asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he has any objection to give orders that a Review of Guardsmen and Volunteers be held near London on Easter Monday?

As I fully explained, Sir, last night, the initiation of such a review rests, not with me, but with the commanding officers, as the expense is borne by the Volunteers, and not by the public. There is a sum voted in the Estimates for a brigade drill of every Volunteer Corps once a year, who may be brigaded with regular troops. This is in the discretion of the General Officer of the district, who arranges the time with the commanding officers of Volunteers, and I understand that such arrangements are now being made by the General of the Home District, Prince Edward of Saxe-Weimar.

asked, whether it was necessary that all the commanding officers should apply?

said, the regular course was that the committee of commanding officers should take the matter into consideration and should communicate with the General Officer, which in this case had not been done.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he is prepared to inform the House as to the names of the gentlemen the Government will recommend to Her Majesty as Royal Commissioners to inquire into the condition of the Mercantile Marine and report thereon, and also as to the terms of the reference?

I am able, Sir, in answer to the Question of the hon. Gentleman to state to the House the form of the Reference which is to be made to the Royal Commission about to be constituted, and the names of its Members. The form of Reference will be this: That a Commission should forthwith issue to make inquiry with regard to the alleged unseaworthiness of British ships arising from overloading, deck-loading, defective construction, condition, equipment, form, or machinery, age, or improper stowage; and also to inquire into the present system of Marine Insurance, and the state of the law on the liability of shipowners for injury to those whom they employ, and the effects of under-manning ships; and to suggest the best remedy for the removal of such evils as may have arisen from the matters aforesaid. With respect to the names which had been selected, and had received the approval of Her Majesty, they are as follows:—The Duke of Somerset (Chairman), His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, the right hon. T. Milner Gibson, Admiral Sir James Hope, the hon. Henry George Liddell, M.P., Mr. Thomas Brassey, M.P., Mr. Henry Cadogan Rothery, Registrar of the High Court of Admiralty; Mr. Arthur Cohen, Barrister-at-law; Mr. Peter Denny, of an eminent shipbuilding firm at Dumbarton; Mr. George Duncan, member of the committee of Lloyd's Register; Captain Edward Dover Edgell, head of the Survey Staff of Lloyd's Salvage Association; and Mr. Charles Watkin Merrifield, Principal of the Royal School of Naval Architecture and Engineering. Instructions are contained in the Warrant, to the effect that the Commission shall first and separately report to Her Majesty upon the question of overloading; and shall secondly and separately report upon the question of unseaworthiness and defective construction.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether, in the case of the four seamen of the brig "Maggie" recently sentenced to imprisonment with hard labour in Edinburgh Gaol, it having been admitted in evidence that the Captain intended to proceed on a long voyage short-handed, that did not constitute a sufficient reason for the crew refusing to sail; and, if so, will the right hon. Gentleman communicate with the Home Secretary with a view to the immediate release of the prisoners?

in reply, said, he could not give his hon. Friend any information in this case at the present moment, because it did not come directly before the Board of Trade. It was a case of criminal procedure, which had gone to the Home Office. He could not give an opinion on the legal question, but he was in communication with the Home Office on the subject.

rose to put a Question on a point of Order. The second reading of the University Tests (Dublin) Bill had been fixed for the 2nd of April, and he wished to know whether the Bill could be permitted to proceed, having been materially altered by the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) since it was read a first time? The hon. Member stated in introducing the measure on the 7th of February, that it had been accepted by a large majority, and was, in fact the Bill of the House; and, on the 20th of March, in reply to the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Dixon), he said that the delay in printing the Bill—

"had been caused by his anxiety to consider, and if possible to meet, the objections urged against his measure by the Prime Minister and others in the recent debate."

It now turned out that the hon. Member for Brighton had got printed quite a different Bill from that which he had introduced, the constitution and powers of the Governing Body of Trinity College and the University of Dublin being entirely different in the Bills of 1872 and 1873. The reason why he asked the Question was this:—The Bill had been put down for second reading on Wednesday next, and as it was a measure on which much interest was felt in Ireland, Irish Members would be saved the necessity of coming over, and other Members the trouble of coming down to the House, if it were now ruled that the second reading could not proceed on that day. He believed the usual course was this:—When a Bill was introduced and ordered to be read a first time, it was not the practice to have it printed, especially in a perfect shape. For the convenience of Members, the practice was that the clerks in the Public Bill Office took the title of the Bill from its introducer, who might then bring in a dummy Bill. But the theory was that the Bill was introduced in a perfect shape. Now, the measure before the House he conceived to be an abuse of all procedure and all precedent, because the introducer of the Bill stated that it was the Bill which was read a second time last year, and led the House to believe that it was in a perfect shape, the fact being that the clauses were not then settled by the draftsman, or even in the mind of the hon. Member himself. The Bill, which should have been printed on the 7th of February, was not delivered to Irish Members until late on Tuesday, and it was only on Wednesday that his attention was directed by the Press to the fact that material alterations had been made in it. A case in point, reported in Burke's Precedents, had occurred on the 18th of February, 1850, when Mr. Stuart Wortley, in reply to a Question asked by Sir R. H. Inglis, said that his Bill on the subject of marriage with a deceased wife's sister had been delayed because he desired to frame a clause in accordance with the wishes of the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth. Sir R. H. Inglis contended that—

"Though any Member having obtained leave of the House to prepare and bring in a Bill on any subject, might take days, weeks, or months for the purpose, he could not, when once he had brought up such a Bill, and when the House had received and read it, make any alteration whatever in it. It was no longer his property, any more than that of any other individual Member, and could not be altered by any one. The House alone could then deal with it."—[3 Hansard, cviii. 969.]

The Speaker of the day (Mr. C. S. Lefevre) ruled

"That it was not competent for an hon. Member to make any other than a clerical alteration in a Bill which had once been introduced and read a first time."—[Ibid.]

He had only to refer to the fifth, sixth, and seventh clauses in proof that the Bill of the hon. Member for Brighton was not the measure which last year received a second reading; and, under the circumstances, he begged to ask Mr. Speaker, Whether the hon. Member for Brighton was in Order in proposing to proceed with the Bill which stood for reading a second time on Wednesday next.

said, it might not be inappropriate, before an opinion was expressed from the Chair, that he should state the facts of the case, and at once he was prepared to admit that the hon. Member had stated the facts correctly. He introduced the Bill on the first day of the Session, but did not get it printed because there was a probability then, another Bill on the same subject would pass the House, and, of course, if it had done so there would have been no use in troubling the House with his Bill. As the discussion on the University Bill of the Government proceeded, the Bill of which he was in charge was frequently referred to, many objections were pointed out to it by the Prime Minister and other eminent Members of the House, and the sole reason for altering it was that its promoters thought they would be paying more respect to the Prime Minister and the other distinguished Members to whom he had referred if they endeavoured as far as possible to meet their objections. As far as he was concerned, and he believed he was expressing the opinion of his two hon. Friends whose names were on the back of the Bill, it never once entered their minds that they were infringing, or disregarding even, a technical Rule of the House in adopting the course they had done. He now found that they had done so, and in his own name and in that of his hon. Friends he begged to say that they deeply regretted that they should have unintentionally disregarded a Rule of the House. He had no doubt that the House would accept his assurance that the error was entirely unintentional. But, having made this admission, the next question was, what had they better do? It seemed to him that the best thing to be done was this—As far as he understood the question, the leave which he obtained to introduce a Bill dealing with the Dublin University was still operative. He, therefore, with the permission of the Speaker, would ask to be allowed again to present another Bill to the House, and would then move that the Order of the Day for the Second Reading of the Bill put down for Wednesday next be read and discharged. If that Order should be discharged, he should then fix the second reading of the Bill, which he now begged to be allowed to bring in, for the same day. He greatly regretted that the course which had been adopted by his hon. Friend (Mr. Callan), if this were done, would not be so fruitful of advantage, as the hon. Member had thought that he had no alternative. He should deeply regret if, through an oversight on his part, a question which needed settlement should in any way suffer. Still, he had no alternative in the matter. He would only add this much more. ["Order."] He was perfectly well aware that there was no chance whatever of passing the Bill, even if this point of Order had not been raised, unless he and those who acted with him should obtain considerable indulgence from the House and the Government. He did not think, under the circumstances, that indulgence they would be less likely to receive now. In conclusion, he would simply say that he hoped the course which he had suggested would meet with the approval of the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair and also of the House.

I am bound to say that the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) has exercised a sound discretion in taking the course which he proposes to adopt. There is no principle more clearly laid down in this House than this—when a Member has introduced a Bill to the House it ceases to be in that Member's hands, and passes into the possession of the House. No essential alteration of that Bill, at any stage, may then be made without the distinct Order of the House. I may remind and the House that that principle applies with special force when the House proposes to go into Committee pro formâ on a Bill in order to meet objections to that Bill, raised on the second reading. Upon those occasions it is clearly established that no alteration can be introduced in a Bill inconsistent with the general character of the Bill. The House has laid down a clear course for Members to take if they desire to make any essential alteration in a Bill of which they have charge at any stage. That course is to ask the leave of the House to withdraw the Bill, and to present another instead thereof. That is the proper course to take, and that is the course which, as I understand, the hon. Member proposes to take. If that be so, the first Question to be put to the House will be that the Order of the Day for the second reading of the University Tests (Dublin) Bill be read and discharged, and that the Bill be withdrawn. Should the House think proper to agree to that Motion, it will rest with the hon. Member for Brighton to ask leave to present another Bill in lieu thereof; and when the new Bill has been presented and read a first time, to name for the second reading Wednesday next, or any other day he may think fit. The Question, therefore, which, in pursuance of the hon. Member's desire, I have to put to the House is—"That the Order of the Day for the second. reading of the University Tests (Ireland) Bill upon Wednesday next be read and discharged."

I wish to put it to you, Sir, whether the second reading will take precedence of the other Orders on Wednesday?

If the House should allow the hon. Member for Brighton to present another Bill, he can fix the second reading for the day he thinks proper. Of course, it will take its place after the other Orders of the Day already appointed for that day.

Is it, Mr. Speaker, competent to debate the Question that the Order of the Day be discharged?

In accordance with the Rules of the House, I have put the Question—"That the Order of the Day for the second reading of the Bill on Wednesday next be read and discharged." That Question may be debated; but, according to the ordinary rules of debate, the discussion must be germane to the question.

I have now to put the Question—"That the Bill be withdrawn." The Ayes have it.

Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the Bill to the House, and to move that it be read the first time.

The Question is—"That leave be given to present another Bill instead thereof."

I beg, Sir, to point out—it appears to me that it is quite unnecessary for the hon. Member for Brighton to give Notice of a new Bill.

The hon. Member obtained leave to bring in one Bill on a statement which he made to the House—can he, without Notice, introduce another Bill?

I would ask, Sir, as a point of Order, whether the hon. Member for Brighton can interfere with the programme for this evening? Orders of the Day on Friday have precedence over Notices, and he cannot take precedence of the Orders and the four Notices of Motion now on the Paper.

The Bill has been withdrawn; but I apprehend it is not competent for the hon. Member for Brighton to introduce another Bill without giving Notice.

I wish to say a few words on the point of Order. The position, as I understand it, is this—the hon. Member for Brighton has obtained leave to withdraw his Bill, and the Bill is withdrawn. But the Order of Leave, as stated by you, Sir, to introduce a Bill on this subject still holds good, and the hon. Member upon that Order asks leave to present another Bill. The Question I have to put to you, Sir, is whether it is not in accordance with precedent, under the circumstances, that leave should be given to enable the hon. Member to present the Bill without further Notice? If leave be given to present that Bill, the hon. Member at the close of the sitting may bring up that new Bill in the same manner as if it were a Bill brought in under an Order of Leave given.

The House is now engaged in dealing with a point of Order, and it is according to the usual practice that the point of Order should be determined, and effect given to that determination. No Notice on the part of the hon. Member for Brighton is necessary in order to raise the Question whether he should or should not be permitted to present another Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Sussex (Mr. Dodson) has correctly stated the practice of the House. The Order of Leave to introduce a Bill is still operative, and the only question now to be determined is whether the hon. Member for Brighton shall be allowed to present another Bill instead of that withdrawn. Of course, whether the hon. Member for Brighton shall be allowed to do so or not must be left to the House; but no Notice in respect of that Motion is necessary.

I wish to know, Sir, whether leave having been given to the hon. Member for Brighton to introduce a Bill on the 7th of February, he can now on the same leave introduce a Bill different in principle.

I believe, Sir, in such a case as that now before the House, where a Bill from some informality is withdrawn and a new Bill presented, the invariable practice has been to allow the Bill to be brought in by the Member at once; and no Notice is requisite. Leave having been given to introduce a Bill, it may be presented at any time. Being introduced on that Order it will then be read a first time.

In that case I should like to know how we are to debate the first reading. We may have to take a division on the first reading.

The Question is that leave be given to present another Bill instead thereof.

We have been taken by surprise. We do not know what the new Bill of the hon. Member for Brighton will be; and we should have time to consider the course to be pursued. I beg to move the adjournment of this debate.

said that the two hon. Gentlemen who had last spoken could be in no want of information as to the provisions of the Bill which the hon. Member for Brighton wished to present. Every one in the House was perfectly conversant with its proposals.

wished to ask the Speaker, Whether the withdrawal of a Bill differed from the second reading having been negatived. If the original leave covered a new Bill, why should it not cover a Bill which had been defeated on the second reading?

Any hon. Member who has obtained the leave of the House to introduce a Bill is at liberty to suspend the introduction of that Bill and to alter it in any way he thinks proper, provided it is not so altered as to be inconsistent with his original leave. As long as the Bill is introduced in consistency with the Order of Leave, he is quite in order in laying it on the Table of the House; but when once laid on the Table of the House, it is not regular that it should be altered in essential particulars. The hon. Member for Brighton having, as acknowledged by himself, altered his Bill in essential particulars, asks leave to present another Bill. There are several instances of the same kind on record, and in all those instances hon. Members have presented another Bill, and without Notice. The hon. Member for Brighton is therefore in order in now proposing to present to this House another Bill, without Notice.

It appears to me that there is an amount of difficulty in the position in which we are placed. The ruling of the Speaker has been perfectly clear, that although it was necessary for the hon. Member for Brighton to ask permission to present his Bill, he could do so without Notice. Then the question arises as to the position of Members who, like the hon. Member for the county of Limerick (Mr. Synan), desire to oppose the Bill on the first reading. [Several hon. MEMBERS: He cannot now.] They cannot oppose a Bill on its first reading? I recollect that great battles have been fought on the first readings of Bills. I remember a declaration by Lord Russell in 1842 that he would oppose the Income Tax Bill on the first, second, and third readings, and he was as good as his word. The Motion for the first reading usually follows the presentation of the Bill; but in this case the presentation recurs without any Notice. It will be rather hard on my hon. Friend, supposing he wishes to oppose the first reading, that he should have no course open to him except to watch the entire proceedings of the House before and after the discussion of Orders of the Day, in order to make sure that the first reading is not taken. In lieu of adjourning the debate, for which there is no necessity, as the question at issue is perfectly clear, the convenient course would be for the hon. Member for Brighton to give Notice that he will move the first reading on Monday. It is not usual that such a proceeding as this should occur at all, for usually every Member has Notice of the introduction of a Bill, and then takes his own course with reference to the first reading. I doubt whether it is consistent with the privileges of Members to have to watch the proceedings of the House in the way I have described; and, without raising the abstract question of procedure, the whole difficulty might be met if the hon. Member for Brighton gives Notice of the first reading for Monday, and he would then be in plenty of time to fix the second reading on the day he desires.

I differ from the right hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member for Brighton having admitted that his Bill is not in accordance with his statement of it on the first reading, the Speaker has ruled that it ought to be withdrawn. But there stands on our Journals the Order that he has leave to introduce a Bill for the better government of the University of Dublin. The Speaker has told us that, under these circumstances, the custom, for which there are several precedents, is to introduce another Bill. Now, if the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan) intended to oppose the Bill when first introduced, there would be some reason for deferring the first reading; but he had no such intention, and it would be rather hard on the hon. Member for Brighton to take advantage of the new state of things and oppose the presentation of his Bill. It is for the House to judge whether the hon. Member should be put in the same position he was in before with his fresh Bill.

The House, or a portion of it, does not seem aware of the Standing Order of 1852 on the question. That Order provides that, a Bill having been introduced in pursuance of an Order of the House, "the Question that it be now read a first time and printed shall be decided without Amendment or debate."

suggested that if the Motion for the adjournment of the debate were withdrawn, a decision might very shortly be arrived at, by taking the sense of the House on the Question whether the hon. Member for Brighton should be allowed to present his new Bill.

The course which my hon. Friend (Mr. Fawcett) proposes to take is one commonly adopted with Government Bills. As to the view of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, that the first reading should be postponed till Monday—is there any instance of a Government of either political party having given Notice in such a case? If the first reading is deferred till Monday, the convenience of the printers in distributing the Bill will be interfered with. We are discussing a mere question of form, for my hon. Friend is about to present the very Bill which has been in our hands the last 10 days.

Before we consider the practical consequences, we should have regard to adherence to the Rules, which are distinctly laid down in the volume to which we always refer in such cases. It says—

"If a Bill has been received in either House the Question is put that this Bill be now read a first time,' which is rarely objected to, either in the Lords or Commons, and in the Commons can only be opposed by a Division. When the Question of the first reading is negatived the House merely determines it shall not be now read a first time, and the Question may therefore be repeated on a future day, as in the ease of the County Elections Bill in 1832 which was twice negatived."

The Question now is that the hon. Member for Brighton be permitted to present another Bill; and that Motion any Member may resist.

said, it had been denied by some Members that a Bill could be opposed on the first reading, and that the House could divide on the first reading. He would remind those hon. Members, however, that in the present Session a measure proposed by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) was opposed on the first reading, when a division was taken.

rose to call attention to the mode of electing Representative Peers of Scotland and Ireland. The hon. Member said, that on a previous occasion he had called attention to the defects of the present system of electing Representative Peers both in Scotland and Ireland. It was generally admitted that the existing system was unsatisfactory, and that its revision and reform were urgently called for. In 1869 he obtained leave to bring in a Bill on the subject; but by the advice of the Prime Minister, who, agreeing with him in the need of a reform, thought that an opportunity should be afforded to the House of Lords of taking the initiative in the matter, he did not attempt to carry it beyond the first reading. Subsequently, in the same year, a Bill was introduced in the House of Lords by Earl Grey, which was an improvement, in one respect, on the measure he had himself presented to this House. His proposal was to restrict the votes to be given by each Peer to a fewer number than the number of Peers to be returned. He had followed the precedent furnished by the House of Lords itself, which had introduced the three-cornered constituencies into the Reform Bill, not venturing to go further. Earl Grey's Bill was based on the principle of the Cumulative Vote. In that way it was hoped that the representation of a minority might be secured. At present all or nearly all the Representative Peers were of one complexion, and did not fairly or adequately represent the various opinions of the constituencies by whom they were supposed to be elected. The noble Earl (Earl Grey) by his Bill interfered with the provision contained in the Scotch Act of Union, under which the Representative Peers were elected for each Parliament. This was probably the reason why the Bill met with considerable obstruction, though not actual opposition in the House of Lords. The Duke of Buccleuch, who always took a great share in the return of Representative Peers for Scotland, moved its reference to a Select Committee, and upon that Motion a debate arose in which the Duke of Argyll, Earl Granville, and several independent Peers spoke in favour of the Bill. The Marquess of Salisbury also expressed himself to the following effect:—

"If the present Motion were for rejecting the Bill I certainly should not vote for it. In the present state of my convictions I am not disposed to vote against the principle of the Bill."—[3 Hansard, cxcv. 1688.]

Lord Cairns, himself the author of the Minority Clause in the Reform Bill was the chief speaker against the Bill on that occasion. But he thought it might be fairly said that no one objected to its principle. For even Lord Cairns was not satisfied with the existing state of things. The noble Lord was in favour of some system by which all the Scotch and Irish Peers might eventually take their seats in the House of Lords; but he, for one, was opposed to such a step, which would be contrary to the agreement made with those countries at the time of their respective Unions. Lord Cairns' argument was open to an easy answer. The noble Lord had maintained that because Scotland had so increased in relative wealth and population since the Union that she had been found entitled to an increased number of Representatives in the House of Commons; therefore she was entitled to an increased representation in the House of Lords through Representative Peers. But this argument entirely lost sight of the fact that there had been no Peers of England created since the Union. The only Peers created since the Union with Scotland were Peers of Great Britain and Peers of the United Kingdom, the former before and the latter since the Union with Ireland. A Scotch commoner had always as good a chance as an English one of being made a Peer of Great Britain or of the United Kingdom. It was true that for 80 years Scotch Peers, not being Representative Peers, were excluded from the House of Lords, although they had been created Peers of Great Britain, or had even inherited English Peerages. But that disability had long been removed; and no one could deny that the posssession of a Scotch or Irish Peerage was a vantage ground which gave a man a better chance of getting into the House of Lords than that possessed by a commoner of equal means and position. A Committee of the House of Lords was appointed to consider the Bill, and the proceedings were very dark and very curious. They took evidence, but it was never distributed, except among themselves, and he could never procure a copy of it. A still more extraordinary thing was that the Report they presented had little or nothing to do with the subject-matter of the Bill. The division in the Upper House on the Irish Church Bill gave rise to further discussion on this subject. On that occasion four Irish Representative Peers voted with the Government; but this circumstance only showed that the time had come for the passage of that measure, and not that a great change had occurred in the feelings of the Representative Peers. When the important question of the Abolition of Purchase arose, 29 Scotch and Irish Representative Peers voted against it, and only three for it. This was followed by the publication in The Times of a very strong article insisting on the necessity of changing the mode of electing Representative Peers. There was this difference between the Scotch and Irish Representative Peers—that the former were elected at the commencement of every new Parliament, while the election of the latter was for life, and consequently an election took place on the death of every Representative Peer. There would be no difficulty in introducing the Cumulative Vote at the Scotch elections. An arrangement would be necessary in the case of the Irish elections, and might be made in the way he would indicate. The four seats in the House of Lords formerly occupied by the Irish Bishops and Archbishops were now vacant, and he thought, in justice to Ireland, those seats should be filled up. At least, the number might be fixed at not less than 28, and not more than 32. By that arrangement the elections could be by batches of five, and then the Cumulative Vote would have full play. The change he recommended was clue to the minority, who at present were excluded from any share of representation in the House of Lords; and it was also due to the Hereditary Peers of England, for it often happened that, while a majority of those Peers voted upon the popular side, the vote was changed by the dead-weight of the Representative Peers.

said, he did not remember any proposal being made by the House of Lords to alter the constitution of the House of Commons. The proposal of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwick was to alter one of the fundamental articles of the Act of Union. It was true that one of the most solemn Articles in the Act of Union had been violated by the measure which swept away the Irish Church. But the more the clauses of the Act of Union were altered, the stronger was the argument for repealing that Act altogether. The hon. Member had spoken of the Irish Peers being generally of one complexion in their political view. No doubt this was so, and the reason was that the constituency were all of one complexion. Still, of late years there had existed very little difficulty in distinguished Conservative Irish Peers finding their way into the House of Lords by being created English Peers. His own impression was that by this means an inequality arising out of the elective representative system was corrected by the large number of Irish Liberal Peers who had been created English Peers by successive Liberal Governments. Very few instances of such creations had taken place under Conservative Governments, and therefore he was of opinion that the House should be very careful in dealing with any proposal to trench upon the privileges and alter the constitution of the House of Lords.

said, that when this subject was before brought under notice by his hon. Friend, he had stated it was in the House of Lords that the question must originate if any practical result were hoped for. He was sorry that august Assembly had shown no disposition to deal with the present method of electing Representative Peers. It might appear that upon such a question anyone upon the Liberal side of the House must speak from party interest, because the existing mode of election operated very disadvantageously to the Liberal party. He could not help saying, however, that, while he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli) in strongly opposing the principle of minority representation in the House of Commons, one essential reason for this opposition was that the variety existing among the constituencies provided effectually for the representation of every variety of sentiment in the House, so that the House of Commons, on the whole, corresponded with the political opinions of the people from time to time. But this argument against the representation of minorities in the House of Commons entirely failed against the representation of the Scotch and Irish Peers, who were not represented in conformity with the various shades of opinion existing among them. The only argument in favour of the present mode of election was that just used by the hon. Gentleman opposite—"It is the mode provided in the Act of Union;" but, inasmuch as Parliament had altered the Act of Union in other points, it might alter the Act in this point. The evil, however, had been borne for some generations, and they must probably be content to bear it for some time longer. His hon. Friend suggested that the Government should propose in the House of Lords the change which he thought necessary. He could not, however, pledge himself to act upon this suggestion. The Government were in a decided minority in the House of Lords, and could not, therefore, with any advantage, take the initiative upon a question of considerable importance bearing on the constitution of the House of Lords. It was difficult for this, as for all Liberal Governments, to conduct the ordinary business of this country in the House of Lords; and he did not think it would be right on the part of the Government to endeavour to effect a change going beyond the ordinary course of business unless there was reason to suppose, from declarations made by the Members of the Opposition in the House of Lords, that they wore inclined to give it a favourable reception. The practical mischief of the system of election was restrained partly by the number of Irish and Scotch Peers who had received peerages of the United Kingdom, and partly, also, in the case of Scotland, by the reduction in the aggregate number of those peerages. He could only say that, although hope did not always afford the prospect of a very substantial repast, they could only feed themselves with the hope that if a proposal something in the nature of minority representation should be introduced into the elec- tions of Scotch and Irish Peers, as it had been introduced with advantage into the Governing Bodies of the Universities, that proposal might commend itself to the general sense and judgment of the House of Commons. It certainly would be more likely so to commend itself if they avoided anything like an attempt at officious pressure; and although he did not believe that his hon. Friend was in the slightest degree open to that charge, he did not think that the Government would be regarded as free from that accusation if they held out any expectation that, under the present circumstances, they contemplated making any proposal in that sense. He wished, too, that the public mind had been more turned to this question than appeared to have been the case. He could only account for the general indifference to the subject on the part of the public by the pressure of other important matters, combined with the sense that it was impossible to deal with them all effectually. He could not help feeling that they were indebted to his hon. Friend for bringing the subject before the House, and he could only express his hope that a view so reasonable as that of his hon. Friend would find favour at some happy juncture, though the time might not be quite close at hand.

while he acknowledged, also regretted the public apathy in this question, but regarded the indifference of Scotchmen to ther belief that in sending so many Liberal Members to that House they had secured sufficient and forcible expression of their opinions. He thought this was a question that ought not to be forced on the other House by this.

rose to move that a Select Committee be appointed

"To inquire into the operation of the Act 34 and 35 Vic. c. 65, Juries (Ireland) Act, and whether it is necessary to amend the same in order to secure the due administration of justice."

In doing so he would place before the House instances which had occurred in all parts of Ireland illustrating the effects of the law, and then ask the House to consider whether these effects were not traceable to the present state of the law, and whether an immediate inquiry ought not to be instituted? Previous to the 1st of January last, when the existing law came into operation, matters relating to juries were managed under an Act passed in 1833, and though that Act had in some respects become obsolete, it worked as a rule smoothly enough, except, perhaps, in times of agrarian or political disturbances. The principal changes made by the Act of last year were the taking away from the Sheriffs the discretion which they had hitherto exercised, and the reduction of the property qualification. Formerly the Sheriffs had been able to exclude from the panel all those who were known to be incompetent or disaffected, but no choice was now left them. He observed that Lord O'Hagan had stated in "another place" that the qualification as originally provided in the Bill was considerably reduced in the House of Commons after it had left the House of Lords. As a matter of fact, he found that the Bill reached the House of Commons at the fag end of the Session—on the 7th of July—when the House had been exhausted by the debates on the Ballot, that it was read a second time on the 18th of July between 1 and 2 o'clock in the morning, and that it passed through Committee at about 2 o'clock on the morning of the 21st of July, when some Amendments were introduced without Notice. He did not mean to defend the qualifications in the Act of 1833, though they were good so far as they went; but he could not help protesting at the way in which so important a measure as this had been smuggled through the House. With respect to the nature of the qualification of jurors under the Bill, there were no less than five different qualifications, producing a most extraordinary and whimsical state of things in different parts of Ireland. The qualification for urban voters—the voters in cities, towns, and villages—was in 11 counties the occupation of premises of the value of £12 a-year. In Leitrim their qualification was £15. In all other parts of Ireland it was £20. For rural jurymen the qualification in any part of Ireland, with one exception—that at Leitrim—was £20. In all parts of Ireland under the new law the administration of justice had been most scandalous. It was no reflection upon the Irish character to say that, because the same changes in the law would lead to the same results anywhere else. Could anything but scandal result from the appointment of incompetent persons to discharge the duties of jurors? He would state a few instances of the evil operation of the present jury law in Ireland. A barrister of many years exrience had written a letter to him stating that a juror who had been summoned to try an important criminal case at Nenagh, when he was about to be sworn said he could not read or write; and several others who had been summoned were equally incompetent. At Kilkenny one of the jurors in an important case, which had occupied the Court for a day, said to a barrister—"Could not your Honour get me let off, as I have been brought from a distance of 50 miles, and cannot read or write; nor do I understand a word of what is going on." At Clonmel a number of old men begged to be excused for similar reasons, and some of them had to pawn their coats and other garments in order to maintain themselves whilst they were in attendance as jurors. The Act, therefore, operated very hardly in the case of the poor man. In another place at the opening of a trial one of the jurors said that, on hearing a case the previous day, he thought the first counsel right until he heard his opponent, and then he did not know which was right. He wished to know whether the same thing would occur in the case then before them. The Judge and Mr. Butt informed the juror that he would have to hear both sides, and decide with which the truth lay. Thereupon the juror observed that he and his fellow jurors would decide according to their consciences, but that it was of no use making long speeches. [A laugh.] These cases had a ludicrous side, but they grievously affected the administration of justice. We could not afford to have the law brought into contempt in Ireland. At the Tipperary Assizes a man who had been sworn, and who could neither read nor write, was discharged by Chief Justice Whiteside because he had been appointed foreman of the jury. In one case, on a trial for murder, one of the jurymen was quite drunk, and another was a returned convict, who had served his seven years. In another case the Judge said the jury had forgotten the obligation of the oath they had taken, and, seeing that they gave a verdict of acquittal in spite of the evidence, he was obliged to infer that they were friends of the prisoner. It was evident that something should be done to remedy this state of things. He believed that all parties were anxious to obtain such a law as would ensure the attendance of jurymen who understood the nature of an oath, and would do their duty according to their oath, and who were competent by education to follow out the pleadings at trials. He thought the best means of obtaining that object would be by way of an inquiry before a Committee presided over by the noble Marquess the Chief Secretary for Ireland; and he rejoiced to think that such an inquiry need not take up more time than would be necessary to put a stop to the present disgraceful state of things. He thanked the House for having listened to the details he had brought forward, and concluded by moving for the Select Committee.

while satisfied that the object of the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Bruen) in bringing forward this subject was to secure the proper administration of the law, could not agree with him in his opinion that the result of the present system was lamentable and dangerous. The great object of the change in the law that had been effected by the Act in question had been to take away from the Sheriff the unlimited power he formerly had of selecting the jurymen at his own discretion. Nine Bills had been introduced at different times on this subject, and in 1858 Chief Justice Whiteside—then Mr. Whiteside—in introducing his Bill taking the discretion from the Sheriff, said the result would be to make partial juries impossible and to convert the Sheriff from a judicial into a Ministerial officer. He (Mr Heron) believed that had been the result of the present Act of Parliament, and that the alteration was absolutely necessary, the state of the jury lists as returned by the different Sheriffs rendering it imperatively necessary there should be a change in the law. There was no doubt whatever that there had been a well-founded opinion in Ireland that trial by jury was not impartial. Under the old law there had been a constant struggle on the part of the Conservatives to have their causes tried by special juries, it being well known that the majority, if not the whole, of the special jurors were Conservatives and Protestants. At one time, when a man once got himself placed on the jury list it was impossible to remove him from it, and the consequence was that a number of persons made a regular profession of serving as jurors. The majority of those persons, of whom there were about 120 altogether in Dublin, were Conservative in politics and reduced in circumstances; they were well known, and during the sittings they never left the precincts of the Court, and the result was that they tried nearly the whole of the cases. He did not wish to say anything against a by-gone system; but he might mention that such jurors were known by the name of "guinea pigs." The power of the Sheriff in making out the jury panels was very large under the old system, as the Sheriff practically put any one he chose upon the panel, and in the case of John M'Kenna, a Roman Catholic, who was tried for the murder of a Protestant at the Monaghan Spring Assizes in 1869, the panel was challenged on the ground—in the old language of the law—that

"The High Sheriff wilfully and maliciously arrayed the panel unindifferently, with intent to prejudice the prisoner on his trial for life."

That challenge was tried, and, the Sheriff being found guilty of partiality, the panel was quashed, the chief ground on which the decision was given being that scarcely any Roman Catholics were put on the panel, which was virtually composed of members of the Orange Lodges of Monaghan. The result was that all the prisoners for trial—120 in number—had to be let out on bail to the next Assizes, and yet, at the Summer Assizes, the Sheriff returned the very same panel. In the end the Government, acting on the advice of the then Attorney General (Mr. Sullivan) deprived the high Sheriff of his office, and in some of the cases for trial the venue was changed to ad- jacent counties. Evidence had also been given before the Select Committee which had been appointed to inquire into the alleged unlawful assemblies in Westmeath to the effect that sub-Sheriffs were frequently influenced in the selection of jurymen by the prisoner's attorney. It was evident, therefore, that before the passing of the Act in question the Sheriff or his deputy had power to show partiality in the selection of the jury panel. In the county of Cork better juries had never been returned than at the late Assizes, and there had not been a single failure of justice. The same remark applied to the county of Kerry. Mr. Justice Fitzgerald, indeed, had said that on the Munster Circuit, gentlemen of property who had been summoned as jurors did not attend as was usual before farmers and persons of inferior position in society were called upon to attend in that capacity, but he hoped anything of that kind would never again occur. It should be borne in mind that the present system had been in existence for only one Assizes, and that many persons wore summoned who, not having acted as jurors before, were probably somewhat awkward in a Court of Justice. One of the great advantages of the present system under the new law was that it brought landlords and tenants a great deal more into personal communication, and in that way was productive of considerable good. The hon. Member for Carlow had referred to a case in Nenagh in which a juror under the new system was found to be intoxicated. No doubt that juror was guilty of great misconduct, but the case did not stand entirely alone, for in every book of legal anecdotes numerous cases of that nature would be found to have happened in England and Ireland, as well as in Scotland. In another case that the hon. Member had referred to, where a juror had asked if he was to be influenced by the speeches of counsel, and the Judge had told him not to mind the lawyer's statements, but to find a verdict on the evidence, according to his conscience, he (Mr. Heron) believed that the juryman had taken a most proper course in putting the question to the Court, and that such a juryman would give an honourable and conscientious verdict. A great lawyer had stated that the system of serving as jurors in England had been one part of the education of the people of Eng- land, and it was now for the first time extended to the people of Ireland, instead of being confined to one privileged and limited class. He believed that, upon the whole, jurors had performed their duties impartially. No doubt there was one portion of the existing system which might be improved; he referred to the system of rating in some of the agricultural districts of Ireland. £15 householders in cities and towns were almost certain to be well qualified for jurors; but in some of the agricultural districts the present rating system needed alteration. He would add, in conclusion, that the Bill would, in his opinion, effect one of the objects which according to Lord Bacon ought to be one of the objects of a Court of Justice—it would satisfy the people that justice had been done—which could never be the case while they were excluded from being the judges of facts; for in Ireland there had been perpetual contests about the constitution of juries down to the time when Lord Denman had declared that, under certain circumstances, trial by jury must be regarded as "a delusion, a mockery, and a snare." The present system might be capable of improvement, but he hoped that Parliament would never again intrust sub-Sheriffs with unlimited discretion to summon juries as they pleased; on the contrary, that every man would be summoned in turn, and that all, gentle and simple, would meet together in Courts of Justice.

said, nearly the whole of the remarks of the hon. and learned Member who had just spoken had been in condemnation of the Juries Law, as it existed prior to the passing of the late Act, but there was no doubt that the law was in a very bad state, and probably there was not one Member who would not sanction some reform of it; but that was no proof that the present law was efficient or satisfactory. He could corroborate most fully what had fallen from his hon. Friend the Member for Carlow (Mr. Bruen) with respect to the numerous failures of justice which had occurred throughout Ireland. The Grand Jury of the County of Leitrim, at the last Assizes, had expressed, he might add, an opinion to the effect that persons were summoned as jurors who were illiterate and unfit to perform their duties in that capacity. As an illustration he might mention the case of a man who had been tried for perjury, in which five jurors, after finding him "Guilty," the next morning came to the Judge and said they had changed their minds, and they wished to find him "Not Guilty," adding, at the same time, that they did not understand anything at all about it. Everybody else, however, had no doubt as to his guilt. All were of opinion that he richly deserved his sentence. There was another case, in which a man had been charged with robbery and the jury found him guilty of a common assault, which the Judge observed was the queerest name for robbery he had ever heard. He would simply add that there was a Bill before the House called the General Valuation Bill, the effect of which would be to raise the present rating of 115, which gave a qualification to serve as a juror, to £18, while £12 rating would be raised to £15, which would make other men, still more unfit, liable to serve in the future. That was a point which, in his opinion, ought to be referred to a Committee, which would sit to consider the merits of the case. He had much pleasure in supporting the Motion.

said, he was obliged to the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Bruen) for having brought the subject forward on an evening which was generally devoted to the Motions of private Members, although he, on the part of the Government, had announced it to be his intention to deal with it.

said, the Notice he had given to move for a Select Committee had been mentioned before the noble Marquess had stated that he meant to propose the appointment of a Committee.

said, he was aware that the Notice had been given a few minutes before he had announced the intentions of the Government; but the hon. Gentleman, knowing what those intentions were, made use of his influence with his Friends to withdraw the Motions which preceded his on the Papers. But be that as it might, his Order of Reference would limit the inquiry to the operation of the Act of 1871. Now, although he was willing to admit that that Act might require alteration, the Committee ought, he thought, to have power to investigate the jury system previous to its passing, and the principles upon which it ought, if necessary, to be amended. He should therefore, propose to substitute for the terms of the Motion the words, "to inquire and report as to the working of the jury system in Ireland before and since the passing of the 34th Victoria, and whether any, and what, amendments should be made in that Act, with a view to the better administration of justice." The speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Tipperary (Mr. Heron) relieved him, he might add, from the necessity of saying on the subject a good deal which he might otherwise have thought it expedient to lay before the House. His hon. Friend had shown that a Committee of that House, consisting of men of the greatest weight and whose judgment was entitled to great respect—the late Sir James Graham being one of them—having inquired into the state of certain counties where outrages and crimes had been extremely frequent, gave it as their opinion that the Irish Jury Law was one of the matters which required amendment with reference to the disturbed condition of those counties. His hon. Friend had also shown from the evidence taken before the Westmeath Committee that, in the words of a most experienced authority on the subject, the state of the jury panel in that county was "perfectly frightful." He had also quoted the case of the county of Monaghan, where the grossest partiality on the part of the Sheriff and sub-Sheriff was proved, and the state of the jury panel to try party cases was such as could not be expected to give confidence to one of the parties concerned. Another proof of the unsatisfactory state of the former jury system was afforded in the county of Cavan, where a prisoner was tried three times for murder; the jury every time disagreed, and after the last trial an application was made for a change of venue to some other county. Several of the jurors would not find the prisoner guilty because they were apprehensive that if they did so they would suffer injury to their persons or property; and in that case Chief Justice Whiteside and Mr. Justice Fitzgerald did not deem the jury panel of the county of Cavan to be in a proper condition. The Act of 1871 sought to amend the Jury Law by the introduction of three principles—firstly, by substituting for the existing qualification—namely, a freehold and leasehold one—a rating qualification, secondly, by intrusting to the clerk of the union and the poor rate collector the preparation of the jury list; and thirdly—and most important of all—by taking away from the Sheriff, from the sub-Sheriff, or (as in some instances) from the sub-Sheriff's clerk, the discretion of choosing the panel, and making the Sheriff choose it impartially from a juror's book. Those three principles had all been admitted by every Government and every law officer who had attempted to amend the law on that subject on either side of the House. Since the Report of the Committee to which he had referred there had been no fewer than nine such attempts made, and the majority of these Bills contained the principle of practically terminating the Sheriff's discretion, and three of them—those introduced by Chief Justice Whiteside—took away all discretion from the Sheriff in selecting the jury panel. That appeared to him to be a most valuable and important part of the reform of the jury system effected by the Act of 1871, although the hon. Member for Carlow had devoted the greater portion of his speech to an attack upon that provision. It could not be admitted for a moment that any person, however high, should have the power of selecting, at his own discretion, the men who were to try cases affecting the lives and property of their fellow-subjects. It was extremely probable, so far as their limited experience of the Act of 1871 went, that the qualification had been too much reduced and would be required to be raised. That was a matter which would, of course, engage the attention of the Committee; but the Government had ample justification in the proposals of previous Governments for believing that the qualification they adopted in 1871 would be sufficient to secure a fit class of jurors. In the original Bill, Lord O'Hagan proposed a rating qualification of £30, subject to reduction when necessary. The proper limit appeared from the precedents of former Bills to be between £20 and £30. On the recommendation of the Dublin Chamber of Commerce—a body that took a considerable interest in the Irish Jury Law—the qualification was proposed to be reduced to £20 in the City and County of Dublin. In Committee on the Bill in the House of Lords, Lord O'Hagan pro- posed special qualifications in certain counties; in some a twofold qualification of £20 in towns and £30 in rural districts, in the remaining counties—except Leitrim—£20 in both towns and rural districts. The reason why a lower qualification had been adopted for Leitrim—namely, £15—was because with a higher qualification they would not have been able in so small a county to obtain a sufficient number of jurors to provide for a regular rotation, and the same jurors would have had to be called upon too frequently. Precisely the same principle was adopted in the Poor Law Act, and although the Act fixed the normal qualification of a guardian in Ireland at £30, yet that qualification existed in only 8 unions. It was £25 in 45 unions, £20 in 91, £15 in 17 unions or electoral divisions, and below that amount in 23. He did not deny that the Bill was passed through the House at a time when it was not easy to have complete discussion; or that with the assent of Mr. Baron Dowse, the qualification was reduced to £12 in towns, and £20 in rural districts; but the fact that the Bill passed through all its stages in July proved that it must have been generally assented to, because opposition must have been fatal to it at that period of the Session. Even supposing the cases brought forward had not been exaggerated, they could not be held to be conclusive as proving the failure of the measure, for the Act only came into operation this year, and it remained to be seen whether in the first panels the provisions of the Act with reference to the exclusion of incapacitated jurors had been complied with, or whether the right of challenge had been properly exercised by the Crown Solicitors. Assenting with willingness to the appointment of a Committee, he expressed the opinion that inquiry should be chiefly directed to two points—first, whether the qualification fixed by the Act of last year was a proper one, or whether it should be raised; and, second, whether there might not be a more complete revision of the jury lists before the Chairmen of Quarter Sessions. He trusted it would not be necessary—and he did not believe it would—to interfere with the really important part of the Bill, which secured perfect impartiality in the selection of the panels, and the removal of what he considered to be a very mischievous and improper power possessed by the Sheriff of selecting from particular panels of the jury lists; but of course it would be competent for the Committee to enter into a discussion of the whole question.

said, that whatever tended to throw light upon the subject would assist the House in framing a measure dealing with the jury law, and having seen some of the jurors under the new system he entertained no doubt that it was absolutely necessary to have a reform in the constitution of the panel. He did not see that there was any necessity for a more extended inquiry than that proposed by the noble Marquess, but no doubt it was indispensable to have that inquiry. He thought it was premature to anticipate the results of the inquiry by indicating any opinion upon any point to be investigated, and he much deprecated limiting the range of the inquiry by the Committee. He anticipated that the Committee would examine the Judges, the Law Officers, and the persons engaged in the administration of the law; and he thought that, until they had their evidence, it was premature to lay down that the jury was to be empanelled in any particular manner, or that there was to be any particular qualification. For his own part, he doubted whether a mere property qualification was sufficient, because he had heard a man who was on a special jury declare that he could neither read nor write. Surely, then, there must be some means of selection. It need not be exercised by the Sheriff; but unless regard was had to something beyond mere property qualification they might find that not one of the jury possessed sufficient intelligence for the trial of a case. He admitted that it was no objection against the Bill that it gave different qualifications, for the rating was not uniform in Ireland; but they would have to ascertain what would enable the administration of the law to be carried on by intelligent jurors. He protested against reference to Liberals or Conservatives in this matter. Such a topic as regarded the constitution of a jury was new to him, and, further, could not be a legal ground of objection. In a jury impanelled by ballot they might have a preponderance of men holding similar political opinions, but were they to suggest to the people that the decision of such a jury would be of no value? God forbid that any idea should be sent abroad from this House that because a gentleman happened to be a Liberal or a Conservative he would not do his duty as a juror. It was not of the slightest consequence what were the politics or what was the religion of a juror; but he must be sufficiently intelligent to understand the legal terms brought into the discussion, the charge of the Judge, and the addresses of counsel. Recently it had been stated that at the trial for the Omagh murder, which lasted 10 days, and turned upon circumstantial evidence, the jury, after retiring, returned into Court to ask whether a man could be convicted of murder unless some one had seen the murder committed. That was not an instance of partizanship, but simply of want of intelligence. It was for the common interest to guard against such occurrences, and therefore he hoped that every means would be adopted by the Committee to ascertain what alterations in the law were necessary.

said, it was at his instance that last year the qualification of jurors in towns was reduced from £20 to £12, because he had obtained Returns which convinced those in charge of the Bill that without such reduction it would in some instances be impossible to obtain a sufficient number of men to constitute a jury. It should be remembered that the reduction of the qualification was not made on the representation of any Member of the House, but on that of the Chamber of Commerce in Dublin. There was no question that the principle of the Act was right. The grand jury of Cork, of which body he was a member, were prepared before the Assizes commenced to pass a resolution condemnatory of the Act in the strongest terms, but having waited till they had experience of its working they passed a resolution merely to the effect that the Act required amendment; and Mr. Justice Fitzgerald in dismissing the panel said,—"I dismiss you, thanking you for your attendance and for the admirable manner in which you have found your verdicts." He quite concurred with what had been stated to the effect that there should be a different qualification of jurors in different counties, but he thought the whole case would be met if the Chairman of the Quarter Sessions had power to strike off the list those who had not the means of attending the Assizes. It was all very well to cry out against a new system, but he believed that the present Act, amended in the direction he had intimated, would command the confidence of all classes in Ireland.

said, that as the Committee was to be granted, any discussion was a waste of time. He would suggest that the Order of Reference should be enlarged sufficiently to allow of evidence being given with regard to the desirability of having unanimity upon juries. That was a question as to which there was a strong opinion in Ireland, and, as he understood, the highest authorities with reference to the working of the jury system were ready to give their opinion upon it. They must beware lest in altering the qualifications very much they might exclude some of the best jurors.

said, it was of great importance that there should not be such an extension of the Order of Reference as would interfere with an amendment of the jury law before the next Assizes.

said, he was glad that the Government had agreed to grant a Committee. The present state of the jury system in Ireland was simply scandalous. For the last 16 years he he had acted as foreman of the grand jury of the county for which he sat (Cavan), and had therefore had some opportunities of becoming acquainted with the subject. Formerly convictions were very difficult to obtain; but now, startling as the statement might appear—murder, he believed, might be committed with impunity in some parts of Ireland. He had given the noble Marquess the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant notice that he would mention one case which he thought illustrated the operation of the present jury system. A small farmer in the county of Cavan seduced an unfortunate young woman, who was in the family way. She met him subsequently in a market town, and accompanied him into a field, where she was murdered by him, and her body partly hidden. The dreadful deed was witnessed by a man who was at the time in an adjoining field, and who gave evidence which left no doubt on the mind of the grand jury as to the guilt of the accused. The prisoner was tried at the next Assizes, and the same evi- dence was given, but the jury disagreed. Again, he was tried at the next Assizes with the same result, and at the last Assizes there was a third trial and a third disagreement. On inquiring what became of the murderer he was told that his passage had been paid to America by the Government, who had also given him a sum of money. [The Marquess of HARTINGTON said that was not true.] It was satisfactory to hear it denied; he could not believe the report, but it had been publicly stated in the grand jury room. Another case of brutal murder came before the same grand jury, respecting which no doubt could exist in any sane mind. A dispute having arisen between two neighbours respecting a quarter of an acre of bog, the one, who was partially blind, met the other, who was partially intoxicated, and stabbed him 18 times. Five of the wounds were mortal, and the accused having been seen grappling with the murdered man was apprehended shortly afterwards. His brother was taken with him, upon which he said, "He did not do it; what was done I did." Here was a positive confession in addition to eye witnesses of the act. The Judge who tried the case was Baron Dowse, who charged the jury to the effect that that was murder, and nothing else. The Judge charged them at five in in the evening, and the jury were locked up till ten o'clock next morning, and then they were discharged. What more monstrous failure of justice could be conceived? The hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Downing) said the people of Ireland had confidence in the Act. That opinion did not coincide with his experience. He had still one other case. An ex-policeman who had been active in apprehending Fenians was followed by two rough men from a market, one of whom felled him with a club by a blow sufficient to fell an ox. The ex-policeman was taken to the hospital, and died in three days. There were eyewitnesses to that act also, but the jury would not convict for murder, and the matter was compromised by a verdict of manslaughter. The case ended by a severe sentence of penal servitude. Certainly, these cases showed that the law could not be administered in Ireland to the satisfaction of the country.

said, that as the noble Marquess the Chief Secretary for Ireland proposed a new form of inquiry for the Committee, it only remained for him to withdraw his Motion, and in doing so to express his thanks to the hon. Members who had kindly enabled him to bring the matter before the House.

regretted the Reference had been extended. It would now be impossible to legislate this year, and murder, robbery, and other crimes would go unpunished in Ireland till next Session. He protested against a country being left in the dreadful state in which Ireland was at present. The hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Downing) might say everybody was satisfied in Ireland, but the fact was none were satisfied but criminals.

protested against the number of jurors in Ireland being diminished.