who had given Notice " To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he can inform the House of the intentions of the Russian Government relative to the observance or otherwise of the Maritime Declaration of Paris; and, if, in conjunction with other European Powers, be will endeavour to promote friendly negotiations with the Russian Government for the purpose of obtaining an assurance that the navigation of the Suez Canal shall not be interfered with by Russian cruisers," said: If the House will permit me by way of explanation, I will state my reasons for giving Notice of this Question, and, if necessary, I will conclude with a Motion. The reason why I put this Notice is because at this moment Egypt is at war with Russia. ["Order, order!"]

The hon. Member is not entitled to enter into any argument. The Question he proposes to put is perfectly plain, and does not require any explanation.

Can I not move the Adjournment of the House? ["No, no!"]

I think I had better answer the last Question of the hon. Member first—that is, that part of it which relates to the Suez Canal. I gave an answer the other day to a Question of a similar character to this, and I have nothing to add to the information I then gave; but I wish now to inform the House that last night I presented sonic Correspondence on the subject, and the hon. Member will find all the information he requires, or, at all events, all the information Her Majesty's Government can give him in that Correspondence. Then, with regard to the first part of the Question—as to what the intentions of the Russian Government are relative to the observance or otherwise of the Maritime Declaration of Paris—I have to inform the hon. Member that a ukase has just been issued at St. Petersburg giving directions to the Russsian authorities as to the mode in which they are to deal with Turkish subjects and Russian subjects in this matter, and also giving directions as to the course the Russian authorities are to pursue in relation to foreign subjects—including, of course, ourselves amongst the number; and in that ukase there will be found a declaration on the part of the St. Petersburg Government to the effect that they mean to observe the Declaration of Paris, with regard to the Powers which are parties to that Declaration; but, the House is aware, the United States and Spain are not parties to that Declaration. The Russian Government have given notice of their intention to observe the Declaration of Paris also with regard to the United States and Spain. I have a copy of the ukase and shall be very happy to show it to the hon. Member. It will be published in The London Gazette to-night, with a translation.

I would ask whether Turkey has made any intimation of an intention to observe the Declaration of Paris?

Speaking from memory, I think the Porte has made such a declaration.

The answer of the hon. Gentleman with regard to the Maritime Declaration of Paris is extremely satisfactory; but his answer with regard to the negotiations conducted by the Government is, to my mind, scarcely so. I desire to state the reasons by which I have been actuated in putting the Question. ["Order"] I mean to conclude with a Motion for the Adjournment of the House.

The hon. Member says he will conclude with a Motion. Of course, I am not here to prevent the hon. Member from taking any course which the Forms of the House will permit; but I do not think I should be doing my duty to the House if I did not point out in the strongest manner the serious inconvenience that would arise if an hon. Member should put a Question upon any subject, and, not being satisfied with the Answer he receives, should move the Adjournment of the House.

I bow, Sir, to your decision; but I give ,Notice that on the earliest opportunity I shall call the attention of the House to the despatches laid on the Table of the House with regard to the navigation of the Suez Canal.

I beg, Sir, to move the Adjournment of the House. My hon. Friend has put a Question of the deepest importance at this moment to the maritime interests of England, and I earnestly hope that some further explanations on the subject will be given by the Government. This morning one of the weightiest Papers presented to Parliament this Session has been placed suddenly in the hands of Members, and it so happens that that Paper relates to a subject which is in harmony with the question which my hon. Friend has brought before the House. My hon. Friend stated that he intended to conclude with a Motion. Mr. Speaker, I of course feel with the rest of the House that any expression of opinion which falls from the Chair ought to be received by both sides of the House with the greatest respect; but, on the other hand, I cannot feel the slightest doubt that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) has said, there are occasions on which it is not only proper, but necessary, that Members should break through the ordinary Rules of the House; and I cannot help feeling, Sir, that on the present occasion my hon. Friend was justified in asking the House, as has been done by hon. Members on much less important occasions, that some consideration should be given to him in proposing to move the Adjournment, in order that he might call attention to this important matter. Now, Sir, I had intended to follow my hon. Friend; but, as he has for the moment dropped the question, I wish to call the attention of the House to the importance of the Declaration which is to-day submitted to us. Of course, we have only had a few hours to consider it; but I hope the House will not have any doubt of the importance and gravity of the subject, and of the fact that it is not open to private Members to force on a debate with any rapidity in this House, in any other way except that which is now being adopted. I trust the House will feel that I am not going too far in, for a few moments, asking that some further explanation should proceed from the Ministerial Bench with regard to the Correspondence which has been laid before the House this morning. I do not know whether many hon. Members are aware of the important subjects dealt with in these Papers; but what I wish to call attention to is this—that it appears from these Papers that M. de Lesseps, the managing director of the Suez Canal, went to the Foreign Office on the 10th ultimo and had a very important interview with the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who was assisted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In the course of that interview a project was laid before the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman which, looking at it simply upon the surface, and taking the first view of the case, I cannot but feel was a project which was in consistence with the interests of England, and in consistence with the general interests of the Continent of Europe; and it is a matter of the very deepest gravity that Her Majesty's Government should have felt themselves compelled to object to the proposition which was laid before them. That proposition is contained in the second In-closure to Despatch No. 1 printed in these Papers, and I would call attention to the two most important paragraphs of it—

I rise to Order, Sir. I should like to ask whether it is convenient or prudent to discuss this important matter before hon. Members have had an opportunity of reading the Papers on the subject, which have only been delivered to hon. Members this morning?

The hon. Member asks me whether it is convenient to discuss this matter now? I have already stated my opinion on this proceeding, and the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Gourley), in deference to my suggestion, gave Notice that on a future occasion he would bring the matter before the House. The hon. Member for Dundee, however, has thought proper to move the Adjournment of the House, and I have no power to interfere.

I can only assure the House that if I had not felt that it was a matter of the very deepest importance I should not be occupying its attention at this moment, and I trust that the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Puleston) will not again intervene with interruptions which are scarcely in accordance with Parliamentary usage.

I rise to explain that it is because of the grave importance of the matter referred to by the hon. Gentleman that I rose to Order.

It is only for the purpose of getting a little further information from the Government that I have taken this course. I think we are entitled, when a matter of this importance is before the country, to have full information of what the line is which they wish to take; and, possibly, it may save further debate. The proposal which was laid before the Government was this—that the Governments of such and such States should agree together to maintain the same liberty to every ship of war and commerce, whatever may be its flag, and without any exception; and there is another proposal which has in view simply the prevention of the landing of men and munitions of war upon any part of the territory of Egypt. Now, Sir, what I would ask from the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is, what is the objection which Her Majesty's Government have taken to the proposal, which appears to me to be so equitable, and to have in view the reserving of the rights of all the Navies of Europe? What Her Majesty's Government say is, that to blockade or interfere with the Suez Canal, or its approaches, would be regarded by them as a menace to India, and as a grave injury to the commerce of the world. Now, Sir, I am not here for one moment to say that Her Majesty's Government are not right in laying it down as a principle that it would be a menace to India, but they go on to refer to the commerce of the world; and I want to understand whether Her Majesty's Government, before they made this declaration, had considered in conference with, or by communications with, other States, how the commerce of the world was to be best protected in relation to the passage of the Suez Canal. I think we are entitled to know whether our Government, occupying as they have always done during the whole of these negotiations, an isolated position in Europe, and simply putting forward British interests in the face of the interests of the whole of Europe, are doing that in this case, or whether there have been any previous communications with other Governments which are undoubtedly concerned, equally concerned with ourselves, in this matter? We, I hope, are determined at all events that the arrogance of British pretensions—["Oh!"]—with regard to the Suez Canal, to the Mediterranean, and to other matters in relation to the Eastern Question, shall not be put forward in such a way as to call upon us the general protest, and, perhaps, the forcible resistance of Europe. ["Oh!"] I have spoken — I hope the House will not be angry with me for having done so—from a conviction that a matter of this importance does render it necessary that we should have some early and immediate information of what are the real feelings of Her Majesty's Government upon this question; and I do hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give us some more clear and satisfactory explanation of what the line of their policy is, than anything that we find in these Papers which have been presented. I beg to move the Adjournment of the House.

rose to second the Motion. He thought the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Jenkins) entitled to the support of every independent private Member. Unless there were some modifications of the Rules of the House to permit private Members to bring forward important questions, there should be freedom in a case like this to take advantage of the Forms of the House. If it were said that these matters should be left to the Front benches, he replied that those who had had, like him, the advantage of attending public meetings at Birmingham would quite understand that the country did like to see individuals, however insignificant or unpopular they might be in the House, in their places discharging their duties; because it was recognized that in this matter the Leadership of the Opposition was in commission. There was yet to be found that organization of Her Majesty's Opposition which was essential for the protection of the interests of the country. He complained that a very simple Notice for Returns in connection with the Tichborne prosecution which he had placed upon the Paper had been by every possible device and obstruction put off from time to time. He thought the Government ought to give some undertaking that, either by keeping a House at the Evening Sittings, or in some other way, private Members should have an opportunity of bringing forward grievances. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. E. Jenkins.)

trusted the Government would abstain from taking any notice of the question which had been put to them by the hon. Member for Dundee. The question was one of very great importance, and one which might very fairly be brought before the House; but the Papers had only been issued that morning, and Her Majesty's Government had had no Notice that they would be called upon to make any defence of the despatches which they had written. He thought it scarcely fair that they should be called upon to do so at a moment's notice, and before hon. Members had had time to study the Papers. He fully appreciated the anxiety of the hon. Member for Dundee to bring this question before the House; but he trusted the Government would not upon that occasion enter into any further discussion.

concurred in what bad fallen from the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir H. Drummond Wolff). He regarded the Suez Canal as one of the most important subjects of the day; but he felt that it would be most unfair to the Government and the House that either the Government or the House should be called upon to express an opinion at this moment upon Papers which had only been published that morning. However important the subject might be, the House had reason to have every confidence in Her Majesty's Government that they would be willing within a day or two to give ample information upon the question. He earnestly hoped the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs would decline to give further information until proper Notice had been given of the Question, and an opportunity afforded to the House to deal with it by a debate.

wished to say a few words in opposition to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Dundee. In his own (Mr. Mac Iver's) and neighbouring constituencies, whose trading interests were really involved in such matters, they felt the most entire confidence in the course the Government had pursued in respect to the Eastern Question, and that it was wrong merely for party purposes to endeavour to raise these delicate questions with no other object than to embarrass the Government. If the Government had done right in the past, and he had not the slightest hesitation in affirming that they had, they should be allowed to conduct these matters in their own way without too much hypercriticism.

said, he desired to express to his hon. Friend the Mem- ber for Dundee (Mr. Jenkins) the extreme inconvenience of bringing questions of this sort forward without Notice. The inconvenience was two-fold. First of all, they had not present many Members of the House who would like to take part in the discussion on the very important question that was raised. In the next place, they could not obtain from the Government those full explanations which were required, and they had a sort of desultory conversation in the House which led to no result. If that were the only mischief, it would be enough to prevent questions of this kind being brought forward without Notice; but it must be remembered that this was a subject which was watched very keenly outside the House. Now, when they had a conversation of this character on a subject of importance, without either the question being put in the formal manner in which it ought to be put, and without having that full explanation which the hon. Member required, people outside were apt to be misled into thinking that the House treated this question as not being a large and grave one. They would think the House had not made up its mind on the gravity of the subject, or, for some reason or other, desired to pass it over without notice. It was very hard upon the whole House that they should not have Notice of such an important question being raised. If the question could be said to be one of urgency, his hon. Friend would be justified in raising it by the unusual mode of moving the Adjournment of the House; but he thought his hon. Friend would not for a moment contend that this was a question of such urgency that he could not have given the ordinary Notice of his intention to ask the Question.

said, he would gladly, in accordance with what appeared to be the feeling of the House, withdraw the Motion for its Adjournment. He begged to say he had not really raised a debate. He had simply asked a Question—he had asked for further information; and if the Government did not choose to give it, he could not compel them to do so. He thought by the course he had taken he had not laid himself open to the animadversions of his hon. Friend.

I understand the hon. Member for Sunder- land (Mr. Gourley) has given Notice of his intention to bring this question before the House. Everyone recognizes the importance of the subject, and I do not suppose that the Government will decline for a moment to give the information that may exist. I hope my hon. Friend will fix an early day on which this matter may be discussed. Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

moved—

"That, in the opinion of this House, no legislation dealing with the management and discipline of Prisons can be satisfactory which does not extend to convict establishments."

The hon. Member said, that it had been his duty in every Session of the present Parliament to endeavour to call the attention of the House to the hardships endured by a particular class of prisoners undergoing confinement in Her Majesty's prisons; but he did not recollect that any opportunity so favourable as the present had heretofore presented itself of placing before the House anything like a complete statement on this very important subject. After the many representations made to the Government with reference to the cruel and unnecessary punishment inflicted on political prisoners in various prisons in England and Ireland during the last 11 or 12 years, it might justly have been expected that any legislation which Ministers submitted to the House would contain ample provisions against practices so revolting to justice and humanity. But what did they find? He had carefully examined the Prisons Bill for England and the Prisons Bill for Ireland, and it seemed to him that in the construction of those Bills the Government had not given a thought to the complaints of prison treatment so frequently made by hon. Members in that House, and in resolutions forwarded from meetings held in every considerable town and city in Great Britain and Ireland. He was in his place on that day to accuse Her Majesty's Government, in direct and explicit terms, of being the upholders of a system of prison discipline under which cruel and barbarous punishments had been inflicted, were now being inflicted, and might at any time be inflicted so long as the present system was maintained. It must be remembered that during the recent Fenian excitement thousands of men mere incarcerated in the various prisons of Ireland for periods ranging from three months to two years. He spoke of prisoners who were never brought to trial, and consequently were never convicted. Many of those prisoners, confined without an appeal to either Judge or jury, were tortured to death or driven to madness by the barbarous treatment they received. If hon. Gentlemen suspected him of exaggeration, he had only to remind them that in the Sessions of 1874 he moved for Returns bearing upon this subject, and the Home Secretary refused to grant them, thereby withholding from the House official information on a subject of great national importance, and cloaking with the authority of his position the outrages that were committed by brutal gaolers, and condoned and connived at by Government Inspectors. He would quote some official information on the subject. In 1867 Dr. Robert M'Donnell, the medical superintendent of Mountjoy Convict Prison, furnished a Report to the Directors in which he drew attention to the state of health, mentally and bodily, of those untried prisoners who had been in custody for many months. Dr. M'Donnell stated that those untried prisoners were kept confined by themselves all day long, except when at exercise or religious service; that at these times they were not allowed to communicate with each other; that they had not, as the convict had, the comparative recreation of school; that they were emaciated and worn-looking; that some had shown unmistakeable signs of mental disturbances; and that the lengthened period of their confinement made their case unlike that of ordinary untried prisoners awaiting trial. Dr. M'Donnell recommended on medical grounds that the severity of the prison discipline should be relaxed. And what was the result? Instead of there being any relaxation in the discipline the humane officer who advocated the better treatment of the prisoners was dismissed. He (Mr. Power) asked the House to consider carefully the magnitude of such cruelty and injustice—innocent men condemned to a state of perpetual solitary confinement, and this was done by the Irish Government under both the Liberal and Conservative Administrations. The shadow of this great wrong rested alike on both Parties in the House, and the time had now come when both should unite to remove it by just and humane legislation. Some correspondence on the treatment of political prisoners had appeared recently in The Times, and that leading journal said, very justly, that the statements made on the subject could not be read without a keen sense of indignation. But it was a remarkable illustration of the indifference to Irish affairs felt by the Press and the public of Great Britain. The Times on a recent occasion treated these statements as if they were only then made for the first time. When the punishments, the evil effects of which Dr. M'Donnell had described, were being inflicted, the Irish papers and people frequently and loudly called for redress, but none came. Her Majesty's Government was now bound to take one of the two courses in reference to the question—either to justify the perpetration of horrible outrages on political opponents on the atrocious principle that the end justified the means, or to propose such legislation as should, in the language of The Times, render it impossible for the future. When Mr. O'Donovan Rossa and his companions were in prison the country never would have heard of the illegal and shocking treatment they received but for information brought out of prison surreptitiously by discharged prisoners. Some of the national journals had published this information, which in the course of time led to inquiry, and from inquiry to the partial liberation of the political prisoners—an act which the half-hearted and shortsighted policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) deprived of the character of enlightened statesmanship which would undoubtedly attach to a full and com- plete amnesty. Some letters which were written 12 months since, and brought out from Dartmoor Prison by discharged prisoners, had been placed in his hands, from which he should read extracts to the House. The writers knew very well the consequences that might follow the announcement of their violation of the prison rules, but their patience was exhausted. They contended, with reason, that as the prison authorities had violated a rule in treating them worse than ordinary criminals, they were justified in disregarding the rules for the purpose of self-defence, and they had therefore sent out word that he (Mr. Power) was at liberty to make what use he thought proper of the letters. The hon. Member proceeded to read extracts from these letters. Mr. Michael Davitt, a prisoner convicted of treason felony, and had been in penal servitude for the last seven years, wrote complaining of the treatment he received from the prison officials, and stating that he had been set to stone-breaking, of which, in warm weather, he did not complain; but in winter he was compelled to work in a large open yard, the very coldest in the prison; his cell, seven feet long by four broad, iron sides, and slate floor, was directly opposite the water-closet, 10 or 12 feet distant, where the fecal matter from 10 wards (74 men) was kept in tubs for manure: he had asked the principal warder to remove him a little higher up, but no change was effected, although there was an empty cell. The hon. Member then read further extracts from Michael Davitt's letters, one of which stated that that there was not one prison official, from the Visiting Director to the lowest of the crowd, that would not lie to save themselves from blame or exposure. Another stated that he suffered much during the long winter from catarrh and incessant spitting of phlegm, which must inevitably end in lung disease; that the climate was so severe, and the food so abominably bad and filthy, that the wonder was how men could bear up against two of the greatest hardships of life—cold and hunger; and that they were regaled with the potatoes which had become unfit for the pigs in the neighbourhood to eat. The hon. Member then alluded to the case of Sergeant M'Carthy, and read a letter from that prisoner, dated Chatham, April 1877. The letter stated that the position of the prisoners was be- coming desperate; that they were subjected to such systematic annoyances that if they were allowed to go on, they could only have one ending—namely, death; that the melancholy conclusion had forced itself upon them that nothing less than their lives were aimed at, and that, too, in a cowardly, assassin-like manner; and that it was a significant fact that this persecution dated only from the time the Governor of the prison became aware that he (M'Carthy) was suffering from heart disease. The hon. Member then referred to the case of Corporal Chambers, who, for the five months during which he was in custody before trial, was treated worse than a convict during his imprisonment. Chambers had been made to mop out filthy dens of dirt; and when in the hospital, suffering from chronic rheumatism, he complained of 10 ounces of food per day as inadequate, he was declared to be cured and turned out of hospital. It was impossible to read those documents without indignation; but Chambers' case spoke for itself. It was only Davitt, with his superior cleverness, who bad made himself heard. This man was weekly obliged to act as charwoman to a lot of very dirty people. Even a glance of the eye, a look, was deemed a crime in Dartmoor. Chambers had been held by one gaoler while he was being ill-treated by another gaoler. "Worthy sons," said Chambers, "of worthy sires;" and he made an allusion which he (Mr. O'Connor Power) did not understand. Amongst other matters it was stated that of 1,000 prisoners in Dartmoor, nearly one half suffered from heart and pulmonary diseases, owing to insufficient clothing during the cold weather, excessive labour, and bad food. It might be said that the language in which the complaints were couched was very strong; but he did not think it was too strong to be repeated to the House of Commons. In 1868 orders were received to treat Chambers with greater severity, and those orders had been carried out, and were in force so recently as 13 months ago. According to Davitt, the man Chambers was not allowed to give evidence before a Commission of Inquiry, nor was Chambers produced before the Commission in 1870. In June or July, 1868, Chambers received, in reply to a Petition asking to be allowed to attend to his religious duties, the words "No grounds." In view of the fact that Members from Ireland had once or twice called the attention of the Government to the circumstances and treatment of these treason-felony prisoners, and nothing had been done, it did appear to him that the time had come when the feelings of the English nation should be stirred up on this question. Meetings on the subject had been held, and over one of them the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) presided. About 200,000 persons attended that meeting in Dublin, and they were men who had a stake in the country, and who knew that the treatment of the political prisoners as convicts and malefactors was not the way to stamp out disaffection. Those prisoners were men who had exhibited excessive patriotism, and adopted measures to remedy admitted grievances not sanctioned by the Constitution of the country. The agitation of last Autumn, whatever might be the motives of its promoters, showed that the English people were capable of sympathizing with suffering humanity; and he cherished the hope that his feeble words would find an echo in the constituencies of England and Scotland, and that they would not sanction any adverse vote of the House of Commons denying those reforms in prison discipline which he believed were absolutely necessary to prevent the recurrence of such deeds as he had recited. He considered himself justified in bringing forward the Amendment he had put on the Paper, and in saying that the time had come when the Government should introduce something more comprehensive than the present paltry measure, and something that should, in the first place, deal with the crying evils such as those to which he had referred. This question ought not to be dealt with piecemeal, and he thought the Government ought to defer legislation on this subject until they could remove the great evils of which he complained. He knew he would be told that inquiries had been made and a Commission issued to investigate the complaints against prison officials, and that it had been found that the most serious accusations had not been verified. But the inquiry was of the most unsatisfactory character. The hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) had stated that if the inquiry were to be conducted in the manner proposed it could not fail to be regarded with distrust; for that when the prisoners asked to be allowed the assistance of counsel in preparing their statement, which assistance the hon. and learned Gentleman said was necessary, they received a reply stating that the Commissioners could not comply with the request. As the hon. and learned Gentleman had well stated, an investigation of complaints without hearing the complainants could not fail to be regarded as a mockery and a delusion, if not also a snare. If the inquiry had been conducted in a full and fair manner, he ventured to say that it would not have been his duty to get up in that House Session after Session and occupy the attention of the House in the hope of obtaining some much-needed reforms. Up to this point the Government had determined to keep the political prisoners in gaol; but he did not think they would determine to keep them there much longer. But however long they kept them in confinement, he urged that they should be treated as men, and not as brutes. It was time that the question should he taken up as to how far the Government was justified in detaining political prisoners. If the House of Commons at the latter part of the 19th century was About to assert that there was no difference between political offences and ordinary crimes, they would do what was not done in any other nation; and if they did so to-day, they would be rolling back the tide of civilization. He trusted that the result of any division which might be forced upon them on this question would show that the feeling of the House of Commons was on the side of humanity and justice. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving his Resolution. Amendment proposed,

To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, no legislation dealing with the management and discipline of Prisons can be satisfactory which does not extend to convict establishments,"—(Mr. O'Connor Power,)

—instead thereof. Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

willingly paid a tribute to the generous sympathy and belief in the truth of the statements made to him which induced the hon. Member to bring forward this question year after year, and to express himself so strongly. He (Mr. Cross) declined on the present occasion to go into the question whether or not political offences should be treated in the manner in which they were now treated by the law of the land. The object of the Motion was, however, not to say that the House ought not to legislate on the subject, or that the Government ought not to introduce a Bill like that now before the House; but that, if they dealt with county and borough prisons, they ought also to deal with convict prisons. His answer to that was that he preferred to do one thing at a time, and the Bill now before the House dealt with a very large number of prisons and many large questions. Moreover, it was a measure which would in the long run greatly ameliorate the condition of those unfortunate persons confined in them. The hon. Member talked about the barbarous manner in which persons who had not been convicted of any crime had been treated, especially in Mountjoy Prison. The hon. Member said they were subjected to certain discipline which no person except a man who had been convicted ought to be subject to. He (Mr. Cross) must, to a certain extent, demur to the statements made as to the treatment of prisoners in Mountjoy Prison. The question as to the treatment of prisoners in that prison was brought before the House in 1867, when it appeared from the Report as to the state of things in that prison, that with reference to untried prisoners there was not a single case requiring treatment in the hospital; that they were permitted to obtain their own food; that the prison scale of diet was tolerably liberal and varied; that during the hours of exercise the untried political prisoners might associate with each other; and that they might read books obtained from the library or sent to them by their friends. The 39th clause of this Bill provided that wherever there were political prisoners, whether for safe custody before trial or after conviction, special rules should be provided for that class of prisoners. The Bill, therefore, did meet the precise evil brought before the House by the hon. Member. With reference to the attack made by the hon. Member generally on the management of the convict prisons, he (Mr. Cross) would remind the House that this question had been discussed by the House when in Committee, and that the Committee decided that it was better to confine the Bill to county and borough prisons; but it was competent for the hon. Member to open the question again. With regard to Dartmoor Prison, where Davitt and M'Carthy were confined, he could have wished that the hon. Member had given him Notice that he meant to refer to those particular cases. Except his attention was called to particular cases, the knowledge of the Secretary of State was mostly limited to the general condition of the prisons. He warned the House against being led away by statements that the food was bad, the cells filthy, and the prisoners treated more like brutes than human beings. Those were broad statements and grave accusations, and he was bound to say that from his own personal inspection he was able to give them a most emphatic denial. He had examined the cells and the food and the condition of the prisoners themselves, and having besides been a Visiting Justice for a great number of years, he did not believe that such complaints as those of Davitt could possibly be substantiated. That prisoners were induced to make complaints he did not deny; and that prisoners from a class of life like that of Davitt found the discipline, the restraint, and the food of a prison irksome and distasteful was likely enough; but it must be remembered that the man had been convicted of felony. [Mr. O'CONNOR POWER: Of treason-felony.] That was felony in law. He would not discuss now how the treason-felony ought to be treated; but when a man had by the law of England been convicted of felony and been sent to a convict prison, it was impossible for the prison authorities to treat him differently from the other prisoners; otherwise the Home Secretary would be deluged with many more complaints than were made now, as to how one prisoner was treated as compared with another. Moreover, that matter had been discussed over and over again, and it was not as if there had been no inquiry into it. The hon. Member said the inquiry that had been made had not been satisfactory, as the prisoners had no opportunity of substantiating their allegations. Now, in the case of the Devon Commission the most complete facilities for stating their complaints against the prison officers were given to the prisoners. They were supplied with unlimited pens and paper, and had the fullest freedom of communication with their friends; while the prison officers, on the other hand, were, in fact, put on their trial before the Commissioners without having any knowledge whatever of the charges to be brought against them. Well, after patient investigation the Commissioners found that there was no ground for believing that the treason-felony prisoners in English prisons had as a class been subjected to any exceptionally severe treatment, or that they had suffered any hardship beyond what was incidental to the incarceration in a convict prison of persons sentenced to penal servitude. On the contrary, it appeared that the prison authorities had sanctioned from time to time certain relaxations of the convict-prison discipline in their favour. It was true that on certain points the Commissioners recommended certain alterations, but those did not affect the treason-felony prisoners more than anyone else. The Commissioners, having visited Dartmoor and the other convict prisons, reported favourably of their general administration in respect to treatment, diet, and discipline. They said that the officers as a body were qualified for the efficient discharge of their duties; while they were under such careful and responsible supervision by the Central Department as provided a sufficient safeguard against abuse. They observed that there was nothing to justify the charges which had been made of undue severity, of hardship, or neglect of due provision for the preservation of health, although they qualified their general expression of approval on certain points as to which they suggested some alterations. But that was not all. In consequence of complaints made of the treatment of certain prisoners, the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Walpole), when he filled the office of Home Secretary, appointed two perfectly independent men, Mr. Knox, the police magistrate, and Dr. Pollock, of Pentonville, to inquire into the state of the convict prisons. These gentlemen reported that they found the cells perfectly clean, the beds and bedding comfortable, and the prisoners were allowed the use of some books to read when not occupied in their daily work. The dietary at Pentonville was emphatically good and sufficient. Portland Prison was a perfect model of order, cleanliness, and propriety; the cells were sufficiently large, the bedding ample for health and comfort. The prison fare, as far as they saw it, was excellent of its kind; and if it was not sufficient to satisfy the full desires of the inmates, it was at least sufficient to sustain them in the robust health they exhibited when the Commissioners visited them. The Commissioners remarked that it was much to be desired that all the honest labouring classes of this country were as well fed and cared for as the 300 convicts on the Island of Portland. The sanitary arrangements were excellent, and so was the food, and the hours of labour were not unreasonable. The hospital arrangements were as good as any in London. Every care was taken for the spiritual welfare of Protestants and Catholics alike. Books of all kinds were to be had and the superior officers were all good and civil, and the Governor was a well-tried servant of the Crown, and had risen to his position by his own merits, and the other officers were men of rank and character. The superiority of Portland over Continental prisons was so marked that a comparison between them was out of the question. The Commissioners said it was their distinct opinion that the charges brought by the treason-felony convicts against the prison officials at Portland could not be sustained; and that, although many charges were made against the Governor and the warders, they did not remember a single instance in which those charges were not of so frivolous a character as to be unworthy of serious consideration. The Commissioners said they had visited Welting Prison, and that nothing could excel the general arrangements there for cleanliness, order, and good management. Anybody, therefore, who wished honestly to come to a correct conclusion on that matter would surely give weight to the testimony of an independent inquiry. For himself, he hated imprisonment, and nothing would induce him to send a man for imprisonment if it could be avoided. The statements made from time to time to this House of harsh treatment were, as a rule, unfounded. There might be, in some particular cases, a warder who might have harshly treated a prisoner; but they might depend upon it such a warder would be sure to be punished, and if the case came to his (Mr. Cross's) knowledge, such a warder would be dismissed. Hundreds of complaints came before him every year, and they were all inquired into and dealt with according to their merits. The superintendence of the Home Office over the convict prisons was not a mere matter of form, and the prisoners knew it was not. It was not a fact that a letter addressed by a convict to the Home Secretary would not reach him, and there was not a governor of a convict prison from one end of the country to the other who did not know that such a letter must come to him. The unfortunate class who had to be confined in gaols consisted largely of persons who, from the circumstances in which they had been brought up from infancy, would be most likely to suffer in their health, and it might, therefore, be expected that there would be a high death-rate among them. But what was the fact? He found from the Report issued in 1875 that the daily average number of male convicts imprisoned was 8,572, and that the average annual deaths were only 135. That was a lower death-rate than could be shown by any city in England. Apart, however, from this proof of the health of the prisons they had independent testimony attesting the same fact. Dr. Richardson, an independent witness, who had given great attention to the subject, declared that the modern prison was a perfect dwelling-house from the point of view of health, except that it was insufficiently lighted from without, and that our prison population were healthy above all other classes. The only complaint which Dr. Richardson had to make was that all prisoners should be put upon one standard of work, as if their physical faculties were all alike, and in that he (Mr. Cross) agreed with him. The facts being as he (Mr. Cross) had stated, the hon. Member who had introduced the subject could not fail to perceive that where any remedy was needed it was applied, and that the general management of the gaols was above reproach. He must declare in the most emphatic manner that the charges made against the prison officials were utterly false and unfounded, and that they ought not to be made again. He could not speak too highly either of the gallant officer who was at the head of the Convict Department, or of those who served under him. If any individual case of hardship did arise, they might depend upon it that as soon as it came under his (Mr. Cross's) notice, he should cause it to be strictly inquired into and, if necessary, remedied. He might say that so far from fearing investigation, he courted it; because he was convinced that the more complete and thorough it was, the more admirable and satisfactory would our prison system be found to be. And that, he believed, was the feeling of the prison officials themselves. He hoped, in these circumstances, that the House would now allow the Bill to proceed. As regarded untried prisoners, he might add that he was certain they had been carefully attended to by the Visiting Justices; but the Bill would tend to ameliorate their condition by enabling the Secretary of State to employ the most competent servants, and to introduce in borough gaols a system of administration superior to that which had hitherto provailed.

said, that the Home Secretary had just stated that the Government was always willing to grant a full investigation into the alleged charges of cruelty in convict prisons. It certainly was very remarkable that the Commission appointed some years ago to investigate some of these charges refused to do the only thing which, as was shown by the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt), would make the investigation of any worth. Still more remarkable was the circumstances connected with Dr. M'Donnell, who had reported on the harsh treatment of unconvicted prisoners in Mountjoy Convict Prison. Dr. M'Donnell, who was a gentleman of high position in science, and with a large and first-class practice in Dublin, was told, after he had sent in his Reports, that unless he consented to live in the prison, and become a mere prison official, he must cease to be medical officer to the prison; and Dr. M'Donnell was, in fact, dismissed. Such was the way in which an honourable and distinguished gentleman was treated because he ventured to object to the cruelties practised in Mountjoy Convict Prison. Then as to the denial of the Home Secretary to the specific charges brought by the hon. Member for Mayo, they unfortunately found by experience, that where prison officials were guilty of cruelty, they were quite ready to shield themselves by falsehood, and they did not even hesitate to put a falsehood into the mouth of Secretaries of State when answering Questions in the House of Commons. They had a case in point when the case of O'Donovan Rossa was brought before the House. The then Home Secretary (Lord Aberdare) categorically denied, on the authority of the prison officials, that O'Donovan Rossa had been handcuffed for 34 days consecutively, and that the prisons were most unhealthy. It should be remembered that the specific charges brought forward by the hon. Member for Mayo were not affected by the statements of the Home Secretary. A prison might be ever so healthy, yet the officials might carry on a system of cruelty to the unhappy inmates. That had been established before; and he doubted not if a full and fair investigation were granted, it would be found that such cruelty was practised in the convict prisons of England.

said, the powers of qualifying the rules and regulations of prisons at present in force in England were very various. The Bill of 1865 dealt to some extent with the rules and regulations of prisons, but not as to their treatment to the extent that he should like. No doubt some modifications had been made, and some of the power had been taken out of the hands of the Home Secretary. For his own part, he brought forward Amendments in Committee as to the treatment of political prisoners, and they were, as a consequence, put under the Prisons Act of 1865. In some instances the Committee decided upon making rules themselves, but that principle was pushed far enough; and he should like to see as many of the regulations as possible under the borough and county gaols under the operation of this Bill, and framed by that House. The Home Secretary had just told them that his object was to make uniform the regulations of the various prisons throughout the country. It was an interesting matter in connection with the subject that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) had carried a Motion for a Return of all the prison rules in force in Ireland, and his hon. and learned Friend just now in- formed him that the Return was now before the House. He could not help thinking that it was very desirable for an English Member to move for a similar Return for England. He only referred to the question of the rules for borough and county gaols in order to show that a much greater necessity arose why the rules governing the treatment and discipline of convict prisons should be brought under the attention of the House of Commons. It was somewhat remarkable that the Government had considered that there should be a difference in the case of Ireland between the Board which was to carry out the directions of the Irish Bill as regarded convicts, and the Board which was to deal with borough and county gaols. If they had been put under the same Board, he should have thought that upon the score of economy the Government would have seen the necessity of having only one Board, as in England. As to the necessity for reform in the management of some of the convict prisons, he would call the attention of the House to a Report issued by the Howard Committee in reference to convict prisons, in which they directed attention to some of the evils of the English convict system. They said that the convict prisons were distinguished from borough and county gaols receiving criminals undergoing penal servitude. The Report referred to the Irish prisons, which were five in number, and which were to be placed under a Board under the Irish Prisons Bill. Then the Report went on to advocate the separation of the different classes of convicts. It said—

"The custom was to herd prisoners together in dens, in which there was a considerable amount of association, and then the warders were generally old soldiers, too apt to rely on force."

Upon this The Lancet remarked—

"Soldiers are not the most suitable persons to deal with criminals; they dealt with men as raw material to be beaten into shape, and they overlooked the fact that they had minds. There is no place for mind in the military system; but it is the mind which is at fault in the criminal."

The Association then pointed out the necessity of a closer inspection of convict prisons; and he (Mr. Parnell) wished to point out that this was a subject of the utmost importance, because under this Bill the power of Visiting Justices had been curtailed and almost nullified, and in their stead there was no one to make an independent inquiry into cases of hardship. Really reliable Reports were a sine quâ non. As an instance of the truth of the assertion of the Howard Association, he would refer the House to the Report of the Devon Commission on the alleged ill-treatment of O'Donovan Rossa, who was confined in Portland Prison; and, when that case was brought before the House, the Predecessor of the present Home Secretary (Lord Aberdare) promptly denied that there was any foundation for the statement, though he was afterwards compelled to admit there was foundation for it, and he was obliged to consent to the appointment of the Devon Commission to investigate the charges. That Commission reported that in every instance of specific charges as to ill-treatment of O'Donovan Rossa, and other persons, they were thoroughly established and well-founded. It was unnecessary for him to go further into the question, for the complaints of the Fenian prisoners were fully established before the Devon Commission; but before he sat down he wished to say that the Irish people were deeply interested in this question; that it was a question on which they could go to such extremities as they could not go on any other Irish question; it was a question that they would push on the attention of this House, and that they would make inconvenient to this House if necessary. While no exertion of theirs would be left undone to ensure that the attention of the Home Secretary should be directed to the consideration of the treatment of the few political prisoners still in prison, they would ask fairly and temperately that Parliament should look into the treatment of these men, that there might be some alleviation of the terrible and cruel lot and fearful treatment they had hitherto experienced.

said, he thought that this convict question was the only point in connection with prison reform that had ever interested the country. Convict establishments were an experiment which was forced upon the country against its experience and judgment, in consequence of the breakdown of transportation. The present Home Secretary was one of the most harsh, most unreasonable, and unjust administrators of the Office during the 25 years he had been in the House; because he had thought fit to lay down, in reference to the conduct of his business as a Court of Appeal in cases of miscarriage of justice, a rule which had never been laid down before, which was perfectly unreasonable, and which could not be justified for one moment, if the object of the law was to administer justice fairly and equally.

I fail to see the relavancy of the line of argument which the hon. Member is now pursuing to the Question before the House.

replied he would make every possible effort in his power to enable the Speaker to see its relevancy. It was disgraceful that prisoners suffering from a miscarriage of justice had no Court of Appeal for redress. It was a thing that could not for a moment be tolerated. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary stated to a deputation which he (Mr. Whalley) had the honour to introduce, that he would not listen to any questions of evidence that had been given in one of the Courts of Law.

I never said anything of the kind.

said he was glad to hear it, because it would have the effect of mitigating much of the feeling that existed out-of-doors, and more especially if the right hon. Gentleman would begin to act upon it. As other Members had been allowed to refer to particular prisons, he might perhaps be permitted to refer to the case of a prisoner confined in Dartmoor Gaol. Lord Rivers and Mr. Onslow visited him a few days ago, and they found that he desired to complain of his treatment, but that he was immediately stopped by the warder in attendance.

Mr. Speaker, it is not that I should wish to interrupt the hon. Member in the course lie is taking, if it were a fitting occasion, but out of respect to your ruling—that the observations of the hon. Member are not relevant—I think the House ought to support you in that ruling.

said, he thought he was going on quite successfully. It was most unintentional on his part if he had in any way departed from Order. He bad only been adducing the case in question, as an illustration of the manner in; which convict establishments were at present administered. He regarded the case referred to as one of the worst instances of injustice and cruelty that had ever occurred in this country. He must say that he thought the hon. Members for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) and Meath (Mr. Parnell) were entitled to the thanks of the country for bringing before the House the cruelty of the treatment to which persons were subjected in our convict prisons.

said, he could not but feel some little embarrassment as to the vote he should give upon the question. He, for one, thought that hon. Members should feel indebted to the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) for the manner in which the Amendment had been brought forward. From the beginning he had entertained very strong objections to the present convict-prison rules, as introducing a great constitutional change in the country. There was, however, a strong feeling in favour of saving some addition to the county rates, and he regretted very much that the Bill should pass on such grounds. If the Motion were carried to a division, he must vote for it as a protest against the present system of convict establishments. He knew of cruelties that went on at Mountjoy Prison under the discipline of the authorities, and inflicted upon persons confined there upon an arbitrary warrant, perfectly innocent, and yet subject to severe treatment as convicted criminals. He thought the time had come when this question should be considered without reference to political prisoners only, for the cruelties might be inflicted upon prisoners committed for no offence. Without going into the changes which might be introduced into convict establishments by the Bill, he thought the House would have been better satisfied if they had obtained from the Home Secretary an intimation that the rules of convict establishments would be subject to revision. The system was established as an experiment at the time when transportation was abolished, and in some degrees was forced on by philanthropists, who were influenced by kind motives towards the prisoners, although, unfortunately, their tender mercies had turned out to be very cruel. He could not, therefore, refuse to vote for the Motion as a protest; but he would appeal to the hon. Member for Mayo whether, if he pressed this Motion to a division, he would have a satisfac- tory decision upon it? The question he wished to raise was, that the present convict system required revision. He felt sure that there were many in the House quite willing to support a Motion for such a revision, but who could not bring themselves to vote for the Motion then before them. There were many who would share the reluctance he felt, and yet who would not with that reluctance vote in favour of the Motion, but against it. Therefore, a division would not decide the great question whether the whole system ought to be revised, or the treatment of the Irish prisoners, which had been incidentally raised. He wished to say one word in reference to the Commission. He thought that some person on behalf of the prisoners should have been permitted to put questions to the prison officials, and elicit the truth. He had offered to undertake that office, and in carrying out the duty, he would not have proceeded in a vexatious manner, and he regretted that his offer had not been accepted. By that means the truth might have been arrived at, and it might have led to the removal of many abuses. The conduct of the officials might have been entirely vindicated, though he did not think that would have been the case, and some satisfaction would have been given to the people generally. Upon the grounds he had given—namely, that a vote taken then would not fairly represent an opinion upon the question sought to be raised, he hoped his hon. Friend would not press his Motion to a division.

after the appeal which had been made to him, did not intend to put the House to the trouble of dividing. He presumed he would not be in Order if he proceeded to make a reply to what they had heard from the Home Secretary; but he appealed to the indulgence of the House for the opportunity of making a few observations in the nature of a personal explanation. In the course of the statement he had felt it to be his duty to make he had said he would lay before the House some personal experiences; but he had been so completely carried away by the details of prison cruelties that he had forgotten that promise at the time. For a period of six months he had been a political prisoner untried, and four months of that time he had passed in solitary confinement, without means of communication, and subject to severe treatment if he attempted any mode of breaking the silence of his prison. On a previous occasion when he had felt it his duty to submit this question to the House, he did not like to trouble the House with his own experience, because at that time he, with others, was looking forward for that act of amnesty and clemency which would wipe out the recollection of all such cruelties, and remove all the bitter feelings in regard to them. He begged leave to withdraw his Motion. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Main Question put, and agreed to. Bill considered.

moved to insert after Clause 10 the following clause:—

pointed out that this was not in Order.

pointed out that they were not now discussing convict prisons. The Bill dealt entirely with county and borough prisons. At present the rules for these prisons were not really made by the Visiting Justices but by the Secretary of State, for though the Visiting Justices had the power to initiate rules, they must be approved of by the Secretary of State. If they allowed the Visiting Justices to make separate rules all over the country, they would be defeating that which was the great object of this Bill—namely, the establishment of uniformity of discipline throughout the country.

supported the second reading of the clause. He ridiculed the idea of the Home Secretary that it was possible to secure uniformity of discipline throughout the prisons of the country inasmuch as the varying circumstances of each locality would render all rules framed with that intention impracticable. He hoped this discussion would delay the further passage of the measure, which he thought had not as yet received that amount of consideration the subject from its very importance required.

objected to the Amendment on the ground that it gave an absolute power to the Visiting Justices to make rules.

opposed the Amendment. It might be as well not to press it.

thought the proposed clause was a radically bad one and most mischievous—some of the existing rules might be very good. Question put, and negatived.

then moved the following clause:—

said, he could not support the clause as it stood, much as he desired to put down flogging in gaols. The clause was, in fact, impracticable. A man might wilfully break some prison rule within a day or two of the expiration of his sentence. The authorities could not detain him beyond that period for trial before a jury or at quarter sessions. Besides which, the clause would give the jury an authority which a jury never before had—the authority now vested in the Judge of determining the punishment to be inflicted upon the offender.

thought, as a magistrate, that it would be quite impracticable to refer cases of breach of discipline to a jury. Many prisoners held in contempt every other mode of punishment but flogging, and were only kept in order by the fear of its infliction. He believed it had been the means of putting a stop to garotting. It would not be possible to keep up prison discipline without retaining the power of flogging at the discretion of the Visiting Justices.

denied that the punishment of flogging had anything to do with the suppression of the garotting mania, as it had subsided before the Act making it punishable by the lash had passed the Legislature. It was, however, a strange coincidence, if nothing more, that immediately on the passing of that Act the crime it was intended to suppress, that of robbery with violence, increased.

wished to amend the clause so as to make it altogether prohibitory of flogging as a punishment for the maintenance of discipline.

informed the hon. Gentleman that before he could move his Amendment the clause would have to be read a second time.

said, he was disposed to support the clause, as it was a step in the direction of the total abolition of flogging. If the hon. Member for Stoke would consent to omit all the words after "regulation," and so direct the clause against flogging altogether, he would support it. Generally speaking, he was against these degrading punishments, for all such punishments tended to brutalize the victims. He was opposed to the corporal punishment even of garotters, and he was glad to hear that the repression of garotting was not due to its infliction. Surely other means of maintaining discipline might be found. It seemed to him that, of all places in the world, the last in which it should be necessary to resort to flogging was a prison. Let them take the case of a man imprisoned for an assault. Probably a passionate man, he might commit an assault on one of the warders, and would so render himself liable to be flogged at the discretion of the Visiting Justices. Thus a man might be flogged for an offence committed in prison, while he could not be flogged for the same offence committed out of prison. He thought flogging should never find a place in England except under the most dire necessity.

said, he was in favour of the total abolition of flogging in gaols. Even in the most refractory cases other and efficacious modes of punishment might be resorted to, but the lash hardened and brutalized a man. As he understood the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Stoke was willing to omit the latter portion of the clause, the provisions of which were not objectionable, so as to meet the views of his hon. Friend the Member for Mayo, he would support the second reading of the clause. A prison was the last place where such punishment was or ought to be required. Surely they could keep up discipline without it.

believed that flogging was not necessary for the preservation of discipline in prisons. Milder treatment and a system of rewards had been introduced into Manchester Gaol three years ago, and with good results. The punishments had fallen in one year from 3,745 to 746 by the adoption of a system of marks and of leniency, and it showed that prison government by means of hope and reward was the most successful.

opposed the clause. The very fact of the prisoners knowing that they rendered themselves liable to be flogged for breach of rules prevented the necessity of having recourse to it. It was, however, a punishment which he should take care should not be unnecessarily inflicted.

, in rising to call attention to the inequality of Irish and English Taxation, and to move the following Resolutions:—

"(1.) That the burden of Imperial Taxation imposed on Ireland is excessive, and out of proportion to her financial ability to bear it as compared to England.

"(2.) That this inequality is a violation of the promises made at the Union, and occasions a loss of capital which, accompanied by the annual absentee drain, is the main cause of the small material progress of the country.

"(3.) That to tax a poor country on the same scale as a rich one is in itself unjust and opposed to sound economic principles; whilst the fact that the excessive taxation raised in Ireland is in great measure expended out of Ireland forms an aggravation of the injustice, and makes permanent improvement hopeless until the present mode of dealing with Irish Revenues is altered,"

said: Mr. Speaker, although the House of Commons is the guardian of the public purse, financial discussions are not popular with it. Even the Budget does not always attract a very full audience; and the discussions of Amendments on the Budget, except they are of special importance, always take place in the presence of a select, and small audience. If, however, the grievances, in a monetary point of view, of Ireland are brought under review, no more unpalatable subject can be introduced to a Legislative Assembly. That arises, I believe, from a very general impression that these alleged grievances are unsubstantial, perhaps even fictitious; and if, in submitting them, I have to refer, as I must do to-night, for a very short time to some historical aspects of the question, the impression I have to combat in the minds of many of my hearers certainly will be that the case is altogether unfathomable. I do not share that opinion, and certainly should not bring the subject before the House of Commons again unless I had a firm conviction that it is of the most serious interest to the welfare of both countries. The more I study it, the more I see the iniquity of the present arrangements. I believe that the misery that has occurred in Ireland—I believe the miseries that have occurred in England owing to her connection with Ireland—have arisen in a largo measure from the financial relations of the two countries. First of all, I must ask the attention of the House to the strange impression in this country, and perhaps in the House of Commons also—that the Irish Parliament was an Assembly got together at the close of the last century, when England was in difficulties; that it assumed to itself the name of a Parliament without being one in reality; that it existed for a few years; that it did many improper things; and that eventually it was dissolved by the will of England, and for the good of both nations. Sir, that impression ought to be corrected. Parliamentary institutions in Ireland are almost coeval with the invasion of Ireland. There have been Parliaments in Ireland since the time of King John, and the Irish Parliaments have met with as great regularity as the Parliaments of England. I mention that because it is necessary to explain that the finances of Ireland were as much under the jurisdiction of those Parliaments as they are now under the jurisdiction of this Parliament. At the same time, the Parliament of England frequently attempted to interfere with the taxation of Ireland, but those attempts always met with resistance; and the accounts of such contests remind one very much of the contests that have taken place in this country between the House of Lords and the House of Commons as to which should have the custody of the national purse. Now, the Parliament of Ireland, long before 1782, which is the date many fix for the beginning of an Irish Parliament, imposed taxation. It had regular Budgets which were laid upon the Table of the House, and the Budgets were discussed just as Budgets are discussed in this House. In the year 1773 there was a Return made to the House of Commons of the amount of the revenue, and that revenue was something under £750,000. It was, stated more exactly, £640,000, and the debt was £976,000. This was taken from the average for the 12 years previous to 1773. The taxes were raised in this way. They were called "the King's hereditary revenue," and were revised from time to time. The last revision took place on the accession of Charles II., and the bulk sum was made up not only of King's rents, and all fines, and confiscations, and tolls, lighthouse, and so on; but it also included the Customs outward and inward, just as in former years we had both of them here, and as we now have inward Customs. It included duties on beer and wine and strong waters. Those strong waters—whiskey, was taxed, it may be interesting to say, at 4d. per gallon; and I do not know that Ireland was any more drunken than she is falsely accused of being now. There is no indication that Ireland was worse off because she paid a light taxation upon drinks and had the money to pay for other things. I want, however, to draw the attention of the House to the way in which the Debt and Revenue were administered in 1782, when the independence of the Irish Parliament was declared. That was during the troubles of the American War. What is called the independence of the Irish Parliament was nothing else than the repeal of "Poyning's Law," which was passed in Henry VII.'s reign, and prevented the Irish Parliament from really legislating for the nation, because all laws which it might pass were subject to the revision of the English Privy Council. What was called the independence of the Irish Parliament then was the repeal of Poyning's Law. The Parliament continued as it was and as it had been—all that happened was that the Privy Council no longer revised the Irish statutes. Independence, then, being established, I wish to call attention to the fact, that from 1782 to 1793—which may be taken as the prosperous period of Ireland's history, when she had the management of her own affairs—when she was not interfered with, the increase of Debt was only £162,000. The whole Debt, indeed, at 1793 was under £1,000,000, the increase from 1773 being little more than £500,000. Then came the troubles of 1793, and the Debt rapidly increased, so that in 1798 Ireland had contracted a Debt of £10,000,000; and in 1800, which was the date of the Union, the Debt of Ireland was £22,500,000. I desire to establish these facts, because they are very important. They are important because they show that the taxes of Ireland were very light when she had the management of her own affairs; and that it was not until she was involved in troubles with England that her Debt and taxes rapidly increased. What happened next? The English Government determined that the Irish Parliament should be suppressed, and for that purpose employed a mixture of cajolery, terrorism, chicane, and deceit. I will not characterize further the way in which the Union was brought about, because everybody knows it. One of the specious arguments used by Lord Castle-reagh was that it would stop the accumulation of Irish debt; he said that Ireland was rapidly running into debt; that the debt then amounted to £22,500,000; and he said—"If Ireland unites with us we will manage her affairs so that she shall share only in the proper portion of our expenses." The Union took place in 1800, and at that time the Irish taxation stood at £3,500,000. The very next year Ireland was taxed exactly double-£7,000,000—and the Debt augmented every year until in 1810 there was a Debt of £65,500,000. Such was the state of affairs 10 years after the Union. In 1816 the Debt of Ireland had increased to no less than £111,000,000, notwithstanding that she struggled hard to pay the taxes imposed upon her, as I will show to the House. In 1806 Ireland was called upon to pay £8,250,000. She did pay £4,500,000, and borrowed another £4,000,000. In 1815 Ireland was called upon to pay £17,000,000 of taxation. She did pay £6,500,000, and borrowed £10,500,000 more. I think anyone who reads these figures will come at the conclusion that the Irish people did their duty gallantly, and that the taunt ignorantly thrown out against them, that they preferred to tax posterity rather than themselves, is undeserved. For what do we find? In 15 years after the Union, Ireland was called upon to pay £148,000,000 in taxation; in the 15 years before the Union she paid £41,000,000 only—less than £2,250,000 a-year. I said before, that Lord Castle-reagh promised that the taxation of Ireland should be apportioned to the financial ability of the country. Was that promise kept? An objection was taken at the time that if a country having a small income was to be compelled to join a country with a very large income, and that if the country with a large income entered into war with another country—as this country did with France —then the country with the small income would be ruined. It is like the case of two individuals. A gentleman with an income of £500 a-year is asked to join in relative expenses with a gentleman with 15,000 a-year. But there are many expenses which may be proper for a man with an income of £5,000, and very improper for a man with an income of £500, and which he would never think of incurring. The Irish nation never wished to go to war with France. They never wished to be placed in the position of being united with England, and of incurring an enormous burden of debt, in order to dictate to the French people which form of Government they should have. When the Union took place, the Debt of Ireland was £22,500,000, and the Debt of England was £450,500,000; therefore, Ireland, a poor country with a small Debt, was called upon to join a country having a Debt without a parallel in magnitude. The Home Secretary has been asked several Questions recently by a Member of this House (Mr. Locke) about the privileges of the Channel Islands; and the right hon. Gentleman in his reply, while saying that the Islands had Home Rule, which he did not seem to like, added that there were no taxes in the Channel Islands. That is not actually true, but it is very nearly true. The people living in the Channel Islands do not wish to have Home Rule abolished and taxation imposed. Suppose, however, an enterprizing Home Secretary some day takes it into his head that this condition of things in the Channel Islands should be reformed, and that they should be joined to the united Parliament, you would financially ruin the Channel Islands in just the same way that you have ruined Ireland. Sir, I think I have established the facts as to the income of Ireland and as to the Debt of England. But now what was the proportion in which it was said by Lord Castlereagh Ireland should contribute to English taxes? His proposition was that it should be two-seventeenths of the joint expenditure. He said he fixed on this proportion because that was about the proportionate wealth of the two countries. That was a gross, a transparent, a most iniquitous and shameful deception. But it was carried by sheer brute force—by an unreasoning majority against everyone who knew anything about the finances of the country; against the protests of the Irish House of Lords, of Mr. Grattan, and of the people outside the House of Commons. Mr. Grattan said very truly—

"If this Union is brought about Ireland loses its liberties. The country that loses its liberties loses its revenues."

I shall quote, however, the opinion of one who will command the regard of hon. Members opposite. Dr. Johnson said to a friend—

"I advise you not to unite with us. We should only unite with you to rob you. We should have robbed the Scotch if they had anything of which we could have robbed them."

I do not, however, agree with that. The Scotch took care that you should not rob them. They resisted you, and resisted you successfully. They took care that you should neither rob them nor interfere with their religion, but the Irish were riot strong enough to resist, and you have succeeded in robbing them as well as in persecuting them on account of their religion. The Speaker of the Irish House of Commons (Mr. Foster) on this subject, speaking on the 17th of February, 1800, said, referring to the calculations of Castlereagh:—

"We do not want these speculative calculations; we have a better criterion than any of the calculations of the noble Lord to show what would have been our actual situation on the 25th of March last had the proposed arrangements then taken place. In six years, from 1783 to 1799, England increased her Debt by £180,000,000. During the same period Ireland increased her Debt by £14,000,000, making a total of £200,000,000. Well, if this blessed Union had taken place at this time Ireland would have been called upon to pay £23,500,000 instead of £14,000,000."—[Irish Debates.]

Now, that cannot be refuted; and in 1817, when the Debt of Ireland was two-seventeenths of that of England, the two Exchequers were united, Ireland having a Debt of £112,000,000, and England a Debt of £734,000,000. By the provisions made in the Act of Union the two Debts were amalgamated, and England became responsible for £112,000,000 of Irish debt, and Ireland became responsible for £734,000,000 of English debt, for which she has to pay at this moment her proportion of the interest. Nothing more iniquitous ever occurred in the history of any nation, and what explanation can be given of it on the ground of justice I am at a loss to know. The Irish public at last are beginning to understand how they were fleeced and plundered; and they know now why they have to provide immense taxes up to this day to cover debts which they never incurred, and to pay off responsibilities which ought to be cleared off by England alone. But now I come to modern times, and ask how has Ireland been treated of late? The answer is—In the last 25 years the taxation of Ireland has been doubled. She pays now £8,500,000 a-year to the finances of this country against £4,000,000 which she paid 25 years ago. But that is not all. During this period—that is the last 25 years — the population of Ireland has diminished by about one-half. If, therefore, the population is diminished one-half, and the taxation has doubled, that means that Ireland is paying four times as much taxes as she paid 25 years ago. The taxation of Ireland really is not quite so much as this, but it has arisen from 9s. 6d. per head to 32s. per head, or more than 300 per cent. During this time what has happened to us? We have had a famine — that dreadful affliction, which produced untold misery and suffering to the people, and which reflected the utmost disgrace on England. I remember the late Mr. John Martin being blamed in this House because he said what was literally true—namely, that the English Government was, to a great extent, responsible for the Irish famine. What he meant was this—float the abominable system of Government which was introduced and fostered, first by one party and then by another, had reduced the country to such a state that when the famine arrived it found Ireland an easy prey, and that therefore England was responsible for the consequences of her own acts, and that is quite true. If a man by neglect and mismanagement brings up his family in such a way that the first appearance of distress lays them low, he is responsible. But is it maintained that this doubling of the taxation is a proof of the prosperity of the country? There are people who say so. I believe the late Member for Dublin (Mr. Pim), who seemed to take about as cheerful a view as any one—as cheerful as the most hopeful Viceroy that ever made a speech at the Mansion House—(they are always stereotyped speeches at the dinner of the Lord Mayor of Dublin—Ireland is always prosperous and prospering—the patient is always dying of good symptoms)—even he cannot maintain that the increase of prosperity has been very great. In fact, it has been very small. Half the population is gone, and my complaint is this—that this enormous taxation, which I have shown to be totally out of proportion to the taxation of England, falls on the poorer classes. It is the poor working people who are taxed, and that is the class you always find discontented, and always miserable, and who are driven to emigration, and sometimes to crime. Last year Ireland paid the largest Excise duty ever known in that country. She paid £6,500,000, while a few years ago it was only £4,500,000. It is said that this Excise duty is a voluntary tax. I hear some one cheer what I have said; but I hope the hon. Member will wait until I have established my argument, for I contend that there is no greater fallacy than such a contention. Whatever my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) and others may say, alcohol, in some form or another, has formed a portion of the diet of man, if not from the creation of the world, at all events from the days of Noah, and it will very likely remain portion of the diet of man until there is no man left to feed. It is a monstrous thing to think that the particular beverage of the Irish people—the only beverage they make—should be taxed in this way; and I am perfectly astounded when I hear hon. and right hon. Gentlemen say, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) said the other night, that this tax on whiskey was imposed on moral grounds. There never was a statement more unblushingly or more scandalously unjust. The Excise duty on whiskey has been raised for no other purpose than to raise a greater revenue from Ireland. In 1853 the spirit duties were first increased. They were then raised from 2s. 8d. to 3s. 4d. per gallon. In 1854 they were raised to 4s., in 1855 to 6s. 2d., in 1858 to 8s., and in 1859 to 10s., and now they produce £4,500,000 a-year. If anyone tells me that this change was made on moral grounds, I should look on him as one of the most credulous individuals that could be found. When you talk of the Irish people drinking spirits, it must be remembered that they do not drink in anything like the way the Scotch drink, nor do they drink anything like what the English drink. The Irish people, if not amongst the most abstemious people in the world, are certainly the most abstemious people in the Three Kingdoms. Will you show me another part of the United Kingdom in which the people voluntarily close the public houses on Sunday? This is done in a considerable portion of Ireland, and these are the people you say are given over to this imaginary drunkenness, and by that drunkenness voluntarily increase the taxation. Look how you treat the Englishman who drinks his beer. Let us consider how that is taxed. The alcohol in beer is taxed at 1s. 9d. per gallon, but the alcohol in whiskey is taxed at the rate of 10^s. per gallon. If you tax the Englishman's beer as you tax the Irishman's whiskey, you would raise £90,000,000 a-year. You could pay all taxes and have a good balance to devote to the National Debt, and at the same time you would ease your moral conscience, which is so much disturbed, because your neighbours take their alcohol in the form of spirits rather than as beer, which is not to be obtained in country districts. You have raised the duty on the poor Irishman's whiskey from 2s. 8^d. to 10^s. per gallon, and your reason for that is that you act on moral grounds. Well, the Irish people do not ask you to remove the duty on whiskey. They do not deal with this great subject in any such paltry way, but they do ask you to deal justly with all. I have already pointed out that we contribute £8,500,000 to the public Exchequer, but there is no use in talking about the taxes of a country unless you know what the income is. What is the income of Ireland now? The most conclusive test that you can apply to that is the test of the Income Tax. There are, however, two tests which may be taken, but the most popular one is the Income Tax, and it has been quoted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for some years past. Now the Return of the Income Tax assessment for 1874 in Ireland was £28,500,000. We were called on to pay on that figure. In England the income was set down as £543,000,000. That was the relative wealth of the two countries ! The income of Ireland in the year I take was £28,500,000, and in England the income was over £500,000,000. But it is objected that the Income Tax in Ireland is not fairly assessed. It is said that the funded property in Ireland is not included in this Return, nor profits on office, and that the valuation of Ireland is a great deal too small, and therefore that our Return of the Income Tax is an unfair one. But suppose we make allowance for this on the most liberal scale. We are not particular to £2,000,000, and we will add £2,000,000 more to cover all that is likely to spring from a re-valuation. I think it is likely that if the Government Valuation Bill passes we should be taxed on £2,000,000 more; but allowing for all this, perhaps the highest estimate will be reached if' I allow the income to be brought up to £32,000,000 in Ireland as against £543,000,000 in England. How does the argument stand then? Why, Ireland pays £8,500,000 a-year out of £32,000,000, and England £78,000,000 out of £543,000,000—that is to say, England pays one-eighth of her income in Imperial taxes, while Ireland pays one-fourth. No one pretends that the income of Ireland is anything like one-eighth that of England, yet she pays at least one-eighth of the taxes. The wealth of Ireland is, indeed, more like one-seventeenth. But mark another fact. Such is the great wealth of England and Scotland that the assessment there has risen by £88,000,000 in five years—it has risen, in fact, to £543,000,000. That is a growth compared with which the growth of Ireland is infinitesimal. Ireland is the least progressive country in the whole of Europe, and yet Ireland contributes 5s. 3d. out of every pound liable to the Income Tax, while England pays only 2s. 7d. But there is another test as to the welfare of the country, and that is the test which has been applied by Mr. Dudley Baxter, who was very popular with financiers at the other side of the House. In 1869 Mr. Dudley Baxter, in estimating the total income of Great Britain from all sources, including wages, and so on, assessed the Income Tax at only £400,000,000, whereas now we know it is £543,000,000. I must, therefore—calculating on the same basis, and allowing for this increase—take the income of Great Britain at no less than £1,000,000,000 a-year. I make a similar careful calculation for Ireland, and I find that the income of Ireland is in that way £54,000,000 a-year. Now, £54,000,000 a-year is a large and an over estimate for the annual wealth of Ireland, and I have shown what it is has to be contrasted with the £1,000,000,000 a-year of Great Britain. Again, Ireland pays for local taxation £3,500,000, and England pays £34,000,000. You will, therefore, find that the Irish pay £8,500,000 of Imperial and £3,500,000 of local taxation, making a total of £12,000,000 out of an income of £54,000,000. Ireland, therefore, pays £1 out of every £4 108. which she possesses—a sum equal to 4s. 5d. in the pound taxation for Imperial and local purposes. England, on the contrary, pays only £1 out of every £10. England pays at the rate of 2s. in the pound in the year for local taxation and Imperial, and Ireland pays 4s. 5d.; and I may thus say that I have proved my first proposition. I have thrown what I wish to lay before the House into the form of three propositions, and these three propositions taken together contain an epitome of the financial case of Ireland. They are divided into three heads, and each one is like a proposition in Euclid, which must be proved; and those who answer, any one head must show that the proposition is incorrect. I have shown that the burden of Imperial taxation imposed upon Ireland is excessive. Will anybody say that it is not excessive taxation when more than a quarter of our income goes in taxes? I have also shown, in regard to her financial position, that she is not able to bear this taxation, and certainly it is out of proportion to her ability to pay as regards England. The taxation imposed on Ireland takes a larger proportion out of her income than taxation takes out of the pocket of England. I would rather, however, strengthen my case by quoting the opinions of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. I will take the Report drawn up by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer for the Irish Taxation Committee of 1862. He said—

"The pressure of taxation will be felt most by the weakest part of the community, and as the average wealth of the Irish taxpayer is less than the average wealth of the English taxpayer, the ability of Ireland to bear heavy taxation is evidently less than the ability of England. Mr. Senior, whose evidence on the position of Ireland will be found very suggestive, remarks that the taxation of England is both the heaviest and the lightest n Europe—the heaviest as regards the amount raised, the lightest as regards the ability to bear that amount; but that in the case of Ireland it is heavy both as regards the amount and as regards the ability of the contributor; and he adds that England is the most lightly and Ireland the most heavily taxed country in Europe, although both are nominally liable to equal taxation."

And now I should like to answer one or two objections. It is said that Ireland has a certain number of exemptions from taxes, and it is perfectly true that Ireland has not assessed taxes and some others to pay. Let us look closely at what they are. The taxes from which Ireland is exempt is the land tax, the railway passenger duty, and, formerly, also the assessed taxes—some of which latter Ireland was supposed to be unable to pay. The practical result of those exemptions is very little—perhaps they would make an additional £326,000 a-year if estimated on the scale of their produce in England; but to say that this would have any effect on my argument is perfectly idle. Again, it is said Ireland receives great contributions from the Exchequer. Now, what are the contributions that Ireland receives? Ireland, you may say, gets £2,000,000 a-year from the Exchequer; England gets £3,100,000. Well, of course that is a larger contribution than Ireland would naturally be entitled to. But what is one half of this money given for? Why, £1,000,000 goes to maintain the Irish Constabulary—that army of occupation which England deems it necessary to keep in Ireland. In Ireland we do not manage our own police; but England keeps the police—armed as they are with carbine, sword, and pistol—as an army of occupation, and the police perform the duties of an army of occupation. I say that this £1,000,000 a-year ought to be added to the Army Estimates. England, in point of fact, thinks she is obliged to pay this money to keep the Irish in subjection; and to talk of Ireland receiving this as a contribution from the Exchequer is like buying the taws out of the schoolboy's pocket-money. I make not the slightest reflection upon the Irish Constabulary; I only say they are armed as soldiers and drilled as soldiers, because England thinks that unless they were armed in this way she could not keep the Irish in subjection. Therefore, all that Ireland gets is £1,000,000. But there is another objection, and that is one taken by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Lowe). That right hon. Gentleman discovered that it is not a country that is taxed, but that it is the people who live in that country. He says—"It is all fudge. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer was quite mistaken when he drew up these Resolutions on General Dunne's Committee. An Irishman pays no more for his whiskey, tea, or sugar than an Englishman does or than a Scotchman does. He has nothing at all to complain of." Anybody can see what a piece of jugglery this is. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowe) seems to think that Ireland is like an English county—that Ireland is like Shropshire, and that Ireland ought to bear exactly the same burdens as England. But, Sir, that was not the arrangement of the Union, and until you repeal the Union and get rid of it, you must submit to the terms—I will not say contract, because a contract requires two parties. But you must accept the terms you imposed upon Ireland; and if the Irish people are foolish enough to give up the question of geographical taxation their case is gone. Ireland was to be taxed in proportion to her financial ability as compared with England. It is not a question of individual taxation. It is a question of the taxation of the nation. It is a fraud, Mr. Speaker, for any hon. or right hon. Gentleman so to represent it. Ireland is a separate country, and was to be taxed as a separate country. It is separated by a wide space of ocean, by national feeling, by religion, and by those institutions, and the absence of institutions, which pointedly mark the separation between two countries. But, above all, it is separated by Treaty. You cannot abrogate the rights of Ireland any more than you can abrogate the rights of Scotland. Let me see this House interfering, or attempting to interfere, with the established religion of Scotland, and see what you will hear of it; and unless you felt strong enough to brave Irish indignation, you would not attempt to abolish geographical taxation. Ireland is to be taxed as a country, and not as a collection of individuals; and to tax a poor country like Ireland as you would tax a rich country like England is manifestly unphilosophical, besides being a breach of your honour. But there is still another tax on Ireland to which I have not referred. There is the absentee tax. There is £3,500,000 taken out of Ireland by gentlemen who never go near it, and this sum brings Irish taxation up to £12,000,000 a-year. This is what is taken out of the soil—out of the annual produce of the soil and manufactures of Ireland. My second proposition, then, is this—

"That this inequality is a violation of the promises made at the Union, and occasions a loss of capital which, accompanied by the annual absentee drain, is the main cause of the small material progress of the country."

I need not dwell further on that, for anyone can see that this drain must be a main cause of the small progress of the country. My third proposition is—

"That to tax a poor country on the same scale as a rich one is in itself unjust and opposed to sound economic principles; whilst the fact that the excessive taxation raised in Ireland is in great measure expended out of Ireland forms an aggravation of the injustice, and makes permanent improvement hopeless until the present mode of dealing with Irish Revenues is altered."

That is my last point, and I shall be brief. No Chancellor of the Exchequer over touches that consideration. You take £8,500,000 out of Ireland, and that money, for the greater part, is spent in England. I quite agree that Ireland receives in protection from foreign enemies as great advantages as England herself. Ireland has the same interest as England in the maintenance of the monarchy and in foreign affairs, and to that extent we wish to unite ourselves with England, provided our rights are respected. But where are all your manufactories? Where are all the dockyards? Where is everything that requires the expenditure of public money? Why, in England. You treat Ireland as a man treats a field when he takes a crop of grass off it every year, and never brings any manure to put on the ground. The man expects the field to go on yielding him crops, but in time it becomes barren. One of the reasons for the present condition of Ireland is that she has not her fair share of national expenditure. You actually argue that you are not justified in making a dockyard in Ireland unless it is shown to have superior advantages over England—that you ought to place the dockyard wherever, in an economic point of view, you can get the best return consistent with the centralization in England. That is all very well for you; but it is not so for the people of Ireland. We claim no reduction of the duty on spirits; but we do claim that some portion of the enormous sums raised from Ireland is spent in a rational and statesmanlike mode for the development of the resources of the country. We may fitly look to the Conservative Party for something of that sort. They never feel bound by the cast-iron rules of political economy when the landed interest is concerned, which are so much in vogue with the Party lately in power. One of your statesmen, Lord George Bentinck, tried to carry a comprehensive plan of railways for Ireland; but, shameful to say, he was defeated by the Irish Members themselves. They were bought off or influenced by the Government of the day, but such things are not to be done now. If the Ballot has not given a representation quite so agreeable to the amenities of social life, at any rate it has given Ireland a more real representation. Bring forward some sensible proposition; enforce the provisions of the Health Act; carry out a system of communication between town and town; provide for higher education, and remedy the dearth of middle-class schools. In India you spend money on public works, and you may do it wisely or unwisely; still your sentiments are worthy and philanthropic. I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take a wider view of this question. We do not, I repeat, ask you to reduce the duty on spirits. We do not want to become drunk, or to have adulterated whiskey. We ask the Chief Secretary to see, at all events, that it shall not be adulterated. Let them, as I have said, put in force the provisions of the Health Act, which they have never yet done. We want railway communications—we want harbours. We have not money to make them ourselves, and such is our poverty that I solemnly declare—and it is not only my belief, but that of many others—that two bad harvests do not stand between Ireland and starvation, so entirely dependent are we upon the bounty of Heaven. If the rains are excessive, or if the sun withhold for two years its heat, in spite of all your legislation, and in spite of all your speeches of your Viceroys at Lord Mayors' dinners, my belief is you would witness a great calamity, such as would rudely dispel your notions of Irish prosperity; and on this ground, as well as on their absolute justice, I commend these Resolutions to the House.

said, he should have preferred that some Gentlemen from Ireland had followed the hon. Member for Galway. Having, however, listened to the hon. Member, and seen the ingenious way in which he had brought forward his Motion, he could well understand that other hon. Members might be content to leave the question in the position in which he had placed it. He confessed the hon. Gentleman had stated his case with considerable ingenuity, ability, and plausibility; but, at the same time, he could hardly connect the speech of the hon. Member with the Motion which had been submitted to the House, and he confessed that the hon. Member had failed altogether to make out the case which he desired that it should accept. The point he endeavoured to establish was this—not that the taxation of the two countries should be altered, but that a good deal more public money should be expended in Ireland than was spent at present, and that, irrespective of the works being such as it would be best for the interests of the country at large to undertake. That was a proposition which it was difficult for the Government to accept. They would all agree that a certain amount of taxation should be raised, and that that amount should be as small as possible. But then, he asked, was it not undesirable to expend any part of the money so raised upon anything that was not in itself the most desirable object of expenditure? If £100,000, say, were spent in Ireland to attain an object which could be better attained for £50,000 or £60,000 in another portion of the United Kingdom, it would, he thought, be rather difficult to satisfy the House that that was a proper course to adopt in the interests of the taxpayers generally. But then, said the hon. Gentleman in effect—"I am not considering the interests of the taxpayer generally, but only of a section of the taxpayers; and I ask you, because of the peculiar position of the Irish taxpayers, not to reduce their burdens, but to spend a little more of the general taxpayers' money in their country." Well, if they took an extreme case and, in order to attain some material result in which all were interested, they expended, say, 50 per cent more to have dockyards in Ireland, rather than elsewhere in the United Kingdom, they would render it necessary to raise 50 per cent more by taxation. But if they did, they would increase rather than diminish the taxation of the people generally, and therefore of the people of Ireland, who bore their proportion of the general expenditure. That was an argument against which he resolutely protested, and against which he hoped all future Chancellors of the Exchequer would resolutely protest. When they considered how the Imperial expenditure ought to be regulated, they should provide that it should be employed in the manner most generally advantageous to the Empire so as to get as nearly as possible the best shilling's worth for their shilling. The hon. Member said that the Irish taxpayers paid more on account of their whiskey than did the English taxpayers for their beer. Well, that argument contained a fallacy, and the hon. Gentleman did not press it. What he asked was that a little more of the money so raised should be spent on public works in Ireland. That was a question which the hon. Gentleman fairly admitted was not a new one. In one form or other it had been considered since the time of the Union, and for the last 15 years, at least, in the shape in which it had been now brought under the notice of Parliament. General Dunne, a valued friend of his (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), had obtained a Committee to consider the subject, the Report of which Committee it fell to his lot to draw up; and one question considered by that Committee was, whether the taxation raised as between England and Ireland might not be compared to the taxation raised as between one English county and another? But anyone looking at the question might well remember that they lived in a United Kingdom, having one common Debt and one naval and military Service. The question might be asked why this complaint of unfair taxation was so often raised on the part of Ireland. Ireland, it was true, did not contain so large a number of wealthy men as an equal portion of the North of England or Middlesex, but the same might be said of portions of Scotland, Wales, and England itself. Why, then, were they told that if equal taxes were laid upon both countries the incidence of taxation fell unfairly on that portion of the Kingdom? The House must remember the manner in which the union of the two countries was effected. Ireland 100 years ago had a very small Debt and raised a small revenue, and when the two countries were united, the proportion of Debt borne by each was very different. The question was most carefully discussed by General Dunne's Committee, and the conclusion to which that Committee came, and which was founded upon the evidence, had never been shaken. The whole matter rested on the 7th Article of the Treaty of Union, which provided that certain proportions should be maintained between the revenues of one country and the other. It was enacted that for the space of 20 years after the Union the contributions of Great Britain and Ireland towards the expenditure of the United Kingdom should be defrayed in the proportion of 15 parts by Great Britain and two parts by Ireland. After the experience of 20 years it was provided that these proportions should be revised according to certain rules laid down, unless Parliament declared that the expenditure of the two countries should be defrayed in two equal parts. This evidently contemplated that a system of indiscriminate duties might possibly be found equitable and desirable. A provision was also made that in the event of either country raising a loan, the portion of the loan raised for the particular country should be kept distinct and added to the Debt of that country. It was also declared to be in the power of Parliament to declare that the whole of the Debts of the two countries should be amalgamated. What happened? At the time the Union was made England was about to plunge into a very serious and expensive war. The Union was not brought about with that particular view, but the war broke out and it subjected this country to a large expenditure. Well, up to that time there had been two Exchequers. The Irish Exchequer had been replenished by the taxation of Ireland, and the English Exchequer had been replenished by the taxation of England, and a common fund was to be provided in fixed proportions by the two countries. The English portion was provided partly by loans and partly by heavy taxation, particularly by the Income Tax. In point of fact, the Irish Exchequer was not replenished in the same way, and the Irish proportion was raised by an addition to the separate Debt of Ireland.

begged to assure the right hon. Gentleman that Irish taxation was increased just as much as English taxation.

said, this matter had been gone into fully by General Dunne's Committee, and if the hon. Gentleman would take the trouble to refer to the Report of that Committee, he would observe what the expenditure was, and he would see that Ireland did not by any means raise the whole amount of her expenditure by taxation, but by a system of borrowing, and the consequence was that Ireland had to bear a charge for interest which, at compound interest, involved Ireland in a very heavy liability. The Debt of Ireland, which at first bore a small proportion to that of England, had, in this way, run up by the year 1816 or 1817 to the proportion of two to 12 instead of two to 15; and consequently the Parliament of that day found that Ireland was being crushed by the amount of her Debt. Now, he did not defend the arrangement which was made at the time of the Union. He owned that he thought it was not a fair one for Ireland; but it was one which would no doubt have ultimately crushed Ireland by reason of the largo amount of Debt imposed upon her. The Parliament, therefore, of 1816 and 1817, recognizing this fact, inquired into the subject, and they agreed to do that which had been contemplated at the time the monetary arrangements were made at the time of the Union, and amalgamate the Exchequers and Debt, and a certain portion of Ireland's Debt was there and then paid off. That was, in his opinion, a perfectly wise and equitable arrangement, and England did well to adopt it. 'What was the state of things from that time forward? There was no longer a sepa- rate system of taxation for the two countries. It became necessary that we should tax the whole country but the taxes were not equally laid; they were laid with great discrimination in favour of Ireland; many were imposed in England from which Ireland was exempt; though, from time to time, as the two countries became more equal, these discriminations had been done away with, and taxes peculiar to England had been either repealed or extended to Ireland, and the lower taxes imposed at first on Irish manufacturers had been equalized with those paid by English manufacturers. Still, there were some, and not inconsiderable, taxes which were borne by England and not by Ireland, and these included the house duty, the railway passenger duty, the land tax, and assessed taxes. As a matter of fact, this was one of the marked differences which had been made between the two countries, and that being so, he could not understand how it was that Gentlemen from Ireland could come forward and make the complaint which the hon. Member for Galway had made that evening. The hon. Member said that Imperial taxation in Ireland was excessive as compared with England. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) could never make out how that statement could be justified; for whether they looked at direct taxation, or at taxes on articles of consumption, the taxation, so far as he could see, was the same; and if Irishmen preferred to drink whiskey instead of beer or stout, he could not see that they were ill-used if they had to pay the same amount in taxation as Englishmen had to pay on spirits. Whiskey might be more suited to the climate than beer; but surely the hon. Member would scarcely contend that it was an absolute necessity of life. All he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) said was that if Irishmen chose to drink whiskey, they contributed to the Revenue according to their own taste and choice, though he did not see why they should not take their alcohol in the form of that porter which was a celebrated production of Ireland, or why they should call upon the Englishman as a beermaker to relieve them of taxation. If the taxation was uniform, there was no ground of complaint in the fact that a larger proportion came from the people of Ireland than from the people of England, even Through the people of Ireland might be poorer, just as the people of England, in some parts of England, were poorer than in others. Excluding such sources of revenue as the Post Office and the Telegraphs, he found that the people of Great Britain were taxed £2 a-head, and those of Ireland £1 8s.; and he, therefore, could not see the inequality complained of. The bargain made at the time of the Union had been modified for the benefit, not of England, but of Ireland, and he believed the proportion of 15 to two in the Revenue paid by Ireland as compared with that paid by Great Britain, was still maintained. The grants made out of the Imperial Exchequer for Irish local purposes were much larger than the grants for similar purposes to England and Scotland, setting aside that for the Irish Constabulary. The Income Tax, Customs, and Excise Returns, showed that Ireland had advanced in prosperity, perhaps more than England, during the last year or two. In short, Ireland was not being crushed in the way the hon. Gentleman wished to represent her, and she was not being overwhelmed by this great amount of taxation. It was quite true, as stated in the passage he introduced into the Report of General Dunne's Committee, that the same taxation would bear more hardly on a poorer country than on a richer one; but it was also laid down in that Report that the poor of any country suffered more than the rich; and that was a good reason for keeping down taxation and for having regard to the weakest link, in the chain, but it would be unfair and unjust, for the sake of benefiting Ireland, to increase the taxation of the United Kingdom. These arguments had been presented on former occasions and accepted by the House; but the hon. Member, like the man with an idée fixé, who would persist in believing that his friend wore a white hat in winter, still returned to the charge, and, in spite of all that was said to the contrary, would affirm that Ireland was overtaxed. They proved to the hon. Gentleman that Ireland was not overtaxed; that the arrangements at the Union, which, if maintained, would have crushed Ireland, had been changed for the benefit of Ireland; they proved to him that the taxation of the two countries had since been uniform, and they proved to him that if his remedy were adopted they would injure both the Irish taxpayer and the poorer British taxpayer also; but all this was in. vain, they knew very well that next year the hon. Gentleman would again come forward with precisely the same proposition.

said, he would mention a few matters of fact about which there could be no question. Referring to alcoholic liquors, the tax on spirits consumed in England was lower than that on spirits consumed in Ireland. Between 1841 and the present time the tax on alcoholic drinks consumed in England had been largely reduced; while, during the same period, it had been immensely increased in Ireland, there being an increase in spirits alone of £2,500,000 a-year. The taxation per head of Great Britain was, no doubt, considerably greater than that of Ireland; but no argument could be drawn from that in favour of England, if he proved that the taxation per head on the people of Ireland had enormously increased during that period and had decreased in England within the same period. Taxation in Ireland, during the last 30 years, had been enormously increased per head, while in England it had been largely decreased. In 1841 the taxation per head in Ireland was 10s. 1d.; in 1871 it was £1 4s. 6d.; while in England in 1811 the taxation per head was £2 4s., and in 1871 it was only £2 1s. After the Famine in Ireland the taxation in that country was raised from £4,000,000 to £7,000,000, while the population had been reduced 2,500,000 within the last 30 years, which he attributed to the conduct of those who generally occupied the front Opposition bench in that House, but which, at that particular time, was empty. It was monstrous to suppose that separating at first the Exchequer of Ireland from that of England, and afterwards consolidating them, had done any good for Ireland. The Exchequer of Ireland was kept separate until Ireland was swamped by reaching a public Debt in the same proportion as a country that was better able to bear it; and when it was brought up to a figure that appeared to justify the act the two Exchequers were consolidated, and the same taxes were laid on both countries, though, he admitted, not altogether at once. The duty on claret had been reduced from 5s. to 1s. 2d. per gallon, while the duty on spirits had been increased from 2s. 10d. to 10s. 1d. per gallon. The fact was that Englishmen paid 4s. per gallon on port and sherry, whilst Irishmen had to pay 10s. per gallon on whiskey used for the purpose of making grog up to the same strength as the Englishmen's wine. It was said that the climatic condition of a country had a great deal to do with the kind of liquor consumed, and it did not suit the people of Ireland and Scotland to take their stimulants in the same form that suited the English, but he could not understand why the two counties should not be taxed in the same proportion. He thought the hon. Member for Galway, in saying that one of the remedies he would seek for would be a greater expenditure upon public works in Ireland, scarcely meant so much as had been attributed to him by the right hon. Baronet. He thought he merely meant that it would be the means of levelling up the disparity which he did not wish to level down by cheapening alcoholic liquors. For his own part, he thought that a remedy might be found in giving any surplus obtained by this unequal taxation in aid of local taxation in Ireland. The right hon. Baronet had referred to the fact that there were certain portions of the community in this country who suffered quite as much as Ireland from inability to pay taxes. He was asserting a proposition which nobody ever attempted to refute. To say that in some parts of England, and in some parts of the North of Scotland the people were as badly off as in Ireland, was no answer to the question. The poor they would always have with them. What they had to do was to raise the standard of the prosperity of the communities as a whole. Let the Chancellor of the Exchequer consider this fact as the net result of the taxation system. If they had added together all the valuations of property in England, as set forth in the various Schedules under the Income Tax Act and in other ways, and which perhaps amounted to between £400,000,000 and £500,000,000, it would be found that the Imperial taxation of Great Britain was 2s. 6¼d. in the pound. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had an honest and candid mind, but the bench upon which he sat was not favourable to that quality of mind in its highest degree; and it was his duty to answer their indictment both for the past and present state of things as best he could, but the right hon. Gentleman must see the the injustice of it when he knew that if all the valuations of property in Ireland were added together the Imperial taxation was no less than 5s. 3d. in the pound. He granted that Ireland was exempted from the railway passenger duty and from the assessed taxes; but if those imposts were added to the present burden of the Irish taxpayers they would only increase that burden to about 5s. 3½d. in the pound, instead of 5s. 3d., so that the advantage of those existing exemptions to Ireland was represented by a very small sum indeed. In conclusion, he did not rest the case on the history of the remote past, but on what had been done within the last 30 years, and the not result of that was that the taxation per head had been proportionately lessened in Great Britain and enormously increased in Ireland.

rose to say a few words before the discussion closed, but felt that he spoke under a disadvantage, seeing that the front Opposition bench was then empty. He regretted that circumstance the more because the usual occupants of that bench were in power when the taxation of Ireland was increased; and if the Leaders of the Liberal Party in that House wished to conciliate the people of that country they would hardly attain their end by being "conspicuous by their absence" from a debate at which it was their duty to be present. The first Resolution before the House affirmed—

"That the burden of Imperial Taxation imposed on Ireland is excessive, and out of proportion to her financial ability to bear it as coin-pared with England."

That was a simple matter of fact, and quite independent of any deduction which might be sought to be drawn from it. Whether they ought to reduce the Irish spirit duties, or to expend more money for Imperial purposes in Ireland, or to give relief to local rates in that country, was a question which was not involved in that Resolution. It was idle to assert that they treated England and Ireland as one country in financial matters, because they assumed that had two distinct countries to deal with when they exempted Ireland from the assessed taxes. It was the greatest fallacy to say, as the right hon. Member for the University of London (Mr. Lowe) held, that as long as they had a system of individual taxation, no injustice was done to Ireland. But suppose they taxed everybody who went to mass, would not that be an injustice to Ireland, even although the Chancellor of the Exchequer might say that people went to mass of their own choice, and that the tax was levied in both countries? If they selected any tax which fell heavier on the people of Ireland than on the people of England they undoubtedly placed a greater burden on the one country than on the other. They were now levying from Ireland about £8,000,000 out of the £70,000,000, which was about the total sum raised in the shape of Imperial taxation. How could that be said to be the fair proportion which Ireland should pay relatively to her ability to contribute as compared with England? Take the case of the income tax, for example. According to the relative abilities of the two countries, we ought to levy between £4,500,000 and £5,000,000 in Ireland; whereas, in fact, we were levying no less than £8,000,000. Ireland paid 3s. 2d. out of every pound of her income, while Great Britain paid only 1s. 8d. These were facts, and they were not contradicted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. When the Exchequers were consolidated the very first step taken by the United Parliament was to relieve Ireland from a great portion of the burden of taxation by which she had been endeavouring to meet the two-seventeenths of the total Revenue. From 1817 to 1842 Ireland contributed less than. two-seventeenths. In 1853 the income tax was extended to Ireland. He had a strong impression than an income tax took far more from a poor country than it did from a rich country in proportion to its income. With regard to the duty on spirits, which had, he thought, been raised gradually from 2s. 6d. to 10s., it fell particularly heavily on the Irish people. If it was asked why they drank whiskey, he would reply that it was because they chose to do it, and because it was their habit. It was necessary to take the habits of a people into account in taxing them, and was wrong to force their habits by means of taxation. The facts by which the Resolution was supported were clear and undeniable, and although it might have been an intelligible course in opposing it to move the Previous Question, he altogether failed to perceive on what grounds an absolute negative to it could be given.

said, there was one argument underlying all the speeches of the hon. Gentlemen who had addressed the House—namely, that the duty paid on spirits in Ireland as against the duty payable on spirits in England was excessive. That was a perfectly sound argument. There was no doubt that the duty paid on alcohol in Ireland was a much larger tax per gallon than that paid per gallon on the alcohol consumed in England, and it was most inequitable that the English should have their alcohol at a lower tax, merely because they took it in the form of beer; and if the Mover of the Resolution had confined it to that point, and had asked simply for an equalization of the duty on spirits, he should have been ready to support him. He considered that a real and grave injustice. But on that point, which was a just though a narrow one, they were asked to assent to a much larger proposition, for which he could not vote. In 1872 a Return was laid before the House which showed that the state of things was in reality very different from that which the hon. Gentleman had represented it to be. In that year the revenue from England was £47,500,000, from Scotland £7,250,000, and from Ireland only £6,000,000; and at the same time the expenditure on the Civil Service Estimates and from the Consolidated Fund, as far as special to each country, was £3,700,000 in England, £598,000 in Scotland, and £2,400,000 in Ireland. He thought that showed that while the revenue from Ireland, particularly as compared with Scotland, was unduly small, the expenditure on Ireland as compared with Scotland was unduly large. Under these circumstances, he could not support the Resolution as it stood; but if it were confined to the equalization of the duty on spirits he would have supported it.

would go further than the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken. He believed there were £4,000,000 spent in Ireland. This included £2,000,000 on the Civil Service, £1,000,000 on the Army, £500,000 on the Navy, including the coastguard. As the taxation of Ireland was over £8,000,000, this showed that there was an annual drain out of Ireland into England of between £3,500,000 and £4,000,000. This was their great grievance. The Civil Service Estimates were not too large in the gross, but they were badly distributed. Too little was spent on education, and too much on law establishments, the expenditure on which was in a great measure a bribe held out to certain classes. They spent very little money on the Army in Ireland, all the manufacturing establishments, both for the Army and Navy, being in England. If they were governed by purely economic principles, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer asserted, the establishment at Enfield would be removed to Sheffield, Woolwich to a coal district, and the dockyards of Portsmouth and Plymouth probably on the Clyde. There was no better place than Cork for a naval station on strategic grounds; but the object of the Government was to concentrate all their naval and military stations near London, and that inflicted a grave financial injustice on Ireland. It was not to get value for their money that these establishments were kept in England, but in order to concentrate them, partly for political reasons, and partly to conciliate electioneering interests which had grown up in certain places.

, in reply, complained that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not met his Motion with the only arguments that could be properly adduced against it — namely, figures. As to Ireland being a poor country, as a matter of fact in 1853, the taxation of that country was raised, and raised in the most iniquitous way, by increasing the duty on spirits from 2s. 8d. per gallon to 10s., spirits being the only article on which they could pay increased taxation. This question was one full of complications, and a vast amount of labour was required to get behind it; but it would recur, and become better understood every year by the Irish people, and he believed they would soon learn the various forms the question assumed, and make it worth while for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to meet their complaints.

moved that the Select Committee do consist of Nineteen Members:— Mr. LOWE, Mr. EDWARD STANHOPE, Mr. CHADWICK, Mr. HUBBARD, Sir HENRY JACKSON, Mr. GOLDNEY, Mr. HOPWOOD, Mr. ASHBURY, Mr. RYLANDS, Mr. SAMPSON LLOYD, Mr. KIRKMAN HODGSON, Mr. ISAAC, Mr. SHAW, Mr. KNOWLES, Mr. ALEXANDER BROWN, Mr. ALFRED MARTEN, Mr. Serjeant SHERLOCK, Mr. ORR EWING, and Mr. GREGORY."

objected to the Nineteen Members proposed by the hon. Member as being, as regarded the Bill in question, all of one colour, and made a nomination of his own. He accepted most of the names, but strongly objected to having so many of those Members whose names were on the back of the Bill of this year. To show how unfair was the selection of names, he had only to state that five names that were on the back of that objectionable Bill were being put on this Committee; while not one name was taken from those who had opposed the Bill or tried to amend it. He understood the hon. Member to have said that he would accept the alterations suggested by the list he (Mr. Anderson) had placed on the Paper.

replied that all he had said was that rather than have no Committee he would accept that of the hon. Gentleman, but he preferred his own selection.

moved to substitute for Mr. Rylands the name of Mr. M'Lagan, as representing certain Amendments which had been set down anent the Bill.

said, he had no objection to the hon. Member for Linlithgowshire (Mr. M'Lagan), but as the hon. Member for Glasgow was going to strike out the name of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Shaw), he should vote for the original list. Motion negatived. Mr. LOWE, Mr. EDWARD STANHOPE, Mr. CHADWICK, Mr. HUBBARD, Sir HENRY JACKSON, Mr. GOLDNEY, Mr. HOPWOOD, Mr. ASHBURY, Mr. RYLANDS, Mr. SAMPSON LLOYD, Mr. KIRKMAN HODGSON, Mr. ISAAC, and Mr. SHAW nominated Members of the Committee.

moved to insert the name of Mr. Charles Lewis instead of that of Mr. Knowles. Motion made, and Question put, "That Mr. Knowles be one other Member of the Committee." The House divided:—Ayes 111; Noes 21: Majority 90.—(Div. List, No. 154.) Mr. ALEXANDER BROWN, Mr. ALFRED MARTEN, Mr. Serjeant SHERLOCK, Mr. ORR EWING, and Mr. GREGORY nominated other Members of the Committee, with power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.

rose to call attention to the Petition of John De Morgan, praying to be heard at the Bar of the House; and to move the following Resolution:—

"That there be laid before this House, a Return of the expenditure in relation to the Tichborne prosecution, specifying separately the sums paid and expended on account thereof, as was done in the case of the Welsh fasting girl, and especially the sums paid to or expended in respect of such persons as were subpœnaed or retained as witnesses on the part of the prosecution but were not called upon to give evidence on the trial, with their names and addresses, and the sums paid to or expended in respect of each person"

When— Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,