said, he wished to draw the attention of Mr. Speaker to the Standing Order of the House, which says that the House at its rising on Friday shall stand adjourned to the following Monday, unless the House shall otherwise order, and asked whether, that being so, the present sitting was regular?

said, the Standing Order had been complied with, inasmuch as the House had "otherwise ordered," and Business had been set down on the Paper in the shape of certain Bills, in accordance with that Resolution, to be proceeded with at 12 o'clock that day.

asked the Secretary of the Treasury, Whether, considering that the County Courts have been established nearly thirty years, and that many of the clerks have served from the opening of the Courts in 1847 to the present time, he will consider the claim of the clerks of County Courts to be entitled to the benefits of the Superannuation Act 1859?

said, the clerks in question were employed by the registrars of the Courts. They were appointed by them and were removable by them, and were not, in fact, servants of the Government in any way or shape. They could not, therefore, be superannuated without further legislation, as they did not come under the operation of the Act; neither did their employers, the registrars.

said, he wished to put a Question to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, of which he had given him private Notice. He (Sir Henry James) had learnt, with great surprise, that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, in his statement on the previous day, had announced the intention of the Government to allow the Judicature Bill to drop, and that statement was supplemented by a further announcement by the Attorney General, that he purposed introducing a Bill to postpone the period at which the Judicature Act of last Session was to come into operation. That statement had also taken the profession and the public by surprise, and in his (Sir Henry James's) opinion, the course thus indicated was likely to lead to a very unsatisfactory condition of affairs. The House would remember that it was now nearly 12 months ago since the Judicature Act of last Session passed. The time fixed for the coming into operation of the Act was the 2nd of November, 1874, a period which allowed some 16 or 17 months for the consideration and preparation of the several arrangements necessary for carrying it into effect. Not only the late and present Governments, but also the whole House, which had taken part in the discussion of the Act, stood pledged to keep faith with the profession as to the Act coming into operation at the time named. Now, however, it seemed it was proposed to postpone the coming into operation of the Act for 12 months, and although the state of "suspended animation" which would be the result might be supposed to involve inconveniences which were more theoretical than practical, still he ventured to think that the inconvenience would be very great,. The members of the profession and the Judges, anticipating the changes in November, had made their preparations for them. He might mention that the district registrars, the local Bars, and the Bar generally, had made their arrangements. There were matters also connected with the future existence of Serjeants' Inn, in consequence of the Judges ceasing to be members of it after November, 1874, that had been arranged for. Nothing could be more inconvenient, therefore, than that this Act should be postponed until November, 1875. He saw, moreover, no reason why the pledge which had been given in 1873, when the measure was discussed, should not be kept. The discussion of the Judicature Act Amendment Bill would not occupy many hours in Committee, and he must express his regret that it had not been proceeded with in preference to the Scotch Patronage Bill, with regard to which no such pledge as he had mentioned had been given. In order to go on with it now, it would not be at all necessary to take up the Irish Judicature Bill, from which it might easily be disassociated, and which could be passed early next Session. That Bill and the English Amending Bill were perfectly distinct, and should be kept distinct. The English Bill came down on the 23rd of June, and progress had been made with it. It had been read a second time, it had passed into Committee, and he could appeal to his hon. and learned Friend to say that it had received nothing like a factious opposition. He hoped his hon. and learned Friend would try to complete it, as he (Sir Henry James) felt that a few hours more would have completed it at its last sitting. The two Bills, as he had said, were perfectly distinct. They did not come into operation on the same day, as the Irish Bill did not come into operation until 1st January, 1875. What he wished to impress upon his hon. and learned Friend was, that there was no reason why they should not pass the English amended Act. It appeared the Prime Minister had stated that it had been found necessary to put it off to another year, inasmuch as the Rules had not been laid on the Table; but on that point, he thought there must be some misunderstanding, for the Bill could not depend on Rules which would be to a great extent subject to its provisions and created by them. Under those circumstances, he hoped his hon. and learned Friend would accept the view which he now urged upon his attention and proceed with the Bill, the discussion of which, as he said before, was not likely to occupy more than a few hours. They could separate it from anything connected with the Irish Courts, and he would suggest to his hon. and learned Friend that if that were done, that would be the only matter that need stand in their way. Though he would rather see the Rules on the Table before the Bill was passed, yet it should be remembered that the Rules were only matter of procedure, and that they should not affect the question of the Bill passing that Session. He was not making those remarks in any factious spirit; but, on the contrary, was ready to render any assistance towards the passing of the Bill, and he thought the House would not object, if necessary, to sit a day or two longer for the purpose of passing it. The Question he wished to ask the Attorney General was, Whether the English and Irish Bills might not be separated, and the former carried through Parliament this Session?

said, although his hon. and learned Friend had given him private Notice that he was about to put a Question to him on the subject which he had just mentioned, yet that Notice had reached him only a few minutes before he entered the House. He might add that his hon. and learned Friend was aware that it did not rest with the Attorney General to regulate the Business of the House, and to say what Bills should be proceeded with and what Bills stopped. He certainly understood that what was stated by the Prime Minister yesterday was the result of deliberate consideration—namely, that those Bills should not be proceeded with. His hon. and learned Friend was aware that application would be made on Monday for leave to bring in a Bill to postpone the operation of the Judicature Act for a year, and that, at present, the amending Bill stood for Monday. His hon. and learned Friend would therefore excuse him, if he said he had not had an opportunity of considering the various statements that had been made on the subject; but he should be glad to give him a definite answer on Monday.

, in rising to move—

"That the mode in which expired Turnpike Acts in Scotland have hitherto been dealt with, and which this Bill proposes to follow, is unjust in principle, and ought not to be continued,"

said, he would not take up much of the time of the House upon the matter; but he should like shortly to explain the grievance which existed. In England, as hon. Members knew, when Turnpike Acts expired, there was a body to whom the maintenance of the roads was handed over; but in Scotland, there was no such law, and if the Turnpike Acts were allowed to expire, there was no provision for keeping up the roads. Last year, for the first time, the Scotch expired Acts were placed in a separate Schedule of the Turnpike Acts Continuance Bill, with the intention that they should be dealt with in the same way as the English expired Acts. A Committee was appointed, over which a noble Lord on that side of the House presided; but the reference to the Committee was found to be so restricted, that it did not include Scotch expired Acts, and therefore they could not take up any question relating to Scotland. It was suggested that a separate Committee should, be appointed for the consideration of Scotch Bills, in the same manner as was done with English expired Acts; but this was not done, and the consequence was, that all the expired Scotch Acts—45 in number—were included in the renewal Bill now before the House. It was proposed in the Bill that they should be continued for one year, and thereafter until the end of the next Session of Parliament, which meant that the expired Acts should all have an existence of two years more. That was exactly what was done last year; and there being no Committee to refer them to, they might in the next and the year following be dealt with in the same way, and thus be establishing a machinery for continuing these Scotch Acts until the end of time, without ever being able to review them. The effect of this system was such, that the feeling in Scotland was almost universally in favour of the abolition of tolls and turnpikes. ["No, no!"] An hon. Member said "no, no," which meant that the feeling was not almost universal. Well, he (Mr. M'Laren) would restrict the expression as much as the hon. Gentleman liked, and he would say only that there was a strong feeling in Scotland in favour of the abolition of tolls. The proof of that was to be found in the fact that 16 counties in Scotland had already applied for, and obtained, private Bills for throwing the maintenance of the roads on rates in the counties. There were many other counties in which the same feeling had been expressed. Another proof of the accuracy of his statement was, that in the metropolitan county of Edinburgh, the feeling was so universal that last Session the county trustees and the town councils unanimously resolved to give notices for Bills to abolish turnpike trusts on all the roads. Each party gave the required notice. Preliminary meetings were held, and it was expected that they would be able to arrange the clauses and get a Bill passed. Circumstances occurred—he did not wish to blame anybody for it, as he did not think anybody was to blame—under which both Bills were referred to the Committee; but the county trustees appeared to have changed their minds to a certain extent, because they urged that the Preamble of their own Bill should not pass, but that they should have another year to arrange the details. The Committee he referred to was a most important and excellent Committee, with whom no body could find any fault; but their first decision was to agree to the request of the county authorities that the Preamble of their own Bill should not be passed. The Bill promoted by the town council of Edinburgh and the other town councils, was gone on with, and a good deal of evidence was taken on the subject. The Committee adjourned for two or three days, and asked the parties to agree to clauses that would suit them; but as the parties were not able to agree, the Bill was withdrawn. He thought that what he had stated was sufficient to justify him in saying that there was an exceedingly strong general feeling in Scotland in favour of the abolition of tolls and of maintaining the roads by means of a rate. A good many years ago, Lord Derby's Government appointed a Royal Commission, the object of which was to devise a plan for the abolition of tolls, and to levy a rate for the maintenance of the roads, and that fact showed that there was even at that time—15 years ago—a strong feeling in Scotland on the subject. That Commission unanimously reported that tolls ought to be abolished and the roads maintained by rates. He was not going farther into that Report, but he was glad to see the Homo Secretary present, as it was to him his appeal was made; for he (Mr. M'Laren) was aware that, although technically the Bill before the House was promoted by the Local Government Board, yet, in consequence of an arrangement between that Board and the Home Office, the latter Department had the charge of Scotch roads. All he wished to urge on the attention of the right hon. Gentleman was, that next Session he should bring in a Bill to place the law of Scotland on the same footing as the law of England—namely, that when the Turnpike Trust Acts expired, the roads should be thrown upon the rates; and that there should be a Committee appointed, as was now the case for England, to report upon such Acts as should be allowed to drop at particular dates. The English law was found to work so well and so economically, that the people of Scotland ought to have a similar law passed with respect to their turnpikes; and he therefore entreated the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to place Scotland in this respect on the same footing as England. He asked, as an act of justice, that when the Committee should be appointed next year to consider the expiring trusts, the reference should not be limited as it was this year to English trusts, but that it should be a general reference including all expiring trusts; or failing that, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would appoint another Committee, with a certain number of Scotch Members on it, having the same powers and responsibility with regard to Scotch trusts as the English Committee had with regard to English trusts. In either case, the people of Scotland would be equally satisfied. He contended that with regard to the state of matters in Scotland great injustice and hardship existed. He would refer again to the Bill connected with the county in which he resided. When that Bill was passed, it was limited to a period of 31 years, and there was then a debt of £98,000, for the payment of which the Bill was framed. That debt had been paid off long ago, and the Act had expired seven years ago; but it had always been kept alive by these Continuance Bills; and the parties interested never had an opportunity of coming before Parliament to state their grievances or to get a new trust with the tolls modified; or to get the toll-bars put further out of the towns than they now were. In that Act, passed nearly 40 years ago, certain trustees were named, and they were to be succeeded by their eldest sons, which hereditary succession of trustees was now going on, there being hardly one of the original trustees named in the Act who was now alive; and the Act provided no mode of election or representation, but left with the trustees themselves the absolute power to do as they liked. Those trustees collected £20,000 a-year from the tolls, a large portion of which—ho believed two-thirds—was levied round Edinburgh and Leith, and the money so collected was expended, in many cases, 30 miles off, at the extremities of the county. He was not throwing blame upon anybody; but merely mentioning the fact to illustrate the condition of things, which he wished to impress on the mind of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. Knowing how much business there was before the House, he would not say all he should have liked to have said on this subject, but would at once conclude by moving the Amendment which he had placed on the Paper.

seconded the Motion.

said, he should not detain the House long, as it was perfectly true, as had just been stated, that there was a great deal of business that everybody present was anxious to get through; nor would it be of any use to raise a prolonged debate, on the subject, at this period of the Session. The hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) knew that that was a matter that had been brought under his (Mr. Cross's) attention, and to which he had already devoted a good deal of time. He was quite aware that the state of the roads in Scotland at the present moment was not satisfactory, and there was no doubt that there was a strong desire that something should be done. That was evident from the fact that so many counties had already made arrangements by means of private Bills for the purpose of effecting the object which the hon. Member for Edinburgh had in view. But the House must remember that there was a great difference between English and Scotch roads, and that each must be dealt with on different principles. When a road trust expired in England, there was a body ready to take care of the roads handed over to them; but in Scotland, it was quite different, because there, when a trust expired, they had to create a body who were to bear the expenses, and hence arose the great difficulty with regard to Scotland in the way of coming to an equitable arrangement. No one knew better than the hon. Member for Edinburgh that in certain counties in Scotland, and particularly in Lanarkshire and Renfrew-shire, there were very considerable difficulties in making arrangements in this matter; but with regard to the whole business, he thought it was understood by the deputation who had waited on him, that the matter was one that would receive his most careful attention during the Recess. In the course of the business then before Parliament, it was impossible to discuss the subject as it ought to be discussed; but he might say at that juncture, that in any proposal he should make to the House, by way of submitting the matter to a Committee or otherwise, his chief object would be to take care that no injustice should be done to the parties. That, after all, was really a great question. He was of opinion, however, that the Scotch trusts ought not to go before the same Committee that was appointed for the purpose of proposing legislation with regard to English roads, because there was, as he had said before, such a difference between English roads and Scotch roads, that if there was to be a Committee at all, it would be better that there should be a separate Committee for Scotland. He had arranged with his right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate that during the Recess he would himself go to Scotland and inquire carefully into the matter on the spot, and he hoped next Session to be able, at all events, to state his views upon the subject. He did not know whether they would be acceptable but whatever they might be, they would he assured the House, be carefully considered, and upon the principle he had just enunciated, that no injustice should be perpetrated.

thanked the right hon. Gentleman for what he had promised to do, and he had no doubt, he would redeem his promise. He was anxious to see something done, because four of these unexpired trusts were in the county which he represented, and with a very little power, they might settle things without much difficulty.

in moving the Adjournment of the House said he did so, because it was evident from the attendance that day, that many hon. Members were mentally and physically wearied out, after a long and arduous week's labour. It was hardly fair to bring over-worked and exhausted Members who had been sitting nearly every day that week till 3 o'clock in the morning, to discuss the serious questions which were on the Paper. The House was exceedingly thin, and as a consequence, they could not be satisfactorily considered. No doubt some over-worked Members might be in corners of the House, and make their appearance in the Lobby when a division was called for, to vote upon a question they had not heard discussed; but he protested against proceeding with Bills when hon. Members were neither mentally nor physically in a position to discuss them in a proper manner.

seconded the Motion.

said, the Government had no wish to deprive Irish Members of a full opportunity of discussing any measure in which they felt an interest, and in the present instance they would afford every facility for discussing the measure in Committee. He wished to point out that if there had been a large attendance of hon. Members on the Conservative side of the House, it would have been said that there was an attempt made to overbear the Irish Members. He thought that hon. Gentlemen opposite were very favourably situated for going on with the next Order.

said, that he, in common with many hon. Members had been taken by surprise, by that Saturday sitting. He therefore urged the postponement of the Bill till Monday, or some other convenient day, when those hon. Members who took an interest in it would have an opportunity of attending and getting a fair division, which clearly they could not get on a Saturday afternoon. The House could soon get through the rest of the Business on the Paper, and then adjourn.

said, there were only two or three Bills embraced by the measure with regard to which any question arose. The proper course would be to read the Bill a second time, and there would be opportunity in Committee for moving the omission of particular Bills to which objection was taken.

objected to Irish Business being discussed solely by Irish Members, and then to other hon. Members who had not heard a word of the debate coming in, and recording' their votes. He objected altogether to that morning's sitting, although perhaps he onght not to do so, as that was the first attempt he had seen in that House to separate Irish Business into a distinct department and to fix a specific day for its discussion. If the sitting had been one at which Irish Members exclusively should attend, he would not object to it. The Irish Bills which had been set down for the sitting were of the utmost importance. This Bill, for instance, involved the question, whether Ireland should be subject to constant coercion. It proposed to continue, for instance, Coercion Acts which would otherwise expire. Those Acts had been renewed every two or three years, some of them since 1848, others since 1839, and they were always brought forward at the end of the Session as a matter of course. Against that system of dealing with Ireland, ho, for one, was determined to set his face, and to offer every resistance that the Forms of the House allowed. There was no doubt that the House was sitting for Irish Bills, and without questioning what had been said by Mr. Speaker, he doubted whether the sitting was properly held, and thought, at any rate, that it would have been more within the spirit of the Standing Order that there should have been a distinct Resolution as to the adjournment to that day. If the mere fixing of a Bill for a Saturday was to be held as tantamount to a Resolution to adjourn to that day, great inconvenience might arise from it. They were told that the proper time to raise objections was in Committee. Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland give them an assurance that they should have an opportunity of discussing in Committee whether they should continue the Act which enabled any policeman to enter any house in Ireland at any hour of the night? The Bills which would have to be considered were of sufficient importance to be discussed in a full House, and he hoped, therefore, that the hon. Member would press his Motion to a division, for in that case he (Mr. Butt), would certainly vote for it.

said, the hon. and learned Member ought to remember that a great deal of time and attention had been given to the consideration of Irish questions that Session. There had been no indisposition to give Irish Members an opportunity of discussing questions of interest to Ireland, and he could assure hon. Gentlemen on behalf of the Government, that the same feeling which had actuated them throughout the Session still prevailed. What was it they were now asked to do? Here was a Bill which was to continue various expiring laws, and they were told that they had set apart the Saturday sitting for the consideration of Irish Business. There were 13 Orders of the Day, only four or five of which related specifically to Ireland; and amongst these was the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, which did not relate exclusively to Ireland at all, but which continued a number of Acts, many of which were of Imperial importance. There were Acts in the Schedule with regard to the continuance of the stock-in-trade exemption from rating. Did hon. Members mean to say that they wished to reject the Bill, and thereby reject the annual Bill for the exemption of stock-in-trade from rating? Did they wish to put an end to the Public Schools Bill, to the Episcopal Bill, or to the Corrupt Practices Bill? Let them deal with those Bills singly and in Committee. It was admitted that some 30 out of the 34 Acts were unobjectionable. Did hon. Gentlemen really mean that they were to reject the Bill on the second reading, and put an end to those 30 Acts to which they did not object? The proper course would be not to reject the whole Bill, but to move Amendments to the Schedule in Committee; and he could assure hon. Gentlemen on the part of the Government, that every opportunity would be given of discussing the Bill in Committee. No attempt would be made to smuggle the Bill through the House, or to force Irish Members to discuss it under inconvenient circumstances.

said, if he understood the right hon. Gentleman correctly, it was that by allowing the second reading of the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman, on the part of the Government, would not press any of those measures which they thought ought not to be continued.—[The CHAN-CELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: No, no.] At any rate, that time would be given in Committee to discuss any of those measures to which Irish Members were opposed. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: In the Schedule.] On that understanding, he should recommend his hon. Friend (Mr. Sullivan) not to press his Amendment. He could not, however, agree that proper time had been devoted to the discussion of Irish subjects that Session. The Bill relating to the Irish Constabulary Force was brought in on the 10th July; the second reading was postponed three or four times, and at last it was read a second time at 2 o'clock in the morning, without sufficient time having been given for placing a Notice on the Paper.

said, he should advise the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) not to withdraw his Motion for Adjournment, even after the conciliatory words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The only way of making the House aware of the strong feeling entertained by the Irish people as to the mode in which legislation on Irish subjects was conducted was, by making their power as a compact body felt, in the obstruction of measures such as the present, by every means that the Forms of the House would allow. To bring them there on a Saturday, in the hopes of having a grand field-day, in which they could get rid of inconvenient Bills, and vote clown the Irish Representatives by means of a well trained majority of Ministerial followers, was monstrous and indefensible. Before the Government complained of want of time, let them cease to bring in Bills dealing with Ireland at a late hour of the morning, without any information as to what the Bills were about. Within the last few days the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had brought in a Bill, authorizing the sale of public property to private individuals, without having had any communication with the Representatives of the counties of Mayo and Galway, in which the property was situated, and had pushed on the Bill in spite of their remonstrances, so that it was impossible for them to ascertain the feeling of the people in the neighbourhood on the subject. He did not say that the objects contemplated in the Lough Corrib Canal Bill were not proper and desirable objects. He could give no opinion on that matter; but he did say that regard for the high character of the hon. Baronet who was to buy the works, and for the good he had done in that part of the country in which he resided, should have prevented the indecent haste with which the Bill was hurried forward; for now its passage, instead of being marked by the goodwill of all concerned, would be stamped by the fact that the Representatives of the counties concerned had voted against it in every stage. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that much time had been given to Irish Members that Session; but that was a mere accidental circumstance, and did not spring from any particular willingness of the House or the Government to be informed about Irish matters. The peculiar circumstances under which the House met; the recent formation of the Government preventing it from having Bills ready to present to the House; and the thorough disorganization of the Liberal party, had given the Irish Members greater opportunities than they had ever had before. He did not know whether much good had been done in the enlightenment of hon. Members opposite; but he did believe that a vague feeling had been awakened in the House that there was something radically wrong in the state of Irish affairs, and that was in itself a gain. When, however, they spoke of attention being given to Irish affairs, let him remind them that when the Irish Licensing Bill was introduced, at 12 o'clock one night, no statement was made about it, and the promise that a full explanation should be given on the second reading was not kept at all; but, on the contrary, the second reading was taken at 1 o'clock one morning, without discussion, if not by surprise. The same thing occurred about the Judicature Bill, which was a measure of vital importance, and that was the usual or regular system of doing Irish Business. To say that they had had plenty of time was absurd; why, when they had a Motion to make—the Home Rule Motion—of the greatest importance to the country, it was with the utmost difficulty that they got a day fixed for it. When they asked for a second day, they were absolutely scoffed at; and it was only when Government came to understand how he (Mr. Henry) and his Friends would, by Motions of Adjournment, bring the Business of the House to a standstill, that they consented to give them a second day for the discussion. They ought to have had more than two days for that important debate. [Laughter.] The Chairman of the Committees laughed at the notion; but he had not objected to three days having been subsequently given to the Endowed Schools Bill, which, whatever its importance might be, was not more important than the question of the Parliamentary relations of Great Britain and Ireland. He would, however, read to the House a far more graphic description of the system pursued than any that he could give. A public writer said—

"Anyone who knows the way in which the purely Irish Business which is done is transacted, will scarcely regret that so much of it is left undone at the close of every Session. In the small hours of the morning a number of small Irish Bills are introduced. No statement is made of their objects, or their purpose, and they generally pass through their stages when the grey dawn of the morning is struggling with the Bude lights through the stained glass windows of the Commons' Hall. The appearance of those Bills is invariably preceded by a flight of a great number of the officials of those Boards which prey upon every Irish interest. These officials, however, like birds of ill-omen, hover round the Lobbies, or perch under the galleries, waiting anxiously for the small hours of the morning, when each of them watches over his little crotchet, or his little job. No vigilance of the most suspicious Irish Members can detect all the artifices which lie hid under all the Protean forms which these little Bills assume. If an Irish Member is content to wait in London to the very last night of the Session, and to wait each morning until the House breaks up, he is still powerless to defeat, or even to impede. The Bill is brought in at an unseemly hour, when no one remains in the House except those of the Ministers who have the strongest constitution, and their devoted adherents whom their whipper-in has influence enough to detain in the library, or smoking-room, to make a House."

["Name, name!"] He would gladly give the name of the book from which he had quoted; or, if hon. Members would promise to read it, he would present them with copies of it. The book was Irish Federation, and the author was the hon. and learned Member for Limerick. But he wished to base his opposition to that Continuance Bill upon even higher grounds. The present Bill, which contained 34 Acts, was very nearly a copy of the Bill introduced under similar circumstances last year by the late Government. The Irish Members did their best to oppose it, and when it got to the House of Lords, a noble Lord spoke of the system as follows:—

"The Bill under discussion was merely a means to enable Parliament and Ministers to cheat themselves, by smuggling Acts through quietly, against which there was very considerable objection. Thus Acts, which were merely allowed to pass on condition that they were only to be in operation for a year, were continued and re-continued without discussion until they became part of the permanent statutes of the land."—[3 Hansard, ccxvii. 1427.]

Perhaps, the Government would be interested in knowing that it was the noble Lord the Marquess of Salisbury, a Member of the present Cabinet, who spoke those words; and that Lord Carnarvon, another Member of the present Cabinet, said—

"That he complained of the practice which had grown up of passing this Bill hurriedly through Parliament at the very close of the Session, when there was no opportunity of giving it adequate consideration. Many of the Acts named in it were of the very gravest importance. Many of the Acts, when first introduced, were designed to be merely temporary, but they actually became permanent by being annually renewed through the medium of this Bill."—[Ibid., 1426–7.]

Well, one of these, which it was proposed now to continue, was enacted so far back as 1859, and the Irish Coercion Bills had got a year to run, so that there was no necessity to renew them now.

said, he must remind the hon. Member that he must not discuss the merits of the Bill, but must confine himself to the Motion for Adjournment.

said, he would bow at once to any intervention from the Chair, for he had no wish to be irregular, and would only observe, he thought it an excellent reason for adjournment to give Her Majesty's Government time to look into the matter, and see if his statement was not correct. If matters had been let alone, the Coercion Acts would have expired at the end of next Session of Parliament; but by including them in the present Continuance Bill, they would be kept alive for two years longer. Let the Government postpone the consideration of the Acts which did not expire that year; and then the Irish party, which had shown itself to be the true constitutional party, in favour of the maintainment of the proper Constitution of their own country, would give no opposition to the removal of Acts which did expire, although they thoroughly disapproved of this system of slipshod legislation, which was gradually undermining the liberties of the people.

said, he must repudiate the charge, that hon. Members on the Ministerial side of the House were in the habit of rushing up from the smoking-room and giving the Government a senseless support, without having listened to the debate upon the matter under discussion. For his own part, he never went into any portion of the House where hon. Members were accustomed to obtain refreshment for mind and body, that he did not find it occupied by a very much larger contingent of the Followers of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick than of any other party in the House.

said, he should not have opposed an ordinary Continuance Bill, but he objected strongly to including in such a measure debate-able matters, such as the Irish Coercion Acts, which had always been resisted by the Irish Members. He regarded the present Bill, for that reason, as irregular and unconstitutional.

, in moving that the Bill be read a second time that day three months, said, he regretted that the hon. Member who held the post of Financial Secretary of the Treasury had not informed them what was the object of the Bill. If, as was the case last night, they had before them a Bill for the continuation of a tramway a mile and a-half in length, they would have an elaborate introductory statement, and they would devote to it more time than they gave to the consideration of an Irish Bill needing the most important consideration. Here was a most important measure, what he might term an Omnibus Bill, comprising as it did with various others, measures affecting the constitutional rights of the Irish people, and yet the Secretary of the Treasury had not thought it worth an introductory speech of ten minutes' duration. To compare it with the legislation of the Session, so far as it had advanced, he should say that it was of ten times more importance than the whole of it. It was only right that they should know what was intended by this Bill. Of the whole list of the 34 Bills, there were only two of them which expired in the course of the present year. The others would not expire until August, 1875, a fact, he contended, of itself sufficient to show that those who had voted in favour of the adjournment of the House were not animated by a desire to give to it a factious opposition. There would, therefore, not be any difficulty in removing those two Bills from the category, and dealing with them separately, so as to allow the consideration of the other measures to stand over until next Session. The present system of continuing expiring laws was, so far as he could see, quite a new practice. The abuse seemed to have sprung up in 1863, when for the first time, a batch of expiring Acts was included in one Bill, and in following years the number so dealt with was increased. In the course of time, the Committee which used to consider the expediency of renewing the Acts was discontinued. What he would suggest was, that in future the Acts which were not likely to give rise to any debate should be included in one Bill, and the others brought before the House in a different Bill or dealt with separately. He objected to the principle of voting in a lump the continuance of 34 Acts of Parliament, which, when they were passed, were intended to be only temporary, and which were, by a Bill like this, rendered permanent. Gradually the number of these Bills increased yearly up to the year 1870, when they amounted to over 30. Since then these expiring Bills had oscillated each year from 33 in number to 35. Many of the Bills in the present measure were of no great importance, no doubt; but there were certain of them of sufficient moment to need a much larger amount of consideration than the Government seemed to attach to them, when they classed them in an Order of the Day which was looked upon as a matter of course. When a Bill was passed for a limited time, there was primâ facie reason for supposing-that it might need revision. It had been expected for example, in passing the Election Petitions and Corrupt Practices Act—one of those included in the present Bill—that the experience of a General Election would afford reasons for altering it, and in point of fact, it was the opinion of many people at present that it stood in need of a certain amount of revision. With regard to the Master and Servant Act, he thought it most important that the House should have an opportunity of considering the propriety of repealing the 14th clause, under which a workman was liable to be sent to prison for breaking a civil contract. He desired to move in Committee that the clause in question should be struck out, but he was doubtful whether that course would be in accordance with the Rules. Those who voted against his Amendment would vote to perpetuate it to August, 1876, and that, in his opinion, would inflict great hardships on the Irish working classes, especially those coming to this country. Turning to the specifically Irish part of his subject, he would refer especially to the Unlawful Societies Act. The Freemasons and certain friendly societies were specially exempt from the operation of that Act; but it discouraged the formation in Ireland of trades unions, and that fact had a great influence on the question of wages. Then, again, he objected to the Bill continuing the Peace Preservation Act in Ireland, although it was then totally unnecessary. That Act prevented the use of firearms. With respect to arms, he thought if a man were disposed to commit the horrible crime of murder, either in England or Ireland, that he would be much more likely to use an ordinary pistol or a revolver than a rifle. He denied that they could show that any extraordinary state of things now existed in Ireland to warrant the Government to forbid men in Ireland from having arms. Men accustomed to carry arms were invariably careful not to abuse them; it had been objected to that statement that there was such a thing as "free-shooting"—[Laughter]—in the United States, but he had heard from many Americans that that meant only firing in the air. [Laughter.] Hon. Members might laugh; but what he stated was correct, and he saw no reason why, in the present peace-able state of Ireland, the people of Ireland should not be trusted like the people of that country with firearms. He had put an Amendment on the Paper which he intended to propose in Committee, to "allow any man who paid £12 a-year in rates, and who had the right to vote, to have arms" He had been in communication with farmers in Ireland who were not allowed, under the provisions of the Peace Preservation Act, to have arms, and who, in answer to questions put to them by him said—"We suffer much damage to our crops by birds, which, if we were allowed to have, and use, a gun, would not trouble us much, and of which only a few might come after we fired even to frighten them; but which, in the absence of such means to frighten them, come in large flocks and inflict considerable damage." Now, that was the case of the farmers; and if the Government would only grant "fowling pieces" in Ireland they would make things much more comfortable. That House, he believed, had been asked to keep arms out of the hands of the people of Ireland on the plea of danger of insurrection. The people of England and Scotland having been entrusted with firearms almost since these were invented, he could not see any reason why the people of Ireland should not be allowed possession of arms; but the reason which practically actuated some persons in Ireland to endeavour to keep arms from their poorer neighbours was the fear that they would be after the "game." He remembered one gentleman saying, in answer to a question put to him, why the people were not allowed to have arms? "Why, do you want them to destroy all the game?" Now, he (Captain Nolan) would tell the Government and the House, that if that was to be advanced as a cause of withholding arms from the people of Ireland the effect would be that the Irish would join the English and Scotch in demanding the abolition of the Game Laws. Any man who voted for the Bill would vote for the continuance of the 14th clause of the Masters and Servants Act, which would impose most unconstitutional disabilities on the Irish people. The hon. and gallant Member concluded by moving the rejection of the Bill.

said, he thought the discussion which had been raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman was divisible into two parts—the first, that the Bill be read a second time that day three months, a Motion which involved the question, whether they were to continue all the Acts which were now about to expire. That was a question which, he was bound to say, the hon. and gallant Gentleman had argued with great ability. The second part of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's argument was his objection to the "Continuance" part of this Bill; and the hon. and gallant Gentleman, he was bound to say, had argued very logically on that question. He had raised questions which it was not necessary for him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) to enter into now; but it was obvious that there might be other Bills in the Schedule which other hon. Members might wish to discuss, and he must remind the House that to all the objections, one general answer would have to be given. That course was formerly pursued when discussions on very diverse topics were raised on the Motion that the House adjourn from Friday to Monday, the Minister replying late in the evening to all these matters together. But if they were to consider such very different measures as were comprised in the Bill upon the second reading, when hon. Members were limited to one speech each, great inconvenience must be felt, and such an inconvenience might result on questions of the kind now before the House. He, however, quite agreed with the hon. and gallant Member that care ought to be taken that measures should not be introduced unnecessarily by a Bill of the kind, which must lead to a discussion of various subjects. On the other hand, there was no doubt that it was a very convenient practice—one which saved the time of Parliament—to include in a single Bill, instead of in separate Bills, several Acts which it was desirable to continue, and which had been passed as temporary Acts. For example, the Bill now before the House, which the hon. and gallant Member had called an Omnibus Bill, embraced several subjects for legislation. It was possible, however they might I find that that system was carried rather too far, and that point he undertook to say should receive careful consideration. Having said so much, he would ask the attention of hon. Members in the House to the actual position of affairs. In the first place, he hoped there would be no reasonable objection on the part of hon. Members, and of Irish Members in particular, to his assurance, that the Government would give them some time to argue the questions involved in this measure, and that there was no desire on the part of the Government to push those measures on unduly against the will of Irish Members; but it must be remembered that there were also English measures which were of importance. There were several Bills which deserved full consideration, and what he had really to suggest to hon. Members was, that they should adopt the suggestion he had made, and allow the Bill to be now read a second time. An hon. Member said just now—"If we allow you to pass this Bill, you will allow it to be in force for another year." But there were many things that might happen—they might have a very short Session, and a Dissolution or something of that kind might happen, which would cause a change, in which case, these Acts whose continuance was so desirable, would expire. Therefore, he thought it would be a decided inconvenience absolutely to throw out this Bill. He believed he was entitled to say that there would be no difficulty whatever in passing the whole of the Bill, with the exception of one particular clause which had been alluded to, and he would suggest that hon. Members in Committee might very properly move Amendments for the purpose of striking out certain portions of the Acts to which they objected. He could really appeal to the House, and especially to hon. Members opposite, whether under the circumstances, it was not desirable to allow the Bill to be now read a second time; and he promised if the House assented to his proposition, that the Government would give them a day, it might be in the next week; but his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who was now absent, would be able to say what day could be given for the purpose. He might, in conclusion, say that the matter would be taken into consideration by the Government; and that if they wished to challenge, which they had a right to do upon any important question, he undertook to say, on the part of the Government, that an opportunity would be given to them to do so.

said, he must confess after the conciliatory speech made by the right hon. Baronet, that he felt exceedingly anxious to comply with the proposal. But just consider what the objects of that Continuance Bill and of Coercion and other Acts were, and that Irish Members had a high duty to discharge in opposing them, believing that they were not now necessary. He felt great difficulty in the matter in reference to these Continuance Bills. He might state to the House that it had taken him several hours to traverse through the Acts passed, and amongst them he found an Act for restraining the Orangemen of Ireland, and also Acts dealing with friendly and other societies in that country. That Act was renewed in 1844, again in 1845 for two years, and again in 1848, with coercive Amendments—one, enabling the police to go into a house in search of the signs and passwords of secret societies, and another, making the finding of such documents conclusive evidence of the guilt of the man in whoso possession they were found. He would tell the House another matter of importance. When the Friendly Societies Act was passed for Ireland, there was a clause in it placing the Foresters, the Odd Fellows, and similar associations on the same footing as the Freemasons, and allowing them the use of signs and passwords without the risk of incurring a penalty; but when that Coercion Act came to be renewed, the Friendly Societies Act was entirely forgotten, and it was renewed in its old form; so that the use of secret signs and passwords by those societies, again became a penal offence, and their members were liable to be transported or kept in penal servitude, for a period of seven years. Again, the case of the Peace Preservation Act was much stronger, but he did not wish to weary the House by going into detail upon the subject. He, therefore, hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give the House a pledge that the Acts in reference to Ireland included in the Bill would be postponed until next Session, and that they would be then introduced separately, so that an opportunity might be then given of considering them on their merits. The right hon. Baronet the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, they could not do that, inasmuch as if they did, a Dissolution might take place early next Session, before anything could be done in the matter, and then these laws would expire. Well, as regarded the probability of a Dissolution next Session, he (Mr. Butt) did not see much probability of that; but the right hon. Baronet, as he knew the inner counsels of the Government, was a better authority on that point than he (Mr. Butt) was. The difficulty, however, might be got over by providing now that these Acts should expire at a fixed date—the 1st of August or the 1st of September, 1875. That would guard against the possibility of such an accident as that which the right hon. Baronet dreaded. If that course were pursued, he should withdraw his opposition to the present measure; but if not, he must renew his protests against the system of passing Continuance Bills which would impose coercive laws on Ireland for a period of two years. To so treat them was to make perpetual Acts which Parliament intended should be only temporary, a course which had been censured by Lord Brougham, the Marquess of Salisbury, and the Earl of Carnarvon.

said, the usual mode of dealing with such Bills as those to which the hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks applied, was to provide that they should continue for a certain time, and from thence until the end of the then next Session of Parliament. That was done in order to avoid the danger of a sudden and premature Dissolution of Parliament. But the meaning and practical result was a renewal for one year. There never was, he might add, a Government who were better entitled to ask the House to assent to a Continuance Bill than the present, seeing how recently and how unexpectedly they had acceded to office. In consequence of that shortness of time, they had not been able to consider these Acts, in order to see how many of them they might abandon, and how many they should renew in distinct Bills. He might also observe on the general question, that the coercive measures for Ireland which had been passed in 1870 and 1871 were far more stringent than those it was now proposed to renew, and which had been maintained by every Parliament since 1839. There was no doubt a great improvement in the condition of Ireland at the present moment as regarded crime—an improvement which had coincided with the accession of the present Government to power, and which had gone on since increasing. [Laughter.] He ought to be able to speak with authority on the subject; for every crime that occurred was brought under his notice as Attorney General, and he repeated that there was a progressive improvement. A recent murder and attempt at murder, however, arising out of disputes connected with land, showed that it would be impossible to abandon the protection given by particular statutes against such offences, and that it would be unwise to act precipitately; but the House might rest assured that the powers which they conferred would not be resorted to, except in cases of necessity. It was inevitable that the entire subject must ere long be brought under discussion, and he asked the hon. and learned Gentleman, whether it was worth while being at so much trouble to attack the more limited powers, while the more stringent must necessarily be continued.

said, he wished to echo all that had been said by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, for Ireland with respect to the absence of crime in Ireland. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, however, either did not understand or did not answer the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Limerick, which was to postpone the further consideration of these expiring laws until next Session, by fixing a day on which they would expire; and then that a positive measure should be brought in for the renewal of such of them as might be considered necessary, so that Acts of such importance might not be smuggled through in a renewal Bill, where the great were mixed up with the small. Since the Government came into office, what measures had they taken to produce peace, order, and tranquillity in Ireland to justify the credit claimed for them by the right hon. and learned Gentleman? Yet the right hon. and learned Gentleman had admitted that the condition of Ireland now furnished a model of order; and the language of the Judges who were at present on circuit in that country supported that view. At one place, the Judge said that in a single county in England, there was more crime than in the whole of Ireland; and in two other places, there was not a single bill to be sent before the petty jury. The fact was, that there never was a time when the tranquillity of Ireland was so marked as it was at the present moment; though he could not accord to the Attorney General for Ireland, that that arose from the existence of the statutes which it was now sought to continue, or from the advent to office of the present Government. His was a kind of post hoc, propter hoc logic, which could not be admitted. Notwithstanding the tranquillity which prevailed, the fact was that 31 out of the 32 counties in Ireland were now proclaimed under the Peace Preservation Act; so that the persons who dwelt in those counties were not permitted to live under the law which was the privilege of the rest of Her Majesty's subjects. What reason was there for asking power to continue these proclamations for two years longer? The right hon. and learned Gentleman had no doubt said that there had been an attempt to murder in Queen's County, and an actual murder in Tipperary; but surely that was no sufficient reason for asking power to continue these proclamations in 31 counties for two years longer? He hoped that the Government would reconsider the matter and accept the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick, and not continue the Acts for more than one year.

said, that they were not only asked to continue the Peace Preservation Act of 1873, but also the Act of 1847. The last-mentioned Act recited that "whereas in consequence of the prevalence of crime and outrage, it is necessary to make provision for the prevention thereof." At all events, there was no reason why the Act of 1847 should be continued, for he held that all the special powers which it was desired by a renewal of the Act in question to retain were given by the Peace Preservation Act of 1870, and that, therefore, the renewal would serve no practical purpose. To continue both Acts would be unduly to crowd the statute book with penal legislation. At the same time, he maintained that the reasons for that legislation had entirely disappeared. In proof of the extraordinary diminution of crime in Ireland, he could quote the language of Baron Dowse, Mr. Justice Fitzgerald, and other Judges, addressed to grand juries on recent occasions. The hardships resulting from the provisions with regard to carrying arms were, in his opinion, peculiarly grievous. A gentleman going out to shoot who sent his gun by his servant a short distance before him, had the satisfaction to find that it was seized by the police. An old man of 70, whose crops were being destroyed by birds, applied for a licence to keep a gun, and met with a refusal, although two magistrates certified as to his good character. His (Mr. Downing's) own experience had not been very favourable. He had been out shooting one day with his son, whose gun had burst. He proposed to send the barrels to Cork to have them repaired, but was told that the police would not allow him to do so. He sent for the constable, and was informed that he could not forward the barrels as he proposed, but the inspector stated that he was about shortly to send an escort to Cork, and would forward the barrels with them. The consequence was that he—a justice of the peace and deputy-lieutenant of his county—had to wait till a brother magistrate came to his house who took the barrels with him to Cork. That showed what Irish gentlemen had to endure in consequence of this legislation, and that great hardships arose to individuals under these Acts; and he asked why should the Government insist upon the continuance of the statutes for two years, when they might avoid any contention by consenting that the continuance should be only until the 1st September 1875?

thought the opinions of Lord Salisbury and Lord Carnarvon, which had been quoted, were sufficient to prove that the opposition on the present occasion was not at all factious. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had borne testimony to the peaceful state of Ireland. The jury had allowed £1,200 as damages in the case of the attempt to shoot Mr. Whitworth, and, in the event of his death, his widow would get that sum. The other case to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had referred, and in which an attempt was made to shoot a woman, was purely a family quarrel. It was like a family quarrel that might have occurred in Finsbury or any other part of London. If he could see any necessity for that kind of legislation, he should not object to it; but he must say, that he certainly saw no necessity whatever for continuing those penal statutes for two years longer. Not merely the peasant class, but every class of society in Ireland had suffered under the present coercive system; and under these circumstances, he (Mr. Serjeant Sherlock) appealed to the Treasury Bench to agree to the proposition of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick.

said, he traced the real difficulties under which Ireland laboured, and the real difficulties incident to legislation for Ireland, to the existence of personal government, the unfavourable influence of which was often recognized in that House in the discussion of questions relating to foreign affairs. For instance, the inhabitants of the county which he represented had been put under strict proclamation, not for any breach of law, but because their county happened to be coterminous with another county in which certain outrages had occurred. Was it not natural that the people in the county he represented should say—"What is the good of observing the law when we are treated in this way?" The reason why the Government had taken their present course with regard to these Acts was merely to save themselves from the little trouble of bringing forward a Bill next Session on the subject. In his opinion the Government should meet the real facts of the case, and he called upon them to give to the proposition of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick the attention which it demanded, and which, in his opinion, it would be the highest policy to give to it. If next year it could be shown that Ireland could only be ruled by repressive measures, the subject ought then to be fully considered.

said, he was sure the House was very tired of the debate, and heartily wished that they would go into Committee at once upon the Bill. But how could they be expected to do so, when they could only discuss the clauses, and could not deal with the merits of the Bill? In what way, he asked, could they bring the matter fairly before the House, except by making themselves thus disagreeable? He could not help pointing out the paucity of attendance on the Treasury bench and the entire absence of the Members of the late Government, and he asked, whether that would have been the case if a coercion measure was required for England and Scotland? He hoped hon. Members would continue the discussion of the matter, not only now, but in every Session, when a renewal of these Acts was asked for. He confessed when he considered what took place last Session, and what they were asked to agree to now, he was almost boiling over with indignation at the contempt which was shown for the liberties of the people. Everyone must have come to the conclusion that the renewal of these Bills had been taken simply as a matter of course. It was not for him to read a constitutional lesson to the House; but if they considered how it was that these renewal Bills were brought in, they would see what loss resulted to the liberty of the people. His firm belief was that these questions had never been considered by the Cabinet or by the Government at all. The Bill was prepared across the Lobby by the permanent officials of the House as a matter of course. It was introduced a few days ago; and because it was thought to be a good thing that the discussion should be got through, and that these troublesome Irish' Members should be got rid of, the House had been called upon to sit on Saturday. They were asked at that time to pass Acts which would put a third of Great Britain under laws of coercion which did not exist in any other country in Europe. He hoped that the Expiring Acts Continuance Committee would be re-appointed an other Session, and would decide when Acts should be continued, instead of leaving it to the permanent officials, who had no constitutional responsibility. The hon. and learned Member for Limerick said there was no reason why these Acts should be renewed that year, as they did not expire till the end of next Session; and he asked why the subject should not be allowed to stand over until next Session, when a full discussion might be taken upon it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had admitted that the state of the country had very much improved, and seemed to think the time would soon arrive when those Acts might be dispensed with. It would be impossible, however, to say when they might be dispensed with, if the whole country was to be kept under coercion, until not a single murder was committed in any part of it. They could hear of more harrowing crimes in England in a week than took place in Ireland in seven years. He admitted that agrarian outrages were horrible in their character, and if they existed, every hon. Member would support the Government in their efforts to suppress them; but for years the country had been nearly free from them. The English mind, however, believed that Ireland was bubbling over with these outrages; but the charges of the various Judges of Assize had plainly showed that that was not the case. It was, therefore, a great hardship that Ireland should be kept under coercion when crime had disappeared. He considered it would be very wise if the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary would take the trouble to mix a little among the landed gentry of Ireland, amongst commercial men and agriculturists, and hear what was the general feeling, rather than accept everything as a fact which he heard from the officials at the Castle, and in the office in Queen Street. They found that that was where the real Government of Ireland proceeded from. There were a number of permanent officials who were appointed by a former reactionary Government, whose whole sympathies were out of accord with the Irish people, and the system would never be satisfactory, while the affairs of the country were conducted under police government. Everyone in the police looked to promotion in proportion to the amount of crime reported, and so it was that they heard of threatening letters being sent, not one-half of which statements, in his belief, were correct. Again, a number of local stipendiary magistrates had been appointed, of police extraction, who, contrary to the spirit of the English law, presumed that every one brought before them was guilty before they were tried. They would find stipendiary magistrates, who were paid to administer the law, were in perpetual correspondence with the Castle at Dublin. They did not deal with prisoners according to the law, but dealt with them in a manner which they thought would be pleasing to the Castle; and if the magistrates had any doubts as to how the Castle would like them to be dealt with, they wrote to the Castle. It was proposed to give those gentlemen the power of determining whether the inhabitants of a district should have the power to carry arms. He thought these Acts ought not to be renewed annually as matters of course. The Acts would not expire until the end of next Session, and he thought that the proposition of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) might very well be accepted—that the Acts should not expire until next October. If that suggestion was adopted, it would show the people of Ireland that, at any rate, their grievances were to be considered. It would afford the Irish people a proof that the liberty of the subject, whether in England, in Ireland, or in Scotland, was still dear to the hearts of the Legislature, and he therefore thought the Act ought only to be renewed for one year.

said, he rose for the purpose of urging that hon. Gentlemen who represented Ireland should not press for another division. He voted with the minority in the last division, to show his sympathy with the case they had raised, and with the arguments they had adduced in support of the case. But, believing that if they pressed for another division, they would be in a still smaller minority, and would in no way serve their case, he could not for himself, by voting with them again, do anything which might be viewed as an attempt at obstructing the remaining business of the Session. As an impartial witness of the debate which had just taken place, he thought all the force of the arguments adduced had been on the side of the Irish Members, and if any hon. Gentleman should propose in Committee that the Acts in question should be deleted from the Bill, he should most cordially vote for the Motion. He did not, however, think it would be well to go to any more divisions, which would have only the effect of obstructing the business that had to be completed.

said, he must express his astonishment that the Government did not offer an apology to the House, and to the world, for the unconstitutional course which they were taking in proposing to inflict coercive legislation for a longer time on his country-He should not oppose the second reading of the Bill, because it was the duty of the Government when they proposed unconstitutional measures of this kind to give good reasons for their course. They had not done so. On the contrary, it seemed to him that they were endeavouring to smuggle that legislation through the House by endeavouring to sandwich three Coercion Bills between 30 other measures; and be begged to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, why he was obstructing the business of the nation by taking a course so exceptional, on what he had been informed was regarded as a dies non in Parliamentary proceedings? He supposed for that reason, it was the better day for the business they were transacting, and with reference to which he hoped the Prime Minister, whom he now saw in his place, would deem it to be his duty to apologize for making a proposal which he must know was entirely opposed to the sentiments of the Irish people and their Representatives.

also appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to assent to the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick. Its adoption would allow ample time for consideration. He felt sure that if the Prime Minister had been present before, as he was now, he would have acceded to that very reasonable proposal.

said, he could assure hon. Members for Ireland that his absence from the debate up to that time was not due to any want of respect for them. They must be aware that he had a great deal to do besides sitting in that House. Although he had not been present, he had endeavoured to make himself acquainted with the general tone and gist of the debate, and he was not entirely ignorant of what had been said on either side. Now, he wished particularly at that period of the Session, to say that he always liked hon. Members to part, if possible, in tolerably good humour with one another, and he would be happy to make a suggestion which he thought would meet the case. He remembered very well the remarks of his Colleagues (Lord Salisbury and Lord Carnarvon) in the House of Lords, and he could not say that he disagreed with them. He was perfectly ready to say that those two Acts should no longer be contained in a Continuance Bill; and that if any continuance were wanted, which he should regret, they should be brought in separately at an early period of the Session, when there would? be an opportunity of discussing their merits. He hoped that that offer would be accepted, and that hon. Gentlemen opposite would now allow the proposal of the Government to pass.

said, the proper time to bring in the Bills in question would be next Session, and he had met the objection that a Dissolution of Parliament might occur, by assenting to their continuance till October next year. He must still protest against the Bills being renewed for two years without discussion.

, joined in the request of other Irish Members, that the Government would not persist in including these Acts in the present Bill. With regard to the county he represented (Cavan), the evidence of Dr. Conaty, Roman Catholic Bishop of Kilmore, in which diocese the greater part of Cavan was situated, went to show that the Chief Secretary for Ireland had been mistaken in supposing that the most rev. Prelate had assorted that secret societies existed in that county, or that its condition afforded any justification for its being proclaimed.

said, the proposal of the Prime Minister showed that wisdom and conciliation for which he was remarkable; and, so far as it went, it was received by Irish Members with a very good spirit. He thought, however, that the right hon. Gentleman might, without at all interfering with the interests of the country, further agree to the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick, and then everybody would be satisfied, and there would be no further opposition to the Bill. He suggested that the renewal of these Bills should not be for two years, but for one year up to a fixed time, so as to obviate any chance of their dropping through in the event of a Dissolution of Parliament.

said, that in place of making the people of Ireland contented with the Government, these Acts had made them discontented, feeling, as they did, that they were placed in an inferior position to the people of this country.

said, there was nothing practical in dispute between the Government and Irish Members. The hon. and learned Member for Limerick was willing to insert words that these Acts should not expire till September, 1875. The actual words in the Bill were, till the end of the Session following July 1st, 1875; but those words were inserted merely to meet the contingency of a Dissolution. He would suggest that the Prime Minister should accept the proposal to renew the Acts till September, 1875, and then, if necessary, a Bill could be brought in for their continuance. By doing so, the Government would lose nothing, and would gain all they wished.

contended that no necessity now existed for the continuance of these Acts. They had been grossly abused in their application, for with regard to the county he represented, and to which they had been applied (Cavan), the Judges of Assize had, year after year, described it as one of the most peaceful in Ireland, and the Chief Secretary must have been grossly misinformed when he insinuated that there was a necessity for their continuance.

said: Sir, in rising to move the Adjournment of the Debate, I am impelled by an irresistible sense of duty to my country. To me, the spectacle this Assembly to-day presents is one, indeed, of deep humiliation. You are the guardians of popular rights under the Constitution, and yet, at the mere caprice of the Government, you tamely surrender your great privilege, and allow the civil rights of millions of my fellow-countrymen to be crushed without even a murmur of dissent. It cannot be disguised that the issue before this House to-day is none other than the virtual suspension of the liberties of the Irish people. It is impossible to conceal one's sense of surprise and indignation that a matter of such vital importance to the Irish nation should be so stealthily approached, and as stealthily hurried through, at an extraordinary and almost secret sitting of this Assembly. So grave an issue for our people should involve whole days of debate. Having heard the speeches from the Treasury benches—every sentence of which was directed against the Irish Representatives in tones of ill-concealed menace—I fail to perceive, from the arguments used, any pretence of justification for the re-enactment of these measures of coercion. The whole history of the relations of England towards Ireland is a history of coercion. Successive Governments, whether Whig or Tory, are alike at least in this respect. It must not be forgotten that under the paternal sway of the late "truly Liberal" Government, Ireland received the boon of the greatest number of stringent and tyrannical Coercion Acts ever passed since the Union. I say this in the face of the advice just tendered to the Prime Minister by the Attorney General of England under the late Government, who, in the cold shade of opposition, manifests some semblance of friendliness, Were, however, the Whig-Liberals now in power, he would find, as many a Liberal Attorney General found before, sufficient reasons for the enactment of measures of quite as hateful and galling a character. Both parties in this House seem equally ready when in office to pass coercion laws for Ireland, which when out of office they are as equally ready to deplore. But the Prime Minister in his efforts to gloss over the exceptional rigour of this Draconian code, evidently set a true value on the advice thus tendered, and paid more attention to the determined resistance on the part of the Irish Representatives here present. I would remind the First Minister of the Crown that it is as necessary for him to acquire a knowledge of measures for Ireland as it was recently when he felt compelled to abandon in the face of a hostile minority, a measure not of coercion, but of education for England, through inability, on his own admission, to master its details. Were such oppressive laws in other countries, the Prime Minister would loudly declaim against their injustice, and he would be sustained by hon. Members around me. The Press, too, would indulge in long homilies against tyranny and despotism, while not failing to point with pride to the happy security of those who lived under the British Constitution about which we hear so much. It is, indeed, time to tear off the mask from such organized hypocrisy in dealing with Ireland. You should no longer, under the pretence of the existence of crime where no crime exists, seek thus to destroy the fair fame of Ireland before the nations in order to force upon her the fetters of this Peace Preservation Act. Either you must unblushingly state before Europe that, after seven centuries of British rule, you are prepared, as heretofore, to disregard the most sacred constitutional rights, and hold Ireland by the sheer force of bayonets; or, as a logical sequence, you must abandon those measures, so utterly unwarrantable. Surely, it is not by this system of insult and outrage on the character of the Irish nation you can ever hope to win to your side the sympathies of a brave and high-spirited people. I cannot support the advances from some of the Irish Representatives to accept the operation of these Acts for a year as a compromise. I refuse even for an hour to admit the right of coercion for my country. In the resolve to give those measures of coercion my most strenuous and persistent opposition, and to wring from the Government some expression of regret to Parliament and to Ireland for this insidious attack on the rights and liberties of my fellow-countrymen, I move the Adjournment of the Debate.

seconded the Motion for Adjournment.

, in supporting the Motion, said he was disappointed at the reply of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government. He had promised that these Acts should not be renewed again in a Continuance Bill; but though he fully accepted that pledge, it was not absolutely certain that two years hence the right hon. Gentleman would be Prime Minister. Not one single reason had been given for continuing this Bill beyond the end of next Session, when it expired. He was perfectly willing to let the Bill be renewed for a term certain, if it was understood that it could not be continued one hour beyond that time, unless upon full discussion.

protested against the continuance of the Acts, for however limited a period it might be. It was not correct to say that the Acts were not carried out. He knew many cases in which the operation of their provisions had caused great annoyance. Referring to the subject of arms, he said that after a gentleman of his acquaintance had been refused a licence to keep a gun, the applicant's father-in-law, who was was Crown Prosecutor in Cork, mentioned their relationship to the magistrate, whereupon the latter said, "Why didn't you tell me that before! I refused the licence on account of the hat he wore."

said, that the Prime Minister had offered to drop the Coercion Acts out of the next expiring Bill; but if he would consent to go a step further, and strike them out of the Schedule of the present Bill, these Acts would expire at the end of next Session, and there could not be a doubt, even in the event of a Dissolution, but that there would be abundant time between the beginning and end of the Session to pass a special Act dealing with particular cases that might arise.

said, that after listening to the debate, he was unable to conceive what any well-disposed man in Ireland had to complain of. The only persons in Ireland who had any reason to be afraid of the law were those who were anxious to break it. There was in existence a law in Belfast, under which he, for walking into Belfast and saying he was a Protestant, might be fined forty shillings and costs, and an hon. Gentleman opposite, for saying anything about the Pope or King "William, might be mulcted in a similar fine. That was a local law passed for the purpose of preventing party riots, and he was not aware that any respectable inhabitant of Belfast had ever complained of the existence of that law, because experience had shown it to be a useful and salutary one. It was necessary sometimes to submit to harsh laws for the general good. If the condition of the country was such as to render the Bill unnecessary, it ought not to be carried; but the Government should be allowed to have the opportunity of ascertaining whether or not it was necessary.

said, he could not understand the reluctance of the Government to make the slight concession asked of them, especially when Irish Members were asked to make greater concessions. The Government had all the Recess to consider whether they should renew that Act again; but now the House was asked to renew the Bill for twelve months after next September. At a recent discussion he remembered they had been told that the continuance of these Bills was a mere matter of form, that it would be only for two years; but that sort of thing seemed likely to continue. He had been asked in Wexford what these Acts were continued for, as the people there were at a loss to understand why they remained in force. To retain such powers caused great discontent in Ireland, and their renewal was no bulwark to the order and peace of Ireland; on the contrary, it was a most dangerous policy. ["Order, order!"]

said, the hon. Gentleman was perfectly in order in the remarks he was making.

continued: No case had been made out by the Government for granting them such powers as they asked, and they had the evidence of the Judges of the land that there was no need of coercive measures. If these Acts were continued in the absence of any reason for them, the people of Ireland would say they were governed by men who did not know the state of that country. The Government had better put a little more confidence in the people, and not so much in the Lord Lieutenant and magistrates.

hoped the Motion for Adjournment would not be pressed, and that the Government would reconsider their decision.

contended that, as those Acts would not expire till the end of next Session, there was no necessity for passing that Session a Bill for their continuance. He thought the Government ought to accept the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick.

, while regretting the tone of the speech of the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Macartney) said, he thought, after what the Prime Minister had said with reference to the particular Act objected to, that the Motion for Adjournment ought not to be pressed; and in fairness to everybody, they should now divide without further delay on the second reading. In Committee, Motions could be made for the omission of certain Acts from the Schedule. For instance, he intended to move in Committee the omission of the Election Petitions Act. He believed it was essential to the protection of the character of honest men and to the credit of the House that that Act should be altered.

also appealed to the hon. Member (Mr. O'Clery) not to press his Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate. He (Mr. Sullivan) confessed that he listened with deep regret and with some humiliation to the speech of the Member for Tyrone. It was one of the worst evils of subjection, that it dulled the moral susceptibilities, deadened that noble resistance against wrong, and produced amongst those who had been subjected to its deteriorating agencies, men who would protest that they loved their chains.

thought the debate should be adjourned, because hon. Members evidently did not under-stand the situation. The House was entitled to know from the Government, and especially from the Attorney General for Ireland, on what grounds the renewal of these Acts for two years was asked.

hoped the Motion for adjourning the debate would be persisted in. Not a single argument had been adduced to sanction the continued enactment of any of the 34 statutes set out in the Schedule to the Bill, and he maintained that, in the absence of knowing anything more than their names, it was not fair to be asked to consent to their continuance. One of the Bills proposed to be renewed was the Grand Juries Bill, to which he had every objection, because in most cases that body acted in the most atrocious and corrupt manner. ["Order, order!"] He contended that he was perfectly in Order. Then came the Corrupt Practices at Elections Bill, which was a most imperfect measure and required alteration, especially after some recent decisions of the Irish Judges. Then came the most objectionable of all, and that was the Peace Preservation Act, which was most offensive to the people of Ireland and injurious to the country. He thought they should be allowed to consider all these Bills separately, and for that reason supported the adjournment of the debate.

appealed to the House to adjourn the debate, in order that a full opportunity might be afforded for the discussion of the various Acts contained in the Bill.

also supported the adjournment.

said, it was not intended to go on that evening with the other Irish Business on the Paper.

appealed to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government whether, considering the manner in which the House had been kept all that day, and that the House did not adjourn that morning until between 2 and 3 o'clock, the House ought not now to adjourn. He would therefore move that the House do now adjourn.

said, the Motion proposed by the hon. Member was not in Order. The question before the House was, that the Committee on the Bill be taken on Thursday.

claimed the fulfilment of the promise given by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer—a promise in which Irish Members had the greatest confidence—that a day would be given specially for the discussion and consideration of the Bill, and they now hoped that promise would be kept by the Government.

I certainly consider that the offer on my part was not accepted. At the same time, so far as that offer was made from my own sense of propriety and justice, I should certainly be influenced by the same considerations

explained that the hon. Member (Mr. Mitchell Henry) had referred not to the offer of the right hon. Gentleman, but to a promise made by the Chancellor of the' Exchequer at a part of the debate when the Prime Minister was not present.

said, he would give his recollection of what had passed. Very early in the discussion, the Chancellor of the Exchequer undertook, if hon. Gentlemen opposite would consent to the second reading, that the Committee should be fixed for some day next week, and that a fair opportunity should then be given of discussing the particular matters in the Bill to which hon. Members objected. How that offer had been received, he need not say; but certainly after what had passed, he held that it was not competent for hon. Gentlemen to ask for a fulfilment of the conditional promise.

said, the course now taken was perfectly unjust, and he hoped the Prime Minister would see the necessity of keeping the promise given in his absence by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If that promise was not kept, then he must say the course proposed to be taken by the Government was most unjust.

said, the promise made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was in the most conciliatory manner, and not in any trafficking spirit; and let him remind the noble Lord the Postmaster General, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer added that he thought a Bill of that great importance should have a full opportunity to be considered. He (Mr. Sullivan) therefore hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give to Irish Members an assurance that a day would be given for the discussion of those Acts, and that they be not taken at "the Irish hour."

said, he was not in the House when the question was raised, and he therefore did not know how it came before the House. But he would state what had occurred with regard to the second reading of this Bill. On the Motion for Adjournment of the House, he stated that it would be exceedingly in-convenient if the House were then to take into consideration all the questions comprised in this Bill, and also the cross issues that would be raised, and he therefore suggested that the proper time to take them into consideration would be when the Bill was in Committee; and he promised that if hon. Gentlemen would allow them to proceed with the second reading of the Bill—discussing, if they pleased, the general principle of including a large number of Acts in one Bill of this kind—he would take the opportunity of saying that a day would be given for the consideration of this Bill. He further said that if the Bill were read a second time, they would in Committee then go into the consideration of the various Acts to which it referred, and of course it would be always in the power of hon. Gentlemen to raise discussion on the particular Motion; but as the discussion had now gone on for many hours, and had turned on the merits of the particular measures, he held that the conditional pledge he had given was not in any way binding on the Government.

said, that without in any way disputing the accuracy of the right hon. Gentleman's recollection, they were bound to take a division on the question of the second reading of the Bill, as a protest against the measure; and, as far as he was concerned, considering the danger that might arise from the discussion of such a Bill, he must say that Bills of such great importance ought not to be taken at a late hour of the morning. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government would allow them that request; but if he should not, he (Mr. Butt) would now plainly tell the right hon. Gentleman that, although they were a small, they were a strong minority, and that they would most resolutely obstruct his measures.