asked the Under Secretary of State for India, If he will lay upon the Table of the House a series of Papers which will show the general principles of our military, political, commercial, and financial policy towards the tribes on our north-west frontier since our occupation of the Punjaub; also Documents and Minutes of Members of the Councils in England and India, relating to the proposed formation of our frontier under a separate administration, and also the Documents detailing the tribes, their numbers, and the operations undertaken, and with what results?

Sir, Papers giving my hon. and gallant Friend all the information he seeks as to the policy pursued by the Indian Government towards the tribes on the north-west frontier ought to be in the hands of hon. Members this evening or to-morrow. They conclude with a despatch from the Secretary of State upon the proposed formation of our frontier under one administrative head. There is no dissent of Members of Council to this despatch. As soon as the Papers relating to the Expedition against the Jowakis are complete they will be laid on the Table of the House.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the remaining portion of the report of Sir Thomas Wade will be laid upon the Table of the House; and, whether it is the intention of the Government to ratify the Cheefoo Convention?

Sir, the consideration of the Cheefoo Convention was suspended until the views of the Indian Government had been ascertained with regard to certain commercial questions. A telegram has been received from the Government of India stating that a despatch reporting on the Convention is on its way to England. When it arrives it will immediately receive the attention and consideration of Her Majesty's Government, and the Papers will be presented as soon as a decision has been arrived at.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, When the Return regarding ecclesiastical salaries in India, ordered last Session, will be laid upon the Table of the House?

Sir, we have not yet received from India the Return demanded by the right hon. Gentleman. It was a Return requiring minute information concerning ecclesiastical establishments and the attendance at church, the compilation of which would necessarily take some time.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, If the representatives of the Railway Companies have intimated to him that they have failed in making a voluntary arrangement for adopting a continuous brake, complying with the conditions laid down by the Board of Trade; and, whether, in these circumstances, he means to introduce a Bill to compel them to do so?

Sir, I am expecting to receive an answer in the course of a few days from the Railway Companies, which I hope may ob- viate the necessity of legislation on the subject of brakes. I have already laid on the Table the Correspondence on the subject up to the present time.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is true that, on a recent visit to Calcutta, the Maharajah Scindia omitted the usual courtesy visit to the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal; and, if so, what steps, if any, have been taken by His Excellency the Viceroy to mark his displeasure at such a want of respect; whether it is true that the Maharajah Scindia is evading the spirit of the Treaty which entitles him to keep a certain number of men under arms by enlisting for short periods of service, and thus converting his whole people into trained soldiers; and, whether, if such is the case, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to allow such a state of things to continue?

Sir, the two Questions of my hon. Friend are, no doubt, based upon statements contained in a telegram from India in The Times. We have not received from India any information confirming these statements, and until we do receive such information, I must decline to assume that 'the Maharajah Scindia has been wilfully discourteous to the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal or is in any way evading the spirit of any Treaty regulating the number of soldiers which he is entitled to maintain.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is the intention of the Government to take steps for continuing the powers of the Railway Commissioners, created by Stat. 36 and 37 Vict. c. 48, which powers will, unless renewed, expire at the conclusion of the present Session?

in reply, said, that the hon. Member was under a misapprehension in assuming that the powers of the Railway Commissioners would expire at the conclusion of the present Session, inasmuch as they would not expire—except in the event of an Autumn Session —until the end of next Session. The Government had the question under consideration, and due Notice would be given before any legislation took place upon it.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether any reply has been sent to the Memorial to the Queen from inhabitants of Ceylon, and transmitted by Sir W. H. Gregory on the 9th Janu- ary 1877, praying that all Votes for Ecclesiastical purposes from the revenues of the island might cease; and, whether Lord Carnarvon has, in conformity with the statements in his Despatch of the 10th March 1877, communicated on the subject with Sir William Gregory since his arrival in this country?

in reply, said: Lord Carnarvon has communicated personally with Sir William Gregory on this and other subjects connected with Ceylon since his arrival in this country. Her Majesty's Government, however, are unable to advise the Queen to sanction any discontinuance of the extremely moderate sums now paid for the maintenance of religion in Ceylon.

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

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the Ordinance projected last year for superseding the freedom of the Port of Gibraltar by the introduction of certain Customs regulations, has been overruled?

Sir, among other considerations, it having been found that beneficial results have followed a stricter enforcement of the existing port regulations, Her Majesty's Government have decided not to proceed further at present with the Draft Ordinance to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether any answer has been received at the India Office to Lord Salisbury's inquiry, sent to India on the 9th September 1877, for information as to the case of private Corbett of the 48th Regiment; the authorised monthly subsistence allowance for whose four children was stopped by Colonel Travers, the officer commanding the regiment, in consequence of their father having declined to send them to the Lawrence Asylum, and sent them to the Catholic Orphan Asylum at Bellary?

Sir, Lord Salisbury's inquiry was sent on the 4th of October. No reply having been received, on the 28th of December a telegram was sent to the Viceroy, who replied that a report upon Private Corbett's statement from the Madras Government had been already twice called for.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether and when the Report of Mr. Rowsell on the Revenue and Finance is to be presented to Parliament; and, whether the Report of the Commission of Judges on the Maltese Nobility and their Claims has been received by the Colonial Office, and when it will be laid upon the Table of the House?

Sir, Mr. Rowsell's Report upon the taxation of Malta will be presented to Parliament before long; but it is not in my power to name a precise date, as the subject is a large and difficult one, and Her Majesty's Government desire to consider it fully before publishing any Papers. The Report from the Commission on the claims of the Maltese nobility was received on December 29; but as it did not appear to deal with all the points requiring decision, we have requested the Commissioners to furnish a supplementary Report. It is, therefore, impossible to say when the Reports can be presented to Parliament; but no great delay is anticipated.

asked the Home Secretary, Whether the Business of Thursday would allow of their taking the second reading of the Factories and Workshops Bill? It would, he further said, be a great convenience if the right hon. Gentleman would inform the House if it was substantially the same Bill as was brought in last year?

Sir, on Thursday it is, I believe, intended to take the second reading of the Scotch Roads and Bridges Bill first. That, I hope, will not take very long, and after that, if we can do so at a reasonable hour, we shall take the Factories and Workshops Bill. The Bill this year is substantially the same as that of last year. The right hon. Gentleman will find that some few of the Amendments placed upon the Paper have been adopted and incorporated into the Bill; and as to the definition clause, it will be made clearer than it was, but for all practical purposes it is the same Bill.

Sir, it may be convenient that I should ask a Question of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the Motion standing in his name for the appointment of a Select Committee to consider the best means of promoting the Despatch of Public Business in this House. I see there are three Orders of the Day, two of which are opposed, and may possibly take some time. I observe that the right hon. Gentleman has not given Notice that he will move the postponement of the Orders of the Day until after his Motion has been disposed of, and it is possible, therefore, that the Motion may come on rather late. I will ask the right hon. Gentleman if he intends to move for the Committee at a late hour in the evening, or if he will name after what hour he will not take it?

Sir, I may say that I had not contemplated that this Motion need lead to any considerable debate, as I had intended to state to the House very briefly my desire for the appointment of a Committee, before which, in redemption of the pledge I gave last Session, I shall be prepared to make certain proposals on behalf of the Government; and these proposals, with any others that might be suggested in Committee, might be put in a shape in which they can conveniently come before the House for discussion. I hope, therefore, it may not involve any very prolonged discussion on the present occasion. If it is likely there will be any very long discussion, it might not be convenient to take it at a late hour, and I would not take it after 11 o'clock. I hope we shall be able to reach it before that time.

Sir, I beg to give Notice that I shall move the addition of the following words as an Amendment of the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer:—

"And to consider whether the endeavour of the Imperial Parliament to deal with the legislative requirements of the three Kingdoms as to local affairs has not been a serious obstacle to the due and expeditious discharge of the general Business of the House."

in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, it was substantially the same as the one before the House last Session, saving that he had, in some few particulars, endeavoured to meet the objections which had then been made to it, and consequent alterations had ensued. It simply proposed to give power to each electoral district of Ireland to elect one magistrate, and to confer that power upon the Guardians instead of the ratepayers of the Unions. He proposed that the election should be by ballot, the cost being only about £5, and that the magistrates should be elected for life, and not, as he had formerly suggested, for five years. He thought such a mea- sure was required in order to give the ratepayers of the counties the same representation on the Bench which was enjoyed by the ratepayers of the towns and cities. As the principle of the measure was much desired in Ireland, he trusted the Government would allow the Bill to be read a second time, and then, if they had any objections to its provisions, Amendments could be moved in Committee of the Whole House. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the second reading.

in moving that the debate be now adjourned, said, it would be in the knowledge of the House that the Bill was not delivered with the Papers in the morning, and in accordance with the precedent laid down last Session, he thought they ought not to discuss a Bill which they had not seen. The case he referred to was that of a Bill for removing the disqualification of certain householders introduced by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir H. Drummond Wolff), and the debate upon which was adjourned for the same reason.

hoped that the House would proceed with the measure. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Limerick County (Mr. O'Sullivan) had taken every trouble to have the Bill in the hands of hon. Members that morning; but, by some mischance, the printer had not delivered it in time, although other Bills which followed it on the Order Paper had been duly distributed. The Bill having been discussed last year, its provisions were well known, and, in the circumstances, he thought it would be ungracious of the House to refuse to discuss it.

opposed the Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate, thinking it unfair that the hon. Member for Limerick County, who had obtained the first place in the list of Orders of the Day by ballot, should be deprived of that advantage in this way. He could see a principle involved. He trusted the hon. Gentleman would test the question by a division.

in supporting the Motion, maintained that it was impossible satisfactorily to discuss a Bill which had just been put into their hands. If the rule were violated in one case, it would be in another. How were hon. Members to tell in what particulars it differed from that of last year?

said, he was glad to find that the first instance of obstruction that Session had come from the other side of the House, and from an Englishman representing an Irish constituency. He was the more surprised at this, as when Gentlemen of the English denomination went over to Ireland they were always well received. It was to be further observed that the opposition was directed against a Bill framed for the preservation of popular rights.

said, he wished it to be understood that Her Majesty's Government had no objection, in principle, to the Bill proceeding, although Monday was a Government night and the Bill was that of a private Member, and not a Government measure. That that was the view of the Government was, he thought, evident from the fact that he had refrained from exercising his right to put upon the Paper for an early period of the Sitting a Motion in reference to the Business of the House, which would, of course, have taken precedence of the hon. Gentleman's Bill. His objection to proceeding rested on the fact that the Bill was not in the hands of hon. Members, and could not, therefore, be discussed with propriety or profit. In a case similar to the present, which took place on the 12th of February last year, an objection of the same kind as that raised by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Charles Lewis) was taken by the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke), and the debate was adjourned. Under those circumstances he was sorry to say that, without expressing any opinion as to the Bill, and without any desire on the part of the Government to burke discussion, it would be necessary for him to follow the course adopted last year, and support the Motion for Adjournment.

said, he had done all in his power to get the Bill delivered in time, but could not obtain it from the printer, although other Bills which stood after his on the list of Orders of the Day, and some which were down on the lists for subsequent days, had been delivered. He strongly protested against the unfairness of being made to suffer in that way from neglect on the part of officials for whom the Government and the House were responsible, and thought the Government ought to give him a day for it. The opposition had visibly come from the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Charles Lewis); but a Member of the Government had told him that the Bill would be opposed, because it had not been printed. The real opponents of the Bill were the Government.

After the statement of the hon. Member, I feel compelled to address a few words to the House. The hon. Member has suggested that the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Charles Lewis) has been requested, either directly or indirectly, by the Government to oppose the Bill. I wish to state that several hon. Members sitting on this side of the House have come to me during the evening, asking me what course I intended to pursue on the part of the Government. More than one hinted that as the Bill had not been delivered, it ought not to be proceeded with. I have said that I would far sooner that it should go on, and I have asked more than one hon. Member not to oppose it on that ground.

urged that the Bill should be allowed to proceed, since the principle had already been debated in the House, and there would be a great waste of time if the debate were now adjourned. If the Government intended to oppose the Bill, lot them do so at once, or let them state what were their intentions with respect to it.

thought the hon. Member for Limerick was placed in a position of some hardship in being deprived of his chance of proceeding with the Bill through miscarriage at the printer's. The hon. Member having obtained the first place, was entitled to have his Bill delivered first. He presumed the Government were responsible for any accidental miscarriage that might happen. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: No, no!] Then the House was responsible, and he thought the hon. Member had a right to claim that he should be put in as good a position, either now or at some future time, as if the Bill had been in duo course delivered to hon. Members.

confirmed what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said as to his (Sir H. Drummond Wolff's) being in the same position last year, and expressed a hope that these instances of miscarriage would load to some change in the arrangements for the printing of Bills. He sympathized with the hon. Member opposite (Mr. O'Sullivan), and should be glad if the present hardship could be remedied, seeing that the arrangements for printing in the House wore excessively "slipshod." He thought it would be well if Bills which had been read the second time in one Session were re-introduced in the next. They should be then road a second time, pro forma, and the Government could afterwards oppose their further progress, if necessary, on the Motion to go into Committee. In this case, why not agree to pass all the Orders in favour of the Committee on Public Business? Why not read them all a second time, and take the discussions on going into Committee?

supported the suggestion of the hon. Member opposite (Sir H. Drummond Wolff). It was quite competent for the House to discuss the Bill on its merits on going into Committee.

thought that the question should be decided on the second reading, and should be discussed at once. That was the course pursued last Session on the Lodgers' Removal Bill. He recollected also that the House allowed the Government to read the Mutiny Bill a second time before it was printed last year, and he trusted that they would grant the same privilege to a private Member. He did not think the Government should avail themselves of a technical objection to defeat this measure, in which a question of principle was involved.

said, he had intended to object to the Bill being now discussed; but at the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland he had determined not to do so. He wished to point out that the three Bills did not stand by any means on an equality. In the last Session the one now before the House had been rejected by a large majority, while two of them had been affirmed on the second reading, and he could not consent, therefore, to regard the Bills as standing on a level. He hoped that they would be allowed to express their opinion on the second reading of the measure now before the House at the present stage.

thought it would be well if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would appeal to the large majority at his back, over which he exercised so large an influence, to allow the discussion to proceed. If the right hon. Gentleman would do so, that majority would give its consent, and the Bill would go on.

denied that he had asserted that the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Charles Lewis) had been put up by the Government to raise this objection to the Bill.

thought that there was some little misapprehension in the minds of certain hon. Members with regard to this Bill. He entirely agreed that the hon. Member bringing forward the measure had suffered from no fault of his own. There appeared, however, to be an impression that this was the first Bill that was placed upon the list under the ballot. That was not so, however, inasmuch as there were some 30 or 40 Bills before it; 41 he believed. The Government had no do-sire to prevent the fullest discussion of the Bill. In pursuance of their rules it should not now be considered; but that was by no fault of the hon. Gentleman who introduced it; and he therefore appealed to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Charles Lewis) to withdraw his Motion. In that case, the Government would be prepared to proceed with its discussion.

joined in the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman to the hon. Member for Londonderry to withdraw his Motion.

regretted that he was unable to accede to the request of the right hon. Gentleman. He wished to know whether the Business of the House was to be conducted according to general rules, or whether, with the consent of the House and of the Leaders on both sides, a reign of confusion was to prevail. Last year the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) was treated with extreme severity both by the Government and by the front Opposition Bench, and his Bill, in consequence of what happened on the Motion for its second reading, was snuffed out for the Session. The present Bill came before the House under the same circumstances, and he felt obliged to proceed to a division.

expressed his regret that the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) had not been assented to. He trusted that, under the circumstances, this discussion would not be needlessly prolonged, and that the House would at once come to a division upon the issue raised by the hon. Member for Londonderry. He did not see why the House should fetter its action by any now rule of practice as to whether Bills should be received or not before they wore printed. The principle involved in the measure was a very simple one, being contained in the 1st clause, and any hon. Member could make himself acquainted with its nature in a few minutes. For his own part, he should feel bound to oppose the measure when it came on for discussion, but he thought the technical objection now raised ought not to be uphold. In this case it had boon pointed out that it was no fault of the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Sullivan) that his Bill had not been printed in time; and, considering the view expressed by the Government, he hoped the House would allow the discussion to go on.

warned hon. Members of the danger of establishing a precedent for the discussion of measures which wore not printed, which might be used on future occasions to the prejudice of minorities. His hon. Friend the Member for Limerick was not answerable for the fault of an officer of the House, and he therefore thought the true solution would be to adjourn the debate now, the Government giving his hon. Friend a night for the discussion of his Bill when it was printed.

congratulated the House on the decision it had come to, because it was much better that the Bill should be discussed and disposed of. He objected to the Bill that, instead of conforming to the time-honoured custom that the fount of honour should be the Crown, it proposed to constitute Boards of Guardians the fount of honour. He begged to move that the Bill be read a second time that day seven months.

seconded the Amendment.

in supporting the second reading of the Bill, said, that if the magistrates in Ireland were wisely or fairly appointed there would be no necessity for the Bill; but the fact was, as they all know perfectly well, that they wore at present appointed on the nomination of the Lords Lieutenant of counties on account of their politics and religion, and not by reason of their fitness for the position. He know a Lord Lieutenant who refused to recommend a gentleman—a Deputy Lieutenant who was heir to a good estate—because he was a Catholic. The Bill that was before the House was, he thought, a very small matter indeed. He thought, however, it would give very great satisfaction to the ratepayers of the Union if, after they had elected a certain number of men in whom they had confidence to serve as Guardians, they should have the power to select a certain person to represent thorn on the commission of the peace. He knew that there wore most intelligent men in Boards of Guardians who might well be trusted to discharge the duties of a magistrate. Again, he pointed out that the Lord Chancellor would never approve of the appointment of a person unless he were qualified to perform those duties. The Bill was, however, as he had said, a matter of very small consequence. It would do no very great harm, and he hoped the Government would see their way to letting it pass.

said, he wished to state that he gave a general support to that class of Bills. They all agreed in this one strong point—that they had a tendency to associate the poorer classes of the people in the government of the country, and he considered that a point of very great importance, and calculated to strengthen the framework of the country. The more they did so the more they could rely on the people in time of war. If the people were left outside the pale of their institutions, he was afraid that to a certain extent they might be looked at as internal enemies. The magistrates had half the management of the Poor Law, and to a considerable extent the administration of the sanitary laws. In these they were associated with other persons, but there were certain cases where they had the exclusive control, and in which they ought to be reinforced by magistrates elected by the people. Besides that, the Bill only proposed a magistrate for the approval of the Lord Chancellor, and consequently did not force him upon the country. In fact, it only gave power to the Guardians to recommend one magistrate for about 14 or 15 who were appointed in the usual way by the Lords Lieutenant of the counties, and these Lords Lieutenant did not invariably represent the wishes of the people of their counties. The appeal to this House against Lords Lieutenant was not as effective in the case of Ireland as it was in the case of England. In the county of Carlow he understood that out of 60 or 70 justices of the peace there were only two Roman Catholics, although five-sixths of the population professed that faith, and in Donegal and other counties a similar state of things existed. The Bill before the House would to a certain extent provide a remedy for such an anomalous and unjust state of things.

said, he had voted in favour of having the measure discussed, but he regretted that his support could not extend any further. Although there wore certain evils at present in the elections of magistrates in Ireland, he believed that the remedy proposed would be worse than the disease. He considered that nothing could be more mischievous than that the qualification for the magistrate's office should depend upon the personal popularity of the candidate nominated. The popular election of judicial officers in the United States had not been attended with results which should encourage us to follow their example; and further, he did not believe that there was any evidence that the measure had received any support in Ireland. Had there over been a public meeting in favour of it, or a petition presented praying that it might pass? He believed that no section of the Irish people had ever asked for it, and he thought the House would do well not to favour any such revolutionary change in the appointment of those who discharged judicial duties.

supported the Bill, pointing out that mayors of boroughs in Ireland elected by the ratepayers discharged magisterial duties during their year of office, and no complaint had ever been made of the manner in which they administered justice. But he considered with the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan), that one of the great recommendations of the measure was that it would encourage the people of Ireland to consider, and to feel that they had some voice in the local government of the affairs of Ireland; that they had some hold on the administration of justice in their own country; and that they were really regarded as citizens of Her Majesty's Kingdom of Ireland. At present, those matters were too much in the hands of men and families whose religious views were not those of the majority of the people. He hoped the Government would support the second reading of the Bill, and if any serious objections were entertained to its provisions they could be corrected in Committee.

opposed the Bill on the ground that it would place too much power in the hands of the ratepayers. It would practically amount to an appointment for life, whereas the justice so appointed might cease to be a Guardian for the Union in six months or less.

hoped the House would read the Bill a second time. As to its being revolutionary, he could not see upon what grounds hon. Gentlemen calling themselves Liberal could oppose so very mild a measure as the Bill under consideration. It simply conferred upon Poor Law Guardians the power of nominating to the Lord Chancellor.

opposed the Bill, as tending to cast a slur upon and lowering the character of the magistracy. Further, he did not see how, consistently with the 4th clause of the Bill, powers of justices appointed under it could be confined to the county in which they resided. He could not support the Bill, because it was one of a class of democratic measures which were about to be introduced.

supported the Bill, and denied that it cast any slur upon the existing magistracy. He thought it would be well to adopt the present proposal for these, amongst other reasons, that it would remove from the minds of the people any suspicion of partiality in the selection of magistrates, and extinguish a strong prejudice which prevailed, to a great extent, against the present practice of referring all important cases to the Castle adviser. The Bill was not of the revolutionary character that was supposed, and in case of its passing it would probably be found that the Guardians would, in the majority of cases, nominate the same gentlemen who would, under ordinary oases, be selected by the Lord Chancellor.

opposed the second reading on the ground that the Bill would introduce a mode of appointing magistrates which was novel and objectionable. It had been contended that the Bill was only an extension to the rural districts of Ireland of a power now enjoyed in the urban districts; but the present proposal bore no analogy whatever to the appointment of borough justices, who were approved by the Crown; nor to the magisterial powers enjoyed by the mayor of a town, as such, during his year of office. Neither was it at all a copy of the system under which certain town commissioners in Ireland were appointed justices by the Lord Chancellor. No hon. Member had referred to the 17 & 18 Vict., by which it would be found that all the commissioners could do was to forward to the Lord Chancellor a return stating the ages, position, and other particulars of the persons elected to be commissioners, and from that list the Lord Chancellor might select a properly-qualified person to act as justice of the peace within the town during his term of office. The proposals of this Bill were that the elected Guardians of every Union might elect any person they chose —not necessarily one of their own body, but who might be living in England, in America, or elsewhere—to act during his life, with the sanction of the Lord Chancellor, as a magistrate of any county or counties, perhaps as many as three, in some cases, into which the Union might extend. This proposal was not made, as far as he could discover, from any want of confidence in the way in which Government now exercised their power in the appointment of magistrates, since the Bill would extend the veto which the Lord Chancellor at present possessed to magistrates elected by the Board of Guardians. The hon. Member who spoke last (Mr. P. Martin) said something about a want of confidence on the part of the people of Ireland in the Bench, owing to their referring cases, for legal opinions alone, to the legal advisers of the Castle. He (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) thought this a great advantage which the magistrates of Ireland had over their brethren in England, as they obtained in that way really good advice upon points of law. Was the proposal introduced to procure a better administration of justice? He had heard nothing to warrant the opinion that justice would be better administered by magistrates appointed under the new system than under the present. It was said that some change of this kind was wanted because the Lords Lieutenant of counties did not exercise their power of recommendation in a fair and impartial manner. The Lords Lieutenant of counties were of various political opinions, and one or two, such as Colonel White, the Lord Lieutenant of Clare, of the same opinions as hon. Gentlemen opposite; but from all he had hoard, they exercised their power as fairly in Ireland as it was exercised in England or Wales. If there were any complaints in particular cases, they ought to be brought under the notice of the House. He believed the fact that that could be done, as well as the desire of those gentlemen themselves to discharge their duties properly, formed quite sufficient securities against abuse. He had often heard it suggested that a sweeping change should be made in England by the substitution of stipendiary for unpaid magistrates. But that system to some extent already prevailed in Ireland, where stipendiary magistrates were acting in their respective districts nearly all over the country. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, however, were not satisfied with the system, which the most advanced reformers in England advocated, and argued that the stipendiary magistrates in Ireland re- presented not the people, but the Crown. It had been alleged that the principle of this Bill was a very small matter. In his judgment, it was one of the most important matters that could possibly come under the consideration of that House. The question at issue was, whether justice should be administered by persons elected by the people, or by persons appointed, according to the existing system, by the Crown. It might be true that in past times, or in foreign countries, persons were elected by the people to perform judicial functions; but the system had proved to be a bad one wherever it had been tried, for it did not tend to the purer administration of justice, but was likely to make the Judicial Bench dependent on popular favour. The adoption of this Bill would be, he believed, the adoption of a principle that must be disastrous in any country, but nowhere more distastrous than in Ireland.

hoped that in voting for the second reading he should not be understood to approve the principle of the measure, because, in fact, he thought there were many reasons which rendered the election of magistrates unadvisable. Magistrates ought to be independent of local considerations; but considering what was the present mode of appointing magistrates in Ireland, it became necessary for those who desired to protest against that system to seize every opportunity of doing so. For that reason he should support the present measure. There was an unfair proportion of Protestants among the magistrates in Ireland, and he should have been glad if the right hon. Gentleman had announced that it was the intention of the Government to follow in the footsteps of their Predecessors in Office, who had appointed a considerable number of Catholic magistrates. The only fair way of making such appointments would be to dispose of them in equal proportions between Protestants and Roman Catholics.

said, that the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) was wrong in throwing the entire blame of the present system of appointments upon Lords Lieutenant. He held that the Government in Ireland were the chief offenders, because in the appointments of magistrates of the City of Dublin, which were made directly from the Castle, they showed the worst example. There was an abundance of Catholics of property, and in every way eligible, who were passed over in favour of the Protestants in the majority of ten to one. The Government habitually selected Protestants and Conservatives. In the North Dublin Union, whore a majority of the elected Guardians were Liberal, an attempt, which was very nearly successful, was made to swamp that majority by the appointment of ex-officio magistrates of the proper political type. A great many of the magistrates appointed were qualified neither by wealth, nor social position, nor education; but were appointed simply because they were of the true blue colour in politics.

entertained a most decided objection to the office or position of the administrators of justice being in any way dependent upon the caprice and favour of the people. He had heard the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland say, however, that the adoption of the elective principle would be importing into Ireland something unknown in England or Scotland; and he (Mr. Sullivan) must remark that in England aldermen and in Scotland baillies were elected, and that they acted as magistrates. It would, he admitted, be a doubtful experiment in Ireland; for were there not in that country complaints as to the Party nomination of the magistracy? He granted that the sharp edge of that complaint belonged to a past time; but the evil was not quite gone, for Liberals appointed none but Liberals, and Tories none but Tories. ["No, no!"] Well, they appointed very few others. What they wanted in Ireland was a Government which would have the courage to break with the old traditions on that matter, and which would make appointments from men of a different Party to its own. In that way a Liberal Government might make Conservative appointments and a Conservative Government might make Liberal appointments, until an equitable arrangement, as between different Parties and creeds, was obtained, and such a body of men secured for the magisterial office as would give confidence both to the people and to the Crown in the administration of justice. A greater attempt was never made to throw dust in the eyes of the people than to say that in these appointments no notice was taken of religion. Sir Robert Peel shrewdly said that it was one thing to declare Catholics qualified, and another thing to appoint them, and he (Mr. Sullivan) would remark that the fulness of Catholic emancipation had never yet been reached in Ireland, because successive Governments had not chosen to appoint Catholics. He could not join in any wholesale indictment against the Irish magistracy, as it was only on very rare occasions that they exhibited parti-zanship on the Bench; but still the evil of the unequal appointment of Roman Catholics and Protestants did exist.

briefly replied to the objections which had been raised against the Bill, and hoped that the House would not refuse it a second reading.

in rising to move that the Bill be now road a second time, said, he could not refrain from expressing his regret at the absence through ill-health of his hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. R. Smyth). It was considered important that the Bill should be introduced at the very earliest opportunity, seeing that last year it failed to become law, not by the will of the House, but by want of time to carry it. He was actuated by two reasons in undertaking the charge of the Bill this Session—the one being that his hon. Friend had conducted it to such a point that the carrying of it to what he trusted would be its final success would be comparatively an easy task; and in the next place he hoped his hon. Friend would be very shortly amongst them and able to assist him in promoting this mea- sure by his counsel and advice. The Bill had been so often before the House, its principles had been so often discussed, and everything which could be said for or against it had been so eloquently urged, that it was not necessary for him on this occasion to deal at any length with its general principles; and in the few remarks he intended to make he would confine himself to a statement of the proceedings which had taken place with regard to it since the Bill was introduced last Session. It was then introduced under circumstances almost exactly similar to those now existing. Notice was given for the introduction on the first night of the Session; it was introduced on the next day, and on the following Monday the second reading was taken. But when the Bill came up for the second reading it was opposed by the hon. Member for Limerick County (Mr. O'Sullivan). There was some discussion with regard to it, and the second reading was carried by an overwhelming majority, the Government at that stage supporting it. But subsequently to that the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) proposed that it should be referred to a Select Committee for a certain particular purpose—namely, to ascertain whether certain cities and towns should not be exempted from its operations. The promoters of the Bill consented to its being so sent up, and the majority of the Members of the Committee were selected by the Government. The Committee, nevertheless, came to a vote against the proposals of the Chief Secretary for exempting those particular cities and towns, and they supported the Bill in its entirety. Under those circumstances the Bill came back to the House. It was not necessary for him to go in detail into the subsequent proceedings of the Session; suffice it for him to say that it was through sheer want of time the Bill was lost last year. He wished to call the attention of the House and of the Government to what had taken place since then, and what they were told at the time by the opponents of the Bill. They were told that it would be very necessary to wait and see what effect the evidence given before that Committee would have on the country. They were told, especially by the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Murphy), who had been the most indefatigable opponent of the Bill, that if they waited for another six months—for another Session of Parliament—that a complete change? would take place over the expressed opinion of the Irish people, that it would be seen that Irishmen realized the fact that the Bill was a reality and not a sham, and they would see a complete revulsion of feeling in Ireland. The expressed opinion at that time was undoubtedly in favour of the Bill; but the opponents of the measure asserted that there wore hundreds of thousands of people who had never expressed any opinion upon it, and who, if they only had time and opportunity and studied the evidence, would come forward and give expression to such opinion as would render it impossible for the promoters of the Bill to come again before the House under the same circumstances as they had come last Session. How had those predictions been verified? Early in the autumn the campaign against the Bill was commenced by a conference in Dublin, and curiously enough this conference, he was informed, was composed very largely of representatives, not from Irish cities and towns, but from English cities and towns. A conference of delegates, largely composed of delegates from English cities and towns, who were opposed to this Bill, was held in Dublin, and a resolution was passed in pursuance of which meetings were held in various parts of Ireland. The first of these meetings was held at Limerick. It was an open meeting held at a time when the working men could attend. ["No, no!"] Then why was it not held at a time when the working men could attend? The choice of the hour for holding this meeting was at the discretion of its promoters. The Mayor who presided was one of their friends, and if the meeting was not held at a time when the working men could attend, that was their fault. At all events, what was the result? Why, the resolution, which was carried, accepted and approved of the measure which they were called upon to condemn. The next meeting was held in Dublin; but, warned by the experience obtained in Limerick, the means of admission was by tickets, many of which were obtained at public-houses. The meeting was held in a small room in the Rotunda, and it took place at a time when the working classes could attend. A meeting was next hold in the city of Cork. It was not a close meeting, but it was called for an hour—namely 12 o'clock at noon, when for working men to attend would be to forfeit a day's wages. It could not for a moment be contended that these meetings showed that public opinion in Ireland was opposed to the Bill. A similar meeting was held in Belfast under similar circumstances, and he understood the proceedings were of a most disorderly character, and anything but unanimity against the Bill prevailed. In addition, however, to the holding of meetings, a deputation of working men waited on the Chief Secretary to urge on the right hon. Baronet the necessity of opposing the Bill, in the interest of the labouring classes in Ireland. The right hon. Baronet inquired of them whether they represented societies; but it appeared from their replies that they represented themselves only. Such was the result of the agitation against the Bill, and these were the only expressions of public opinion in Ireland in that direction. It would have been quite legitimate for the promoters of the Bill, so far as expressions of public opinion went, to have allowed matters to rest whore they wore last year, and to have maintained that unless there was a change of opinion against it it ought to be carried. Public opinion, however, so far from going against the Bill, was still growing in its favour, for over 60 public meetings had been held in all parts of the country in favour of the Bill. All these were open meetings, held at times when the working men could attend, and yet, in spite of that, at all the so meetings resolutions were carried enthusiastically in favour of the measure, and with one exception there was no disturbance or diversity of opinion at any of them. Would it have been possible to have held those meetings, and that they would have passed off as they did, if the working classes of Ireland had believed that this Bill was one of a coercive character, or one which would injuriously affect their liberty? It would have been perfectly impossible. But that was not all. A deputation waited on the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland —not to express their own opinions merely as supporters of the Bill, but also those of 2,000 working men who had deputed them. Further than that, a memorial was presented to the right hon. Baronet signed by nearly 10,000 persons, including magistrates, professional men, clergymen of all denominations, Poor Law Guardians, and members of Town Councils, all in favour of this Bill, and asking the Government to press it forward. No doubt these gentlemen would not be individually affected if the measure became law, but they would not have come and misrepresented the feeling of the people of Ireland. It had been asserted by the hon. Member for Cork that the great bulk of the Roman Catholic clergy were opposed to the Bill; but what proof had he given of this assertion? Why, it was a singular fact that the number of parochial Roman Catholic clergymen in Ireland being about 2,500, the signatures of 1,200 Roman Catholic priests were to be found attached to the memorial. He would ask any hon. Gentleman who was acquainted with Ireland whether this could have been the case had this been a coercive measure intended to interfere with the wishes of the people of Ireland. If it had been of such a character, there would not have been found such a number of Roman Catholic clergymen signing the memorial in favour of the measure. But if there were Roman Catholic clergymen of Ireland opposed to this Bill, why did they not appear, and where were their declarations? Such had been the expression of public opinion outside the House. Then there was the expression of opinion on the part of the Irish Representatives in that House. How did that stand? There had been, or was about to be, presented to the Chief Secretary in favour of the Bill a memorial signed by 57 out of the 103 Irish Members, and there were 18 others who on former occasions had voted for the Bill, or expressly stated their intention of voting for it, but who did not wish to put their names to the memorial. There were thus 75 out of the 103 Irish Members who were supporters of this measure, whilst the largest number whom a division had shown against the Bill was 11. What chance had Irish Members in that House of carrying any Bill, on the ground that it was consistent with the feeling of the Irish people, if they were to be told that three-fourths of the Irish Representatives were in favour of a measure which was not one the Irish people were in favour of? These were the circumstances under which this Bill now came before the House; and in these circumstances he should have expected that the Government would have taken it up and saved private Members the trouble of pushing it through. The Chief Secretary, however, had said that he could not do so, although, in answer to the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan), it had been promised that the Government would give every facility for passing the measure into law, and take every means of ensuring that it should not be rejected, as on former occasions, simply by a system of pure obstruction and delay. He would appeal to the right hon. Baronet to repeat, even more strongly, that statement; because if the Government made it clear that they wore determined that the Bill should pass this Session—trying, of course, if they wished, to amend it—it would not be defeated by such tactics again, and they would thus save a great deal of trouble and valuable time both to the promoters and to themselves. He appealed to his hon. Friends who opposed the measure to allow the Bill to go into Committee, and then they could move any Amendments they might think proper, and if their demands were reasonable the promoters of the Bill would give them every consideration. He was glad that the present opposition to the Bill did not arise from an Irish Member, and that the true opponents of the Bill were showing their colours, and that the hon. Member for Guildford had been selected as their champion. He was not a fanatical supporter of the measure—he was not, and never had been, what was known as a strict Sabbatarian, and he was not opposed to innocent amusement on Sunday; but it had always seemed anomalous to him that the museums and other places of innocent amusement on the Sunday should be shut, and that the only places licensed by the law to be open should be those which ministered to the intemperance of the people. He did not like Government interference in private affairs, nor did he believe in making people sober by Act of Parliament; but he asked that a source of temptation should be taken out of the people's way, and he asked it because he believed the people themselves wished it to be removed. If he did not believe that the majority of his countrymen were in favour of the Bill he would not promote it in the House. Moreover, he believed the Bill would be inoperative if the people, as a body, were opposed to it. The hon. Gentleman who was about to move the rejection of the Bill, and who did not usually manifest much interest in Irish affairs (Mr. Onslow), had given Notice that he should move it should be read a second time this day six months. Now, if the hon. Gentleman would take the trouble to look at the almanac he would find this day six months would be a Sunday, and he, therefore, presumed that the hon. Member's wish was not only to keep the public-houses, but the House of Commons open on that day. The hon. Member concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.

said, that he had intended to move the rejection of the Bill by a Motion that it be read that day six months; and, in reference to that point, would inform the hon. Member opposite (the O'Conor Don), that, in giving Notice of the Motion, he had not had an opportunity of seeing the almanac. He did not propose to divide the House on that occasion, because many of his Friends who intended opposing the Bill were not present, as no one could have anticipated that the second reading would be reached at that early hour. He would, therefore, reserve his remarks on it until the next stage—that of going into Committee on the Bill. He was informed that there was an immense number of Petitions which would be presented against the measure, and which would have been laid on the Table before, had the Irish people had any idea that it would have been taken up at this early period of the Session. He regretted that the Government had given way, and had promised to help the Bill in every way that was possible, and thought they made a mistake last year in acting as they did on the subject. As an English Member he opposed the Bill, believing as he did that the question involved was not so much one in reference to the closing of public-houses in Ireland as one of a much larger kind. For his part, he could not but regard the measure as being merely the forerunner of a similar attempt with regard to England; and, therefore, he should do his best to oppose the passing of the Bill during the present Session. Any action he took in the matter was taken on his own responsibility, and not from any communication with Irish or English publicans. He sincerely trusted that on another occasion the Government would not hold out inducements to the promoters of the Bill to bring it again before the House.

said, he could not but hope that the suggestion just made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow) would be acted upon, and that the House would not divide at the present stage in the progress of the Bill, postponing any opposition to the time when it should be in Committee. He had on all occasions by his vote opposed the Bill, and he should continue to do so; because he believed, in opposition to the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don), that the people of Ireland were opposed to it. He had a pamphlet flourished before him, and it looked very formidable; but they could get up anything, he believed, with money, especially if they had plenty of brass. Of course no one would stand in that House to say a word against the clergy who had so numerously signed the Petition to which the hon. Member for Roscommon had referred. He (Mr. Shaw) believed no one could be more interested in their flocks than the clergy of Ireland, but he should be very doubtful about basing legislation on the question on the opinions of clergymen; for they had such an intense idea of the good to be effected by anything they proposed, that they were not the best judges of the good that actually would be effected by it. Let them take the population of London and drive them to Heaven by Act of Parliament, and it would be found to be no Heaven to them. And if they tried to force them into any course for which they were not prepared by Act of Parliament their action would be a failure. Then, again, no one liked to refuse to sign documents which, on the surface, sought to accomplish something that was good, and it seemed like doing good to the poor working classes to close the public-houses on Sunday. He was certain that the same class of people would sign a Petition for closing public-houses during half the week. Now, he believed in resting on the Sabbath, in the physical and moral benefits derived from its institution; but the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath, and if they pushed views to the extreme they would only increase the difficulties, both social and moral, which were involved in the question of drunkenness. The promoters of this movement in Cork were, he know, very good men, and they had shown their interest in the working classes by setting up coffee-houses for them which were of the greatest benefit, but they took care to close these houses on Sunday. If this movement was not of a Sabbatarian character surely they would have kept thorn open, seeing that they might be expected to act as formidable rivals to the public-houses. But Sabbatarianism in its most intense and objectionable form was at the bottom of this movement. They had been told a great deal about Boards of Guardians having petitioned in favour of the measure. He was a Guardian of two or three Unions, and he could say that the business of those Unions was always conducted by two or three gentlemen, and he never knew a case in which there was a discussion under notice on the question. Was the expression of opinion thus formed enough to enable the promoters of the measure to say—"We have the whole population of the country with us." But it was said that they had 75 Members of Parliament. He wanted to know how many of those hon. Members had made this question a prominent one or challenged public opinion directly upon it at the last Election. How many of them would do so at the next General Election, so as to ascertain clearly what was the opinion of the large majority? Would it not be desirable to postpone the question until the opinions of the constituencies had been thus challenged? and if then by a large majority Members were returned favourable to it, he would say they might pass the Bill. He asked one of the promoters of the Bill if he would not give the people an opportunity of choosing whether or not they would adopt the Act for their own districts. The answer was an emphatic No. He asked another if he would permit the houses being opened during certain hours for the sale of the dinner porter for the working men, but he replied certainly not. He might say that porter was pre-eminently the drink of the working-men of the South of Ireland, and, as they all know, if drawn from the cask on Saturday, it would not keep fresh for consumption on Sunday. The effect, therefore, of the present measure would be to increase whiskey drinking very much in place of the much less stimulating drink which was now to a very great extent used. He himself was as desirous as any man could be to raise the working man, but he would accomplish that object by increasing his moral respect. He was a very large employer of labour, and he was prepared to go as far as most people to stop drinking; but he believed nothing would effect that object, but an appeal to the intelligence, the reason, and that moral self-respect which he was glad to notice was surely increasing in Ireland. He hoped that on the question that the Speaker leave the Chair this question would be fully considered. He believed that up to the present time public opinion had not expressed itself on this question, and that it was just now beginning to do so. The subject was only beginning to be understood. He had been in conversation with a very worthy clergyman in Cork, who had a large working class congregation, who expressed to him his dislike to the measure, and a largo meeting of the working-men recently held in that city had pronounced strongly against it. He believed the intelligent thought of the country was in favour of lessening the temptation to drink, but that they were not favourable to that unreasonable interference with the liberty of the working man which this Bill would effect if passed.

said, that he should not have intervened in this de-bate, if he thought it was wholly an Irish question. He was bound to state that he, for one, did not believe in what had been termed the increasing drunkenness of the Irish people, nor did he believe in class legislation, whether in this country or elsewhere. If there was to be, as they were told there might be, equal laws both for England and Ireland, he should by all means prefer to try that principle in this case. If they wanted it, let a Bill of this character be brought in for England also; or, at any rate, one that would deal with England and Ireland alike, and they would see what became of their intended legislation then. It was, however, alleged that there were special reasons why this particular measure should be applied to Ireland alone rather than to this country; but he apprehended that there never was and never could be a greater fallacy than this argument. They were further told that a memorial, largely signed, had been placed in the hands of the hon. Member opposite (the O'Conor Don); but he (Mr. Wheelhouse) desired to be told whether there was a single individual who had signed that memorial who would be affected in the slightest degree by this Bill? It was not of the slightest use to tell him what any of the upper ten thousand or the upper twenty thousand might think about this measure; for what he wanted to know was, what were the wishes and feelings of those who would be affected by it individually? He was told that the under classes of the Irish people, who had no cellars of wine, beer, or spirits of their own, were willing that the House should legislate for them; but if this sort of legislation was to be carried into practice, where was it to stop? for he could not see any ground or reason why the largest class of people in Ireland should be treated in this way. They were told that the object of this measure was to ensure greater sobriety in Ireland; but why were sober people to be, deprived of what might be alike necessary and reasonable, because some of their neighbours indulged in excess. He was strongly of opinion that they ought not to punish those who were sober because a limited number of the community broke the law which, he would remind the House, was considered to be a social regulation only by the under classes themselves. It came, then, practically to this— that there was to be one law for the rich and another for the poor. They must all know perfectly well that all the Bishops in Ireland, of whatever creed they might be, could get their drink when and how they chose. They must all fool that members of Town Councils and Boards of Guardians could go when they liked to their own wine-collars. But what was the poor man to do? He had no wine or beer-cellar to go to, and this measure was therefore an attempt at class legislation in its worst form. He would go further, and say that there was every possible opportunity for the Government of Ireland to repress drunkenness if they desired to do so. Under these circumstances, he had not the slightest doubt as to what ought to be the fate of this Bill; but whether the House intended to read it a second time or not, he, for one, was utterly opposed to it, for if there was anything in it that was good in principle, the Bill ought to be extended to England also. If there was nothing in its principle, it ought not to be introduced either for Ireland or any other part of the Empire. Opposed as he was to the principle of the Bill, he was not ready to go into the Lobby and vote for the second reading; but if they did go into Committee on the Bill, he still hoped the Bill would be thrown out. He was well aware that there were Bishops of the Roman Catholic and Protestant Churches who said they could, if they liked, shut up the public-houses in their dioceses; but that was no reason why the Government should do it for them, and he trusted that they would not do so. Who were the Bishops of Ireland that they should dictate to any class of the community? They knew nothing, comparatively speaking, of the social wants of the classes with which they had little or nothing to do, except so far as the making of a few sacerdotal visits was concerned. If there was anything in the name of right, of justice, of reason, or of common sense, he hoped that they would never in the House of Commons sanction the principle of class legislation, and pass a measure which let the upper ten thousand go free and only affected the under classes. With respect to the memorial of which so much had been said, they all knew how memorials of this kind were got up; for it was a fact that any member of a temperance society could get any number of his fellows to sign it; but, supposing that he got every individual member of his class to sign, it would not in the slightest degree influence his opinion. What did it amount to? There were only about 10,000 or 12,000 names to the memorial, and they could not be said to express in the slightest degree the feelings or opinions of the people of Ireland. What were they, numerically considered, among the 5,000,000 or 6,000,000 of Irish people? Not a bit of it. It might be an expression of the feelings of the higher classes, but that was all. The very fact that the signatures of 1,200 priests were affixed to the memorial showed who were at the bottom of the movement. He could quite understand that the clergy of Ireland wished to keep excessive order, and to endeavour to retain the people who frequented public-houses in their churches and chapels; but he hoped that the Government would not compulsorily help them in their efforts. In conclusion, he would ask them not to indulge in the fancy that people could be made sober by Act of Parliament. What he wished to impress upon the House was that he, for one, would never, under any circumstances, consent to such a Bill as this. It was said, on the one hand, that they ought to have equal laws for England and Ireland; yet in the same breath they were told it was necessary to pass this Bill, which was simply an attempt at class legislation. Under all the circumstances, he could only say, if there was a division, he, at all events, would go to the Lobby against the Bill, and in Committee he should offer it his most strenuous opposition.

said, he had found from impartial observation and inquiry that there was a considerable amount of indifference in Ireland upon the question whether the public-houses should be closed or not. In his own county, however, about two-thirds voluntarily closed their houses already. He saw that The Freeman's Journal, which was generally accepted as the exponent of public opinion in Ireland, was in favour of the measure; and, if public opinion was strongly against it, there would surely have been a series of letters admitted into the columns of that paper protesting against the Bill. It might be said that this was class legislation; but he desired to point out that when the upper class did get drunk it did not become so serious a question for the public as when the poor man did so; as, in the latter case, the family almost invariably had to be supported by the public. He would feel it his duty to support the Bill.

rejoiced that, owing to the manner in which the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don) had brought forward the measure, the discussion could be continued without that heat which generally accompanied it. The hon. Member said this was a question into which no theological controversy ought to enter, and he expressed himself favourable to the opening of museums on Sundays. He would like to read a paper which he had found in the Library of the House, and which had a strong bearing on the hon. Mem- ber's views and feelings. On the back of the Sunday Closing Bill he found the names of the O'Conor Don, Mr. Richard Smyth, Mr. Charles Lewis, Mr. James Corry, Mr. William Johnston, Mr. Dease, Mr. Dickson, and Mr. Rodmond. When the question of opening museums was discussed in that House on the Motion of the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A, Taylor), he found the O'Conor Don was absent from the division; Mr. Richard Smyth voted against it; Mr. Charles Lewis voted against it; Mr. James Corry voted against it; Mr. William Johnston voted against it; Mr. Dease was absent; Mr. Dickson was also absent; and Mr. Redmond was absent. With these facts before him, he was, he thought, justified in questioning the assertion that the Sabbatarian question was not involved in this Bill. He had been also led to examine the names which figured in the memorial which was alleged to represent the feelings of the people of Ireland on this subject. There were in Ireland 182 Peers, and of that number only 12 had signed this memorial, and as landlords there were no men in the country more interested in the sobriety and good order of the people, which were said to be the objects of the measure before the House. If it was their opinion that it would secure those objects would they not of all signed the memorial in favour of it? The fact, however, remained that only 12 of those 182 men of influence had thought well to do so. Again, on the magisterial roll in Ireland there wore 4,000 justices of the peace, gentlemen who in their magisterial capacity had acquired an intimate knowledge of the wants and the feelings of the people, and who had to deal with whatever offence might arise in the country out of intemperance, and of those only 1,434 could be induced by the strenuous exertions of the advocates of the Bill to sign the memorial in its favour. Again, who could be bettor judges of the habits of the people than the medical practitioners? And of the 2,573 medical men practising in Ireland not one-half had signed this memorial, whether on social, sanitary, or religious grounds. As regarded Poor Law Guardians and town councillors he had not any figures which would enable him to institute a comparison, inasmuch as many of those who signed as magistrates had their names appended to it as Poor Law Guardians also. It was just the same as regards the town councillors. In fact, the promoters of the Bill had not scrupled to make exaggerated statements which misled a large number of the clergy. As regarded the clergy of Ireland, irrespective of what might be their denomination, no one entertained a higher opinion than he did, both because of the zeal with which they performed their sacred functions, and of their sympathy for the people in their privations, their sufferings, and their wants. And, speaking of the Roman Catholic clergy of Dublin, he could most emphatically state that they were not in favour of this Bill. He had spoken to many of them on the subject, and while they stated how desirous they were to repress intemperance, they added that they feared the effect of the Bill would increase it, as it would drive the people who desired refreshment into the unlicensed houses in order to obtain it, and lead to a general system of law-breaking, so that evil would greatly preponderate over any little good which might be obtained from it. No man had a better knowledge of the habits and feelings of the working men of the City of Dublin, which he had the honour to represent, and that knowledge entitled him to say that this Bill, if passed into law, would give rise to great dissatisfaction and demoralization. He had that day presented 99 Petitions against the Bill signed by 67,000 of these working men. He therefore felt justified in saying that the opinion of those 67,000 people, whose convenience was sought to be interfered with by the Bill, not only counterpoised but far outweighed the opinion of those whose ease and comforts were not assailed by the measure, and who were in no way practically interested in it except by mistaken sympathy and kindly interest. He complained that the supporters of the Bill had by the course they had that day taken stolen a march upon its opponents; but he hoped that before they were asked to go into Committee upon it sufficient time would be given to understand the public opinion of the country, which was now in a condition to inform the House that the Bill was not in accordance with the views and feelings of the Irish people, or conducive to their best interests.

said, that as the second reading of the Bill would be taken without a division, he should occupy the time of the House for only a few minutes. The opponents of the measure stated that the opinions of the clergy who were in favour of the Bill were not a test that the people wished it to be passed into law; but he contended that the 10,000 persons, representatives of all classes in Ireland, who had signed the memorial showed what the public opinion of that country was. If those persons did not represent that opinion, where were they to find it? Was it to be found at public meetings? Why, within the last three months, nearly 70 meetings, perfectly free and open, and called at a time when the people could attend them, had been held on the subject in different parts of the country, and at all of them resolutions had been passed in favour of the Bill. He contrasted those meetings with the ticket meetings held in Dublin and at Cork, and that, too, at hours when the working people could not attend them. A meeting convened in Limerick in opposition to the Bill had actually passed a resolution in its favour. It was said that before passing the measure we ought to wait for a General Election. But if we were to wait for a General Election in order to test public opinion on every important measure, very few measures of any importance would be passed at all. What had those constituencies said who had had an opportunity of expressing an opinion? What had been the result of the elections in Waterford, Tipperary, and Cork? Supporters of the Bill had been returned in every instance; and in Clare, where a gentleman from the other side of the world had been elected, his friends had to give a pledge that he would vote for the Bill. Then there was the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell), who, whatever else he might do, would hardly be found voting against the measure Thus there were Petitions, elections, public meetings, house-to-house canvass, all expressing the opinion of the Irish people on this subject, and yet some hon. Members said that this was no test. These, however, were the usual Constitutional means of ascertaining what public opinion was, and if they were to be set aside what other modes of learning it could they resort to? He had himself attended meetings at Lisburn and Enniskillen which were attended by large numbers of the people, and at both, resolutions were unanimously adopted in favour of the Bill. He did not see any inconsistency in voting against the opening of museums on Sunday and his advocacy of this Bill. The Bill could not pass for two or three months, and he challenged its opponents to protract their agitation, when they would find that the people were against them. It was not an aristocratic movement, as it had been said, in favour of the Bill, but a working-class movement. He asked the Legislature to alter the present state of things in Ireland by removing temptation from the people, and pass an Act that would effect a great social benefit.

said, he did not intend to oppose the second reading, because there, was a general consensus of opinion that some legislation was necessary. He was willing to believe that Sunday closing advocates meant well—that they had the well-being of the people of Ireland at heart; still he must express his opinion to be that they were mistaken as to the feelings of the great majority of the people of Ireland on this subject. The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) had asked the House how it was to ascertain the state of public feeling if they did not accept Petitions and the resolutions adopted at public meetings as tests of it? His answer to that question was that their own common sense and a moderate study of the Irish character ought to be sufficient to convince them that the Irish people were not likely to come as suppliants to the House of Commons, asking it to place them in rostraint and protect them from them-solves. He wished now to observe upon the discordant opinions entertained by the promoters of this Bill. In one voice they asked the House to extend to the Irish people certain political privileges, and the very next moment they told the House that those very men whom they proposed to entrust with an extension of the electeral and municipal franchise wore incapable of putting any restraint upon themselves, and that, too, in a matter which concerned their own interests. He saw in the Bill a certain amount of intolerance, and he was afraid that a remnant of that intolerance would control its supporters when they came to consider it in Committee. He hoped, however, that they would meet himself and his Friends half-way when the Bill was in Committee, so as to make it a good Bill and one that would satisfy the people. It was a great mistake to propose to exclude five large towns in Ireland from the operation of the measure. If the promoters of this Bill persevered in their intention they would do a great amount of mischief, occupy needlessly the time of the House, and, with all, their efforts would fail, because there would be a persistent attempt on the part of those who opposed their views to prevent their carrying out their special objects. There were a great many small towns in Ireland—such as seaport towns, large fishing stations, and other places of that description—the inhabitants of which would feel it a great hardship and inconvenience to be subjected to the operations of this Bill. He could not understand why, if these exemptions were good, and would operate beneficially in the larger towns, the advocates of the Bill or the Government should commit themselves to such a limitation, which, in his conscience, he believed would be most dangerous and improper. There were many urban districts in Ireland that might suffer many hardships by a limitation of that kind. Before sitting down he would make an appeal to the Government. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had shown so much impartiality, and had given the subject such an amount of patient attention and consideration for the purpose of fully ascertaining what was the real opinion of the people of Ireland on this subject, that he would entreat of him not to be too yielding to the advocates of the measure, but to meet them, at the same time, in a spirit of conciliation. He begged of the right hon. Gentleman to consider patiently the circumstances of the various other districts of Ireland which were likely to be materially affected by the operations of this Bill. If he would listen to the advice that might be tendered regarding those districts, he would find that many of thorn would be seriously injured if they were included in the scope of the Bill. He hoped those who advocated the measure would continue in the moderate and temperate line of policy which they had adopted that evening; and lie believed he was justified in saying that those who opposed the Bill would hold out to them the right hand of friendship and be willing to meet them half-way.

said, that as far as he could make out, the principal objections to this measure were the ill effects it would have upon the people; but, as the Representative of a town in which the system of Sunday closing had been tried for some time, he thought he could offer valuable evidence in the opposite direction. Nearly three years ago the publicans of Galway, acting on the representations of persons interested in the Sunday closing movement, decided upon closing their houses on Sundays. Last year he presented to that House a Petition signed by four-fifths of the publicans of Galway, who, having kept their houses closed on Sundays for two years, asked the House to keep them closed. That, he thought, was a very good proof of the feeling on the matter. The working men had made no complaint of the closing, and within the last three months held a large meeting, at which he was present, and they unanimously passed resolutions in favour of the Bill. They were told that if they closed public-houses the people would resort to shebeens, and that drunkenness would increase; but he believed the Chief Secretary had in his possession a Report from the resident magistrate at Galway, that since this custom had been adopted in Galway, the number of people brought up for drunkenness at the potty sessions on Mondays had decreased enormously. no thought that evidence such as that completely disposed of the objections to the Bill, and was of far greater value than the theoretical objections urged on the other side.

said, he thought he should not properly discharge his duty if he did not oppose this Bill at every stage. He was satisfied that the majority of the people of the South of Ireland were opposed to Sunday closing. At the same time, he would not vote against the second reading of the measure, as he was anxious to see what Amendments Her Majesty's Government intended to suggest. He admitted that many of the Irish Representatives were in favour of Sunday closing; but the reason was that the influence of the wealthier classes had been brought to bear upon them. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don) had said that any evi- dence the opponents of the Bill wished to bring before the Committee was received; but that was not the fact, for the working classes were denied the opportunity of giving evidence. The hon. Member had referred to the first meeting on the subject held in Limerick; but he forgot to toll the House that the mayor refused to hold the meeting in the evening and fixed 12 o'clock in the day, when he knew the working classes would not be able to attend. A second meeting was called, and was held at 7 o'clock in the evening. It was largely attended by the working classes and the tradesmen, and at that meeting a resolution against the Bill was carried unanimously. The hon. Member, who had forgotten that, had also told them that there were several meetings held in the South of Ireland in favour of the Bill; but he (Mr. O'Sullivan) challenged him or any of the supporters of the Bill to show where in the South of Ireland a unanimous meeting was hold in its favour. It was a fact that, in addition to the largo public meetings held in Dublin, Limerick, and Belfast, there were also public meetings held against the Bill in Killarney, Tralee, Newcastle West, and other places, at which resolutions were unanimouly passed against the Bill. The hon. Member for Roscommon had spoken about the number of Irish Members who were in favour of the Bill. There was a large number in favour of it; but influence had been brought to bear upon them by the wealthy classes, and they had not the ear of the working classes and tradesmen who would be affected by the Bill. He denied the hon. Member's statement that tickets for the Dublin meeting were only to be had at public-houses. He believed that none of them were so obtained. Out of the 70 meetings held in Ireland in favour of the Bill 60 must have taken place in the Sabbatarian part of Ireland, and its supporters had in one case defeated their opponents by burning cayenne pepper in the room where a meeting was held. It was well-known that the Sabbatarians were the backbone of this Bill. Adverting to the adoption of the Forbes Mackenzie Act in Scotland, the hon. Gentleman pointed out that in a country where the people professed neither to drink nor to whistle on the Sunday drunkenness had been more steadily on the increase than in any other part of Her Majesty's Dominions. With regard to the Committee which sat last year, some of the hon. Gentlemen composing it expressed surprise that the people were not satisfied with its constitution. How could they be satisfied when it was found that out of the 18 Members who composed it the Sabbatarians from the North of Ireland had more than one-third of that number? It included the hon. and gallant Member for Fermanagh (Colonel Cole), the hon. Member for Belfast (Mr. W. Johnston), and the noble Lord the Member for Donegal (the Marquess of Hamilton); and Londonderry, the hotbed of this agitation, was not satisfied with her city Member, but wanted both the Members for the county of Londonderry, or just as many as there were for all Munster. How, therefore, could the people of Ireland be satisfied with that Committee? He found by a Return presented to that House last Session that drunkenness was alarmingly on the increase in Scotland. The number of persons apprehended for drunkenness in Edinburgh had increased from 5,106 in 1870 to 6,825 in 1873. One of his chief reasons for opposing this Bill was that he believed it would tend to demoralize th working classes of his country. It would drive the people to she been-houses, or they would carry drink homo with them, and they would be obliged to do by stealth that which they could not do openly. Great stress had been laid upon the number of Members in favour of the Bill. He found that the total number of electors in Ireland was 227,000. There wore 22 Members opposed to the Bill, representing 67,800 electors, or nearly one-third of the whole. Taking one-third more as neutral on this question, it would then be found that the 75 Members who were in favour of the Bill did not represent more than one-third of the whole electors of Ireland. But this was not so much a question for the electors as for the non-electors. He would read a few remarks of a gentleman who was formerly a Member of that House, and which wore written to him after the debate on this Bill last year. Mr. Stephen De Vere said—

"I have read with much pleasure your speech in the House of Commons on the Sunday Closing Bill. I felt the more interested in it as the statistics you quoted show the working of the pro- posed law in my own county. Upon entering the Board-room of a largo Union lately, I found the Board about to adopt the Petition in favour of Mr. Smyth's Bill unanimously. I opposed it, using almost verbatim the reasons you have so well put forward, and the result was that the Petition was immediately rejected."

A short time ago he was in the Boardroom at Kilmallock Union, when a Petition was brought forward by a gentleman who strongly advocated Sunday closing. Out of 60 members only four wore present, and as he happened to be one of them, and as there was another gentleman who opposed the measure, the gentle-man who advocated Sunday closing proposed the question should be adjourned for a fortnight, as it was no use to vote two and two; but at that moment another Guardian who was in favour of the Petition came in, and the subject was immediately brought forward and carried by a majority of one. In his letter Mr. De Vere wont on to say—

"The statistics to show a preponderance of opinion in favour of the Bill are incomplete and illusory. The Petitions arc no doubt signed by those who have cellars and cupboards of their own, but they do not express the feelings of the great mass who will be effected by the Bill. As a magistrate of very long standing—nearly since the commencement of the reign—I can safely say that there is not, in my opinion, more drunkenness on Sundays than on any other day. The measure is false in principle, because it proposes to abridge liberty without adequate cause, and because it proposes to abridge the liberty of the many to prevent its abuse by the few. It is fallacious, because it will not only increase drinking, but will make that drinking of a worse sort—will transfer it from licensed to unlicensed houses, and from the bar to the family. It has the two worst faults that any social enactment can labour under—it is tyrannical, and it is ineffectual."

That was the opinion of a gentleman who sat in that House as Member for the county of Limerick for nearly 20 years, and they could not have stronger evidence against the Bill. He believed that if the whole of Ireland was polled, at least two-thirds would be against the principle of the measure.

said, he had no desire to protract the discussion on this stage of the Bill, when its principle appeared on all hands to be approved and confirmed; but he wished to correct certain statements which had been put forward by the hon. Member for Dublin City (Mr. Brooks), and the Representative of Limerick County (Mr. O'Sullivan). The great bulk of the Roman Catholic priests of Ireland were in favour of the Bill. During his constant intercourse with, that body he had never met but one Catholic clergyman who was opposed to the principle of the measure. The Catholic Archbishop and the Vicar-General strongly approved of the Bill in all its details, and not a single clergyman had signed a Petition against its becoming law. Out of 2,500 parochial clergy, 1,224 signed the memorial, without including those who had affixed their signatures to Potitions in favour of the Bill. This simple statement of facts repudiated the insinuation that the Catholic clergy of Dublin wore opposed to the passing of this measure. Then with reference to the meeting of the working men in Dublin about which they had heard so much as a strong demonstration against the closing of public-houses on Sunday, it was within his own knowledge that that meeting had been called by the publicans, and was organized by the publicans, and was organized by the secretary of the Dublin Licensed Vintners. There could not be a greater slander than to assort that the working classes of Ireland were opposed to this Bill. Every tittle of evidence that he had seen showed that they strongly supported it. Out of the 26 Roman Catholic Bishops in Ireland, no less than 21 of them had come forward to sustain the movement, which had been originated in Cashel, where from the time that it was started nothing but good results had accrued. The question of closing public-houses in certain towns was not at present raised by the principle of the Bill. Whatever arguments could be raised on that point would be willingly listened to at the proper time by the supporters of the Bill, as they would endeavour to meet the wishes of the majority of the Irish people whether there should be total or partial closing in those particular localities. It was stated last Session by those who opposed the Bill that if time wore given for the full consideration and discussion of its provisions a re-action would set in against the proposal, but none such had taken place. Out of the seven elections which had recently taken place the Sunday closing movement had been made a test-question, and at six of them the successful candidate had declared himself in favour of the principle of the Bill they were then asked to read a second time. The hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) had not given any pledge; but it would astonish him much if he recorded his vote with the opponents of the measure.

considered that on both sides of this question there had been great exaggeration of opinion and argument. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had expressed himself in favour of the Bill if five large towns which he named were exempted from its operation. Now, he (Mr. Downing) considered that if the Bill were at all necessary, it should be applied to largo as well as small towns; because, if they exempted largo and populous cities, they would exempt those particular localities were drunkenness most prevailed and crime existed; and if they applied the Bill to rural districts, they would apply it to places where the evidence showed it was not so necessary. For his own part he should like to see legislation on this subject of a tentative character. Let them begin by trying how the plan would work of having the houses open from 2 to 4 or 5 o'clock, and diminishing the hours of liquor traffic on Sunday afternoons. It was a fallacy to say that drunkenness prevailed in Ireland on Sundays. The evidence taken by the Committee last year showed that, so far from its having increased, it had decreased. The number of convictions had increased since 1874, be-cause by the Act passed in that year a record would be made of a case of drunkenness unattended with violence or disorder, which before would have been dismissed by the magistrate before whom the party was brought. If the right hon. Gentleman wanted to pass a Bill that would be acceptable to the Irish people, he must limit the hours of drinking on Sunday to two, and also shorten the hours on Saturday night.

thought that the cause could not be a very sound one which had to resort to the argument that the Bill ought to be rejected because the Members whose names were on its back were Sabbatarians. He had no doubt they were all of them in that House more or less Sabbatarian; but no doubt the name was given to persons who believed it to be wrong to indulge in any recreation or employment on the Sunday. For himself, he had always disclaimed such a belief, and at every meeting on the subject lie had attended he had invariably urged that rational opportunities of recreation should be provided for the people on Sunday. He fully intended voting for the Motion of the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor), but was accidentally absent when it came on. He thought the present position of the question had been fairly described by the hon. Member who had given Notice of an Amendment (Mr. Onslow) who said that it would cause a great deal of clamour in Ireland, which might be extended to England. Whether it would be extended to England or not he did not know; but he protested against that consideration having any weight in relation to Ireland itself. The change of opinion in Ireland they had been taught to look forward to had not been pronounced. He expressed himself very much surprised at the argument of the hon. Member for Cork County (Mr. Shaw) that the Catholic clergy of Ireland, who supported the Bill, were bad judges of the wants of the people. No Irish Member would join in that opinion, and the truth was that no men could be better judges. He hoped the Bill would be allowed to pass its second reading, and that all objections to it would be considered in Committee.

said, he had received a communication from the president of trades in Limerick stating that resolutions had been passed against the Bill.

remarked that the president referred to was a publican. The clergy of Ireland were undoubtedly in favour of Sunday closing.

said, he desired, with the permission of the House, before he said the few words he had risen to give utterance to, to make a personal explanation. It had been reported to him by several Members of that House that a great deal of offence had been taken by hon. Members in consequence of words he made use of at a recent meeting of the Board of Guardians of the Wat or ford Union. He must say that those words had been tolerably correctly reported, and he deeply regretted having made use of them. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman and that House that those words were made use of under the greatest possible provocation; but he did not bring forward that provocation as a palliation of the words themselves. He most unreservedly begged to apologize to every Member of the House, and to every Englishman whoso susceptibilities he might have wounded, and to throw himself on their good will. He bogged that the House would receive that apology. With respect to the question before the House, he had a few words to say. He had for four years resisted this Bill, and he appeared there to resist it again that night. He had simply to say that if the Bill passed there could be no doubt whatever that three great mischiefs would be established in Ireland, and he warned the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland with regard to them. The right hon. Gentleman had already ox-pressed himself as favourable to the settlement of the question at this time, He (Major O'Gorman) thought the time was not ripe for its settlement; and if it was settled now in favour of the Sunday closers, he warned the right hon. Gentleman that it would be the ruin of families from one end of Ireland to the other; it would be the parent of illicit distillation, and of very many riots throughout the country, He thanked the House extremely for hearing him.

in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, the object of the measure was a very simple one—namely, to enable the voters, especially of towns, to let their houses for a short period without being struck off the electoral register. At present, if a house was let as a furnished house to any person, oven for a day', the original occupier of it was disqualified. That led to a great deal of trouble in registration, especially in watering places, whore persons were in the habit of adding to their income by letting their houses for a short period. In the borough which he represented (Christchurch) the voters of both parties were put to considerable inconvenience by that state of the law, and if this measure wore passed it would give great relief to constituencies of that character. If a lodging-house keeper lived in a garret and let the rest of his house he kept his vote; while anyone who let his whole house, even for a short period, was disqualified. Two years ago, for instance, a gallant Admiral belonging to the Liberal Party living at Bournemouth had lent his house to another gallant Admiral, and had been put to great expense to come up and defend his vote. In Scotland the agents made an agreement on both sides not to raise this objection; and it was desired to extend the Bill to Scotland. He hoped that the House would, at any rate, after so many years' attempt on his part to pass it, agree to the second reading.

said, the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds), whose name was down for opposing the second reading, was not present, and that he did not himself intend to oppose the Bill at this stage; but must reserve his right with regard to going into Committee. The chief objections which had been urged by himself and others against the measure wore not directed against its principle: what he and others had argued from that side was that there were many other hardships of a similar kind which ought to be dealt with, and that, therefore, the measure ought to be more comprehensive. However, it was so unmistakably the opinion of the House that this particular hardship should be dealt with separately, that he should not oppose the second reading.

said, his only objection to the statement of the hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill was that the measure did not apply to Scotland, where there was a strong feeling as to the necessity for the proposed change He wished that the operation of the Bill could be extended to that country. It was very much the practice in Scotland for people at the seaside to go to the Highlands for a few weeks, letting their houses, and for people in the Highlands to come to the seaside— there was a sort of temporary exchange of houses, and it was very hard that the suffrage should be lost.

explained that the reason why the Bill was confined to England and Wales was that it sought to remove an anomaly under the 33rd Section of the Representation of People Act, which was confined to England alone. He believed the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) intended to introduce a measure dealing with Scotland.

in moving, in a Committee of the Whole House, for leave to bring in a Bill to Amend the Law relating to Merchant Seamen, said, this Bill had for its object to redeem pledges that were given by the Government last year that they would, as soon as possible, attempt to deal with seamen in two directions. They wished, in the first place, to introduce seamen, as far as possible, into the provisions of the Acts which were passed in the year 1875—namely, the Employers and Workmen Act, and the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act; and, secondly, to consolidate and revise the laws relating to the discipline of seamen. The principle of the two Acts of 1875 was that the relations between workmen and their employers should be one of contract, and that breach of contract should not be treated criminally. The Conspiracy Act repealed several Acts which made breach of contract criminal. It also relaxed, to a great extent, the law of indictable combinations; but it left the breach of contract between employers and workmen to be dealt with criminally where the offences were malicious, or wilfully and knowingly such as to endanger life. The Employers and Workmen Act brought disputes between the employers and workmen under the jurisdiction of the County Courts, giving these Courts bettor powers both for adjusting such disputes and of rescinding contracts or of enforcing their performance. In both these Acts seamen were specially ex-cepted. The present Bill proposed to deal with that exception. Merely to repeal the exception would leave seamen under the special discipline law of seamen; but this Bill proposed to place thorn altogether under the operation of these Acts until they joined the ship and began work. In fact, the Bill would place seamen until they were on actual sea service in the same position as ordinary workmen under the operation of these two Acts. It would abolish arrest without warrant up to that period under any circumstances. With regard to the second point with which the Bill proposed to deal—namely, the subject of seamen's discipline, it must be manifest upon the slightest reflection to everybody that the relation between the master of the ship and his crew after the voyage was begun could not be that between ordinary employers and workmen. It must be the relation of military discipline. The master of a ship on a voyage was responsible for the ship, the cargo, and the lives of all on board. If an officer in command of troops, upon his troops refusing to obey him, was obliged to get a writ of summons for the appearance of his men before the nearest Civil Court on a charge of breach of contract, one could easily see how little possibility there would be of commanding troops upon such terms. Precisely in the same way the master of a ship, who had the whole responsibility for the lives of those on board, must have arbitrary authority to deal with any cases of emergency on a voyage. He must have the widest discretion. The exercise of his power was necessarily unlimited, except in so far as he was restrained by the liability to an action being brought against him for using it in an unjustifiable manner. The master of a ship on its voyage must have unlimited authority, and that was really no more than was absolutely necessary for the safety of the lives and property entrusted to him. He believed, indeed, that so far from being relaxed, the present regulations of discipline at sea ought in some respects to be made more stringent; and the object of the Bill was to consolidate and amend the laws of discipline relating to seamen. The Royal Commission on Unseaworthy Ships, two or throe years ago, reported that the evidence brought before them clearly showed that the masters of ships in the merchant service of this country actually had not sufficient control over their crows for the safety of those under their charge, and that sailors could be guilty with impunity of the grossest dereliction of duty, directly tending to the loss of life. On this point the Bill proposed to amend and consolidate the law. He thought it necessary, so far, also, to maintain the power of arrest without warrant, otherwise a ship having put into a port of call, or by distress, might lose half her crew by men with advance notes in their pockets taking the opportunity to desert, repeat their fraud, and compel the ship to proceed on her voyage without a sufficient crow. The Bill, however, proposed to give a power of rescinding the contract between master and seamen after the voyage began, the same as the Employers and Workmen Act conferred upon master and man on shore. In considering this subject, it was necessary to bear in mind that the relation between masters and men in the merchant service was altogether one of special legislation, regulation, and protection, as well as of special discipline. The seaman's own safety, health, provisions, wages, discharge, care abroad, and the very process of his contract, were all subjects of legal enactment, and there was nothing more special in the terms of the discipline under which he served. Such an artificial scheme of legislative protection had been considered by Parliament necessary by the special nature of his employment. The Bill was in strict accordance with maritime law and with the usages of maritime nations. Penalties for absconding with advanced wages, and for the broaching of cargo, were added in the Bill to the existing law. The latter of these offences had become of late specially dangerous to the safety of the ship and the lives of the crew. There was also a clause of great importance relating to the payment of wages, dealing with the time they become due, which was at present a matter of some uncertainty, and with the mode of paying, enabling the discharged seaman to get home as quickly as possible, and not hang about the scenes of temptation at his port of discharge. By Clause 26 the Bill proposed to strengthen the law with respect to crimping. The clause was introduced at the suggestion of Mr. Boyer and others, and by making the penalty severe against crimps boarding vessels, not only arriving, but arrived, would, it was hoped, put down an evil which existed to a great extent at most of our ports. The greater part of this Bill was also in the Bill of 1875, and many of the clauses were amply discussed in this House, and passed through Committee, and therefore came with a certain amount of previous sanction already established in their favour. In the Bill of 1876 the discipline clauses were not introduced, as from their experience of the previous Session they thought the rest of the Bill would be sufficient to occupy all the time available. He had, however, now redeemed a promise he made to the House last Session by laying this Bill on the Table at the earliest possible moment of the Session, and he trusted that the House would favourably take it into discussion.

said, he wished at once to state to the House his conviction that the alterations which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to make in the law affecting merchant seamen were not only of a very important, but of a very serious character. The right hon. Gentleman had proceeded on an assumption, altogether erroneous, that the conditions of the servitude of seamen and of workmen on shore, and following an ordinary occupation on the land, were similar. Instead of the conditions of servitude of seamen and of workmen upon land being similar, any intelligent man must at once feel that the relations between the two services were anything but parallel. The right hon. Gentleman said the Bill would abolish the right of arrest and criminal prosecution of a seaman evading an agreement solemnly entered into with the master of a ship at the shipping office, to attend on a certain day and be ready to perform his duties in a particular ship as a sailor. He wished to point out the great hardship there would be in relaxing the conditions that were now enforced in that respect. The shipowner might have a fine vessel ready to sail on a certain day; he might have a full crew engaged; but at the last moment the ship might be detained by half-a-dozen loafing, idle fellows, standing, perhaps, at the dock-side, who, when the ship was ready to move away, at the instigation of some evil-minded person, instead of performing their duty refused to go on board. Under such circumstances, the ship would be undermanned, and the captain dared not leave the port, and the merchant, passengers, and shipowner interested in the vessel would be exposed to serious loss and inconvenience, without any practical remedy whatever. There was a still further point. Absolute danger of loss of life and valuable property would ensue if the change contemplated by the right hon. Gentleman were carried out. What was the case now? It frequently happened in the port of London that sailors failed to carry out their agreement, and a ship dropped down the river to Gravesend short of hands. The captain was, consequently, compelled to pick up long-shore men where he could, in order to make up the number of the crow—a fact which could not tend to improve the service. At other ports many ships went to sea short of hands, which would have been fully manned if the contracts originally entered into were carried out. And the necessary consequence of relaxing the existing law would be greatly to increase the number of these delinquencies. With regard to the disciplinary clauses of the Bill, he was not aware that a single shipowner had asked for them. On the contrary, when the question was under discussion a couple of years ago, shipowner after shipowner rose and said—"We do not care to have those excessive penal powers over the seamen. In fact, we have too many penal laws at the present moment." He had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would have spared the House the necessity of re-opening shipping questions. He felt that he had no right to enter into the subject at any length at the present moment; but he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be prepared to give the House an assurance on a matter of such importance, that he was willing to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. All he (Mr. Norwood) would do now was to content himself by stating that the proposed alterations in the law were of a very serious character indeed, and he was afraid they would load to considerable discussion and opposition. He believed there was no desire on the part of the shipowners to press unduly upon the seamen, and no wish for the enactment of additional penal powers; but he thought there would be a strong opinion that the important distinctions which existed between servitude on land and at sea ought not to be entirely got rid of, and that it was absurd to place the sailor under the same law of contract as was reasonable with landsmen.

said, he did not intend to follow the hon. Member who had just addressed the House from the opposite side into any discussion at this stage of the Bill into the principle of the measure. He thought that most of the points raised by the hon. Member for Hull would be more easily and more usefully discussed when the House went into Committee, and they had the provisions of the measure regularly before them. He merely rose now for the purpose of congratulating the Government upon having at last redeemed their pledges, and placed the Bill before the House. It was not last year that those pledges were given, but the year before last, and it was last year that the House endeavoured to induce the Government to redeem the pledges they had given. But during the whole of last Session, notwithstanding the pressure brought to boar upon the Government, the Bill was not allowed to see the light. He differed from the hon. Member for Hull in the belief that the scope of the measure, so far as he was able to form an opinion upon it from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, was very large. He had understood the pledge of the Government to be that they would extend to seamen the principles of the two Acts relating to labourers on land which were passed in the year 1875. But, so far as he was able to gather from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, the principles of those Acts were only to be extended to seamen for the shortest possible time—namely, the time between the making of the engagement and the time of joining the ship. Just for that short time seamen were to have the benefit of the principles laid down in the Masters' and Servants' Act. The moment they joined the ship, the principles of that Act would cease to apply to them, and they would come under a special maritime code. He hoped it was not too late to induce the Government to alter the principles of their Bill in this respect. It seemed to him that it would be a far better fulfilment of the pledges they had given, and would make their Bill a better measure, if they would boldly extend the provisions of the Masters' and Servants' Act altogether to seamen. A great many of the provisions of that Act might be made to apply to seamen when at sea, just as well as when on shore, and especially those relating to contract, and a considerable number of those relating to the treatment and position of apprentices. The question of apprentices, and especially in the fishing trade, was one of the questions which would have to be considered by that House, and it was one which had had a great effect in bringing forward the demand for the measure. Everyone admitted that when a sailor was at sea he must be subject to special maritime rules, and he quite agreed that it was not so much an alteration of the law in regard to discipline that was required as that there should be greater skill and efficiency in putting the law into force. Whatever special regulations might be necessary at sea ought to be embodied in a special code of maritime law applicable to seamen when at sea; and during the time they were on shore, and during the whole time of their engagement, when not actually performing the duties of seamen, they ought to be subject to the operation of the Masters' and Servants' Act. He would not take up the time of the House further, because these were matters which could only be discussed at length when the provisions of the Bill were fairly before them; but he had thought that he could not allow the observations of the hon. Member for Hull to remain unanswered, because he believed the hon. Gentleman was alarming the House unnecessarily. The measure was by no moans so large in its extent and scope as the hon. Gentleman supposed it to be, and he (Mr. Gorst) had no doubt that when it came to be printed it would prove to be a very harmless and innocent measure.

remarked that until the House saw the Bill itself, it would be extremely difficult to criticize its details. It might, however, be divided into two parts. The first part dealt with the question of engagement— the engagement which a man entered into when he signed his contract, and they heard a great deal as to this being a penal contract. It was a simple contract between an employer and a workman, which the latter entered into with his eyes perfectly open. It appeared to him (Mr. Smith) that the tendency of the measure was not so much in the direction of freedom of contract as in the direction of freedom of breach of contract. He saw great force in the remarks of his hon. Friend the Member for Hull upon this matter, and he was afraid that very dangerous and awkward complications might- arise hereafter if the Bill was passed as shadowed forth by the President of the Board of Trade. At the same time, he was not prepared to oppose the Bill, because he was aware that there was a feeling in favour of carrying this view considerably further, and he was willing to accept the propositions of the right hon. Gentleman as a compromise. He should, however, ask for one condition—namely, that having given freedom of breach of contract to the sailor, the right hon. Gentleman should give freedom of broach of contract to the employer. If the seaman was to have immunity from the consequences of a breach of contract, they must allow the employer to have full liberty to make his contract as he liked, and he should not be compelled to go before a Government officer to make a contract under Government inspection when the seaman was able to break it subject only to a money penalty. He thought that was a matter in which equal justice should be done to both parties. As to increasing the penalties upon seamen, he would only re-echo the view expressed by the hon. Member for Hull that it was unnecessary. The captains of all good merchant ships could manage their discipline very well when at sea. They did not want increased discipline, or anything that would create or increase a jealous feeling between the employer and the employed, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not persevere with this part of his Bill. There was, however, one thing which he wished strongly to point out to the right hon. Gentleman, and it was this—that the seamen in the United Kingdom— and he had a good many of them among his constituents — wore a travelling people, and that many of them were constantly from home. They wore a set of people nine-tenths of whom were away from home at any given moment, and therefore it was impossible to obtain any concerted action among them. Under these circumstances, and as he believed there would be a general concurrence of opinion against the propriety of increasing the stringency of the penal laws, he hoped, upon consideration, that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade would admit the importance of acceding to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Hull, that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, so that they might afford some opportunity of eliciting the views of seafaring people. If they were only to discuss the details of the measure in a Committee of the Whole House, he was afraid they might run into a course of legislation that might be dangerous, and that might lead to serious consequences. As the seamen had no means of expressing their views in any other way, he was of opinion that the proper course would be to call upon some members of their body to give evidence, so that the House might hear what the real opinion of the sailors was upon the subject. He therefore pressed upon the right hon. Gentleman most earnestly the necessity of referring the Bill to a Select Committee. In the meantime, he would assure the right hon. Gentleman that in the remarks he had made he had not the least wish to oppose the Bill. He thought the law as to breach of contract was fairly drawn at the present moment, and that it gave every satisfaction both to the shipowner and to the seaman. He certainly hoped that the whole matter would be thoroughly investigated by a Select Committee.

said, he was glad to see the long-promised measure for dealing with the laws affecting the merchant service introduced at last. He saw no reason why the penal laws should be in the slightest degree increased. He had constantly had seamen brought before him on cases of desertion, and he had generally found the existing laws so severe that he had on more than one occasion dismissed the men without any punishment. He was satisfied, therefore, that the provisions of the Bill in this respect would not be satisfactory to the generality of seamen. So far as the question of discipline was concerned, it was very difficult to suggest how far they could go satisfactorily in the direction of amending the existing law. His own experience and view was that they did not want any increase of discipline. The shipowners had quite enough power over the seamen already, and if the Legislature increased the power, the only result would be that they would increase the barbarous and inhuman treatment of the men. Their legislation ought to be of such a character as to induce the masters of vessels to treat their seamen in a more humane manner. One part of the question which was very important, and which he hoped would be thoroughly dealt with, was that of crimping. He had no doubt that a great many of the desertions, in connection with the merchant shipping, arose from the existence of the crimping system. It was frequently found that the men, after they had signed articles, were taken possession of by the crimps in the seaports, deprived of the money they had received on their discharge, furnished with advance notes, and when they ought to join their ship they were in a state of inebriation and unable to do so; He thought the provisions of the Bill shadowed forth by the right hon. Gentleman on this part of the question might be improved. Until they had the full details of the measure before them it would be impossible to discuss them satisfactorily. So far the right hon. Gentleman had only given them the principles of the Bill without entering into full details of all that he proposed. It was, therefore, quite impossible to criticize the provisions of the Bill as they ought to be criticized; and, under these circumstances, he ventured to support the suggestion, of the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood) that the measure, before being proceeded with further, should be referred to a Select Committee.

said, his experience of the seamen who were in the habit of refraining from joining their ships was that they were generally worthless when they did join. He thought the present penalties were quite sufficient. It might be relied upon that when they found a crew in a state of bad discipline the fault was not entirely on the part of the crew; either the ship was defective or the men were not properly treated. Where a ship was well managed and well fitted out they seldom found any cases of broach of discipline. He agreed with the opinion already expressed that the Bill ought to be referred to a Select Committee. He thought a great deal of advantage would be obtained from such a reference, and the Bill would be made a much better measure than it could be othewise.

said, he was sure that his right hon. Friend would be satisfied with the discussion which had taken place. At the same time, of course, it was very difficult to discuss a Bill until the measure itself and its provisions were fully before the House. For instance, his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gorst) would find, when he came to see the Bill, that it did contain a clause for rescinding contracts, which it was hoped would be of use in a matter now much brought before the country—the cases of breach of discipline by fishing lads at Grimsby and at Hull. Although there were clauses which increased some penalties, there were also clauses which reduced certain other penalties. There was a power to inflict forfeiture of wages as an alternative for imprisonment, and a clause to permit the cancellation of on-tries in the log against a sailor. It was hardly necessary to refer more in detail to these provisions now as hon. Members would see thorn for themselves when the Bill came before thorn. The hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood) had pointed out that the Bill contained details of a most difficult character. The Government were well aware of that; but they had considered the matter very carefully and wore quite prepared to refer the Bill to a Select Committee in order that there might be a close examination of all these details; but, on their part, they thought they were entitled to ask hon. Gentlemen in that case to try and assist them in obtaining a settlement before a Select Committee as soon as possible, in order that the Bill might be proceeded with during the present Session.