Mr. Speaker, I beg to assure you that I shall not interpose in this debate for any length of time. I feel that the circumstances of the country, and the crisis in which we find ourselves, are such that words should be few, if possible, and well chosen. I feel deeply the circumstances in which Ireland is placed, and the serious position in which the House finds itself. I think it is due to myself that I should give my impressions of the state of the country, of the proposals brought forward by Her Majesty's Government to meet such a state of the country, and what I think of their sufficiency or insufficiency. Now, we have heard a good deal during the progress of this debate as to the state of crime in Ireland. In my opinion, there has been an immense amount of exaggeration in what I have heard. No doubt, the state of Ireland is very serious; but crime, in the ordinary sense of crime, is not, I believe, extravagant or very great. I have an opportunity myself of knowing pretty well the state of the country. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) stated that the whole of Munster and Connaught were in a state of unmitigated anarchy. Now, I live in Munster. I go about in that part of Ireland pretty freely and generally, and I can say that in the whole county of Cork, except some half-dozen spots that are rather unpleasantly situated at present, there is no such thing as anarchy. We are going about our business, we are attending our usual occupations quite as regularly and as peacefully as you are doing in England; and I say, also, that six weeks ago I went through the greater part of Connaught. Nothing like disturbance seemed to be taking place in that part of the country; but during my progress I was pursuing, to a certain extent, the state of disturbance, as when I came to one place I asked—"How are you going on here?" "Oh, pretty well," was the answer. "But such and such a place is terribly disturbed." Well, when I got to "such and such a place," I got the very same story; so that, in going about the country on public affairs, I found the tale of excitement very far remote from what it was represented. No doubt, the state of excitement in which the people of Ireland are now is calculated very much to increase day after day. When the public mind gets excited in that way, it is wonderful what horrors and crimes are imagined, very often from trifling causes. The landlords, as a matter of course, are very much excited now, and very often afraid, and they exaggerate everything that happens. The newspapers must live by excitement, and they exaggerate everything that happens. The agitators of Ireland cannot live but by excitement; but they naturally exaggerate everything that happens, because the greater the dis- turbance is the greater is their power. So all round, from one to another, we have very small things intensified and made to be great things. Now, I can myself speak as regards the business of the country—the manufacturing business of the country—and I appeal to hon. Gentlemen in this House from the North of Ireland; and I can speak from my own experience, for I am a principal owner of industrial concerns in the county of Cork. We employ every day about 1,000 people; and I can say that during many years, and during the past year, our busiuess and connection with these people are now as peaceable and regular as if there was no excitement in the country whatever. I also can confirm the statement made by the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) as to some of the monetary institutions of the country. They are the great test of the state of feeling in the country, and there is nothing whatever in their circumstances to show that the people are in any way alarmed about the permanent state of the country. I may say this also, as I have heard it set forth throughont this debate that there is dishonesty in Ireland—I believe there is no honester people in the world than the Irish people. Many of the banks have branches scattered about in every remote part of the country, and large sums of money are carried about from one branch to another. During the last 30 years no attempt ever has been made to interfere with the free circulation of that money. There was, I believe, one occasion during the Fenian outbreak when an attempt was made. A bank official was travelling through a remote part of the County Cork with a large sum of money. He was attacked on the middle of the road. Fortunately, he had his revolver. He drew it out, and had fired but three or four shots, when the enemy vanished; but it turned out, upon investigation, that the enemy was a flock of goats. The shots proved fatal. He shot his horses, and he found himself in the darknesss of the night in the middle of a sparsely-populated country, with a large sum of money, and no horse to take him to his journey's end. But he was able to get to his destination through the kindness of the people, and no person interfered with him. Any person that says that there is dishonesty in Ireland misrepresents the people most grossly. I will not attempt to hide, because it is perfectly impossible to hide, the state of excitement in which the country is at present in all directions; but I think it will be found that that excitement is no greater than what has existed at critical periods in England, and much less than what has existed at other times in Ireland. That excitement is in connection with the land, and in that connection the amount of excitement, and the action that is going on, is exceedingly to be reprobated and regretted. But what is the cause of that? Unfortunately, in Ireland, we have had three exceedingly bad years. The people have in their minds one sentiment deeply fixed, and that is the dread of famine. They had the distinct recollection of the horrors of 1848, and the Irish people were endeavouring to put by a little money in order to save themselves from a recurrence of the horrors of that terrible period. During 1878 and 1879 their savings were gradually melting away, and in the memory of living men there was no worse year than 1879. Did the landlords come forward and help them? I believe, Mr. Speaker, that in Ireland there are some of as good landlords as there are in any other part of the Kingdom. I myself, from my own experience, have found—going about on the Commission on which I sat—that there are in Ireland landlords as good, as thoughtful, and as kind-hearted as in any other part of the world; but, taking them as a class, they did not come forward promptly to help the people at this crisis. In fact, the landlords of England had come forward months before, and gave considerable reductions to their tenants. Did the Government of the day come forward to help these people that seemed sliding into famine? I do not wish to revive old controversies; but I believe that the Government that then held the reins of Office did not do their duty to the people of Ireland. They might have done it easily; but they did not interfere. They did not realize the situation. They did not come forward and endeavour to stop the poverty and relieve the grievances that existed. The people, therefore, felt themselves in the face of famine and no help. The law did not help them, the landlord did not help them, and naturally enough, then, the people took it into their heads to help themselves. The hon. Members who have been conducting this agitation need not take credit to themselves for having by any wonderful eloquence brought the people to a true sense of their position. In fact, if I wanted eloquence to create agitation, I would not go to the hon. Gentleman that spoke from below the Gangway the other night, but to the hon. Gentleman that spoke above the Gangway—the fine rolling sentences and points that we heard the other night—but the oratory of the agitators, the gentlemen that are now before their country, though very telling, yet did not create the agitation. They organized it, no doubt; but the seeds of it were there. The people were in such a state that anyone almost going before them, and pointing out a remedy, no matter how absurd it was, they would follow in that course. I do not wish to criticize the action of the gentlemen who conducted the agitation. They had, I am quite sure, an entire sense of their responsibility, and they must have felt that they were speaking to an excited people, and that very often they extracted meaning from their words that their words never intended to convey, and, therefore, no doubt, they put a restraint upon themselves in addressing these excited crowds. But I will say this—that I do not believe you can trace crime to these meetings. I believe that, as a general rule, agitation meetings calling people together and discussing their grievances in other countries—and I do not see why it should not be the same in Ireland at the present crisis—give an outlet, and make people think that, at all events, there is something going to be done. I do not think that the gentlemen at the head of the land agitation are entirely to be held responsible for many of the performances of the branch associations of the League. I give Mr. Davitt credit for this, that in the very first speech he made after his return from America he earnestly set himself—and he is a man of great influence and great ability—to discourage anything like crime in Ireland, because he is a man too sagacious not to perceive that this crime was the very worst thing for his own cause. And as to these local societies, I believe it very likely that the Land League in Dublin, if it tried, could not control them; but I do say this, the mischief that is being done in connec- tion with these local Leagues is discreditable and injurious to the peace and prosperity of the country, injurious not so much to the general interests as to the real interests of the people themselves. The question is, Is there any cause for that state of things? Were the people justified in doing so in any sense? I believe that in a great measure they were. I do not say that I would have led them in that direction. I am not going to defend all the things that were said on these platforms; but I believe this, that the state of the agricultural tenantry in Ireland is bad enough to justify the very strongest agitation that ever could be carried on in the country short of doing anything against the law, or detrimental to the interests of the people. I thought I knew Ireland very well; but within the last three or four months I have gone through various parts of the country, and I must say this—that I did not think it possible for human beings to exist, as I found tenant farmers existing in the West of Ireland. And I must say this—that I made a covenant with myself that I did not care what man led, or did not lead, I would give the best days of my life to rescue these people from the state in which they are at present. It is a disgrace to the landlords, it is a disgrace to the Government, it is a disgrace to every institution of the country, to think of it that now for years, for generations, this cry year after year has been coming up from the people. We pass a couple of Bills, we fling the Bills there and allow the people to perish. In some parts of Ireland human beings may be said to be almost rotting. I saw little children going to school, and their faces showed that they had not food enough; I saw them going into cabins, and knew that they were living in cabins that must bring death; and yet these people were paying high rents. I will not refer to the very poorest class, for everyone that has written a pamphlet has been writing of these; but I will mention two cases that came before my own knowledge, one in Connaught and the other in Ulster. The man in Connaught was in a good farm on an estate that had the name of being well managed. That man came to me himself, and told me his story. He had been engaged in business. His father was an old man growing near his death, and he wrote to the son to give up busi- ness, and come home and take up the farm. He did so, and the father died, and there was an increase of 20 per cent put on the rent. The house, the fences, every single thing like improvement had been done by that family. I believe the rent without the 20 per cent was as much as any person could pay, but the 20 per cent kept the man, and must keep him for ever, under water. That man was a Protestant and an active member of the Land League, and the feeling of that man was bitter against the landlords, and he had not the slightest confidence about the Government ever doing anything. The other case was in Ulster. A young man told me he got about 100 acres from his father. Thirty acres were undrained. He could not drain it without cutting through a rock. He went to the agent and asked him to give him or lend him money to drain the land. No, he would do neither one nor the other; but he told him to work away, that he had tenant right. He did work at it for five years, and when he had the land drained and cropped, the agent put on £30 a-year rent. That man, with his wife and seven children, came there and cursed the whole thing, and said if he could be would go away and leave the whole place there. Hon. Members who read the evidence given before the Commission that has recently been sitting in Ireland will find that all through the country such things have been going on. Good landlords had been injured by things of that kind. These are the causes out of which this agitation has sprung. The people have now but fallen back on their sense of justice, and, believing there is no one to help them, have said, "We will try to help ourselves." It is for the English Government to say whether out of the unfortunate dislocation of society in Ireland there would come good or evil. I do not say, Mr. Speaker, that I am entirely satisfied with what is going to be done. I kept up my faith in the present Government, I believe, as long as any man could possibly keep it. The very last thing I did before coming away, at a meeting of the Corporation of Cork, was to express my unbounded confidence in the present Ministry, and their desire to remedy the state of things in Ireland. The Speech from the Throne might mean anything; but the speeches from the Treasury Bench that other night, I am afraid, did not mean what we want. At the same time, I do not want in any way to make it appear that the Prime Minister's speech had a meaning that perhaps it had not. I have not given up faith yet in the Prime Minister, for I cannot forget those two splendid measures, the Church Act and the Land Act; and I believe the man who brought them in and passed them through the House will now lay hold of this great question and settle it in a way satisfactory to the people of Ireland. I had a number of communications this morning, some from Ireland, but a great many of them from England. I have a long letter here from a leading and influential gentleman in one of the largest constituencies in the North of England, one sentence of which I will read, more for the benefit of hon. Gentlemen around me than for that of the Government. It is as follows:—

"I believe that there is a real and strong detetermination among the rank and file of the Liberal Party to do full justice to the Irish people. A weak Land Bill will cause as great a dissatisfaction here as on the other side of the water."

I have a telegram here, which I received a few minutes ago from a gentleman who knows the condition and state of Ulster as well as any other person. He says—

"Ulster repudiates proposed settlement of Land Question. All parties anxious for a settlement, but the case the Government are proparing would be disastrous to the peace, and hopelessly retard the prosperity of the country."

I have another letter from a leading politician in the North of England, a gentleman of high position and great sagacity. He says—

"Do not be discouraged. Appeal to the Members who sit around you who represent great English and Scotch constituencies, and if they do not act in a manly way suitable for the occasion, appeal to the people of England."

He hoped, in accordance with that advice, to organize a series of meetings all round the great centres of population. The meetings will probably begin in Manchester and end in Birmingham; and I hope that at these meetings I may have the pleasure of seeing the local Members present. Now, is it not for the interests of England that this question should be settled? Is it not a disgrace to statesmanship? Far be it from me to do or say anything against the English people—the land of liberty, the land that has been the fountain head of the Constitutional liberties of the whole world. Why should any man be against England? But if you want a dark spot in the history of England, you will find it in the fact that she has not, after the lapse of centuries, and with all her power, and influence, and money, done a single thing to conciliate or improve Ireland, which is just as miserable now as it was 60 or 70 years ago. Why, if you had tried a partnership or a business for that length of time, and the result had been similar, would not you feel that it was a disgrace to you? I think my hon. Friends here well understand that, as a matter of pounds, shillings, and pence, you have an interest in doing what is right. There is not a single man in Ireland whose condition would not be improved, and who would not be pacified. The working men would consume double more than they are consuming at present, and the manufacturers would be benefited. At present, they are not able to buy anything. But the question will always come up beforehand when this subject is approached—namely, is there anything that can be done to bring about the condition of things I have described? Oh, the Government say, We are going to do it; we are going to coerce. And then we will bring in a Land Bill. They are going to bring in the very last thing they they should bring in—brute force; and then they will come in with their Land Bill. I do not think, myself, that we know exactly what this Land Bill will be. I will not draw conclusions from the speech of the Prime Minister; I will wait and I will hope; but I say distinctly—I say it not merely for the working farmers of Ireland, but I speak on behalf of the landlords whom I know—that better not touch this question at all than not settle it completely and finally. The country is in too serious a state. The landlords of Ireland are aware of the importance of settling the question; and now the Government, if it wishes really to lay hold of it, must work a complete and fixed settlement on a basis that will secure prosperity to the country. I may be asked what I would do? Surely, the country is in a fearful state. It cannot go on that way; but you are proposing that it shall go on. Your coercion will, perhaps, after a few months' struggle in the House, become the law of the land. By this coercion you sow the seeds of distrust, suspicion, and doubt in the very soil in which you want to sow your good seed. In that way you will have one influence working against another, and destroying it, and not letting it come to maturity and strength. Is that what great statesmen should do? If I were asked my advice—a very absurd presumption, because from the lowest doorkeeper to the highest position under Government, no Irish need apply—we have as little to do with the government of our own country as we have to do with the government of Russia. We are told that we are taken into equality, that we are on equal terms with this great English people; but we have not seen it. Occasionally an Irishman has been allowed within the sacred circle of power, but very occasionally indeed, and he must be of a certain class before he is admitted. It is just as bad on the other side as on this; only occasionally is an Irishman placed in any of those positions of importance, which seem to belong entirely to Englishmen. One of the best debaters of this House—a man of high character, and a man who had the respect of all Parties—was allowed to sit there for years, and at last was insulted with something worthless; so that we have really no chance whatever of influencing the Government except from outside. But on this subject I need not dwell at greater length. There is the more pressing question, How is the present condition of the country to be dealt with? As I said before, if I were responsible, I would give Notice of a Bill to-night, I would bring it in to-morrow; it would be passed within 10 days, and you would want no coercion. You might consider that a very presumptive statement; but I believe it really. I may, I think, without impropriety, say that there was one subject on which every Member of the Land Commission—on which, in fact, we are all unanimous, and also in the evidence you will find the same thing—that there was a most extraordinary unanimity on the part of the tenant farmers, land agents, and landlords of Ireland, with hardly an exception, that in future there must be some tribunal placed between the landlord and tenant to regulate the rent. If we leave the position as it is at all, if we think of maintaining the rela- tionship between landlord and tenant in Ireland, it will be quite impossible to continue that relationship unless there is some independent tribunal of great authority and power which will be used in all cases to adjudicate upon questions of rent between landlord and tenant. Now, this is the very question that the tenants are at this moment agitating about all through Ireland. I would at once appoint that Commission—and you must appoint it in the long run—and I would send it out before the end of this month to decide those questions that arise between landlord and tenant. You would thus meet the difficulty—you would meet the cases of the tenants who are now complaining of their rent all through Ireland—you would bring peace to the mind of the landlord, and you would, I believe, bring to an end the disturbance and excitement that exist at present. At once you ought to bring that to an end, if you did what I have suggested. You would, furthermore, have your machinery there for future purposes. It may be said, "Oh, it is impossible to get men to do that." I believe you can get all through Ireland in the different districts men for that purpose, who would have the confidence of the tenant farmers. I do not mean professional valuators, but men who understood the land, and who could act immediately in the direction I have pointed out. In this way I think you would meet the case, and, in the course of time, you would manipulate your Land Bill in a statesmanlike way, having plenty of time for it. The question is one of great importance. It is one that has impressed itself so deeply on my mind that I cannot use language strong enough to bring the matter before the House and before the people of this country. You may be quite sure that the state of Ireland is a state that cannot be trifled with, and that your proposed coercion will not effect the results. What is the use of coercion when the evil is in every house of 500,000 or 600,000 tenant farmers? Where you have the whole country banded together in this way, I say, with an almost complete knowledge of the subject, that no Coercion Bill you bring in will root out the disease. You cannot root it out except by just legislation. You should at once take that in hand; you should impress the people that you are about to do something for them; you should show them that you are going to meet the worst part of their case, that you are going to create a proper tribunal for the regulation of rent between landlord and tenant. I still believe that the Government will re-consider the decision they have come to—if they really have come to any decision—and that the speech of the Prime Minister reflects faithfully, not what he has thought, but that it reflects what is thought by the antedeluvian Whigs, whose tirades we see paraded, from time to time, in the columns of The Times. I am sure it reflects that. I am sure it reflects the views of the English landlords, who think that if this thing goes on, or if it is allowed to go on, their own institutions are in danger; but if it is what the Prime Minister states, it does not reflect the matured opinions of the people of Ireland, either landlords or tenants, and it will do nothing to meet the case, but will leave it in a worse position than they found it in. I hope, Sir, that we shall see even better legislation than we have already had.

said, he never listened to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw), who had just spoken with such great moderation, without wishing that his counsels carried more weight with them in Ireland. If the Irish people had been guided by the spirit which animated the hon. Gentleman, there would have been no necessity for calling Parliament together at that early period, and introducing what might be considered exceptional legislation for the protection of life and property in Ireland. He declined, however, to follow the hon. Member into his digression on the Land Question, which was not before the House. He did not believe that it was in the power of any man in the House, or even of any single Minister on the Treasury Bench, to say anything definite as to the measure which the Government intended to propose for dealing with the relations between the landlords and tenants in Ireland. The Speech from the Throne seemed to hint at one thing, the words of the Prime Minister at another; while the noble Marquess at the head of the India Office had, within the last day or two, given expression to sentiments on the subject which might have emanated from the Leader of the Opposition. He would not follow the hon. Member for the County of Cork into what he had said on the subject of crime in Ireland. The House could not go beyond the statements of the Prime Minister and the Chief Secretary for Ireland; and he thought no amount of persuasiveness on the part of either the Member for the County or for the City of Cork would suffice to persuade the House that crime was not rife in Ireland at the present time. The hon. Member for the County of Cork also referred to the prosperity of the banks in Ireland. Without doubt, there was an immense deal of money in the Irish banks, and that for the very good reason that the farmers of that country, who were the principal monied class, had not paid a single penny of rent. It was well-known that all banks dealing with farmers in Ireland—the Munster Bank amongst the number—were in a good condition owing to the measures they took for the past few years for the recovery of their debts. On the other hand, the banks connected with the landlord classes were in an extremely critical, if not perilous position. [Sir JOSEPH M'KENNA: No, no!] Well, at any rate, so he had been informed on good authority. His right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) having dealt exhaustively on Friday last with the general question of the administration of the law in Ireland in the past year, he would now only touch upon one or two points directly raised by the speech of the Prime Minister, in order, if possible, to elicit some further information concerning them. In the first place, he wished to enter a strong and earnest protest against the principle laid down by the right hon. Gentleman, that it was not the duty of the Government to ask the House to acquiesce in any strengthening of the Irish Executive until they could secure a moral unanimity in support of the proposals they had to make. He (Lord Randolph Churchill) doubted whether—using the word in a strictly political sense—a more cynical or unprincipled position had ever been taken up by an English Prime Minister, because it came to this, in other words—that the object of the Government was not to protect the lives and liberties of the Irish people, not to maintain the supremacy of the law, but to consider whether by so doing they might not endanger the unity of the Liberal Party. It was avowed that this motive, which might have been plausible enough if only matters of comparatively domestic legislation were involved, was the sole and only one which guided the Government at a dangerous crisis, and the only reason why Parliament was not called together in the autumn to prevent the establishment of a reign of terror in Ireland was because the Cabinet feared they would not be supported by a large number of their followers. That was certainly a novel, and not very respectable, view of Ministerial responsibility. The object of the right hon. Gentleman was not the peace of Ireland, not the good name of the Government, but only the unity of the Liberal Party. Accepting that principle, however, and making a note of it, in order that it might be properly appreciated by the House and by the public, he could not help remarking that the Prime Minister had been, even as it was, premature, not to say impetuous, for he had noticed in the progress of that debate, to which he had listened with great attention, a simmering and surging on the Benches opposite which led him to believe that in the Division Lobby the Government Whips might fail to recognize some of their most trusted and ardent followers. He had also been informed that the Liberal candidate for Wigan (Mr. Lancaster) had pledged himself to oppose tooth-and-nail the coercion measures of the Government, and had also undertaken that, when Irish questions arose on which he was not well informed, he would consult, not the Prime Minister, but the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). If the Prime Minister had only waited for a few more murders, or attempts at murder, a few more cruel and inhuman outrages, or, better still, if he could only have had the supreme good fortune of a general armed rising of the Irish people, he might possibly have carried with him an united Party. Fortunately for himself and his Government, and fortunately for Ireland, he was now able to rely upon support from other quarters; but he was bound to attribute this somewhat tardy conversion of the Prime Minister and his Colleagues to principles of sound and moderate government to the activity displayed in the Recess by Members of the Tory Party, and to the graphic manner in which they delineated the condition and prospects of Ireland on numberless platforms, and before thousands of interested and most anxious electors. There was another matter which he would like to allude to, in order that the Government might not have again occasion to allude to it. The Prime Minister had animadverted with great severity on the prosecutions undertaken by the late Government against certain members of the Land League in Ireland in 1879, and he had contrasted them proudly with his own magnificent State trials now going on in Dublin, remarking that the late Government only prosecuted the humblest followers of the hon. Member for the City of Cork, and did not dare to touch the leaders of the Party which was now on its trial; and that, having begun to strike, they feared to drive home the blow. With all due respect, he must say that that was a complete misconception on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. The late Government, acting on the principle that "prevention is better than cure," instituted certain prosecutions against some individuals who were reported to the Government to have used seditious language at various public meetings in Ireland in the winter of 1879. This was the simple and clear charge, and the hon. Member for the City of Cork could not then have been prosecuted, for the reason that up to that time neither he nor any of his colleagues had used language that by any amount of legal ingenuity could be said to have been seditious. The principle of making one man liable for what another man had said, on which the present Government were acting, did not commend itself to the late Government. The charge of the Prime Minister that these prosecutions were not proceeded with admitted of the simple answer that the arrests produced a marked effect upon the character of the language used at the meetings. The sole aim of the late Government was not to persecute individuals for using what might have been only hasty and ill-judged language, but to prevent the passions of an excitable people from being dangerously aroused. That object was attained by the time that the late Government went out of Office. The language changed, however, as soon as the present Government acceded to power, and became far more violent than any that had been used before. He ventured to suggest that if the present Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant had prosecuted Messrs. Barry, Gordon, and Brennan, for the speeches which they made in June and July, he thought that they would have been saved the ridiculous spectacle which was now going on in the Four Courts in Dublin. He brought those speeches under the notice of the right hon. Gentleman at the time they were made, and hinted that criminal proceedings might have some effect; but he was most effectively snubbed. Yet, curiously enough, these were the very speeches upon which the Crown based their whole case against the Land League. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland devoted a whole day to those speeches; in fact, it seemed as if he could not get away from them. It would, therefore, be seen, he thought, that in this matter, as in others, he (Lord Randolph Churchill), at that time, was right, and that the Chief Secretary for Ireland was wrong. As to the present prosecutions, the Prime Minister had maintained that the proceedings instituted by the Crown had been prosecuted as expeditiously as was possible; but he ventured to assert, without fear of contradiction, that the proceedings had been of the most dilatory and costly character, costly not only to the country, but to the traversers. The other night the Prime Minister made a very humble apology to the hon. Member for the City of Cork for the inconvenience to which he had been put. He would suggest that to that, in order to make it more perfect, should be added a further apology for the unnecessary expense to which he had been put. If the Government had chosen to take the ordinary November Sessions of the Queen's Bench, or the ordinary Winter Assizes, they would have ascertained the practical effect of their prosecution before the close of the year. But they had chosen to demand a trial at Bar, as it was called, which possessed no single advantage, which would cost some £50,000 or £60,000, which would possibly be proceeding long after the present Government had ceased to exist, and which had brought the administration of justice in Ireland into an absurd and contemptible position. If the Prime Minister had been in Court, as it had been his (Lord Randolph Churchill's) advantage to be on the opening day, and if he had seen the grin which spread over the face of everybody in Court—not only the Bar, but, Heaven forgive him, he had been almost going to say the Bench—when the jury were finally sworn, he thought that, instead of referring to the trials with pride and delight, he would have avoided them as his deepest shame. He could not help adding that these State trials were never alluded to in any society in Dublin that they did not provoke ridicule and mirth; and he had been interested to observe in Friday's newspaper that, during the examination and the cross-examination of the witnesses, the jury were wrapt in profound slumber. The hon. Member for the City of Cork was perfectly right when he said that this was the first State trial in Ireland in which the jury had not been packed—by the Crown. He would now, with the permission of the House, make a remark or two with reference to the Royal Irish Constabulary. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. W. E. Forster) alluded to that force on Friday night, and paid to it a tardy tribute; but he (Lord Randolph Churchill) felt bound to point out that the Government had allowed the most unfair denunciations to be uttered with regard to it, both by speakers and by their organs, in the Metropolis and in the Provinces, without the slightest reproof falling from their lips. The police of Ireland had been accused of inactivity and of inefficiency; and, so far from deprecating that charge, the Government had distinctly accentuated it by a Circular which they published on the 20th of December, conveying a censure upon the force. The Chief Secretary for Ireland, the other evening, said that he could not understand how that Circular had become public, and he insinuated that the late Lord Lieutenant had been instrumental in getting hold of it improperly. No doubt, the public and the late Lord Lieutenant did get hold of the document in a remarkable way, and in a way which illustrated the insidiousness of the late Government—they had read it in the columns of The Times newspaper. They had not obtained possession of the document in the ordinary course, but they had gone out of their way to read The Times newspaper. That Circular, he maintained, did convey a distinct censure upon the Royal Irish Constabulary. He freely admitted that he had never himself been an enthusiastic admirer of that force, because it had often occurred to him that too much attention was paid by it to preserving a military appearance and dignity, while its duties as civil police were, to some extent, neglected. If, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman contemplated introducing any reforms into the force to remedy this defect, he, for one, should be the last to oppose them. He, however, would remind the House that if the Irish police had not done all that could be fairly expected from them at the present emergency it was not their fault in any way, because they had given most clear, distinct, and warning information as to the state of the country, and as to the movements which were in progress and in contemplation, movements which they told both the late and the present Government could not be met satisfactorily without exceptional powers. The present Government had summarily rejected their information; and while they gave the signal to the ill-disposed that they might work their will, they let the police understand that their information was distrusted, discredited, and disbelieved, and, at the outset, deprived them of their greatest powers. There was another matter; and although, for obvious reasons, he could not give his authority, he yet stated boldly, from information he had received from the best source, that since the decision of the present Government not to renew the Peace Preservation Act had been arrived at, the Royal Irish Constabulary throughout the country had been actuated by the irresistible conviction that any extra activity on their part, which might bring them into collision with the people, would be highly displeasing to the Chief Secretary for Ireland and the Castle authorities.

I think, Sir, when such a statement is made—["Order, order!"]—with regard to the Constabulary by any individual, it should not be accepted. ["Order, order!"]

rose to Order, and wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman was in Order in interrupting the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock in his speech?

, on the right hon. Gentleman resuming his seat, proceeded to observe that he deemed his information as good as, and more disinterested than, that which the Chief Secretary for Ireland had obtained on that subject. It was only just recently, when the Government had changed their minds on the state of Ireland, that the police had adopted a different line of conduct. Had the police shown greater activity last summer, and had tumults been caused in which lives were lost, that would have shown that the country was in a disturbed state, and that the decision of the Government not to renew the Peace Preservation Act was rash and unwise. He had been surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. W. M. Johnson) had had the face to contradict the assertion of the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) that an agreement had been come to between the Chief Secretary for Ireland and the hon. Member for Cork City as to the conduct which the police were to adopt at public meetings. ["Oh, oh!"] He recollected perfectly well the agreement being entered into. It was made in the progress of the debate on the Constabulary Vote. But if any further proof of such agreement being entered into was required, it was furnished by a Circular which was issued by the Irish Government on the 21st of September, 1880, and he asked the House to consider what effect the terms of such a Circular would have upon the minds of the Irish Constabulary. It was as follows:—

"Royal Irish Constabulary,

"Dublin Castle, Sept. 21, 1880.

"When, in obedience to the instructions of the local magistrates or of Government, the Constabulary are assembled for the preservation of the peace at Land League meetings, the following instructions are to be observed:—

"1. If the meeting is held in the neighbourhood of a police barrack, the men are to be confined therein, and no armed men are to be permitted to appear during the time the meeting is being held, except in case of actual necessity."

Then came an extremely amusing paragraph, which he did not believe the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had penned himself, because he had never known him to make anything like a joke in that House. It was as follows;—

"2. Where there is no police barrack in the neighbourhood, the men should be placed somewhere in the vicinity, and if practicable out of view, in all cases in which the police are reasonably satisfied that men armed with truncheons only will be able to protect the Constabulary or Government reporters.

"3. The truncheon party shall consist of as few men as is compatible with safety."

Then came a paragraph, which appeared to be written in the usual trade circular style—

"4. Arrangements have been made by the Government to have speeches at the more important meetings reported by professional shorthand writers. These gentlemen will be provided in every case with a letter of introduction to the sub-inspector of the district, with instructions for him to afford them every assistance and protection in his power. The sub-inspector should afford them any protection they should require, and, if they require none, should not order any police to protect them."

He submitted that the terms of that Circular completely controverted the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland the other night, that no agreement with regard to the conduct of the police at these meetings had been entered into by the Government. He did not say the arrangement had been carried out; but it had been entered into, and it was a perfectly good indication of the conduct of the Government towards the police. But mark this. On the 21st September they issued a Circular intimating that the police were not to come into collision with the mob, and on the 20th December they issued a Circular censuring the police for not having come into collision with the mob. [

"You must refuse to take the farm of the evicted"—never mind, justly or unjustly—"you must let that farm remain idle as a testimony to the fidelity of the people. But should there be such a wretch in the community found to deal in stolen goods, to make money on the misfortunes of his countrymen, then you must visit him with the severest sentence of social ostracism. You must not allow your children to speak to his children; you must not deal with the baker who would sell him bread, or the butcher who would sell him meat; you must refuse to enter a house the threshold of which he would be allowed to cross; you must leave him alone, and let him wither under a people's curse."

The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Law), in commenting upon those words, had said—

"I do not yet believe that if you make by a systematic and joint-stock association a man's life so miserable, wilfully so miserable, that he would rather die than live, the law is so absurd as to make killing him a crime, but letting him live a life of prolonged misery—prolonged under the system of ' healthy sentiment' and modern humanity and Christianity—I do not believe the law is so absurd as to brand the one as a crime and punish it, and the other only as a piece of inhumanity."

He thought the House would pay more attention to the words of the Attorney

"Protection was wanted for landlords, who had many demands to meet, and whose rents were commanded to be withheld from them by force and fraud. Protection for honest tenants who were willing to pay their rents, but feared to do so. Protection for professional men, in order that they might not be insulted or assailed for doing their duty to their clients. Protection for the merchant, for the ship owner, and for the good priest, who, confining himself to the duties of his sacred calling, refused to give his consent to doctrines which he believed to be Communistic, and to conduct which, he considered to be infamous: whose horse was therefore left unshod, and whose house was left unroofed. Protection was wanted for labourers, who were now idle, and would soon be destitute."

It was for protection that Ireland had loudly cried. It was protection that ought to have been granted months ago. The Prime Minister had exhibited an admirable feeling, when he declared that the present Government asked the House for exceptional powers with a sense of the deepest shame and humiliation, and he would respectfully tender to him his deepest sympathy, because he could fully appreciate the mortification of himself and his Colleagues at finding that the prophecies made by their opponents last Session had proved to be severely accurate. But what he could better understand was the mortification of the English people imposed upon them by the condition of Ireland and the appearance it presented to the outside world. The Prime Minister made a sort of appeal, as far as he dared, to hon. Members on that side of the House, to lay aside Party feeling, and consider only how Ireland could best be pacified. That appeal would not fall upon deaf ears. No doubt, much had been said and done by the present Advisers of Her Majesty, when they occupied a

said, he would not pause to examine in detail the speech of the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill), or to consider whether he had contributed to assist the judgment of the House on the serious questions before it involving the liberties of Ireland. He referred that to the judgment of the House. The noble Lord had, no doubt, intended to make a Party attack upon the Government; but it seemed to him (Mr. Russell) that he had, in fact, paid the Chief Secretary for Ireland substantial compliments. For had not the noble Lord made it matter of complaint that the Chief Secretary had hitherto shown some regard for the great right of public meeting in Ireland; that he had cautioned the police against interference, and to avoid collision with the people; and did not the noble Lord wind up with the singular charge that the trials now proceeding in Ireland were the first State trials in that country in which the jury had not been packed? [A laugh. ] He (Mr. Russell) rose to speak with some anxiety; and he desired to state why he felt bound, but reluctantly, to vote against the Government. He desired this all the more because he belonged to a small and decreasing class of politicians in that House—namely, Members of Liberal views sitting for Irish constituencies, who were neither Home Rulers nor Land Leaguers. Indeed, if he (Mr. Russell) did not misread the policy of the Liberal Party as disclosed in the Queen's Speech, the class to which he belonged was threatened with speedy extinction. He should be glad to find he was wrong; but he had listened with painful interest to the speech of the Prime Minister, and he read his forthcoming policy towards Ireland as one of strong coercion and weak Land Reform. He believed such a policy would be injurious to the best interests of Ireland and of the Kingdom, and he should vote against it. He understood the feeling of impatience he had heard expressed from time to time at the constant reiteration of the cry of Irish grievances. Men who had grown grey in that House recollected that cry in their youth; and now it was as strong as ever! Surely it was a matter of some importance to face the question why that was so; why, in the face of efforts honestly made by that House, that cry was still the cry of the Representatives of the Irish people? Why was it? It could not be a cry wholly unreasonable; for were they not, at that moment, face to face with the results of an agitation not concerned in any high question or problem of polities, but face to face with an agitation based on the contention of a large number of the people for bread—that they might be, under the rule of Government, housed and fed, as well at least, as the horses in the stable, and the dogs in the kennel? He must confess he had read with some pain a speech by an hon. Member of the House (Mr. Thorold Rogers) at Reading, in which he said he listened to the speeches of the Scotch Members because they knew what they wanted, and they were always sure to get it; but when Irish Members spoke he never listened, because they did not know what they wanted, and they were sure never to get it. He thought, however, it was not intended to be made in an unkind and ungenerous manner; but that the hon. Member could not resist the opportunity of saying a smart thing; and he regretted to find that Mr. Froude, who wrote ably, and brilliantly, if not very accurately, on matters of history, had thought it decent, at a time when, surely, dislike raged high enough against them in England, to speak of the Irish, a people just escaped from famine, as ravening wolves, to whom any concession was so much waste of time, and as only tending to whet their appetite for more. After all that had been done—and done principally, he was glad to acknowledge, by the Party of which he was, and hoped to remain, a humble Member—he said it remained true that the great mass of the Irish people were still the worst clad, the worst fed, and the worst housed people in Europe. Well, for these people in their terrible condition, just escaped a famine, and still with the impress of distress upon them—for these people, the Government were going to propose Weak Land Reform and strong coercion. It seemed to him that in order fairly to understand the position of the Irish Question—in order to fairly gauge the character, meaning, and extent of the alleged lawlessness, it was necessary the House should remember what had happened last year. He was glad to know that many English Members had visited Ireland to inform themselves as to its condition. He hoped the House would hear the experiences in Ireland of the Secretary of State for War, of the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce), and also of the new Under Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Courtney), if his light was not temporarily hidden under the official bushel. [ A laugh. ] Famine was no new thing in Ireland; it had, unhappily, occurred again and again, but it never would be so borne as it had been borne in times past. He was happy to say that, because he thought it was a sign of wholesome discontent. It gave good reason to hope that the Irish people would make some effort to respond to such assistance as the Legislature could give them for the bettering of their condition. The country had been to a great extent of late years Americanized—not always to its advantage, but yet in many respects to its advantage. These people last year were reduced to the position of being beggars for charity; and the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray), in his official capacity as the Lord Mayor of Dublin, in that House, last year, told them that at the time which he spoke— namely, June—there were, through the agency of the fund with which he had to do, as many as 600,000 people receiving relief. Well, the Government thought the landlords were not wholly to be trusted in that condition of things. They thought, in the condition of things, something ought to be done to protect the tenant farmers. Not with standing the glowing, but, he feared, wholly unreal, description of the harmonious relations which, according to the hon. Member for Leitrim (Mr. Tottenham), existed between the landlords and the tenants of Ireland, the Government thought the tenants could not be trusted safely to the tender mercies of the landlords. He wished it to be understood that he desired to discuss the question in as impersonal a way as possible. There were bad landlords—the temptation to be bad landlords in Ireland was great; and yet there remained many good ones. He was pointing to the defects of the system more than to the landlords. The Government brought in a Bill which he thought then, and thought now, a small Bill; but a Bill which no man of high and generous impulses, who truly realized the condition of the people, would oppose. What happened to the Bill? It went up to the House of Lords, and the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General (Mr. Fawcett), the other day, expressed his (Mr. Russell's) opinion, when he said that the conduct of some men who sat on these Benches and called themselves Liberals was some excuse, even if not justification, for the conduct of the Lords with regard to that Bill. Undoubtedly, in place of being supported by the united power of the Liberal Party, the Bill was opposed by men who were not superior, he was afraid, to their class prejudices and class interests. Those who had justified the conduct of the Lords had said—"Why should the Lords pay any respect to a Bill which went up supported by the votes of the Home Rule Members?" And that was actually put as a reason why the vote of that House should not have full effect given to it—because the men whom Ireland had sent to represent her, because she thought they knew her wants, because those men gave their support to the Bill, therefore the Lords were justified in not supporting it! Well, the Bill having failed, what was to be done? And here a question arose in reference to those hon. Members who were called the Third Party in the House—a question which deserved attention not yet given to it, however pressing it might be in the minds of hon. Members—who and what were these men, and why were they there? As to them he had one or two remarks to make. He intended to speak with freedom, and without disrespect; and he held that the explanation why those Representatives of Ireland professed the opinions they did was one which Ministers should take to heart. As long as he (Mr. Russell) could recollect, with certain spasmodic intervals, until recently, Members were returned for Ireland who, with great regularity, ranged themselves with perfect decorum under the Party banners. They committed no Obstruction, and he was afraid they too often displayed a higher devotion to Party than they did to the interests they were sent to represent. As to the present Representatives of Ireland, it needed no close scrutiny to see that there was at the bottom of their action a feeling of patriotism prompting their proceedings, however much the majority of the House might think their conduct improper. Those Representatives were neither as to position, but with some exceptions, nor as to means, nor as to age, what might be called the natural leaders of the people—many of them were there not much past the threshold of manhood. They were sent there by what was practically a revolution in Ireland, but a revolution carried out by Constitutional means. They were the men, undoubtedly, who founded the Land League. He asked whether, after what had happened to the Compensation for Disturbance Bill in the House of Lords, it was even to be expected from human nature that the Irish tenant farmers were to fold their arms with meekness, and make no effort for self-protection—that they were to be left to the tender mercies of a minority of landlords carried away by the spirit of cupidity? What happened in the Famine years of 1846, 1847, and 1848? Did not the landlords of that time depopulate whole districts of fertile land, driving the people who had occupied those districts to seek their homes upon tracts of soil of the poorest character to be found, such as in Mayo and other places, where the poorer inhabitants of Ireland lived, and this in exercise of the rights that, no doubt, the law gave them; and were the landlords of the present day a different class? It was such proceedings as these, unchecked by the Legislature, that had led to the state of things often now existing—namely, that the greatest congestion was on the poorest lands. With these things before them, it was an object worthy of the highest effort of patriotism to try and save the tenant farmers from what seemed their impending fate. Then the Land League was started, or became active. He wished at this point to draw a distinction between what was legal and what might be considered illegal in relation to it. He (Mr. Russell) unhesitatingly laid down that in its conception the Land League was legal, in its avowed objects the Land League was legal, and in its avowed means the Land League was legal. It was an organization for self-protection, and to focus public opinion. Its principal avowed object was the prevention of unjust rack-renting and eviction. Its avowed means was the bringing of public opinion to bear on individuals who acted, or were disposed to act, contrary to its objects. He spoke of its avowed object, and of its avowed means, because he (Mr. Russell) could not for a moment deny that things had, in fact, been said and been done in the name of, and by, members of the Land League which could not be legally justified, and which must be deplored—which he (Mr. Russell) most heartily and most entirely reprobated. It was necessary, therefore, to distinguish between what was of the essence of the movement and what the indirect results of it might be. Schemes of coercion were not to be entertained on light grounds. There must be an imperative necessity for some such measures; and it must be shown that coercive measures would alone meet the case. He was glad to hear the Prime Minister say the other night that it was impossible to base a claim for coercion upon the occurrence of increased crime in consequence of the action of the Land League. In truth, there was no doubt that, as regarded serious crime—he meant attempts upon life, unhappily frequent in Ireland, but more frequent in proportion in England—there had been a smaller number in the last year than for a number of years back; therefore, it could not be that the coercion was justified because of the increase of serious crime. It was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) that not one-tenth, of the outrages in Ireland ever met the public eye. He (Mr. Russell) had taken some trouble to inquire about that; and, if it were not tedious, he would like to state the result of the inquiry. ["Hear, hear!" "Go on!"] Hon. Members, seeing in a number of papers an account of a particular outrage, with date, and place, and circumstance in detail, were apt to give credence to it. It was not safe to do so always. He learned, when he was in Ireland last, that the principal agency by which accounts of outrages were collected was a central agency called The Central News Agency, who had got what they called agents all over the country, whose business it was to send up accounts of each particular which was likely to be of interest to the public. These agents were not persons always selected on account of their respectability. Their instructions consisted of a bundle of printed telegraph forms, which they were told to fill up when anything of interest occurred, and they were informed that for so much of their telegrams as was used they would be paid. It very soon came to the knowledge of these intelligent people that there was one class of information for which there was an insatiable appetite, and that was outrage. The telegraph forms accordingly were filled up rapidly, and the accounts of outrages were spread broadcast and believed. Through this agency, practically, the entire Press was supplied. It was thus apparent that the repetition of the same story in several papers afforded no additional authenticity. Each came from the same source. He did not know whether hon. Gentlemen noticed it; but just at the end of last year, and at the beginning of this, at a time when he was in Ireland, he noticed a remarkable falling off in the number of the reports of outrages, and he asked the reason. The answer which he got was this—"Oh, these gentlemen have just been paid their quarter's remuneration, and they are temporarily incapacitated from pursuing their business." [ Laughter. ] One of the stories he took some interest in, because the locus happened to be in the county with which he was connected. It was reported that a young lady, whilst driving a pair of ponies, had been fired at from behind a hedge by a mur- derous and skulking Irishman who had lost all sense of chivalry, once so famous in his countrymen; that the lady alighted, and, with the greatest intrepidity imaginable, pursued the assassin, overtook him, and took his gun from him. He (Mr. Russell) inquired into the matter, and he learned that the man was a poacher, that he was behind a hedge, that he did fire—not at the lady, but at a hare; that the lady coming up, the man ran away, dropping his gun, but that he came humbly next day and begged that it should be returned to him. [ A laugh. ] That was the story of one of the outrages. Now, one other thing the Land League was said to do. It was said, judging, as he understood, from the Charges of the Judges, and especially from that of Mr. Justice Fitzgerald—Oh, if the crime was not so grave and so serious, there was a state of terrorism which operated to prevent the fulfilment of contractual obligations, which meant rent; which operated to prevent witnesses coming forward to prove crimes; which operated to prevent juries from being empannelled, and which prevented them, when empannelled, from giving verdicts of guilty. There was, undoubtedly, to some extent, a system of terrorism prevailing in Ireland. That was, unquestionably, the danger which was to be apprehended from setting in motion a great national force such as the Land League. There was the risk of its being diverted from a just public purpose; there was the danger of its being used against individuals and for private purposes of malice. That was the reason why priests and Bishops in Ireland, some of them at least, had not joined; not that they did not realize the difficulties of the people, not that they did not sympathize with them, not that they did not believe that the land system was in its present condition like a cancer eating into the very vitals of society, but because priests and Bishops at large knew the injury to the best interests of society which might result from setting in a state of excitement the passions of the people. But it was idle to speak of it as a sectional movement. Did anyone suppose that unless this was a movement with which the majority of the people of Ireland really agreed—and by the people of Ireland was meant, not the landlords, who were a small but powerful class of men, but the tenant farmers in the country districts, shopkeepers in towns—in other words, the people of Ireland meant the members of the lower and upper middle class, those who made up the great bulk of the population of the land—it could have lived? If the land movement had not had their hearty concurrence it would soon have been dead. What was the Land League—and of whom did it consist? It consisted, for the most part, of a number of gentlemen, of whom he had spoken—many of them young, many of them active, many of them of great ability and enthusiasm, but who, unless they had the sympathy and support of the great mass of the people, must be powerless. They were told that the majority of the people of Ireland were against the Land League, that they did not sympathize with its efforts, but that they were, forsooth, terrorized by the Land Leaguers! The truth of the matter was this—that this was a case, if of terrorism at all to any extent, of terrorism exercised by the people of Ireland, not by sections, but by the people of Ireland. Let him recall to the minds of hon. Gentlemen what was said when it was sought to pass measures of coercion upon 2,000,000 of our American Colonists. What did that great man and great statesman, Edmund Burke, say on that occasion? He said—

"It looks to me to be narrow and pedantic to apply the ordinary ideas of criminal justice to a great public contest. I do not know the way to draw up an indictment against a whole people."

But Her Majesty's Government had, in effect, attempted to carry out such a task; for the coercive legislation which was now proposed meant the drawing up of an indictment against the whole Irish people. He would ask further—How would such a movement as this be dealt with in England, supposing that the same unanimity of opinion existed upon the question of Land Law Reform in England as was shown to exist in Ireland, how would it be dealt with? Would it be dealt with by coercion? Had the Minister ever lived strong enough to face the indignation which such a proposal would meet with? He maintained that any Minister, however strong, who tried anything of the kind would be hurled from power by the English people. Ought not a Minis- ter, in the face of such unanimity of opinion upon such a question affecting the very primary conditions of human life, to set himself the task of discovering the cause, and of removing it promptly and thoroughly? He now came to the last thing which was attributed to the Land League. It was said that they had impressed upon the people the repudiation of their contracts, and that they had deterred them from paying their rents. Language had been used on that subject which he unquestionably regretted. He thought, under all circumstances, it was dangerous to tell a people, many of whom might be able to pay, that there might be reasons why they ought not to pay what they had contracted to pay. It was dangerous, because it was liable to misconstruction, because of its being, as he was afraid it was in some cases at least in Ireland, taken advantage of by dishonest people to avoid the payment of their just debts. But let it be remembered by hon. Members that it stood on the confession of the Government—it stood on the confession of Parliament in their Land Act of 1870, and in the Disturbance Bill of last Session—that the Irish tenant, especially of the smaller class, did not stand in the position of an independent contracting party, that he did not stand upon an equality with his landlord, and that the weaker party required protection. Why did he urge this? For this reason—To suggest to the minds of hon. Members whether rent repudiation in Ireland, where it had happened—and it was not general—might not have some relation to the fact that the tenants believed that the contracts into which they had been obliged to enter—that the rents which they had been obliged to contract to pay—were not just. He did not say this was a reason which applied to all cases, nor was it, at the best, an excuse; but it was some explanation and some palliation. He (Mr. Russell) admitted, and admitted with regret, that many Irish landlords had been placed in positions of great difficulty inconsequence of nonpayment of rent. Many Irish landlords of to-day were suffering from the sins of cupidity and of unthrift of those who had gone before them. Recent events but increased their difficulties. But were landlords in England free, in these recent years, from trouble? Were English tenants always found able and willing to discharge their rent obligations? Were there not cases in England in which the tenants had found difficulty in paying rents? Aye, and in which, as the hon. Member for Cork County (Mr. Shaw) had pointed out, the great landed classes fairly and generously recognized that a disaster had fallen upon agriculture, which was a disaster common to landlords and tenants. He did not mean to say that in Ireland there had been no remissions of rents, and large remissions of rents; but he did maintain that there were no voluntary movements towards that remission, and that, unfortunately for themselves, the landlords of Ireland left it to be inferred by the people that the remission was not the result of their own spontaneous generosity, but the result of agitation, by which it had been forced upon them. Now, it would be asked, What was the remedy for all this? He believed the state of things in Ireland to be grossly exaggerated. He believed the wide and varied existing powers of the Executive were ample to meet any existing difficulty. He believed all people in Ireland admitted that the country was in an abnormal unhealthy state, but that that state could not, and would not, continue. He believed it would greatly, nay, entirely, and soon disappear if the Minister who now held the reins of Office had seen it in his power to come down to the House with a large and generous policy of Land Reform. If he had framed a measure—and the right hon. Gentleman would forgive him for saying so—which, instead of bearing upon its face, as foreshadowed—because it was only imperfectly foreshadowed—in the Queen's Speech the marks of unhealthy compromise and the marks of having been framed to reconcile what might otherwise be a divided Cabinet—if he had introduced, instead of that, a measure with the impress of his own strong will and clear intellect—a measure adequate to the occasion, and calculated to thoroughly grapple with the Land Question, it would have been better for his own reputation—and his reputation was a national possession. Nay, more; he (Mr. Russell), speaking in all seriousness, would still say it were better for the Prime Minister's name as a statesman; better for the enduring settlement of the question; better for the permanent peace and ultimate happiness and contentment of Ireland, if he left the question untouched, rather than deal with it by introducing a measure narrow and inadequate, and framed in a spirit of compromise. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), had made a brilliant Party speech, marked by an energy and ability worthy of the late Chief Justice Whiteside, and, he (Mr. Russell) might add, manifesting about an equal breadth of statesmanlike capacity! It was a great Party speech, but only a Party speech. "Put them down—stamp them out!" That was the policy of the great National Party in the State. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, further, had appeared in an entirely new character—that of an apologist holding a brief for the priests and Bishops of Ireland. The right hon. and learned Gentleman quoted a passage from the Pastoral of the right rev. Prelate the Catholic Archbishop of Dublin, Dr. M'Cabe, in which he condemned some of the proceedings of the Land League; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not road that part of the Pastoral in which there was a strong desire expressed by that Prelate for the reform of the existing Land Laws in Ireland. He (Mr. Russell) had in his possession a letter, received by him that day, from that most rev. Prelate, in which he expressed his views of the probable effects of coercion, unaccompanied by thorough Land Reform. Had not the Prime Minister been told the real feeling which existed in Ireland? Was the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland aware of the blank astonishment which fell upon a large section of his supporters below the Gangway when the announcement from the Throne was made which shadowed some Amendment on the lines of the Land Act of 1870? Had anyone told the Prime Minister that the noble Lord the Member for the County of Down (Viscount Castlereagh) had, like many other prominent Conservatives in Ulster, made a speech far in advance of anything that had been gathered from the Speech from the Throne? Surely on this question, which he (Mr. Russell) affirmed was "the Question" in Ireland, the Liberal Leader, whose advent to power the Irish vote had done something to help, would not be found below the low-water mark of Irish Conservative opinion. He must now proceed to read the letter he had referred to. It was dated yesterday, and said—

"Such measures will do incalcuable mischief. I have reason to believe that the tenant farmers are ready and willing to meet the party who will deal with the question fairly on friendly terms; but if this opportunity be lost and they and the people are handed over to the extreme section of the Land Leaguers by a half-hearted attempt at legislation the results will be very disastrous. Better a thousand times for Mr. Gladstone's Government not to touch the question at all than to trifle with it. The cancer which threatens the life of society had better be left alone if the last fibre be not cut out. I take the liberty of writing this because I have incurred odium in this matter. I asked the people of Ireland to set their faces against the speakers of extreme views, because I had faith in Mr. Gladstone's determination to introduce a thorough reform of the Land Laws. If that belief should be a delusion, however I and others may regret the popular excesses arising there from, I fear we must regret their occurrence in silence."

He must ask the House to beware of this—that by lending their sanction to a coercive policy, which was necessarily a repressive policy, and which might take the form of putting down open and above-board healthy agitation, they would inevitably run the risk of driving the people into the dark and devious channels of secret action. All coercive policy in history had shown the same thing. He was reading, a short time ago, an account of the history and results of a former policy of coercion in Ireland. He had read with pain and dismay how the short-sightedness of Governments had, by their repressive policy, changed societies, in their nature open and Constitutional—though at times attended with results which the law could not recognize—into secret combinations, dangerous and illegal. It had been so before 1798, and it had, he feared, been so since. He hoped the error would not be repeated. The Government must be slow to do anything which even seemed to interfere with the great right of public meeting, which in every free country ought to be regarded as a great Constitutional right—a healthy safety-valve—with which it was most dangerous to tamper. He had noticed several meetings stopped without, so far as appeared, any sufficient ground; but he (Mr. Russell) would be slow to express an opinion without fuller information. He had read, too, accounts of proceedings against individuals which seemed extremely high-handed. He (Mr. Russell) desired fairly to recognize the difficulties of the Executive. But he had read with astonishment some of the things which had appeared in the newspapers. There might be justifications of them forthcoming. He had read accounts which had surprised him. He had read an account of a man—a householder—in Tralee, who was taken from his residence to a station and sent to gaol; refused bail, brought before a magistrate and again refused bail; and, as the magistrate himself said, this was done on the authority of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, the sole offence charged being the holding of a Land League Court. There should be some explanation of this It was a proceeding which must properly be characterized as extremely high-handed. He would like hon. Members to mark by what a small thread the right of public meeting in Ireland hung. It was most extraordinary, but true, that when a person is found to swear that an impending meeting is likely to create a disturbance of the peace, that the magistrates should promptly act upon such an affidavit, and be acting legally in so doing, thus putting an end effectually to the right of public meeting! Let the House recollect how much depended upon that right. In England public meetings could not be prohibited except for the gravest cause; but in Ireland magistrates were found to prohibit such meetings on affidavits signed by mere understrappers, and for which there often was no adequate foundation. Let them recollect what that implied, when the reins of the Administration of the country were held by a single class—that of the landlords and agents. The English people would never allow, for one moment, such things to be done in their own country. If the state of Ireland was a pain and humiliation to Irishmen, was it not also humiliating to Englishmen? The Leader of the Opposition (Sir Stafford North-cote) had, with proper spirit, referred to and resented the Resolution of the Representative House at Washington, recommending England to look after the condition of Ireland, and to reform her Land Laws. Had it struck the right hon. Gentleman that this was more than the voluntary expression of the opinion of an independent State? For was it not the opinion of a State largely re-in-forced by men whom English legislation and misgovernment had driven from the shores of Ireland with bitterness in their hearts? Was it, could it be, the perverseness of the people of Ireland that, while they clung to memories of Ireland with passionate affection, they carried across the Atlantic often but little else than contempt and hate for this country? Let statesmen ponder on these things. He (Mr. Russell) had, some time ago, been in conversation with a man who, in 1866, had suffered punishment for having joined the Fenian movement. He asked him if his motive were love of country and passionate recollection of it? He had come from America. His answer was that, until 1866, he had never been in Ireland since he was five years of age. But, he said, his earliest memory of Ireland had never left him. His first recollection was seeing men who were, as he afterwards learned, sheriff's officers, battering down with crowbars the humble house in which his earliest days were passed. He recollected being driven away in a cart across a river—the Shannon—to the nearest convenient town, to be deported from his native country—with his mother's tears before his eyes, and the bitter curses of his father ringing in his ears. That father afterwards told him, far away from Ireland, that his expatriation was due to the injustice of the law; and thenceforth he resolved, if the opportunity offered, wildly, blindly, unreasoningly it might be, but still he resolved, to strike a blow for his country, as he believed, and against her enemy. He (Mr. Russell) feared this case was but typical of too many. Was not this history repeating itself in another form? Or was it a misleading tradition that attributed to the Second George the words—"Cursed be the laws which deprive me of such subjects;" when the chivalry of England fell back before the attack of Irish troops in foreign service? Would that statesmen—even at this day—would take those words to heart, and win to the side of order the feelings of a people now largely hostile. He believed a great opportunity was now offered. Was it going to be lost? He said, with pain, he could derive but poor hope from the policy dimly outlined in the Speech from the Throne, and in the words of the Prime Minister. He would rejoice, sincerely rejoice, if he should prove to be wrong in this view. But, in all the doubt and gloom of the hour, he (Mr. Russell) did seem to see a bright gleam of hope rising, but rising beyond a sea of trouble, tumult, injustice, suffering, and bloodshed, if the coercive policy were to be carried out—hope, springing not from the promises and professions of statesmen, but from the fact that the Irish people were that day welded together as they had never been welded together before, in spite of base appeals to weaken and divide them—a hope which was strengthened and became strong by the belief that, on the question of the land of Ireland, the great heart of England was stirred, and that the people of England were resolved to support a great Minister in any measure, however great, which should bring to the settlement of that question a character of completeness, of thoroughness, and of justice.

rose to address the House, when—

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

said, that although the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell) had stated that he was neither a Home Ruler nor a Land Leaguer, they all felt that both inside and outside the House he had rendered great service to the cause of the tenant farmers in Ireland, and he might add that in Ireland there was a general expectation—which it was to be hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would not disappoint—that his name would yet be intimately associated with the triumphant settlement of the Land Question. He (the O'Donoghue) was not surprised at the character of the Speech from the Throne. Many years' experience in that House made it impossible for him to be sanguine enough to imagine that Her Majesty's Government could so divest themselves of their past traditions, leanings, and objects as suddenly to rise to the patriotic excellence required to deal justly with the great question of the Irish land. During the Recess he had attended many meetings held in Kerry under the auspices of the National Land League, and at each of them he was careful to warn his countrymen against indulging in the delusion that justice was immediately about to be done. He pointed out that Her Majesty's Minis- ters were almost as much, landlord-ridden as was Ireland; and he expressed his grave apprehension that, no matter what superficial touches the land system might receive, the Government of the right hon. Gentleman would leave its substance still the same, and that, consequently, the landlords would be able to continue rack-renting and exterminating the people. It was not the Government who were wholly or even chiefly responsible for the policy indicated in the Speech from the Throne. If Ministers were permitted to do as they pleased it was only natural they should take the line in accord with their own peculiar feelings and interests. The shame and discredit of all this trimming and delusive policy must be laid at the doors of the Liberal Party in England and Scotland. They were accountable for this demand of justice of which Ireland complained. There was a time when the Liberal Party might have pleaded expediency, and urged that they could only exist by virtue of an alliance with Whiggery; but that time had passed. They were now masters of the situation, and yet they did nothing, but left the policy of the Party to be directed by men who were, at the best, only nominal Liberals. He should be sorry to say anything irritating to those with whom he had always voted in favour of an extension of the political power of the people of England and Scotland; but his criticism would be halting, partial, and cowardly if he refrained from stating that the Liberal Party of Great Britain, at least in that House—and it mattered little what they did out of it—lacked the courage to give effect to its principles either by word or action. Everything seemed to yield to the importance of keeping My Lord this or My Lord that in the Cabinet, instead of simply adhering to principle, and showing no weakness to those who were obstacles to progress or in any way a clog to its wheels. The true Liberal Party in the House was to be found on the Benches occupied by the Irish Members, and the sign of the quality of their politics was the fidelity and fearlessness with which they endeavoured to carry out the wishes of those who sent them to Parliament. If they were less truly representative and faithful they would be as agreeable to the Liberal Party as were the Irish Mem- bers when they represented only a small class of the Irish people. It was this genuine character of the Irish representation that brought it into violent antagonism with a section of the House. He said a section advisedly, for he could not think that the Liberals of Great Britain—although their Liberalism was in abeyance—did not in their hearts sympathize with the aspirations of the Irish people after freedom. The position of the Irish Members was unfortunate and anomalous. They were the Representatives of a nation, but were unable to give effect to its wishes. Hitherto they had only been able to try and get a hearing for their case. If there was any shadow of reality in the representations about the security of Irish rights under the Union, then England was bound to afford the utmost latitude for discussion. Neither in the principles nor the general action of the Land League was there anything hostile to the interests or offensive to the honour of England. Ireland was not unmindful of the teaching of history, nor could she fail to recognize the good qualities of Englishmen. Side by side Irishmen had stood with her in many a field, ever as eager to be in the front, and yet they were denied the exercise of any power. There was something shocking in the thought that the Representatives of the democracy of England should commit themselves to support a policy by which this great social question should be settled amid the roar of gunpowder, the clash of sabres, and the groans of their fellow-men. But that was the policy which had been indicated as plainly as decency would permit in the Speech from the Throne. Such a policy, carried out with the consent of that House, against the wishes of the Irish people, on behalf of the selfish oligarchy from whom they had helped the English people to wrest their liberties, would be unspeakably iniquitous. The Speech from the Throne informed the Irish people of what they were to be deprived. They were, in the first place, to be deprived of their Constitutional liberties, and then they were to be put off with a Land Bill which the Government had made up their minds they must be satisfied with, whether they liked it or not. That that result would follow was taken as a matter of course, because due provision was promised to be made for repressing the expression of all public feeling. The position of Ireland would be this—no man would be able to say what he thought, or do what he liked, without rendering himself liable to be seized and carried off, most probably in the dark hours of the night, by the emissaries of the Government, and locked up for an indefinite period. Surely that was not the best method of eliciting public opinion on any subject. They were, in fact, to be treated by this Liberal Government in the old-fashioned manner—namely, like children who must take what it suited certain persons to administer to them. The events of the last few days had created, if not a panic in Ireland, at least a widespread fear that the Government had entered upon a course of lawlessness at the instigation of the landlords, and that they were determined to make use of the public force of the country to obtain a momentary victory over the people. The Chief Secretary for Ireland, on Friday evening, in a moment of enthusiasm, seemed disposed to give way to some delusions. He (the O'Donoghue) should be sorry to see the right hon. Gentleman indulging in any weakness of that kind; and it would be well if he were at once acquainted with the fact that the Government, as a whole, did not possess the confidence of the people of Ireland, and certain Members, to use a homely phrase, possessed it only partially. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was little more than the organ or mouthpiece of the Government; and they could not forget the memorable occasion last Session when he elicited their cheers by denouncing the House of Lords, and then came down afterwards and "bolted" his words, at whose bidding it was unnecessary to inquire. They had heard a great deal about "Boycotting;" but had anyone taken the trouble to inquire what that meant? It might be, and commonly was, the exclusion of an individual who had rendered himself obnoxious in his social or business relations with his neighbours. Now, if he disliked a man, he could not be compelled to walk or talk with him, or deal with him, or take his money in exchange for his labour. What was now called "Boycotting" was a mode of showing dislike and disapproval common to all times, places, and sections of society; and it was, moreover, a legitimate manifestation of feeling, beyond the control of the law to regulate. The only remarkable thing about "Boycotting" was, that Ireland was the only part of the civilized world where it had not been extensively practised before; and the people of Ireland had been driven, by the neglect of Parliament, to employ some weapon of this kind. The fact that year after year Bills which would have satisfactorily settled the Land Question had been introduced into that House, and had received the support of the Irish Members, but had been thrown out, had shown the Irish people that it was hopeless for them to appeal to Parliament for redress. Then he came to the outrages which were such a comfort and consolation to those who were in search of something which would give Parliament a pretext for destroying the Constitutional liberties of the Irish people. By far the greater number of the so-called outrages consisted of threatening letters—the authorship of which must remain a matter for speculation—or of firing guns in the air near houses. It was, unfortunately, true that deplorable murders, such as those of Lord Mountmorres and of Mr. Boyd, had been committed. But what had happened on the commission of these crimes? The suspected persons were arrested, and kept in prison as long as it was thought necessary. The perpetrators of these bloody deeds were in the possession of all the deterrent knowledge possible, and they knew what awaited them if either taken red-handed in the act or suspected. What more could have been done, even suppose the Habeas Corpus Act, or any other of their Constitutional rights, had been abrogated? The ordinary law enabled a person to be arrested and kept in prison when a necessity could be shown for so doing. What more was required or ought to be tolerated? But when the Constitution was suspended, a man might be imprisoned without any reason at all, while the police might almost commit murder with impunity, and millions of persons would be put in terror for the safety of their persons and their homes. He submitted as a conclusion which would gain the acceptance of every thinking man that the substitution of despotism for liberty had no special efficacy for the prevention of crime. If it had, liberty itself would be a crime, and despotism the only admis- sible form of government. If they passed these Coercion Bills, every magistrate and policeman would be able to commit any act short of downright murder, because the Government would be obliged to give a latitude and credence, and would not be able to punish the villainy of its subordinate officers. The whole nation would be smitten, while the few whose prerogative had encroached upon the rights of the people would go about crowing and provoking deeds to which the people could never be goaded under the protection of freedom. He lived in Kerry, which was a proclaimed district. As to the outrages reported against the Irish people in the county of Kerry, he might say he knew of no outrages which, when compared with the measures proposed by the Government, did not deserve the name of "trumpery." He had traversed the county from end to end, by day and night, and had never heard anything which would ever give colour to the stories which were in circulation, nor anything which could justify this interference with the Constitutional rights of the people. One Sunday, when he was proceeding, in company with some hundreds of people, to attend a Land League meeting in the neighbourhood of Killarney, he encountered a car filled by a Protestant, with his family, who had rendered himself odious and unpopular by taking a farm from which the previous tenant had been evicted. Although it was well known who he was, not the slightest violence was offered to him, and only kindly expressions of regret that he had put himself outside of the pale of the people were uttered, although not a single policeman was present. This showed that the Irish people were not addicted to violence or to murder. The people of Ireland, however, were grieved and indignant that the power of this great Empire was to be brought to bear upon them for the purpose of enabling the landlords to continue their unjust oppression of them. He believed that the Land Question would have to be settled, not by piecemeal legislation, but by a full and immediate measure of justice. The policy of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had banded all his countrymen together, and every day increased their confidence in the wisdom and thoroughness of his leadership. While avoiding bravado, they intended to continue in the course they had marked out for themselves; they would rely upon the justice of their cause, and would look with confidence towards their natural allies, the people of England and Scotland, to secure for them the firm possession of the soil of their country.

said, he could well conceive that the Government might be in possession of facts not within the knowledge of individual Members which might have prompted the suggestion, which seemed to him like coercion, in the Gracious Speech from the Throne. However that might be, he felt that the position of Radical Members like himself was an extremely difficult one in the present juncture. They did not wish to embarrass the Government on the one hand by voting against them, as they were aware that the worst measure from the Liberal Party would be better by far than any which could be hoped for from the opposite Party; but, as a Radical, he was bound to remember the fact that the matters referring to Ireland had not been dealt with in a manner similar to those of England and Scotland. As a Radical, he believed that, so far as England was concerned, the worst measure likely to be proposed by the present Ministry would be better than the best proposal likely to come from Gentlemen occupying the opposite Benches. He felt difficulty in justifying to the House the vote he was about to give; he had no difficulty in justifying it to himself. The action of the Government might arise from the fact that they were in possession of information which was not at present before individual Members; but, as a Radical Member, with only the facts stated to the House to guide him, he would be obliged to vote in favour of the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), and he would have to repeat that vote, if that which was now shadowed forth should be the only proposition of law. He wished especially to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright), and hoped that right hon. Gentleman would pardon him (Mr. Bradlaugh) when he said that there was a grievous disappointment felt by many Radicals in this country, because, after a speech in which he led them to hope that some wide measure of Land Law Reform would come, they had instead one of punishment, of repression, and coercion. The Government should have given an opportunity for redress, prevention, and amelioration. He did not mean to say that the right hon. Gentleman pledged the Government of which he was a prominent Member; but the disappointment was great that there was now no promise of that. There was now only the smallest promise of possible Land Law Reform, and that only after the alleged protection of life and property, but which was, in reality, the suspension of Constitutioual rights of the people without knowing when or where it would end. In the hints thrown out by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in his speech, which were so heartily cheered by the sturdy Radicals around him, it was expected there might be employment on the waste land in Ireland which would give food and drive away the misery which caused the discontent in the country. The power to cultivate waste land would give some promise and hope—not of generosity from our side—but of justice. It was only now, however, proposed to smite. If both were to go together it would be hard enough. He would not have been surprised if an Act of repression had come from the other side of the House, because that was what hon. Members were used to; but the Party on his side of the House were not supposed to infringe their liberties. The whole traditions of the present Ministry, in fact, consisted in their supposed hostility to any encroachment on popular liberties, and the Radicals feared that if such a course was taken in regard to Ireland it would not be surprising if, on a future occasion, the Constitutional liberties of the people of England would also be suspended. They felt, therefore, that it was their duty to protest that we had no right to coerce the Irish people, until we had tried to remove every wrong from which they suffered. Coercion would cause secret agitation, and secret agitation under those circumstances would be justified. ["Oh, oh!"] Yes; secret agitation would then be justified. They had no right to stifle the people's voice. One who had sat as Chief Justice said, in defending traversers, that if you took away from the people the right of Constitutional agitation, you left to them only one right—that of secret conspiracy. He appealed to the Government to pass their remedial legislation first, to frame it in a generous spirit, and not to allow themselves to be influenced by whispers from "another place," which professed to be strong, but was in reality weak, to swerve from their duty. The proposal for coercive legislation was justified by reference to "unlawful meetings" which had been elaborately defined by the right hon. and learned Member for Dublin University. Since the definition of the Judges in the King v. Hunt, almost any large assembly might be declared unlawful on the oath of some timorous or hostile person. All the Land League meetings had been peaceable and without disorder. A forbidden meeting had not been held, whereas in this country the contrary had resulted. He remembered two meetings prohibited by Government—one by a Government the Members of which were now on the opposite side of the House, and one by a Government the Members of which were now on the Ministerial side of the House—and not one word was said about suspending the Constitution. It was the people's right—aye, their duty—not to remain silent when labouring under a sense of wrong. As regarded Ireland, only read of their misery, their homes unfurnished, their rags, and diseases arising from lack of food. These were not things made by the Land League, but the things that made the Land League. It was, in fact, one of the causes of misery to Ireland that for so long a period her people had not self-reliance enough to agitate for the remedy of their wrongs. The landlords had expected the Government to protect them, whereas they should have such self-reliance which would result from actions of justice and generosity towards their tenants. The people also lacked self-reliance, but only in their own land, because of the manner in which the landlords clutched at the result of their labours. He had a direct mandate from his constituents to vote against coercion, which mandate the people of England, as far as he had had an opportunity of meeting them, thoroughly endorsed. What answer would Birmingham give to the prohibition of such meetings in Ireland, or Sheffield, Hackney, or the densely populated valleys of Lancashire? They would all say that justice should be done to Ireland before remedying the law, and before they should be prevented from agitating for the redress of their grievances. The need for agitation was not their crime, it was their misfortune. They should be fed first and struck afterwards; but not in their hunger, when they could not be so philosophical and calm as when they were well fed. He would only make one more appeal to the Government, and it was a warning not to mistake the feeling of the people of England upon this subject. He had no right to speak except for the rough and poor; but he had some right to speak for them. They made the wealth of this country. Their influence brought the present Government into Office. There were men in Office whom they loved because of the traditions with which they had identified themselves. He asked those men not to allow whispers from "another place," which seemed strong, but which was, in reality, very weak, to frighten them from doing their duty. Let them do justice to Ireland first by introducing a wide Land Reform Bill; let them act with generosity and thoroughness, and if they did not then break up the agitation they could appeal to coercive law.

remarked, that too little had been said in that discussion on behalf of the law-abiding classes of the poorer sort who inhabited Ireland, who had stuck loyally by the Crown and by their contracts in the midst of the terrorism to which they had been exposed during the last few months. He therefore appealed to the House to protect the small farmer and the shopkeeper, whether Roman Catholic, Protestant, or Presbyterian, who had not joined the Land League. The hon. Member for Cork City (Mr. Parnell) asked them by his Amendment to declare that peace and tranquillity could not be promoted by suspending any of the Constitutional liberties of the people of Ireland. Surely the hon. Member forgot that it was he himself who had suspended liberty. [ Dissent. ] Could, any man now speak above a whisper in Ireland without the leave of the Land League? The hon. Member for Cork City had publicly avowed that Irishmen would not be satisfied until they had destroyed the last link which bound Ireland to England; and he had advised the tenants to treat every man like a leper and a pariah if he did not agree with them. Surely the violent organization which the hon. Member and his associates created had curtailed all liberty. The hon. Member for the County of Cork (Mr. Shaw) declared that everybody exaggerated the terrorism established by the Land League, and had described that movement as a great upheaval of the general feeling of dissatisfaction, misery, and trouble after a famine, and had suggested that the landlords were apparently to blame for that famine. He denied both of those assertions. The banks, and especially the bank with which the hon. Gentleman was connected, had given unlimited credit to the farmers for years past, and their interest in their farms had been pledged to the banks; 22,000 processes had been instituted by the Munster banks in 1880 against the farmers; but they could not shoot the banks, and the result was that they paid them, but did not pay the landlords. There were hundreds and thousands of Irishmen who did not believe in the Land League, and who would have nothing to do with it. These could only be coerced into it by the terrorism which had and still was being exercised. The League had taken possession of the people by working on their greed for land, and also on their hatred of England. He could testify to the extreme agony of men who, with tears in their eyes, had asked whether they were to be compelled to bow down to an Association which was believed to be illegal. He would read to the House a short letter from a farmer paying £100 a-year. [ Cries of "Name, Name!"] In the present state of Ireland it would be as much as that man's life was worth to name him; but he was perfectly willing to give his name to any hon. Gentleman sitting on the other—the Ministerial—side. The man had been asked by his landlord to pay his rent. The letter, dated December 5, 1880, was as follows:—

"Sir,—In reply to your letter of yesterday, I can assure your Honour I feel myself awkwardly positioned. I had a threatening notice posted on my door last Wednesday morning if I paid more than Griffith's valuation it would cost me my life; but for this difficulty I would have my rent paid at once, and I hope it will please your Honour to give me time until you arrange with the other tenants. I always paid my rent, but now life is sweet. It is easier for me to suffer a few pounds costs, if I am forced to it, than have my life taken in this disturbed locality. Hoping it will please your Honour to take my case into further consideration, for which I shall feel obliged."

Here was another letter illustrating the state of things which prevailed—

"Hon. Sir,—First I must tell you a tenant named—who holds a portion of ground from me at £20 a-year—my chief support—tells me to settle with the Land League. My servant boy is sent away from me, my horse won't be shod, nor would a tenant who holds lands from my brother bring me a message. Under such circumstances, hon. Sir, I hope you will put me in some place or situation out of this unfortunate country place. My name or what I say to you I must ask you not to make public while I am here; but when I am away from this you can do as you wish."

He would quote one more instance. A correspondent wrote to him thus—

"On November 20 I attended in Cork to receive rents from a property near Mill Street. There are 34 tenants, of whom one had paid his May rent in the summer. Of the remaining 33 about 15 or 20 came in. Most of them produced threatening letters, and said they were willing and able to pay as the year was so good, but were afraid to so. I gave them to December 20 to think it over. On November 23 I received one tenant's rent in full by post. On November 25 his ricks were burnt, and he has been, I hear, under police protection since. On December 21 about half-a-dozen paid their rents."

Other and numerous instances could be brought forward, and yet they were told that there was no terrorism. Again, the small shopkeepers were in many cases nearly bankrupt owing to the intimidation they were subjected to because they would not join the League. In one case a shopkeeper refused to join, and soon afterwards two women came into his shop and bought dresses. When they left the shop they were met by agents of the League, who took the dresses away from them, threw them in the mud, and threatened to do the same to any other article they might purchase at the same shop; yet, there was no terrorism! The Government had allowed this agitation to go on too long, and now many of the landlords who gave work to the labourers were obliged to leave. Claims to compensation for injuries sustained would come in rapidly, and the whole social system of the country was being overturned. The farmers who by timidity or by collusion helped that agitation would be the first to suffer. He implored the House to unite together in the matter, irrespective of Party. Let them vindicate at once the majesty of the law with rapidity and vigour. Let them protect the loyal and the weak against the strong and the rebellious.

said, he occupied a peculiar position. He and those who thought with him lay under a very great imputation, because they were charged with moderation. The fact was that they had had hopes that the Government were willing, able, and determined to pass a great measure of Land Reform. These were the hopes he endeavoured to inspire at a meeting held in County Clare only three months ago, at which a vote of thanks to Members of the Government was passed. That was but a brief while ago, yet it seemed a cycle in the history of Ireland. He was not going to extenuate the state of Ireland. He considered that Ireland was in a most dangerous state of revolution. They had conjured up within the last few days the names of great statesmen of other days, such as Sir Robert Peel and the Duke of Wellington, who wrote to the Queen that it was absolutely necessary to grant Catholic Emancipation. He said Ireland would otherwise be driven into a state of rebellion; that the people would refuse to pay rent or taxes, and the whole power of the Empire would not put it down. Ireland was, broadly speaking, in the position into which those great statesmen prevented her drifting. But there was still hope. A power had greatly increased since then. There was now an alliance which was worth buying with a great price—that was the alliance of the Irish people. Coercion was a folly of 1881, with a vile pedigree of 700 years. When Englishmen had asked for great reforms the ordinary way of life had not been obstructed. Take, for instance, the agitation for Reform. There was a great deal of intimidation then, and many excesses took place; but coercion was not attempted. Yet the Judges were insulted; at a meeting at Manchester one of the speakers hoped that the men of Bristol would hang the Recorder, Sir Charles Weatherall, higher than Haman. At Manchester, a more important occurrence took place. At a great meeting threats were freely made that the people would refuse the taxes, and it was asked—What auctioneer would dare sell if the Government distrained for non- payment; what man would dare buy? Had the Land League taught anything new? But that meeting passed a vote of thanks to Lord John Russell, who actually returned a sympathetic answer. Imagine, if they could, any British statesman returning a sympathetic answer to an Irish meeting of similar character. He was happy to say there had been a great improvement in the feeling amongst Englishmen towards Ireland. This was specially marked in the case of English Members who had a large Irish element in their constituencies. Before they enforced coercion in Ireland they ought to exhaust every form of justice and generosity. Not with standing the improvement of temper, had England been generous to Ireland? No; it had been far from it. Had her artists and historians respected the sensitive feelings of the Irish Celt? Colonel Gordon had pointed out the folly of drawing the typical Irishman as a baboon without its native grace. Mr. Froude, forgetting the great men whom Ireland had given to the Continent and to the world, had recently declared that the Irish were a danger and a torment to every country to which they emigrated. As an historian be might have remembered that, during the present century, there had been at least three Marshals of Irish blood whose names stood out amongst great men. On one of them Napoleon conferred the proud epithet of the Organizer of Victory; another restored for a season glory and prosperity to Spain; a third has been President of the French Republic. To-day the descendant of Irish exiles is Prime Minister of Austria; another is Captain General of Madrid. But there was not a single Irishman on the Treasury Bench. Whigs and Radicals, Scotchmen and Opportunist Republicans, were there; but not an Irishman. He had heard with great regret the Chief Secretary for Ireland state that his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had by speeches knowingly incised people to commit outrages. Now, he would not call, even in the conventional language of the House, the hon. Member for the City of Cork his hon. Friend if he did not know that he was utterly incapable of conduct of that kind. The Chief Secretary had certainly not gone so far as to accuse him of inciting to his murder. He would have had a respectable precedent. In 1843 Sir Robert Peel, in the House of Commons, accused Mr. Cobden of such a crime. That was an old arm of polemics; it had been used against the Prime Minister often, against the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster oftener still. Although he (Captain O'Shea) was not a Land Leaguer, and was suffering inconvenience, as a landlord, owing to its action, and although he regretted that those who had the ear of the Irish tenant should be given the advice that a fair rent was a rent fixed by himself, he must confess, as an unprejudiced person, it was the Land League which had brought the Land Question, one of the most dangerous to the Empire, nearer settlement. What that settlement was to be of course they could not tell; they were oscillating between hope and fear; but he hoped the Prime Minister would rise equal to the occasion; and if he was counting the cost of doing justice to all, let him, on the other hand, count the saving in the establishment necessary for coercion—more, the saving in blood. A great measure, a worthy rival of the mightiest feats of statesmanship, would, without coercion, restore law and order in Ireland; law founded upon justice, order upon the contentment of a hopeful people.

said, he was unwilling to trespass on the time of the House; but he felt he would be abandoning his duty if he failed to express his opinion upon the important issues raised in the debate—a debate which placed the Ulster Members, of whom he was one, in a position of embarrassment. That embarrassment was caused by the action of the Government. The Prime Minister had expressed a hope the other evening that hon. Members would disregard any personal motive, be it what it might, as well as any Party motive. He (Mr. Litton) desired to give to that appeal a loyal response; but when he recollected that they were now asked to apply coercion to their fellow-countrymen, and when they recollected, further, that Her Majesty's Gracious Speech merely recommended an extension of the Land Act of 1870, he, for one, must give expression to the widespread and bitter disappointment which had been diffused throughout the whole of Ulster. Now, what was the essential principle of the Land Act? He could not give a better exposition than that which had been delivered by a noble Lord, an Irishman, high in Office, though not in the Ministry, and one who, he rather thought, had inspired in some degree the lines of Her Majesty's Gracious Speech. He alluded to Lord Dufferin, who said—

"The leading principle of the Land Act of 1870 was very clearly stated by several Members of the present Government. It accorded to the tenant compensation for his improvements, as well as further compensation in certain cases for capricious eviction."

But what was the recognized principle of the proposed remedy which had acquired an enormous and wonderful consensus of opinion in its favour as a remedy for the Irish Land Question? It was fixity of tenure, qualified if they pleased; but fixity of tenure, nevertheless. There must also be fair rents, and a free power of sale. Nothing short of that would satisfy the people of Ireland—at all events, in Ulster—or the Liberal Members of that House. He said the Ulster Members had been embarrassed. Let him explain. He, with others, had had hard work since Parliament was prorogued last autumn. They had no sympathy with the Land League or the Home Rule Party. They, in going through the Northern Counties of Ireland, had not spared themselves, and had, in meeting after meeting, pressed upon the people to keep the law; to look to that House as the object of their hope; that they had a case grounded in honesty, and at the head of Her Majesty's Government a statesman upon whom they could rely. By their exertions in that way they had kept the North of Ireland free from the excess of the West and South. ["No, no!"] Hon. Members on the other side of the House could hardly question the accuracy of that statement. There was none of that system of "Boycotting" in Ulster, which rendered the people afraid to express their feelings or exercise an opinion of their own. He did not say whether that was due to the action of himself and hon. Friends who came from that part of the country; but certainly they had impressed upon the people the duty, in the first instance, of obeying the law; secondly, of keeping within the limits of reasonable agitation; and, thirdly, of looking to the present Government for relief. They had also pointed out the progress of public opi- nion by which the principles which he had mentioned had come within the range of practical politics. Conservatives and Orangemen had given in their adhesion to the principles of the "three F's." At a great meeting at Killylea—a meeting exclusively of Orangemen—resolutions were passed adopting the principles of the "three F's." Lords Lifford, Emly, Powers court, Monteagle, Monck, and others had supported it; and now, after all their exertion, they found the ground cut from under them, and they were made almost ridiculous in the eyes of their constituents. The Land Act of 1870 had gone on the lines of compensation. But that would not suffice for the present emergency. They did not want compensation, but fixity in their holdings. No measure would be satisfactory which did not give a proprietary right in his holding to the tenant. So long as the man paid a fair rent he ought not to be evicted—so long as he paid that rent and observed fair conditions as to not wasting his land, and did not sub-divide his holding. There was no disposition in the North to interfere with landlords or landlordism. They were now led to expect that the Government Bill would go on the lines of the Act of 1870. Such a measure, he thought, would be inadequate, and could not receive his support, or, he thought, that of Liberal Members generally. His right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) had claimed a monopoly of independence and courage, and had called attention to his position in that House. It was true, he represented a constituency which never changed, which had stereotyped its opinion some 50 years ago, and was incapable of advance in political reform. His right hon. and learned Friend was himself an example of fixity of tenure, for he held his seat without danger of change. He (Mr. Litton), on the other hand, represented a constituency which had changed its opinion at the last Election, and that change was due to a desire to settle the Land Question on just and equitable principles. But though his constituency might change its opinions—he had no fear of their changing, not with standing that certain hon. Members opposite had been poaching on his preserves, and endeavouring to take away from him the allegiance of his constituents—yet he was not afraid, in the face of change, to express his opinion as freely as his right hon. and learned Friend. He condemned the Land League and the way in which its principles were worked out, notwithstanding the risk of exciting the displeasure of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar). But while he condemned the Land League, he could not shut his eyes to the injustice and the suffering under which the tenants had lived many years in Ireland under the present system of Land Law; nor could he shut his eyes to the temptations to which they had been subjected—temptations which they would be more than human or less than human to resist. While condemning Land League action; while abhorring the system of terrorism which undoubtedly prevailed in the West and South of Ireland, he could not but make allowance for what the people had suffered, and "love the sinner while he hated the sin." Having regard to the circumstances of the country, he could not vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork City; but, at the same time, he could not support the Government in the division which was about to take place on that Amendment; and he must only express a hope that in the progress of the debate they might have some further indication of the intentions of the Government. The result of the announcement of the Government proposals was well indicated by a telegram which he had received from Mr. Dickson, of Dungannon, a gentleman well known to many Members of that House, and a gentleman of unswerving Liberal principles. The telegram was as follows:—

"Government proposals most disappointing to Ulster Liberals, and universally condemned; agitation over Ulster will now be intensified, and Government may make permanent their coercive legislation."

If that was a true representation of the state of facts, and if the House was asked to look forward to permanent coercion for Ireland, there was not a Member of that House who would listen to it for a moment. In conclusion, he earnestly hoped that Her Majesty's Government, and more especially the Prime Minister, to whom they had looked up for the last four months, would indicate more fully the course intended to be taken in regard to Land Reform, in Ireland, and so bind together the two countries as a United Kingdom, by the ties of amity, friendship, and love.

said, they lad heard from time to time certain statements put forward to show that the wealth of Ireland had increased; but it night as well be asserted that because a, man had grown fat he had grown strong. It might as well be maintained; hat because a country had grown comparatively rich in the item of money, that that country had grown relatively more prosperous. The possession of money in an agricultural community where industry languished, because there was insecurity of tenure for farming operations, was a species of fatty degeneration of the heart of that community. It denoted no strength whatever. What was the cause of the condition of Ireland? The hon. Member for the City of Cork had said it was a question of £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 a-year. He believed it was quite a question of £3,000,000 per annum; and the question was, further, who was to forego that £3,000,000? He believed that the rents of the land in Ireland had been increased £3,000,000 since the Valuation Act of 1852. If the only additional burden the people of Ireland had to bear was this increase of rent, he believed there would have been no such disturbance as there was now in that country. If the increased rent were their only additional burden, he did not believe that the people would have been worse off in the year 1880 than in 1852, but a great deal better off. But from 1852 to 1877 the revenue raised from Ireland by Imperial taxation was increased from £4,000,000 to £7,000,000—he was speaking in round numbers, but still within the figures. This amount of money was taken, on the one hand, by the landlord, and on the other by the Government; and, as a result, the general community was yearly impoverished to a proportionate extent. It had been stated in the course of the debate on the Address that England bore many burdens which Ireland did not, and he believed that that was a fact. Nevertheless, the Irish were taxed on the whole, in proportion to their income, at the rate of 5 s. in the pound on all the visible income as shown in the various Income Tax Schedules and property tax levies, whilst the gross Imperial taxation of Great Britain was only 2 s. 6 d. in the pound on like Schedules. This ought to be remembered, when dealing with the problem of the land, as it was a question which the right hon. Gentleman at the head of Her Majesty's Government would not be able to settle equitably without coming to the House for a handsome sum to be granted, in order to set in motion the "Bright Clauses" of the Land Act of 1870. The taxation of the people of England and Scotland, taken together, only amounted to 2 s. 6 d. in the pound. That disparity of taxation was, to his mind, a practical portion of the Irish problem which must never be lost sight of. Ireland required exceptional legislation now, because, and inasmuch as, the people were impoverished by the extraordinary amount of Imperial taxation. Both sides of the House were to blame in that matter. He sincerely hoped the Prime Minister would not introduce any Land Bill that was not flanked by the grant or the advance of a large sum of money to make it effective in the manner shadowed forth, and he regretted to say only shadowed forth, by the "Bright Clauses" of the Land Act of 1870, and to enable the people to become part proprietors of the land, and that the existing proprietors might, by its operation, be fairly compensated, in certain cases, for the loss of the land. It was most expedient that the course he indicated should be pursued, and he cautioned Parliament against attempting to do anything without payment of money. The landlord would have to sacrifice much, and it was only fair that he should receive reasonable compensation for it. No one regretted more than he did the language used by certain speakers at local Land League meetings; but he was not a member of that body, and, therefore, did not feel himself responsible for their utterances. In conclusion, he hoped the Government would take to heart that something must be done in the shape of finding a large fund to be available on reasonable terms for solvent farmers, who were ready to buy their land from the present proprietors on terms acceptable to both parties.

said, as an Ulster Member, one of the few faithful among the faithless, as his hon. Friend the Member for Mayo termed them the other night, perhaps he might be allowed to make a few remarks. He must admit that it was with much regret he noticed the vagueness of the Gracious Speech from the Throne with regard to Land Reform in Ireland, especially when such prominence was previously given in the same Speech to the requirements of extra powers by the Executive; and though the remarks of the Prime Minister following shortly afterwards were more re-assuring, still they were not so distinct as some of his admirers in Ulster could have desired. Some little time back a public speaker, and, he believed, a Member of that House, said something to the effect that Scotch Members generally put their wants and requirements into definite and formal shape; but Irish Members did not do so in the present instance. The Ulster Liberal Members were not open to that charge. About a month ago they met in Dublin, and unitedly placed a Memorial in the hands of the Government embodying their opinion as to what was required to meet the acknowledged grievances under which the tenants had been suffering. To be brief, the pith of that Memorial was to the effect that besides a scheme for creating a peasant proprietary the programme now widely known as the "three F's" was loudly called for. As the Government Bill was not yet before them, they might, he trusted, live in the hope that when it appeared it would, in effect, embody those principles; and when Conservative landlords were at public meetings in Ulster adopting that programme it was hardly likely that the tenants would rest contented with any less. Let him not be misunderstood. The Ulster Liberals had not lost faith in Her Majesty's Government. They knew well that a Government so well open to the cry of the Irish tenant never sat on those Benches, and, perhaps, never would sit there again. They had not forgotten the efforts of his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary during the trying Session of last year when pushing forward the Compensation for Disturbance (Ireland) Bill. They had not forgotten how the Prime Minister, at the risk of alienating old and tried supporters, and at the risk of his health—he was about to say at the very risk of his life—pressed on this measure, which he declared was necessary for the protection of the Irish tenant. And, further, they believed that the Government were anxious to bring in a measure as favourable to the claims of the tenant as would find acceptance among those of the more timorous of their own followers, or stand a chance of passing unscathed through the hostile broadsides which would be sure to be poured upon it in "another place." But if he might, with deep respect, be permitted to say so, he almost doubted if the Government were fully aware of the great consensus of opinion which there existed in Ireland in favour of the "three P's." Certainly, nothing less would satisfy the respectable tenantry of Ulster. The Roman Catholic clergy had declared in favour of it. More remarkably still, the Ulster Conservatives were pronouncing in favour of it. Would the House permit him to read part of a speech made by the noble Lord the junior Member for Down? He said when a dispute arose as to what was a fair rent that dispute should be settled by a Court of Arbitration. He would also allow the tenant to sell his interest to the best advantage. The Belfast News Letter, the ably-conducted organ of the Ulster Tories, stated in a leader soon after that the duty of Ulster Conservatives at the present crisis was to aid the Government in passing a good measure. A Conservative meeting was lately held at Monaghan. There were present Lord Rossmore, Lord Mandeville, Lord Templetown, Sir William Verner, and many other gentlemen of position; and at that meeting a speaker said Sir Stafford Northcote called the "three F's" "folly, force, and fraud." ["Hear, hear!"] He noticed those cheers, and appreciated their meaning; but let him read a little further. The same speaker proceeded to say that if the Conservative Party continued to talk about force, fraud, and folly, those who up to the present time had followed them would do so no longer. What did hon. Members opposite say to that? Knowing that the House did not appreciate its time being taken up with too many extracts, he would refrain from reading more of a similar description, but would, in conclusion, express a respectful hope, in view of the great consensus of opinion just alluded to, that the Government measure when produced might embody at least the principles of the "three F's," and a rose by another name would smell as sweet; and if the Government should happen to lose a few Whig votes, perhaps they would find them replaced by those of Ulster Conservatives, who could not, after what had passed, stultify themselves by opposing such a programme. One thing was certain—that if they did at once and for ever take away from before the eyes of his fellow-countrymen the spectre of an unfair rent and unfair eviction they would soon have a different Ireland.

said, there never was a Government which came into Office which possessed more of the confidence of the people of Ireland than the present Government. There never was a Government to which the people of Ireland were more disposed to give fair play to, by reason of their anticipations of good from a Cabinet of which the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister was Chief, and in which were to be found the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and the right hon. Gentleman who filled the Office of Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. But, by reason of the great anticipations of the people of Ireland, the greater had been the disappointment which they had experienced. It was impossible for gentlemen resident in England, who simply read the accounts in the newspapers, to view questions connected with Ireland in the same light that Irishmen did. There was not an Irishman who was not painfully conscious that cries had reached this country by appealing for the relief of their distress, and that, up to the present time, those cries had remained unanswered. He did not purpose to enter into the subject further than to say that, at the present moment, the English people had no right to refuse justice to Ireland on this question, especially as they had had plenty of opportunities of late of mastering it. They had had the attention of the whole world directed to the state of the occupying tenants of Ireland. During the last three or four months they had had accounts from hon. Members; they had had newspaper correspondents describing the state of Ireland; they had had letters appearing both in the Liberal and Tory newspapers, showing what was the real state of the country. There had been letters in The Daily News and letters in The Standard, all of which showed that the Irish tenant was badly lodged and worse cared for. He need not, therefore, pur- sue that subject further than to express his disappointment that the question had received so little appreciation at the hands of Her Majesty's Government as appeared to be the case, if they were to judge from Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech. There was, however, one gleam of satisfaction, and he was proud to acknowledge it, and that was that he was glad to hear from the speech of the hon. Gentleman who represented Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) that through the influence of the Radicals and the Democracy of England the Government would be forced to give the question full consideration. In the few observations which he had to offer he intended to confine himself to the necessity expressed by the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant for coercion. The right hon. Gentleman said—and said with truth—that the first duty of the Government was to preserve law and order. The hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Slagg), in his speech in seconding the Address, said, with regard to the Land Act of 1870, that it had not prevented the unjust and arbitrary advance of rent. It had not secured the tenant in his right of occupancy, nor had it prevented the landlords appropriating that which was the property of the tenants. He considered those observations important, because they were referred to subsequently by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, who did not dissent from them; and the hon. Gentleman went on to say that there were, he feared, only too many instances in which the Act was ineffectual to prevent a state of things, the existence of which was a standing menace to law and order in Ireland. If the existing laws were a menace to law and order, it was the duty of Parliament to remove that standing menace. The South and West of Ireland had been described as being in a state of unmitigated anarchy. He was connected with a business in Cork and Limerick, which bad agencies scattered throughout the entire Province of Munster; and he could say that during the last three or four years small debts had never been better paid than in that Province. Among those who took part in the present agitation were Bishops, priests, merchants, and shopkeepers, and it enlisted every fair and honest man who recognized that a reform of the Land Laws might be obtained. He had had a long experience of Mr. Justice Fitzgerald, having served under him both as a-juror and as a grand juror, and he would describe him as a man utterly wanting in sympathy with his countrymen. His recent Charges were delivered for the House of Commons and for the London Press. He himself had seen Mr. Justice Fitzgerald, soon after the Charge was delivered, walking alone on the bank of the Lee, smoking a peaceful cigarette. If the state of that part of the country had been such as Mr. Justice Fitzgerald described, he did not think that that Judge would have been found alone at half-past 5 at night, two miles and a-half from the city of Cork. In the cases in which verdicts had not been obtained, he was able to say that many of the charges were supported by such evidence and witnesses that the defendants had every right to the benefit of reasonable doubt. The Irish people had passed through 30 or 40 years of great privation, during which period they had seen the Imperial Government spend £100,000,000 on the Crimean War and £30,000,000 on a scientific Frontier in Afghanistan and the war in Zululand; and while Ireland had been required to contribute more than its fair proportion of the cost of these wars, they had a right to insist that Irish questions should receive as much attention as English questions. He condemned the action of the Government in suppressing public meetings, and said he believed the adoption of such a course led to secret conspiracy. The Government might smother the flames by coercion; but they would not extinguish the fires, which would smoulder and burst out in every crevice. They could no more crush the agitation than they could crush the Gospel of God. There was no remedy but justice; and it was of no use asking the Irish Members to satisfy the Irish people with the assurance that the Land Act of 1870 was to be amended, and that the doctrine of compensation was to be extended.

said, he was not one of those who objected to the language employed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) in moving his Amendment to the Address. He was not only content to accept what he had said, but he was content even to go a great deal further. He not only believed that the peace and tranquillity of Ireland could not be promoted by the suspension of any of the Constitutional rights of the Irish people, but he was prepared to say that the peace and tranquillity of Ireland had for five centuries and a half been prevented in consequence of those Constitutional rights having been interfered with. He was perfectly certain that the policy which had been adopted for so many centuries towards Ireland had been full of peril to this country, productive of inordinate expense, and had weakened its reputation. The question now imperatively called for a solution. He believed that one of the very earliest Resolutions on the subject ever come to in the House was 550 years ago. [ Laughter. ] He did not think that the laughter which greeted his remark was precisely to the purpose; and he would remind those hon. Gentlemen opposite that it was their "No surrender" policy that had caused that country to be in its present condition. This ancient House then passed a Resolution in the following form:—

"It is ordained that the King shall go to Ireland, and to prepare his way a certain number of forces under able commanders shall be sent before him, and those especially who hold lauds there shall go speedily over to the defence of that people, and that all learned in the law who may be appointed as justices shall by no means be excused on any pretence whatever, and that search be made in his Majesty's records to see what methods have been previously adopted for civilizing and well governing the people of Ireland."

That was the policy of the House more than five centuries ago, and he was sorry to say it was still so in consequence of want of wisdom and knowledge which prevailed. The Liberal Party had some reasons of complaint with those who called themselves Home Rulers. If the House desired to hear what he said at Reading—["No, no!" and "Hear, hear!"]—at all events, the effect of it was that he considered the Scotch Members had sense and wit, and determination to follow their game and bring it down; whereas the Irish Members did not follow any game, but were engaged at howling at the moon. He said also that he conceived there was no greater misfortune to the Irish people, and no greater aid could come to the English people, than a severance of the two countries. Another complaint the Liberal Party had to make of the Home Rulers was that they made no legisla- tive proposals. Their practice was constant obstruction and no work. They seemed now, however, to have a policy: for the first time since the days of Wood's halfpence Irishmen were united. A certain class of the Irish had been induced to adopt the rule, copied from the worst ages of Roman history, of aquœ et igni interdictio. There could be nothing more detestable than constraining men to forego the fellowship with one's fellows; nothing more detestable could be devised. There could be no more utter abuse of liberty than that of forbidding the right of dealing with their fellow-countrymen which had been effected by some among the people of Ireland. The time would come when hon. Members opposite would regret that they had ever introduced the most barbarous method of any of those practiced in Imperial Rome. He was obliged to admit that the hon. Member for the City of Cork had a very strong case—stronger almost than any which had occurred within the history of the English Parliament—and Irish Members might, indeed, be justly indignant with the results of last Session. The Chief Secretary for Ireland was induced at an evil moment to divide his Bill. The Bill for the relief of the landlords was, of course, passed in "another place;" but they all knew the result of the other half of the scheme to redress the wrongs of the tenants. The rejection of that measure was a deliberate attempt to embroil Her Majesty's Government with the Irish people; but he asked the Irish Members whether it was worth while to adopt the tactics pursued by them; whether it would not be better for them to agree with the people who meant them well, rather than to play into the hands of those who practised the "No surrender" policy of the last 550 years? Was there a single Member of the Opposition that had said a single word that was consolatory to the Irish people? He read a report of a speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote), who represented that the policy of the whole Irish people in this emergency was one of "fraud, force, and folly;" and he said that that was the most wicked and foolish speech—["Oh!"]—if it was correctly reported; yes, be repeated it, the most wicked and foolish speech that he had ever read; but he hoped the Irish Members would see where justice, common sense, and order would be found. The position of the Opposition reminded him of the saying that persons who continually said that crimes were being committed were themselves guilty of crime, of the criticism of the great Roman historian—" Scelus cose fœctum loquuntur, faciuntque. " The hon. Member for the City of Cork had certainly achieved the result pointed out by the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell), of uniting Ireland, as almost the whole of that country was unanimously asking for Land Reform on the broadest basis. The hon. Member for the City of Cork had reason to complain of the London newspapers. Many merely imaginary cases of outrage had been reported. In fact, the statements were cooked for the London Clubs. His hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) talked about the sacredness of land contracts; but when they came to an Irish land contract it was a man holding in his hand an instrument of extortion inflicting beggary on his tenant. It was one man with a settled estate trying to grind to the utmost the man with a precarious tenancy; one man who was secured by an atrocious law—the Law of Distress—against the unprotected debts of the rest. A dozen years ago, before the hon. Member for the City of Cork was heard of, he came to the conclusion that a radical change in the Irish Land Laws in the direction of what was now called the "three F's" was inevitable. He had distributed pretty widely among Members of the House a pamphlet which he had written on the subject, and in which he had not altered a single word. He would tell them the history of his experience when he was travel-ling in Ireland. He went into the West, and tried to find out what the facts really were. In one of the districts to which he went—he thought Irishmen called it a barony—a term which appeared to be a relic of a vile feudal age—he found some 8,000 or 10,000 in a state of terrible distress. It happened that the whole district was possessed by an English nobleman, one of the most generous and considerate of landowners. His people had thriven, not under a legal system, but under an honourable understanding common enough in England, but which he wished was commoner in Ireland than it was. But just at the time he was there, there came down an intimation that his eldest son had been indulging in what is called "plunging" on the turf; there was a rumour that he had done worse. These people did not know what plunging on the turf was; but, at any rate, the news came down of the young gentleman plunging on the turf. They knew very well that the father of the nobleman had been a very hard landlord, and had introduced that form of white slavery in which nothing was left but a bare subsistence to the tenant, all the rest, according to our detestable laws, being the property of the landlord. The whole district was thrown into confusion and alarm lest the old days of the grandfather should come back in the days of the grandson; and he came to the conclusion that 8,000 or 10,000 people ought not to be left to the casual virtue or the probable vice of a single landowner. When no public opinion was felt in Ireland that kind of oppression was not only possible, but frequent. He knew very well that since the Land Act of 1870, which hon. Members on the other side were rather disposed to abuse, a good many Irish landlords had put their house in order. There had been a great deal more good done in Ireland since the passing of his right hon. Friend's Act than was ever done before. If the Act of 1870, which various foolish and dishonest persons abused, were thoroughly amended in certain directions, it would, he believed, not only satisfy the Irish people, but give the hon. Member for Cork City a new field in which to employ his unexhausted energies. And now a word as to the question of rent. It was the hardest thing in the world to increase rent in a purely agricultural country. It could be fairly and properly increased only when the country was at once manufacturing and agricultural. Why there were not manufactories in Ireland was a question of history, one which ought to be stated, would be stated, and must be stated. Ireland was a country of wasted experiments, simply because the law had wasted the energies of its people. Having stated what he thought of the case with regard to Ireland, and what his experience had been in relation to it, he would be expected to say why, unlike the hon. Member for Salford, he should feel it his duty to vote with Her Majesty's Government in relation to the present Amendment. It was not his business to pronounce a eulogy on the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. But he would ask hon. Gentlemen opposite whether they ever had an Irish Secretary who had been historically more sympathetic with the Irish people? Would hon. Members opposite compare him with the late Chief Secretary, the genial and right hon. James Lowther? The difference between them was that the one was always trying to please them, the other was continually insulting them. For many years, even before many of them were born, the Irish Secretary did good service for Ireland; and though it was sometimes rather hard to be just to people who perpetually thwarted one, one must be generous and just. It was the creed of those who sat on the Liberal Benches—"Be just and fear not." So far as he could gather, the means which the right hon. Gentleman intended to adopt for the pacification of the country which he governed would not be means of violence, nor such as would cause any serious injury to the liberties of Ireland. Something would perhaps be done to protect witnesses who might give evidence in cases of outrage; but the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) would still be able to hurl the denouncements of his fiery wrath against the Saxon. And with regard to other Members of the Government, he could not suppose that the Prime Minister was going to be cowed by another House or by the voices of hon. Gentlemen opposite, or to be frightened from a sound economic experiment. Such a supposition was an outrage on his own impressions, which were also the impressions of united Europe, of all civilized nations, of everybody who was not a tyrant, and most unaccountably, of all other Englishmen except some hon. Members who sat on the opposite Benches. He ventured to say that as a result of the intended reforms, Ireland, from being a reproach and a scandal to us, would become a Belgium or a Switzerland; for he was satisfied the people of Ireland were quite as capable of developing their wealth under another system as they had shown themselves capable of fighting against the malign influences which had been exercised upon them for five centuries and a half.

said, that he should not have risen to take part in that debate if he thought that what he was about to say was likely to lead to bitter or prolonged controversy between the two great Parties in that House. He was most anxious to avoid, at the present moment, any such contention, for it must be abundantly clear to everyone that each day, each hour that passed before these great questions were settled were of the utmost importance to Ireland, and might abound with dangers to the Empire. Therefore, he should not that night arraign Ministers for their long neglect—their abandonment of the government of Ireland. On Friday night his right hon. and learned Friend and Colleague (Mr. Gibson) had dealt with that part of the subject; and every fair-minded man must admit that his words of censure were as just as they were strong and moderate. He (Mr. Plunket) entirely adopted his right hon. and learned Friend's language; but to-night he felt it his duty to give to Her Majesty's Government all the support he could in that wiser policy that they had at last accepted, and thus to hasten the restoration of law and order to Ireland. He confessed that he was not a little surprised at the two speeches which were made at the beginning of that evening from below the Gangway opposite. The hon. Gentlemen who spoke them seemed to him to have ignored the fact that the Ministers now responsible for the safety of the Government and of the country were the Leaders of their own political Party, and he thought they must also have forgotten the extreme gravity of the present crisis, as described in the Gracious Speech from the Throne. Her Majesty had been advised to make that Speech by a Cabinet which contained within it men who could not, even by the most ardent Radical, be suspected of any desire to sacrifice liberty, or to ask an hour too soon for the exceptional powers that were necessary to enforce the law in Ireland. How, then, explain the conduct of the two hon. Members? If he was to characterize it briefly, he should say that it was an attempt to "Boycott the Whigs." After a long indictment of Whig views, not upon the present issue, but upon the Land Question, one of the hon. Members ended with the agreeable intimation that an agitation against his own Government should begin forthwith at Manchester, and, carrying the fiery cross throughout all the great Parliamentary boroughs of the North, should end in Birmingham. And it was even intimated that the right hon. Members for Birmingham would be expected to attend the indignation meeting in that town! Well, he (Mr. Plunket) had latterly observed that when there was anything disagreeable for the Liberal Party it was pretty sure to begin and end in Birmingham. Indeed, some irreverent Tories—of whom, he feared, he was himself one—had hinted that those two right hon. Gentlemen did not always make matters very pleasant within the family circle of the Cabinet; but he must own that it would be something startling, if not indecent, to find them openly denouncing their Colleagues upon a public platform. Were not these two speeches made with the view of delaying the progress of a measure which those hon. Members knew must and would be passed? Were they not made to embarrass the Ministers in their proposals for the protection of life and property in Ireland, and thus to force the hand of their own Government over the Irish Land Question, and to compel them to shape their measure—the details of which were still unknown—in the direction desired by those hon. Members? If that were so, he would ask the House and the country whether such tactics at such a crisis were fair, or English, or patriotic? He must confess that the speech of the hon. Member for the County of Cork (Mr. Shaw) was such as he did not expect to hear from him. The hon. Member did all he could to minimize the serious nature of the crisis; he said that he had gone all about his county, and had not found anarchy in the ordinary relations of life, though he must know perfectly well that it was not with the ordinary relations of life that they were now concerned; but as to any question touching the land agitation, he had to admit that the utmost tension, and even danger, was apparent. The hon. Member for the County of Cork had also assured them that the bank of which he was himself the chairman was doing very well. At that he (Mr. Plunket) was not surprised, inasmuch as the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had told them that in consequence of the action of the Land League there were in the pockets of the tenantry about £5,000,000 which otherwise would not have been there; and of that £5,000,000, no doubt, a considerable proportion had found its way into the excellent bank of the hon. Member (Mr. Shaw), which was popular with the farmers of Munster. Then the hon. Member for Cork County recalled the failure of the potato crop a year previously, in order to attack the late Government for neglect of the people during that affliction. In many previous debates the late Government had fully vindicated their conduct in that matter. And what useful purpose, he (Mr. Plunket) asked, could now be served by re-opening that old controversy, at a time when Ireland was enjoying the fruits of the best harvest known for 40 years? Neither would he (Mr. Plunket) now challenge the present Ministry for their attempts to alleviate that very grave distress; for the truth, of course, was that both the present Government and their Predecessors had attempted all that could be well and wisely done to mitigate the sufferings of the unhappy people during the time of their want. The hon. Member for the County of Cork had said that he did not believe that the public meetings had anything to do with the outrages. On that point he (Mr. Plunket) was willing to rely on the testimony of the Chief Secretary, that those meetings were immediately followed by outrages. But then the hon. Member proceeded to admit that the local organizations were very dangerous. He (Mr. Plunket) agreed that, but for the co-operation of these local conspiracies, the meetings and the displays of eloquence would do comparatively little harm. In point of fact, the people became excited, and then they fell back upon their old organizations of Ribbon-men and Fenians. [ Cries of "No!" from below the Gangway. ] He would afterwards, if time permitted, explain in detail, with reference to this subject, not what he had read in newspapers, but what he knew from his own observations on the spot. At present he merely wished to remark that he entirely agreed with the statement made by his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland the other day, in the course of the State trials, that there was a net-work of small conspiracies throughout the whole of the country co-operating with the general conspiracy. Next, as to the Land Question, he must say that it was hardly fair for the hon. Member for the County of Cork to give to the House his general views on the land agitation, for the hon. Member was one of the Royal Commissioners who were appointed to report to the Government the evidence when it was complete; and the hon. Member should have reserved his opinions until, upon due notice, the House would have an opportunity of carefully considering the conclusions at which he and his Colleagues had arrived. In these circumstances, it was most inconvenient; he must repeat, it was hardly fair, for his hon. Friend to state those conclusions on the present occasion. As to the able speech of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell), it was not really directed to the important issue now raised. That speech was, in part, an attack on the present Government, on account of their supposed intention to introduce an insufficient Land Bill; and, in part, an attack upon the Tories; but it was not just—it was not in accordance with fact—to impute to the Conservative Party an utter unwillingness to consider grievances with regard to the Land Question. It was a matter of history that, in 1870, the Conservative Party almost unanimously supported the Government of the present Prime Minister in carrying the Land Bill of that year; and the new schemes of legislation now-a-days proposed had been quite as strongly resisted by Members of the present Cabinet, and by their principal Law Officer for Ireland, as by any Member of the Conservative Party. When the evidence and Reports of the two Land Commissions, together with the deliberate proposals of the Government, were before them, he, for one, and he believed he might speak for all those about him, would give the subject the most perfectly frank and fair consideration. Turning now to the hon. Member for Cork City (Mr. Parnell), and his attempts to minimize the state of anarchy and the reign of terror now prevailing in Ireland, he had certainly, on the last night of that debate, made a most crafty, or, perhaps, he ought rather to say, judicious speech, from his point of view. He aggravated his voice, and "roared them as gently as any sucking- dove—indeed, and 'twere any nightingale!" But hon. Members who had had an opportunity of studying the speeches made by the hon. Member for Cork City in Ireland must have been astonished at the difference of tone displayed between his utterances within that House and outside of it. He (Mr. Plunket) had been rather amused the other night by the vehemence of some of the followers of the hon. Member (Mr. Parnell), who, in demanding the retraction of a certain criticism passed upon the hon. Member's speech by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, showed themselves plus royalistes que le Roi, for they seemed to forget that the hon. Member had himself admitted—

"That every politician who attempted to originate any movement in Ireland must know that if that movement had for its object the relief of distress, murder and outrage would surely follow."

said, the report of his speech in The Times, from which the right hon. and learned Member was probably judging, was not correct.

said, the report in The Times was always extremely correct, and in this instance it entirely agreed with his own recollection of what had been said. Whilst dealing with this question of the amount of crime and outrage attending this land agitation, he must, in passing, notice that the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk had found fault with Mr. Justice Fitzgerald for his remarks upon the state of Munster, as to which he thought he had been influenced by the Grand Jury. Now, everyone acquainted with Mr. Justice Fitzgerald knew that there was no man in Ireland less likely to be unduly influenced in the discharge of his duty than he. He had been all his life a man of the highest character, a Liberal of the Liberals, and a Roman Catholic; and his testimony was, not only that his task in vindicating the law had been a hopeless one, but that even while the Judges were on that Circuit an increase of lawlessness had taken place around them, and that some measure for remedying that state of things was absolutely necessary. It was not his intention on this occasion to quote statistics, or to give detailed examples of the system of terrorism and outrage which had almost been raised to the dignity of an exact science in Ireland for the purpose of intimidation; but he wished to tell the House one or two circumstances of which he knew of his own personal experience, and which were, he thought, good illustrations of the state of the country. He would not now refer to some very painful and awful scenes of which he had been a witness; but he might mention, as one proof of the paralysis of law which had so long been suffered to prevail, what had happened when, in the end of last October, he was travelling on the borders of Mayo and Galway with a friend, who was one of the most popular and respected landlords in that part of the conntry. They were met by the officer of constabulary, whose duty it was to protect, as far as he could, life and property in that district; and he, in effect, thus spoke to his friend—"You, no doubt, consider that you are perfectly safe. You may suppose, and it is probably perfectly true, that 19 out of 20, or, perhaps, 99 out of every 100 individuals on your property or in the county would be horrified if any attempt were made on your life; but," he added, "if there be anyone on your estate, or anywhere else, who harbours a grudge against you, and who for any cause chooses to take your life, though there might be plenty of persons present when the crime is committed who wish you no ill-will, they dare not arrest the criminal. Even if arrested, it would be next to impossible to produce evidence against him; and even if such evidence were forthcoming no jury would convict." It therefore comes to this—that evil-disposed persons know that they have absolute immunity unless there be retaliation on the spot; and so this officer advised his friend to take police protection. This he spoke from his own knowledge of the facts, and he thought it was high time that the English people had such information given to them at first hand. He might also state, from his own observation, that within an area of 10 miles of Mr. Boycott's farm there were 10 persons under police protection, none of whom dared to move from his house, night or day, except under the protection of armed men, whose assistance they had obtained on the advice of the authorities. He could say a great deal more on this subject of the unhappy fate of persons in the position of landowners or their agents; but he would refrain. He had said it all before in the presence of a large meeting of English working men, and he felt certain that every law-abiding man of every class, no matter how he might be divided from him by Party politics or religion, would admit with him that the present state of things in Ireland was intolerable. But this tyranny was by no means applied only to the landlord classes; and, as an instance of this, he might say that some time back he was walking across one of those black peat bogs in Ireland from which the peasants gathered their supplies of fuel. They build up their little stacks of turf against a stone wall, and afterwards take it away from time to time as they want it during the winter. Two of these stacks had been burnt. Nothing remained but the whitened stones. The owners had displeased the Land League; and, on an inquiry being made as to why they did not demand compensation, the answer was that if any such claim was made the same persons who fired the stacks would next burn down the owners' houses. There was another case of a tenant farmer paying some £40 or £50 a-year of rent—an altogether different person from the poor creatures who owned the peat stacks, and who, as they could not even speak a word of English, might receive sympathy without danger to the sympathizers of showing too much consideration for the "English garrison"—an honest, industrious man, who had raised himself by his own exertions. This man asked for assistance, because the herds who attended his cattle had been warned that they must not tend them longer, and the animals were scattered about the country. This strong man—he was about 45 years of age—said, with tears upon his cheeks, that he had been trying for 18 years to keep a roof over the head of himself and his family, but that there were people about now who would not let any man live who wished to earn a shilling honestly and spend it peaceably. The hon. Member for the City of Cork had brought forward his Amendment because he said the Constitution was about to be suspended; but the fact was that in such cases as he had now described the Constitution was already suspended for the Irish people. It was not now a question between the ordinary law and exceptional law, for the ordinary law was dead; but it was a question between exceptional law, which had been rendered necessary, and the Land League law. The hon. Member for Cork City said, further, the object of his agitation was to put an end to rack-renting, and he boasted that he had been the means of causing some £5,000,000 to remain in the hands of the tenantry, instead of, as would have been the case under the ordinary law of the country, finding its way into the pockets of the landlords. As far as he could see, the effect of the proposal of the hon. Member for Cork City came to this—that a third of the income of the landlords was to be taken from them and handed over to the tenants. This was simply plunder, and he ventured to ask the English people whether this was a proposal which they would for a moment sanction? The hon. and learned Member for Dundalk said he thought his right hon. and learned Friend and Colleague (Mr. Gibson) ought, in his speech the other night, to have shown some charity towards the views of those who differed in opinion from him. This was all very well; and as far as he (Mr. Plunket) was able to judge, his right hon. and learned Friend was not open to the charge of having shown any bad feeling on the subject. Speaking for himself, he had no intention of saying one word against the Home Rule Members personally. As to their motives in this land agitation, he said nothing; but what he had to deal with was the result of their policy and with their public acts as public men, and on those he meant freely to comment. And now, he said, that-the results of that policy and of those acts had been most disastrous to Ireland, and that they tended directly to break up the Empire. [ A laugh. ] The hon. Member for Cavan laughed at that remark, and, no doubt, he would rejoice at such a prospect, for his Friends had often pointed to that ultimate object, and had said that but for the hope of obtaining it they would not have thought it worth their while to go into the movement. What was the character of these five millions of solid money which the hon. Member for Cork City offered the people of Ireland? No wonder he was proud of it, for it was the talisman with which he had achieved his wonderful popularity. It was such a bribe as was never offered to a people before. The hon. Member commenced by saying that he would only put down the rack-rents; but then he proceeded to tell the people that they themselves should be the judges of what they should pay. He further advised them that they should first pay the shopkeeper and the tradesman and then provide for themselves, and after they had done all this they were to consider what they would give their landlords. Never since the days of the famous Jack Cade had such a bribe been offered. The hon. Member for Cork City and his con-federates appealed to their patriotism, and told the Irish people that there had been historic wrongs in other times and that former generations of landlords had inflicted great grievances upon them which should efface the memory of recent kindness, that the rights of the landlord class were all equally founded upon confiscation and robbery, and that the title even of him who had bought his property in recent times and with money earned by the sweat of his brow was tainted with these ancient wrongs. When the people were thus prepared for what was coming, when they were excited by these enthusiastic appeals to their patriotism, when they were maddened by this recital of their ancient wrongs, when they were bewildered by these communistic theories, then came the tempter with this enormous bribe; and was it to be wondered at that the man, however honest, found the bribe irresistable? He (Mr. Plunket) believed that the ordinary Irish tenant—he knew it was true of those amongst whom he had lived—were by habit willing, and by the teaching of their religion enjoined, faithfully to observe their obligations and honestly to discharge their debts. But the House must remember, when they saw them taking part in this gigantic scheme of repudiation, how they had been worked upon. Was not this sufficient to account for what had occurred? And when they were told in that House by enthusiastic reformers to lift up their eyes and behold the grand and noble spectacle before them of a nation awakening to a sense of its rights, he maintained that the people were being taught to take and keep in their pockets that which was not theirs. He had been looking the other day at a description of a state of things which was not unlike what was now to be seen in Ireland, and it was written by one who well knew human nature. The lines of Shakespeare applied to some, at least, of those who had taken a prominent part in this Irish agitation. It was Shakespeare who made his Jack Cade to say—

"Be brave then; for your captain is brave, and vows reformation. There shall be in England seven halfpenny loaves sold for a penny: the three-hooped pot shall have ten hoops; and I will make it felony to drink small beer: all the realm shall be in common, and in Cheap side shall my palfrey go to grass; and when I am king, as king I will be, there shall be no money: all shall eat and drink on my score; and I will apparel them all in one livery, that they may agree like brothers, and worship me their lord."

Further, he went on to say—

"And you, that love the commons, follow me,

Now show yourselves men; 'tis for liberty.

We will not leave one lord, one gentleman:

Spare none but such as go in clouted shoon;

For they are thrifty honest men, and such

As would (but that they dare not) take our parts.

Away, burn all the records of the realm; my mouth shall be the Parliament of England."

But, turning now to the practical effects of this teaching, and to what was no laughing matter, he referred to the case of Colonel King-Harman, who was well know to have been a good landlord—one of the kindest and most popular in Connaught. Well, his property was let under Griffith's valuation, and yet his tenants had demanded a reduction of 25 per cent on their rents. They came to him the other day 500 strong; they were headed by two bands, and marched in military order to the office. He told them that on his large estates in Roscommon, Sligo, and Queen's County, the rents were under the Government valuation—Griffith's valuation was £24,732, and the actual rental was only £22,000. Before his assembled tenantry he asked whom had he distrained for rent, whom had he threatened, whom had he pressed, whose crops had he seized? He then went on to say God knew he had worked not alone for the good of the tenantry on his own estate, but of the people of the whole of the West of Ireland, for whom he obtained thousands of pounds in the time of their distress. He called them to witness how he had spent his time, his money, and his energy trying to befriend his people—and what had been his thanks? Any paid adventurer might get up up a meeting at his gate and call him what name he liked. "Not one of your tenants has done so," was the reply to that. He said, "You allowed it to be done." He then went on to say he was afraid the demand for a reduction of 25 per cent of rent was one he could not entertain; his property had many charges and calls upon it; but he would tell them what he would do. If any tenant had a grievance, his case would be carefully considered. He told his tenantry that if he were to assent to their demands and forfeit one-fourth of his property it would be simply his ruin. Then there were cheers, and they went away to consider what they should do; but they were met outside by Jack Cade. He told them—"Hold the harvest;" "keep a firm grip on your land;" "pay only what you like"—

asked whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman meant to say that the rents paid by the tenants were all under Griffith's valuation?

Was that the morality openly preached in the House of Commons?

rose to make an observation, whereupon—

said, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman desired to give way, the hon. Member might make a remark; otherwise, not.

said, that the last interruption had not been such a happy one as to induce him to give way on the present occasion. He had, he feared, already trespassed too long. [", Go on !"] Of course, it was not for him to say one word as to what measures of protection for life and property were now necessary in Ireland. That question was not then before the House. He was well aware that the responsibility and the difficulty of the Government were very great. This matter had been allowed to grow to a maturity which was extremely difficult to deal with. The Land League had seized on many important interests, coigns of vantage from which it would be difficult to dislodge them. If the Government gave way to this anarchy, they would drive out of Ireland all the most educated and influential in the upper and middle class. Too few already, they would be altogether banished from the land, and then the agitators would attain the end desired—they would succeed in throwing off all connection with England and in breaking up their ancient Empire. But if, on the other hand, they even now, at the eleventh hour, would only act with firmness, and, treating these combinations as criminal, would meet them not with palliation, but with punishment, they would rally round them many men who were now suffering from an intolerable tyranny, but who would then gladly flock to the standards of law and order. They had, no doubt, to deal with a most difficult and dangerous conspiracy. But other conspiracies more difficult and dangerous had before now been confronted and overborne by Governments having the courage to believe in the justice of their country's cause, and to enforce the authority of the law entrusted to their keeping. If they did so, those storms of popular passion that at that moment raged on the other side of the Channel, as though they would devastate society and leave the Empire in wreck and ruin, would pass away but as a sudden squall in comparison with the tempests of other days. Then order and prosperity might return to the land, and his countrymen again devote themselves to the material advantage and the union of all classes of the people; and whilst they retained, proudly retained, their own nationality—which he, for one, had no wish to see impaired—they would still prosper in the same Union with England which Scotland had long enjoyed, and would share in the wealth and the power and the glory of that Empire, whose greatness Irishmen had done so much to build up and to maintain.

moved the adjournment of the debate.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—( Mr. Mitchell Henry. )

remarked, that, of course, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister would not propose to take the first reading of either of the Coercion Bills to-night? He asked the Question, because if the debate were not adjourned until half-past 12, the right hon. Gentleman would be prevented by the Rules of the House from doing so. He was sure it was not the wish of the House to take those measures at a late hour.

In answer to the hon. Gentleman, I have to say there is no intention whatever of making a Motion for the introduction of either of these Bills now. Indeed, they are down for to-morrow. I wish now to give Notice that to-morrow, in conformity with established precedent for continuing the debate on the Address without intermission, that I propose to move at half-past 4 that Notices of Motion be postponed until after the Order of the Day for resuming the adjourned debate on the Address to Her Majesty has been disposed of. I have no intention of offering any opposition to the adjournment.

Motion agreed to.

Debate further adjourned till To-morrow.

I beg to move for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the "Naval Discipline Act, 1866," with a view to abolish corporal punishment; and for other purposes relating thereto. I trust that this Bill will provoke no debate, and certainly I shall say nothing to provoke one. It is a Bill introduced in consequence of repeated promises to deal with the question of flogging in the Navy. Its provisions are extremely brief. It withdraws all authority to inflict corporal punishment in the British Navy under the sentence of any court martial, or under any other circumstances whatever. It enables commanding officers, after summary trial, to inflict somewhat longer terms of imprisonment than at present upon offenders. I need not say anything in regard to the other provisions at the present stage. I trust that the House will give the Bill an unopposed first reading, on the assurance that it represents the opinions of the Board of Admiralty and of very eminent naval officers who have been consulted.

said, he intended to offer no opposition to the introduction of the Bill that evening. As the hon. Gentleman had made a statement in introducing the Bill, it ought to have been a little more full and complete. It must certainly be understood that the measure, in its future stages, would be opposed if its provisions were found to be unsatisfactory.

expressed a hope that his hon. Friend (Mr. Trevelyan), before he placed the Bill upon the Paper for a second reading, would state to the House the nature of the opinions which he had received upon the subject from naval officers. A promise was given last Session that naval officers and others connected with the discipline of the Navy should be consulted on the matter; and before the second reading was taken, he hoped his hon. Friend would allow him to move for a Return of any opinions which had been received from the authorities who had been consulted before the Bill was introduced.

Motion agreed to.

Bill to amend "The Naval Discipline Act, 1866," with a view to abolish corporal punishment; and for other purposes relating thereto, ordered to be brought in by Mr. TREVELYAN and Mr. BRASSEY.

Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 52.]

moved—

"That a Standing Committee be appointed to control the arrangements of the Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms in the department of the Sergeant at Arms attending this House."

The noble Lord said, he knew that, at the present time, there were many shortcomings in connection with the Kitchen and Refreshment Department; but he hoped that hon. Members would make some allowance, seeing that the late caterer only resigned just before the close of last Session, and there was very little time for selecting a successor and making the necessary arrangements. The present contractor was quite new to the work, and, with things not in working order, he had a great strain upon him on the opening night. He (Lord Kensington) assured the House that the Committee would do all in their power for the comfort and convenience of Members. He hoped, and had reason to believe, that the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Callan), who opposed the appointment of the Committee on Friday, would not renew his opposition; and with regard to the hon. Member's proposal to add the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Clare (Captain O'Shea) to the Committee, he was sure there would be no objection, and that the Committee would be very glad to have the advantage of the hon. and gallant Member's assistance.

said, he had opposed the appointment of the Committee on Friday, and he wished to explain why he had done so then, and why he did not persist with that opposition now. He withdrew his opposition because he was given to understand that provision had been made for a new caterer, and because there was to be an infusion of new blood into the Committee. The noble Lord had gracefully yielded to the nomination of the hon. and gallant Member for Clare County, and probably the hon. and gallant Member, like most military men, would have had a large experience in matters such as those which were likely to be brought before the Committee. He (Mr. Callan) had had the honour of a seat in that House for 12 years, and he well remembered that when he entered the House first the kitchen arrangements were excellent and the dinners were well provided. They had since been gradually getting from bad to worse, until last year they became intolerably bad; and it was with the view of securing an improvement that he opposed the nomination of the Committee the other night, and suggested the addition to the Committee of the hon. and gallant Member for Clare County. If anything was desired by the Committee they had only to apply to the First Commissioner of Works, who would see that their wishes were promptly attended to. The day before Parliament assembled, with natural curiosity, he inspected the House, and he saw that accommodation had been provided in the Reporters' Gallery for an increased number of gentlemen of the Press. He believed that upwards of 50 new hands had come into the Gallery; and as they were gentlemen on whom the House would very much depend for the transcription of their speeches, he thought the Kitchen Committee were bound to see that the wants of the gentlemen in question were also attended to. He hoped the First Commissioner of Works would be asked to pay a visit in the course of the Session, during luncheon hours, to the rooms now occupied by the reporters, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman would at once see the necessity of providing additional accommodation. In consequence of the increased number of re- porters an additional room had been provided for the transcription of notes, and he thought that some further dining accommodation was absolutely necessary. It was the duty of the House to be as considerate of the reporters, to whom they owed so much, as of themselves. It was also desirable that something should be done to provide the strangers, who were their constituents, with proper means of obtaining refreshments in the corridors upstairs when they visited the House during the sitting of the Committees. The nature of the present provision in this respect was a matter of much complaint. The wants of both the reporters and the strangers should be equally attended to with those of Members of the House. As he had already intimated, he did not intend to oppose the present Motion, and he presumed that the noble Lord, in moving the names, would add that of the hon. and gallant Member for Clare County.

said, that he had been for some years a Member of this Committee. Although hitherto the Press Department had been served by one contractor and the Members by another, they were now all under the same contractor. He believed, however, that the Kitchen Committee had nothing to do with the refreshments supplied to the gentlemen of the Press upstairs. If it should be otherwise, he thought that as much attention should be paid to the comfort and accommodation of the gentlemen of the Press as was paid to those of Members of the House.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered, That a Standing Committee be appointed to control the arrangements of the Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms, in the department of the Serjeant at Arms attending this House:—Mr. MAURICE BROOKS, Sir WILLIAM DYKE, Mr. EDWARDS, Sir EDMUND FILMER, Sir GABRIEL GOLDNEY, Mr. GUEST, Sir ARTHUR HAYTER, LORD KENSINGTON, Mr. MONK, Mr. MUNTZ, Mr. RICHARD POWER, LORD HENRY THYNNE, Sir HENRY WOLFF, and Captain O'SHEA:—Three to be the quorum.