asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, When he proposes to ask the House to give precedence to Government Business on Tuesdays and Wednesdays during the remainder of the Session? He had put the Question on the Paper in the hope that the right hon. Gentleman would re-consider his decision as to depriving private Members of the Wednesdays.

Sir, what I said yesterday was, that I intended to propose that next Tuesday and Wednesday should be given to Government Business. I shall make the proposal on Monday, and it will then be competent for any hon. Member to make his observations on it.

said, that he considered the speech made last night by his hon. Friend the Member for Tyrone (Mr. Macartney) was well worthy of the attention of the Committee, and that the Amendment he had proposed was one of great importance, and highly deserveing of support. He (Mr. Rylands) was able to speak with some confidence upon this question of judicial patronage, because he had been a Member of the Select Committee upon Civil Service Expenditure, which sat in 1873, and which collected valuable evidence in relation to the expenditure in connection with the Law Courts of this Kingdom. In the course of the inquiries of that Committee, nothing was more striking than the great difficulty which the Treasury had continually met with in controlling abuses in the expenditure of the legal Departments. There had been a constant struggle between the Treasury and the Judges, and, as a rule, the Treasury had been defeated in their attempts to protect the public purse. It would be easy to quote many instances. There was the ease of the appointments made by Lord Romilly, when he was just on the point of retiring from his position as Master of the Rolls. It so happened that at that time the office of Clerk of Records and Writs became vacant by the death of Mr. S. A. Murray, and Lord Romilly thereupon immediately appointed his son (Mr. E. Romilly, then Secretary of Causes), to the vacant office; and his nephew (Mr. John Romilly) to the place vacated by Mr. E. Romilly. The Treasury protested against that abuse of judicial patronage in vain. They wrote a letter to Lord Romilly, stating—

"That although they did not dispute his statutory rights to fill up the appointment of Clerk of Records and Writs, or that of Secretary of Causes, they strongly dissuaded him from carrying out those appointments, both on general grounds and also with reference to the pending inquiry into the expenditure of Civil Services by a Committee of the House of Commons."

said, they need not be surprised that nepotism was practised by Judges, for, after all, they were but men, and therefore had their foibles. This patronage would be placed in the hands of a body practically irresponsible to Parliament if the clause were agreed to; whereas the Amendment would keep it in the hands of one of the highest officials in the Empire, who would be held responsible to the House through himself or his Colleagues. If a job came to light, it was always attacked in that House. He most cordially supported the Amendment.

opposed the Amendment. He thought if Judges did appoint relatives, the evil ended there; but if the Lord Lieutenant had the patronage, he would appoint political partizans, and the evil would not end with the appointment. The patronage by the Lord Lieutenant would encourage others to look for promotion in this way. The whole life of Ireland was destroyed and weakened by the patronage that was vested in the Lord Lieutenant, and he could, therefore, be no party to extending that patronage. Neither would he cast such a slur upon the Irish Judges as to say that they were unfit to exercise the patronage given to the Chief Judges of England.

maintained that the Lord Lieutenant was more likely, in the interest of the public, to make better and purer appointments than the Judges. It appeared from a list of these appointments that the Irish Judges had filled up every single berth with their own sons, nephews, and near relations. Was it to be expected that a Judge would hold the same strict hand over a member of his own family as over a stranger? It would be better that the Lord Lieutenant should exercise this patronage even for political purposes, because he would be, at all events, re- sponsible to that House. He hoped the Irish Members would give an independent support to the Amendment.

pointed out the anomaly that this patronage had been exercised by the Chief Judges in England and not by the Chief Judges in Ireland, and said, as long as it existed, the latter would be open to the charge that they were not fit to make these appointments. The question had on several occasions been discussed in the other House, and noble Lords, beginning with Lord Lyndhurst, had expressed opinions favourable to the removal of the existing distinction between the English and Irish Judges. The clause would place this patronage in the power of those who were best able to exercise it. The officers in question were those who were to carry out the work of the Court; they were necessarily brought into the closest and most confidential relations with the Judges; and if the Judges were to have credit given to them for the commonest desire to do their duty, they must be best able to select the most fitting men for these appointments. He ventured to say that no case had been made out for maintaining a different practice in Ireland from that which prevailed in England. The statement of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. M'Carthy Downing) that all the officers of the Courts were near relatives of the Judges could only be described as an assertion characterized by all the exuberance of Hibernian fancy; but he (the Attorney General for Ireland) would have no objection to a Proviso to the effect that these appointments should be made by the Judges, subject to the approval of the Lord Lieutenant. This would give a veto on any improper nomination.

thought it would be much better and more likely to secure good men if neither the Judges nor the Lord Lieutenants were allowed this large and important privilege. Judges in Ireland were appointed from strong political partizans, and were subject to much criticism. He hoped the Amendment would be pressed to a division.

said, that he had been Chairman of the Committee on Civil Departments, and the investigation into the Judicial establishments had been one of the most painful part of their duties. The Committee had recommended that a Commission should be appointed to inquire carefully into this branch of the subject. The tendency of the Judicial establishments was steadily to increase; it was extremely difficult to satisfy those connected with them that there was any cause for reducing the expenditure; and he attributed this mainly to the fact that the patronage of the offices in these establishments lay in irresponsible hands. To give the Lord Lieutenant a veto was a step in the right direction, but he did not think it was sufficient.

thought the Judges ought to have a voice in the selection of the officers of their Courts. He supported, therefore, the proposal of the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland, that the appointments should be made by the Judges, subject to the approval of the Lord Lieutenant.

opposed the Amendment. He considered it desirable that the Judges should have the appointment of the officers with whom they would have to work, and with whom they were brought into daily contact. It must be remembered that the Bill provided for the complete re-organization of the Staff of the Irish Courts, and it would be the fault of the Treasury if there was a single officer in excess of the proper number necessary for the discharge of the duties. Those who were best qualified to form a correct judgment considered that the patronage ought to be given to the Judges, and it would, in his opinion, be a great mistake to vest the appointments in a Minister of State. Not a single instance had been given of the abuse of Judicial patronage in Ireland, and there was no reason why there should be a different system there from that which existed in England. It could not be expected that the Lord Lieutenant himself would know who were the proper persons to appoint; he must in that respect be guided by others, and probably by the very Judges to whom the Government proposed to entrust the duty of making these appointments. He (Mr. Law) therefore asked the Committee to adopt the clause in the Bill.

referred to a case in which a Judge appointed a cousin of his own to an important lucrative situation, thus indicating the influence of re- lationship in the bestowal of appointments.

interrupting, said, he could assure the Committee that the hon. and learned Judge to whom the hon. Member alluded did not appoint his own cousin to the situation, and that the hon. Member was mistaken in the statement he had made.

Then, if he did not appoint his own cousin, he appointed the cousin of a brother Judge. He (Mr. Macartney) entertained a great respect for the Judges on the Irish Bench; but he did not like to see patronage placed in their hands which they might not in their distribution of it bestow on the persons best qualified to discharge the duties of the situations to which they were appointed.

said, that the Judges had signed a memorial to the effect that they ought to be on the same footing as their English brethren. In his opinion, the patronage in question was very properly vested in them.

supported the Amendment, and said it was the only patronage that was exercised without anyone being able to question it. Patronage should be in the hands of persons responsible to Parliament. It would be a good thing if the Judges had not as much patronage as they had at present, seeing that they were irresponsible as to its exercise. It would be difficult to alter that patronage; but now that they were discussing the question as to how the patronage was to be exercised, he certainly was in favour of leaving it in the hands of the Crown, where it would be best exercised. The Attorney General for England defended the appointments generally made by the Judges. There were no recent instances of bad appointments. The question was, whether the appointments should be in the hands of the President of Divisions, who knew what was wanted, or in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant, who generally knew nothing of the duties required to be performed?

said, he did not agree with the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt). It was useless to talk of bad appointments made in former days. Such assertions only exemplified what seemed to be the disposition of several hon. Members in that House, whenever they got a chance, to attack the Judges. The proposal before the House was simply preventive of the proper principle—namely, that the patronage should be exercised by the persons most capable of judging of the qualities necessary for the office. That principle, it could be seen, had generally been carried out by the Judges in England. His hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Charles Lewis) had spoken sneeringly of the Judges as not free from the ordinary infirmities of human nature. But if the Judges were ordinary human beings, they must desire, for their own reputation and credit, though they might from time to time appoint members of their own family, that the persons so appointed should be fit to discharge the duties. He put it to the Committee whether these appointments ought not rather be in the hands of the Judges of the Division, who knew everything about the requirements necessary to fill them with efficiency, than that they should be made by the Lord Lieutenant, who did not, and could not, know anything at all about them, and who would probably be influenced by political considerations.

said, if they gave the patronage to the Presidents of the Four Courts, they would have a happy family party of relatives of the Judges, but if they gave it to the Lord Lieutenant they would get the ablest men appointed. He entertained great respect for those learned gentlemen; but he would rather not see them vested with the power, and he should therefore support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Macartney).

said, the question was, whether this House would rather see the appointments to offices in the Courts of Law in the hands of two official persons, or in those of the Judges. The 14 or 15 learned gentlemen to whom it was proposed to give the patronage would have 14 or 15 times as many relatives as the Lord Lieutenant, and they certainly would not be so amenable to public opinion. He would cite a case of appointment of officers on the Staff of the Army. If the appointments were left in the hands of the officer in command of the Staff he might, as they fell vacant, fill the vacancies with his own relations, and it must be clear to everyone that in 10 or 12 years the Staff of the British Army would be composed of the general officers' relations.

in opposing the Amendment, said, the Committee should be careful not to vest the power of appointment to offices in the Courts of Law in the hands of persons who might exercise the patronage for political objects. He would mention, in illustration of his opinion, that a Member of that House who always supported the Government, and who, having a brother for whom he was desirous to obtain an appointment which had become vacant, hesitated as to the side on which he should give his vote when an important and close division was expected, but who, when importuned by the Government to give them his customary support, said—"What about the situation which I want for my brother?" The Government entered into his views, and gave to the hon. Member's brother the coveted appointment, thus showing how political patronage was disposed of in filling up official appointments. He maintained that the Judges were the fittest persons to have the power of appointment, and he would refer to a recent instance in which the four Judges, though swearing in the person, declared that he was not fit for the office. He protested against making these appointments political and handing them over to the Lord Lieutenant, to be pestered by recommendations of Members of Parliament. It was supposed in Ireland that Downing Street had got its name from the frequent visits of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. M'Carthy Downing). He believed the Judges in Ireland had exercised their patronage in the most honest, fair, and. honourable manner.

expressed his sympathy with the Amendment and his hon. Friend (Mr. Macartney), who sought to throw the whole of the patronage of the appointments into the hands of the Lord Lieutenant. Although the appointments by the Lord Lieutenant to magistracies and to the Bench had not been all that they could wish, he was opposed to the creation of new vested interests appertaining to the Judges. He was in favour of open competition, and he submitted that the Government had not shown that appreciation of modern requirements which might have been expected from them. It was said that special knowledge was required for appointments to the offices connected with the Law Courts. But how was it that persons without special knowledge were appointed to offices in the Army and Navy Departments or to the Civil Service of India? In the United States of America the offices were often filled by persons having no special qualification for them, but by political influence. That system prevailed long. He thought it was rather too late now to speak of special knowledge. It was proposed to make the Irish Judicature Bill different in important points of consideration from the English Judicature Bill.

referring to the proposal to give the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland a power to veto appointments made by the Judges, said, he was strongly opposed to any power of that kind being placed in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant, his opinion being that the exercise of such a power would make matters worse than ever.

in supporting the Amendment, said, there were some hon. Members in this House who, in reference to the patronage which Members of Parliament were supposed to have, claimed the right to dispose of it, and even for their own advantage. ["Name, name!"] He knew one hon. Gentleman who had expressed himself, as he thought, in that sense. The only sound system of appointment was open competition. All other systems were variously injurious. The Bill proposed to give power to the Judge to fix the situations, and then to fill them up.

said, if the hon. Member for Cavan referred to him (Mr. M'Carthy Downing) in the allusion he had made, he repudiated it. He had never been guilty of corruption. He was far above it. During his absence from the House he understood that the hon. and learned Member for Limerick had said that there was an idea that Downing Street got its name from his frequent visits there. The fact was, that the only time he had gone to Downing Street since 1874 was in the company of the hon. and learned Member.

in explanation of his visit to the Irish Office in company with the hon. Member for Cork, said, he in- timated to the hon. Member on that occasion that perhaps his constituents might not like to hear that he had been to the Irish Office, and that he might not be quite safe in their hands.

I tell the hon. and learned Member for Limerick that I am as safe, and perhaps safer, in the hands of my constituents than the hon. and learned Member is in those of his constituents.

moved, as an Amendment, at end of clause, to add the words—

"And Rules of Court as to pleading, practice, and procedure, empowered to be made by Order in Council as hereinbefore provided, shall be applicable to Local Courts of Record in Ireland, or to such one or more of them, and to such extent and in such manner only as said order may direct."

approved the Amendment, which he said was rendered necessary by an omission in the first Common Law Protection Act.

moved, as an Amendment, in page 53, line 36, after "retained," insert—" so that they shall in no case increase." He thought that the Lord Chancellor should not be allowed to increase salaries.

pointed out that the Lord Chancellor could only act with the assent of the Treasury, which was a sufficient check on the abuse of the power.

moved, as an Amendment, after Clause 18, to insert the following clause:—

thought the Amendment was not in the best form which might be devised. There were many men at 70 whose intellect and faculties were as clear as others at 50. At the same time, he thought some such limitation requisite, and that the power would be very properly vested in the Lord Lieutenant.

was happy to say that he believed there was hardly in Ireland a single Judge of the Superior Courts of the age of 70. Two of the Chief Judges were well under 50, so that was satisfactory if this clause should become law. But no arbitrary rule of the kind could be laid down, and, as had been said, some men broke down at 40, and others had all the strength of their intellect beyond 70. The rule would also open up a long vista of pensions for retiring Judges—no unimportant consideration.

said, the Amendment was a reasonable one. Surely when a man had filled the allotted space of most ordinary men—three-score years and ten—after good service to his country, he should be allowed to retire. He believed some limit ought to be put to the age of a Judge. [A laugh.] He did not mean the natural life of the man, but his official life. In various branches of the Public Service officers were forced to retire at an age earlier than this. Judges had been known to sit upon the Irish Bench after they were so deaf as to require to have an answer repeated two or three times; and there were other eases of Judges exercising their functions years after they had become physically incapable of doing so properly.

gave the clause a qualified support, and recommended the addition of words which would give the Lord Lieutenant for the time being power to extend the time for a Judge's retirement beyond the age of 70 years, if he thought the Judge in question still capable of efficiently performing his duties. A man's brains were generally gone at 70, but there might be exceptions. Lord Campbell was a good Judge for 10 years after he attained his 70th year. There were, however, on the Bench at the present time Judges who, much as they were respected, had nevertheless outlived the vigour of their intellect.

approved of the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member. He was determined, however, to press the clause now before the Committee to a division.

moved, as an Amendment, the insertion of the following clause:—

said, he could find no justification for such a clause. If a Judge should retain his seat after becoming blind or deaf, then it was a case for the House of Commons to decide, but it was monstrous to give such power to the Lord Lieutenant.

objected to the clause. It would be an invidious, an odious, task for the Lord Lieutenant or any other person to have cast upon him to measure the exact amount of infirmity which should disqualify a Judge from performing his duties. It was a matter which ought to be left to the influence of public opinion, as expressed in the House of Commons. He must appeal to the hon. Member not to press his Motion, and leave the power to the Houses of Parliament.

said, that the remedy would be arrived at in a roundabout way, and he would suggest that the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland might facilitate the matter by a proposal on Report to prevent a scandal which existed in Ireland, arising from incapacity, through bodily infirmity, of Judges to discharge their duties.

expressed himself ready to withdraw the Amendment, but said that the continuance of blind and deaf Judges on the Irish Bench had been a grave scandal, as some had continued there merely for the sake of keeping political opponents off the Bench.

ruled that the proposed new clause standing on the Notice Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) and providing that all Election Petitions be tried by three Judges, one from each of the Common Law Courts, was out of Order, as being inconsistent with Clause 41.

wished to know why the proposed new clause was out of Order? They desired to increase the number of Judges.

said, that the clause was out of Order, inasmuch as Clause 41 incorporated the Elections Act of 1868, which provided that Election Petitions should be tried by one Judge.

was proceeding to move Amendments to the' Schedule, when—

in rising to move—

"That, in the opinion of this House, the time has come when Her Majesty's gracious pardon may be advantageously extended to the prisoners, whether convicted before the Civil Tribunals or by Courts Martial, who are and have been for many years undergoing punishment for offences arising out of insurrectionary movements connected with Ireland,"

"A felon's cap's the proudest crown an Irish head can wear."

"Forgiveness to the injured doth belong;

They never do forgive who do the wrong "—

in rising to second the Motion, said, that after the very exhaustive speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) he had very few remarks to make on that very important subject. He did not stand there for the purpose of palliating in the slightest degree the acts for which these men were confined in prison. He freely acknowledged that they had been guilty of the offences for which they had been punished. He was too well aware of the necessity of maintaining discipline to say one word in palliation of the crimes they had committed; but he was there, in his place, simply as a Member of Parliament, to ask that honourable House, composed of the first Gentlemen in Europe, to take pity on these poor prisoners. He asked no more, and had nothing to say in their defence. They had been condemned, and, he would acknowledge, righteously condemned. Was it intentional to still promote the imprisonment and punishment of those unfortunate people? He rather thought that the verdict of the House would be the reverse. He asked, therefore, for pity for these people, and he hoped that he should not be disappointed. But there was one point he would like to argue with the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, and he took the opportunity of acknowledging that no right hon. Member ever occupied that position at the Home Office who had done so much justice to it, or shown more consideration for the just claims of those who were imprisoned. He rather thought, however, that, in the contest with respect to that question, the right hon. Gentleman had made a mistake—and he was not singular in it—for he had somewhat forgotten the history of his own country, in adopting the tactics used on a former occasion in reference to this subject. Other hon. and right hon. Gentlemen, who had stood up in former Sessions on the Conservative side, had adopted the same principles and tactics as the right hon. Gentleman. He (Major O'Gorman) said this without meaning any disrespect; but he begged most distinctly to declare to the right hon. Gentleman, and to the House, and to that great country, which must be the judge of them all, that it was not correct to say that a man who had been guilty of violence, such as it was acknowledged these men had committed, might not still be a political offender. He could prove that most of the great political men of the country for centuries back had been most violent political offenders, or most violent offenders; he would leave out the word "political." Their policy was political, but they had used violence for the purpose of carrying their politics into effect. And he maintained that the right hon. Gentleman, and those who had preceded him, in considering that great subject, had been guilty of incorrectness in saying that the offences these men had committed were simply the offences of vulgar murderers. If these men had been guilty simply of vulgar murder, then the history of England contained a great many very vulgar murderers; very vulgar indeed. For he thought he could prove that the most celebrated politicians in English history were men who had made use of outrageous violence. He would begin at the very head of society. Richard II., King of England, had been murdered by his own first cousin. He happened, unfortunately, to be in Ireland—that unfortunate country—when Bolingbroke set up the colours of rebellion in England. And when the unfortunate Richard landed, he was arrested and sat upon a wretched horse, and escorted up to London. He was the undoubted King of England; there was no doubt about it, no man could dispute it. He begged to lean on that question longer than he should wish for the convenience of the House, in order distinctly to prove that political offenders had generally been guilty of the most violent offences. The King had been brought up to London; and was it necessary for him to go through and recapitulate the sufferings of that unfortunate King of England in that very town? No! He was certain that hon. Members all about him were too well acquainted with their own history. He had been murdered in that town, and his Crown had been put on the head of his murderer, Henry IV. And by the will of whom? By the will of those men who now wanted to prosecute further the incarceration of these wretched Irishmen. [Laughter.] Well, if they denied their ancestry there was an end of it, and he was with them. Their King had been murdered by a rebel, and that rebel assumed the Crown and put it on his own brow. And he reigned, and his son reigned, and his grandson. And yet he had been guilty of the most utter violence that any man could have been guilty of. Now, there was an instance which he thought to be true. He would go a little further. He would show them another royal rebel and regicide who had been distinctly rewarded by the great English people—Henry VII., Sir Henry Tudor, a vulgar Welsh knight. He had been made Earl of Richmond by somebody, whom he knew not, and he did not care. He was only a bastard great-grandson of John of Gaunt. What did he do? Let hon. Members remember their history. It was of great necessity to him in his present case. Richard III. was the undoubted King of England. There was no mistake about it. But what did this regicide and rebel, backed by the people of England, do? He had raised the standard of rebellion, and in open battle defeated his own King, and they were told in Shakespeare, but nowhere else he was glad to say, that he had murdered him on the field of battle. That man, the vulgar Welsh murdering knight, had been made King of England. And yet that man was not only elected King, but they took the Crown off the head of the beautiful Princess Elizabeth, the only surviving daughter of Edward IV., who was made Queen Consort, though she was entitled to be Queen Regnant. That was the reward which was given by the great people of England to the man who murdered their King, and who refused to allow his wife to be Queen of England, to which she was by right entitled, while he had no more title to the Crown of England than he (Major O'Gorman) had. That beautiful Princess was the only surviving daughter of a man who had been King of England, and whose two sons, it was said, were murdered in the Tower, though he did not believe a word of it himself. Yet she was passed by, and, instead of being Queen Regnant, she became the Queen Consort of the rebel bastard, and no man in that House could deny it. He would now go a little further into the history of England. He did not want to detain the House long, and he was sure he might appeal with confidence to hon. Members whether he had ever been a bore in the House. [Cheers.] He was obliged to hon. Gentlemen for acquitting him of that at least by those cheers. He now came to a rebel who was not so distinguished a murderer as Henry VII., he meant Cromwell. He murdered Charles I., and what became of him? He died in his bed comfortably afterwards, the Euler of his country. It was a small thing to say that they afterwards pulled up his poor remains and hung them in chains, but that was all vanity. He was a regicide; he was a most violent politician, far more violent than those poor people who, after 10 or 12 years' imprisonment, they still wished to keep in prison—or rather they did not wish it, for he did not believe there was an hon. Member on the other side who desired to prolong their punishment. How could they with the history of Cromwell before them, who murdered his King and died comfortably in his bed? Could any one deny that? Not one. He was well known in England; he was well known in Europe; and England was never so much respected as she was during the Protectorate of Cromwell. So much for a violent politician of former days, who made use of the most violent means to accomplish his ends. The greatest compliment ever paid to Cromwell was when Charles II., the son of the man who was murdered by him, sent the son of the Earl of Cork to ask Cromwell to allow his daughter to be married to himself. If that was to be the reward of a regicide, let them open the prison doors to these poor people at once. They must do it; they could not refuse it. To come further down to more modern history, there was one name which he thought would he remembered in England for many days, and if not in England, at least it would be remembered in every other country in the world—he referred to George Washington. He thought it would be admitted that that gentleman was rather a violent politician; yet he slept in an honoured grave. Nobody passed by his grave except in silence and in respect. That man, if he had failed, would have been treated as a rebel. He was sorry to hear his hon. and gallant Eriend—if he would allow him to call him so—the Member for Brighton (General Shute) say last year that the Irish political prisoners should have been whipped at the cart's tail. George "Washington never whipped the Marquess of Cornwallis when he had him in his hands. No, he treated him with respect, as one whom he had conquered in honourable warfare; and George Washington, the greatest rebel of modern times, now slept in an honoured grave. Was it necessary to recapitulate the story of Louis Napoleon, who went from this country to Boulogne and deliberately with a pistol shot a man in the ranks of the French Army? What was his reward? He was made Emperor of the French. What was he to say with respect to Count Andrassy? Thousands of pounds were offered for him dead or alive by the Emperor of Austria. He commanded the rebels of Hungary against their rightful King—not the Emperor of Austria, but the King of Hungary—and what became of him? Was he in gaol like those poor fellows, the Fenian prisoners? No; he was now Prime Minister of Austria and Hungary too. If he went back some thousands of years—[Laughter, and "No, no!"]—he observed that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, though not exactly impatient, rather implored him not—and he assured him it was not his intention to do so; but if he were to go back he should instance King Mithridates. He reigned for many years as King of Pontus, and he executed 80,000 men in one day. He might be considered a very violent politician, but no one dared to use violence towards him, and he reigned to the hour of his death very com- fortably, and was never put in gaol at all. They sent Julius Cæsar to attack him, but he was too late for old Mithri-dates. Then there was an officer of the name of Sylla, whom they all must have heard of. He put 5,000 men to death one day while he was eating his luncheon. Some one who heard the cries of the victims asked—"What are these cries?" "Oh," said he, "A few scoundrels whom I have ordered to be executed." Yet Sylla was not only Dictator of Rome, but actually resigned that position in order that the people might try him if he was guilty of any crime, and they deliberately declared that he was not; and yet he was a most violent politician. He hoped with all this evidence he had convinced hon. Gentlemen opposite. Were they prepared to go into the same Lobby with him, or to say "agreed?" If they were, he should not say another word. He never got up in that House without intending to win. He hated speaking; he detested it. His hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire had asked him to go to Oxford to-morrow for some celebration or other. He gave him a half-promise to go, but when he was told that he should have to make at least three speeches he decidedly declined. Therefore, as he was not fond of speaking, if hon. Members only intimated that they were convinced by his arguments, he would sit down. In that House they were men, they were Gentlemen, they were Christians; he hoped they were all good fellows; and he asked—Was there any good fellow in that House who would deny liberation, after their long incarceration, to these poor men? He thought he had proved his case so far by the historical facts he had cited, but he should throw all those arguments overboard and go altogether on a new ground. He would rely altogether upon the kindliness and upon the good heart of Her Most Gracious Majesty Queen Victoria to release these prisoners, and he was sure that if his request were conveyed to her she would release them. He remembered long ago, when he was a young man, when she came to the Throne—

I must remind the hon. and gallant Member that the introduction of Her Majesty's name into the debate is out of Order.

said, he did not intend to violate the Rules of the House, but merely to mention a circumstance that came under his personal observation in 1874, and which he thought he was entitled to refer to. After the Session of that year, the first Session he had spent in that House, he returned to Ireland, and one day, when sitting in his room, a knock came to the door. He answered the knock himself, and found outside the door a man, poorly, but respectably, dressed. He asked him what his business was, and the man said—"In the month of May last my wife had three children at a birth, and I wrote immediately to the Palace asking for the usual sum which is given to poor people on those occasions." ["Question!"] He said he received an answer from General Sir Thomas Biddulph asking for particulars.

I am very unwilling to interrupt the hon. and gallant Member; but I fail to see the connection which the observations he is now making have with the subject before the House.

begged pardon; he was sorry he could not give the anecdote which the Speaker had ruled to be out of Order, as he thought it one of his strongest arguments. He hoped the Government would not advise Her Majesty at all; but would leave this act of leniency to the exercise of her undoubted Prerogative. ["Order!"] He was in Order, at all events in speaking of the Prerogative of the Queen. If the Government would only consent to suspend their advice, not for one day, but for one hour, he was convinced of the success of the Motion. The Prerogative of mercy was a grand Prerogative. If they were told the King of Sparta, Agesilaus, suspended the law of his country for one day, let the Ministers of England suspend their advice for one hour, and he had no doubt that the Royal Prerogative would be graciously exercised. Let Her Majesty exercise her Royal Prerogative and all would be well, for were they not told that—

"The quality of mercy is not strained;

It droppeth, as the gentle rain from heaven

Upon the place beneath: it is twice blessed;

It blesseth him that gives, and him that takes:

'Tis mightiest in the mightiest; it becomes

The thronéd monarch better than his crown;

His sceptre shows the force of temporal power,

The attribute to awe and Majesty,

Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings;

But mercy is above the sceptred sway,

It is enthroneèd in the hearts of kings,

It is an attribute to God himself;

And earthly power doth then show likest God's

When mercy seasons justice.…

Though justice be thy plea consider this—

That in the course of justice, none of us

Should see salvation; we do pray for mercy,

And that same prayer doth teach us all to render

The deeds of mercy."

defended those who were favourable to the liberation of the Irish political prisoners, from the charge which had been brought against them of being actuated more by sentiment, than by a just and fair consideration of the circumstances of their case. He held that it was by a sound judgment those hon. Gentlemen were guided who had now memorialized for the release of the prisoners. Had he (Mr. Pease), for one, been asked to sign that Memorial some years ago, he certainly should have declined. He had felt it a very painful duty to support by his vote those Coercion Acts which had been brought in and continued by successive Governments, because he regarded it as a public duty to guard against all assailants the integrity of the Empire and the securities for the peace and well-being of Ireland. But there were no such dangers to be guarded against now. As regarded the prisoners, there were now only six of them to be dealt with; two of them were connected with the Manchester outrage, three were military prisoners, and the other had been convicted of a distinctly political offence, described as treason-felony. Now, what had brought these men into contact with rebellion? On the other side of the Atlantic there had been a protracted and sanguinary war, which brought into existence, as was the rule with wars, a number of mere soldiers of fortune. Peace found these men without employment, and Ireland in a state of chronic disaffection, and they fomented the disaffection that existed and joined in the rebellion that followed. From the fertile seed-plot of the American war had been spread the germs of much lawlessness and violence, both in Ireland and in America. In the latter country it might be long ere the effects ceased to be seen. In Ireland the danger, they trusted, was overpast. The measures passed by Parliament had succeeded in removing much disaffection from Ireland, and that country was now in a much improved state compared with its condition 10 years ago. When these prisoners were tried crimes of all kinds were rife; now prisons were empty, workhouses were being closed, agrarian crime had almost ceased, and the Judges of the land were passing from circuit to circuit without finding any offenders to be tried. The country was in a state of alarm, and Government required to put forth a strong unfaltering hand when those prisoners were sent to gaol; but now they could afford to look back on the circumstances of that time, and make allowance for whatever tended in the past to lead them into rebellion. He had always thought, and he believed hon. Members who had investigated the circumstances would agree with him, that there was some contributory negligence on the part of the Executive Government. The authorities well knew, from telegrams they had received from Ireland, that a rescue at Manchester was in contemplation, and yet they permitted certain prisoners, the object of the contemplated rescue, to be accompanied only by two or three policemen through a crowd of on-lookers actuated by tremendous excitement. For the outrage that followed under these circumstances, moreover, three men had been hanged, while five or six others had undergone long periods of imprisonment, because of being technically implicated in the crime for which others had suffered the extreme penalty of the law. He could not fail to draw a distinction between the crime which was perpetrated under the political circumstances to which he adverted, and the deliberately planned assassinations which were the subject of discussion in that House the other day. when discussing the question of the pro- posed abolition of capital punishments, He, for one, believed that from the number of shots that were fired, had murder been contemplated, these would have been more effectual. ["Oh, oh!"] Such was his view. According to the evidence there were 20 to 30 men armed with loaded revolvers, and yet Sergeant Brett was shot unintentionally, in the course of an illegal attempt to effect a rescue. Then, again, the crime charged against one of the military prisoners was that of failing to give information of the contemplated rescue. That was, he admitted, an offence that called for punishment. On whom were they to rely, if not on the non-commissioned officers? But let it not be forgotten that that man bore a good character for 10 years' exemplary conduct—a circumstance invariably taken into account in estimating the severity of punishment due to crime; and then let hon. Members consider whether, after the long period of incarceration that man had undergone, it was not now a favourable time for inquiring how much longer for such an offence was imprisonment to be continued? Would not the country be as safe if the punishment were now remitted, as by its continuance? Were the Representatives of the people to say that it was absolutely necessary to the national safety and welfare that these men—some of them yet young men—must be kept in prison during the whole period of their natural lives? There was nothing derogatory to the power and dignity of the Government in giving a negative answer to this inquiry. Allusion had been made to certain men who had escaped. Had any steps been taken for the recovery of these men? He fancied the Government never wished to see them again. Well, they had had a real rebellion some years ago in Ireland, headed by a Gentleman who sat for many years in that House, and was highly respected by all who knew him—he alluded to Mr. Smith O'Brien. He was taken while in arms, holding a cottage for some hours against the Queen's soldiers; and, in that extreme case, when the offender was actually convicted of treason, and formally sentenced to be hung, drawn, and quartered, the dread sentence was afterwards commuted to 14 years' banishment, and was afterwards again commuted, and Mr. Smith O'Brien was brought home to his country. Had any of the men whose fate was now be- fore the House of Commons been guilty of as great a crime as Mr. Smith O'Brien? He had signed the roll of Parliament, had taken the oath of allegiance, was in the Queen's commission of the peace, and yet it was felt consistent with public safety to commute his punishment twice after he had been sentenced to death, and had been transported to mark the turpitude of his crime. He (Mr. Pease) confidently submitted that the political prisoners now under consideration ought not to be treated with greater harshness. They had offended, in ignorance, and under great temptation, and sinister and powerful influences. They had already suffered sufficiently to deter others; and he, therefore, trusted the House would pass the Resolution before it, and show the country to be as generous as it was great; by allowing those men to be released on their parole they would earn the gratitude of their fellow-countrymen.

said, the Executive Government of any country had laid upon it a most solemn, responsible, and difficult task when it came to deal with crimes such as those which had been committed by men in the position of those whose pardon was now asked by the hon. Member who had brought the Motion before the House. He could not enter upon a discussion of the question under consideration without remarking upon two of the speeches which had been delivered, and which were calculated to check any inclination to mercy that might otherwise have existed. The whole circumstances were under the consideration of the Government, which had to pay regard to matters unknown to the House, and which were naturally outside its cognizance. He had listened with amazement to the speech of the hon. Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease). The hon. Member said he did not palliate or extenuate the crime that was committed at Manchester, but that was what he had done. He had reduced a crime of outrageous murder—["No, no!"]—a crime of outrageous murder, committed in a peaceable community, to a light offence, and he had charged the executive of Manchester with a want of faith in the loyalty and peaceable disposition of the inhabitants of that town. He had also told the House that there was no intention of making the attack with a view of taking lives; but he had admitted that no less than 40 shots were fired by men who, if unaccustomed to the use of arms, were regardless of the consequences. The men who made that attack were prepared to do any deed of violence in order to rescue the prisoners from the van. They did not care what blood was shed in the attempt to release those prisoners, and the hon. Member for South Durham had extenuated the crime, and spoken of it as a light offence. He (Mr. Hardy) hoped that in this country we should always be able to trust to the peaceable conduct of the people without having to resort to military force or violent means, and that we should not require to have our prison vans guarded by soldiers or great masses of policemen. But what were the circumstances of the case? It must not be forgotten that the men in whose behalf this murderous offence was committed had not been convicted, but were prisoners who could look forward to a fair trial. It was not a case occurring under a despotic Government, where a man had no such chance of a fair trial. The prisoners in this case were under remand, having the opportunity of a fair trial before them; and yet, under these circumstances, the House was asked to treat it as a light offence, attempting and taking the lives of public officers to rescue prisoners who might have been perfectly innocent for aught anyone knew, for they might have been acquitted on the merits; and yet they were told that what these criminals were now undergoing sentence for was not a crime to be visited by the severest punishment. The hon. Member opposite had said the question before the House was, whether the country would be safe if those men were let out of prison? Why, if we were to empty our gaols to-morrow, the country would be safe; but he (Mr. Hardy) had yet to learn that that was the principle on which crimes were to be punished in this country, and the security of its peaceable inhabitants was to be ensured. It was necessary to show that such crimes could not be committed, and that our laws were not to be violated with impunity. The hon. Member opposite had called this a technical crime of murder; but was that borne out by the circumstances of the case? It so happened that this offence was committed when he (Mr. Hardy) was at the Home Office, and he could remember something of what was taking place at that time. Perhaps, when the secret history of the period in which the crimes immediately connected with the question under consideration came to be written, it would be known that the conspiracy had ramifications extending far beyond anything that had been brought to light in course of the investigations that had led to the convictions of the men now in prison, and, further, that crimes of the most serious character would have been committed but for the prompt action of the Executive. Hon. Members spoke lightly of what was occurring in these times; but it must be remembered that it was only a part of the outcome of a deliberate conspiracy which was not confined to Manchester, but extended to other parts of the country, and he maintained that the circumstances were such as fully to justify the Executive in treating the crime as they did. It was not a question of vengeance, but a question of treating the prisoners so as to prevent the recurrence of such crimes hereafter. It was a question also of confidence in the Executive; and he hoped the time would not come at which the House would fail to rely upon the Executive, either to exercise the Prerogative of mercy, or to carry out the law to its full extent. Formerly men whose death sentences had been commuted for penal servitude were set at liberty after a fixed period of 12 years; but it was thought that cases differed so much in their character and in their effect upon the population that it was better to leave it to the Executive to determine at what time the convict should be released. This was one of the most remarkable Motions ever submitted to the House; it was not an Address to the Crown praying for the exercise of mercy, but it was to be an expression of opinion by the House, without any knowledge of the circumstances of the case, and of what might have been occurring at the time in any part of the country, which was known to the Government and was not known to the House. Upon a mere outside view of these transactions the House was to express an opinion that the time had come when Her Majesty's most gracious pardon ought to be extended to those prisoners. This was an unconstitutional Motion. [Cheers and "No, no!"] It was an expression of opinion, and not an appeal to Her Majesty's Prerogative.

rose to Order, and asked, whether a Motion which the Speaker, in the exercise of his discretion, had allowed to appear on the Notice Paper, could properly be described as unconstitutional?

hoped he should not, by that expression of opinion, raise a question of Order. He was not aware that it was the province of the Speaker to decide upon Notices of Motion, whether they were Constitutional or not. The Speaker was to say not what was Constitutional, but only what was proper in that House. In describing the Motion as unconstitutional, he (Mr. Hardy) did not mean that it was improper in the sense of being rebellious; but that it indicated a wrong mode of taking up the question, for if it was to be taken up at all, it ought to be in the form of an Address to the Crown. If the Motion had merely invited Her Majesty to exercise Her Prerogative of mercy, he would not take exception to the form of it; but it was an expression of opinion as to the duty of Her Majesty; and it was therefore contrary to the principles upon which they acted in that House. Much had been said that was not calculated to induce the House to pass the Motion, dealing with its substance rather than its form. The hon. Gentleman the Mover had, as on former occasions, endeavoured to vindicate what had occurred. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Seconder claimed the pity of the House, and that was perfectly legitimate; but it was not a judicious course to hold up the objects of that pity to approval rather than condemnation. It was stated that they were precluded from discussing the character of the crimes, because the Government had not produced Reports of the trials. There were no authentic notes of such trials as that at Manchester except the notes of the Judge, which were sometimes submitted to the Secretary of State, if he desired to have them: there were no official notes which could be laid before the House; but the records of a court martial could be obtained for three years, on a small payment by the accused, or by anyone on his behalf. After the lapse of 10 years, he had been asked to print those of the court martials, and he had declined. It was only under the most exceptional circumstances, that the proceedings of a court martial were laid before the House. But, suppose such records could be produced, were they to retry the case upon them without seeing the witnesses? That would be a most unusual proceeding, only to be resorted to when there was some suggestion of corruption or impropriety in the trial. We must leave the tribunals to try these cases and judge for themselves; and that being so, they could look only at the verdicts and sentences. In the Manchester case the sentence was death; in the court martial, the sentence was death in one case, and penal servitude in the other two. In the latter eases it was admitted that the offence was of a serious military character. There could not be a more grave offence in a soldier than not disclosing a mutiny of which he had knowledge, which meant practically being parties to mutiny in the Army, which was bound, not only by the ordinary ties of citizenship, but by special oaths of allegiance. Non-commissioned officers were placed in a position of extreme responsibility; they had charge of the privates of a regiment, and if they conspired with them to mutiny, where would this country be? It had been suggested that soldiers should have been sent to protect the prison van; but if sergeants and privates were to be in a conspiracy to mutiny, what security should we have from such protectors? The offence was of the gravest character; but it was not under all circumstances to be punished to the extreme limit; but the course taken by the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) was not the way to lead to mercy being extended. Gratitude had been talked of; but the gratitude of the released Fenians did not lead him to conclude that gratitude inevitably followed from pardon. In the United States the released Fenians had not scrupled to suggest what they called "skirmishing" against this country, and even the revengeful murder, not of those who had wronged them, but of anyone selected in order to affect the mind of the country, with the object of showing that it was not safe to punish "gentlemen" who called themselves "political prisoners." The hon. Member for Mayo had argued the ques- tion in a manner which did not indicate that he would be likely to show gratitude for mercy; he made a demand as of right, and he put forward Mr. Smith O'Brien as one sacrificed in a noble cause, and had referred to the statue raised to him in terms of eulogy and admiration. Far be it from him to express an opinion upon the conduct of Mr. Smith O'Brien. In the early life of that gentleman, he (Mr. Hardy) had the pleasure of meeting him on more than one occasion, and the first time he met him that gentleman sat on the Conservative side of the House; and he remembered that when he sat next him at dinner on one occasion, he thought he held some extraordinary opinions, which might ultimately lead him into difficulties. The host said that he had often told him that he would be tried for high treason and executed, and he added that it was on account of the extreme vanity of the man and the extreme wildness of his opinions. It was a curious circumstance that the host who was a very eminent lawyer, a man ' who had risen to great distinction in his Profession, and who had been very intimate with Mr. Smith O'Brien, had thus foreseen his career. He had no desire to say a word against Mr. Smith O'Brien, but he would say that when a statue had been raised in Ireland to him, and he was held up as an example to be followed, it could not be expected that the pardon of these men would be looked upon as an act of mercy on the part of this country, but it would rather be regarded as a right which was demanded for men who had done no wrong. If Mr. Smith O'Brien, who was a traitor, was held up to admiration, it was absurd to say that the pardon of these men would be regarded as an act of mercy on the part of this country; it would be looked upon as an act of contrition and remorse. He was far from saying he would not be a party to the remission of sentences upon men who had been convicted of crimes like these when the proper time had arrived; but if the remission were to be put forward as an act of repentance and remorse for what had been done in the course of justice, to the last moment of his life, in whatever position he were, whether seated on the Government or the Opposition Bench, he would resist a remission upon such grounds.

said, he had not asked for any remission of punishment on any such grounds.

said, he was glad to hear it. The hon. Member had spoken of the example of other nations; but if these crimes had been committed in any other country, the hon. Member would never have had to ask for the pardon of the offenders, because they would have been shot in the first instance. Look what was done to the military prisoners of other countries. There were no open trials, no parade, no records kept; but the men guilty of these crimes would never have the opportunity of being pardoned, because they would have been immediately shot, as having been guilty of one of the worst crimes against the military laws of their country. He would venture to ask the House to look upon this question in the only safe way in which it could be regarded. The Government had a fair right to put common confidence in the Executive. In this country there was no desire for cruel punishments, or that they should be extended beyond the necessity of the case. He would admit that this question came very near the hearts of a great many of the Irish people; but they were not the Irish nation, and the Irish nation was not the whole people of the Empire. This was an Empire and not an aggregate of separate Kingdoms, and the Government had to consider the interests of the whole of this great Empire. It was also a free Empire. Every man who was wronged had an opportunity of bringing his wrong to light, and there was no man who suffered an injury who had not an opportunity of obtaining redress in a constitutional manner. Therefore, the man who took up arms had to vindicate himself from a charge of the deepest dye. Where there was no necessity—not even an excuse—for shedding blood, the man who raised his arm to shed blood committed a crime; and for that crime the country had a right to demand, he would not say vengeance, but the utmost punishment the law allowed. Much more when men who had taken upon themselves the character of defenders of the country violated the oaths they had taken and conspired to destroy the country, no punishment could be inflicted upon them which they did not deserve; and it was only when the Executive, looking at all the circum- stances of the case, saw that the time had arrived when, without injury to the country and the people at large, these, men might be pardoned, that they could be released. Until that time arrived there ought to be no interference with the Government in its advice as to they exercise of the Prerogative of the Crown.

wished to say, as one deeply interested in the welfare of the people of Ireland, that this was a question in which that people felt a very great interest. The question now before the House was one which could not be overlooked, and he deeply regretted the passion displayed by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gathorne Hardy). It would be regarded as the exasperation of a refusal which, if made at all, ought to be made with judicial temper, and it breathed a spirit of vengeance rather than the cool and deliberate judgment of a Minister of State dealing with an event which occurred 10 years ago. What did the right hon. Gentleman mean by punishment being due to those who sought redress for real or imaginary wrongs? It was unnecessary to discuss on the present occasion the propriety of pardoning the Fenian leaders, because they were all pardoned and set free; and what the House had to determine, and what they were considering, was, whether they were to prolong the exasperation and ill-feeling, and undo the good effected by the release of the leaders for the sake of keeping the six miserable prisoners in gaol, for in any other country they would have been shot? He denied that this was an unconstitutional Motion affecting the Crown. The unconstitutional language of which the right hon. Gentleman complained did not come from the Opposition side of the House, but from the right hon. Gentleman himself, when he said that the House had no right to advise the Queen on any matter affecting the peace of the country and the dignity of the Crown. He maintained that the House had a right to record its opinion in a Resolution. He had before him the report of the trial of the prisoners charged with the murder of Sergeant Brett at Manchester, but he would first advert to the case of Davitt, who was tried under the Treason Felony Act for conspiring to depose the Queen. No act of violence was charged against him, but he was convicted of having supplied arms to Fenian prisoners with the knowledge that they would he used in the Fenian rebellion. On what grounds was this man detained when the Government had released all the rest? The Prime Minister, when in that House, said that he and a prisoner named Wilson were tried together—that Wilson was sentenced to seven years' penal servitude and Davitt to a longer term; and that as Wilson had served out his term, it would be reversing the sentence of the Judge to liberate Davitt at the same time. That time had, however, now passed, and after releasing O'Donovan Rossa and the other men who had planned the conspiracy, what reason could there be for detaining one who had only played a subordinate part in it? The remaining prisoners were the two men charged with complicity in the attack upon the prison van, in which Sergeant Brett was killed. One of those men, Shore, was convicted at Manchester, but how? Five men were altogether put on their trial and convicted. Three of them were executed, but the fourth, Maguire, a Royal Marine, after being convicted by the jury, with the full approval of the Judge, was proved two days afterwards to have been not near the place at all. The verdict was utterly false, and the man got a free pardon. The remaining prisoner had also been pardoned, on the ground that the witnesses had been mistaken in deposing that he had had a pistol in his hand. It was the first time life had been taken when the verdict as to the others had been shown to be so erroneous. This was a case of technical murder—a case of constructive murder. No man would pretend to say that Condon had a hand in firing the shot. With reference to the prisoner Condon, he submitted that the evidence against him amounted to this and this only—that he was guilty of participating in a riot. When the question was before the House four years ago the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich said that when Ireland became tranquil, he would regard it as his duty to take the case of the prisoners, whose cause he pleaded that night, into consideration. He ought to add that the right hon. Gentleman guarded himself against misconception by saying that those prisoners who had been guilty of violence should be regarded as political prisoners. The question was, whether these men were political prisoners. He did not care to answer that question; but he would ask, if 40 or 50 people had been arrested and charged with the murder of Sergeant Brett, would the English people allow them, according to a technical rule of law, to be executed? They were not murderers, except by a technical rule of law. When it was said that they were murderers, he would be glad to know what was meant. He contended that it was not assassination, but constructive murder, into which any man might be drawn, just as in the case of rescue of a poacher from arrest. Was it, then, unreasonable that they should ask now, in the common interest of humanity, that this young man, only 18 or 19 years of age, who was convicted in such a manner, and who had been in prison for 10 or 11 years, should be liberated. Had he not, by the eclipse of his young life for 11 years, sufficiently vindicated the crime of which he was so found guilty? Was there any English Gentleman who wished to prolong that term, because he had been guilty of indiscretion in joining that crowd? If he were not released now, after 11 years' imprisonment, when would he be released? Having gone through that case, he came next to that of the military prisoners; but surely their case was not devoid of consideration, which ought to weigh with the House. Were there in the great American War no prisoners taken by the Federals from the Confederate Army, and from the Federals by the Confederate? And how leniently, he asked them to remember, were those prisoners treated. Let them also look at those who took part in the Canadian insurrection. The Government put a price upon the head of Papineau and recalled him to be Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken mysteriously of what was passing in his country, and of secret reasons which justified the further detention of these men. If there were any, if anything was passing in Ireland, the House had a right to know it, and what they were. They ought to know the facts, and he protested against insinuations of secret reasons—that was not the principle which should guide their actions. There remained but three military prisoners, and he thought the time had at length come when their case should be with equal propriety leniently dealt with. Those men, it was true, had taken the oath of allegiance, but there was not a single charge against them. They had not violated by a single act any engagement which they had previously entered into. He considered and believed that the detention of these men in prison was doing more mischief in Ireland than any other cause. If indiscreet speeches were made in Ireland where was the justification for them? If they released these men there would be no justification. The detention of them in prison created sympathy for them, and that again created sympathy for the crime. If they liberated these men they would do that which would affect the hearts and feelings of the people of Ireland. Speaking from his own knowledge, he could state that there was no subject on which the great mass of the Irish people felt more strongly than in regard to the release of those men; and he said that the continued incarceration of those six men had really marred the effect of the wise and statesmanlike act of liberating the other prisoners. The leaders had all been pardoned, while those six men, and those six only, were kept in custody; and he had never heard violent language used at public meetings in Ireland—and he always heard it with regret—without observing that those who uttered it invariably fastened on the detention of those men as the justification for their denunciations. Again, what discussions had they not had in that House about the treatment of their convict prisoners in consequence of the retention of those five or six men in prison? He did not think it was worthy of the Ministers of the Crown, he did not think it was worthy of a great Sovereign—and he said this with all loyalty to his Queen—that those men should be kept longer in confinement, thus causing exasperation to rankle in the hearts of a people disposed to be loyal if only fair play and justice were shown to them. [Laughter.,] The hon. Gentleman who laughed, if he got up and answered him (Mr. Butt) would probably show that he was entirely ignorant of everything about Ireland. He had himself always argued that question as if he were an Englishman, and if he were charged as an Englishman with any responsibility, he should feel it to be the best for England as well as for Ireland, that the imprisonment of those men should terminate, and that the gracious act previously done by the release of the other prisoners should now be made complete.

agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just spoken (Mr. Butt), that every hon. Member of that House had a right to express an opinion on that matter, and because he did so, must protest against the slaughter of Sergeant Brett being described as a technical murder.

denied having called it a technical murder. What he had said was, that those who had nothing to do with the murder, but who had only belonged to the party, were only technically and constructively guilty of it.

protested against the assertion that anybody who had to do with the murder of Sergeant Brett was only technically implicated in it. What were the circumstances which occurred on the 18th of September, 1867, at Manchester? When that outrage was committed a man named Kelly and another man named Deasy, who were suspected of taking some part in the Fenian conspiracy, were charged before a magistrate, and two officers were in Court, ready to depose to the accused having had some hand in that conspiracy, and had a warrant for their apprehension. After hearing a certain amount of evidence the magistrate deemed it his duty to remand those men to prison in order that further inquiry should be made. Thereupon, they were placed in the prison van. Hon. Members would know exactly the construction of such a van. The hon. Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease) had said there was negligence on the part of the police. What were the facts? There was some notion that there might be some attempt at a rescue. Whereas usually the van was under the conduct of a policeman who guided the horses, while another took charge of it behind, in that particular case there were seven policemen in front and four followed the van in a cab. When the van emerged from under a railway arch, about half-a-mile from Bellevue, a large number of persons were seen upon some vacant ground, slightly elevated above the road. They were armed with revolvers, and had evidently been waiting for the approach of the van, determined at all hazards to rescue the prisoners. It was proved afterwards that messages had been sent in order that the might be prepared. They discharged their revolvers at the policeman, stopped and surrounded the van, and some of them got on the roof and attempted to break it in by means of hammers, while others handed up large stones to aid them. Others, again, tried to break open the door. It was the duty of Sergeant Brett to guard the door. He was a brave officer, and he did his duty. He positively refused to admit the assailants. When he was in the act of closing a ventilator—which was something in the shape of a small Venetian blind—for the purpose, probably, of preventing them from getting a hold there, one of the conspirators pointed a revolver at the aperture, and, deliberately discharging it, shot the officer. ["No, no!"] Sergeant Brett fell in the van, the door was then broken open, and the prisoners were released. Hon. Members might, if they liked, call that accidental shooting, but he (the Attorney General) called it deliberate homicide. ["No, no!"] They might call it a technical crime; he called it vulgar murder. They might call it political offence; he called it deliberate and atrocious assassination. ["No, no!"] It was a deliberate planned attack, carried out by the prisoners who were afterwards convicted, regardless whether they committed murder or not, but determined to do murder rather than fail in their object. Those who had taken part in the outrage, and among them the men to whom allusion had been made, were brought to trial before a Special Commission at Manchester. They were tried before two of the most eminent Judges in the land—Mr. Justice Blackburn and Mr. Justice Mellor—and after a most careful and able summing up by Mr. Justice Blackburn, the jury found these men guilty of murder. It was perfectly true that circumstances were afterwards brought to light which convinced the Home Secretary that one of the men found guilty had been improperly convicted. It surely did not follow, however, that the evidence was not reliable with respect to the others. He did not know that that was suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt). What he understood the hon. and learned Member to say was that these men were not really guilty of intentional murder, that their crime was rather of a technical character, and that having been so long in confinement they ought now to be released. Whether they ought to be released or not, it was not for him to say. He had only risen to protest as strongly as he could against such an outrage being called a "technical" crime.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure, Sir, that all hon. Members of this House must be deeply impressed with the delicate nature of the duties which the Executive Government has to perform in a matter of this kind. It is, in truth, a matter greatly complicated by a variety of considerations, and even if I had found myself taking a view in some respects different from that which might be taken by Her Majesty's Government, I should still bow with great respect to their deliberate judgment. On the other hand, I think that on occasions of this kind, both policy and principle eminently dictate the observance by Members of the Government of the strictest measure in the language they employ, and of a judicial calm in the temper they display. I cannot say that I find that strict measure of language in the description which has just been given by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General. He protests against the homicide of Sergeant Brett being termed a technical murder, and I entirely agree with him in so doing. But it appears to me that it was in reference to murder, that I think it was called by the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) a "constructive murder;" but that independently of that it was a most gross outrage against the law, and an act most dangerous to the peace of society. I have no disposition, therefore, to extenuate the act which appeared to me to require, and has received, very severe punishment. But is it not going a little beyond the limits of absolute accuracy to say that it was a "deliberate and atrocious assassination?" It was not the object of those who engaged in the undertaking. ["No, no!"] I am not aware that I am stating anything that is disputable in that proposition. Yet the risk of committing that most guilty act was a risk that they were ready and willing to run, and did run. But surely more than this is required in order to justify the description by a Member of the Government of this act as a deliberate and atrocious assassination. I greatly lamented the unnecessary warmth introduced into this debate by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War. He censured most severely the speeches made by the hon. Gentleman the Mover of the Motion (Mr. O'Connor Power), and particularly by the hon. Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease). It did not appear to me that it was, upon the whole, possible for these Gentlemen to have supported the Motion in a manner more free from exception than they did. I concur with the right hon. Gentleman in thinking that a sounder discretion would have been exercised if, in lieu of moving this Resolution, an Address to the Crown had been proposed. If it be competent to me to do so, I would even now submit to the Mover of the Resolution, whether he will not ask the permission of the House to alter the form of his proceedings. Whenever we touch a question of Prerogative, we should recognize that it is better not to pronounce a separate and independent judgment by Resolution, but should content ourselves humbly to express our views and wishes, and lay them at the foot of the Throne. Recognizing the duty of the Executive Government to decide the matter, I am not prepared to take part in the Division in this case by supporting the Motion of the hon. Gentleman on another ground. I cannot blame those who have thought it necessary to take the sense of the House upon the question; but it appears to me so desirable that, in a matter of this kind, the Prerogative of mercy should be left in the hands of the Crown, to be exercised according to the advice the Crown may receive from those whose duty it is to give it, that only in the extremest case should I wish to support a Motion which strictly interposes the judgment of the House for the purpose of swaying the judgment of the Crown. I am not, therefore, Sir, disposed to take part in the division. Nevertheless, I confess I think the time has come when, with full respect to the judgment of the Advisers of the Crown, and with that due reserve with which I quite agree that every hon. Member of this House should speak, when something may be said of that general view of the case and circumstances which it is competent to us as Representatives of the people to take. In referring to this reserve, I mean to acknowledge that which was stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War. He reminded us that the Government are habitually in possession of information which we do not possess, and bound to take into its consideration elements which we cannot. I therefore entirely submit myself to the decision the Government may adopt in view of any such information they may have at the present time. But I think that the feelings entertained in this House, as indicative of the probable sentiments of the country, are among the elements which the Constitutional Advisers of the Crown ought to take into consideration in the advice which they tender to the Crown on this question. After the time which has elapsed, and the share I, myself, had in laying down originally a broad and impartial distinction adversely to these men, it is not perhaps unfairly to be claimed of me that I should state the general aspect which the circumstances appear to me to bear. I contended when in an official position, and still contend, that the offence of the principal part of these prisoners does not fall purely within the category of political offences. And I observe that there has been a disposition on the part of those who support this Motion to sustain it on more general grounds of compassion and humanity, of policy and wisdom. The question which we have to determine is, what constitutes a political offence. It is quite clear that an act does not become a political offence because there was a political motive in the mind of the offender. The man who shot Mr. Perceval and the man who intended to shoot Sir Robert Peel did not become political offenders merely on this ground. By a political offence, I, at least, understand an offence committed under circumstances approaching to the character of civil war. Wherever there is a great popular movement, the offences committed in giving effect to the intentions of the people partake of the character of civil war. Reference has been made to the action of the President of the French Republic in pardoning offences committed by Communists; but it must not be forgotten that those offences—though darker than the crimes for which the Irish prisoners are under punishment—were committed in the progress of a civil war. But the riot committed at Manchester by a crowd locally gathered together was a proceeding totally of a different character, and must be considered as in the main belonging to the category of ordinary crime, though it is not on the ground that the offence is a political offence, that I think the prisoners in question can be recommended for consideration. But if these offences be not political offences in a strict sense, yet they were undertaken from a political motive, and in so far partake of that character as to affect, in a material degree, the moral guilt of the persons concerned. I do not say that the moral guilt of the parties concerned ought to be the sole, or even the main, consideration that ought to influence the mind of a Minister in administering justice; but still it is generally felt that it is desirable to keep public sympathy on the side of the law. Therefore, as the object of punishment is, after all, to deter others from the commission of similar offences, the question is, whether, in the present case, sufficient has not been done to satisfy the ends of public justice, and to act as a deterring influence. My memory differs somewhat from that of the hon. and learned Member (the Attorney General) as to the circumstances under which that gallant officer who stood to his post to the last was killed. He stated that the pistol was fired through the aperture in the door while Sergeant Brett was engaged in an effort to close it. My recollection and that of others is different. We were under the impression that the special object in view was the destruction of the lock. There is certainly some degree of difference between the two statements. However, I take the facts, upon the whole, as they have been stated by the hon. and learned Gentleman, and I hope I have not seemed to desire to excuse the character of that act. It was a most gross outrage against the law; it was a most grave and serious danger to the general peace of society. But three men have expiated with their lives this single murder—not a common occurrence in this country. The cases are very rare indeed when the taking of a single life is avenged by the law by the taking of three lives. I am not, however, censuring that proceeding. Be- sides this we have before us the cases of six men. I put aside the case of the man Davitt, as to whom some hopes have been held out of separate consideration, and I cannot see what answer can be made to the argument of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick, who contends that his case belongs to a class strictly political. Neither will I enter into the specialities of the case of the soldiers, because it is very difficult for us without the assistance of the military authorities to form a minute estimate of their guilt; but the view we take of the Manchester case would really govern the case of the soldiers. If we think the punishment inflicted in the Manchester case sufficient, hardly any one would think it necessary to prolong the punishment of the soldiers, who have already suffered longer periods of imprisonment—one 11, and the other 10 years. Now, Sir, for those men sentenced to imprisonment for life, we cannot plead on the ground of the general rules of the Home Office, because I understand that, taking into view the date at which these sentences were pronounced, it would not be for a very long time that the Secretary of State, acting on the ordinary rule of 20 years, would enter into a review of their cases with a view to the exercise of mercy. The question, however, is, are these cases in which that general rule should apply? When we speak of keeping public sympathy on the side of the law we come to the important question of the degree of moral guilt; for public sympathy will be governed by the view of whether the act be base and wicked in itself, as well as perilous to the peace of society. Now, it is impossible not to feel that although this was a wicked act, it was not an act of that baseness, of that deep and aggravated guilt, which commonly attaches to cases of murder perpetrated from personal motives. If that is so, the question arises whether this penal servitude for 10 years, extracting as it does so large a fraction from the ordinary term of life, is not, upon the whole, a punishment quite sufficient for the act which was committed; sufficient to deter in the general view of the peace of society, and in that special view which cannot possibly be overlooked—namely, the protection of that valuable class of men who are the ministers of the law in the protection of life and property—I mean the police. But we must ask our-selves, whether enough has not been done to deter, and enough to satisfy the public conscience; for if we have filled up the measure of what the public conscience thinks justly due to an act of this character, we run the risk by prolonging the imprisonment of these parties of producing a re-action which may be fatal to the effective administration of justice? With all the reserves I have mentioned, and with all due deference to the Executive of the country, I cannot refrain from expressing a hope that either the time may now have arrived, or that the time will be very speedily considered to have arrived, when the cases of these men may be examined with a view to the exercise of the Prerogative of mercy. With this conviction in my mind, I do not think it unnatural or un-Parliamentary for the hon. and learned Member for Limerick to appeal to the convictions of the people of Ireland on this subject; for I can conceive that the recollection of an act of mercy may have the effect of determining many a wavering judgment, and may have a strong influence in conciliating the affections of a people whose condition has often been a matter to deplore, the soundness of whose political proceedings we may not be always able to affirm, but the truth and warmth of whose affections no one has ever been found to deny.

said, he quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. Gladstone) that this was not a matter which the House should rashly take into its own hands. It was a question of Prerogative upon which the Queen must be advised by her Advisers who were responsible to that House and the country for the advice they gave. That question of Prerogative was one of the greatest possible nicety; and it ought not to be raised, unless there was some gross case of abuse upon which that House should pass judgment, if it thought right, either by an Address to the Crown, or by an impeachment of the Minister who was responsible for having given the wrong advice. But in all matters of this sort, the nicest distinction was to be drawn between one case and another; and what seemed to him to be a mistake in the whole debate so far as it had gone was this—that a clear enough distinction had not been made between case and case. He would not quarrel with the right hon. Gentleman as to his definition of political prisoners; he would rather not enter into that matter; but if there was one question which more than another gave trouble to Government, it was the question which was brought before the late Government as to what were political prisoners. When the question came to be discussed before the late Government, they evidently did draw a distinct line between one set of prisoners and another, and all who in their opinion were political prisoners were released, but all those who were guilty of what we might call ordinary crime were held in prison. That he was bound to remind the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down was the deliberate conviction of the Government; and in his (Mr. Cross's) opinion, they were right. But in his opinion also, the Government could not take up this question as a new question; they were bound, unless some great error had been committed by their Predecessors, to follow the course they had taken. Therefore he, at the present moment, represented the Advisers of the Crown, not in his capacity of Secretary of State, but as a Representative of the late Government. ["No, no!"] He was merely carrying out the advice which was given to Her Majesty by their Predecessors. He wanted to call the attention of the House to one point of the utmost importance on which a great mistake had been made. In the first place, no distinction had been made between one prisoner and another. The words which fell from the hon. and learned Member for Limerick were these—He said he wanted the release of these six men for the satisfaction of the Irish people, making no difference between them whether the offence of one was more heinous than that of another. Now, the person holding the position he had the honour to hold was bound to consider that these six men were convicted of totally different offences, and he was also bound to consider the evidence in each particular case. But the whole argument of every one who had spoken had been for the release of the six men as a whole. He said that the case of each stood on a totally different principle. Another sen- tence fell from the hon. and learned Member for Limerick to which he must object. He stated that those who were sentenced to penal servitude for life were doomed to imprisonment for a lifetime. But nothing could be more unlike what was actually the case. The hon. and learned Member should know that was not so with any one of the prisoners; that was not the course which any Government would take in the matter. He must know that after a certain time, unless there were some very special circumstances in the case, every case would be fairly and fully considered, and each prisoner would be released. The right hon. Gentleman who had last addressed the House said that period was 20 years; he must beg to correct him in that matter; the period was 15 years, which made a very considerable difference. After a period of 15 years' imprisonment, the case of those who were sentenced to penal servitude for life would be fairly and fully considered, when a recommendation might be made to the Crown for the extension of the Royal clemency, so that not many years would elapse before the case of even the worst of them would be considered. The hon. and learned Member for Limerick had made another mistake in saying that the sentence was unjust, and that the imprisonment was a most unjust imprisonment. He emphatically denied that the sentence was unjust, or that the imprisonment was unjust, and he believed the words had fallen from the hon. and learned Member without serious thought. Now, having made these three observations, he wanted to say there had been throughout the whole treatment of these prisoners a great difference made. In the case of the political prisoners, they had been all released with two exceptions—Wilson and Davitt. The term of Wilson's imprisonment was shortened in 1875. An appeal was made to him to release Davitt at the same time. He thought that a fair application; but the result was, he was obliged to make inquiry into the circumstances of the case, and he was bound to say why he had not been released as the other was. The only record he could go to was the Report of the sentence pronounced by the Lord Chief Justice who tried the case. He was sorry to go into it, but he would read two sentences from what the Lord Chief Justice said. It was as follows:—

"There was one thing which he could not hut regard with the utmost condemnation and horror; and that was, that assassination was not considered too desperate to be carried out, if it was found convenient to have recourse to it. That letter of his, of which the witness Forrester told the story, showed that there was some dark felonious design against the life of some one."

said, he had had no intentions of taking any part in the discussion, and as it was he should only occupy the attention of the House for a few moments. He felt, however, after the course the debate had taken, that he was obliged to say a few words on the subject, as he wished to state the reasons which induced him to give the vote he was about to record. He entirely concurred in the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt), as to the undoubted right of any hon. Member to invite the judgment of the House upon a question involving the advice to be given by Her Majesty's Advisers to Her Majesty in a matter of this character. Indeed, he did not say that the hon. and learned Member for Limerick and his Friends were not exercising a wise discretion in doing so. At the same time, he concurred with his right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich in deeply regretting that a question of this kind should have been discussed with any warmth on either side. One of the inconveniences almost inseparable from the discussion of such a question was, that the arguments adduced on one side of the House must almost naturally be supported with considerable warmth, but it was a matter of regret that they should be met with corresponding warmth on the other. He was not going to argue the case, because he felt that that had been sufficiently done already. He only desired to state briefly the grounds on which he should give his vote. He rather gathered from the speech of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone) that he did not intend to vote on this question at all. Still, he did not doubt that the tendency of his right hon. Friend's speech was to advise Her Majesty's Government to consider favourably the appeal which had been made to them by the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power). His right hon. Friend was of opinion that the time had arrived when Her Majesty's gracious pardon might be advantageously extended to these prisoners. That was to say, his right hon. Friend thought that the necessary term of the punishment of these prisoners had been completed. Now, he confessed, for his own part, he had not been able to arrive at a similar conclusion. In his judgment these prisoners must be treated either as ordinary criminals, or as political offenders. If they were treated as ordinary criminals, these cases would, in the usual circumstances, and at the usual time, come before Her Majesty's Advisers for examination. If, whenever their case did come before them, Her Majesty's Advisers should then find that there was in any individual case sufficient grounds for recommending to Her Majesty the exercise of the clemency of the Crown, such a decision would, no doubt, be received with perfect satisfaction on that (the Opposition) side of the House. If the case was to be treated as the case of ordinary criminals, he did not see that there was any occasion for the House to interpose in the matter. In due course it would in that view be treated in the ordinary way on its merits On the other hand, supposing these prisoners were to be treated as political offenders—whatever sense might be attached to that term—then, again, what he said was, that if on general grounds Her Majesty's Advisers, acting upon their own responsibility, should come to the conclusion that the political advantages which would accompany a general amnesty of these political offenders would be such as to outweigh any disadvantages that might arise from their release, he believed that such decision would also be received with the greatest possible satisfaction on his side of the House. But he felt bound to say, at the same time, that up to the time when he and his Colleagues left Office, they had not arrived at such a conclusion. Moreover, if he looked at what had occurred since they went out of Office, he was unable to see that any such change had occurred in the political circumstances of Ireland as would warrant him in advocating such a decision. He would admit that this was a most difficult and delicate question to deal with. It was a question on which one had to steel one's feelings and repress one's natural impulses. It was impossible to deny that the moral guilt of the men who were engaged in the Manchester outrage was not to be compared in heinousness to the moral guilt of some other murderers who had to be dealt with; but, on the other hand, it was equally impossible for the House to conceal from itself that the social mischief and misery and harm done by crimes like those of which the men had been convicted, greatly outweighed the mischief done by commoner and more serious offenders; and he therefore thought that a great deal of the responsibility must be left to Her Majesty's Government, and that a much stronger case ought to be made out before the House of Commons would be justified in interfering with that responsibility. He would not further argue a question that had been so fully discussed, but he saw no sufficient reason for altering the course which, after deep and painful consideration, the late Government felt it their duty to take in this matter; and though he would be glad if any such sufficient reason had been shown, if the present Government were unable to arrive at a different conclusion, he did not feel entitled either by abstaining from voting or by voting in opposition to the Government, to reverse the decision they had arrived at.

said, that the hon. and learned Attorney General was quite incorrect in stating that the only persons now in custody were the actual murderers of Sergeant Brett.

in reply, wished to alter the terms of his Motion, and to move an Address to Her Majesty representing that the time had come for the exercise of her Prerogative. ["No, no!"]

pointed out that it was not competent for the hon. Member to do so, unless he withdrew his original Motion.

said, that he intended to vote against the Motion, on the ground that the question was one that ought to be left to the discretion of the Government. He did not, however, wish his vote to be interpreted as the expression of any opinion that the time had not come for the mercy of the Crown to be extended to these prisoners; but he thought it a case in which the House of Commons was not called upon to interfere. He thought they might leave it to the discretion of Her Majesty's Government, believing that they would extend mercy to them if possible, and that they would consider all the circumstances involved in the case.

called attention very briefly to the subject of Intermediate Education in Ireland, and urged upon the Government the necessity of dealing with it without delay.

admitted the urgency of the question, and added that it had occupied the attention of the Government. He could not at that late hour enter into details, or state what the views of the Government were upon it; but he hoped that a scheme to deal with the subject would be one of the first proposals which he should bring before Parliament in the next Session.

said, there were only two or three lines of the Schedule to dispose of, and he thought that five minutes would be sufficient to pass the Bill through Committee. He hoped that the Motion would not be persisted in.

spoke in favour of the Bill being disposed of that night.

protested against proceeding with the Bill that night. Nobody in Ireland wanted this Bill except the lawyers.

objected to the Bill being proceeded with at that time (one o'clock).

hoped the Motion for Adjournment would not be persisted in, and pointed out that the only Amendments remaining on the Paper were those of the hon. Member for Cavan himself, which could be discussed in five minutes.

said, the Irish Members had had enough law and justice that evening, and were determined to have no more. If the Motion for Adjournment were defeated, it would be followed by others.

was glad of what had occurred, as it would enable the country to judge of the conduct of three or four hon. Members opposite, and would show them that their sole object in moving to report Progress, was to stop a discussion which would only occupy five minutes.

expressed a hope that in future hon. Gentlemen would make their speeches before instead of after dinner. ["Order!"]

thought that such discussions, if continued, would not be conducive to the dignity of the House. He hoped the Motion would be withdrawn, and the Committee be permitted to conclude their duties that night.

on the other hand, thought it would be to the advantage of the country that this Bill should not pass this Session.

expressed his disapproval of the course which was being taken by some of the Irish Members, but he hoped, nevertheless, the Government would spare the House a repetition of the unpleasant scenes of a recent occasion. Some hon. Members from Ireland seemed to forget that there were English Members, and to think that the whole business of the House was to be conducted with a view to their convenience.

hoped the Committee would divide against the Motion. He protested against the system of obstruction of all Business which had been adopted by some hon. Members.

said, the hon. Member for Cavan had already occupied more time in Committee upon this Bill than all the other Members put together. He appeared to be prompted by some legal person, for he had placed on the Paper a long string of Amendments, which it was quite evident he did not understand. He protested against the general body of Irish Members being supposed to be linked to the policy of obstruction.

said, the Government in resisting the Motion to report Progress, did so because they believed it was really for the advantage of the country that they should, if possible, endeavour to advance the Bill though this stage. The only Amendments were those of the hon. Member for Cavan, and they could very well be discussed at a later stage.

said, he did not see why he should depart from the principle which he had determined to act upon—to oppose the transaction of Business after one o'clock in the morning.

said, it was evidently as useless to appeal to the generosity or sense of justice as it was to appeal to the common sense of hon. Members who were thus obstructing Business. He had received a letter from a person associated politically with those hon. Members stating that next Session they would see in that House more serious scenes than had ever yet been seen there. The hon. Member for Cavan said he had determined upon a course which would obstruct the Business of the House. It was time the Government should take some steps to crush this sort of thing; and he wished publicly to dissociate himself from all connection with hon. Gentlemen who resorted to such tactics.

said, he was as ready to repudiate the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Jenkins) as that hon. Gentleman was to repudiate Irish Members.

said, now the hon. Member for Dundee had had an opportunity of vindicating his respectability, by dissociating himself from the Irish party, he only hoped it would do him a great deal of good in the eyes of his constituents. Nothing he had said was worthy of further notice.

said, he hoped the Government would not give way, but would sit till Sunday if necessary.

moved that the Chairman do leave the Chair.

said, the division which had just taken place had sufficiently marked the sense of the House; and as it was useless to make any appeal to the hon. Members who constituted the minority, and he wished to avoid the repetition of a recent scene, he would consent that Progress should now be reported, and that the House should meet at 12 on Saturday to further proceed with this Bill, but with no other Business.