who had a Notice on the Paper to call attention to the condition of the surviving Mahomedan population of Bulgaria and of Eastern Roumelia, and to move a Resolution, said, that he had been asked a few moments before to postpone his Resolution on account of the illness of the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir Charles W. Dilke). He then replied that this would be his only opportunity for bringing the subject forward; but he had since remembered that it would be possible for him to be in the House on Tuesday next, and he was willing to defer it until Tuesday, if he could have the first place on that day's Orders. Should the Government be unable to make this concession he would be obliged to proceed with the Motion now, though he would regret to have to take this course in the absence of the Under Secretary. He therefore asked the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who, he supposed, represented the Government in the matter, if he would agree to his proposal?

intimated that if the hon. Member then sat down he would have exhausted his right to speak. He was in possession of the House, and if he intended to proceed with his Motion he should do so.

said, that, under these circumstances, he should proceed with his Motion, which was as follows:—

"That the oppression and barbarity to which the Mussulman population of Bulgaria and of Eastern Roumelia has been subjected during and since the conclusion of the Russo-Turkish War of 1877, deserves the strong condemnation of Europe; that Her Majesty's Government should take, with or without the co-operation of other European Powers, effectual steps to secure the complete repatriation of the remnant of the Mussulman population of those provinces, and to secure protection for their persons and property from outrage and robbery; that Her Majesty's Government should urge the fulfilment of those provisions of the Treaty of Berlin which are intended to insure justice for Turkey and equal rights for her Mahometan inhabitants."

He regretted the absence of the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and also that a subject of so much importance had not been taken up by some Member of greater experience than himself. He had brought forward his Motion under a sense of considerable moral responsibility. His object was to bring to the notice of the country a condition of affairs in Bulgaria which he ventured to say was without a parallel in modern times, and which it would be difficult to find a parallel for in the middle ages. He believed the people of England did not wish to shut their eyes to the state of affairs in the Balkan Peninsula; but from various causes they were unaware of the terrible system of persecution that had been carried on against the Mussulmans of the country, and which had reduced the population, which amounted to 3,000,000 before the war, to a number which he doubted at present amounted to more than 750,000. It was not solely on grounds of humanity that he brought the subject forward. It was also in the interests of the British Empire that he did so; for he believed that, in alienating the Mussulman population of Turkey, and leading them to believe that the British people were no longer their friends, they were depriving this country of an important political factor in events that might occur very shortly, and were driving the ruling powers of Turkey into a continuance of their anti-reforming policy. He held that had they acted in such a manner since the war as to maintain the Turks in the belief that England was their friend, the Government would have been able to carry out their policy with respect to Greece and Montenegro with much less of resistance from Turkey than they now had reason to expect. The unfortunate Mussulmans had been greatly misunderstood in this country. When he stated that they possessed many of those qualities which rendered nations great and admirable he was far within the mark. There was a time when the courage of the Turks was impeached; but since the late war that accusation was no longer made against them. They were a remarkably honest and honourable people—he spoke of the peasantry and the artizans of the towns, and not of the corrupt clique who misrepresented the people and misgoverned the country. They were temperate and hospitable, and they carried out the obligations of their religion—however incomplete and unworthy of comparison it might be with that far more ennobling religion which this and other Christian countries professed—with a degree of fidelity which was exhibited by very few Christian people. For many years the Turkish people had been labouring under great disadvantages. They did not understand, and, probably, did not wish to understand, why such little sympathy had been evinced for them by the civilized nations of Europe. They had no great number of philanthropic societies to take their case in hand; they had no great array of newspaper correspondents, who would put their case before the European public in the most tempting form, and who would make every act of cruelty perpetrated against them notorious; they had no great Embassy representing their country at foreign Courts; and they had no great secret societies, whose influence extended from St. Petersburg to Trieste. But, notwithstanding these disadvantages, he did not believe that, when the case was fairly put before them, the British public would withhold their sympathies from a people whose conduct entitled them to respect. The position of the Turks in Europe was misunderstood in many respects. Thus it was generally understood that the Turks merely occupied a camp in Europe, and that they had no real title to the land. Their claim to the land, however, was equally good with that of most European countries to the soil—each held by the right of conquest as having proved themselves to be the more manly and deserving race. When people talked about the oppressed nationalities, as they were termed, who lived under the rule of the Turk, it was generally assumed that the degraded and debased condition of the people of those nation- alities was the result of the action of the Turks, while, as a matter of fact, they had greatly improved, both materially and mentally, under the Ottoman rule. The Greets were at that time incapable of self-government. He did not wish to defend Turkey from the charge of misgovernment; but it was perfectly unfair to attribute to her all the evils under which the subject-people laboured. The real fact was that the great fault in the Government of the Turks had been that they had been too merciful and too tolerant towards the so-called oppressed nationalities. If they had ground down all these nationalities in a common mill, as Russia had done, and had done their best to root out all national feeling and particular religious belief, as England had once done in Ireland, as the Spaniards had done in the Netherlands, and as Queen Elizabeth and other Sovereigns had attempted to do in the United Kingdom, Turkey might have faced Europe at this juncture, as a great homogeneous nationality. But she had done nothing of the kind. It was a historical fact that during the 16th and 17th centuries, while Christian nationalities were persecuting different religious sects, Protestant refugees fled from Italy and Germany to Turkey to find the toleration which was denied to them at home. These were facts which had been too much lost sight of during late years. The public mind in this country was scarcely sufficiently informed as to the character of the cruelty to which the Turkish inhabitants of Bulgaria had been subjected during the last three years. From the time the Russian Army crossed the Balkans, Turkey had been subjected to a system of uniform persecution, with a barbarous and fiendish malignity to which the history of the world afforded no parallel. The state of the Bulgarian people before the war was most flourishing, and the excesses which were attributed to the Turks were, in reality, committed not by them, but by the Bulgarians. He took some credit to himself for having done something to draw attention to the atrocities committed by the Turks on the Bulgarians, and to demand that their perpetrators should be brought to justice; and he felt bound to direct attention to the hundredfold worse atrocities committed on the unfortunate Mussulmans by the Bulgarians. In defence of the Turks, it should be stated that they had acted in retaliation for the excesses committed by the Christians in their revolt. Cruelties like those described by our Consul at Philippolis took place in almost every town or village where the Mahomedan population remained. The Mussulmans fled for safety in many cases at the approach of the Russians; many of them perished in their flight, which occurred, unfortunately, in the middle of winter, and was attended with many horrors, as might easily be imagined under the circumstances. The Report of the Rhodope Commission gave many distressing details of what happened. At Hermanli, in particular, there was a large body of Mussulman refugees, when suddenly the cavalry of General Skobeleff burst upon them and drove them along narrow gorges and through a torrent swollen by melting snow. Many of the fugitives perished, only a few thousands escaping to the Rhodope Mountains to tell the story. The Report to which he referred contained a narrative so horrible that nobody who read it would get up and deny the charges which had been brought against the Russians and Bulgarians. Certain events had come under his own notice. He had gone through a great part of Eastern Roumelia, and into the Rhodope Mountains, just after the Armistice was concluded, and before the signature of the Treaty of Berlin, and he had an opportunity of seeing the condition of a large number of refugees, of the Russian Army itself, and also of the insurgents, as the people were called who were defending their homes in the Rhodope Mountains. There had been a population of 32,000, divided between Mussulmans and Christians, in Philippopolis. When he went in April or May, 1878, there were no Mussulman inhabitants there. A body of refugees had fled to the Rhodope Mountains. They were invited to return to Philippopolis. They went back, and on the way they were set upon by Bulgarian troops, many of them were murdered, the women were subjected to the last outrage, and taken into Philippopolis in the most deplorable condition. Philippopolis was the headquarters of the Province, and in that city were the highest Russian authorities. The sufferings of those people at Philippopolis it was impossible to exaggerate. Out of the nearly 5,000 who reached that place, there were a few months afterwards not 1,500 surviving. They were kept across the river, in an unwholesome, stagnant marsh, without beds or shelter, until they died by hundreds per day from starvation and fever. Their feet and legs were gangrened; but nothing was done for their relief. They were not allowed to cross the bridge into the town lest they should complain to the Consuls. Representations were made to the Russian authorities, and an allowance of bad bread, revolting to the sight and the taste, was given to the sufferers. There could be nothing more abominable than the maltreatment to which Mussulman women were subjected during the late war. Large numbers, especially young women, were detained for purposes to which he would not refer by young officers and by Bulgarians. In Adrianople a very large number of houses of ill-fame were opened and were filled by these unfortunate women. Some of these women, in consequence of representations which were made by the English Ambassador and Consul, and the Austrian Ambassador and Consul, returned to the places in which their homes were in 1878 and 1879: but they found that their lands and property had been sold by Bulgarians; they were entirely denied their rights of property, and subjected to the same maltreatment as their unfortunate brothers during the invasion. They found no justice in the Bulgarian Courts. Every suit was against them and in favour of the Bulgarians. He might be asked for proof of the statements he had made. It was contained in many Blue Books which had been presented to the House; in the evidence of every one of Her Majesty's representatives in Turkey, without a single exception; in the correspondence of the representatives of The Standard and another paper, and in the statements of foreign Consuls stationed at Philippopolis, Adrianople, and other places, who said it was impossible to exaggerate the maltreatment and persecutions to which the Mahomedans were subjected, and that a deliberate system of persecution and destruction was carried on with the object and the result of exterminating a manly, courageous, and innocent people from the beginning to the end of the war. These things, to a great ex- tent, were still going on. These facts concerned very nearly the interest and the honour of the English people. Whatever the Turks might be now, they were once our allies. During the last three years they had been, to a great extent, fighting the battle of this country in the East, and we would certainly miss them if we were brought face to face with that struggle with Russian despotism which, he ventured to think, would be at some time inevitable. They had incurred serious responsibilities to those unfortunate people by the Treaties of Paris and Berlin, and none had been more ready than hon. Gentlemen at the other side to remind the Conservative Party what those responsibilities were. The Liberal Party incurred responsibilities by the Treaty of Paris to the whole of the Turkish population, Christian and Mussulman alike; but by their apathy and indifference during the 20 years which succeeded the Crimean War they had met few of them. He had looked in vain for any remonstrance against the misgovernment and the ruinous career of extravagance which the Turkish Government had been pursuing. The Government might have made some remarks on those subjects with great certainty of their receiving attention; but they had not done so, and they waited until they were out of power and free from responsibility, and then they chose the period of Turkish difficulty and suffering, when the Colossus of the North was making ready for a last and final attack—that was the moment they chose for describing the Turk as inhumane, and demanding immediate and instantaneous reform. By that conduct they owed a great reparation to Turkey and to humanity itself. It was a disgrace to humanity, it was a disgrace and outrage to Christianity—which was the common religion of this country and of Continental Europe—that these outrages and persecutions should have been allowed to go on, almost unrebuked and unchecked, for such a period. The British Government was running another, and a very great and serious, risk, which, he regretted to say, they did not appreciate at present, but which he feared would be brought out most strongly before many years were over. It would have been far more worthy of the present Government if they had sent their Fleet to Varna, and demanded fair treatment and good and impartial government for the oppressed and subject Mussulmans of Bulgaria and Eastern Roumelia, instead of sending their Fleet to commit what the Turks, at any rate, considered an act of spoliation of them, while all the provisions of the Treaties of Paris and Berlin remained undischarged. Did they expect the Porte and the Sultan or the Mussulman population would believe that, while their people were being deliberately exterminated, the English nation were their friends? He did not think so; and he considered they were alienating, not only the poor exhausted remains of the Ottoman Empire from their alliance, but, what was far more serious, alienating the whole of the Mahomedan world, 60,000,000 of whom resided in India, and were the bravest and best organized people of the country. In the hour of England's difficulty, they might have cause to regret the effect which the neglect of their co-religionists would have on those people. On an occasion of that kind, when the subject of the moral treatment of the Mussulman population was under consideration, he thought it was fair to consider very briefly where the responsibility for these troubles rested. He thought there could be no doubt that the responsibility for the terrible sufferings rested with the Russian Government. They had the opportunity of showing the superiority of the Christian religion by displaying moderation; but they did nothing of the kind. There had not been a single Russian or Bulgarian malefactor brought to justice. A very grave responsibility fell on the Party now in power. There was no doubt that their tactics, adopted in 1876 and 1877, did very much to bring about that disastrous war, which was the cause of all this suffering; and, still more, by the constant efforts in public meeting, and an unparelleled agitation, to hamper the action of the Government when they endeavoured to stop the war, which, if it had been done, would have averted a greater portion of the misery and suffering he had endeavoured to describe. The course they had adopted was still more remarkable, as, 20 years before, they had engaged in a war on behalf of Turkey on far less provocation. He would ask the Government to send half-a-dozen or a dozen responsible men to different parts of the country, and when they did report an unequivocal and undeniable case of outrage, take steps to redress it. Then they might go to Turkey with a naval demonstration; but until they had done so they could not claim to shelter their present proceedings under the Treaty of Berlin. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.

seconded the Motion.

said, he did not exactly know what object the hon. Member had in view in making this Motion. It was certainly unfortunate that it was made at a time when the Prime Minister and the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs were both necessarily absent. He was not going to occupy the time of the House by making a protracted speech in reply to the detailed statement of the hon. Member; but he could hardly believe that this was a Motion which the House of Commons would accept. It was not in a form in which it would be proper or competent that such a Motion should be carried. That such acts as had been referred to had probably been committed in those regions he was afraid it was impossible to deny. The Government was always anxious that justice and humanity should be observed with regard to all classes of the population in these districts, whether Mussulman or Christian. They had shown their desire that this should be done by sending Colonel Wilson to make remonstrances against any outrages which might have been committed. What was it the hon. Member asked them to do? He said—

"That the oppression and barbarity to which the Mussulman population has been subjected since the war deserves the strong condemnation of Europe."

That House had not the authority to enforce anything of the kind on Europe. Then the hon. Member asked the Government to take, with or without the co-operation of the other Powers, effectual steps to secure the repatriation of the remnant of the Mussulman population. What steps? he would ask. How was England, with or without co-operation, to take such steps? Were they to march an army into these districts for the purpose? The view of Her Majesty's Government had been to act in co-operation with Europe in these matters. The hon. Member also asked that the Government should urge the fulfilment of those provisions of the Treaty of Berlin which were intended to secure justice for Turkey and equal rights for her Mohamedan inhabitants. Her Majesty's Government had been urging upon Turkey that justice should be secured; and, no doubt, the Government would continue to urge that justice should be observed, if possible, to all classes of the population in these districts. What object the hon. Member thought could gain by bringing forward such a Motion he really could not understand; and it was one, he was sure, which the House was not likely to adopt.

asked leave to withdraw his Motion. ["No, no!"]

said, that he had given Notice, some fortnight before, of the Resolution which stood in his name. He was aware that, owing to the Amendment which had just been put, he should be unable to obtain the opinion of the House in the Division Lobby, yet, as that was probably the last opportunity which he should have of drawing the attention of the House to the grave matters which were the subject of his Resolution, he did not think he should be justified in postponing the matter until next Session. The terms of his Resolution were—

"That, in the opinion of this House, the rejection of the Compensation for Disturbance (Ireland) Bill by the House of Lords adds one more to the many overwhelming proofs afforded since the Union of the necessity for such a radical change in these relations as will permit legislative effect in future to the voice of the vast majority of the electors of Ireland constitutionally expressed."

Some fortnight ago he had asked the present Leader of the House to afford him facilities for bringing the subject before the House. The noble Marquess then said that he was unable to do so. He took, therefore, the opportunity which then offered of showing the unnatural conditions of government under which Ireland was placed in the present system of her representation in that House, the very unnatural state of affairs arising from that representation, and the means of bringing about such a system of government of Ireland as would afford the Constitutional expression of opinion to the electors of that country. The difficulties which arose had always been, more or less, apparent; but he ventured to say that, as time went on, they were becoming more apparent still. And in the future the course of events would make it evident to all thoughtful Englishmen that it would more satisfactory to allow Ireland to govern herself than to insist upon the continuance of the present régime. He did not wish to impute blame to all the English statesmen who had so signally failed in the past to govern Ireland, nor did he wish to blame the present occupants of the Treasury Bench, or the present majority in the House, if he said that they approached Irish questions with a half-heartedness and want of belief in the measures which they brought forward themselves, which showed their unfitness for the task with which they were intrusted. The winter was at hand, and the results it would bring were not to be foreseen; and, bearing in mind what the Chief Secretary had said, they could not but think it probable that, almost before hon. Members had retired to those places where they proposed to pass their leisure, they might again be summoned to enact a suspension of the Constitutional rights of the people of Ireland. There might be a winter of disturbance and bloodshed in Ireland. Even to-night they were called together by the Chief Secretary for the purpose of voting money to provide an unconstitutional and military force in the shape of police in Ireland. He thought it was a fitting time for him, on the eve of such a Vote as this, to bring before the attention of the House of Commons the condition of the Parliamentary relations existing between the two countries. Now, various attempts had been made from time to time to alter the arrangement entered into between England and Ireland. In 1842 O'Connell brought forward his Motion for the Re-peal of the Union, and he formed a powerful Party in the House for the purpose of carrying that Motion. That proposal would have been simply a reversion to the state of affairs which existed before the "Union. But the late Leader of the Home Rule Party, Mr. Butt, had thought it possible to improve upon that idea, in order to avoid any conflict between the two Parliaments. Mr. Butt's idea was a sort of Federalism. The Irish Parliament was only to deal with strictly Irish matters; the result of Mr. Butt's proposal would have been to put the Irish Parliament so constituted in much the same position as regarded England as the Legislative Assemblies of the different States of America occupied in relation to the Congress and the Senate sitting at Washington. The State Assemblies had power to deal with the internal affairs of the particular State, and also to send Representatives to the Imperial Congress and Senate. In such a way it was thought that dangerous elements of disturbance between the two nations might be avoided. That scheme was objected to by the present Chief Secretary, on the ground that it would necessitate a change in the Constitution of Great Britain and Ireland, and that it would necessitate a paper Constitution, similar to that of the United States, instead of a theoretic and unwritten Constitution. Because it would be necessary to define what things an Irish Parliament might deal with, and what things it might not deal with. He did not propose to bring forward a plan himself, because he thought the time was not ripe for the bringing forward of a plan before the House. He thought it was, before all things, necessary that the House should be, first, convinced of its inability to govern Ireland under the present system; and when that had been done it would be invited to a consideration of the whole question, in order that the Representatives of the two nations might arrange between themselves some modus vivendi by means of which Great Britain and Ireland might succeed in getting on better in the future. He was far from denying that many English Members of that House were most anxious to do justice to Ireland. But, in time, he thought the convictions he had expressed would gain ground, and that it would gradually be recognized that the only way to govern the Irish people would be to let them make laws for themselves. The present Prime Minister had spoken of the enormous mass of work which was thrown upon Parliament, and the increasing difficulty of performing a task which was really beyond human strength. The right hon. Gentleman had also spoken of an extension of the principle of local self-government. But local self-government had not really taken work away from the Imperial Parliament. Municipalities could not enact laws; and he did not think that anyone would wish to confer such a power of legislation on them. The work which it was proposed by this system to take from the shoulders of Parliament was work which did not really weigh upon them. It was work which was performed by the Committees upstairs. Therefore, though they should extend the authority of their municipal governments, they would still practically be in the same position, as they would have to deal with all great burning questions. In fact, all the work of Parliament would still be pressing upon them. Another example of local self-government was to be found in the establishment of County Boards. Such institutions, however, would not materially aid in diminishing the labours of Parliament. If any of the schemes he had touched upon were adopted, they would, he maintained, be still confronted by questions of equal magnitude with those to which they were now unable to devote sufficient time, and they would still be in this position—that a majority composed of Englishmen and Scotchmen, unacquainted with the wants of Ireland, would be legislating for that country. He would now call attention to the state of affairs existing before the Union. The old Irish Parliament, he admitted, was by no means a perfect institution, for it was the monopoly of the minority in the country—namely, the Protestant colony, composed of the descendants of the conquerors of Ireland. To the credit of that Parliament, how-over, there was in it a growing tendency to confer rights on the great majority of the people. All Irish historians admitted that Catholic Emancipation would have been conceded years before it was if the old Irish Parliament had continued to exist; and it would have been conceded in a natural way, and just as reforms were accomplished in England. But as it was, Bills for Catholic Emancipation were brought in, and carried in that House, and rejected by the King and Lords; and it was not until the King was assured that, unless the Catholic Emancipation Bill were passed, a revolution must be expected, that the Sovereign and the House of Lords agreed to the demands of the Irish people. This taught the Irish a most evil lesson as to the method, and the only method, in which reforms were to be obtained from the Imperial Parliament. It was not till 100 policemen had been massacred that the attention of the Parliament of England was directed to the necessity of abolishing the tithes; and it was not until Clerkenwell Prison had been blown up, and Sergeant Brett killed in the discharge of his duty, that the Prime Minister became satisfied that something must be done in the direction of disestablishing the Irish Church. He did not, however, blame English Prime Ministers, because the attention of the English people had to be drawn by such forcible circumstances to the wants of his fellow-countrymen. It was impossible, in 9 cases out of 10, that the people of England should know what the real public opinion of Ireland was. The Press often misrepresented the state of affairs in that country, and English statesmen themselves sometimes misled the people. He had seen the Chief Secretary do so himself this Session, and he could not suppose him to be ignorant of the real state of things in Ireland. He had remained silent on that occasion, because he had assumed that the right hon. Gentleman was endeavouring to carry his Compensation for Disturbance Bill in the best possible manner. He had remained silent then because he recognized the diffi- culty of the task in which the right hon. Gentleman was engaged; but, at the same, time he could not help feeling that in order to carry that Bill through that House, and to disarm the opposition to it in the House of Lords, the right hon. Gentleman was obliged deliberately to misrepresent the state of affairs in Ireland. [Mr. W. E. FORSTER asked in what respect he had done so?] The right hon. Gentleman had misrepresented the state of things with the object——

rose to Order. Was the hon. Member in Order in attributing to a Minister of the Crown that he had made a deliberate misrepresentation to the House?

said, that after the hon. Member had concluded his observations the right hon. Gentleman would have an opportunity of correcting any misstatements which the hon. Member might make.

said, he did not wish to impute anything to the right hon. Gentleman. He considered the right hon. Gentleman had misrepresented the state of affairs in Ireland with the object of doing good Ireland.

asked whether the hon. Member would give the House any instances in which he had misrepresented the state of affairs of Ireland.

said, he would. During the passage of the Compensation for Disturbance Bill through that House the right hon. Gentleman had repeatedly stated that that measure was necessary to check only a very small minority of Irish landlords, and that, in his belief, the vast majority of Irish landlords were good landlords. But, so far from that statement representing the true state of affairs, he would have been much nearer the truth if he had said that the Bill was intended to deal with, not a small minority, but a large minority, and it might be a majority of Irish landlords. Perhaps he would have been right to say that the majority were of such a character as to render the passing of such a Bill a necessity. He could conceive the policy which dictated the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. He made it to prevent the fears of the landlords being unnecessarily aroused, and to calm them down and lead them to believe than an infinitesimal minority of them would be interfered with under the operation of the Bill. Proceeding, however, with his general remarks, he wished to show that there existed two nations—the English nation and the Irish nation—he would leave out the Scotch, practically joined together in their attempt to legislate for a country of the circumstances of which the English Government were entirely ignorant. What did the English nation know of the Irish nation? Every day the English people read in their newspapers accounts of murders and outrages in Ireland, many of which were carefully rehashed and kept alive week after week, to be reproduced when necessary. This was the course which was adopted by the proprietors of enterprizing journals in this country who desired to sell their papers, and who knew that there was nothing so interesting or so exciting as details of a murder or of an outrage. Well, this was the only class of news which the English people ever obtained respecting Ireland, and it was not to be expected that they should have a large knowledge of what the state of affairs in that country was. This House, therefore, approached the task of legislating for Ireland in absolute ignorance of the requirements of the country. It was only in consequence of the attention of the present Prime Minister being attracted to Irish affairs by the intensity of Fenianism that the passing of the Act for disestablishing the English Church in Ireland was rendered possible. But were they always to trust their cause to the eloquence and the energy of the right hon. Gentleman? They all hoped that the right hon. Gentleman might be spared to them for many a year to come; but in the ordinary course of events they could not expect him to continue his work for ever, and it was unlikely that he would be succeeded by any statesman who would possess his peculiar qualities. The settlement, such as it was, of the Irish Church Question had been brought about by the enthusiasm and the sentiment which had been excited by the eloquence of the right hon. Gentleman; but the Act that disestablished that Church was marred by the provision introduced into it by the House of Lords, by which one half of the property of the Church was given to the clergy. An Irish Parliament would have dealt far more strictly with the clergy of that Church. And if the present Church of England ever came to be disestablished, its clergy would be dealt with, far less liberally. When the English Parliament undertook to deal with the Irish Land Question they were quite in the dark as to the course they should adopt with regard to it; and here, again, the necessity for a compromise rendered the Act useless, and prevented it from building up a system of land tenure which would probably have settled the question definitely and have rendered the present agitation unnecessary—an agitation which had led the Chief Secretary to state that it might be necessary for him to have to ask Parliament for further powers, and of which no one could see the end. That was the result of endeavouring to govern Ireland from England. He did not believe that an English Parliament could govern Ireland according to Irish ideas, for English people were always being misled with regard to Irish ideas. He should recommend them not to make such an attempt, but to join Irish Members in devising some plan by which the Representatives of Ireland might meet in their own country, and might be allowed to form laws for the settlement of the land and other questions that were now distracting it. He had been much criticized for his reference to 100,000 swords leaping from their scabbards. His reference was to the Irish Volunteer movement of 1782. Before that, the heads of Bills to be brought before the Irish Parliament had to be submitted to the English Government. By the Act of 1782 the Irish Parliament could initiate Bills without the assent of the English Government. This great reform, which was one of the leading features in the history of Ireland, was brought about by the establishment of the Irish Volunteers. That was a Constitutional Force, levied by Lord Charlemont for the purpose of assisting England against the French; but the fact was that that large trained force impressed the English Government of the necessity of showing some respect for the feelings of Ireland, and the Irish Parliament became free. He would not touch upon the history of the Union further than to say that, had the abolition of the English Parliament been brought about by the same means as that of the Irish Parliament had been, Englishmen would have long since risen as one man and have swept away the Act that sealed it. The only reason why the Irish had not been able to do it was because they were the weak, and England the strong; because England was able to keep them down, having a large force of military and constabulary to enable them to do so. How long was that system of Ireland to continue? It was admitted, on all hands, that Ireland was a reproach to the Parliament of this country; and the question which was asked long ago—"How much good is Ireland to the King?"—might be asked to-day with equal effect. On the eve of Parliament separating, with a dark prospect before them in Ireland, the outcome of which no one knew, he thought they were entitled to ask the House how long they wished Ireland to be a reproach and disgrace to England, and how long did they wish the Irish people to live with only three bad harvests between, themselves and famine, and how long did they desire that statesmen intrusted with the task of ruling Ireland must have before them at every moment the probable necessity of having to summon Parliament for the purpose of sustaining the Constitution in Ireland. These were very serious subjects for consideration, and although the Government might have a large Liberal majority, the more this majority examined into the task which it had before it, the more impossible would it appear to this majority to fulfil the obligations cast on them. He did not say they had not the inclination, but he knew they had not the knowledge, to carry out their will. He was an attentive observer while the Compensation for Disturbance Bill was passing through that House; and he could not help feeling that the Chief Secretary for Ireland, at every stage, was suffering from the pressure that was put on him. There was a want of belief. ["No, no!"] Well, he was only stating his impression; but his feeling was coupled with one of admiration for the way in which the right hon. Gentleman stood up against his difficulties. He could not help feeling a sort of compunction when he was compelled to attack him in order to counteract the forces which hon. Members on both sides were exercising. When they got rid of landlords as a source of disunion in Ireland, and which made it necessary to support English misgovernment in Ireland—when they had taken away from the landlords of Ireland the right of inflicting injustice, they believed they would make them as rational as when they stood side by side with Grattan and Lord Charlemont and the Irish Volunteers in 1782. He trusted the exertions of that day, continued as they would be from time to time, would bear fruit, and that English Members would be content to give Irishmen the right of making laws for themselves.

said, the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) had made a very able speech. He had also made a speech in what he (Mr. W. E. Forster) might be allowed to say was a moderate tone, and in a kindly tone to himself; and he could only state that, with such speeches as that, he trusted that their discussions might be conducted in future, and to-night, with good humour and kindliness. He disagreed with some of the hon. Member's statements, and with much of his inferences; but undoubtedly he had presented his case for Irish separate government in a very eloquent and able manner. Perhaps the hon. Member would excuse his not going into the question of the dissolution of the Union, or of separate government, or of Home Rule this evening. His view of the matter, and the view of the Government on the matter, were well known, and the hon. Gentleman had not brought forward, and, in fact, he began his remarks by saying that he brought forward no plan. He did not abide by O'Connell's intention of returning to the Irish Parliament before the Union. He did not attempt to meet the difficulties of Mr. Butt's proposals on Home Rule; and as he had not answered those difficulties he (Mr. W. E. Forster) could not but think that they in some way weighed with him, though he stated that what he looked forward to was confidence in the Irish people and the English people to find some mode in which the arrangement could be made. Well, he (Mr. W. E. Forster) still believed that the difficulties and the great disadvantages of any plan of disunion were so strong that not only the English and the Scotch, but the Irish people themselves, would more and more be opposed to it. The hon. Member said that if England had been in the position of Ireland, and the abolition of the English Parliament had taken place, it would have been long before England would have forgiven it. Undoubtedly that was true; but, although there was a Nemesis in all these matters, he thought Nemesis sometimes was satiated, and punishment no longer followed if there was a different course. There was the case of Scotland. He did not know that the Irish Parliament was abolished in a much more disgraceful manner than the Scotch Parliament. In Scotland the feeling lasted long; it had disappeared. He trusted the same result would eventually happen in Ireland. Well, he did not think the House would expect him to go into that very deep question to-night, or endeavour to follow the hon. Member into what he had himself not completed. He had stated that nothing had been done for Ireland except from English alarm at the state of things in Ireland—that no reform had been obtained without being wrung from them. Well, he really did not believe that was so. He could look back to the two last great reforms—to the abolition of the Irish Church and the Land Bill. Whatever hon. Members might think of the remark of his right hon. Friend to which allusion had been made, he did not think there could be any doubt by any man who saw the temper of the people at the Dissolution, or at the Election that followed it, that the overpowering feeling amongst the Liberal constituencies of England, reaching even some of their Conservative opponents, and those who were non-party persons, was that they must do justice to Ireland, not from fear of Ireland, but from a strong sense of feeling that they owed a duty to Ireland. The Irish Church was an evil that had to be got rid of, and it was a disgrace to the English that it had not been got rid of before, and the relations between landlord and tenant had absolutely required alteration. The hon. Member had based his Motion to-night on what had taken place this Session, and he wished to speak with good temper about what had happened but could not be helped. Her Majesty's Government had not in the slightest degree changed their opinion as to the calamity which they thought it had been that the measure which they proposed with reference to distressed parts of Ireland was rejected by the other House of Parliament. The hon. Gentleman thought that he had misrepresented facts in Ireland for what the hon. Gentleman considered a laudable purpose—namely, to pass a difficult Bill through the House. He did not believe that the hon. Gentleman would think it right to do that himself, and certainly he (Mr. W. E. Forster) thought it would be very wrong. He did not believe that anything was gained by misrepresenting facts. He had never done this, and he hoped he never should. He believed that it was a small minority of the landlords who would have been likely to institute those unjust evictions, and that robbery of the interest of the tenant which the Government wished to prevent. He supposed that the hon. Gentleman would excuse his honesty at the expense of his knowledge, and would say that was only an instance of how completely misled any English politician must be if he attempted to interfere with the management of Irish affairs. Now, he did not claim any special consideration in that matter; but he thought he had had some means of getting information on the subject. He had studied Ireland for many years; he had seen that country in a great crisis many years ago; he had friends who had been constantly informing him in regard to Ireland; he had watched the debates in that House; he had now a little official experience—not for many months certainly, but a great deal of information had been crowded into a few months—and he must repeat his statement that he believed it was a small minority of the Irish landlords who were unjust and exacting. He was not going to debate that Bill over again; but he believed it would have had this advantage—that that small minority would have been singled out from the others. In the excuses that had been made for the Land League, it was said that they could not be expected to draw the line between good and bad landlords. It would not have been necessary for them to do this had the Bill passed. The Bill would have drawn it for them. As to the Motion itself, he did not deny that what had happened elsewhere had, to some extent, justified the argument which the hon Member for Cork had used; and he much regretted that the decision of the very large majority of the Representatives of the Irish people should, in a matter of remedial administration, have been so completely set at nought by the other House. But then came the immediate practical question, how ought that defeat to have affected the action of the Government? He must admit that, for himself, he had thought very seriously as to what ought to be the duty of the Government, and more especially of himself. It was quite true that he had never stated that he thought law and order could not he preserved without that Act; but he did state that he had absolutely believed that that Act was necessary to take from them the possibility of having to support a law which in any circumstances might be unjust. In the course of the debate he had endeavoured to throw the responsibility on his opponents. He thought the responsibility rested on them; but he was not surprised—in fact, he had prophesied—that he should be charged by hon. Members if he remained in a position to carry out that law. He had very seriously questioned whether he ought to remain in that position; and he thought the House would believe him when he said that if there were any temptation to any action one way or the other, it was a temptation to say that he ought to divest himself of any further responsibility. An hon. Gentleman had spoken of the Office of Irish Secretary as one which must be greatly desired. He could only say that position would have been given up by him, if he had felt it right to take that course, without any great reluctance. But he did not feel that he himself would have been justified in giving up his position on account of what was done in the House of Lords, and still less that the Government would have been justified in taking that action themselves. Then came the question of what was to be done. Well, the law must be obeyed; it was really a truism to say that the law must be obeyed, and order must be preserved, or every bond of society would be relaxed. He had stated last night that he fully hoped and expected that with the ordinary powers of the law they would be able to keep the peace and preserve order; but he had not concealed from the House that there were serious causes for anxiety. There was no fear of any rebellion or of any outbreak. There were persons who still believed that some Fenian movement was possible; but, so far as he could learn, it was the merest caricature of a popular movement, and need not cause any anxiety. But what did exist was considerable danger to individual life and insecurity to property. He must honestly say that, as far as he was able to learn, that danger was not caused by the landlords. The cases which had been brought before him were not, in the large majority of instances, those in which the individual landlord had been to blame.

asked if the tenants had not been evicted?

believed they had. But he felt sure that, on a consideration of the circumstances, the hon. Member would allow there had been no injustice. He did not say there might not be something in the system which had brought it about; but certainly there was that insecurity; there had been those outrages which no Government that was worthy the name of a Government—no man in his position—could by possibility allow to go on without doing the utmost to stop them. An hon. Member had last night alluded to a murder in Mayo, and had said it was not an agrarian murder. Well, he had every reason to believe it was an agrarian murder; and the poor man, who had struggled with death for many weeks, was himself convinced that it was an agrarian crime. He did not believe much in threatening letters; but when a threatening letter was sent to the doctor who was attempting to cure that man, threatening his life if he cured his patient, that was a very distressing fact. He would not go into further cases. He would only say that he would not mind taking to the Irish Office any hon. Gentleman on the other side—he did not care what might be his prejudice—and he felt quite certain he could convince him that there were things happening in certain counties which no person could for a moment defend. And for those things the landlords at the present moment were not to blame. It was a knowledge of that which made him say last night that if they could not give security to life and property without it they would not hesitate to call Parliament together to give that security. And he had the fullest reliance that although the enormous majority of Parliament would feel as keenly as he should do the painful necessity of such an act, yet, if they once had it shown to them that there was that insecurity, and that the present powers of the Executive would not enable them to cope with it, Parliament would not refuse to strengthen their hands. He had always said they must carry out the law; but he must also repeat it, if they found—as they had not within the last two or three weeks found—and as they hoped they would not find, that the landlords of Ireland were to any great extent making use of their powers so as to force the Government to support them in the exercise of injustice, the Government should accompany any request for special powers with a Bill which would prevent the Government from being obliged to support injustice. He would go further, and say, under any circumstances, if it was found that injustice and tyranny were largely committed—though he did not believe such would be the case—it would then be their serious duty to consider what their action should be, and he did not think that any man in the House would expect him to remain any longer the instrument of that injustice. God had been merciful to them; they were getting a better harvest. The condition of Ireland looked as if we could wait a few months to see what could be done. There was a very strong feeling—there was a determination—on the part of a large majority of that House—and he did not confine that feeling to Members on his own side, or even exclude from it those who had opposed them on the Compensation for Disturbance Bill—that the state of things described by the hon. Member for Cork must not be continued—that only two or three harvests should continue to stand between the tenantry of Ireland and a miserable distress, which would be starvation without relief. The Government were determined to the very utmost of their power to look into the causes of this state of things; and he thought the Irish people, notwithstanding the history of centuries, might look with hope and confidence—which he even thought might be shared by hon. Gentlemen opposite—to the Government, and allow them to have at least one year in which to try and solve this most difficult problem. It was a problem which required great ability. It was one with the solving of which he should have something to do, and he was painfully aware of his own deficiencies. He was obliged to deal with it, not through any wish of his own; but, on behalf of the Government, he thought he had a right to ask that some confidence should be reposed in them. The Government were determined to leave Ireland better than they found it, and make the relations of all classes, and especially the landlords and tenants, more secure and satisfactory than they had been in the past. He had intended to say that he hoped the Irish Members would allow them now to proceed with the Business of Supply; but he would leave that to hon. Members themselves.

said, he was sure the House would admit that there was no necessity for any apology from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary with respect to the very able speech which he had just delivered. Everyone must recognize that the right hon. Gentleman had the good of the country at heart, and all must feel and sympathize with the anxiety and difficulties that surrounded those charged with the grave and responsible duty of the administration of Irish affairs. It was not his intention, in the few words which he desired to address to the House, to follow the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) over the very interesting and wide subject which he had brought under the notice of the House. In good truth, he did not think that the hon. Member had given other hon. Members very much encouragement to follow him in this discussion. The hon. Member had referred to the very wide difference which separated him from those, who had before him brought this question under the consideration of Parliament. O'Connell, when he brought this question forward—and it was one in which he was very much interested—found it necessary, if they meant to deal practically with the question, to formulate a scheme, and so also the late Mr. Butt, when he took it up, was compelled to submit a plan to the House; but the hon. Member for Cork, whose ability and whose industry everyone recognized, stated early in his speech that he had no plan whatever to lay before the House. Therefore, it was fair to assume that if the hon. Member had a plan——

I said that I did not propose to lay any plan before it.

If the hon. Member had a plan which he declined to lay before the House he could hardly expect the House to enter into the question as long as he kept his plan locked up within his own breast, and declined to take the House into his confidence. It was true, indeed, that in the Resolution which he read to the House he asked the House to consider the necessity of a change in the legislative connection of the two countries, and in his speech he more than hinted that his scheme would involve the establishment of an Irish Parliament in Ireland. The hon. Gentleman stated that one of his reasons for asking the House of Commons to consider his Resolution was that an important Bill was rejected by the House of Lords. He supposed the scheme of the hon. Member included an Irish House of Lords; and he would ask what did the hon. Member think would be the fate of such a measure as the Compensation for Disturbance Bill if sent up to a House of Irish Peers? He (Mr. Gibson) did not feel called upon to differ from many of the propositions of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who had spoken not ungenerously of the Irish landlords. But the right hon. Gentleman, in referring to the difficulties which necessarily surrounded the responsible position which he held with so much ability, stated that these difficulties had been somewhat increased by reason of the rejection of the Compensation for Disturbance Bill by the House of Lords. He (Mr. Gibson), however, would say, without the slightest desire to raise any contentious objections, that, in his judgment, as an Irishman who passed a considerable portion of his life in Ireland, and who was closely acquainted with Irish affairs, the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was totally at variance, not only with his own opinion, but with the opinion of all, as far as he could find out, upon whose judgment and opinion he could place the greatest and most implicit reliance. He was happy to think that his opinion was so confirmed. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had said that the great merit of the Bill would have been this: that it would have weeded out the small minority of Irish landlords who might have been inclined to press harshly upon their tenants at this juncture, and distinguish them from the large class who would moderately use the power at their command. In his opinion, the Bill would not have produced any such result; and, whilst it would have done little good to the tenants, it would have done much more harm than good to the landlords. He did not now seek to go over what had been previously expressed against the Bill; but he was entitled to say this much—that the advantages were fully criticized while it was passing through this House, and not unfairly so; that he was, from his point of view, entitled to say that it was damaged irreparably in the good opinion of this House, and even of those who voted. Most unquestionably, before the Bill went to the House of Lords at all it was greatly damaged in the public opinion of the country. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman how the Bill was opposed and criticized in this House by many who were strong supporters of the Government, and in the House of Lords it was rejected by a substantial majority of Liberal Peers. If every Conservative Peer had withdrawn from the House of Lords, the Liberal Peers themselves, who usually acted with the Government, would have thrown over the Bill by a considerable majority alone. Even in the House of Commons there were two occasions on which the Irish Members who acted with the hon. Member for Cork withdrew their support from the Bill. The hon. and learned Member for Meath (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) moved the rejection of the measure, because it did not come up to his views, and it was distinctly opposed by him in a hostile Resolution which had the support of a body of Representatives from Ireland. It was, therefore, to be remembered that even if it had passed through the House of Lords the Bill had been opposed by a large number of the Irish Members. Again, looking at what had taken place since the rejection of the Bill, it was to be observed that not one of the outrages which had been reported from Ireland within the last month, nor any of the statements or propositions in the speech which had been delivered at Kildare by the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon), with which all in that House must be so familiar, would have been obviated if the Bill had become law. Those were circumstances which were to be borne in mind with reference to the rejection of the Bill. The last point to which he wished to advert was an admission of the right hon. Gentleman which he might fairly use against the necessity of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had pointed out that none of the cases which had recently come within his notice were traceable to the action of Irish landlords; and that, he (Mr. Gibson) thought, was a complete answer to the forebodings—which he hoped were not strong in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman—as to what might possibly result from the rejection of the Bill. He (Mr. Gibson) hoped for a better state of things. The weather, and the prospects of an abundant harvest, led them to look forward to a brighter and more satisfactory state of things. Most unquestionably, the right hon. Gentleman had very much cause for satisfaction and hope in the present prospect of the harvest; and he (Mr. Gibson) sincerely trusted that when the House next met at the usual time of the year the right hon. Gentleman would be prepared to state to the House that his own experience of the country satisfied him that he was right in the favourable anticipations which he expressed at the conclusion of his fair and reasonable speech.

thought they had rather wandered away from the subject that formed the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Cork—namely, the impossibility of a satisfactory government of Ireland through the medium of a Parliament centralized and sitting at Westminster. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) had said that the Compensation for Disturbance Bill was rejected by the House of Lords owing to the action of Members of that House who habitually supported the Government; but the fact afforded one of the strongest arguments that could be adduced in favour of the Motion of his hon. Friend. The Irish Members had never said that the present Government was not well disposed towards the Irish people, for they admitted that several of its Members had, in course of careers that might justly be called illustrious, made splendid efforts in the cause of Ireland; but they did say that, owing to the present system of a centralized Parliament, not even all their earnestness, and energy, and sense of justice could succeed in getting a fair consideration of Irish claims and a proper redress of Irish grievances. That was the fundamental justification of the Motion of his hon. Friend. What they said was, that here was a Parliamentary Institution which was supposed to deal with all the interests of the Kingdom, and which yet, upon a matter of vital interest to one part of that Kingdom, was unable to do justice—broke down in the attempt, and perpetuated, so far as it could, a system under which, as the right hon. Gentleman had himself said, he could hardly attempt to govern Ireland. The attitude of the Irish Members to the Compensation for Disturbance Bill was not such an argument against his hon. Friend's position as the right hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to think it was. The Irish Members had never thought the Bill adequate or complete. They were, in the main, glad to support it, because it was evidence of a desire on the part of the Government to consider the claims of Ireland. It was not such a measure as would have been passed by an Irish Legislature. They were willing to recognize it as an instalment. But the Irish Members did think that the Government had shown a want of energy in their conduct in reference to the rejection of the Compensation for Disturbance Bill by the House of Lords. He remembered, 20 years ago, when the right hon. Gentleman the now Chancellor of the Exchequer held the same Office in a Liberal Government, that the House of Lords rejected the Bill for the repeal of the Paper Duties. The right hon. Gentleman then described the action of the Peers as a gigantic innovation; and carried a Resolution to proceed again with the same legislation. The country was meanwhile satisfied, seeing that the Government were in earnest, and in the next Session the same Bill was passed by the House of Lords without any trouble or resistance whatever. He thought that if the present Government had shown a similar spirit, much of the distrust and bitterness now existing would have been avoided. It was sometimes asked why Ireland was not as satisfied as Scotland in the union with England. He would give them some reasons in reply. In Scotland there was no such division as was engendered in Ireland by the creed of a small minority being imposed on the majority. The Scotch people, generally speaking, and allowing for small differences of form and dogma, were as one on the great religious question. There was not in Scotland, again, any example of the gigantic and compulsory confiscation which planted a band of foreign settlers on the finest parts of the country. There was no illustration of that most unfortunate system which, by confiscating land and bringing in new and foreign tenants, made the name of landlord synonymous, in the minds of the majority of the Irish, with that of confiscator and oppressor. There was one other fact also on which he could not so much congratulate the Scotch—the old Highland or Gaelic population was disappearing—had almost gone; the great majority of those who inhabited the great cities were not by any means so distinct in race from the English people as were the Highlanders, and as now were the population of Ireland. He must say, besides, to the great honour of Scotland, that on questions affecting their interests, the Scotch had, for the most part, stood firmly together; and no Government, however strong, and however much inclined to abuse its strength, could venture to stand between them and justice in the manner in which almost every Government had done in the case of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary complained that the Irish Members had no definite plan to submit to the House. But at what period in the history of reform did any Party not in Office come before the House of Commons with a settled cut-and-dried plan to be discussed by the House? No reformer in his senses would bring forward a deliberate scheme of reform unless he was a Minister in power. What the Irish Members wished to do was first to get the admission that the present system had broken down, and that some change was needed. When they could make that a question strong enough to unseat Ministries and elect Ministries they would very soon have a definite plan coming from the seat of authority. He believed the Chief Secretary, if he were so disposed, and were backed by a Cabinet, could himself shape out a plan for the better government of the two countries. There was a tolerably clear outline of a Federal principle to be found in other countries. If he were an Englishman he would advocate a scheme of Home Rule for Ireland as much as now, and he would also advocate a scheme of Home Rule for England. He was convinced that only by some adaptation of the Federal principle would it be possible to keep together different nationalities in harmonious working. It was not difficult to define in the clearest way the relative functions of an Imperial Parliament and of a local Parliament. Such a plan as he had pointed out seemed to him at least the basis of a system of Home Rule for Ireland. The present system had totally broken down; and Session after Session it became more apparent that it was impossible, with the existing machinery, to get through the necessary and essential Business of Parliament, which was becoming more and more choked up with work, no matter what devices in the shape of local boards and grand Committees were resorted to. The Irish Party were convinced that most of the quarrels and acrimony between England and their country had grown out of the existing system. It was idle to tell Ireland that she was fairly represented in the House of Commons. There could be no fair representation where the vast majority had different objects, traditions, and interests from those of a small minority; and even allowing that majority to be never so just and never so well intentioned, they could not properly deal with the interests of that small minority. There could be no such thing as genuine union without unity; but if they had one Imperial system for all, and local institutions for the different parts, they would have a species of unity which would be a more genuine union than could be secured by any arbitrary and uniform system imposed on peoples differing in history, in traditions, and in objects, and who could only unite in legislation on one broad and common basis of Imperial interests.

dissented entirely from the proposition that the present system, by which the affairs of Ireland were conducted, had broken down, and, on the contrary, contended that the Imperial Legislature was adapted to procure all the ends of government in Ireland.

resuming, complimented the hon. Member for Cork City (Mr. Parnell) upon the calm and judicial manner in which he had addressed himself to the question before the House. He had listened to his speech with agreeable surprise, after the speeches of a different character which he had seen reported as having been delivered by the same hon. Member elsewhere. He wished, however, as an English Member, to express his opinion that the hon. Member had failed to make out his first proposition—that a Parliament sitting at Westminster was incapable of dealing satisfactorily with Irish affairs. The attainment of the hon. Member's wishes could not be expected to be either easy or immediate. Many reforms in England had only been carried after prolonged agitation. England, in common with Ireland, had suffered from Tory obstruction, and from the opposition of an Assembly where exploded notions found a last and congenial resting-place. The abolition of Corporation Tests was only carried after 150 years of protest by the Dissenters; the abolition of the Corn Laws followed the Famine in Ireland, and Reform came as a sequel to the pulling down of Hyde Park railings and to the tears of the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Spencer Walpole). England herself had had to wait longer than Ireland for needful reforms, and it was clear that precisely the same difficulties existed in both countries—difficulties that did not suggest the separation of the one from the other, but which went to the root of Parliamentary institutions. He gave his vote most cheerfully in favour of the Compensation for Disturbance Bill; but the House of Lords having rejected it, they must bear the responsibility, and he thought the Government had acted quite rightly in not taking any further steps in the matter. If hon. Members opposite would cease to speak of three nations and speak of them as one, if they would endeavour to forget the distinctions of race and religion, and if, through their leaders, they would appeal to hon. Members on both sides of the House, they would find that there was not a single measure which could be sustained by an appeal to the recognized principles of legislation which would not receive the substantial support of Members on both sides of the House. He contended that there was nothing which the people of England were not ready to do to bring about the prosperity and peace of the Sister Island. He hoped, therefore, that the hon. Member for Cork City himself would soon lose his belief in the efficacy of the remedy he recommended, and that a little conciliation might prepare the way for any measure of justice that might be required.

concurred in the wishes which the hon. and learned Member had just expressed for the peace and prosperity of Ireland, which was facetiously called a part of the United Kingdom; but the word was nothing but a mere formula, for the Union was nothing but a name. The Executive of Ireland was as separate as possible from that of England, while the administration was not the same, and, what was more, the principles of government which directed and ruled legislation for England were ignored when legislation was attempted for Ireland. In spite of the good wishes of hon. Members, Ireland would continue to be a separate nationality for many long years. What had been the effect on Ireland of that Act, which he was not afraid to call the cursed Act of Union? What was the condition of Ireland to-day? Had Ireland benefited by the connection with the more enlightened country? Was it better socially? Let them look at the riots at Dungannon! Let them look at the riots at Belfast! Did they tell a tale of improved social, moral, or economical condition. That House knew very well Ireland was no better in any sense for that Act. The days and nights lately had been spent in passing a Relief of Distress Bill! Were they ever to get done with the relief of distress? Were they ever to be anything but paupers before the world? Were they ever to be anything but prostrate, and unable to assist themselves, and all because of English legislation? Did Ireland enjoy free institutions? So far from that, he contended that Ireland to-day had less free institutions than Russia or Germany, for the people were not trusted with the liberty which was intrusted to children. He asked anyone who had ever travelled in Russia if the police there walked about armed to the teeth as did the Irish policemen with their Martini-Henris, their side arms, and their revolving pistols? No; the trapper in the backwoods, surrounded by Indians and wild animals, was never more thoroughly armed than those men. The fact was that Ireland was under a disguised martial law. The police were a kind of mongrel troops; they were dressed in a military dress, and armed with arms of precision; they were drilled every morning—not, like the English police, in a walled barrack-yard, so as not to be offensive to the people, but in the most public spot in the neighbourhood of the barracks, for the purpose of showing Irishmen that they did not live under free institutions. In his opinion, the police did more to disturb the peace than to preserve it. There were 12,000 police in Ireland and 22,000 soldiers; so that now, 80 years after the accursed Union, Ireland, supposed to have free institutions, was kept in order by 34,000 soldiers and mongrel soldiers. There was no redress for all that until Ireland had the power to regulate its local affairs by a local Parliament. It was said—"You do not produce any plans." Did the Canadians produce any before 1867? What Canada produced was insurrections; she had to be governed by martial law until a Statesman arose (Lord Carnarvon), and now Canada had a system of self-government such as Ireland might have. He would not go into the details of the plan for Home Rule. It was time enough to go into details when Parliament accepted the principle. The head of Her Majesty's Government had proclaimed that the House of Commons was overloaded, and that it was impossible for it to do its work efficiently. If that were so, what remedy was offered? He could see by the countenances of English Ministers and others that they were weary of Irish work. Irishmen wanted them to be so weary of it that they would say—"Do it yourselves." Ireland had been brought back to the old famine-stricken condition more by English laws than by failure of crops. More than 500,000 people were affected by the Compensation for Disturbance Bill; but that was merely an instalment of relief, introduced, no doubt, with the best intentions. Though he might say hard things of Her Majesty's Government, he believed it was not Her Majesty's Government who were at fault, but the followers who played them false. They were deserted by their followers in that House. ["No!"] Why, 100 of their followers voted against the Bill, and if that was not desertion, what was? They were deserted by their own followers, and then that poor measure of relief was flung back in their faces by those who lived in that castle of indolence, that dreamland of drowsiness, the House of Lords. Why did not the Government then show some of that spirit which they exhibited when the Lords threw out the Abolition of Purchase Bill, or the in- genuity which they showed when the abolition of the Paper Duty was in question? It was said that it was only a very small portion of the landlords who abused their power. But it was only a very small section of the population who committed murder or theft, and yet they had gaols and the gallows to keep that small section in order; but what had they for the felonious landlords, as they had been called by a high authority? It was said that the object of the Home Rulers was the separation of England and Ireland. He denied that they wanted separation. What they wanted was the opportunity of managing their own affairs, as Canada, the Isle of Man, and the Channel Islands had. So far from that leading to separation, it would destroy the barrier which now separated the two countries. In that sense the Home Rulers were the best supporters of the union between England and Great Britain, and those who opposed them were the greatest enemies of that union. The state of things in Ireland was not the result of any want of fertility in the soil, or any defect in the character of the people, because in every country in which they lived they had showed qualities which made nations and individuals great. In their own country alone these qualities were not successful. What was the cause? English misgovernment. They had waited long enough. Hope deferred made the heart sick. Gentlemen who wished Ireland to wait wished Irishmen to forget their past. Even if they would there were Froudes and Macaulays who would prevent them, and any attempt to do so would end in failure. The measures which the people of Ireland set their hearts upon were defeated by the House of Lords, and the Government were powerless to give them relief. They therefore proposed a measure of relief for themselves, and it was what had been called a re-arrangement of the functions of the Legislature, a restoration to Ireland of the right of governing herself. But it was said that England would not have her institutions Americanized by sanctioning any system of Federalism. Why, they had the authority of Lord Beaconsfield for saying that the next century would see the whole of Europe federalized—thatFederalism was the politics of the future. Why, then, should not Ireland enjoy a Federal union with England, such as was enjoyed by Canada, the Cape of Good Hope, and the other Colonies of England? That was what was demanded, and it would be for the mutual benefit of England and Ireland if the demand were complied with. Federation would also be equally beneficial to Scotland and Wales, and when they wanted it Irishmen would assist them; but they did not press it upon them if they did not feel the necessity for it. From those who would not adopt this system for Ireland he would like to hear what project they had which was not utterly futile. The projects of the Home Rulers might be called topical remedies for a constitutional disorder; but he considered that if there were scenes of disorder and bloodshed in Ireland during the coming winter the responsibility would rest on those who refused the just demands of the Irish people.

pointed out that the official Return of Irish agricultural statistics showed that the country was not prospering, and that, notwithstanding that 40,000 acres had been added to pasturage this year, the amount of live stock was much less than in the previous year. The decay of the country under the present Government was an argument in favour of the Resolution now before the House. The sound public opinion in Ireland was that the interests of that country, being almost wholly agricultural, were antagonistic to those of England, which were chiefly manufacturing and commercial; and that, without going back to the doctrine of Protection, something should be done for the benefit of Irish agriculture. The popular Members from Ireland stood at present in an invidious position. They told the people at the last Election to depend altogether on Constitutional means for the redress of their wrongs; but now they would have to go back and tell their countrymen that the efforts which they had made to improve the laws and remove the evils that pressed upon the people had been resisted and defeated in Parliament. The Chief Secretary had appealed to the Irish Members to use their influence to preserve order. He and the other Irish popular Members were disposed to do what they could in response to that appeal; but, unfortunately, they would return discredited by their failure to effect any good for their country in Parliament.

said, that the smooth phrases of the hon. and learned Member for Colchester (Mr. Willis) could not affect the facts of the case. The Home Rulers were not claiming from England anything that belonged to her; they were only claiming their own. They found England in possession of stolen property—the liberty and rights of the Irish people—and they were there simply to reclaim possession of them. England had no right to put Ireland upon her trial and to say—"Give proof that what you demand is right and proper." It was England that had to justify her conduct to Ireland. They would not accept the verdict of the English Parliament or the English Press, but would be ready to accept the arbitration of Europe, while the Irish people were denied the rights which were given them by God and Nature. Union might be talked of; but there was no real union between the two countries. The peoples were different, and had different views; but he fully believed that, were it not for the Act of Union, a much better state of feeling would exist between England and Ireland than that which now prevailed. After 80 years of this so-called union what was the condition of Ireland? It was a condition of division—it was a condition of slavery—it was a condition in which coercion and the suspension of the Constitution were the ordinary lot of the Irish people. They had mud huts for the peasantry, and iron huts loop-holed for rifles, for the Constabulary—a fact which, of itself, showed the state of Ireland. After 80 years of union between England and Ireland there had been a debate on the relative merits of bullets and buckshot for the Irish people. Ingenious minds had suggested great difficulties in restoring self-government to Ireland, and had concluded that in this matter Ireland must go to the wall; but the Irish Members were of a different opinion. They admitted that there might be practical difficulties in the way. But they were difficulties which Irishmen and Englishmen together would soon surmount if they came to consider the question thoroughly. The time must come when the Imperial Parliament would restore to Ireland the right of which she had been robbed. The Chief Secretary had stated a few nights previously, as one of the reasons why the government of Ireland was becoming more difficult, that the intelligence of the Irish people was increasing and that they read more. What an admission was that! It was an admission that the advance of Irish intelligence was the foe of English rule in Ireland. In this matter the Irish people simply stood up for their national rights, and the Government of England had attempted the impossible task of killing out a distinct nationality. Irishmen might suffer years of oppression as they had suffered in past years; but they would outlive it, and the one thing they would not do was to abandon the distinctive national rights of their country. The sword had not killed them when it was tried, nor would the smooth speeches that were made to her now. England was in the dilemma that she could give Ireland no extension of liberty which would not work against herself in this matter of separate government. An extension of the franchise, for instance, would work out the fulness of the national demand for self-government. They might try the sword again. They might decimate the Irish people, and they might make a fresh chapter of darkness and bloodshed in the history of their country; but Ireland would outlive all such trials, as she had outlived others, and they would have to concede justice to her at last. At any cost, Irish Members would work out the national cause. They would bring the insurrection—the legal insurrection—into the midst of the House of Commons, and the machine would not be able to continue its working. At any cost to themselves and to Ireland they would stand by the liberties of their country, and the traditions handed down to them should not perish in their hands. But they asked the Government to meet them in a spirit of fairness and conciliation, and to come with them to a fair decision. There were signs that there were now at the head of the Government men who knew that to that complexion they must come at last. England would not get rid of her present difficulty until she consented to an arbitration on the claims of Ireland. He most cordially supported the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Cork City; and he assured the House that, though its Forms prevented a division being taken upon it, the question would be brought up again and again until the great question of the Parlia- mentary relations between England and Ireland was settled.

said, he was glad the hon. Member for the City of Cork had brought foward the Resolution of which he had given Notice. The commercial class having been killed out in Ireland, there remained only the tenant farmers. It was they who constituted the bulk of the people of Ireland. During the present year the principal attention of the Irish people had been concentrated on the Land Question. That was certainly a most important question; but it was also important that the question of Irish nationality should not be entirely forgotten. The London newspapers seemed to think that the Land Question had completely crushed out the National Question in Ireland. That was a great mistake. The Land Question would probably be to the fore during the next few years; but when it was settled the National Question would again be the leading subject within legitimate bounds. When he spoke of legitimate bounds, he felt that he could appropriately illustrate the meaning in the words of Grattan, who said—

"We should never forgot that the sea separates us from England; but the great ocean encircles the two countries."

The Motion of the hon. Member for Cork City appeared to him to be happily framed. Without endorsing the Compensation for Disturbance Bill altogether, he gave a general approval to it. It was, no doubt, a very good Bill, though it was not altogether such a Bill as he should wish to see passed. The main point about it was this, however, that after it had passed the House of Commons it was rejected by the other House. That rejection had again drawn attention to the Parliamentary relations between England and Ireland. If there was to be a House of Lords at all, the question was, what should be their relation to Irish affairs? He feared the Irish Peers had adopted English manners and ways of thought to such an extent that they could not be considered Irishmen at all. He did not pledge himself to saying that the Upper Chamber in the proposed Irish Parliament should be hereditary; but, in deference to English feeling, the Home Rule Party had been willing to concede that it should be so. A hereditary House of Lords in Ireland might, perhaps, conflict a little with the popular branch of the Legislature; but he thought that, on the whole, they would act according to the feeling of the country, and simply act like a safety drag on the down-hill progress of a coach. With respect to the English House of Lords, however, the position of Irishmen was different. It was quite possible for the Representatives of Ireland to convince the English Parliament that redress was necessary for the grievances of their country, and they had this Session succeeded to continue doing so. But they had no means of convincing or of acting upon the House of Lords in any way, and the rejection of the Compensation for Disturbance Bill had demonstrated, probably more than anything else which had occurred during the last eight or 10 years, the necessity of some change in the Parliamentary relationship of the two countries. The very fact of the Parliamentary relations of England and Ireland being such as they were obliged the Irish Peers to live out of Ireland, and the smaller proprietors naturally followed, as far as they could, their example; so that a large amount of income which would otherwise be spent in the country was withdrawn from it, and there was thus a conflict raised between two classes—those who remained behind and produced money, and those who spent it in another land. Some remedy for the evil might be provided if the Irish people were allowed in some fashion to govern themselves, and in that way to bring the influence of local opinion to bear upon those who paid so little regard to the duties of their position. He did not wish to detract from the power or ability of the House; but it would take its undivided attention for 10 years to do justice to Ireland, and in order to do that they should cease altogether to give any care to England, or Scotland, or the Colonies. He thought that Ireland should bear the same relation to the Imperial Parliament as an American State did to the Congress. In those circumstances, the question which had been raised that evening was, he thought, well worthy of attention.

said, he thought the one thing that must be clear to hon. Members was that the attempt to rule Ireland from that House led to a serious interference with the ordinary Business of Parliament. English Members were, no doubt, often weary of discussions on Irish subjects; but the Irish Representatives were, he could assure them, equally weary of having to listen to debates upon ground game and other matters of the kind which did not interest them, while they waited day after day and week after week for the discussion of Irish questions, with the disadvantage of being far removed from their homes; while English Members could, for the most part, attend to their ordinary business. The statement which they had heard that night from the Chief Secretary for Ireland was a new and remarkable departure from the line of policy hitherto pursued by the Government. The Chief Secretary had many times before promised protection to the Irish landlords; but he only promised protection to the Irish tenants in the event of circumstances arising which would cause him to introduce a Coercion Act. He said that it was only when there was a prospect of disturbance he would bring in such a measure; but he had forgotten that it might be the duty of Irish Members to their constituents to get up such a condition of affairs as would force the right hon. Gentleman to give the other Act which he had promised, even if he had to pass a Coercion Act. Never had such an extraordinary promise been laid before Parliament by a Minister as to say that what he could not do before Parliament rose he would do, if his hands were forced, in Ireland during the Recess. He (Mr. Dillon) would suggest the desirability of making a compromise—that the Chief Secretary should introduce a measure to give protection to the Irish tenant until Parliament met again. What use was there in putting a premium on disturbance? and why should not the Bill be passed now instead of having a special Session for it? With regard to the probability arising for this course and for the passing of this Bill, which they had been promised that night for the first time, he had only to say that it depended entirely on the action of the Irish landlords. He believed the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was valuable in Ireland, as it would act as an intimidation and a check on the Irish landlords, for it warned them that if they went too far the Government would come forward with a measure which would put a stop to those evictions. But there was one circumstance which the House ought not to overlook—namely, that, however good might be the intentions of the right hon. Gentleman—and he gave him credit for the best intentions—they had no security that, once Parliament had risen, his promise would be carried out by his Colleagues. Moreover, it was not impossible that the right hon. Gentleman should retire from that post, which he did not seem greatly to enjoy, and the Irish people might get neither a Coercion Act nor a Protection Bill, but be left to the ordinary course of the law, which was quite sufficient for the landlords of Ireland. It would, therefore, be the duty of the Irish Members not to cease their exertions on behalf of the Irish people until they had obtained from the Government a distinct and tangible pledge in the sense of the Chief Secretary's declaration. That declaration, he held, gave them a right to demand such a pledge. It was not because he had advised every man in Ireland to learn how to use a rifle that he should be accused of flying in the face of the Irish Government. That was a question he should try out during the winter—whether his countrymen should not have the right to possess a rifle and to know how to use it; and he thought it likely that after he went back to Ireland he would start a series of rifle clubs in every part of Ireland, and then they would see if it was foul treason and rebellion in Ireland to arm the Irish people and teach them how to shoot, and whether the Chief Secretary was prepared to stand by his language in that House. It was a mistake to suppose that the Compensation for Disturbance Bill was a measure which would have satisfied the demands of the Irish people at the present crisis. It was only another proof of the hopelessness of expecting that House to understand the position of affairs in Ireland, or to deal with them in an adequate way. The prevailing ignorance of the English Parliament in relation to Irish subjects was a most serious matter. Whenever a Bill was passed for Ireland, after much labour and exertion, it was expected that the Irish people should fall down on their knees and express their thanks. But the Irish people did not view the matter in that light. They were not grateful either to that House or to the Government, and, as far as he could judge, they were not likely to be so. To return to the statement of the Chief Secretary, it was a mere truism to say that the law must be obeyed. The right hon. Gentleman did not forget, surely, that under the tithe system many very estimable gentlemen wilfully broke the law and incurred penalties for doing so, in order to compel its being altered. The Quakers, for instance, had done so. The Irish Land League advised the people, in some respects, to resist the action of the law, but not by violence or force of arms. Quite the contrary; they had never given such advice. They had held upwards of 160 meetings in Ireland, and in no single instance had a breach of the peace taken place at any of those meetings. A more foul calumny was never uttered than the attempt to charge every outrage in Ireland to the Land League. Before the National Land League came into existence outrages were far more frequent and more deadly than they were to-day. That organization had saved many a peasant the shelter of his homestead, and had saved the life of many a landlord who, but for its action, would have been a dead man. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had made a strong appeal to the Irish Members to show forbearance towards the Government, and allow them time to prove that their intention to do justice to Ireland was sincere; but the only proof he had yet given of that sincerity was the appointment of a Land Commission, in which the Irish farmers had so little confidence that they would not lay their case before it. He supposed they might get some farmers to go before it by giving them 10s. a-day. Protection was most needed for the small farmers of Ireland. The National Land League in three parts of Ireland was the representative of the small farmers, and the small farmers in those three parts had said they would not go before the Commission. Let the Chief Secretary for Ireland pass a short Bill saying there should be no eviction till Parliament met again, and Irish Members would leave those Benches unoccupied—at any rate, they would not be antagonistic—during the remainder of the Session. What had Irish landlords done during the last 20 years? Prom the year 1841 to the year 1851 73,000 houses were levelled in the Province of Connaught. What had become of the families who occupied those houses? In 10 years, during which there was no famine or distress in Ireland—from the year 1851 to the year 1861–6,000 houses were levelled in Connaught. From the year 1861 to the year 1871—the last Return—when there was no famine, 10,000 houses were levelled in Con-naught. If he was asked what was the motive for driving out 10,000 families to the roadside he would say it was the rise in the price of cattle, and the desire of the landlords to profit by that rise in price by turning the land occupied by these 10,000 families into grazing ground. Until the Government gave some real security that that state of things should not be repeated, he, as a Connaught man, would not withdraw his opposition to the Government. The Constabulary were Irishmen, and although at the command of their officers and from a sense of discipline they might assist in driving men, women, and children from their homes, and turning them out upon the roadside, yet it was the duty of Irish Members, if they could, to relieve them from doing a work which he was sure they felt to be detestable. It was said they were professional agitators. The truth was that no man disliked agitation more than he did. He should be glad if he could remedy the evils of Ireland by a much shorter road than by agitation. It was only because that road was barred by an obstacle which the means at his command did not enable him to surmount that he turned to another which was more distasteful to him, and which he would never willingly have entered. He would not, however, be turned aside, and of the two alternatives which now lay before him he much preferred to see whether they could not do something in that House. As the Government did not consult his convenience, he did not propose to consult theirs. If the Government spared them the trouble of holding monster meetings in Ireland, and of making themselves hoarse by repeating the same things many times—which it was most distasteful to him to do—he should be glad to address no more large audiences in the autumn or winter. He had always observed that they could not reach the ears or the minds of Englishmen without first putting them to some inconvenience or giving them some annoyance. He had a great admiration for the English people; but he did not admire them in Ireland. That question of Irish home government might now be regarded in that House as an annual nuisance; but he had no doubt it would go on increasing from year to year. If the House thought—as he believed it did—that the Irish Members were a nuisance, it had better get rid of them; there was one way of getting rid of them; for they did not want to come there; but as long as they were there to do their duty to their constituents, he greatly feared that they would continue to be a nuisance to the House. He should very much like to hear some of the English Members speak who, up to the present time, had had no opportunity of doing so. He and his hon. Friends were a trouble to English Members, because they were all able to speak—if not able to speak before coming to that House, they acquired that facility when they got there, because they were obliged to speak so much——

The hon. Gentleman is not speaking to the Question, and he is addressing particular Members on the opposite side of the House. I must call upon him to address the Chair.

apologized for having addressed the hon. Members opposite and not the Chair. But he had only one other remark to make, and it was that, while hoping the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork City would be adopted, the Government would supplement the statement already made by the Chief Secretary by another more distinct and tangible, giving an assurance that a satisfactory measure of protection for tenants would be brought forward, not at an Autumn Sitting, but before the present Parliament was prorogued.

said, if anything was calculated to increase the aversion felt in England for Ireland, it was speeches of the tone of that just delivered. Such utterances would only tend to rivet afresh the bonds with which the Irish people considered they were bound to this country. He wanted to know whether this discussion was intended for simple obstruction? ["No, no!"] Was this Irish grievance against the House of Lords to be revenged by inflicting a grievance on the House of Commons—by wasting its time, and reducing the question to a simple trial of physical strength in a debate which could have no practical conclusion. A large body of the Members of the House had an enthusiastic desire to do justice to Ire- land, and the present head of Her Majesty's Government might be trusted to do all he could for that country; but the Irish Members were, by the course they were now pursuing, putting obstacles in the way of legislation for the benefit of Ireland. The present discussion could lead to no result, as the hon. Member for the City of Cork could not, owing to the Forms of the House, go to a division. He hoped, therefore, the Irish Members would allow the debate to come to a close, so that the large amount of Business still before them might be transacted without further delay.

said, that he did not deny, as the hon. Member for Marylebone (Mr. D. Grant) had said in his able speech, that the Land Act had largely diminished agrarian crime in Ireland. But the only result of that argument was that if the principles of the Land Act were logically carried out, and made universal in their application, agrarian outrages would entirely disappear. Another measure which should carry out the principles of the Land Act would completely pacify the whole population. He would also say that the Resolution of his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) was one which he could not have avoided bringing before the House. The Home Rule Members had been already charged with betraying the trust committed to them by their constituents. The forbearance of the Party had brought upon them a great deal of criticism in Ireland. No Motion had been made on the subject last Session; in fact, the question had not been submitted to the House during the last three Sessions of the last Parliament. He thought the hon. Member for Marylebone would have acknowledged, if he had heard the speech of the hon. Member for Cork, that his hon. Friend had no obstructive object in view. The fact that his hon. Friend could not bring his Resolution to a division was only an additional proof of the inefficiency of the present system. Reference had been made to the rejection by the House of Lords of the Compensation for Disturbance Bill. That circumstance reminded him of a story he had heard while travelling in the Southern States of America. A nigger was indicted for stealing hams, and was advised by his counsel to plead guilty. Sambo declined to plead guilty, and insisted on his counsel making a speech. The counsel did so, and the result was a verdict of "Not Guilty." Thereupon the counsel said—"Sambo, it was the most eloquent speech I ever delivered;" to which Sambo replied—"It was not the speech that did it, but every man on the jury had a ham." So with regard to the action of the House of Lords in rejecting the Compensation for Disturbance Bill. Every man on that jury had a ham. They were judges in their own cause. They were not actuated by the principles of political economy, but by self-interest. Perhaps too much had been made of the rejection of the Bill by the House of Lords. If there was anything remarkable in the history of that Body it was the facility with which it could recede from a position taken up in defiance of public opinion. Probably, when a similar measure was again brought forward on the responsibility of the Ministers of the Crown, it would be presented in such a manner, and with so large an amount of public opinion in its favour, that it could not be so easily resisted. The hon. and learned Member for Colchester (Mr. Willis) said that he could not approve the Motion because the hon. Member for Cork City had not proved his leading proposition—namely, that the Imperial Parliament was incapable of legislating beneficially for the people of Ireland. If the case of Home Rule rested solely on the establishment of that proposition he would consider the case won, for there was nothing more striking in the political history of Great Britain during the last 80 years than the incapacity of Parliament to legislate beneficially for Ireland. Parliament had tried to legislate for Ireland during that period; and what were the measures which it provided for the promotion of tranquility and prosperity in that time? Let them put on one side the measures which were passed for that purpose, and, on the other, those passed for the purpose of perpetuating class interests—let them put on one side the Acts of Parliament passed for the benefit of the Irish tenants, and, on the other, the measures passed for the benefit of the Irish landlords; and, after weighing the results of the two kinds of legislation respectively, he would ask the House to say whether the legislation of Parliament had been, on the whole, beneficial to the people of Ireland. At the time of the Union it was said by the leading English statesmen, among whom were Pitt and Castlereagh, that the union of the two Parliaments would promote the tranquility of Ireland; yet three years had not elapsed from the date of the Union before the blood of a brave young Irishman flowed from the scaffold in Thomas Street because he had the courage to resist inhuman laws; and the memory of Robert Emmet was to this day cherished by his countrymen, who regarded him as the highest exemplar of a pure and courageous patriotism. Many English gentlemen, who were disposed to charge the Irish race with a turbulent, seditious spirit, should trace that spirit to its source, and they would find it not in the character of the Irish race, but in the character of the laws to which that race had been subjected for centuries. The Constitution had been suspended in Ireland no less than 29 times in 80 years. Could it be maintained that a Government that could only keep order by imposing a state of siege was a beneficial Government for the people of Ireland? The Chief Secretary objected to the proposition of the hon. Member for Cork City, on the ground that he had no plan to substitute for the present arrangement. But when it was proposed to alter a legislative arrangement that had existed for 80 years, Parliament would necessarily find itself face to face with a large and comprehensive task. He remembered how the late lamented Mr. Butt did bring forward a Motion, with definite proposals as to the way in which he would have the legislative machinery of the two countries arranged, and he remembered also how the Chief Secretary received his Motion. He said it was of no use for the hon. and learned Member to talk of an Irish Parliament until he had changed the current of public opinion on the question. The hon. Member for Cork had, therefore, shown a great deal of political wisdom in declining, in this state of affairs, to bring forward any detailed plan for the establishment of an Irish Parliament. The establishment of a separate Legislative Assembly for Ireland, authorized to deal with purely Irish subjects by no means involved a total separation of the two countries. By granting the demand of the Irish people in this matter they would relieve that House from obstruction, and from the continuous strain, now religious, now educational, and now political, which the discussion of Irish affairs involved, while the connection between the two countries would be preserved. They had heard a good deal about the House of Lords; but the Lords of Ireland sold their country on the floor of the Irish House of Commons 80 years ago. When he said that, he must add that they were not, after all, Irishmen, but Anglo-Irish Lords. They had done nothing to condone their treachery of 80 years ago; they were essentially anti-Irish; and if there was to be a settlement of this question, and Ireland regained her old Constitution, the Irish Lords might remain in "another place;" and, so far as Irish Members were concerned, he could promise them that a golden chain of silence should protect them in the land to which they had given their allegiance. If there was any part of the plan submitted to the last Parliament by the late Mr. Butt about which he was not confident, it was that portion which contemplated the restoration of the Irish House of Lords. He had no faith in such a restoration. In addition to the Irish House of Commons, he would have a second Chamber formed on the model of the French, the United States, or the Canadian Senate, and to these two Bodies should be left the transaction of all purely Irish affairs. Let England yield to the just demand of Ireland to conduct her own affairs, and the Imperial Parliament would be lifted to a position equal to its great responsibility. It would be no longer fretted and harassed by continual consideration of those Irish questions which, after 80 years of experience, it was obliged to confess by the mouth of the Chief Secretary it was unable to deal with, except under a condition of agitation which threatened another suspension of the Constitution in Ireland. During those 80 years Ireland had been always either subject to, or threatened with, coercion. The peace had been preserved by Coercion Laws, or by the terror of such laws. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant had not asked for extraordinary powers from Parliament; but he had stated very plainly that he might have to ask for such powers before many weeks were over, and that was what they called a Government beneficial to the people of Ireland. He (Mr. O'Connor Power) had spoken with many hon. Members who sat on the other side, and who, he knew, were sincerely desirous of promoting the welfare of Ireland; but he was surprised at even their incapacity to understand the condition of Ireland politically and socially. One of the most liberal and friendly Members of the Liberal Party had said to him within the last 48 hours—"This Home Rule you ask for would, if it were granted, save us a deal of trouble; but then there is the religious difficulty. Your Catholic Parliament would tyrannize over the Protestants in Ireland. There would be no security for religious liberty." There were, he knew, tens of thousands of Englishmen who raised the same objection to a compliance with their demand; but a greater fallacy could not be conceived. Those who raised the objection ought to come before the House with clean hands. Were the Protestants of England and Scotland remarkable for their religious toleration? Did they show that they were by the Representatives they sent to that House? Why, the number of Catholics that had been returned to Parliament by English and Scotch constituencies since the Reformation might be counted on the fingers of one hand. For his own part, he could only recollect two Catholics who were returned during that long period; and yet it was said that Irishmen could not be trusted with the exercise of Constitutional liberty because they were such bigots in the matter of religion! What was the case in Ireland? Catholic constituencies sent Protestants to represent them in that House; and the Dublin Corporation, each alternate year, elected a Protestant to represent the City as its chief magistrate. How often could such a thing be said of England or Scotland? So rarely, let him say, as that they might well be disposed to forget that such a thing had ever occurred at all. The religious bogey was, therefore, as inexcusable and as hollow in an intelligent English mind as a great many other bogeys which had prevented many well-meaning, sincere, and honest Englishmen from doing their duty to Ireland, and could not for a moment be advanced as a reason for opposing the Motion which his hon. Friend had placed upon the Paper. His hon. Friend was representing the doctrine of Irish nationality in the Motion he had made. He (Mr. O'Connor Power) gloried in the senti- ment of nationality, for no people ever made a permanent mark in history who were not willing to make every sacrifice in order that that sentiment might be handed down to posterity as the guardian of the virtue and the courage, the honour, and the manhood of the nation.

said, he had listened with great regret to the speech of the hon. Member for County Tipperary (Mr. Dillon)—a feeling of regret which, he felt sure, was shared in by every Irish Member outside the Third Party in the House; but he felt called on, as an Irish Member, and in the name of the Irish Members who were outside that "Third Party," to protest against the idea that the opinions expressed by the hon. Member for Cork City (Mr. Parnell), the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon), and the hon. Member who had just addressed the House represented the opinions of the people of Ireland. It was true the hon. Gentlemen represented the opinion of the constituencies which had returned those hon. Members. Those hon. Gentlemen were not slow to express in speech after speech, day after day, and night after night, the opinions which they held; and they were careful to impress upon the House, and upon the country at large, that those opinions were the opinions of the Irish people. He denied that they were. Now, he had some experience of Ireland. He had been in the North and in the South, and was well aware of the opinion of the vast majority of the Irish people; and he ventured to say that if they went outside the humbler classes—those classes so susceptible to the language addressed to them by the Land League—if they went to the Irish farmers of any position, if they went to the commercial classes, and still higher, to the educated classes, where legitimate influence prevailed, they would find a preponderating opinion among those classes against the opinions advocated by the 25 Gentlemen—[Cries of "60," "65!"]—who were audacious enough to come to that House, and in the presence of other Irish Members, who had too long kept silent, announce that they spoke the unanimous voice of the Irish people. It was said that there were 65 out of 105 Members who were in favour of the views of the hon. Member for Cork. Where were they the other night when only 21 walked into the Lobby with him on a test question? Where, on that occasion, were the 45 Gentlemen who had dissociated themselves from those extreme opinions, which were not the opinions of the Irish people? Therefore, let not the House believe, above all, let not the English people, through the Press, believe that the 21 hon. Gentlemen who had followed the hon. Member into the Lobby were entitled to speak for the Irish people. Hon. Gentlemen opposite talked of public opinion in Ireland; it had been said by the hon. Member for Cork City that he and those who spoke his views represented Irish opinion. But what was the public opinion to which he referred? It was the public opinion of that narrow circle within which they moved, the opinion of that class which was most susceptible to the exciting and inflammatory language which was the curse of Ireland. That was the public opinion which was represented to be the true public opinion of the Irish people. He denied that it was. That House had been forced to listen to the arguments of hon. Gentlemen repeated over and over again. There was no lack of speaking on their part. Whether questions referred to England, Scotland, or Ireland, the Irish Party were not separate Members for Ireland; they came there as Members of the Imperial Legislature, responsible, like other Members, for the discharge of the Business brought before the House. It was urged by the hon. Member for Cork that there was an inability on the part of that House to legislate for Ireland. Was there a want of time? Grant that there was. But from what did the want of time come? From expending it. Was it just, was it reasonable, was it fair to demand that there should be a Parliament in College Green, on the ground that there was not time to discuss Irish questions here, when the inability arose from the action of those Gentlemen who made the demand. The argument thus used, repeated and enforced so strongly by the "Third Party," amounted to this—they first created the difficulty, and having created it, they used it as an argument why that House should accede to their demands. It was said that the Land League ought to have the credit of maintaining law and order in Ireland. He would like to know on what principle? It might be true that in the places where the Land League was strong crime was not so rife as elsewhere—that was, there was no assassination of landlords from behind hedges, or cruelties committed on unoffending beasts. But why was that? Because the League had established a system of terrorism by their marching of armed or unarmed men to their public meetings, followed by notices that whoever took the land of an evicted tenant should be shot. That was the terrorism which secured an immunity from crime for a time, because there was a belief that the Land League was the instrument for carrying out their illegal designs and objects. He did not complain of agitation. It was a legitimate instrument in a free State, when used on the principles of justice and morality; but it could not be justified when adopted as an instrument for carrying out any end not compatible with justice and morality. And if it was said that the end justified the means, he could only reply that to deprive one's opponents of life was not an end, no matter how glorious it might seem to certain hon. Members, that could possibly either justify the means or be itself justified. Prom his knowledge of the father of the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon), he believed if that gentleman were in the House he would be the first to denounce the means, not avowed, but hinted at by the hon. Member. ["No, no!"] Hon. Gentlemen cried "No;" but he had stated what he believed to be a fact. Such opinions were not the deliberate opinions of the Irish people. He repudiated altogether the authority of the 25 Members who constituted the Third Party, and denied their right to speak on behalf of the people. They had, indeed, spoken for their constituents; but both the whole of Ulster and any conceivable Parliament in College Green would repudiate those opinions. He believed, further, that an Irish Parliament established in College Green under the auspices of the hon. Member (Mr. Parnell) and his supporters would result in civil war. If rifles were put into the hands of tens of thousands in one part of Ireland, a similar army would spring up in another part; bloodshed would ensue to an incalculable extent, and the prosperity of the country would be destroyed for centuries. It was his honest conviction also that the changes desired by certain hon. Members would result in the abolition of landlords throughout Ireland; and he had, therefore, ventured to speak for the Irish Members who did not hold the views of the hon. Member for Cork City, and to impress upon the English Members and the English people that they should not place reliance on the statements made by the hon. Member and his supporters as representing the opinions of the Irish people, because he believed, in his conscience, that those statements were not correct.

said, the hon. and learned Member who had just addressed the House appealed to English Members; and he, as an English Member, responded to his appeal. He admired the prudence of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) in bringing forward this question in such a manner that the House could not divide upon it; but he would here call the attention of the House more particularly to the interpretation given of the hon. Member's Motion by the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power). The hon. Member for Mayo always spoke eloquently. No Irish Member spoke better. But what was the substance of the speech which he had delivered to-night? He plainly advocated the restoration of an Irish Parliament on College Green. That was the interpretation which he (Mr. O'Connor Power) put upon the Motion of the hon. Member for Cork—["Hear, hear!"]—and the hon. Member who cheered he well remembered as formerly numbered among the Repealers of the Union in this House. He could not help admiring the modesty of the hon. Member for Mayo, when he told them that the intention was that there should be a full representation of the Irish people in the Parliament on College Green; but he improved upon the state of things by saying that, when Ireland had a separate Parliament, a certain number of Irish Members would still be sent into this House to take part in the conduct of Imperial affairs. Perhaps hon. Members did not at once realize the full meaning of that proposal. It amounted simply to this—that Ireland was to be doubly represented; that she was to be represented fully in the Parliament on College Green, and also represented in the Imperial Parliament of the United Kingdom! Now, he was quite certain that if such a proposal had been submitted to Mr. Pitt, it would not have been included in his plan for cre- ating the Legislative Union between the two countries; and, as allusion had been made to Mr. Pitt, he would call the attention of hon. Members on the Home Rule Benches to the fact that Mr. Pitt proposed and carried the Act of Union before Catholic Emancipation, and at a time when there was a high property qualification for Members of this House. He would also call the attention of Irish Members to the fact that English Members representing English constituencies were not imbued with those Communistic doctrines which had been enunciated by the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon), and that it was possible that the English people might take into their consideration other remedies for the gross inconvenience to which this House had now been subjected by the extraordinary conduct of certain Irish Members—one of those remedies being the restoration of the property qualification. When once such a measure as that was passed, he did not think they should again hear within those walls speeches so fraught with Communistic doctrines as that which they had listened to from the hon. Member for Tipperary.

said, he certainly had not intended to make any speech at that hour; but it was impossible to pass over, without a word of comment, the comical exhibition made by the one Member for all Ireland, who came from Tyrone (Mr. Litton), and who had now left the House. The hon. and learned Member, in a tremendous effort, had delivered himself of that speech in defence of Great Britain. He had protested against the absurdity of 25 Members being allowed to speak for Ireland, while he claimed that one should be allowed to do so. When the hon. and learned Member was corrected, and informed that there were 65 Members who held the opinions which he condemned, he asked where they were to be found? It was fitting that his hon. and learned Friend should have fired off his little gun that evening, as, otherwise, the great Liberal Party might have asked to-morrow what had become of the Irish Home Rule Liberals? Had they been wiped out altogether by this billow of Parnellism? As one brave Roman had kept the bridge, in the brave days of old, so one brave Tyrone man would save the British Constitution! But he would warn the Govern- ment with regard to these innocent utterances of the hon. and learned Member for Tyrone, although, perhaps, they needed no warning. There were men on the Treasury Bench who knew that in the Corridor they would find the Gazettes of the reign of James II. in which they might read that while that unfortunate Monarch was on the brink of a precipice and in the commission of outrages against the principles of civil and religious liberty, fulsome addresses of loyalty were being published by the Littons of the Party, assuring him that he had the whole of the British people at his back. There were statesmen on that Bench who had read the loyal addresses that came from America, alluring George III. to the fatal step that lost him the American Colonies, and re-assuring the Government at home, and calling upon them to stand firm against those Parnell demagogues, Washington and Franklin, at the same time assuring them that there was a loyal people in America to defend the King against their attempts. The hon. and learned Member for Tyrone was a lawyer, and ought, therefore, to know something about Constitutional Law; but how did he propose that Her Majesty's Government should gauge constitutionally what was or was not the opinion of the Irish people? His speech was a specimen of the infatuation with which, at all times, some little faction had attempted to speak with the voice of the nation. The late King of Naples used to declare that he had the feeling of his people with him, and that it was only the uneasy few who protested against his rule. The utterances of the hon. and learned Member were the most revolutionary that could be made. If the influence of the constituencies, at a General Election, were not to be potential to put Ministers on the Treasury Bench, would the hon. and learned Member propose or invent some means by which the mind of the people of Ireland might be demonstrated in a Constitutional way, if it were not to be by Parliamentary election? Against the expression of the popular will, the hon. and learned Member had only his own dogmatic utterances to offer. The hon. and learned Member was horrified at the agitation which had taken place, and proceeded to give the House an exceedingly interesting exhortation on the proper mode of conducting popular agitation. He (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) deplored and condemned some of the incidents which had marked the present land agitation in Ireland, and some of the utterances which had characterized the public demonstrations which had taken place; but there never was greater folly than to suppose that the tumultuous feelings of a people could always be regulated by rule and compass. As the river would find its way from the mountain to the sea, and as the flood would tear its channel through valley and plain, so would the aspirations of the Irish people always tend to liberty and justice. It was well known that in all ages great popular movements took place in this way. If they came down to modern times, he would ask the hon. Members who were shocked by the violence now used, how the Reform Bill of 1832 was carried? It was only by the menace of civil war, and by the preparations for that civil war made by the Liberal Government of the day. It was on record, and it could not be denied that, from the Home Office itself, a letter was written to Sir Charles Napier, asking him to take command of the Revolutionary Forces which were to take the field, if the House of Lords continued to resist the will of the Commons. The language used then, which they all regretted and deplored, just as he regretted the language now used in Ireland, was as strong as that now used, and professed to be contented with nothing else than the utter extinction of the privileged orders. The Resolution passed at the Westminster meeting declared for absolute military revolution, and it said—"We will prepare our powder, we will melt our lead." He could not conceive that anything stronger than this could be said by the Irish Land League. And yet the language he had quoted was used by Englishmen who had professed their willingness to fight out the question at issue. He would quote a very remarkable sentence from the historian Hallam, who said that, in revolution, it was not by calm reason that they so often determined its action, but by the passions of the people great revolutions were brought about. He wished to say one word to English Members who had listened with considerable patience to this debate. Although some of his hon. Friends seemed to have complained of not being answered from the other side of the House, yet, speaking for himself, he would say that he did not misunderstand the silence of the English Members that evening. He believed that they had been listened to by numbers of hon. Members who were new to that House, and who had not decided their case, but desired to hear it set out honestly and fairly. There might be others who had listened from different motives, and for different purposes; but he knew very well that the Liberal majority returned to that House was disposed to listen with some impatience to their bringing forward their national cause. What they said was—"We have only just been returned to this House; give us a trial in dealing with Irish affairs." They said that the British Parliament was perfectly capable of doing justice to Ireland; and as they had done something for Ireland during the past 10 years they wished an opportunity of doing something more. That, no doubt, was a most benevolent frame of mind; but a nation that had waited 80 years for justice to be done to it did not consider that that was a sufficient answer to their demands. What they asked was, that they might have the liberty of managing their own affairs. Ireland asked that England would trust her to manage her own domestic affairs; and she believed that she could do it as well as, if not better than, it was now done for her. He hoped that the common sense of Englishmen would see that the pressing needs of Ireland could not afford to wait for the convenience of an over-worked Assembly like this. If an Irish Parliament were generously given to Ireland to-morrow, it would have its work before it, if it sat every month in the year for the next 10 years, so vast were the duties that lay before a real Parliament for Ireland. Society in that country wanted reconstituting from its very foundations; and everything was so disorganized by the shameful government of the last 80 years, that, even with their own Parliament, it would take many years to set it straight. Not only could they not afford to wait for what the Liberal majority might be willing in their generosity to extend to them, but there was urgent necessity that the affairs of Ireland should at once be taken in hand by herself. It had been said that they could not drive three omnibuses through Temple Bartogether; but in the case of Ireland it was attempted to drive half-a-dozen. It was said that the Irish Members were violent in their language; but there were some men who could not be moderate. He believed that he was called almost reactionary; but was it not better that they should have the political opinions of Ireland stated in that House than that the dissatisfaction should take another expression in Ireland? A true statesman would not take the utterance of any individual as the expression of a nation's opinion. It was part of the statesman's duty to take into account the various opinions expressed, some in passion, some in judgment, some with temper, some without, to weigh them and to ask himself what was the will and mind of the Irish people. They did not want to be told that the English were acting for their good. That was altogether a sham. They did not want to be told by England—"We will do what is good for you." For 80 years England had been occupied with doing what she thought was for the good of Ireland, and what had been the result of the process? He had said it before, and he would say it again, because he knew that he was listened to by Members new to this Parliament, that agitation was the honest, healthy public life of a country. A good, vigorous, honest, public agitation was part of the constitutional life of every free country. But when that agitation had accomplished its purpose of educating the mind of the country, then it became necessary that its objects should be carried into effect. In every freely-governed country the will of the majority was the lever by which Constitutional changes were effected. In every civilized society, it was the recognized duty of the minority to submit to the will of the majority. But what happened in Ireland? There was always an exterior appeal of the minority in Ireland against the opinion of the majority of its own country. They had first to agitate any question in Ireland; and when they had obtained the verdict of the majority they had only half won their battle, and they had to carry on the fight the other side of the Channel. What was the result of all this? It was, that it took something hardly short of a revolutionary proposal to accomplish reform of any magnitude in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman the present Prime Minister had said that English public opinion was not directed by the state of affairs in Ireland until revolution had shown its head. It was not the explosion at Clerkenwell that frightened England, nor was it that England was terrified because a policeman was shot at Manchester. It was because these incidents succeeded in bringing home to the minds and conscience of honest-minded Englishmen the state of public opinion in Ireland. He did not believe that England was frightened of Ireland, or of any Irish insurrection. England was strong and powerful; but the occurrences he had mentioned had succeeded in raising public opinion in England to the state of affairs existing in Ireland. As a result, the Land Act and the Irish Church Act were passed. They now offered England a solution of the difficulties with which Ireland had to contend. If that proposition were adopted, it would pacify Ireland and produce peace and prosperity. But their proposal was not listened to, and he would tell them why. Because they must, if that proposal were adopted, give up their dominion—and dominion was sweet. England liked dominion, and believed it would do its best for Ireland, and it liked to keep in its hands the power to do that. But the result of that was, that some despaired that English public opinion would ever accomplish a settlement of this question. For his part, he did not despair of it; but he was sorry that others did. There were thousands of his countrymen who, when they read the articles in the London papers, saw in them the clenched teeth of men who would hold to their own, and would not listen to Ireland. Then the language of despair was used in Ireland. He confessed that he was sometimes tempted by what he read in the first English newspaper to look upon any possible settlement of this question as hopeless. He would ask the Government, and he would ask the House, not to misunderstand their position in this debate. The English journals would be the first at the close of the Session to taunt them with having let the Session pass by without raising this question. They had, therefore, to accomplish a duty not only to their own country, but also to English public opinion. It was, therefore, necessary to bring this matter up for debate inside the House as well as out.

said, that by the advice of his Leader, he was not going to say a word upon the subject of Home Rule. He rose, however, to ask the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India, Whether he had any news from Candahar to communicate to the House?

said, he did not expect that question would be asked. Hon. Members had, no doubt, seen in the evening newspapers the news as to Candahar. The British troops had been successful, although the loss had been severe.

said, that he wished to appeal to the Government not to press at that late hour—1 o'clock—the discussion of these Estimates, which involved some important questions of policy. His part in the debate which had just been closed had been merely that of a listener; and, therefore, he could speak with candour of the patience that had been exhibited in the interesting discussion which had just taken place. Very important questions of public policy were raised by these Votes, and he was sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not proceed beyond 2 or half-past 2 o'clock. It should be remembered that they were then nearly at the end of August, and it was unreasonable to keep them from their beds at that time. He would appeal to the Government to postpone the discussion of these Votes, as much in their own interest as in that of the Committee.

said, that he really must urge upon the Committee the very grave nature of the objection raised by the hon. Member for Galway City. They had had a very long and interesting debate that evening, and he was very anxious that the question of the Irish Vote should be considered calmly and dispassionately. Under these circumstances, he should move that Progress be reported.

said, he hoped the Committee would be induced to make some progress with the Estimates. The hon. Member for Galway had complained that it was too late to discuss important Votes of the kind which would come before the Committee; but he (the Marquess of Hartington) must ask, if that were so, with whom the fault rested? Yesterday, according to the Order of Business, the Committee of Supply ought to have been taken at half-past 4 o'clock without the intervention of any debate whatever; and had that Order been observed, the Committee would have been able to enter upon the consideration of the whole of the Irish Votes at a time when it would have been impossible to say that there was not ample opportunity for discussion. But an adjournment had been moved for the purpose of making a personal explanation; and the whole evening, up to half-past 12 o'clock, had subsequently been consumed in a debate upon the present condition of Ireland. He (the Marquess of Hartington) said that it was not competent to Irish Members to complain that the Government wished to go on to an untimely hour with the consideration of the Estimates, when they themselves had, by an untimely discussion, contrary to the Rules of the House, entered upon a debate on a Motion which had been repeatedly declared by Mr. Speaker to be irregular and inconvenient. Seeing that time had been consumed in that manner, he did not think that a complaint, such as had just been made, came from the Irish Members with a very good grace. He admitted that, technically, the discussion of that evening had not been irregular. It was, no doubt, perfectly competent to the hon. Member for Cork City (Mr. Parnell) to bring forward his Motion upon the subject of an Irish Parliament; but, in listening to that Motion, it appeared to him (the Marquess of Hartington) that the debate had wandered from the subject introduced by the hon. Member, and had virtually become a repetition of last night's discussion upon the state of Ireland. A day had been fixed, some time back, for the purpose of passing the Irish Votes; and now the House had been prevented, on two separate nights, entering upon their consideration until 1 o'clock in the morning. He had said that the hon. Member for Cork City was justified in making his Motion; but he could not altogether ignore the speeches of some hon. Members, made in the course of the discussion which had taken place, in which it was plainly avowed that the object was not the discussion of Home Rule, but a question of a totally different character. The hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) had made clear what was in his mind, by declaring that this opposition would not cease until he had obtained from the Chief Secretary for Ireland a pledge of a definite character, that some measures would be taken by the Government to prevent evictions during the winter. That declaration was one of which he (the Marquess of Hartington) thought the Committee would do well to take note. It seemed to him that the time had come when plain speaking was required; and he had only to say, on behalf of the Government and his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland, that Her Majesty's Government had no further pledge to give. The hon. Member was mistaken if he supposed that, by continuing that line of opposition, or any other line of opposition, he would extract from the Government any further pledge. Having spoken thus frankly, he had a right to ask hon. Members opposite whether discussions of this character were to be continued upon future occasions; whether it was their desire to discuss the state of Ireland; or whether it was their desire to wring from the Government a pledge which, as he had before stated, they were unable to give? Ample opportunities had been presented for the discussion of the present state of Ireland, and he thought the questions which had been raised had been fairly met by his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland. He desired to speak on this question with all possible calmness, and he appealed to hon. Members from Ireland also to look upon it with the same feeling. He asked them to consider whether they believed that the course suggested by the hon. Member for Tipperary was calculated to advance the cause of Ireland in the minds of the English people. He believed that the cause of Ireland was not to be advanced either by force applied in or out of the House. He did not for a moment believe it was expected that the advocated separation of the Irish and British Parliament should be carried out contrary to the will of the great majority of the British people. Did hon. Members from Ireland suppose that conduct such as had been suggested by the hon. Member for Tipperary would conciliate to them the goodwill or friendship of the English people? He asked Irish Members whether, by dealing with measures of interest to the English people, they believed they were preparing their minds or hearts for the consideration of the policy which they wished the English Parliament to consider? He hoped he had spoken on that and all other occasions with moderation. He only desired to lay before hon. Members for Ireland considerations which he thought they would do well not to lose sight of. If Irish Members desired to discuss questions relating to Ireland, the House was at all times willing to give them the most full and patient hearing; but it was his business to tell them that, in the opinion of the Government, the time had arrived when the interests of the Public Service required that Supply should be considered without further delay. The interests of the country would not brook much longer delay; and the Government would soon have to ask the House, at whatever cost of labour, under favourable circumstances if they could, under unfavourable circumstances if they could not, to provide for the wants of the country—wants which must be considered above everything else.

said, he was sorry that the noble Lord the Leader of the House, who had apparently introduced a speech prepared in advance, should have adopted a line and tone which he was obliged to say were altogether un-suited and unnecessary to the occasion. The noble Lord had read the Irish Members a very grave lecture upon the opinions which he had pleased to attribute to them. In criticizing the remarks of the noble Lord, he would only say that, in his opinion, he had somewhat exceeded his functions as Leader of the House in announcing his intention to limit discussion, and also in expressing his opinion that Irish Members had exceeded their rights, as Members of the House, in putting forward a Motion in the ordinary way against Mr. Speaker leaving the Chair. The debate which had sprung up yesterday was undoubtedly of a remarkable character, and, he would admit, of some irregularity. But the noble Lord, who was in his place during that debate, and who now told the Committee that it was contrary to the Rules of the House, never once in the course of the proceedings made that objection or rose to any point of Order. Indeed, the noble Lord had himself spoken in the course of the debate; and, therefore, participated in the irregularity of which he now complained. But the debate of yesterday, just as it was exceptional in itself, was produced by exceptional circumstances, and he could not for a moment admit that his hon. Friend the Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) was not entitled to use the most immediate means at his disposal for the purpose of putting before the House and the country his true position with regard to the aspersions which had been cast upon him by the Chief Secretary for Ireland. With regard to the debate of that day the noble Lord, a fortnight ago, admitted the importance of the question which had been brought forward; and he believed that hon. Members who had listened to what had been said in the course of that night's discussion would also be willing to admit the importance of the question, and the propriety of discussing it before the adjournment for the Recess. That question formed the only raison d'être of himself and 64 other Irish Members. If there were any cause of complaint with regard to the manner in which that discussion had been conducted, he should complain of the refusal of English Members to participate in the discussion of this most important business. He wished to except the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, which had certainly been of a kind and conciliatory character, and had some- what changed the conditions upon which, he thought, Irish Members should enter into the contest with regard to the Constabulary Estimates. He said this without having fully considered the matter; but he had derived the impression from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman that it had somewhat modified his opinion as to the course which should be pursued with reference to the Estimates. He did not, however, wish to pledge himself in that respect until he had an opportunity of consulting with hon. Members with whom he usually acted in that House. He had no particular objection to the Vote for the Irish Metropolitan Police; and, as far as he was concerned, he had no observations to make upon that subject, and, therefore, should not object to the Vote being taken that night. With regard to the Constabulary Vote, however, he could only say, without wishing to indulge in any threats, that he feared the Irish Members could not concur in that Vote being taken. He proposed that if the Government would consent to report Progress to undertake not to make use of any Motions against the Speaker leaving the Chair on Wednesday, and would also enter into a similar undertaking for Thursday, in the event of the discussion upon the Constabulary Vote lasting till noon. He hoped the Government would accept this proposal.

said, with great respect, he must object to the noble Lord holding the Irish Party accountable for expressions used by one Member of the Irish Party. He did not understand the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) to mean that he would continue this opposition with regard to the present debate; and he put it to the noble Lord not to allow his construction, and he must say his misapprehension, of the speech of the hon. Member for Tipperary to weigh unduly against the rest of the Irish Members.

said, that the proposition of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) was a fair and reasonable one, and he saw no reason why he should not accept it. He imagined that the Metropolitan Police Vote was not one which would lead to any discussion; and he thought they might agree to proceed with that Vote, and, perhaps, with two or three others, upon the understanding that the Constabulary Vote should be taken at an early time on another day. He was glad to remind the Committee of the statement of the hon. Member for Cork, that he did not himself propose that there should be any Motion against the Speaker leaving the Chair upon the next occasion. He understood from his noble Friend that it would not be convenient to take Supply until Thursday. He hoped they would be allowed to make some little progress with the Estimates.

said, it appeared to him that the Irish Members had been treated on that occasion by the noble Lord with very scant justice. He thought they had good reason to complain that the Irish Estimates had been relegated to so late a period of the Session. The Government might have taken long ago those nights which had been set apart by the Standing Orders for the consideration of the Estimates had they chosen to do so; but they had squandered several nights which might have been devoted to Supply, and the consequence was that considerable delay had occurred in the transaction of Business. He maintained that that delay was clearly traceable to the action of the Government itself in introducing a number of Bills, which, after being advanced a stage, were allowed to block each other; whereas, had they chosen to devote successive days to the consideration of one or two Bills, they might have despatched several of them which, at the present moment, were hanging fire. It was not till the month of August had been reached that the Government resolved to take any kind of Business de die in diem, and then they applied that rule to the Business to which it was least applicable. They appeared to have forgotten that, except on Monday, it was competent to any hon. Member to move any Amendment he chose. The Government had, in fact, made the present week a kind of Parliamentary "No Man's Land." The Irish Members had good reason to complain that the Irish Estimates had not been brought on earlier in the Session when there was an opportunity for ample discussion; and it was very unfair, in the face of the continued and palpable obstruction which the Committee had witnessed week after week in connection with some English Bills, that complaint should be made of Irish Members getting a few stray hours for the discussion of the state of Ireland. With regard to the other Votes in Class III., he was prepared to see them passed without discussion, although, under other circumstances, he might have had something to say with regard to them. But he must protest against the insinuations of the noble Marquess to the effect that they were responsible for the delay which had taken place in the Business of the Session. It was entirely owing to the mismanagement of the Government in proposing to take Supply as they had proposed to do this week. He could only say that conduct like that of the Government showed that they did not understand the mechanism of Parliament. The noble Marquess had proposed that they should be moderate in their views; and after the conciliatory speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant he was prepared to be as conciliatory as could be wished. That speech had produced a very strong impression upon him; and he had great difficulty in realizing that the Government had any real intention of bringing in or carrying any substantial and remedial measure in connection with Ireland. But he had every confidence in the sincerity and good feeling displayed by the right hon. Gentleman; and, for his part, he most sincerely thanked him for his speech, which he thought would do an immense good in Ireland. It would be of great use in conciliating the people of Ireland, and would give them more ground for hoping to obtain justice from Her Majesty's Government now than anything else that had taken place that Session. It was in consequence of that speech that he was willing to withdraw his opposition to the Votes proposed; but, with regard to the subsequent Sittings of the Committee, he thought it would be well if some understanding were come to. They had yet no assurance that they would not be asked to take Supply on Friday night. For his own part, he did not think that Thursday would be sufficient to get through the Constabulary Vote. But, even supposing Irish Votes were passed, there would remain the Vote for the Navy, and a great number of the Civil Service Votes and the whole of the Customs and Revenue and Post Office Votes. So far as he could make out, there was no very clear prospect of an early termination of the Session. He would appeal to the Government to give the Committee some assurance that they would take Supply on Thursday and Friday as well as Monday next. Otherwise, the House would certainly be kept there for another month. It was exceedingly hard that hon. Members from Ireland should be kept at so late a period. They were really much more interested in an early close of Parliament than were Englishmen. He trusted that the Government would give them some distinct assurance as to the arrangements they proposed.

said, that he wished to say one word to the Committee, for, otherwise, silence would be liable to misconstruction. The remarkable statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had caused considerable consternation; and the substance of it would be considered to-morrow by other than Irish Members. He was not in the House at the time the statement was made, although acquainted with its substance. The feeling produced in the minds of many by what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was one of considerable consternation; and it appeared to them that it was the most remarkable statement that had ever been made by a Minister of the Crown in that House. It was probable that the question of the statement would be brought before the House before Parliament was prorogued. He only wished to state now that it must be understood that no person was pledged to anything stated by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), to abstain from dealing with that statement in any way that they wished to do.

said, that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had been praised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin. He begged to ask whether it was understood that the Constabulary Vote would not be proceeded with that night?

Yes.

said, he wished to explain that he had only heard part of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, and had not heard the particular statement referred to; and he must, therefore, reserve his judgment on that statement until he had carefully considered it. He would, of course, reserve all criticism upon any measures which the right hon. Gentleman might bring forward until they were brought forward; and he would only say that, from all he had heard of the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman, it seemed to him to be so remarkable that he wished to reserve to himself entire freedom in criticizing it.

said, that, from the statement of the noble Lord, he understood that they were going to take Number 34, the Dublin Metropolitan Police Vote. He wished to remark that it involved very serious questions.

said, that the hon. Member would have an opportunity subsequently to make any observations upon that point.

said, that he was only going to remark this, that he had prepared a speech upon that Vote. He had also made some notes with regard to Vote 38, for Reformatory and Industrial Schools. The three Votes taken together would deal with something like £250,000; and if they were passed without any discussion whatever, he thought they ought then to be allowed to report Progress. If the Government agreed to that proposal, he should be very happy to withdraw his Motion to report Progress.

said, that he was not going to protest against this Vote, but would only remark that the objection brought by him against the Vote for Broadmoor Criminal Asylum applied very strongly to this Vote. He had read the Report of the Commissioners of Lunatic Asylums in Ireland, and he found that every objection brought forward by him with respect to Broadmoor applied to Dundrum in a very marked degree. The attenuated character of the staff at Dundrum was commented upon in very severe terms by the Report. He should like to obtain from the noble Lord the Financial Se- cretary to the Treasury an assurance that the establishment should be looked to, and that adequate provision should be made for its requirements. There was another question in connection with the institution to which the attention of the Government ought to be directed, and that was the removal into it of a number of refractory criminals, not mad, but who were, through their persistent disregard of punishment, removed into the asylum, where they were a source of continual nuisance. This was a matter which had been very strongly represented by the resident medical officer on more than one occasion; and it became a very serious nuisance to an institution of this kind to have such people amongst its inmates. No matter what offence these persons might commit, the very fact that they were in a lunatic asylum prevented their being given any punishment. He had no doubt that now the matter had been mentioned it would be attended to by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland.

said, that he had not had time yet to examine into the state of Dundrum Criminal Asylum; but he had certainly noticed the last point to which the hon. Member had alluded—namely, that persons were confined there who were not lunatics, and who were very difficult to manage. He could not give any opinion upon the subject now; but he would take the earliest opportunity possible of looking into it. He fully admitted that it was a matter which deserved the most serious inquiry and attention. With regard to Dundrum Asylum being cheaper than Broadmoor, it must not be considered that it was less efficient; on the contrary, he thought it was very successful, and a very good example to England.

said, that he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take the trouble to read the Report of the Commissioners of Lunatic Asylums in Ireland, when he would see the objections which he (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) had raised fully set forth.

inquired, what would be the order of Public Business?

said, that to-morrow they proposed to take the Report of Amendments to the Ground Game Bill and the Savings Banks Bill. The next in order was the Merchant Shipping (Grain Cargoes) Bill, and the remaining time would be devoted to Supply.

said, that seeing that this was the first time he had been on his legs during the evening, he wished to state that, in his opinion, the speech of the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India was thoroughly uncalled for. He thought that the abusive language of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary thoroughly justified the discussion which took place yesterday evening. With regard to the discussion which had taken place that evening, half-a-dozen hon. Members had speeches prepared which they had abstained from delivering, simply for the convenience of other hon. Members of the House. With regard to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary that evening, which had been criticized so favourably, for his part he (Mr. Biggar) had not the pleasure of hearing it; but he was always very sceptical with regard to promises of Ministers.

said, that he had promised to inform the House on Report of the state of the works of Clare Castle. He had now been informed that those works were being proceeded with.