asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, in view of the resolution in favour of amnesty to political prisoners passed on the 13th instant by a largo majority of the Canadian Legislature, he intends to recommend Her Most Gracious Majesty to exercise Her royal clemency on behalf of persons confined for political offences in great Britain and Ireland?

, in reply, said, he presumed the Question referred to certain prisoners whose case had been brought under his notice last Session. He then stated that he did not recognize those men as being political prisoners, nor did he now see any more reason than at that time to interfere with the ordinary course of the law so far as they were concerned.

gave Notice that he would on an early day call attention to the subject.

asked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce a Bill this Session to make attendance at School compulsory in England and Wales?

The subject, Sir, to which the hon. Member's Question refers is undoubtedly one of great importance; but it is also, as I think the House will readily believe, of the greatest practical difficulty when considered with a view to action. The hon. Member will not, I hope, expect that under these circumstances I can do more than say that Her Majesty's Government will give the earliest intimation to the House in case they should desire to make any proposal on the subject.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, When the Reports of the Inspectors of Mines for 1874 may be expected to be laid upon the Table of the House?

, in reply, said, he had issued a second Circular, reminding the Inspectors of Mines that it was desirable their Reports should be laid on the Table of the House as soon as possible, and he hoped there would not be much further delay in having them presented.

asked the Honourable Member for Southampton, Whether, according to the intimation which he made last Session, he intends to introduce a Bill dealing with all offences by Clerks in Holy Orders against the Law Ecclesiastical?

, in reply, said, his hon. Friend was probably not aware that at the time the intimation was given it was universally believed— and there was every reason to believe—that in the month of November last the Judge who was appointed under the Public Worship Act would be also the Dean of Arches, and would, therefore, have to decide all matters of ecclesiastical offence. It was then thought desirable that, in all cases over which he had jurisdiction, the process should be the same. In consequence, how-over, of the postponement of the Judicature Bill, such was not the case, and at present the Judge appointed under the Public Worship Act had jurisdiction only over questions for which that Act provided. He had had, he might add, communication with the noble and learned Lord who filled that office, and that noble and learned Lord deemed it exceedingly desirable that there should be some experience of the working of the present system, before any change was made with a view to the extension of the Act. Under those circumstances, it was not his intention to propose during the present Session any such Bill as that referred to by his hon. Friend, and in taking that course he would, he believed, be consulting the wishes, not only of the House generally, but also of those who, during the last Session, pressed upon him a contrary course.

, in rising to call the attention of the House to the hardships caused to the ratepayers of various parishes by the present system of partial and piecemeal abolition of Turnpike Trusts, as well as the injustice of the present system of maintaining Turnpike Roads of which the trusts have been abolished, which is, moreover, constantly increasing as trusts expire, thus throwing a large additional burden on to owners and occupiers of real property only; and to move—

"That it is expedient that legislation should take place without further delay, dealing in a comprehensive manner with the future maintenance of roads,"

said, the time had arrived when it was necessary that some legislation should take place on the subject, after the many promises to that effect that had been made from right hon. Gentlemen on the front benches on both sides of the House. He had, in the course of last Session, presented as many as 32 Petitions in favour of early legislation in the direction he had pointed out. He had also on the 16th of June last placed upon the Paper a Resolution similar to the one he now asked the House to adopt; but owing to the exigencies of the Government at the close of the Session, he had consented to postpone the matter till the present Session. The great evil was, that legislation for the maintenance of roads on an equitable basis did not take place pari passû with the abolition of tolls, because their abolition threw the whole burden of the repairs of the great arterial roads upon one class of persons in the parishes through which the roads passed, although they had been made and used for Imperial purposes. The Turnpike Acts Continuance Bill came before the House every year so late in the Session, that it was impossible for the subject to be then fairly and adequately discussed; and he hoped the discussion on his Motion would show the country the interest that was felt by this House in the subject. The question had been investigated by several Committees of that House, and on each occasion legislation had been recommended. The first Committee sat in 1836, another in 1864, again in 1869, 1871, 1872, 1873, and in 1874; and the late Under Secretary for the Home Department (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen), and the present President of the Local Government Board, had spoken in favour of legislation. The former right hon. Gentleman said, that unless a remedy were soon provided, it would be impossible to provide one at all. The Select Committee of 1873 reiterated the regret of the Committee of the preceding year that, notwithstanding the frequent re-monstrances of previous Committees, nothing had been done by Parliament in the matter. In 1870, when he himself brought forward a Resolution on the subject, he was strongly supported and seconded by the present President of the Local Government Board. His right hon. Friend was then in the cold shade of Opposition; but he hoped that now that he had got into the full sunshine of office, he would do something towards carrying out what were his views in 1870. He held in his hand a Return of the trusts which had expired during the last 10 years, and of the trusts which would expire during the next 10 years. The total number of trusts which had expired during the last 10 years was 429, representing 8,300 miles of road. During the next 10 years, there would expire no less than 166 trusts, representing 3,742 miles. That decrease in the number of trusts, of course, implied a corresponding increase in the rates paid by the rural parishes. Having endeavoured to convince his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board of the injustice under which the rural districts suffered, he wished now to make an appeal to the stony heart of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He hoped that his right hon. Friend would be inclined to give them relief by yielding to them some licences locally collected. He had specially in his mind the carriage licences, which, though they would not make up for the total increase of expenditure from the abolition of tolls, when complete would be a very great help in that direction. There would be no difficulty in collecting the licences, in passing them to the Treasury, as at present, and in the Treasury paying them to the county treasurers in the proportion in which they were collected in each county. Those separate amounts were somewhat considerable, being, for instance, £10,791 for Gloucestershire; £8,483 for Wiltshire; and the total amount of the licences collected for carriages in England and "Wales was £476,294. If this sum were paid over to the treasurers of the different counties in that proportion, there would be no difficulty in distributing it under the auspices of the Courts of Quarter Session among the different parishes. They would also be very glad to receive the dog duty, which amounted to £294,000; but they would be grateful for the carriage licences, if they did not receive a larger sum. The expenditure of the different turnpike trusts on roads was £937,000 in 1870; and in 1872 it was £787,000. The expenditure had thus diminished in three years by about £150,000, which simply represented a corresponding increase in the local rates, and, therefore, in the amount paid by the owners and occupiers of real property through which passed roads used by all classes of the community, and for all sorts of purposes. It was true that some relief had been afforded to the rural districts in the shape of increased contribution to police rates and payments in aid of the maintenance of lunatics; but if that increase went on at the rate of £150,000 in three years, it would soon swallow up the very slight boon given last year. A relief in the local expenditure could be obtained from local sources, and he therefore hoped that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to hold out some hope of giving this point his favourable consideration. There was another point to which he wished to direct attention. The great reason why turnpike trusts were unable to pay the interest on their debt arose from the change in the mode of conveyance. It must be remembered that the railways had of late years monopolized the traffic of the country, and taken it away from the main arterial turnpike roads, together with all the advantages which resulted to the inhabitants from the passage of the traffic through the rural districts. It became a question, therefore, from the inability of the local authorities to deal with the question, whether the railways were sufficiently rated, and whether the amount of rates they paid was applied in a proper ratio to the purposes for which it was levied, and to which it ought to be applied. He would like to see one uniform system of rating laid down by the central authority, and a mileage rating of railways according to their earnings, so that there might be one practice throughout the Kingdom. The whole question of the rating of railways and the application of that rating was one deserving investigation by a Select Committee, or by some other mode of inquiry. The modern practice of sending traction engines with enormous loads over the roads had also increased the expenditure of the parishes from the damage done both to roads and bridges. The subject of the maintenance of the roads was a dull and dry one, but it was one which was viewed in the country districts with great soreness. Both parties, when in Opposition, had promised redress, but when they got into office nothing was done. He regretted that a measure on the subject was not to be brought forward by the Government this Session, and he trusted there would be such an expression of opinion on both sides of the House as would show the Government that the question could no longer be neglected. The hon. Baronet concluded by moving the Resolution.

seconded the Motion, and called attention to the hardship of the present system as it affected thoroughfare parishes. As an instance, he would mention the case of the parish of Prestwich, which adjoined the city of Manchester. It contained 1,909 acres, and had 1,378 ratepayers. Prior to the cession of turnpike tolls it had to maintain only one and a-half miles of road, but owing to the expiration of turnpike trusts six miles more of road either had been or shortly would be thrown open, and these six miles would be of the most expensive kind of roads to be found in the country, because over them would pass the whole of the traffic between Manchester, with its 500,000 of inhabitants, and the district of Bury and Rossendale, with their 200,000 or 300,000 inhabitants. Those roads were paved on both sides and macadamized in the middle. They would be subject to rapid destruction both by the amount and the rate of the traffic which passed over them, and it was calculated that their maintenance would more than double the rates of the parish. Then on the other side of Manchester were the parishes or townships of Levenshulme and Heaton Norris, lying between the city and Stockport, which would be affected in a similar way. Those cases were not exceptional. On the contrary, examples of the same kind might be found in the neighbourhood of all large towns, and especially near London—for instance, the parishes of Leyton and Woodford, which lay between the East End of London and Epping Forest. An enormous amount of summer pleasure-traffic, which was rather a nuisance than a benefit to the inhabitants, passed through these parishes, which were bound to maintain roads to accommodate it at a very great expense. This state of things was certainly one of great hardship to the ratepayers, and imperatively called for a remedy on the part of the Government. The old plan was that those who used the roads should pay for them, and this had at least the advantage of simplicity. He did not say there might not be rural districts in which, from the parishes being of the same character, there would be a give and take between them, but that did not meet the case of such districts as he had alluded to, and if the Government thought that the old simple plan should be departed from it was for them to invent another which might be more complicated, but which would at any rate relieve the ratepayers from the exceptional burden now thrown on them. For his own part, he saw no objection to the re-imposition of tolls in some cases; but whether this was done, or the burden was thrown on the Consolidated Fund or the county rate, was for the Government to consider. He trusted, however, that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Local Government Board would give his early attention to the subject, with a view to relieve the ratepayers from the injustice of which they had at present reason to complain.

said, the question introduced by the hon. Baronet opposite the Member for North Wiltshire (Sir George Jenkinson) had been so frequently debated that he had heard with considerable disappointment that the Government were not disposed at the present time to take any action on it. In almost every county recent legislation had established a state of things such as that described by the hon. Baronet, and in his own county (Durham) the farmers bitterly complained of having to maintain the roads in the neighbourhood of towns. Many of the farmers thought that the towns might fairly be called upon to contribute; but the towns, on the other hand, alleged, and with great force, that the amount of their obligations was already as much as they could sustain, and no one who had looked into the question would come to the conclusion that the towns could contribute. It could not be said that there was no grievance in the case of persons who were rated for the maintenance of roads which had only come upon them by the abolition of turnpikes, and his own view of a very difficult question was, that power might be given to the Quarter Sessions, or some other local authority, to reestablish tolls in various places of a temporary character, under the supervision of some Department in that House.

said, that in the part of the country which he represented there were three large towns, Brighton, Hastings, and Tunbridge Wells, which for a large portion of the year were for the most part occupied by large bodies of visitors, who came there for purposes of health and recreation. In the vicinity of Hastings and St. Leonards, for example, there was a highway district consisting of 21 parishes, 14 of which were more or less traversed by roads, which were formerly turnpike, and the whole of these parishes would have to contribute to the repair of such roads. It was an undeniable injustice that those parishes should be charged for the maintenance of those roads, the cost of which was double, or more than double, the cost of maintaining an ordinary highway, and much of this was in consequence of the carriage traffic and increased wear and tear caused by the influx of strangers to those fashionable watering-places, which contributed nothing whatever to the maintenance of the roads. He was averse, however, from making that anything like a question between town and country. On the whole, he was favourable to the solution of the difficulty suggested by the hon. Baronet the Member for North Wiltshire, and thought it but fair that the duty on carriages should be applied to the maintenance of the turnpike roads, or if the Chancellor of the Exchequer-was not in a position to give up this, he thought there would be no great hardship in re-imposing the horse duty for the same object in the shape of an increased duty on carriages. At all events, he trusted the Chancellor of the Exchequer would see his way to afford some relief to the ratepayers.

said, that agricultural gatherings of all kinds manifested an eager interest in the question of the management of roads and the extinction of turnpike trusts. He therefore thought it might be considered that turnpikes were doomed, although they represented a good principle—namely, the principle of a direct payment for a benefit directly received. What had proved fatal to turnpikes was the dislike of Englishmen, when riding along a road at a rapid pace, to be suddenly called upon to pull up, and to "stand and deliver." If, however, turnpikes were abolished, the cost of maintaining the roads fell by common law on the ratepayers of the parishes, and it had been proposed by some to relieve them by spreading the burden over a larger area. As a ratepayer, he should lament the adoption of that course, and would much prefer, if there was only one alternative, that turnpikes should be maintained exceptionally in districts where the highway board did not at present exist, but he thought the Government would do well to consider the proposition of the hon. Baronet, whether the taxes on horses and carriages might not be applied in aid of the maintenance of the roads, and in relief of local taxation. The system that prevailed in South Wales had worked well, and its extension to England had been recommended on high official authority. He hoped the Government would make some concession on the subject, for they could hardly be aware of the uneasiness that at present existed on this subject, and the importance that was attached to the finding of a remedy for the grievance to which he referred. That was certainly the case in the part of the country he represented, and he should view with great satisfaction the introduction of a remedial measure by the Government.

said, the subject was of wider interest than might at first sight appear. Individual Members of the House were of small importance, yet the House was great and famous; and so, though one of those roads might seem of no moment, our national system of roads was of very great importance. It was too late now to advocate a return to the system under which those who used the roads paid for them. In England, while some road trusts comprised 100 miles, other insignificant trusts only covered four miles or less. The result was, that a former Home Secretary had to pay three tolls in going from his house to the railway station. He wished that at least one Member of the present Cabinet suffered the same inconvenience, and then the evils of the system would be clearly impressed upon the Government. While it was impossible to go back to the old state of things, he regretted that a general measure had not before been passed. Five or six years ago the Committee of which he was a Member expressed their belief that the roads would go thoroughly out of repair unless a general measure were introduced. It was impossible that parishes should keep in proper repair some of the great through roads, and in his part of the country roads had been allowed to get out of repair, under the impression that a general measure would be soon introduced. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had the good fortune to represent a county where the traffic was light, and road material was abundant. Some years ago Lord Eversley was boasting how good the roads were in Hampshire, and was met by the reply—"Yes, but then the soil in your county is fit for nothing but to make roads of." In the Midland and Northern Counties it was of the utmost importance that a different system of management should prevail. He could only reiterate the hope he had often expressed, that the Government would soon take up the matter. It was no Party question, and he believed that both sides of the House would willingly assist the Government in passing a measure that would remedy the present state of things.

said, as a Member of the Turnpike Committee, he could confirm what had been said by the noble Lord. The Highway Boards had worked well in his county. The cost of the highway system was £1 10s. a-mile, as against between £4 and £5 a-mile for the turnpike system. The parish system worked well where there was a light soil and good gravel; but on a clay soil, which necessitated the bringing of materials from a distance, it was impossible to carry on the system satisfactorily. In his part of the country they had tried it and failed. The failure of the highway system was owing to the fact that too great a length of road was often placed under one surveyor. Every surveyor ought to be able to look over his road once a fortnight, and should not have more than 250 or 300 miles of road at the outside. The House had been told that the Government did not mean to deal with the subject of local taxation this year. They might not be able to treat the subject comprehensively until they dealt with the question of local taxation. But, at any rate, they could make the Highway Act compulsory, and remedy the grievances which existed under a system by which the whole burden was thrown upon the parishes. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had told the House last Session that he intended to take up the question of the road system of Scotland. He (Mr. Wilbraham Egerton) trusted we should not have one system of legislation on this subject for Scotland and another for England. He admitted the Highway Act was not perfect, but a compulsory measure might be brought in which, without much difficulty or discussion, might make the working of the Act satisfactory. Such a measure could be easily passed before the close of the Session.

said, that having boon connected from the first with the South Wales system of maintaining roads, he could state that it had worked extremely well. The whole of the present difficulty strongly illustrated the great evil of taking a partial view of a subject. If a comprehensive system, such as that he had referred to, had been adopted several years ago, most of the evils of which people complained would never have been heard of. The toll system was founded upon a just principle—one that he highly approved of—that people should pay for what they got, in contradistinction to another principle which was much more popular—that of putting your hand into other people's pockets. There was one thing of which Chancellors of the Exchequer had reason to complain. The existing system having been found to be attended with some inconvenience, hard words were used of it; it was called "barbarous and antiquated," and people came to the conclusion that it ought to be abolished, and some other system adopted in its place. It was to that word "some" that he took objection. When people complained of the evil of the old system they ought to point to a specific remedy and not call upon the Government to find it for them. In South Wales they consolidated the trusts, and that did away with a great part of the evil. There was no injustice in making people pay for value received, but there was in extracting by a hap-hazard process perhaps more than one ought to pay. When some paid more than they ought, they were not to be consoled by the doctrine of averages. It was no consolation to a man who went without his dinner to know that others had eaten a great deal more than was good for them. In South Wales some assistance was granted to the county rate, but with very strict limitations, the burden was shared between owners and occupiers, and, what was of great importance, an Inspector was appointed by the Government, who exercised a general supervision over the roads. The Bill by which that was effected was brought in by one of the ablest administrators this country ever knew, Sir James Graham; it was framed with great care, a most efficient Inspector was appointed, Captain Harness, who held the post for many years, and all they had now to do was to work upon the lines which he had laid down. He did not think blame could be thrown on the present Government for not dealing with this matter, because the difficulty connected with it had been enhanced by the neglect of former Administrations.

said, they could not expect the Government to deal hastily with the question, which, after all, was one inextricably mixed up with the larger question of local government. He thought some middle way might be found between the abolition and the retention of the toll system. Why should not parishes be grouped? It seemed to be admitted on all sides that mere parochial management as regarded roads was unsuited to the wants of the present day. The more closely he had directed his attention to such local questions as sanitary matters, the management of roads and education, the more he was convinced they would not be solved until landlords fairly faced the difficulty, by either taking on themselves permanent improvements, or a fair share of the annual charge upon the money raised for such improvements. The landlords were acting unwisely for the public advantage, and for the reason that if a landowner or magistrate, ex officio a member of the Board of Guardians, went to a board meeting to advocate any great improvement, he was immediately met by this argument on the part of the occupiers—"You will not pay the rates: they will all fall on us; your property will be immensely benefited, and you will not contribute to the improvements which contribute to that result." What was the consequence? The only way in which local improvements could be effected was by sending round the hat. But sending round the hat came to this—that a few liberal persons would pay, and others less liberal would not. Until the question of local government was fairly faced as a question of enlarging the areas and grouping the parishes, he felt satisfied that there was no use in airing crotchets about turnpikes, or calling upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer for more subsidies from the public funds. Until then, it was idle to press upon the Government to deal with a portion of the subject, and he trusted they would take time to consider the question of local administration in all its bearings, and give them a good system of county government in another year.

said, he must repeat what he had said on a former occasion, that, having regard to the many important subjects which had already been set down for legislation that year, and the amount of time which must necessarily be required for the perfection of measures dealing with those subjects, the Government did not think it expedient that the matter of highway legislation should be proceeded with at present. He could not complain of the manner in which the hon. Baronet the Member for North Wiltshire (Sir George Jenkinson) had brought forward the question; nor did he complain of the very natural suggestion that the Government having been in office for nearly a year should be prepared to take the matter up. Neither did he complain of the reference to statements of his in which he had freely given vent to the opinions he had held, and still held, as to what ought to be done; but with reference to the fact that he seconded the Motion in 1870 calling on the then Government to make certain Amendments in the Highway Act, he must remind hon. Members that the question was not then as now mixed up with the greater questions of local administration and taxation in which the country was interested, and with which the Government was expected to deal. His hon. Friend had done justice to his subject; he had done good service in bringing the matter under the notice of the House, and he (Mr. Sclater-Booth) was glad to have heard the opinions of hon. Members on the subject; but he trusted that the hon. Baronet would not, in the circumstances, press his Motion to a division. He did not think that the urgency of the question was so great as his hon. Friend appeared to suppose, while, at the same time, he believed that the question was beset with greater difficulties, and was of a more formidable character, than his hon. Friend seemed to imagine. The feeling as to the urgency of legislation on this subject was not, he believed, by any means so general as the hon. Baronet appeared to think. Moreover, it was evident that, in all human probability, the subject must occupy the attention of the House in connection with more comprehensive legislation. No doubt, in many counties, there was a feeling of anxiety and irritation at the burden cast on parishes by the rapid progress of the dis-turnpiking system; but that was no means universally the case. There were many counties—his own among the number—in which the turnpikes had disappeared, and the maintenance of the roads had been put upon the rates without any serious complaint on the part of the ratepayers, who had recognized the fact that, in many instances, there was no practical distinction to be made between a turnpike road and a parish highway. It was also felt that, under the Highway Act, a remedy was, to a certain extent, available to every county, because where highway districts were in force, it was provided that the charge of a dis-turnpiked road should fall on the district instead of on the parish. He did not think it would be advisable by a short Bill to make the Highway District Act compulsory, as had been suggested, for the proposal would be distasteful to many districts, and there was the greatest divergency of opinion as to what a district should consist of. In his opinion, unless by means of the district system, they could spread the repair of the roads over a larger area, nothing effectual would be done. But in connection with that, the question was, whether the result would not be to create confusion in local administration, unless the areas within which the roads were to be managed and charged were identified with the areas for the management of sanitary and other matters which were worked out under local management and by local means. If he could see his way to that identification, he should be very anxious to proceed without delay; but, as it was, he thought that an amendment of the law in the direction suggested by hon. Members who had spoken would rather prejudice the future decision of the question. Therefore, although the grievances complained of were serious, he did not think that, as compared with some other subjects brought forward by the Government, they called more urgently for immediate consideration. The question of local government was inextricably mixed up with highway management, especially within the last three or four years, and they could not deal with one without considering, to a great extent, what should be the future arrangements as to the other. Allusion had been made to the possibility of taking a tax—for example, the carriage tax—from the Imperial Exchequer, and applying it to the repair of the roads. But, if that were done, it would be extremely difficult to maintain the exemption now enjoyed by traders and agriculturists in respect to their carts and waggons. It might be true that the heavy engines of steam locomotives which passed over and injured the roads should contribute towards their repair; but, in order to collect the tax from them, there must be a uniform system of authorities throughout the Kingdom; and while people were far from agreed as to the area which should be adopted for the management of highways, they had got but little way towards the solution of the question. The limited proposal recommended by the hon. Member for Mid-Cheshire (Mr. Wilbraham Egerton) would not meet the case, but would rather prejudice any future and more comprehensive measure. From the expression of opinion elicited that night, and from the general growth of feeling in regard to local administration and local taxation, the hon. Member for North Wiltshire might be satisfied that that question could not rest, but must come forward frequently, from time to time, until it was settled. In the case of South Wales the whole question connected with the highways must come before Parliament before long, while the question of locomotives on roads also called for speedy legislation. He hoped, therefore, that his hon. Friend would not press his Motion, especially when he assured him that the Government were most willing to deal with the entire subject as soon as they had the opportunity and the power to do so, for the pressure of Public Business was so great it was impossible to take it up in the present Session. His hon. Friend referred to the recommendations of Select Committees; but he did not draw a distinction between Select Committees appointed specially to consider the subject and those of the Turnpikes Annual Committee. In 1864 and 1867 the general feeling was in favour of rapid abolition of tolls, and the recommendations of those two Committees resulted in a change which gave the Turnpike Committee a much greater share in administrative matters connected with roads. Under their guidance a vast number of obsolete tolls had boon swept away, in the majority of cases to the advantage of the community. He would not say that, in some peculiar cases, some modified system of tolls might not be established, though he could not say that he desired to see it done. There was no doubt that the heavy traffic to and from railway stations might, in some instances, press severely on the ratepayers of a particular parish, and all he could say was, that if counties would divide themselves into larger districts, that grievance would be, to a great extent, mitigated, and individual parishes would have much less to complain of. The representations which had been made, from time to time, by the Turnpike Continuance Committees, certainly deserved the very serious attention of the Government, as their recommendations came with great weight and authority; but, at the same time, there had been so much difference of opinion that he thought the delay of a year; and even of two years, which had been complained of by hon. Members who had spoken, would not be objected to if it should result in the production of a more complete and satisfactory measure than the Government could hope to be able to introduce that Session.

said, that this was a matter that pressed very much on the poorer class of ratepayers, and a question that ought to be legislated upon as soon as possible. There was in his neighbourhood a very wealthy class of persons who used the roads very much, and who should contribute more to the maintenance of them; and with respect to the Manchester people, he might add that they used the roads very much indeed. He saw no good reasons why the farmers of a district should be compelled to pay for the repair of roads which were chiefly used by others, who could well afford to contribute to their maintenance. He hoped, therefore, the Government would, do something to obviate the injustice under which owners and occupiers, in that respect, laboured.

said, he was disappointed at the course taken by the Government. He trusted the Motion would be pressed to a division so that the House might have an opportunity of recording its opinion that the time for legislation on the subject had arrived. A very strong feeling prevailed throughout the country that the question ought to be dealt with without delay.

said, that Agricultural Chambers had of late felt increasing interest in the question, since the maintenance of turnpike roads had been thrown upon the public rates. He was therefore not only disappointed, but he regretted that they had received no assurance as to any particular time when the matter would be brought forward by the Government. Members of the Government had made the subject of local taxation the ground for attacking the late Government; and they were most deeply pledged to deal with it when they came into office. Now, however, it was understood that the question could not be undertaken for some Sessions to come. This was one of the questions upon which the Government had met with much support at the last Election, and the country wished to know when it was to be dealt with. Great interest was taken in it, and he hoped they should receive some assurance from the Government with respect to it.

said, he wished to advert to an impression which had got abroad that he had said that the question could not be dealt with for some Sessions to come. He did not know how that impression got abroad; but it was an entirely false one. His right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board was known by his antecedents, as well as by his official connection with the subject, to take a deep interest in the question, and he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) could bear him witness that it was one which he had brought under the attention of the Government in connection with other matters that were within his Department. Further, the subject was one to which he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had paid great attention, and it had also been under the consideration of the Government; and though it was impossible to bring forward a measure that Session upon the subject, yet the Government looked upon it as one which required the earliest attention after those which were now before Parliament. The Government had already before them quite as much work as they were likely to get through that Session, and it was not for the interest of the country that they should attempt to crowd more business into one Session than they could get through. Of course/if it should be found that in the present Session they were able to approach any other questions than those that were now before them, they would be ready to do so; but, at the present moment they did not wish to make promises beyond what they could clearly see their way to perform. Without any hesitation he could say that that was a matter that the House also recognized as one of very great and pressing importance, and as one that they would be prepared to deal with as early as it was possible to do so, though he could not hold out any prospect of dealing with it that Session, but he entirely repudiated the idea that the Government proposed to put it off for two or throe years. He hoped the hon. Baronet would not deem it necessary to press his Motion to a division, because a false impression would thereby be conveyed to the country at large.

I rise, Sir, for the purpose of suggesting to the hon. Baronet the Member for North Wiltshire (Sir George Jenkinson) that he had better not divide the House upon this question. He is perfectly consistent in all that he has done and in all that he has said upon the matter, and I am not at all surprised that he is a little disappointed at the answer he has received from that bench. But then he must bear in mind that "a good many things have happened" since he brought this question before the House—and for that we have very high authority—and that which was perfectly fair, apparently, when he sat on this side of the House and we on that, can hardly be said now to be perfectly fair. I believe the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues are taking the right course—they are taking the course that we took. You observe that the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board are exactly the arguments which were used from that Bench when we sat there; and yet when hon. Gentlemen opposite were on this side of the House they had no tolerance for us when those arguments were used. We knew perfectly well, as they know, that this question is a very great question; that what you have touched to-night is only the fringe of it; that no Government can go on giving large sums of money from the Consolidated Fund for all the various objects for which local taxation is raised, and that some Government will have before long to turn its attention to the great question of local government in counties. You have no difficulty in dealing with any matter in the boroughs, because in the boroughs there is a responsible and powerful administration, and by passing an Act of Parliament you can order the mayor and town council in every borough to do what you call upon them to do. But when you come to deal with the counties outside boroughs you are perfectly powerless. You have to deal with something like chaos, and until you remove that chaos and establish some wise and honest system based upon the election by the ratepayers of competent authorities you will be every Session in the same difficulty you are in now. Now, you Gentlemen on that side of the House behaved very unfairly to the late Government. There is no doubt on this question—I can say—having authority to speak and a perfect knowledge of the matter—that the late Government was as anxious as this Government can be to deal with the whole question of local administration, but they proposed to deal with it by degrees, working up through successive stages various Bills for the establishment of county administration. You would not give us time, you pretended not to believe us, you fought, and by a majority on one occasion of nearly 100 defeated the late Government, although that Government was as honest and disposed to do its duty in the matter as the Government which is now in office is. I will not deal with this Government as you dealt with us, and I hope there is no Gentleman on this side of the House who will do it. We know how difficult the question is, and we know it cannot be done this year or next; and the right hon. Gentleman did not go too far when he said the Government thought it might be two Sessions before the question could be dealt with. I shall be very satisfied if it be dealt with within two Sessions; and if the Government takes it up in the same spirit that we did, I shall be prepared to give them my hearty support. I would suggest to the hon. Gentleman not to divide the House, and so add to the great complexity in which this question is involved.

The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, whom we have not often heard of late, has addressed us in a style which generally characterizes his observations, not exactly with venom, but with a certain degree of acidity which is certainly unnecessary in this discussion. The right hon. Gentleman accuses us of having behaved with great unfairness to the late Government. He says—"When we proposed a policy such as you are now advocating, you defeated us by a majority of 100." [Mr. BRIGHT: Hear, hear!] "Hear, hear," says the right hon. Member; but as we were in a great minority in the last Parliament, if the late Government were defeated by 100 majority, it must be that they were defeated by their own Friends. It is their own Friends, then, who must accept all the invective which the right hon. Gentleman has just poured forth. It was their own Friends who prevented them from following the wise and prudent policy which—I must say, though many things have taken place since—I cannot recollect to have been advocated by the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues. The right hon. Gentleman has assumed that all those prudent and well-informed observations that have fallen from my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board were merely an imitation of speeches that were made by the right hon. Gentlemen with whom he was then acting in political connection. I must say for myself that I found much more novelty in the observations of my right hon. Friend than the right hon. Gentleman did. I have no recollection of those pleasing prospects from the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleague on which he has dilated with so much vehemence. I do remember an extraordinary proposition, brought forward in order to relieve the ratepayers of this country, and that was that we should appropriate to their use an ancient source of the Imperial revenue; and though the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues were then supported by a large majority, such was the adverse feeling of the House that the proposal never was absolutely and formally proposed by the Government who originated it. I entirely reject the version—the historical version—which the right hon. Gentleman has given of the conduct of the late Government and the late Parliament with respect to local taxation. I have shown to the House that if the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues were disappointed and defeated in their plans by this vast majority, it must have been because they bad lost the confidence of their own Friends, and were pursuing a policy which those who ought to have supported them declined to countenance. I hope my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Sir George Jenkinson) will consider the intimation that has been given from both sides of the House, and not force the House, by a division upon the Resolution, to any declaration which might at all embarrass those who are not shrinking from the responsibility of dealing with the great question which is before us—namely, the local administration of the country—who have shown by the measures they have brought forward that they are advancing to a solution of that question, and who, perhaps, when they bring further measures forward will not be defeated, as the right hon. Gentleman was, because they lost the confidence of their own supporters.

said, he thought that the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Bright) had missed his mark when he said that the present Government had followed in the steps of the late one upon the subject. He (Mr. Pell) recollected perfectly well when the late Government gave their support to an attempt to pass an Instruction to the Turnpike Acts Committee, with the view of making highway districts compulsory throughout the Kingdom—an attempt to do indirectly by an Instruction that which should be sanctioned only with all the formalities of an Act of Parliament. Their action in the matter was most unconstitutional, and was only defeated by sheer obstinacy on the part of the Opposition.

said, that after the very distinct assurance they had received from the Government, he would withdraw his Motion.

, in rising to call the attention of the House to the Papers presented to the House on the case of Mr. John Mitchel, and to move for Copy of the List of Jurors, and of the panel selected there-from, and of the Jury who tried John Mitchel, said, he should not ask the House to depart from or to modify in any way the Resolution it came to when the Papers were presented. He thought, however, that the subject referred to in the Papers was one which, if wisely and fairly considered by the House and the people of England, might produce results of the happiest kind for the best interests of Her Majesty's Crown and subjects both in England and Ireland. He knew that he could not enter upon that subject without stirring up burning questions—questions upon which the opinion of England was violently set against that of the people of Ireland. The questions he was about to raise would probably cause extreme impatience in the minds of English Members, because they had the force overwhelmingly on their side. As an Irish Member, however, he thought it his duty to raise those very questions, and to call the attention of the English and Scotch Members of that House to the manner and to the circumstances in which John Mitchel had been made a felon under English rule; and in doing so he trusted to the courtesy of the House for a fair hearing. The first of the Papers presented to the House was a certificate from the Clerk of the Crown in Dublin, to the effect that on the 20th of May, 1848, John Mitchel was tried on a charge of treason-felony—an offence, be it observed, which had been created by Act of Parliament three weeks before—and that on the following day, having been convicted, he was sentenced to be transported beyond the seas for a term of 14 years. In addition to the Papers which had already been laid upon the Table relating to that trial, he (Mr. John Martin) was about to move for the production of some more which, if he had them in his possession, would enable him to set forth and prove, in a somewhat more official style than he could adopt under present circumstances, that the so-called trial was, as he should venture to pronounce at the outset, a disgrace to English rule and the administration of the law in Ireland. He did not expect to carry his Motion; but, in spite of that, he had obtained from perfectly reliable sources information which would enable him to show clearly the character of the trial. At the period in question—1848—the Dublin Jurors' Book contained the names of 4,570 persons, of whom 2,935 were Catholics and 1,685 Protestants. The jury panel contained 150 names of persons summoned by the sheriff to serve on the Commission, but after the arrest of Mitchel, and during the progress of the same Commission, the panel was changed. The names of Catholics were taken out of the list, and for them were substituted the names of Protestants believed to be hostile to the prisoner. At the trial it was admitted by the sub-sheriff that about 100 of the names on the revised panel were supplied by Mr. Wheeler, clerk in the sheriff's office, and a notorious Orange partizan. Mr. Wheeler and Mr. Monahan, clerk in the Attorney General's office, were subpoenaed by the prisoner to give evidence which might have compelled the Court to pronounce that the panel had been constructed contrary to law; but both Wheeler and Monahan failed to appear, and the Court refused an application to postpone the trial until they could be produced. The panel of 150 was constructed so as to contain 122 Protestants and 28 Catholics. On the full jurors' list the Catholics were in a proportion of almost two to one; in the panel selected for the trial of Mitchel they were in a proportion of less than one to four. The panel, moreover, was so constructed, that in the first 80 names there were only those of eight Catholics; and in the first 28 there was only the name of one Catholic—a gentleman who was well known never to attend when summoned as a juror. The remaining 20 Catholics were distributed among the last 70 names on the panel, and it was of course to be expected that the jury would be struck before the first 80 names had been called. It was clear, therefore, that there were ten chances to one against a single Catholic being sworn on the jury, or even being called. The result, however, showed that many of these well-selected and carefully-sifted Protestants did not answer to their names. The Viceroy of that day—Lord Clarendon—was secretly paying a man named Birch, the proprietor of The World newspaper, then published in Dublin, for the publication of articles and placards in which Mitchel and his political associates were described as Jacobins and Communists, whose objects were plunder and massacre. This shameful fact was afterwards proved in the hearing of an action brought by Birch to compel his Excellency the Viceroy to pay the money he had engaged to pay. Notwithstanding these efforts to influence public opinion against the Irish Nationalists, many of the 122 Protestants selected for the panel stayed away, their souls revolting against the abominable duty required of them. This resulted in the fact that 19 Catholics were enabled to answer to their names. But of the 19 Catholics called in consequence of those abstentions, every one was ordered by the representatives of the Crown to stand by. And, as if it were not enough to have secured a jury consisting exclusively of Protestants, unless the Protestants selected were known to be hostile to Mr. Mitchel, even 21 Protestants were ordered to stand by. Of the jurors called, the prisoner had a right to challenge 20, and he challenged the first 20 of the Protestants who answered to their names. With that his share in the selection of the jury which was to try him came to an end. That was the way the jury was struck of 12 good men and true to go through the form of putting Mr. Mitchel on his trial before his country. That was the mode in which Mr. Mitchel was made a felon for speaking and writing the sentiments notoriously held by five-sixths—aye, seven-eighths—of his fellow-countrymen in reference to the particular questions at issue between him and the English Government, if not as to all his political views. Now, he would ask any English Member to put it to himself what he would think if, in this country, a man were to be tried with all the forms of law, and pronounced to be a felon, and sentenced to 14 years transportation for speaking and writing the sentiments of seven-eighths of his countrymen. They might thank God they were living under English rule, and that that rule was not a foreign rule to them. That solemn farce of justice was only a particularly flagrant case of the ordinary political trials in Ireland under English rule before and since. He now wished to refer to the state of Ireland at the time when Mr. Mitchel committed his felony. A great national movement, called "The Repeal Agitation," had been in progress for several years. Its object was to induce the English Government and Parliament to consent to the repeal of the Union Act, which had been passed unconstitutionally and fraudulently. That national movement had the adhesion of the vast majority of the people of Ireland, who felt that the kingdom of Ireland was entitled to its own national Parliament, and that the subjection of Her Majesty's subjects of Ireland to English rule by the operation of the fraudulent and unconstitutional Union Act caused great and unheard-of disaster to themselves. It was for that reason they desired the restoration of Home Rule. In 1845, the potato blight became very destructive, not only in Ireland, but all over Western Europe. But it was only in Ireland, under English rule, that the potato blight resulted in famine. All the countries that had Home Rule were able to bear the loss of potatoes without a single death by starvation. Those countries, as well as Ireland, had great resources independent of the potato crop. Not one of those countries had greater facilities than Ireland in ports, canals, railroads, and macadamized roads for receiving food and distributing it from place to place. And yet, under English rule, the potato blight in Ireland resulted in famine; famine raged for six consecutive years, and the population of Ireland became less by about 2,500,000. Part of that decrease was owing to emigration, but the deaths in Ireland from actual starvation and pestilence directly produced by starvation amounted to 1,029,552. The emigration to America during the six years of famine was 1,180,409, and the deaths among those emigrants within 12 months after they left Ireland were 25 per cent in the year 1847—the most pestilential of the six years. On the average of the six consecutive famine years, the deaths among those emigrants within 12 months after their removal from Ireland were fully 17 per cent; and the emigration of the six years having been 1,180,409, the famine deaths thus amounted among the emigrants to 200,668. This number added to the excess of deaths in Ireland (1,029,552) makes the famine slaughter of the six years to have been 1,230,220. The population of Ireland in 1845, at the commencement of the famine, was about 8,500,000; and thus it appeared that about one out of seven of the Irish population had been slaughtered in six years by famine. A famine lasting for six consecutive years was never before heard of in the world. There was no account of such a famine in ancient or modern history. He thought it was only possible in Ireland and under English rule. In every one of those six years there was produced by the Irish people, and upon the Irish soil, double the amount of food that would have been required for the consumption of all the population. At the time of the famine and since, he could not help remembering the words of the great English dramatist with reference to Scotland under the tyranny of Macbeth, which he believed must truly have represented the state of Ireland. Rosse, speaking on that subject, says—

"Alas, poor country;

Almost afraid to know itself! It cannot

Be call'd our mother, but our grave: where nothing,

But who knows nothing, is once seen to smile;

Where sighs, and groans, and shrieks that rent the air,

Are made, not mark'd; where violent sorrow seems

A modern ecstacy; the dead man's knell

Is there scarce ask'd, for who; and good men's lives

Expire before the flowers in their caps,

Dying, or ere they sicken."

Under circumstances such as these, and believing that the national Irish Parliament and Government of which Ireland had been deprived by the Union of 1800 could not be restored with the consent of England, Mr. Mitchel became an advocate for separation and revolution. He concluded that it was the fixed de-termination of the English Government and nation not to allow a national Parliament and constitutional freedom to exist in Ireland, and that the only hope for Ireland was separation from the English Crown. He thought it better that the Irish people, disarmed and weak as they were, and their country in a state of military occupation by England, should die by fighting than endure famine any longer. He (Mr. John Martin) was in Ireland at the time. He witnessed the famine, and had seen all its miseries. It burnt its marks into his breast, and they could never be totally removed. He thought, as his friend did at the time, that if the vast majority of the Irish people desired separation, they should stand loyally by their nation and take the consequences. He (Mr. John Martin) did not suppose there was any English Member in that House who could find in the British Constitution any such doctrine as that of unconditional allegiance. If Mr. Mitchel was a Separatist now—for that he (Mr. John Martin) could not answer—a Separatist he (Mr. John Martin) was not, neither were the Irish people Separatists. He was sent to the House as one of the 59 Irish Representatives who advocated the cause of Homo Rule. The Irish nation, by its legitimately-appointed Representatives, came there to ask for the restitution of their national Parliament. There would then be between the two countries a happy connection, which would make Her Majesty's subjects in Ireland as firmly attached to her Crown and Government as any of her subjects in England were. The Irish people offered that on the single condition that the English should do them justice and cease to do them wrong. The Home Rule Representatives came to make that national demand, and they confidently expected that the Parliament and people of England would grant it, for circumstances had greatly changed since 1848. Up to 1832 English politics were under the control of the territorial aristocracy. The first Reform Act brought in money-owners and wealthy traders to share with them in the government of the country. Even at the time of the Irish famine, a change in English politics consequent upon the change in the composition of the governing powers was manifest. England still desired to rule, and loved to flatter herself that she was an Empire, though in his (Mr. John Martin's) esteem she was greater and nobler when she was satisfied with being a kingdom. In 1868 a new Reform Bill was passed which took in all the people of England, together with the former ruling classes, to form the governing classes of the country. And although but small change in English politics had up to the present resulted from this, yet, considering that they had household suffrage and vote by Ballot, the English people might at any time interfere potentially—nay, very potentially—in the government of England. It was reasonable to hope that with the feeling of responsibility arising from this change in their political situation the English people would inquire into the relations which Ireland held to England and the results of English rule in Ireland. He thought it reasonable to hope that the conclusions at which the people of England would arrive would be more just, more humane, more respectable for the name of England, and more happy for the people of Ireland. But besides such considerations, England had since 1848 adapted a new principle in her colonial and foreign policy. Years after suppressing a rebellion in Canada, she had seen fit to grant Home Rule to Canada; and yet England did not feel herself at all the worse, because the Canadians were masters in their own land, taxed themselves, spent the proceeds of their taxes, and made their own laws. The interests of the British Empire were not considered to be one whit injured by the Home Rule of Canada. Besides, Home Rule had been also granted to the Australian Colonies, and there was even talk of Home Rule being granted to that colony in which the case of Langalibalele occurred. Again, in the foreign policy of England there had been a very great change, which he would summarize by saying—and he did not wish to offer a discourtesy to any hon. Member—that it resulted from it that this country had taken, as regards Europe and the United States of America, the position of a largo Holland. This was a position very different from that which England occupied some 30 years ago. England now felt that she had no real influence in Europe. She quietly allowed Russia to tear in pieces the treaty which she had obtained by the blood of her soldiers. She yielded in the case of the Alabama Claims. She had indeed made wars recently on the Abyssinians and the Ashantees; but English statesmen well knew that England would never land a regiment for war upon the European Continent again. England had given up the Ionian Islands, and probably at no distant date she would find it her best policy to give up various offensive stations she possessed around the coasts of Europe, such as Heligoland, Gibraltar, and Malta, and, passing over the Isthmus of Suez, Aden. In consequence of the change in the foreign relations of England——

ruled that the hon. Member was quite in Order, as he was speaking on the Question that the House do resolve itself into Committee of Supply.

said, he was simply going to remark that the Colonies had been allowed Home Rule, when it was denied to Ireland. He wished not to keep closely to the immediate subject of the Papers he was about to move for, but to dwell on matters which were of extreme importance to the people of England as well as to the people of his own country, and which, in his judgment, ought to be brought under the notice of English statesmen and of the English public. As a consequence of the changes in the foreign relations of England, it would henceforth be the desire of the English nation to act inoffensively towards all their neighbours, and to have united and contented subjects of the Crown in all Her Majesty's Three Kingdoms. Besides, England had the examples of Hungary and Austria, of Lombardy and Austria, of Belgium and Holland, of Norway and Sweden, to encourage or to warn. But he would not detain the House any longer. The common sense of the English people would before long convince them that Home Rule in Ireland could harm England no more than Home Rule in Canada or in Australia. However that might be, the wishes of the Irish people could now be declared by the legitimately-elected Representatives of Irish national sentiment. The Irish, under these circumstances, would not rebel nor become Separatists, but they never could consent to the deprivation of their national rights and their constitutional and civil freedom. Great would be the day when an English Prime Minister advised Her Majesty to restore the Irish Parliament, and happy would it be for England and for Ireland when that day arrived. The hon. Member concluded by moving for the Papers referred to in his Notice.

said, that no one who knew the hon. Member could doubt his sincerity and enthusiasm, but he felt it would be a discredit to the House, and especially to the Representatives of Irish constituencies, if the answer to his speech were left to the Treasury Bench, He was an unworthy English Member for a prosperous Irish constituency, and in the name of five-sixths of that constituency, he repudiated the spirit of the speech which they had just heard. Composed as that constituency was of one half Protestants and the other half Roman Catholics, he told the hon. Member it was not necessary for him to appeal to that or the other side of the House to cease hating the sister country. To tell that House, and through the Press to tell the country, that England or the United Kingdom was responsible for the potato blight was to ask them to believe what was simply ridiculous. The hon. Member had appealed to the case of Canada in support of his argument; but he (Mr. Lewis) objected to the spirit in which the appeal was made, and he must altogether repudiate the suggestion that Ireland should be turned into a colony or degraded to Canadian privileges. He had been sent to that House, an independent Member, to take part in the discussion of all suggested improvements, to put Ireland on exactly the same platform as to rights and privileges with Scotland and England. When the hon. Member addressed such suggestions to the House, it was necessary that the Government alone should not be called upon to repudiate them. What was the real basis of the hon. Member's speech? They were told that injustice was perpetrated in the formation of the jury panel, but what was the allegation on which that was based? Why, that six-sevenths of the people of Ireland agreed, not in general politics with John Mitchel, but in his particular section of politics and his mode of developing them—in other words, that John Mitchel being the advocate of revolution, six-sevenths of the people of Ireland agreed with him. If that was so, it would have been a gross dereliction of duty in the Law Officers of the Crown, if they did not take care, by the exercise of the right of challenge, that none of those six-sevenths should sit on the jury who were to try John Mitchel. That was the duty of the Law Officers of the Crown; and the same course had been taken in England in the case of the Chartist trials. He had heard it said there was no such thing as unconditional allegiance; but he maintained that, having regard to the constitutional conduct of Her Majesty, the allegiance due to the gracious Sovereign who then as now sat on the Throne became an allegiance which was unconditional.

rose to Order. He appealed to the Speaker, whether the House had, according to its Journals, not sent to the Tower men even for asserting outside that unconditional allegiance was the principle of the Constitution?

here interposed.

begged to withdraw the observation. He would not pursue the argument. He would only add that he believed that neither in the case of John Mitchel, nor any other case tried at that time, was there any oppression or persecution of the prisoner as the hon. Member had suggested.

When this subject was before the House a few evenings ago I voted with the noble Lord the Member for Radnorshire (the Marquess of Hartington), who explained his own vote by moving that a Committee be appointed to inquire into the circumstances under which Mr. Mitchel was returned for the county of Tipperary, and to search for precedents, as an Amendment to the Motion by which the House at once declared Mr. Mitchel's disqualification. I have voted in support of many disabilities, because I believed that these disabilities were necessary safeguards against the intrusion into this Assembly of opinions which the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. John Martin) represents. Such was the judgment of successive Parliaments, which passed these disabilities, and if any speech would justify their renewal, it is the speech which the House has just heard. I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman who made the Motion desires that this House should supply the Papers contemplated by his Motion, because the whole tenour of his speech was to prove to the House that, according to his opinion and the opinion of those whom he represents, who he says are a majority of the people of Ireland, our consent to the production of these Papers would be construed into an encouragement of that national hatred of Ireland towards England, which the hon. Gentleman has done so much to foment. I wish to state briefly why I voted with the minority on the former occasion. The House had just then had before it another question arising out of the appearance of the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Kenealy) to take his seat. I, unfortunately, was not in my place at the time he appeared; but he appeared at the Table of the House, unaccompanied by two Members—without the sponsors, whom he ought to have had according to the ancient rule of the House. I did not hear the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright), who appears to have spoken with the good sense he usually manifests on an emergency.

I have to remind the hon. Member that he is referring to a debate which occurred during the pre-sent Session.

If I have exceeded the rule of debate, Mr. Speaker, I apologize; but I meant to convey that I thought that the House was acting with undue haste on the former occasion, and I was unwilling that we should proceed in a doubtful manner with respect to one, who, however he might afterwards be disqualified by a decision of this House, had a claim to a fair hearing. I thought that if that hearing were refused, it would generate or renew that very spirit of animosity which the hon. Member who has moved for those Papers would encourage. I shall not refer in detail to the allegations contained in that speech. But I will remark that I was a Member of this House during the years of the Irish famine—1846 and 1848—and I declare that the hon. Member for Meath has done that Parliament the grossest injustice, in the imputation that he has east upon us that we did not depart from our usual policy, and strain every nerve to meet the lamentable effects of the providential affliction which befel the people of Ireland. I was a Member of the Protectionist party. We were contending for the maintenance of the Corn Laws, which we thought secured for the country an adequate supply of food, and an evenness of price to the consumers, such as has not prevailed to the same extent since the repeal of the Corn Laws, for the variations of the price of food have been greater since the repeal of the Corn Laws. We were not, in that respect, far wrong. But in order to relieve the famine in Ireland, in order to meet that dire emergency, we consented to the suspension of the Corn Laws—we practically reversed our policy. The Protectionist party made a greater sacrifice to meet the need of Ireland than any other party or section in Parliament, for it was particularly contrary to our policy to sanction the peculiar measures intended for the relief of Ireland; but without any hesitation we unanimously voted for the extraordinary measures that were demanded by the circumstances of the case. Sir, the hon. Member speaks of the blind animosity of England towards Ireland. Why, in the Session of 1846 I voted against a Coercion Bill for Ireland; but in the very next Session, such had been the effect of sentiments like those we have heard tonight, that I was obliged to reverse my vote. There is but one real remedy for the discontent of Ireland; and it is, that the Irish people should become thoroughly acquainted with the history of their own country. Then they will not accept such garbled versions of it as have been presented to this House tonight, but by studying the history of their own country, which for years has been and until very lately a sealed book, they will become assured that England has not felt animosity towards them. When the hon. Member presents as the panacea for Irish discontent, the restoration of the Irish Parliament, let him refer to the history of Ireland, which will satisfy him that discontent prevailed in Ireland almost as much while her Parliament sat at College Green as it has prevailed since then, and must continue to exist until she can view without resentment those measures which the Irish people have themselves rendered necessary for the preservation of the connection between the two countries. Sir, I have been anxious to say those few words in order to show the hon. Member for Meath and this House, that it was from no participation in the opinions which the hon. Member has expressed, that I was induced to vote in the minority in the division out of which originated the Motion on the Paper. I trust Her Majesty's Government will resist that Motion, and for two reasons—first, because I believe that in granting these Papers they would tend to foster in the minds of the Irish people a doubt of the justice of the sentence passed upon Mr. John Mitchel in 1848; and, secondly, because I think it evident from the speech of the hon. Member, that he is using this Motion merely as a means of fomenting Irish discontent.

said, it was his intention to trouble the House with only a few remarks on the subject of the Motion of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. John Martin), as he should not enter into any of the numerous topics that had been imported at such length into it. He did not think, judging from the manner in which the debate had proceded thus far, that it was one likely to become productive of any substantial advantage; and, in fact, if it were to proceed in the same strain as it had up to that point, there would be no particular reason why it should ever come to an end, since there was no limit of time or space to the subjects which it might be made to include. He, therefore, trusted that the hon. Gentleman who had brought forward the Motion would not consider that it was out of any disrespect to him personally that he did not follow him through the several statements which he had made in the course of his speech. The hon. Member had complained of the feeling entertained towards his countrymen in that House in the days of his youth; but whatever that might have been, he surely could not complain of it now, for the hon. Member had been listened to with wonderful patience, and had had a full opportunity of laying before the House all the views which he deemed it necessary to express. It was unnecessary for him to say that not in any of those views did he sympathize, though he heard with satisfaction that, in the opinion of the hon. Member, the verdict of Tipperary was not shared by the bulk, or by any great portion of the Irish people. As to the Papers for the production of which the hon. Member asked, it was not possible to produce them. They had no means of producing them; but he was bound to add that oven if they had, they should not feel themselves justified in establishing a precedent of that kind. The object of asking for those Papers must be to found on them some inquiry into the proceedings at the trial of John Mitchel 27 years ago, and to prove, if possible, that there were on that occasion malpractices on the part of the prosecution. Nearly everybody in that House, he presumed, was aware that the whole of that subject was brought before the House of Commons in 1848, and that it was then discussed and thoroughly thrashed out. But the truth was, that the propriety of the composition of the jury could not be decided in the House of Commons. It had been tried and decided in the proper way in the Court in Dublin, when tryers were sworn for the purpose of trying the issue as to the proper constitution of the panel. The tryers having been appointed and charged by the presiding Judge, they found against the imputations made at the time, and reproduced that evening. He did not think his hon. Friend was quite serious in urging his Motion for the production of Papers, or that he meant to press it to a division, and therefore he did not deem it necessary to go at length into all those old matters. He held in his hand the report of the trial, and should have referred to some portions of it, if his hon. Friend had made more precise and specific charges; but he would only call the attention of the House to the fact that the Attorney General of that day, who was then accused of various acts of partisanship, was himself a Roman Catholic, and indignantly repudiated the imputations that he had improperly excluded Roman Catholics from the jury. The allegations of partiality in forming the panel were indignantly repudiated by the Attorney General, and the learned Judge who tried the case, Baron Lefroy, declared it as his opinion, in sentencing the prisoner, that there was no shadow of foundation for the imputations which had been cast upon the Law Officers, the sheriff, or other persons. The real answer to all this was, as was stated by the Judge, that neither the prisoner nor his counsel attempted to put forward any substantial defence to the charge made against the former, and the learned Judge expressly said he owed it to the jury to state, that upon the evidence furnished by the prisoner himself, no juror who had the slightest regard for the oath he had taken could by any possibility come to a conclusion different from that to which the jury had come. And to-night the hon. Gentleman had informed them that it was the separation of Ireland from England—revolution and nothing else—that was sought for by John Mitchel. He had, therefore, to say that they could not produce the Papers; that, in fact, as he was informed, no records existed as to some of the matters embraced by the Motion. But further, as he had already intimated, if it were in their power to produce them, he did not think it was a precedent which ought to be established, that years after a case of that kind had been settled, and when the persons to whom the Motion referred had perhaps long been dead and in their graves, the whole subject should be raked up, and encouragement should be given to the revival of questions which could only give rise to useless and mischievous discussions in that House.

said, he had risen to Order, when he found the hon. and learned Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) asserting the doctrine of "unconditional allegiance," because every student of constitutional and Parliamentary history must know that this House not only would not allow such a doctrine to be mentioned hero, but had, in the days of the Stuarts, sent men to the Tower for asserting the doctrine. The Solicitor General for Ireland had replied upon what must be allowed to be a painfully exciting topic with a temper and forbearance which did him honour, and it was not his (Mr. Sullivan's) desire that a word should be said in addition to what had been said by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. John Martin), upon a chapter of Irish history which was sorrowful in the extreme; a chapter of history which every friend both of England and of Ireland might daily pray Heaven might never be repeated. The hon. Member for Meath, however, had not raked up this subject without cause. It was because he had found his friend, the companion of his childhood and of his prison exile, charged with felony at the bar of that House, and that the Papers produced stamped him as an ignominious foe of his country and a gaol-breaker, without a word to make it clear to the House and to the public that there were circumstances behind those Papers relating to Mitchel that would at least distinguish him from the burglar, and the wife murderer, that he determined, as far as was in his power, that the case should be placed in a truer light. It was with that object alone that his hon. Friend had brought forward the Motion, and hon. Members on that side, as well as his hon. Friend himself, were grateful for the patient hearing which had been given him. At first it was intended that the only speech to be delivered in addition to that of the hon. Member for Meath was one from the right hon. and learned Member for Clare (Sir Colman O'Loghlen), now, unfortunately, absent, but who had been counsel for John Mitchel on his trial, and could prove that the jury had been selected as completely and effectually as if the Crown had a right to pick its chosen 12 out of the whole community. He had it from the lips of the right hon. and learned Member himself that, were he present, he would have stated a circumstance which had a bearing on this system of jury manipulation. Peeling ran high at the time, revolution was astride all over Europe, and some of Mitchel's sympathizers out-of-doors resorted to a course—he did not know how it should be described in Parliamentary language—but he might be allowed to call it "squaring a juror." An Orangeman was bought over, and when he was about to get into the box, "Here," said one of the prisoner's friends, "is a man who will split the jury." Mitchel overheard the remark, insisted that the man should be challenged, and would not allow him to go on the jury. That was the act it might be of a felon, but he would say of a high-minded and honourable man. John Mitchel's politics need not be referred to here; he stood apart from the attitude which almost all his countrymen had taken. But John Mitchel was a constituent of the hon. and learned Member for Londonderry, and when his hon. and learned Friend rose to speak in the name of Ulster or Derry, and to tell the House to be of good cheer, because Derry was sound to the core and he was its Representative, he forgot that John Mitchel was a Derry man, and that whenever there was a crop of political felons and traitors in Ireland, it was Protestant Ulster that supplied the leader. John Mitchel was the son of an Ulster Unitarian minister, and John Martin, his comrade, was a stanch Presbyterian of "the Black North." He warned the House, in opposition to the hon. and learned Member for Derry, to beware of Ulstermen.

said, that when complaints were made that Mr. Mitchel took leave of his jailors without due ceremony, it was obviously right that the House should understand the mode in which he was deprived of his liberty. Mr. Mitchel, in his early public life, was the ally of O'Connell in his legal and constitutional agitation for Repeal of the Union. When the potato failure occurred he took an active part in the deliberations of the Irish Council—a body composed of some of the leading landed proprietors of Ireland, whose object was to suggest to the Government practical measures to avert a terrible calamity. In 1848, believing the Government of the day had abandoned the people to their fate, he did preach the doctrine of rebellion, and thus forced the Executive to bring him to trial. But he (Mr. Smyth) contended that when he was put through the form of a trial, he should have received the reality of a trial, and the evidence adduced by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. John Martin) proved conclusively that he had no trial according to law, and that, guilty or not guilty, he was unjustly convicted and sentenced to 14 years' transportation. In pursuance of that sentence he was conveyed first to Bermuda, then to the Capo of Good Hope, and finally delivered into the hands of the authorities of the then penal colony of Van Diemen's Land. When he (Mr. Smyth) arrived in that country, in 1853, he found each of his friends—the Irish State prisoners—in the possession of what was termed comparative liberty, within the limits of a particular district assigned him by the Government. By this arrangement the Government was relieved of the necessity of guarding these prisoners, which would have been a work of enormous difficulty, and of the cost of maintaining them, and the parole made each of them, practically, his own jailor. While the ordinary ticket-of-leave holder had the range of the whole island, and might settle in any district where he could best earn his bread, and escape altogether whenever he got the chance, the Irish prisoner was his own jailor, within a limited district, where he was left to maintain himself from his private resources. The conditions of the parole contract were that either party might terminate it at any moment; but that while it endured, the prisoner should have all the freedom of an independent settler within the district, and should not attempt to escape. It was the right—it was the duty of man, a prisoner, to seek liberty, and military annals furnished them with several instances where strict military parole had been evaded. But he knew of no instance where a military prisoner on parole of honour was subject to surveillance. Two instances he would mention illustrative of the spirit in which the parole contract was interpreted by the convict authorities. On one occasion, Mr. Mitchel, his wife, sons, Mr. Martin, and himself (Mr. Smyth), were spending the evening at the house of a gentleman in Bothwell—a magistrate of the island—their host happening to open the parlour door, found an armed constable outside, evidently listening to the conversation within. That constable was there as a detective—a spy on Mr. Mitchel, and this while Mr. Mitchel was, presumably, free on his parole. On another occasion he (Mr. Smyth) was arrested at Spring Bay, opposite Maria Island, in mistake for Mr. Mitchel, the police magistrate of the place and his constables assuming that Mr. Mitchel could only be there for the purpose of escaping, and this while Mr. Mitchel was on his parole not to escape. To break a parole was one thing—to resign it, and to do so openly was quite another; and it were well if public writers in this country—and even some hon. Members of that House—would note the difference. The only evidence before the House—if evidence at all it be—that Mr. Mitchel ever attempted to escape from any place, was contained in the letter of Mr. Davis, assistant police magistrate of Bothwell. It was written immediately after their unwelcome visit to his office, and the poor man was naturally anxious to excuse himself as best he could for having allowed the prisoner to slip through his fingers. Mr. Davis was not now living, and he (Mr. Smyth) passed over the insulting expression in which he closed what he presumed he might call his despatch; but injustice to Mr. Mitchel and to himself, be felt bound to say that his statement that he could not peruse Mr. Mitchel's note to the Governor was untrue. What occurred was precisely this—Mr. Mitchel handed a copy of his note of four lines, open, to Mr. Davis, saying—"This is a copy of a note which I have sent to the Governor, resigning my parole." Mr. Davis read the note, then looked much confused. "The purport of that note," repeated Mr. Mitchel, "is clear. It is a resignation of my parole, and I am free now to escape." He (Mr. Smyth) then said—"Mitchel, you have done your part, "and they turned and left the office, pursued by Mr. Davis, his clerk, and the office constables, shouting lustily. They reached their horses, and rode away furiously, as Mr. Davis said. Had Mr. Davis acted with ordinary energy, Mitchel would have been seized in the office, and a struggle would have ensued, in which the advantage in point of force would have been as two to one in favour of the magistrate. The plan thus executed had the approval of the late Mr. Smith O'Brien—for 20 years a respected and not undistinguished Member of that House—and of all Mr. Mitchel's companions. Throughout the Colony, where all the facts and circumstances connected with the escape were fully known and understood, its perfectly fair and honourable character had never been impugned. On the contrary, it was freely admitted on all sides, by the partisans as well as by the opponents of the Government of Sir William Denison, that Mr. Mitchel had given his magistrate a fair opportunity to arrest him, and that more he was not called upon to do. Three or four days after the occurrence, he (Mr. Smyth) appeared openly in Hobart Town, and no hand was laid upon him—a tacit admission that in the opinion of the Colonial Government the work was cleanly done, and that the blame rested rather on the shoulders of assistant police magistrate Davis, than on that of the person named Smyth. Before his arrival in Van Diemen's Land, Mr. Mitchel had no thought of escaping. The suggestion was his (Mr. Smyth's) the plan was his, the execution was partly his; and as, according to the Colonial Law, all the penalties of the escape attached to him, so before the House and the country he accepted all the moral responsibility of that act.

said, that he was quite satisfied with the discussion of the subject which he had brought before the House, and he would therefore withdraw his Motion.