I beg to be permitted to give an explanation with, regard to an answer which I gave yesterday to a Question relating to Greek affairs. The hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead Bartlett) desired to know whether Her Majesty's Government could lay on the Table of the House the despatch in which they advised the Greek Government to mobilize their Army? Thinking that a false impression might be produced by that Question remaining on the Paper, I asked leave to make an immediate reply. In doing so I said that the Government, so far from being the first to advise the Greek Government to mobilize their Army, were the last to withdraw their objection to that proceeding. I was reported in two of the morning papers as having said that Papers had already been laid upon the Table of the House. I did not say so. I wish, however, to state the substance of those Papers. They consist of a large number of short, confidential telegrams. On the 28th of July of last year Her Majesty's Government were informed that objection to the mobilization of the Greek Army by all the other Great Powers had been withdrawn. Finding this to be the case, Her Majesty's Government on the 29th of July informed the Greek Government that, although the Government thought the mobilization of their forces was premature, they did not wish to impose their advice on the Greek Government. The same advice was repeated on the next day in the same words. That is the explanation I have thought it right to make.

, in rising to move that the following words be added:—

"That we humbly pray Her Majesty to submit a measure for the purpose of Assimilating the Borough Franchise in Ireland to that in England, as promised in Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech from the Throne last Session,"

said, in taking this step, he was not at all unmindful of the admissions which had been made by the Government of the justice of the demand for an assimilation of the borough franchise of Ireland to that of England, and of the soundness of the principle upon which that demand was based. Notwithstanding such admissions he felt it necessary to press his Motion, because, when introducing measures on this subject, the Government did not provide for achieving the object in view—namely, assimilation to the law as it existed in England. Besides, though time was devoted to discussion of Irish affairs, no legislation on this or any other Irish subject of importance was effected last Session. Whilst entirely abstaining from exciting language, he had, during the Autumn, been obliged to tell his constituents that every measure introduced into Parliament in the interest of Ireland met with an untimely fate; and even if it succeeded in struggling through that House, it was lost in "another place." Thus, although the Borough Franchise (Ireland) Bill had been introduced into that House last Session by the Government, it was eventually dropped, and the Registration of Voters (Ireland) Bill, after being much weakened here, was rejected in the other House. Another measure of justice to the Irish people, brought in for the limitation of the costs of litigation, met with a similar untimely fate. The Compensation for Disturbance (Ireland) Bill, which the responsible Government of the country felt it to be its duty to introduce, was treated in a similar manner. In short, every measure brought forward for the benefit of the Irish people, whether by their own Representatives or by the Government, was, no doubt, discussed and debated, but never made law. How different had the case been with regard to the legislation proposed last Session for England. The Malt Tax had been repealed for the relief of the English farmers. Another important Bill of a very Radical nature—the Employers' Liability Bill—had been sent up to "another place," where it was seriously tampered with; but when it came down again to this House it was restored to its pristine vigour, and ultimately passed. Again, the Ground Game Bill—the thin end of the wedge of that English Land Reform which would be pushed further as circumstances might hereafter demand— also met with mutilation at the hands of that Assembly; but afterwards all its original elements were re-inserted by this House, and it became law. A Burials Bill was also passed which gave to the sentiment of the English people the force of law, although the charge of being sentimental frequently wrecked Irish measures. He would be sorry to see sentiment dead in England or Ireland. Its existence had done as much for England's glory as any material aid had done. Thus, he had to tell his constituents how last Session every measure brought forward for England was carried in spite of all the opposition offered to it in this House and in another Assembly; whereas every measure for Ireland, if it passed this House, only did so to be crushed in the other, with one single exception—and that was a measure which put a large sum of money into the pockets of the Irish landlords. Irish Members had been charged with wantonly worrying the illustrious Statesman to whom Ireland owed so much. He repelled that accusation. Who was it that deserted the Prime Minister in his hour of need on the Compensation for Disturbance Bill but his political Friends on his own side? And what was the punishment of some of them—removal to the Treasury Bench? Not obstruction, but quite another reason, made him press his Motion at this stage, and that was to expose a very great error committed by various Governments when legislating for Ireland? What made Irishmen, who were especially anxious to be constitutionally governed, sad, was to see that the good intended to be done by the measures which English statesmen introduced for Ireland was utterly defeated through their lamentable ignorance of the facts of the case with which they were dealing. In introducing this subject, he wished to avoid going over the same ground as had already been travelled by the hon. Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon) in his annual Motion. He asked the Government to bring in a Franchise Bill for Ireland, exactly on the same lines as the English Act; and in order that the object in view might not be frustrated, they ought, at the same time, to introduce a Registration Bill and a Municipal Franchise Bill. A Reform Bill, embracing the borough and the municipal franchises, as well as the question of registration, was required in order to redress all the existing grievances, and sweep away obstructions from the political liberties of the Irish people. There would be, then, one discussion in which to reveal, and one Act to remove, the injustice and anomalies, instead of many debates and many Acts for almost one purpose. He was bound, as an employer of labour, and as one who, for many years, had intimate knowledge of the working classes in Dublin and Limerick—with an ever-increasing respect for their qualities—to come forward and to plead that they should no longer be left without the pale of the British Constitution by their exclusion from the franchise. It had been said occasionally that this was the work of the agitators—that the people themselves felt no interest in this matter. That was not so. The absence from the Queen's Speech of this important measure was at once noticed by the amalgamated builders' trades of Dublin, and they passed a resolution expressing disappointment at the omission, declaring that there was no necessity for coercion, and pledging themselves to use every means at their disposal to secure the same Parliamentary and municipal privileges possessed by their brother working men in England. He had often been pained by the inferior dwellings of the Irish artizans, and the absence of many of those comforts which tended to make a man a peaceable citizen. In England it was the reverse; and he found that, whereas in Ireland it was extremely difficult to arouse interest on this question of artizans' dwellings, in England no trouble was experienced—wash-houses, water, and gas were seen to, and other improvements carried out. Why was this? It was because the English working man had got that political power which made him an object of attraction. He had, in fact, the priceless privilege of a vote. In June, 1846, the late Sir Robert Peel, speaking on this subject of equal municipal and Parliamentary privileges, declared that—

"There ought to be established a complete equality as between Ireland and England in all civil matters and franchises."

And he further explained that what he meant was that no unbiased eye, on comparing the two countries, should be able to say that a different rule had been applied to Ireland. Those words were as forcible now as they were 35 years ago. But, unfortunately, the curtailment and mutilation of political and civil rights which Sir Robert Peel deplored then, existed now in Ireland. The facts of the case with regard to the franchise were these. In Ireland no one had the borough franchise who was not rated to the poor at the value of over £4; practically, the figure was nearly £5. Of course, the effect of this was to exclude a very large portion of the industrial classes. Many thousands of heads of families were excluded from the vote, and the law as to details was different from England. In England the occupier of any house at any value had a vote. The Earl of Beaconsfield, in 1866, speaking of a money value, said—

"I can imagine no scheme more injurious, I may say more fatal, than a proposition of this kind. Every man who finds himself in a position in which he cannot fulfil the conditions which may give him a constitutional right, would naturally fall back into the arms of the lowest agitators."

And it must be borne in mind that a rating of £4, giving no vote, meant, in Ireland, a rent of £10 to £15 a-year. Not only was there no money limit, but in England the overseer of taxes was compelled to rate the occupier of every separate tenement, no matter who paid the taxes or who was liable for them, under a penalty of £2 for each name omitted. No such rule existed in Ireland. Thus Ireland had, first, a circumscribed franchise, and the overseer had the power to leave off the list of voters any name he liked. They talked of the Queen's Writ not running in Ireland. Here was an instance of the Queen's justice not running in Ireland. He had lately been in Cork when the municipal revision was in progress, and he had heard many people complain that, though they had paid their rates, they had not been placed on the electoral roll. These people, who were thus deprived of their rights, had to be satisfied with an intimation from the collector that he could not understand how the mistake had occurred. In England, supposing the rate collector or overseer had omitted a name, the owner was compelled, under pain of a like penalty of £2 for each name omitted, to return the name of the occupier for whom he paid taxes. Therefore, in England there was—first, no qualification required to entitle a man to the franchise; and, secondly, he was surrounded by a double legal guard to prevent his being wilfully or accidentally deprived of the power of exercising his Constitutional rights. The Irish people had none of those safeguards. But if, in England, the owner forgot to pay the rates, the collector was compelled to give ample notice to the occupier that the rates had not been paid, and, if not paid, that he would probably lose his vote. In Ireland no such notice was given, and a man often lost his vote because the landlord, either wilfully or negligently, had failed to pay the rates, although liable for them, the occupier all the time being in ignorance of such omission. In England, in the case of compound householders, the owner was offered a substantial money bonus, varying from 15 to 25 per cent, to pay the rates in time to save the votes of the occupiers. In Ireland, if a man was a shilling short even of the qualifying rates, or of all the past rates due for years upon any tenement, even if not actually due from the occupier, he was compelled to pay them before he got the franchise. In addition to these and other disadvantages, Irish occupiers suffered greatly from the prevalent practice of issuing frivolous objections—a practice to which no penalty was attached in Ireland, while in England a frivolous objector was mulcted in costs. In Birmingham, for instance, some time ago, one of the political parties objected, without justification, to large numbers of their opponents, and the costs which they had to pay in consequence amounted to some thousands of pounds. In England lists of electoral claimants were hung in every public place, in the churches, the courthouses, the market-places, &c. Such lists, though not so full or complete, were hung in Ireland behind the bars of police offices, places which, in that country were usually reserved for rewards for information of crime, and which the people never thought of visiting in order to see that their Constitutional rights were secured. He had shown that the difficulties placed in the way of Irishmen who wished to exercise their electoral rights were very considerable; but in Dublin, the Metropolis of Ireland, the people were subjected to excessive and special disabilities. According to the law, as understood by the collectors of taxes and laid down by the Bench, tenants in Dublin who paid their rents in other ways than by the year were deprived of the franchise. In Dublin, therefore, this strange state of things prevailed, that, in a country where non-payment of rent was the greatest charge just now, the frequent and punctual payment of it was made an excuse for sweeping people in thousands from the register. Leaving the question of the borough franchise, he would ask hon. Members to turn their attention to the state of the municipal franchise in Ireland. In England the municipal franchise was extended to every householder, male and female; but in every town in Ireland, except Dublin, the qualification for that franchise, granted only to men, was £10, and hon. Members must bear in mind that in Ireland a £10 valuation meant a rent of £15 to £20, or more. For Dublin a measure had been brought in professing to give household suffrage to its inhabitants; but the concession was accompanied by the extraordinary condition of three years' residence—a condition which, in a city of operatives, must necessarily oust large numbers of respectable people from municipal existence. This was what he specially complained of—measures purporting to give relief, and not giving it. On this subject, in 1866, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said—

"I do not think there is anything in the world that so [offends the common sense and right feelings of the people, as the attempt to play them a trick—the attempt to offer them a great concession, but which is really not any concession at all."

But this was what was done with Dublin. He held that Russian villagers, in their autonomous assemblies, enjoyed greater municipal rights than the people of Ireland possessed. Facilities were provided to working men in England for placing their names upon the register; but no such facilities existed in Ireland. In every town in England of over 10,000 inhabitants, evening revision courts were held from 7 to 10 p.m. The English lodger also had privileges to which his Irish brother was a stranger. The lodger in England could make his annual claim by memorial, whereas in Ireland personal appearance was still necessary. As a consequence, artizans, who were nearly all lodgers in Irish towns, could not support their claims. Now, as the result of the various disabilities under which the people of Ireland laboured in regard to the franchise, he found that among the 900,000 people composing the borough population of Ireland there were only 57,000 electors, as against 128,000 electors in a similar portion of the population of England. Manchester had 4,000 or 5,000 voters more than all the towns and boroughs in Ireland put together. Leeds with a population of 259,211, had 43,700 electors; while Dublin, with 10,000 more population, had only 12,000 electors, 2,000 of whom were freemen, and not rated occupiers, and 2,000 property voters. He quoted figures of 1874 Return. Now, it was surely monstrous that there should be 40,000 men, an army, walking the streets of Dublin without the franchise which, were they in England, they would possess. If the Government deprived them of the arm of the ballot, it was only too likely that they would take up other arms in order to assert their rights. It would surely be much better if these 40,000 men in Dublin could look to the Legislature through their Representatives in Parliament and to the Government for the redress of any grievances of which they complained than to any other leaders. The hon. Members for Dublin, gifted as they were, would possess a far greater influence if, instead of 9,000 rated occupiers they had 50,000 voters, as in the borough of Leeds. Again, to compare Kidderminster with Londonderry. The latter had a population of 25,000, and only 2,000 Parliamentary electors; while the former, with a less population, had 3,606 Parliamentary electors. Surely the hon. Member for the maiden City would not call the 1,600 disfranchised in Londonderry "a miserable, base and ignorant residuum." If the famous City bore this imputation calmly, it was untrue to its boasted traditions. The borough of Carlow had a population of 7,842, and only 300 electors; while Woodstock, with a population of 7,400, had 1,060 Parliamentary electors. He did not see why the noble Lord below him should have over 1,000 voices to support, whilst he (Mr. Dawson), in a larger population, had only 300. But if the borough franchise was anomalous and unsatisfactory, the municipal franchise was still more so. Only 5,000 per- sons in Dublin had the municipal franchise out of nearly 300,000 people. But the number qualified by law, such as it was did not get on the roll. Over 76,000 were up to the money value for the Parliamentary franchise, and only 57,000 possessed it; over 10,000 entitled by law to the municipal franchise, were also deprived of votes by the vexatious obstructions of the political "Jack Cades" who usurped their political rights, and were supported by the Carlton Club. The hon. Member was proceeding to refer to the mode of electing Guardians in the South Dublin Union, and to a state of things which, while tolerated in Ireland, would not be sanctioned in Bulgaria, when—

I rise to Order. I wish to know from you, Sir, whether it is competent for the hon. Member, or whether it is in accordance with the practice of precedents of the House, to introduce such topics as the hon. Member is now discussing in a debate on the Address in reply to the Gracious Speech from the Throne.

The hon. Member has an Amendment which enables him to address the House upon it. If I have correctly followed the observations which the hon. Member has made upon his Amendment, I cannot say that those observations are irrelevant, and, therefore, I have not interposed. But I feel it my duty to point out to the House that although the proceeding may be, in point of form, regular, I am bound to add that if a similar course of action were pursued on the Motion for an Address, by Members of this House generally taking an interest in any particular question, I apprehend that the Address to the Crown could hardly be carried within the compass of the Session.

proceeded to illustrate his arguments as to the inequality of the Irish franchise compared with that which existed in the English boroughs, and to point out the limited number of persons enjoying the municipal franchise in Ireland.

The hon. Member must confine himself to his Amendment. Although the remarks of the hon. Member might be pertinent to the second reading of an Irish Franchise Bill, they are quite out of Order on the Address in answer to the Speech from the Throne.

would not, then, pursue that course of observation. Several reasons had been assigned for the extraordinary state of things in Ireland which he had described. It was said that with an extended franchise the Irish Catholics would be intolerant. In reply to this, he pointed to the fact that the Lord Mayor of Dublin, who lately appeared at their Bar with a Petition on this very subject, was a Conservative, and had been chosen to fulfil that office although the Liberals formed a large, majority in the Council.

The hon. Member is again travelling from the Question before the House, and is referring to the municipal franchise. The hon Member must confine himself to the Amendment.

would, then, call attention to the fact that out of 60 Home Rule Members no less than 15 were Protestants; and he would ask the House where was there a Catholic Member who represented an English or Scotch constituency? That was a complete answer to the charge of intolerance. He would only say, if the Government, taking a statesman-like view of the situation, would drop the Coercion Bill and bring in a Borough Franchise Bill, their course would meet with the unanimous concurrence of the House, would insure the acceptance and confidence of this country, and be received with gratitude by the people of Ireland. The hon. Member concluded by moving his Amendment.

Amendment proposed,

At the end thereof, to add the words "That we humbly pray Her Majesty to submit a measure for the purpose of Assimilating the Borough Franchise in Ireland to that in England, as promised in Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech last Session."—( Mr. Dawson.

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

The hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Dawson) must not suppose it is from any personal disrespect; to him, still less from any want of agreement with the object which he, not in the most appropriate manner, seeks to advance to-day, if I make an immediate and brief reply to his remarks. Before doing so, I must say a word or two on what I cannot help thinking is the very inappropriate manner in which the hon. Gentleman has brought forward the subject. ["No, no!"] What I mean is this—you yourself, Sir, alluded to it—the hon. Member made a very good speech for the occasion of bringing in a Bill with regard to the Irish franchise; but, I cannot help thinking, very unfitting for a speech on the Address. We are, after all, supposed to be a practical and legislative Assembly, wishing to have Business done; and what you, Sir, stated is perfectly true, that if the course taken by the hon. Member to-day were generally acted upon, we should never get our Business done. If every hon. Member who cared about any particular subject were to bring it forward in the way the hon. Member has thought it right to do on the Address, it would be months before the Address was voted. The hon. Member seemed entirely to forget that we were on the Address. Two or three times he appeared to think that he was bringing in a Bill, or speaking on a Bill, connected with the Irish franchise. Indeed, once or twice he used the expression "bringing in" such a measure. How could we possibly get to Business, if hon. Members were generally to take that course? The hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) also feels strongly on a special question. He, too, might raise that question on the Address. What has been generally understood with regard to the Address hitherto is that, while it affords an opportunity for expressions of opinion on questions of importance, the debate should close within a reasonable time, and that the House should proceed as soon as possible to the Business actually before it. It cannot be forgotten what are the circumstances under which the present Session has commenced. They are notorious. The Government, acting on their responsibility, have considered it their duty to call Parliament together a month earlier than usual for urgent reasons stated in the Address; and the hon. Member thinks it right to take a day for the purpose of moving an Amendment on the Address in relation to a subject which is not urgent. He has not attempted to adduce a single argument to show its urgency. The hon. Member is an enthusiast on this question. I am quite sure he is absolutely sincere and single-minded; but I cannot help thinking that the support he gets from other hon. Members is very much owing to the wish that the discussion of other Business should be still further delayed. ["No!"] It is quite true that the hon. Member has acted strictly within the Rules of the House in the remarks he has made; but he must remember that those Rules have been framed on the supposition that the House generally, and hon. Members on both sides, are anxious to facilitate Business and get it through, and it is quite possible so to make use of the Rules as to defeat the general object of the House. A fortnight has already been consumed on the Address; and I really put it to hon. Members from Ireland, as well as from England and Scotland, whether the time has not now come when we should endeavour to get through the Business of the Session? The hon. Member gave an eloquent, but somewhat diffuse, decription of the legislation, and, as regarded Ireland, what he called "the abortive legislation," of last Session. No doubt, the Government brought forward measures which they were unable to pass. They gave much time to them, however. The hon. Member made some remarks with regard to the Relief Bill which were scarcely correct, and he must have forgotten the facts. He said that the sole effect of the Bill was to give additional money grants to the landlords; but he ought to have remembered that many days were occupied with a view to give additional relief to the people in distress. What are the reasons for the very unusual course which the hon. Member has adopted of making a second reading speech on the Address? Indeed, a speech on the details of a Bill is not usually made on the second reading; but I have never heard a speech of the kind on such an occasion as the present. But it was not solely to the borough franchise that the speech of the hon. Member was confined. He dealt also with a Municipal Franchise Bill and a Registration Bill. But the hon. Member's Amendment never even mentioned the borough franchise or registration, and, therefore, these questions were not within its scope. It is impossible for me to enter into the matters which the hon. Member has gone into. That would be opening up a debate, not merely on the principle of the Borough Franchise Bill, but on its details, and we should never get to Business in that way. The hon. Member gave no grounds for what he proposes. [Mr. DAWSON: I gave the facts of the case.] The hon. Member said it was a matter on which legislation was required; but there are many matters on which legislation is required. There can be only two reasons for bringing forward such an Amendment. One, is the conviction on the part of the hon. Member that the Government entirely ignored the question. ["Hear, hear!"] The hon. Member cannot believe that. He has the assurance of the Prime Minister on the subject, given on the very first day of the Session. Therefore, I am perfectly sure he could not join in the rather forgetful cheer raised by his Friends. Another reason for bringing forward the Amendment would be, that there were some special grounds why this question should, in preference to all others, be brought before the House The hon. Member does not for a moment make such an assertion. He alluded to a deputation on which he and other hon. Members of the Corporation of Dublin met me, and we had a very useful conversation as to the details of the measure, when the Government could bring it forward. I asked that deputation whether they wished it to take precedence of the Land Question; and I judged from the feeling in the room that nothing could be more inappropriate, and that we should not be considered to be performing our duty if we did give it precedence. All I have to state now is, that the Government have the same opinion on the subject as they had last year when they brought in a Bill. The reason why such a measure was not mentioned in the Speech from the Throne is that there are some very important Irish matters before us which may so occupy the time of the Session that it may be impossible to bring it forward. If it should be possible, the Bill will be brought forward; but some time must be devoted to English and Scotch Business. We must remember that Irish questions cannot take up absolutely the whole Session, though it appears probable they will occupy a very large portion of it. The hon. Member ended with a suggestion that we should drop the other Bills which he says we brought forward and take up this Bill. I suppose he alludes to the Bills for the Protection of Liberty and of Person and Property in Ireland, which have not been brought forward; but which we are hoping hon. Members will allow us to state the grounds for bringing forward in a very short time. The hon. Member cannot, for a moment, suppose that that can be acceded to. With regard to the request of the hon. Member, when a Government, upon its responsibility, calls Parliament together because it considers the state of the country is such that for the preservation of order, for the security of life and property, and for the protection of liberty, special measures are required, he cannot for a moment suppose that that Government should, at his kind request, entirely disregard the fulfilment of that duty and bring forward such a measure as he suggests. I will only say, before sitting down, that we are still anxious, as anxious as we were and as the hon. Member himself is, to assimilate the borough franchise in Ireland to that of England at the very first opportunity that we can do it without disregard to other important Irish Business that will have to be done.

said, that was the first time anything had been heard about a Bill for the preservation of liberty in that country, although a great deal had been said about measures for the curtailment of Irish liberty, The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had told them that there were only two grounds which would justify the bringing on this Amendment—one, that they must think the Government had ignored the question, and had no sympathy with it; and the other, that there was an urgent demand for the extension of the franchise. Now, he (Mr. Gray) justified the action of his hon. Friend (Mr. Dawson) on both grounds, and on the authority of the right hon. Gentleman himself. The question of the borough franchise having been mentioned in the Queen's Speech last Session, he could not understand why it had been ignored on the present occasion. He believed that there were certain Members of the Government who did not sympathize with the Irish people in this matter. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland might; but the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for India (the Marquess of Hartington), for instance, had voted against the assimilation of the borough franchise; and there were other Ministers, he feared, whose views on the subject were equally unsound. Therefore, the Government, as a Government, were not to be trusted in dealing with it; and the Irish Members were justified, not with standing that it might be inconvenient, disagreeable, and unusual at that time, in bringing it forward. The urgency of their demand was questioned; but he could tell the Government that their delay had created a most unfavourable impression in Ireland, and that the belief among the Irish people was that the intention was to stave off the question till after the next General Election. He contended that they had no other course open to them but to bring forward their grievances on the Address, especially as the hon. and learned Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon), who had had the subject in hand for some years, had his Motion blocked out of the Order Book by a trick. ["Oh, oh!"] It was all very well for the Government to ask how they were to get through their Business; but the Irish Members had an equal right to ask how their Business was to be done when such manœuvres were allowable? [ Cries of "Oh, oh!" and "Shut up!"] The House of Commons had been described as a House of Business. It had also the reputation of being an Assembly of Gentlemen; and yet an hon. and learned Member above the Gangway had just asked him to "shut up." He appealed to the Speaker for protection against such observations. The hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) had been good enough to ask him two or three times to "shut up."

I did no such thing.

I appeal to the Chair for protection against such interruptions.

The hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray) will see the desirability of confining his remarks to the Question before the House. If any improper interruption has taken place, the hon. Member should have called the attention of the Chair to it at once, and I should have felt it my duty to take proper notice of it.

I did call immediate attention to the matter. I have not said a word, except to appeal to you. Sir, since the hon. Member cried "Shut up!"

If I may explain, I have only to say, upon my word, that I did not use that expression.

Then, I beg the hon. and learned Member's pardon for the mistake. It must have been the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Nicholson) who sits next to the hon. and learned Member for Bridport. [ Cries of "Oh!"] The expression certainly was used, and I appeal to you, Sir, for protection against such interruptions.

The hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray) asks for protection from an interruption which, he says, has taken place. As the hon. Member has called attention to the circumstance, the matter may now be considered at an end.

, resuming his arguments, said, that if that was Parliamentary usage, it seemed to him very strange; and he would take care the point raised was not forgotten. The justice of their demands had never been denied; but they had appealed to the Government in vain, and it was not easy for them to obtain a hearing. ["Oh, oh!"] In the face of the interruption to which he was subjected, it was difficult for a man of his temperament to speak with propriety; but he would endeavour to do so. The question was, whether the borough franchise in Ireland was to be lowered before this Parliament was dissolved? They had been told by Members of the Government that, in the event of the attempt at land legislation failing, they would endeavour to pass a Franchise Bill, and then appeal to the country. The Irish Members believed that that would be the case, and that the land legislation of the Government would probably not be of such a character as to conduce to the prestige and strength of the Government. In that event, the proposed Bill would simply be a County Franchise Bill, and that the Irish borough franchise would be ignored. Therefore, he felt he was morally justified in supporting the Amendment of his hon. Friend.

said, that the supporters of the Amendment did not wish to alter the loyal spirit of the Address. He, for one, joined in the loyal spirit in which that Address was framed as truly as any hon. Member who sat on either of the Front Benches. Her Majesty, in her Most Gracious Speech from the Throne, promised a measure of Land Reform for Ireland, and the Amendment merely proposed to add to the Address a paragraph praying Her Majesty to cause her Ministers to submit to Parliament a measure for the purpose of assimilating the borough franchise in Ireland to that in England—a measure, in fact, promised in the Speech from the Throne last Session. If the House were not to have the liberty of discussing such a subject, without derogation from their character as loyal Members of that House, the discussion on the Address might as well be confined to the speeches of the hon. Gentlemen who proposed and seconded the adoption of the Address. He thought that both sides of the House had made, from time to time, great mistakes in discouraging the increase of the voting power in Ireland. In a Party sense, he believed that the extension of the franchise would only affect the relations of Parties to the extent of three votes in the House; but it would add about 50,000 to the body of Irish voters, and it would give a feeling of satisfaction to a much greater number. He ventured to say that his constituents would blame him if he failed to take part in the debate. In the borough which he represented there were 1,000 persons who ought to be on the register if English rights were extended to Ireland, whereas only about 300 were. In England the municipal and Parliamentary franchise in boroughs was the same, and so it ought to be in Ireland, where the people were just as loyal as they were in this country, which was proved by their great endurance under bad laws. Let justice be done to Ireland as it had been done to England, and the people would be satisfied.

said, that the effect of the present law in the City of Dublin was most lamentable. In that City only one out of every 4½ heads of families, possible voters, possessed the franchise. He called attention to the large numbers of the highly-respectable and well-educated tradesmen who were thus deprived of Constitutional rights. He also referred to the very great numbers of persons belonging to the professional classes, as well as to the artizan class, whose claim to the lodger franchise was defeated by vexatious rules as to the length of residence, removal, &c. As to the county Dublin, its condition was an opprobrium to the constituency. He had never been able, owing to frivolous objections continued over years, to get his own name on the County Register. Therefore, while agreeing that the subject was a most practical and important one, he regretted that a discussion upon it had been forced on at such a moment as the debate on the Address, as it could not now be properly dealt with. He complimented the hon. Member on the ability and exhaustive character of his facts and statements, and said that no better speech could have been made on the second reading of a Franchise Bill; and he would even now invite the hon. Member for Carlow to give his energies to the introduction of a Bill which, if worked on to the proper stage, might be afterwards taken up by the Government, as in the case of the Registration Bill of last Session.

said, he should be glad to follow the precedents to which reference had been made, if they could feel sure that Irish measures would meet with the same fairness as the English Bills did. This was a matter of urgency, as a Bill had been brought in every year for the last six years. One practical measure of justice to Ireland would do more to settle the Irish Question than all the protestations of the Government and the Liberals. They had been told by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland that this was an inappropriate time to discuss the question of the Irish franchise. That right hon. Gentleman could hardly understand his position as Chief Secretary. It was his duty, not to consider coercive measures against Ireland, but to endeavour to rule Ireland according to Irish opinions, as expressed by the Representatives of Ireland who sat on those (the Opposition) Benches. This was essentially a working man's question, and he was aware that the absence of legislation on the question subjected the borough which he represented to misrepresentation. He (Mr. Finigan) was told that he represented only 240 people, or, rather, a certain majority of them. He pleaded guilty to that charge; but he blamed the law. In the borough of Ennis there were some 1,500 householders, who were a trading and commercial people In the large majority of cases they occupied only small houses, the rent of which was between 2 s. and 3 s. per week. He was surprised, that when it was a question of personal liberty, of personal justice, of having a voice in the government of the country, one of the Leaders of the Liberal Party should deem this an inappropriate time to introduce the subject. In Ireland it was a serious and urgent question, and it was absolutely unfair to ask Irish Members not to urge it on. Irish Members asked the Government to give them a definite promise that a Bill on the subject of the Irish franchise would be introduced that Session, and be carried into law. The passing of such a measure would be a message of peace from Her Majesty to the people of Ireland. The Irish Members had been trusting to Liberal promises to carry out a measure which they outwardly asserted they were anxious to see adopted. If the franchise in Ireland were placed upon the same footing as in England, Ireland would send to Parliament men pledged and determined to ask the Government to give the country justice before coercion, remedy before force. He believed that no Member on these Benches was afraid of the extension of the franchise, or thought that it would weaken the National Party.

said, that, in his opinion, judging from what had been said by the last speaker (Mr. Finigan), freedom of speech was being turned into abuse and licence. He asked why hon. Members from Ireland, who complained of the inadequacy of the franchise, did not bring in a Bill themselves dealing with the question? [ Cries of "We did!"] They might say, as they now did, that they had done so before. That was true, and he had supported them, and probably he should do so again; and, quite irrespectively of any pledge which hon. Members might receive from the Government, many hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Liberal Benches would give such a measure their hearty support. He protested against the waste of time which had taken place in the consideration of the Queen's Speech. He was desirous of doing full justice to Ireland; but he was sent there not for the purpose of talking, but to do business; and he therefore protested against a state of things which introduced into Parliamentary affairs what really amounted to a condition of paralysis. To throw obstacles in the way of the progress of legislation was the highest offence against the Rules of Parliament. Their constituents would soon be asking him how far they were determined to prevent this waste of time. That was almost the greatest offence that could be committed in the House; but a still worse offence was, that while there might be men who were exposing themselves to peril by encouraging an abnormal state of things in Ireland, hon. Members should shelter themselves behind the Forms of the House, and make almost irrelevant speeches, and, while thus in a position of security, should prevent the full and fair consideration of the Government measures with regard to Ireland. With all frankness, he was bound to confess that such a mode of procedure was wanting in manliness, as well as in business qualities. It was cruel to the Irish people. It was Ireland which suffered, because it prevented the introduction and establishment of reforms, with regard to which he might claim quite as much as the hon. Members opposite, that he was anxious to do justice for Ireland.

said, he was glad that an English Member had just broken the silence which hon. Gentlemen opposite had generally observed in that discussion. A speech in the fairness of tone and temper of that which had just been delivered would always be welcome to the Irish Members near him, because they recognized in it that towards their cause which they seldom heard in that House. He ventured to say that if the majority of hon. Members who had spoken on the question had approached it in the same temper and tone, the debate would have terminated before this, and might have had a different ending. He wished to make a few remarks in defence of the conduct of the Irish Party on that question. No doubt, the conduct of the Irish Members seemed strange and irregular to English Members; and if they were English Representatives and so acted, they would doubtless be deserving of the reprobation of the English people. But the case was very different. They were the Representatives of a people who had long suffered from grievous wrongs, with which the English people were not well acquainted; and it was only by persevering efforts, by giving accurate accounts of the state of things in Ireland, that they could succeed in forming an intelligent English opinion in favour of their cause. Some Liberal Members appealed to the Irish Representatives to have faith in the present Government; but it should be remembered that they had to deal, not only with the English Government, but with the Irish Government, and they had no confidence in that part of the Ministry which had charge of the Irish Administration. They were told that the fate of the Ministry did not depend on that question; but why was that? Because the Irish Ministers were not responsible to the Irish people, and did not depend on the votes of their Representatives. If the Irish Ministry were responsible to the Irish Representatives, as the English Ministry were to the English Representatives, its fate would not be long in the balance. In division after division three-fourths of the Irish Members had voted with his Party and against the Ministers.

pointed out to the hon. Member that he was straying from the Question.

said, that the Irish Members were obliged to enforce their case in more detail and at greater length because it was not in their power, however much they might be dissatisfied with it, to turn the Ministry out of Office. They were also reminded that it was unpractical to bring that question forward at that stage of the Session; but he replied that that was the only opportunity they had of putting their arguments as to the urgency of that measure before the English public. They were told they might bring in a Bill on the subject; but they had done that for six successive years, and the question was still in the same condition that it was when first agitated. They were, therefore, driven by stress of experience to take the present opportunity. If the English Members would absent themselves from the division, in addition to absenting themselves, as so many did, from the discussion, and would leave in the hands of the Irish Members the decision upon a Bill on that subject—if the Government would give him a pledge of that kind, he would then advise his hon. Friend (Mr. Dawson) to withdraw the Amendment. The Irish Party considered it part of their bounden duty to point out to the Irish Government that, by acting on the policy indicated in the Speech from the Throne, they were proposing to enter into a course of policy which would result in long, bitter, and angry strife, and which would lead the people in to extreme measures which would put out of sight for a long time considerations as to the condition of the Franchise. The result would be, they would have neither a Land Bill nor a Borough Franchise Bill passed that Session. He would, therefore, impress on Ministers the necessity of entirely altering the character of the Queen's Speech, or, at least, of intimating that it did not indicate what would be their policy. He (Mr. Dillon) had seen the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain) taking his stand with the minority of seven or eight Members against the tone and temper of the whole House, and obstructing—if there ever was obstruction—on the question of flogging in the Navy. The small minority which that right hon. Gentleman then led beat the majority after a week's discussion, and abolished flogging in the Navy. The Irish Members were determined to use every means to influence English opinion on the subject, and to leave no argument in support of their views unstated, even at the risk of stating it twice; and they had already the encouragement of seeing that their efforts were not wholly without result. There were Radical organs of opinion which held that the Government were not pursuing the right course towards Ireland.

again pointed out that the hon. Member was not addressing himself to the Question before the House.

bowed to the ruling of the Chair. The Irish Members were justified by the feeling of their constituents in the course they were taking, and those who opposed them would find very shortly that public feeling in Ireland was overwhelmingly in favour of the views of his Party. The Conservatives had opposed the extension of the Irish borough franchise, knowing that it would deprive them of a certain number of seats; but why had the marked feeling in its favour shown by the Liberal Party while in Opposition fallen off since they had come into Office? He feared the answer was that the Government and the Liberal Party were disinclined to admit that this question was one of urgency, because they knew perfectly well that if this reform was granted, the seats of the present Law Officers for Ireland and other Liberal seats would be lost to them. It was superfluous for him to go over the ground which had already been traversed by his hon. Friend who moved the Amendment. It had been said two years ago, by prominent Liberals, that it was a scandal and disgrace to the Tory Government to have the question unsettled; to have such a wrong unremedied was calculated to drive the Irish people into rebellion. But it now appeared that what the Liberal Party had formerly urged upon the Conservative Government as urgent had ceased to be urgent. That consideration had not been brought forward by his hon. Friend the Mover of the Amendment. He (Mr. Dillon) supposed he took it for granted. They could take no better course of fostering a spirit of distrust, disloyalty, and hatred among the Irish people than to declare that the disfranchisement of three-fourths of the population was not a question of urgency. The majority of the Irish Representatives—in fact, two to one of them—would vote for the measure. The Irish people had displayed great patience. He hoped it would not again be that a reason for throwing out an Irish Bill was that it was supported by the people of Ireland. If it was true, as he believed, that the opinion of England was rising against the Irish Members, yet they knew that the grateful feelings of the Irish people were rising behind them; and if the feeling of England were to be put forward, it became a question whether Ireland was to be governed at the dictation of England, or in such a way as to satisfy the wishes of the Irish people.

said, that the Irish Members had been blamed for adopting an exceptional course. But the fact was, that they had no other resource open to them than to take exceptional measures. They were only a minority, and it was imimpossible for them to obtain proper reforms except by forcing them upon the attention of the House and the Government. It had been stated that the question of the Irish franchise had been brought forward in the last five or six years. The fact was that it had been before the House for the last 14 years—ever since 1867. He felt, therefore, that whatever inconvenience they might be causing the Government and the House, they were bound to disregard it. They had to consult the feelings and wishes of their constituencies. They did not wish to be discussing the question in that House. They would rather be elsewhere; but they had no choice. They had been promised a measure on the subject last year, but that promise had not been kept. A Government which possessed such an ornament as the Solicitor General for Ireland, a Member for a rotten borough, who would not have the slightest chance of re-election if the suffrage were extended, must be extra ordinarily enthusiastic about passing this measure. So long as Government officials could only obtain seats by keeping the franchise at a higher level than it existed in England, so long would the Government try to obstruct the fulfilment of the wishes of the people. He did not believe in the intentions of the Government to pass the measure last Session, and he did not give them credit for any desire to put it in the Queen's Speech this year. The hon. Member proceeded to refer to the Parliamentary history of the question, when—

called upon the hon. Member to confine himself to the Question before the House.

said, the Bill had been rejected for 14 years, and, so far as they could judge of the intentions of the Government, it might be rejected for 14 years more. If the Irish Members, by the course they were now taking, could bring home to the minds of English Members that in rejecting Irish measures they were inflicting inconvenience upon themselves, they would soon get justice for their country. The present condition of things was a great wrong to Ireland, and it was not to be wondered at if the Irish people were driven into secret combinations and conspiracies.

objected to the course which had been taken that week and the previous week by the Government in casting blame upon the Movers of Amendments before those Amendments had been discussed. His hon. Friend the Member for Carlow (Mr. Dawson) had as good a right to move an Amendment as the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson). The demand which was being put forward was simply that Irish citizens should have the same rights as were possessed by their English and Scotch fellow-subjects. Last year nothing had been done for Ireland. For England the present Government had passed all the eight measures which they had promised, and the Irish Members had refrained, notably in the case of the Ground Game Bill, from obstructing the passage of those measures. Not only was the Irish franchise less extended than that of England, but difficulties were cast in the way of registration in Ireland which did not exist in England. The Revising Barrister, with his assessors, offered every facility for registration, sitting often as late as 10 o'clock at night, to give the working classes an opportunity of registering their votes; whereas if the Irish applicant was not ready at a particular time and place, he lost his vote. The mind of the right hon. Gentleman was poisoned by the officials of Dublin Castle; and so long as Ireland was governed by those Jacks in office, she would never be governed well.

said, that the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Dawson) had not taken his present course upon his own responsibility. He acted in this case as the spokesman of the Irish Parliamentary Party, which had the sympathy of the great mass of the Irish people who would be enfranchised if the Bill became law. He came to the conclusion that the omission of the Franchise Bill from the Queen's Speech was due to the fact that the Government shrank from mentioning the subject at the same time with a Coercion Bill. Hon. Gentlemen opposite should recollect that for the last 50 years the Irish vote had kept English Liberals in Office, and it might be as well that the Irish people should be taught that they had put too much trust in English Liberals.

said, he rose for the purpose of making a suggestion which might have the effect of bringing the debate to a close. He did not suppose he was now in high favour with Her Majesty's Ministers, but he made this suggestion in a spirit friendly to them. If any Member of the Government would give a promise that they would bring in a Borough Franchise Bill this Session, and push it through, they might come to a compromise. The hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Dawson) made a speech which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary considered unusual; but the present state of things was altogether unusual. The Chief Secretary for Ireland seemed to draw a subtle distinction between the actual Regulations of the House and some kind of unwritten law of propriety and order borne about apparently in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman himself. But he thought that when they were acting in accordance with the recognized Rules of the House they were fairly entitled to be exempted from the censure of the right hon. Gentleman, and not bound to recognize him as a censor of debate, and to adapt their course to his ideas of propriety. He was bound to justify the course taken by his hon. Friend who proposed the Amendment. If he had not taken that opportunity of bringing up the subject, no other opportunity would have been left him of calling attention to it. What his hon. Friend wished to press upon the Government was, that if they brought in coercive measures, those measures should not be unaccompanied by others of a remedial character. It was all very well to say that his hon. Friend might have brought in a Bill. What chance would it have of getting a second reading; and if it did get a second reading, what chance was there of any private Member carrying it through? It was not merely six or eight years, but 17 or 18, that this question was before Parliament. When the great wave of popular agitation which carried the English Reform Bill swept over this country, Ireland was left out of the current. The Irish measure came on at a time when a strong spirit of re-action against reform was setting in. The English Reform Bill was passed in 1867; the Irish Reform Bill was to have been introduced in the same year. Pledges and promises were given by eminent statesmen, Members of the Government, that the whole scheme of reform would be disposed of in the one year. But when they got through the English Reform Bill, the Earl of Beaconsfield suddenly intimated that the Government would not concern themselves that Session with a scheme of Irish Parliamentary Reform; and one reason he gave was that the condition of Ireland was then somewhat troublous. Mr. Chichester Fortescue brought forward a Motion on the 22nd of June, calling upon the Government to take up the question of the Irish Reform Bill and re-model the Irish franchise during that Session. The Government opposed any idea of the kind, and Mr. Chichester Fortescue was induced to withdraw his Motion. The Reform Bill for Ireland was brought in next year; but so poor was it in every sense, that the Leaders of the Liberal Party stated that they would take the Bill only as the mere foundation of a Reform Bill. Since that time nearly 13 years had passed, and all that Ireland had got was that miserable Bill. Ireland still saw no chance of anything being done. Therefore, it was but reasonable, before those vehement and protracted debates upon coercion with which they were threatened should come on, that they should have a distinct promise from the Government that they were about to complete the system of reform for Ireland which, 14 years ago, their leading Members demanded as essential to the good of the country. Even if his coercive measures were delayed, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) would have the consolation of knowing that of late there had not been a single outrage which could render a measure of coercion necessary.

said, he had some experience as to waste of time during recent years, and he could say that the greatest waste of time took place in arguing and re-arguing questions about which there as no room for controversy or discussion. The question before the House was exactly one of that character. All the hon. Member for Carlow proposed was that the law of Ireland with regard to the Borough Franchise should be the same as that of England. More time had been occupied over that question than would have been required to settle it three times over. The right hon. Gentleman contended that the circumstances of the country were not such as to allow a Bill of this kind to be brought in by the Government. But the fact was, the right hon. Gentleman knew nothing of the circumstances of the country, for he was earwigged by the permanent officials of Dublin Castle, whose prejudices and feeling were opposed to those of the Irish people. The argument of the right hon. Gentleman was that the measure was not urgent. It might not be urgent for the Members of the Government; but it was urgent for a very large class of the Irish people, who wanted to have their rights. In Ireland a large number of householders were unenfranchised who would have votes if they lived in England. In Ireland, too, the difficulty of registration was greater than in England, for a man could not be put on the electoral roll unless he attended to the matter personally, and lukewarmness prevented many from taking so much trouble to obtain the franchise. He and his Colleagues had been charged with delaying the introduction of the remedial measure promised by the Government; but the fact was, that the people of Ireland had no confidence in any Bill proceeding from the present Ministry, which seemed disposed to perpetuate the vicious system introduced by the Tory Government. He thought that the Chief Secretary should have consulted the majority of the Irish Representatives as to how the measure for Ireland ought to be introduced, as he thought it would have facilitated the progress of affairs. He contended that the way in which the Government had treated Irish Business last Session was a disgrace to the Administration. ["Oh, oh!" and cries of "Divide!"] If hon. Members thought they could put down an Irish Representative by clamour, perhaps they were right to make these noises.

hoped the hon. Gentleman would confine his observations to the Motion before the House.

said, he was always ready to bow to the ruling of the Chair; but thought he ought not to be put down by clamour when he attempted to reply to the question raised by the right hon. Gentleman. He considered the speech of the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Dawson) unanswerable; but, nevertheless, he would even now withdraw his Amendment if the Prime Minister would only give him the assurance that he would use all his exertions to get a Bill passed placing the Irish on the same level with the English constituencies in regard to the franchise.

said, that the Irish Members had reason to complain of the course pursued by the Government in omitting from the Royal Speech all mention of the Borough Franchise, which was quite as important a question to Ireland now as it was at the commencement of last Session. He maintained that, in the absence of a promise by the Government that a Bill to assimilate the two franchises would be brought in this Session, the Irish Members were perfectly justified in arguing this subject on the Address. He hoped that a measure on the subject would be introduced during the present Session; and, if so, it would be carefully considered by the Irish Members. The matter was one of grave and serious importance to the English and Scotch as well as to Irish Members, and he trusted, therefore, that the Government would see their way to deal with it.

said, that, in his judgment, the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Dawson) was perfectly justified in bringing forward the Amendment. It was notorious that great inequalities and injustices existed in Ireland with regard to the franchises of the people. He believed the Irish people would not be content to remain in a position of inferiority in this or any other matter.

It being a quarter of an hour before Six of the clock, the debate stood adjourned till To-morrow.