, and who were appointed by a gentleman who might not possess any qualification himself.

then proposed to omit from the present Bill Clause 13 of the "Peace Preservation Act, 1870," which, he remarked, might be briefly described as the "perjury" clause.

was unable to assent to the omission of the clause, which simply empowered a magistrate to examine witnesses, even though there was no person charged before him with having committed a particular offence.

, amidst considerable interruption, supported the Motion, and said, he thought it most unbecoming that hon. Gentlemen should endeavour to stifle discussion upon this question, while they had shown themselves very tolerant indeed of long speeches upon other subjects in the course of that very week. They were continually being lectured from the Treasury bench, and from other parts of the House, about the "sanctity of the British Constitution;" but when he saw the way in which the liberties of a country were dealt with when it came to actual legislation, he was sometimes disposed to believe that the British Constitution was "all fudge." When the Peace Preservation Act was introduced, it was distinctly understood that the Press clauses were proposed by way of experiment merely, and were only to last for a twelvemonth. Now they were coolly asked to assent to their continuance, nominally for two years, but really for a very much longer period; for the Ministerial theory appeared to be that as long as the Irish-American papers wrote in a hostile spirit to England it would be necessary to prevent the Irish newspapers from copying their articles. There ought to be a distinct statement on the part of the Government as to when they meant to withdraw their restrictive clauses, and he thought they ought to be contented with existing powers as furnished by the common law, especially as they could administer those provisions as rigorously as they pleased.

said, he should be happy if he saw anything in the present condition of Ireland which would justify the Government in omitting the Press clauses from the Bill; but he believed that if the Government had come down to that House and, omitting these clauses, had asked that the Peace Preservation Act should be continued for two years, the first question asked would be—Why omit these clauses? Were the Government able, on their Ministerial responsibility, to assure the House that the condition of affairs in Ireland was such that the "National newspapers," as they were called, might be permitted to write as they wrote prior to the passing of the Peace Preservation Act? If he were asked that question, he could not conscientiously reply that the condition of affairs in Ireland was such as to justify the Government in omitting these clauses from the Bill. The hon. Member for New Ross (Mr. M'Mahon) must have a very curious notion about "gagging the Press," if he applied that term to the conditions under which Irish newspapers were at present published; for he (Mr. Dowse) ventured to say that they enjoyed and exercised a liberty of writing greater than English newspapers would care to avail themselves of. In not one single instance had any notice been served upon an Irish newspaper under the Peace Preservation Act, the reason being that, of their own accord, they had trimmed their sails to meet the wind that was blowing. They sometimes went very close to the wind, but they kept clear of the provisions of the Act. It was not that the British Empire was afraid of these journals; but for the sake of the peace that was beginning to spread over Ireland, and for the sake of the Press itself in that country, it was thought necessary that these powers should for the present continue to be intrusted to the Government. The powers could only be used where sedition or treason was inculcated, and not only had the power never yet been employed, but the Government, in putting the law in force, would naturally render themselves amenable to the judgment of Parliament if they misused the powers conferred upon them.

said, he must object to the insertion, in a Bill intended for the repression of agrarian crime, of powers conferred solely to meet a state of things brought about by the prevalence of treason and sedition.

said, he must object now, as he had objected on a previous occasion, to any attempt at gagging the Press, and would have been much better pleased if the Government had omitted these Press clauses from the Bill. He thought it requisite that Government should be made aware of public opinion through the medium of the Press, and for that reason if a division were taken he should vote against the Government proposal.

, though strongly deprecating the continuance of these clauses, and more especially, as he contended that the argument urged by the Government on their first introduction had entirely disappeared, observed that it was useless for the few Irishmen who objected to them to attempt to oppose the determination of the Government to insert them in the Bill.

asserted that some journals published in London contained more dangerous articles than any to be found in the Irish Press. On a previous occasion the noble Lord (the Marquess of Hartington), the Prime Minister, and the President of the Poor Law Board, had urged the necessity of preserving the people of Ireland from the contamination of the Irish-American Press; and he wished to know how that matter was to be dealt with now? Governments had been turned out on questions of less importance than this; but times were changed, and anything seemed to be good enough for Ireland.

said, the hon. Member for Cork City (Mr. Maguire) had misunderstood his statement on a former occasion with regard to newspapers from America which had been seized under the Peace Preservation Act. What he said was, that no prosecution of any paper printed and published in Ireland had been necessary, for care had been taken to keep within the limits of the law. If hon. Members read the Irish National Press they would not suppose that it was "gagged;" and Irish-American journals, containing articles not merely of a political character, but inciting to crime, would be circulated in Ireland if these clauses were not in operation. He denied that they had any special reference to Fenianism or sedition, for at the time that Act was passed agrarian crime was rife, and it had not yet altogether disappeared.

was of opinion that the most dignified course for hon. Members who, like himself, disapproved of the Bill to pursue, was to refrain from taking part in the division, and leave the Government to deal with the measure as they pleased.

said, he had no great faith in the compensation clause, and thought it did not tend to repress crime. The evidence given before the Committee showed that it was looked upon in Ireland as a great hardship.

said, the right hon. Gentleman (Colonel Wilson Patten) was mistaken. The witnesses were dissatisfied with the charge for extra police, which was first levied under an Act of 1848.

asked, whether this clause would interfere with the 67th clause of the Irish Land Act?

said, he did not think it would; but if there was any difficulty, he undertook that it should be removed upon the Report.

said, he did not think that it was wise to punish a district for crimes committed in it, without knowing that persons in that district were guilty.

said, he would remind the Committee that by an Act of the American Congress the President could suspend the Habeas Corpus Act in any part of the States, and put in force a similar law to that in the present Bill in reference to compensation for murder and malicious injury.

said, that in consequence of the objections of many hon. Members to the Metropolis Water Bill, and of the suggestion of the hon. Member for Ayr, the Government proposed to withdraw the Bill, and ask leave to introduce a new Bill on the subject.

expressed his satisfaction at the course taken by the Government.