asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he has received any information concerning the serious Famine which is raging in Zululand; and, whether any steps will be taken by the Home Government for the relief of the starving population?

The Governor of Natal was recently informed by the Resident in Zululand that there was a serious scarcity in that country; and he has told us that he proposed to take such steps to alleviate it as he thought he could take without disorganizing the usual course of trade by which, as he conceived, scarcity or famine can be best met, except in extreme cases. The Home Government has no means of communication with Zululand except through the Government of Natal.

rose, according to Notice, to move the following Resolution:—

"That the introduction and the several stages of the Protection, of Person and Property (Ireland) Bill and the Peace Preservation (Ireland) Bill have precedence of all Orders of the Day and Notices of Motion, from day to day, until the House shall otherwise order."

Sir, I rise to a point of Order. I wish to ask your ruling as to whether the Resolution about to be proposed by the right hon. Gentleman is in Order or not. The point on which it strikes me that the proposed Motion is irregular—and it certainly is highly inconvenient—is that it assumes the decision of the House upon a matter still under its consideration, and which will subsequently be the subject of division. As a matter of fact, no such Bills are before the House as those mentioned in the Resolution. The only question which, as I say, is before the House, is whether the House will give permission for the introduction of those Bills. In order to put my point clearly and with as much brevity as possible, I am entitled to assume that the House may refuse permission. Then the House will be in the position of having anticipated a decision of the House on a subject under its consideration, and of having put by formal Resolution on its Books an Order that all stages of two non-existent Bills shall have precedence. I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, whether this is in Order, or whether this is convenient? I trust the right hon. Gentleman will excuse me for having interrupted him. I thought it would be very much better to do so before he made his statement than to have the appearance of interrupting the statement itself.

The objection of the hon. Member is to the phraseology of the Resolution.

And to the substance.

He objects especially to the words "the introduction" of these Bills.

And to "the several stages of" the Bills.

And to "the several stages of" the Bills. The expression, "introduction of the Bill," is well understood in Parliamentary procedure, and we also speak of "the several stages" of a Bill. I am bound, therefore, to say it appears to me that the terms of the Resolution proposed by the right hon. Gentleman are quite regular and in Order, and I see no ground for interposing between the right hon. Gentleman and the House.

You have decided, Sir, the question that the language of this Motion is in Order. But wish the hon. Member to believe that it has not been adopted without some regard to the convenience of the House. No doubt it would have been possible to insert in the Motion the parenthetical clause after "each successive stage," these words, "in case the House shall have assented to the preceding stages." But that would have greatly encumbered the Motion. It would certainly have been absurd to renew the Motion at each of these stages; and the short answer, I think, to the objection is, that if the House thinks fit, as, of course, it is entitled to decide, to refuse the introduction of the Bill, then there are no several stages to proceed with, and the objection falls to the ground, as having no aim to which it addresses itself. The Motion I make is one which will not require from me any lengthened statement. It should be remembered by some Members of this House that I gave Notice of this Motion on the first day of the Session. That Notice was based upon general grounds, which were wholly free from anything like an admixture of polemical or controversial matter. It implies no accusation, no imputation against anyone. I do not, indeed, Sir, deny that, in my opinion, the reasons for this Motion, which appeared to us to be strong enough to warrant action at the commencement of the Session, have derived a great accession of strength in consequence of the slow progress which has since been made in the Business of the House. It is not necessary for me to dwell upon that accession of strength. So far as I am concerned, I simply wish to direct the attention of the House to the general grounds upon which the Motion rests, and which, as it appears to me, are quite sufficient to recommend it to the common sense of the House. Sir, the House will remember that we have met at an unusual period of the year, much before the common day for the assembling of Parliament. That meeting has been founded, according to the direct expression in the first paragraph in the Speech from the Throne, upon the ground that certain arduous and urgent matters required the attention of Parliament. From the Speech itself it is not less evident that first amongst these urgent and arduous matters, and, in fact, emphatically first, were the proposals which were about to be made, by which the Executive Government, upon its own responsibility, and for the purpose of strengthening the hands of Her Majesty in the maintenance of order in Ireland, will be armed with powers unknown to the ordinary law of the land. It is impossible to overstate the gravity of the responsibility undertaken by the Government in making proposals of that description. They are bound, as I admit, not to make them too late—and there is a difference of opinion, at least in one part of this House, upon the question whether the Government are not chargeable in that respect. But they are bound, also, not to make them too soon; and while both those propositions must be accepted in their general terms, this, I think, evidently flows from them—that when the Executive Government of the country have arrived at the conclusion that there is sufficient evidence to convince Parliament that a demand for extraordinary powers ought to be made and acceded to, it becomes the duty of the Executive Government—and I would also humbly presume to say the duty of the House of Commons, in conjunction with the Executive Government—to use every lawful and proper means for giving due despatch to the consideration of that demand. There are, of course, two points of view from which the matter may be regarded. From our point of view the question presents itself thus: that the state of Ireland is one in which the administration of justice has failed, and in which, to a very considerable extent, the influence of terror places in abeyance the discharge of civil duties and the exercise of civil rights. From our point of view, and from that of all who agree with us, it is perfectly manifest that when the evidence of such a state of things has reached, as we think it has done, the point of demonstration, not one day ought to be wasted while the deliberations of Parliament upon a subject of so much gravity are proceeding towards their issue. When I say that not one day ought to be wasted, do not let it be supposed for a moment that I intend to convey that liberty of speech, liberty of discussion, liberty of objection to our proposal ought to be in the slightest degree curtailed within the bounds of usage and of reason. I mean no such thing. I do not call time wasted which is bestowed bonâ fide upon the careful and searching examination of that proposal, and in the sifting—and, if need be, re-sifting—of the evidence upon which it is founded. But this I do say—that the obtrusion of matter of secondary consequence—either of secondary consequence in itself or in reference to the circumstances of the moment—would be fairly considered as a waste of the time of Parliament in a state of urgency such as we allege exists. For, Sir, if our allegation be right—if it be true that those whom we have been appointed to govern, those whose highest civil interests we are put in charge of, are debarred from doing that which they have a right to do, and are intimidated into doing that which it is their duty not to do—who can doubt that every day added to such a state of things is the addition of a great public mischief to the number of such mischiefs already accumulated? But let me look at the question from another point of view—from that of those who think that this proposal is either altogether unnecessary and ill-timed, or that a wrong place has been chosen for it in the order of subjects, and that what is termed remedial legislation ought to have preceded legislation for the purpose of restoring law and order in Ireland. Well, I will take first the objection of those who contend that our proposal is altogether bad; that there is no warrant for it; that there is no terror existing in Ireland; and that there is very little, if any, agrarian crime in that part of the Kingdom. Those are not allegations which this is the place to discuss; but even granting every one of those allegations from the point of view of those who make them, it is not the less necessary that the judgment of Parliament should be taken upon this subject without any unnecessary delay, for Ireland should be cleared—a portion of it at least—from the reproach of having a proposal of this kind hanging over it; and if, indeed, it be true that the Government have, without sufficient consideration, pledged their responsibility to a plan of a nature so exceptional, the sooner the day arrives when they are to be detected and exposed by the force of argument, and when the judgment of the House of Commons may be taken against them, the better for those who are objectors to the proposals now before the House. Again, there are some Members of Parliament who say—"No; we will not go so far as to state that exceptional measures for the protection of life and property in Ireland are entirely out of the question," who admit the condition of Ireland to be grave, and even in parts of the country to imply the existence of something of a nature dishonouring to our fame and character as a civilized people, but who say that the Government have made a great mistake in giving the first place in the deliberations of Parliamen—at least, the first place in the proposals laid before Parlia- ment—to a subject of this kind; and that they ought to have commenced the Session by an attempt to deal with the intricate question of a Land Bill, and all the manifold points of view from which it has been approached during the last few months. Well, it is impossible for us to accede to any proposal of that kind. I may, however, observe that I perfectly appreciate the motive of those hon. Members who have taken objection in this mitigated and secondary form to the proposal of my right hon. Friend near me (Mr. W. E. Forster). But from their point of view it is equally obvious that as the Government have made this mistake, as they call it, it is a right judgment, as I shall contend it is, of putting first the proposal relating to the protection of life and property, and as the Government are not prepared to make a declaration on the subject of the Land Bill until they see their way with regard to this proposal, the sooner it is possible for us to arrive at the judgment of Parliament upon the great question now before us, as opened by my right hon. Friend last night, the sooner we shall reach that which those hon. Members conceive to be the one great and vital question—namely, the question of the manner in which we may propose to deal with the Land Laws. I therefore would say that, from whatever point of view we look at this Motion, it is a reasonable one. I will, however, make this admission—that great as is the evil of the prolongation, even for a day, of this state of things in Ireland, had this proposal been made to the House at a period of the year when we were already engaged in the miscellaneous business of the Empire, it might have been doubted whether we should have been justified in asking hon. Members to make the sacrifice which I do not doubt their acceding to such a Motion will involve. But it must be borne in mind that even now the time has not arrived at which it can be said, with substantial truth and accuracy, that we are depriving Members of this House of their usual facilities for the discussion of subjects in which they may be interested. It is not ordinarily till the first week in February has elapsed that Members find themselves in a position to make use of the facilities to which I have referred. When I gave Notice of this Motion there was one full month before us available for prose- cuting the measures for the restoration of peace and order, and, I may add, of freedom, in Ireland, without curtailing or interfering with the liberty of private Members. That period has been abbreviated—I will not inquire into the cause; but a portion of it still remains, and undoubtedly the necessity which existed for giving this Notice of Motion at the commencement of the Session is a necessity not mitigated, but aggravated, by the delay which has already taken place. When I look at the crop of Amendments which has been sown by the busy hands of Gentlemen all sitting within a narrow precinct of this House, I am fain to acknowledge that the Motion of which I have given Notice has exhibited wonderful fertility, and produced a very large family of children of whom I am not particularly anxious to claim the parentage, and of whose fate I am not disposed to be very careful. The exceptions which it is proposed in these Amendments to insert in my Motion would altogether destroy its intended effect. The hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), for instance, proposes to insert the words "except on Tuesdays and Wednesdays." Well, if we except those days, why should we not also except Fridays, which it would be more natural to except, inasmuch as they are already in a manner excepted under the Standing Orders of the House for discussing Supply? If these exceptions were admitted the upshot would be that the usual days for Government Business—namely, Mondays and Thursdays—would alone remain available for the discussion of the measures relating to Ireland. Now, I put it boldly to every section of this House that it would not be politic or expedient or becoming—I would almost say it would hardly be decent—in the face of this country, or in the face of Ireland, that we should—for I will presume we have got the Bill on the second reading—that we should have the second reading proposed, the debate adjourned, taken up again, and again adjourned; and that in a subject of that kind dealing with the peace and order of the country, dealing with propositions of a character so exceedingly grave, that the discussion should be postponed from Monday to Thursday, and from Thursday to Monday, and from Monday to Thursday again, fresh crops of speeches being in process of germination between those days, and so on, toites quoties, through the weary stages of the Bill. I do not think that the House will allow this. It doubtless knows the ingenuity of hon. Gentlemen opposite. There is an old phrase of "drawing blood from a post," and it is possible they may make arguments out of a stone; but, notwithstanding my experience on previous occasions of their power, and the high estimate I have formed of it, I am really at a loss to know how it can be seriously thought by any Members of this House that it is expedient, having a grave and capital question of this kind before us—a capital charge either against certain persons in Ireland, whom I will not now nicely define—or Her Majesty's Government, that the House should not deal with that subject as an impeachment, either on the one side or the other, as of the first order in weight and importance, and should not give it all the time which Imperial questions will admit it to appropriate. In that case I will no longer detain the House. I do not found my proposals upon imputations or matter of controversy or charge, but upon considerations of general propriety and policy—I may add, decency and necessity. I trust upon these grounds that the House will be inclined to accede to the Motion. Allow me to say that I cannot help hoping that, in spite of the number of printed Amendments on the Paper, the House will accede to the Motion with promptitude.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That the introduction and the several stages of the Protection of Person and Property (Ireland) Bill and the Peace Preservation (Ireland) Bill have precedence of all Orders of the Day and Notices of Motions, from day to day, until the House shall otherwise order."—( Mr. Gladstone. )

said, he rose to propose an Amendment which stood in the name of his hon. Friend the Member for Cork City (Mr. Parnell), who was not then in his place, namely—

"To leave out all the words after the word 'That,' in order to insert the words 'the present state of Ireland does not afford sufficient justification for depriving the Members of this House of their usual facilities for the discussion of public business, and of their constitutional right of initiating and proposing legislative alterations, and of demanding the redress of grievances.'"

The hon. Member said he had a particular claim on the indulgence of the House, as he had been asked to propose this Amendment unexpectedly.

When an hon. Member formally gives Notice of an Amendment, and thus obtains precedence on the Notice Paper, the House expects that the hon. Member giving Notice of the Amendment should himself move it. I am, therefore, bound to say that the hon. Member, in the course he is now taking, is out of Order.

said, he was not proposing an Amendment of another hon. Member, but an Amendment of his own, which very conveniently happened to be printed for him on the Notice Paper.

The terms of the Amendment are identical with those which stand in the name of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). Does the hon. Member assure me that is not so?

The terms of the Amendment which I wish to propose are identical with the terms of the Amendment placed on the Notice Paper by my hon. Friend the Member for Cork.

Then I am bound to say that the course which the hon. Member is now taking is clearly out of Order.

Under these circumstances, I shall confine my observations to the general question.

I wish to say distinctly that the hon. Member is not entitled to move the Amendment which stands on the Notice Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Cork City.

said, that, in obedience to the ruling of the Chair, he was not going to move the Amendment, but would speak in general opposition to the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government. He wished to call the attention of the House to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman had not quoted a single precedent for the course which he asked them to take. On the 30th of March, 1846, Sir James Graham proposed a Motion somewhat similar in terms to that of the right hon. Gentleman; but the Motion only referred to a particular stage of the Coercion Bill then introduced, and to a particular period, and did not ask for the postponement of all the Business of the House. The right hon. Gentleman said it would be indecent of the House to postpone the discussions on this Bill from Mondays to Thursdays, and from Thursdays to Mondays; but the right hon. Gentleman was in Office in 1846, and therefore was, to some extent, responsible for the order of Business. At that time the House of Commons was engaged in the discussion of the Peace Preservation Bill, and that measure was introduced at all times and seasons, which fact formed the main arguments for its opponents. The right hon. Gentleman sought to justify his action on the ground that a grave and capital charge against Ireland was involved. He might more correctly have said a "grave and capital sentence." It was, indeed, a grave and capital sentence which was about to be pronounced upon Ireland, for the result of the trial was a foregone conclusion; and, that being the case, he did not think hon. Members for Ireland were bound by any laws of political warfare or—to quote the right hon. Gentleman's word—Parliamentary decency, to hasten the passing of that sentence. The Motion of the right hon. Gentleman amounted to this—that all the legislative Business of the country should be at a standstill until those proposals were carried. That proposal interfered with the Orders of the House, which were the protection of the House, and especially of the minority. It asked not merely that they should discuss Bills which would make it more objectionable, but by asking them to assent to the course pointed out—namely, that the Bills should in their various stages have precedence over all the other Business of the House—it virtually asked them to pass the measures with speed through the House. In 1846 Sir James Graham's Motion was opposed by the united strength of the Liberal Party; and the contention was exactly the contention of the Irish Members to-day—namely, that the Government were giving precedence to the wrong Bill. Sir James Somerville, who led the Opposition, then defended Irish Members from the charge of delaying remedial Irish measures; and his argument was, that, by desiring the introduction of remedial legislation first, the Irish Members showed their anxiety for remedial legislation, whereon the Government showed their want of anxiety for remedial legislation by proposing to enter upon a dilatory and embarrassing course in reference to a measure of that kind. Therefore, on the Government of to-day, which gave the same embarrassing choice to the wrong measures, rested the responsibility of impeding the progress of remedial legislation for Ireland. Again, it was manifest that since the Session opened indications were sufficient to show that the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman would not be carried without severe and protracted discussion. He might, therefore, assume that the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman entirely destroyed whatever good effect might be produced by calling Parliament together a month earlier than usual. The effect would be that the Session would be reduced to its ordinary duration, and accordingly they had the prospect before them of all the great financial traditions of the country being put off, to the detriment of the Public Service, or carried with that smallness of discussion which was the best cover for Ministers who wished to pass unpalatable proposals. To-day the Chief Secretary had admitted, in reply to a Question, the existence of severe distress in certain parts of Ireland; and it was certain that the landlords were already, under the encouragement given by the proposed Coercion Bills, preparing to put their powers into relentless operation. He thought, therefore, the Irish Members had a right to demand priority over the right hon. Gentleman's proposal, either for a Bill for relieving distress, in the form of a change in the Poor Law, or a measure to prevent the eviction of tenants from their holdings. The Chief Secretary acknowledged the other night that there had been a considerable diminution in agrarian crime. With the smallest exercise of political foresight the right hon. Gentleman might have seen that this diminution was inevitable from the meeting of Parliament alone, without any coercion measure whatever. He (Mr. O'Connor) laid it down as a general proposition that the meeting of Parliament alone exercised a tranquillizing influence upon the people, not alone in England but in Ireland, and that the Session of Parliament was the time for the discussion of proposals for removing, and not increasing, the excitement which arose during the Recess. He asserted that there was not alone a diminution of agrarian crime in Ireland, but that agrarian crime did not exist at all to any large extent, either before or after Parliament met. The proposals of the Chief Secretary were not proposals for the protection of life and property in Ireland; but they were proposals for the protection of his own Ministerial life. By the Prime Minister's own Returns it was apparent that there was a suppression of the truth. Some offences appeared upon the Returns twice, and the same criminal was made to have committed two different crimes upon the same place and at the same time—in fact, there never before was a total of crime made up by so large an extent of sham and misrepresentation. On this point the Chief Secretary had been guilty of entirely misleading the opinion of this country, though he would not say the right hon. Gentleman did so intentionally. Not one in ten of the alleged crimes ought to have found their way into the Blue Book. The right hon. Gentleman was mocking Parliament and mocking public opinion. Among the cases of mutilation of animals was one in which a portion of a cow's tail was cut off; and he would put it to the House whether there was any disregard of humanity in cutting a few hairs from the tail of a cow. Under the head of "Intimidation," it appeared that a party of men threatened a person named Tighe with death if he did not give up a meadow he had taken. That was, no doubt, a serious offence; but in another column, under a different heading, it appeared that "same party broke Tighe's window." Case 110, "Firing at the person." Mr. Welsh was fired at, but not injured. That was a perfectly fair case for the police to put down; but the next case, 111, "Aggravated assault," was not, as it was the same offence, as Mr. Welsh, when dismounting, was struck by a stick and knocked down. When the same party visited several houses on the same night, each visit to each house was put down as a separate outrage. Not only that, but each separate act by each member of the band was put down as a separate offence. Did any man in his senses believe that because a cow was stolen, because a man had a spite against a particular landlord, society was in a disturbed state? It was absurd to describe the breaking of a window, the knocking down of five yards of a wall, or the cutting of a telegraph wire as agrarian crimes. If they were to go into any town in England where there was a large number of operatives, and if every window broken and every bag of tools stolen were put down they would find a larger total than that which the Chief Secretary had so unfairly put down for Ireland. He considered he had shown to the House that the whole basis of the right hon. Gentleman's position had taken away the argument of the Chief Secretary

I must point out to the hon. Member that he is now referring to some observations made in the course of debate by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and that course is irregular. I wish also to point out that the observations which he is now making have no relevance to the Motion before the House.

, said, he was sorry to have been betrayed into a breach of Order. It was not always easy, on a complex subject like this, to keep in the discussion within the strict limits of Order. The proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, and the proposal of the Prime Minister seemed, to a large extent, to hang together. The basis of the proposal of the Prime Minister was that he was convinced by evidence which was before him that there was urgent necessity for the immediate discussion of the Coercion Bills. Now, he thought he had shown that the whole position of the Government was false—that the evidence before the Prime Minister's mind was untrustworthy. But perhaps he was wrong in saying that the right hon. Gentleman had this evidence before his mind. He did not believe that the Prime Minister could ever have seriously looked through these Reports. Had he done so he would have been ashamed to come down to the House and make such a Motion. The Prime Minister had remarked that some said the Government had made their proposals too soon, and others said that they had brought them too late. The argument used in answer to the objection that they brought them forward too late was that had they brought them forward earlier they would have been guilty of irritating passions. The Government, therefore, admitted that proposals which would irritate passions should be avoided; but could the Prime Minister deny that their proposals had irritated passions in the House and in the country; and could he fail to see that since putting these proposals on the Paper a dangerous state of public feeling had arisen? Out of their own mouths Ministers, therefore, were condemned. Their proposals were deferred on the ground that if they were brought in earlier they might lead to a serious division of Parties. Had not the proposals led to a serious division of Parties in the House? He did not mean to say that these proposals were not supported by any Members of the Conservative Party. He did not mean to say that they were not supported by hon. Members who set behind the Treasury Benches. He was aware that, in one sense, they had not created a division but a union of Parties; and he had to offer the Prime Minister his painful congratulations on that union which he had effected between Conservatives and Liberals on the common basis of coercion. He believed that he would be justified in congratulating the Prime Minister on the return of the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. F. S. Powell). That hon. Member was a Conservative, but he was a coercionist, and his Liberal opponent was an anti-coercionist. A coercionist Conservative ought to be dearer to the Prime Minister than an anti-coercionist Liberal. His chief object in undertaking the duty he was then performing was to see whether there was any use in making a final appeal to the Prime Minister. There never was an era when there was such an opportunity of beginning a new epoch of peace and national conciliation; and there never was a man more fitted to exercise the power he possessed over the English and Irish people. He would detain the House no longer, but would make a final appeal to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government to stay his hand while there was yet time, and to make himself the herald of reconciliation, instead of the herald of new bitterness, new animosities, and a new epoch of differences with the Irish people.

said, the present condition of things with which the Prime Minister had asked them to deal was one which none of them had ever experienced before. It was vain and useless to attempt to minimize the extent of agrarian crime in Ireland. To talk of breaking a pane of glass or knocking down a few yards of wall as indicating the state of outrage in Ireland was to trifle with the House. Hon. Members opposite might depend upon it that the House knew far too well what was the condition of Ireland to be in any way influenced by statements of that character. He strongly advised hon. Members who desired to discuss the question to deal with it in a more serious and honest spirit. The proposal before the House was, no doubt, of a very serious character. It took from individual Members of the House rights which they justly held most important; but he thought that the Prime Minister was justified in the proposal which he had made. If ever a Leader of the House was justified in making a proposal of this character he was confident that the present Leader of it was. At the same time, he was of opinion that the House had a right to ask the Government to give it an assurance that the time which they required the House to give up to them for this most important subject should not be wasted. What was the use of giving up the whole time of the House to Her Majesty's Government if the Government took no steps to insure that that time was not wasted? He was anxious, and hoped to hear, before the discussion closed, from the Prime Minister, or from some other Member of Her Majesty's Government, not anything in the nature of a threat as to the stifling of free discussion—that he should certainly deeply deplore—but an assurance that, so far as it was possible, and with due consent from the great majority of the House, that the time so given up should not be wasted in useless and needless discussion. The country was seriously alarmed lest its great institution of Parliament should be rendered ridiculous in the eyes of the world. He had recently been among his constituents, and he would say most unhesitatingly that men of all sides and all parties had assured him that they viewed the present condition of Parliament as most alarming. He would tell the Government that if they were not prepared to deal with the matter with a firm, strong, and judicial hand, they would lose the confidence of the country, and, in his opinion, they would lose it justly. He was one of those who would not, in the least degree, endeavour to stifle fair debate or to curtail fair discussion; but when debate and discussion went beyond the limits of that which was right, then it behoved them to intervene and stop it. The rights of minorities were, he thought, very frequently exaggerated. If they went back to the earliest periods of their history they would find that the majority had always governed the minority. He failed to see how any Public Business was to be conducted unless, after due discussion, the minority was compelled to accept the verdict of the majority. Such a principle was recognized in every assembly. He was of opinion that the time had now come when the will of the minority must be made to yield to the will of the majority. Now that the Government asked hon. Members to give up to them the whole time of the House, and to cancel all those rights and privileges which private Members possessed, they ought to have some assurance that, within reasonable limits, steps should be taken to prevent any of that time being wasted.

remarked, that he felt that the ordinary law had been passed over, and that the House was asked to give up all its privileges, and that private Members were asked to give up all their legislative ideas whilst a measure of injustice and coercion, or rather two measures of coercion, were passed through the House under the false guise—he might say—of passing to what was called the Business and Orders of the House. He begged, therefore, to move as an Amendment, to leave out all the words after "that," in order to insert the words—

"The present state of Ireland does not afford sufficient justification for depriving Members of this House, for an indefinite period, of their constitutional right of initiating and proposing legislative alterations, and of demanding the redress of grievances."

I am bound to inform the hon. Member that the Amendment which he now proposes is similar to the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Cork, which I have already ruled to be out of Order. The slight alteration which he proposes to make in that Amendment is of a colourable character, and would not make it in Order.

said, he was only too happy to bow to the ruling of the Chair; but he had thought that the words he had added might be considered to convey a different meaning. It appeared that even an alteration of the verbiage of the Amendment of his hon. Friend would not warrant him (Mr. Finigan) in discharging what he deemed to be his duty. As the Chair had ruled him to be out of Order, he would withdraw the Amendment, and confine himself to the general question. The Motion before the House set forth that it was one for the protection of property and for securing liberty; but it was a Motion for the protection of the property of the minority, armed with unjust rights, and for enslaving unfortunate tenants. Hope had long been extinguished in those National Irish Benches by the action of Her Majesty's Government. Since 1832 to 1875 no less than 48 measures of coercion had passed through that House. Since 1848 the Habeas Corpus Act had been suspended seven times. From the first year of Her Majesty's reign up to 1875 there had been no less than 37 Coercion Acts. Those Acts had been drawn up in different names—such as the Crime and Outrage Continuance Act, Arms Act, Unlawful Oaths Act, and several, as the Peace Preservation and Protection of Life and Property Acts. He would explain the nature of these Acts. In England a person brought before the local magistrate, or the highest judicial authority in the land, was deemed innocent until proved guilty, and the onus of proof of guilt lay upon those who were instituting proceedings; but in Ireland the law was to be reversed. It was to lay upon the man arrested, either by a justice or a constable, or any other person whom he suspected of illegal acts, the onus of proving his innocence. Therefore, in the two countries the position of the unfortunate culprit was exactly reversed. He asked that Liberal House of Commons not to arm a Liberal Government with such an arbitrary and unjust power.

I must remind the hon. Member that the Question before the House is, whether certain Bills shall have precedence over Notices of Motion and the other Orders of the Day. The hon. Member is not at present keeping himself to that Question. He will have an opportunity subsequently of discussing that Question.

took it that the House was asked to lay aside all public and private legislation until two certain Bills, both of which had been placed on the Paper by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, had been passed by the House. He was trying to prove that there was no necessity for those Bills.

I must call the attention of the hon. Member to the fact that he is going too much into detail upon that matter. The Question before the House is of a very simple and limited character—namely, to give precedence to certain Bills.

said, he would do his best to discuss the question on the two lines kindly marked out by the Chair. He wished, however, to refer to one or two matters connected with the so-called crimes and outrages which had been alleged to be committed in Ireland. The hon. Member went on to contend that the ordinary law gave to the Executive Government in Ireland ample power to deal with outrages, Land League meetings, and any other form of supposed transgression of the law. In support of this view he proceeded to quote from a Circular—issued last year by the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, containing instructions to the magistracy and Constabulary Forces, when—

, again interposing, said: I must point out to the hon. Member that what he is now reading has no relevance whatever to the Question before the House. The simple Question before the House is the mode in which certain proposals shall be proceeded with.

said, he only wished to quote from the Circular to which he had alluded in order to show that, in his view at all events, the Government had already in their hands ample power to do all that was necessary to secure order in Ireland. The Government were, he could not too strongly urge, to be severely blamed for not having put the ordinary law into execution before they had recourse to arbitrary power. The same Circular to which he had referred contained full remedies against that which was known as "Boycotting" in Ireland; and, therefore, the Government were not justified in asking for Coercion Bills, which meant, not law, but despotism and anarchy. [ Laughter. ] Hon. Members might laugh; but he was not afraid to declare that Ireland was in a state of anarchy for 50 years, during which period not fewer than 48 Coercion Bills had been brought in, and he could trace the direct connection between force, which out of the House was no remedy, but which inside the House was urgently needed, to be directed against the best interests of the Irish people. The Circular contained five other provisions, which he would read. ["Question!"]

I have again to remind the hon. Member that he is not confining himself to the Question, which is of a limited character, and has reference to the course of procedure to be adopted with respect to particular Bills.

went on to say that unjust laws had prevailed so long in Ireland that there never could be that respect for the law which prevailed in England. Where the law was in accordance with the wishes of the people it was respected, because it was administered with a just and equitable hand, and with a fairness which challenged the admiration of all men. But the law was despised in Ireland because it was unjust. If crime had been committed by the tenants, he asked, had no moral crime more deep than legal crime been committed by the landlords? It was in the interests of the bad landlords and their legions that they were now asked to postpone the Public Business in order to give them further power to continue a system of crime and outrage on a par with the worst crimes and outrages to which they had recourse in the Famine years 1847 and 1848. He asked the House seriously to consider whether they would give to the Chief Secretary for Ireland, or to the magistrates, or to the police, the power of carrying out maliciously the provisions of a tyrannous and arbitrary law. The hon. Member then proceeded to read extracts from the letters of The Times Commissioner in Ireland, published in the year 1847, when—

said: I must point out to the hon. Member that the extracts which he is now reading have nothing whatever to do with the Question before the House.

submitted that the hon. Member was only arguing that the Bills for which precedence was asked were unnecessary.

I rise to Order. This is the fourth time that you, Sir, have called the hon. Member to Order, and I move that he be no more heard.

was obliged for the warning he had received from the Chair. If he were permitted, he would only read one quotation from a speech delivered by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman said—

If the hon. Member disregards the authority of the Chair I shall have only one course to take.

took that intimation to mean that he was out of Order. If, therefore, he were to continue in the same course, he would merit the castigation which the Chair had suggested. He was quite unwilling to place himself under such a ban. He would endeavour, therefore, to keep himself well within the liberty of speech allowed to hon. Members. What he wished to urge upon the House was that it would have well become a self-styled Liberal Government to have carefully avoided all resort to coercion. The House had been led to form an erroneous judgment by statistics drawn from corrupt and prejudiced sources. ["No, no!"] If the House would listen to Irish Members on Irish matters, as it listened to English Members on English matters, they might arrive at a more pacific solution of their difficulties. He had said before in that House that he was not a Liberal, and he thanked God he was not, because, although he recognized that there was a certain section within the Liberal Party truly Liberal and honest, yet he preferred to be governed in that House and in his own country by coercion put down in the name of coercion by Conservative statesmen, and not by coercion put down in the name of liberty and in the name of that Liberalism which had found such ignoble exponents in the present Ministry. As no case had been made out for these measures, and as the ordinary law was ample to carry on the government of Ireland, he should use every legitimate means to delay measures which were opposed to liberty, to justice, and to Constitutional government.

said, it was with reluctance that he troubled the House. Her Majesty's Government had come down to the House and asked it to give up, for purposes of Irish legislation, that time which was usually devoted to Business introduced by private Members. It seemed to him that Her Majesty's Government had no alternative but to ask that concession of right of private Members, although he trusted that no Irish Member would accuse him for a moment with a want of sympathy for Ireland. His first experience of the country was while travelling through it after the terrible Famine to which reference had so often been made in the course of that debate. No one with the heart of a man could look on their sufferings without having firmly fixed upon his mind a deep sympathy with a people who bore their trials with so much firmness, even through such terrible times. There had been a very strong attempt made, especially by the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), to minimise the crime of Ireland, and he could not think that there could be a greater mistake. Let them look boldly at the question, admit the facts, and then try to find the remedies. These Bills which were before the House were, it was true, Coercion Bills to a certain extent; but he thought they were better called Bills for the better Protection of Person and Property in Ireland. Anyone who even threw aside the statistics brought before the House, who had any knowledge of Ireland at the present time, must be aware that there was a state of things prevailing there which the House could not allow to exist for a single moment longer than it could help. When Irish Members put upon the Paper seven distinct Motions of Amendment to the Resolution of the Prime Minister, he thought the Irish people, who, as they were told the other night, read the papers so closely, were entitled to inquire what dictated a policy which placed further and further in the distant future a radical treatment of the evils of Ireland. The opposition of the Irish Members, as he understood it, was based upon the fact that they disliked the Bill for which the time was now asked; but they seemed to forget that the Bill was but a temporary measure, while the Bill dealing with the Land Laws of Ireland would be permanent in its character, as soon as they could get at it, and he hoped it would go to the root of the Irish land grievances.

Has the hon. Member any authority for making this statement?

said, he was only repeating what had been said by the Chief Secretary. The present measures were not such as those described by the hon. Member for Ennis, for they touched the Press. This Bill did not touch the Press. This Bill, it was true, granted great powers to the Lord Lieutenant in cases of treason and treason-felony; but in the case of agrarian crime the warrant of the Lord Lieutenant could only run in districts already proclaimed. What were hon. Members afraid of? Were they afraid of being arrested? He could not help thinking that the manner in which the Irish Representatives were trying to avoid dealing with this great matter, which the country was resolved to deal with, was awakening in the minds of the most Radical Englishmen feelings of antagonism to the Irish people. They came to the House upon a summons from Her Majesty the Queen, in order that they might deal with questions affecting Ireland; and, so far as the Coercion Bill was concerned, he looked upon it as a measure which would be limited in its operations by the fact that they had a public Press, and that the House of Commons itself would rigorously watch the operations of a Government intrusted with the power which the passing of such an Act would bestow upon it. Those whom the Irish Members agreed in describing as wild and unthinking people would be the persons to be arrested. Irish Members were apparently trying to avoid dealing with the graver matters which lay behind. Delay was the natural consequence of their policy, and he had received letters from his constituents deploring it. The liberties of the people of Ireland must be protected against misadventure by taking up the "village tyrants" whom, at present, as the Chief Secretary said, there was no evidence to convict.

I rise to Order. There must be the same measure of Order for one side as for the other. The hon. Member opposite is referring to a discussion which took place the other night; and you, Sir, have already ruled that course to be out of Order on the part of the Irish Members.

If the hon. Member was referring to the debate of last night he was clearly out of Order.

would only add that the Irish Members would best consult the interests of their country by voting for the proposals of the Government, and so expediting the consideration of a remedial measure of a permanent character.

said, it appeared to him that there was a preliminary question which was of sufficient importance to engage the attention of the House; and he could not help thinking that in the future the course adopted that evening would be looked back to with surprise by those acquainted with the history and past characteristics of the House. The proposition of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister was one which he believed was entirely without precedent in the Records of the proceedings of that House; and it certainly did appear to him an extraordinary thing that the right hon. Gentleman should not have felt it incumbent upon him to have introduced some precedent for the line of conduct he had taken. He proposed that all the Business of the House should be postponed in order that coercive legislation for Ireland should be introduced and passed through the House as quickly as possible. He, however, thought the right hon. Gentleman would find it exceedingly difficult to justify that proposal by any similar proposal in the history of the House. In the natural order of things Notices of Motion given by hon. Members even sitting on his side of the House would and should have taken precedence, yet after a number of these had been already put upon the Paper, the right hon. Gentleman placed his Notice upon the Paper, and it was at once given precedence. He knew that the words "Business of the House" placed at the head of it furnished a colourable pretext; but, at the same time, he ventured to say that, as far as he had been able to investigate precedents of the House on the point, precedence in the past had only been given in cases in which the Notices referred to Business of the day. Yet the Prime Minister now proposed to affect the whole course of the Business of the House for an indefinite period. Such a proposal was at direct variance with the traditions and with the ancient character of the House. The Motion itself involved a suspension of Standing Orders. The Standing Orders of that House, however, had been arrived at after long experience and investigation, and yet they were now at convenience to be set aside. The right hon. Gentleman only made the Motion in the terms in which it was given upon the Paper; but, if for no other reason than that he (Mr. Arthur, O'Connor) belonged to the minority of the House, he felt it incumbent on him to rise in his place, and protest against a Motion which was aimed at the rights of the minority. He wished to quote the opinion of, and the language of, one of the most illustrious and enlightened men that ever occupied the honourable position of Speaker in the House. Mr. Speaker Onslow, speaking on that very point, said that—

"Nothing tended more to throw the power into the hands of Administration, and those who acted with the majority of the House of Commons, than a neglect of or departure from the Rules and Orders of the House—That the forms of proceeding, as instituted by our ancestors, operated as a check and controul on the actions of Ministry; and that they were, in many instances, a shelter and protection to the minority, against the attempts of power."—[ Hatsell, ii. 237.]

If Mr. Speaker Onslow had been Speaker at the present time he could not have more fittingly described the present position of affairs. A learned commentator, Mr. Jeremy Bentham, who was a respected Member of that House, in commenting upon the remarks of Mr. Speaker Onslow, said—

"This maxim is certainly true, and it is founded on good sense, as it is always in the power of a majority to stop any improper measure proposed by their opponents. The only weapon by which the minority can defend themselves against similar attempts from those in power are the Forms and Rules of proceedings which have been adopted as they have been found necessary from time to time, and have become Standing Orders of the House, by a strict adherence to which either Party can be alone protected from those irregularities and abuses which those Forms are intended to check, and which the wantonness of power has but too often suggested to large and successful majorities."

No language could more aptly describe the majority on the Opposition side of the House than the words of Mr. Bentham. The right hon. Gentleman was endeavouring, to establish a most dangerous precedent by threatening the freedom of discusssion in the House, and by interfering with the freedom and the rights of minorities in that House. They were invited by the Prime Minister to make way for the introduction and passing through of a measure which was at present only within the sphere of possibility; and he thought it most unadvisable to attempt to scramble Bills of the importance of this one through the House. Jeremy Bentham said that the advantage of reiterated debates was maturity in the deliberations arising from the opportunities given to a great number of persons speaking on different days after they had profited by what they had heard in the previous debates. Adopting Mr. Bentham's argument in favour of continued debates, he maintained that the English public were not fully informed, and had not the means of being informed, on Irish affairs. Another point in the same argument was that it was a precaution against the effect of eloquence, which might enable a speaker to obtain votes. He was prepared to admit that the right hon. Gentleman last evening did produce a great effect with his eloquence; but he was perfectly convinced, having examined that speech more fully on the following day, that there was hardly a point in it that did not admit of the most complete refutation. That furnished a proof of the value of Mr. Bentham's argument. Fourthly, that argument held that it was necessary for the protection of the minority that they should have different periods in which to state their opinions. In the interests of legislation itself, in the interest of the minority existing in the House, in the interests of freedom of discussion in the future, in the interests of the House and of the country, he trusted the Government would hesitate before they forced a decision on this proposal, which involved so grievous a departure from past history and the spirit and character of the proceedings of the House, and which was fraught with so much danger. In order to furnish an opportunity for this question to be settled, he would take refuge in a Motion, the only one that he believed was admissible on the present occasion, and he therefore begged to move—"That the Orders of the Day be now read."

, in seconding the Amendment, said, he perfectly agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that the affairs of Ireland ought to be discussed in that House without interruption from any other Business. It would not be decent to do otherwise. The state of things in Ireland was so extraordinary and deplorable that it was the duty of the House to try, by every means, and as soon as possible, to bring it to a more satisfactory condition. Neither landlords, tenants; nor the commercial community were benefited by the present state of affairs. His best wish, was that Her Majesty's Government should make speed in settling it and bringing back peace and harmony to the country. But what were the evils which Her Majesty's Government desired to remedy? They were told, and it had not been contradicted, that the Common and Statute Law of the country was at present in abeyance in Ireland, and that another law proceeding from, and administered by another authority, was taking its place. That had not been denied; and it was against such a state of things, more than against any outrages resulting from it, that the measures of the Government were directed. But suppose Her Majesty's Government succeeded, as they ultimately would succeed, in passing those measures; what he feared was that disorders of another and more dangerous kind might take the place of those which existed at present, as the direct result of the proposals of the Government. Therefore, he hesitated to give those proposals precedence over others which ought to be laid before the House. The Government had, through the mouth of the Prime Minister, pressed the House to give precedence to this measure, on the ground that by delaying it they delayed those Land Reforms that the Chief Secretary had said were so necessary for the peace of Ireland. That was a reason given for the coercion measure being disposed of. But he urged, in the first place, that, in order to prevent that injustice which inevitably would be done to a multitude of tenants pending the passing of the Land Act, they should give the precedence not to the Coercion Bill, but to the Land Bill. If the reform were an adequate one, if the Government dealt with the question thoroughly and reasonably, then he ventured to say that as soon as that Bill became the law of the land there would be no necessity for passing a Coercion Bill, even for a week. He should support any Amendment that would give precedence to a measure of Land Reform over a Coercion Bill, believing the latter to be unnecessary, unjust, and impolitic, and not at all adequate to put down the agitation in the form it had assumed, and that it was a measure that would be dangerous to peace in Ireland.

Amendment proposed,

To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the House do now proceed to the Orders of the Day,"—( Mr. Arthur O'Connor, )

—instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

said, he hoped that the House would not hastily accept the Motion, of the Prime Minister, inasmuch as it involved the important principle of representative government, which required that Members should meet together to discharge their duties to their constituents. That principle was abridged, if not abrogated, by the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman. The right of Members of that House was not merely to support or oppose Government measures; but themselves to initiate measures they might deem to be of public utility, and if that right of initiation were taken away popular representation became a shadow. The power of legislation would, in fact, become vested in an oligarchy. In the reign of the present Sovereign any encroachment by the Crown upon the privileges of the Commons was happily impossible; but it seemed there could be a usurpation by the Cabinet of the functions of the Legislature. The House of Commons was asked by the Prime Minister's Resolution to begin by coercing itself, in order that it might end in coercing Ireland. On the Order Paper for the following day there were half-a-dozen Bills relating to different parts of the United Kingdom. If the Resolutions of the right hon. Gentleman were carried, those Bills would probably be shelved for the Session; and, to that extent, a number of constituencies would be virtually disfranchised. Amongst the Bills was one in which he felt a personal interest, and in which the Chief Secretary was not without a feeling of personal interest. He alluded to the Local Inquiries (Ireland) Bill, which was one dealing with Private Bill legislation. That Bill was discussed last year, and the opinion expressed was unanimously in its favour. Although no division was taken upon it, an assurance was given on the part of the Government that it should engage their earnest and immediate attention. He should like to ask, was it quite fair that he should be deprived of an opportunity of testing the sense of the House of Commons on the second reading of that Bill?

regarded the Resolution as a grave interference with the rights of Members, and it had a graver and more serious aspect, as evincing a desire on the part of the Government to impose silence on the minority. He asked, was there any use in sending men to Parliament at all, if they were not allowed a fair expression of their views? If they assented to the proposal of the Premier it would be establishing a very bad precedent, which would affect not only Irish but English people; and he asked that English Members of the House would regard it in that light, and would not assent to the proposal merely for the sake of the temporary advantage they might gain in overcoming the resistance of the Irish Members. He now came to what made this question a dangerous one in his eyes. The measure which the Government wished to introduce was one which he considered most unwise and impolitic—one which was wrong in itself, and which was merely the commencement of bad legislation for Ireland. It was a measure which was to enable the Lord Lieutenant or Chief Secretary for Ireland to arrest on reasonable suspicion persons for treasonable offences, or for offences against law and order; but on what did the Lord Lieutenant or Chief Secretary found their reasonable suspicion? The only means they had of forming an opinion was from the official Reports, and the official Reports were the Reports supplied by the police of the districts, assisted, in some degree, by the resident magistrates, to the Irish Executive. He maintained that such information must necessarily be tainted, because there lay at the bottom of the persons giving the imformation a tendency to exaggerate the offences. The promotion of a policeman rested in the resident magistrate; and, therefore, it was natural to expect that the police would exaggerate everything that occurred in the districts. It was upon information derived from such a tainted source that the Government proposed to introduce a measure by which personal liberty throughout Ireland was imperilled. A man in Ireland was rendered liable to be cast into prison for 18 months on the ipse dixit of the Lord Lieutenant or Chief Secretary for Ireland; and that in itself was a sufficient reason for the Irish Members requiring that in passing a measure of that description there should be no departure from the ordinary Rules of that House. The Bill which the Government were about to introduce was no ordinary measure, for it was far more severe than the measures introduced in 1848 and 1866, inasmuch as it placed a greater power in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant or Chief Secretary—namely, that of arresting for offences against law and order. On such an occasion as this, he considered that the Liberal Members below the Gangway ought to take a more impartial view, and join hand in hand with the Irish Members in insisting that a measure of the description of the Coercion Bill should not be allowed by any departure from the ordinary Rules of the House to be hurriedly passed into law. He did not think that there was before the House evidence of any such overwhelming and paramount necessity as should induce them to go outside their ordinary forms and accept the proposition of the Prime Minister. Even their zeal to support the Government in maintaining law and order ought not to allow them to transgress the principles of the Constitution. He admitted that terrorism existed in Ireland; but he thought it had been exaggerated. Extra police had been sent down to the disturbed districts; and why, he asked, had the members of that force, if outrages were so rife, not succeeded in arresting more of the perpetrators in the very act? He believed that the police had looked upon themselves more as Government reporters of outrages than as real detectors of crime. In some instances, the police had even, he feared, gone the length of manufacturing outrages. In illustration of his argument, he might refer to a letter which appeared in a Cork newspaper, in which it was stated that a house, having quite accidentally taken fire, and the flames having been extinguished, the police arrived on the scene. They were informed of the facts, when a constable asked the owner of the house whether he had any connection with the Land League. The reply being in the negative, the constable suggested to the owner of the house that he would have no difficulty in getting consideration by only applying for it. The owner answered that his conscience revolted against such a thing. Nevertheless, he was visited afterwards by the police twice. Ex uno disce omnes. If any persons were to blame for the state of things existing in Ireland it was Her Majesty's Government. If they had proposed a fair and simple measure of justice some months ago they would have cut the ground from under the feet of the Land League, and the agitation would never have come to a head. But they had not had the courage to pass a Bill temporarily suspending evictions, accompanied, if they pleased, with compensation to those who might be injured by it. He did not think that the Government ought to be permitted to set aside the Forms of the House merely because they had shown incapacity and an incorrect appreciation of the situation. This measure had been aptly described as an engine for the collection of rent. That carried a dreadful meaning to the Irish tenants, for they knew that under the influence of that coercion the most terrible cruelties would fall upon the Irish peasant and his family. The Government know that this measure would result in unspeakable misery to the people of Ireland. The Irish Members had been asked why they delayed measures of relief by opposing this Bill. Now, in the first instance, Members had sought, and sought in vain, for an authoritative expression which would lead them to believe that the Government meant to introduce a good Land Bill for the country. It would be easy for the Government, without transgressing Ministerial etiquette, to give some hope to the Irish Members that they should not be always pleading in vain for that which was so essential to the welfare of the country. The hon. Member was proceeding to refer to M. Gambetta's treatment of the Communists, when—

, interposing, said: I must remind the hon. Member that he is not keeping himself to the Question before the House.

said, he regretted he had offended; but it was the first time he had been called to Order. It was a reproach to the Government that they were now bringing forward, not remedial, but coercive measures for Ireland. He protested against the assault on the rights and liberties of the Irish people. When they were asked to support this 49th measure of coercion intro- duced in 50 years they had a right to remonstrate. He was one of those who were beginning to lose faith in Parliamentary representation. He protested against the fruitless and unjustifiable prosecutions which had been carried on at Bandon; and, calling the attention of the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland to the subject, he should like to ask what was the meaning of those prosecutions of respectable men, seeing that in every case the charges were so groundless that they were dismissed. The Government seemed desirous of establishing a reign of terror in Ireland. He had a strong feeling with regard to the manner in which urgency had been asked for; and, even at the risk of offending against the courtesies of the House, he would do his utmost to strain the Forms of the House so as to resist the proposal of the Government.

rose to address the House, when—

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

was proceeding, when—

I beg leave to ask the Solicitor General for Ireland if any confirmation has been received of a private telegram—

The hon. Member is entirely out of Order.

said, the Prime Minister had made out no case of urgency beyond this—that the Government thought it necessary to adopt the course which they had followed. The course adopted was an invasion of the privileges of private Members. The Prime Minister had not informed the House that there was any widespread crime in Ireland. On no other ground would it be justifiable to depart from the ordinary path, or to entertain coercive measures. The Returns laid upon the Table, so far from justifying the action of the Government, proved that there was a considerable diminution of agrarian crime in Ireland. During the last 14 days there had been only two cases of what was called agrarian outrage in Ulster. In Leinster there were four cases—all of them trivial; in Munster 12 or 14, and half of them threatening letters; and in Connaught there was a similar diminution. In the face of such facts as these, the proper and most sensible course for the Prime Minister to adopt would be to withdraw his Motion. He was well within the truth when he stated that the actual perpetrators of all agrarian offences would not number more than 500 persons. The Government had at its disposal 40,000 men, police and military; and was it not a burlesque for the Government, having already this force, to ask for extraordinary measures for the purpose of dealing with 500 disturbers of the peace? In the county he was connected with there was an utter absence of agrarian crime; last month there was only one case, and that was the writing of a threatening letter. It was said that there had been a great increase of such crime in Westmeath; but when the Returns were analyzed it was found that of 56 offences 47 were the sending of threatening letters, and nine were some other trivial offences. When the Government based their demands for concession of time on such grounds, Irish Members were justified in resisting. They knew well that the majority of Members had formed a foregone conclusion, and that the concession was wanted; not to discuss the measures, but simply to hurry them through the House. If Irish Members had to appeal to reason, and not to prejudice, they would gladly hasten discussion. So long as they knew the feeling which actuated the House they were bound to offer determined opposition. The proposed legislation would seriously affect 50,000 of the very poorest and most wretched of the population. The evidence of that was furnished by the utterances of landlords within the last few days. One had declared that he would immediately enforce evictions, and the most terrible consequences must ensue. No reasonable urgency had been shown by the Government, or he would readily have assented to the Motion of the Government.

warned the Government and some of the Radical Members below the Gangway on the Ministerial side of the House that the time might not be far distant when the Tories might be in power, and when they might avail themselves, in a most inconvenient way, of the precedent the Liberals now sought to establish. For his own part, he was perfectly ashamed at the conduct of the Government in this matter. He had once been under the impression that there was some honest political principle in the Liberal Party; but the proposal now before the House had undeceived him, for he now found that they were ready to sacrifice the interests of truth and justice to the mere interests of Party. He was also thoroughly ashamed of the Radicals below the Gangway, as he had a right to expect that they, at any rate, would have placed principle before Party; but, except in a few honourable instances, he had been grievously disappointed. It was said that the Irish Members were injuring a good cause by their proceedings; but it was a strange thing, if that were so, that the appeal of the hon. Members for Ulster that remedial should precede coercive measures had as little influence as if it were made by the hon. Member for Cork. An hon. Member who represented a Welsh, constituency charged them with wasting time. His reply was that the liberties of the Irish people were of much more importance than the time of the House, and that the Irish Members would be justified in occupying the time of the House until that day 12 months in stopping the nefarious projects of the Government. The hon. Member said his Welsh constituents were alarmed lest Parliament should be made ridiculous; but he thought the Gentleman who adopted that line of argument could hardly understand what Parliament was intended to do. In his opinion, it was intended to give Members an opportunity of expressing the feelings of their constituents; and it would become ridiculous if the Minister of the Crown were entitled to come down and say that such and such a measure should be adopted without giving the Members who were interested an opportunity of offering arguments against it.

I must call the attention of the hon. Member to the fact that he is travelling from the Question before the House. The hon. Member must confine his remarks to that Question.

said, he was simply replying to the observations of the hon. Member (Mr. Hussey Vivian), especially with reference to making the institution of Parliament ridiculous. They were all agreed that the majority should rule the minority; but it had often been found that the minority, although over- powered for the time, was in the right. Parliament had sometimes legislated in a panic, and in those cases the majority had turned out to be in the wrong, as an illustration of which he might mention the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill. At the present time an outcry had been raised against the people of Ireland, based first on the falsehoods published in English newspapers, and next on the false statements made by the Irish landlords, which had caused the Government to believe that the state of Ireland was very different from what it really was. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had not shown any reason for passing a Coercion Bill; and, therefore, there was no real urgency for agreeing to the Motion before the House. If there were any urgent measures in the hands of the Government they should have been brought forward first, and, no doubt, the House would have dealt with them. Under the circumstances, it could not be said that the Government had acted in the most judicious manner. They were disgracing themselves as a political Party, and he could say with perfect candour that he was sorry to see the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster allied with a Government which made such an utterly unreasonable and indefensible proposition as that before the House. As to the question of coercion, they must sift all the evidence produced for it. The Irish Members were justified in going carefully through all the official Returns, and looking at them they were justified, too, in using all the means in their power to convince hon. Members—if they were open to conviction, and would not vote as the Leaders of Parties directed them—that coercion was not required in Ireland. He would, from time to time, give his reasons why Coercion Bills should not be proceeded with. The question of Land Reform was not now before the House, and they had no idea what Land Reforms the Government were going to propose; but he thought that the First Lord of the Treasury would have acted with far more judiciousness if he had introduced a Bill for that purpose first, and then, perhaps, the Irish Members would have compromised the matter, and would, though opposing coercion, have said less if the Land Bill had been satisfactory. He must not be misunderstood. A large proportion of his Colleagues would oppose coercion whether the Land Bill were satisfactory or not; but less time might have been occupied in opposing the views of a tyrannical majority. The statement made the other evening by the Prime Minister was not based on facts, but upon fraud and falsehood. ["Order!"] He was in Order. The Prime Minister said that terrorism prevailed in Ireland, and that the ordinary law was in abeyance; but that was not so. He did not impute to the right hon. Gentleman any statement which he did not believe; but the truth was the right hon. Gentleman had no opportunity of sifting the facts of the case—he was obliged to take a good deal upon hearsay, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland might be said to be in the same position. Referring to statements made on the part of the magistrates of Cavan, the hon. Gentleman was about to produce some counter-evidence, when—

I must call on the hon. Gentleman to keep to the Question before the House. The details into which he is now entering might be in Order if referred to in the course of the adjourned debate on the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland; but they are distinctly out of Order on the Motion now before the House.

said, his object was to show that the basis on which the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government rested his Motion, that all other Business should be postponed until these Coercion Bills were passed into law, had no foundation. He wished to show that no Coercion Bill was necessary, because the whole of the case of the Government was founded upon fraud and falsehood. He undertook to do this before he sat down.

The observations which the hon. Member is now making are out of Order.

said, he would not refer to the case of any particular landlord; but he wished to show that the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, on the authority of certain magistrates, was entirely contrary to the statement which was made by persons of influence and importance in the county of Cavan, who had quite as good an opportunity of knowing what the facts were as the magistrates in question. He wished further to show that no real case had been made out for the proposition which was now before the House. He held in his hand a declaration from the Town Commissioners of—

I must insist upon the hon. Member keeping himself to the Question before the House.

May I ask you, Sir, as a point of Order, whether or not I am justified in showing that in point of fact—

If the hon. Member proceeds with his address I shall not interrupt him so long as he keeps to the Question before the House. But if he wanders from that Question it is my duty to interrupt him; and I must, therefore, insist on the hon, Member confining himself to the Question.

I wish to speak to a point of Order. May I ask what is the point of Order before the Chair?

If the hon. Member continues to disregard my authority I shall have but one course to pursue.

I have not the slightest intention, Sir, of setting your ruling at defiance; but I wish to know what is the point of Order.

I call upon the hon. Member to proceed with his address, and to keep himself to the Question before the House. If he conforms to the Rules of the House I certainly shall not interrupt him; but if he is out of Order I shall consider it my duty to interpose.

May I be allowed to say, without wasting further time, that I have had from different parts of the county of Cavan a declaration that the statement of the magistrates of Cavan which I have read is entirely contrary to the fact. I will do more, Mr. Speaker, I will show that this declaration, which is signed as I have mentioned, is not consistent with the facts, and that the statement as to the alleged outrages is untrue. This I can show from the published Blue Book.

The hon. Member has been repeatedly called to Order by me, and he insists on pursuing the line of argument which I have informed him more than once—several times in fact—is out of Order. I have now only one course to take, and that is to Name the hon. Member. I now Name you, Mr. Biggar, as disregarding the authority of the Chair.

After what, Sir, you have stated, and after what has happened, it will be my duty to move that Mr. Biggar be suspended from the service of the House during the remainder of this day's Sitting.

Motion made, and Question put, "That Mr. Biggar be suspended from the service of the House during the remainder of this days' sitting."—( Mr. W. E. Forster. )

The House divided: —Ayes 160; Noes 30: Majority 130. [B.M.]

The numbers having been declared—

said: Observing the hon. Member for Cavan in his place, I must point out to him that, in obedience to the vote of the House, he must now withdraw.

withdrew accordingly.

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

begged to move the adjournment of the debate. He had thought that some hon. Member of the Party with which he had the honour to act would have taken the course which he had felt it his duty to take. He proposed that until the debate was rehabilitated by the return of that Member of the House who had just retired, they should not pursue—and certainly, he for one, should not have any part in pursuing—the debate upon the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman. He merely desired to say that that Party with which he acted was in this House a very small minority. No doubt, English Members had always liked to deal with small minorities. ["Oh, oh!"] They had never in the whole course of their experience dared to face their match. ["Oh, oh!" and "Order!"]

The hon. Member has stated that he proposes to move the adjournment of the House. In doing that he is bound to confine himself to that Question, and to the Motion moved by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury.

observed, that until the Irish Members had every available Member of their Party in his place, they declined to go on with the discussion of the Resolution. If the Party was to be crippled by suspensions of this kind, although it might suit hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to go on, the Irish Members intended to resist the tactics resorted to, and to show by moving adjournments the spirit in which they regarded them. He was very glad that the Prime Minister, who was not in his place when the Motion for suspending the hon. Member for Cavan was made, was now present.

I must again remind the hon. Member that he is not speaking to the Question before the House. The suspension of the hon. Member for Cavan is not the Question before the House.

said, the House, as the Speaker was aware, was precluded upon the Motion for the suspension of a Member from raising a discussion. He, therefore, humbly ventured to lay before the House some reasons why he asked for the rehabilitation of the debate. ["Order!"] If he was not in Order the Speaker would call him to Order. He had stated that he felt, in spite of the painfulness of the situation, some satisfaction that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had not to play the odious part of executioner on this occasion.

I have already cautioned the hon. Member twice to speak to the Question before the House. He is not now speaking to the Question before the House.

said, that as it appeared to be such a limited question—["Order!"]—and as hon. Gentlemen opposite were exhibiting their usual intolerance, he would content himself with moving the adjournment of the debate.

seconded the Motion for adjournment, and said he would be glad if it were carried, in order that hon. Members might, on a future occasion, come in a less excited mood to the consideration of the main question. It was unfortunate that the incident which had just occurred had taken place when very few Members were present. He himself was not in the House at the time, and, therefore, did not know in what way the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) had offended. ["Order!"]

The hon. Gentleman is now making observations which call in question the vote just given by the House. He is not entitled to question that vote. I must call upon him to speak to the Question before the House. He is not now speaking to that Question.

said, he had no intention of calling in question the vote just given by the House. He asked for the indulgence of the House while he made a few observations on what he understood had taken place.

Any observations bearing on the vote just taken by this House will be out of Order. Do I understand the hon. Member seconds the Motion for the adjournment of the debate?

Yes, Sir.

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

said, he supported the Motion for adjournment. The Prime Minister had that evening made a demand for urgency with a view to impose restrictions on the liberties of the Irish people. Charges were adduced against Irish constituencies in support of that demand, and the Irish constituencies would require that their Representatives should have the fullest opportunity of pointing out the errors and falsehoods which were to be found in the statement on the faith of which the freedom of even the smallest Irish constituency was sought to be curtailed. What were the so-called proofs at the disposal of the Government? They were merely the statements poured into Dublin Castle and Repeated in that House by the mouthpiece of Dublin Castle, the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant—statements of the same character as the notorious Memorial of the magistrates of Cavan, which was an insolent misrepresentation of the state of the county. If there was any voice entitled to be heard in behalf of the people of Cavan it was surely that of their duly elected Representative, of whose valuable services that House had just been deprived.

The Question before the House is the Resolution moved by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury. The hon. Member is wandering very widely from that Question, and I must call upon him to adhere strictly to it.

said, he understood that he had risen to speak to the adjournment of the debate; and without referring to the nature of the accident which had deprived the House of one of its Members—["Order!"]—itmust be regretted that the absence of an important witness to the condition of a considerable part of Ireland—

The hon. Member is calling in question a vote of this House.

No, Sir.

I must warn the hon. Member that if he proceeds with that line of argument he will be disregarding the authority of the Chair.

disclaimed all intention of disregarding an authority which they were all bound to hold in such high esteem; but he must repeal that the liberties even of the smallest constituency should not be trampled upon without the greatest care and deliberation. The hon. Member for Cavan had been desirous of calling attention to a statement which had been drawn up by certain influential inhabitants of that county in contradiction of the statements made by the right hon. Gentleman the chief Secretary for Ireland. The suspension of the hon. Member for Cavan had the effect of closing the mouth of the hon. Member.

The hon. Member is again calling in question a vote of the House.

begged to assure Mr. Speaker that such was not the case. He was strictly speaking to the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, and he had not the slightest intention of questioning the decision of the House. There was quite enough objectionable matter in the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister to occupy their attention without wandering to any other subject, however important that might be. It really amounted to an endeavour to close the mouths of the Irish Representatives. If he put on the Paper for Wednesday or Friday an important Motion, virtually affecting the interests of his constituents, he would not, if the Motion of the Prime Minister were carried, be able to open his mouth on the question to which his Motion referred, because the Government had appropriated the nights usually devoted to private Members for the purpose of facilitating coercion. Her Majesty's Liberal Administration might imagine that the weapon they were forging was one to be reserved for their own delectation and their own particular use; but when Liberalism laid the foundation of despotism, why should not the Party whose antecedents more inclined them to make use of such a weapon take advantage of Liberal precedents in order to complete that work which, a couple of Sessions ago, was described as the establishment of Cæsarism in these Realms? The coming Cromwell would find this weapon ready to his hand, though he could scarcely use it more despotically than the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government. In these circumstances, it seemed to be the duty of private Members to save the Liberal Government from itself; to prevent it from turning tail to its old traditions. He concluded, from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, that the Government itself had not yet had time to master the whole facts of the case. A few sentences were all he had to say for his extraordinary Motion. His golden voice soon stopped, and the great champion of all the liberties had little or nothing to say in defence of his proposal to suspend the liberties of Irish Members and the rights of the Irish people. It was the duty of the Government, in making such a proposal, to state clearly and fully their whole case. Why did not the right hon. Gentleman deliver his apologia pro vitâ suâ? He could have had no more splendid opportunity for exhibiting the most extraordinary results of his gifted genius. The right hon. Gentleman not only left them without arguments, but without the presence of the Ministerial Party. The Government were not entitled to make this demand on the forbearance of Irish Members. The Blue Book which had been circulated that morning could not be studied with that minute care which it required to enable them to criticize the proposals of the Government. The Irish Members had superior information upon the affairs of Ireland, and could point out the hollowness of the Government case. He therefore appealed to the House, in all impartiality and fair play, to give them and the constituencies they represented a full opportunity of stating their grievances. The greatest and most solemn principles of Irish liberty were at stake. "Force was no remedy" was the parrot-cry of Liberalism the other day; force was the only remedy a Liberal Government were prepared to give to-day. He appealed from Philip drunk to Philip sober. He appealed from the Liberal Party intoxicated by the wine of an unexpected triumph—and the most adulterated wine they drank to the dregs, if the Reports of Election Commissions were to be believed—he appealed from them to the same Party in a more sober mood to allow time for the study of the Blue Book which had been sent round only that morning, so that Irish Members might have an opportunity of exposing the falsehood by which the liberties of Ireland were sought to be overwhelmed. By the memory of all that was great and glorious in their history, he appealed to hon. Members. If they felt a noble spirit within them, why not assume that there was a noble spirit in the breast of that race which had given them their ablest generals and noblest soldiers in many a gallant fight and many a desperate charge. [ Laughter. ] The reference to those glorious deeds was received in mocking tones by the Liberal Members opposite. When Sir Charles Napier cried—"Magnificent Tipperary!" on an Indian field, he did not expect that that would be the response to a reference to Irish valour. He trusted the would-be recruits of Her Majesty's Army in Ireland would not read of those mocking shouts of the Liberal Members. Would Her Majesty's Government enter into a detailed account of the reasons which induced them to bring forward their extraordinary measures, for he did not call reasons such statements as that that unknown person had been terrified, or that heroic persons, wearing the uniform of Her Majesty, were afraid to come forward, and state that they authorized their friends to say that they were witnesses of a particular occurrence. He had risen to support the Motion for the adjournment of the debate, and he had entered more fully into the matter than he thought would be necessary when the Motion was first made. When the demand for more time and fair play came from the lips of an Irish Representative, he trusted that some English Liberal Members would be found to support it.

Sir, I must say it was an act of Christian charity on the part of the hon. Member to remind us, just before sitting down, that he had risen to support the Motion for the adjournment of the debate, for if he had not reminded us we should be at a loss to know for what purpose he had risen. He indulged in such flights of imagination, travelled over such wide fields of thought, and altogether accomplished a distance almost so immeasurable from the subjects before us—looking at them in a practical point of view—that it would not be easy to find the connection between the strain of his impassioned speech and the somewhat homely Motion that this debate be now adjourned. I must say, however, there was one astonishing thing accomplished by the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman contrived to do that which, before his rising, I should have believed to be totally impossible. He contrived to make an allusion to the valour of Irishmen, and to the services which they had rendered to this country in the field, without eliciting from this House an expression of pure and enthusiastic sympathy. I did not believe it would have been possible to achieve anything of the kind; but he contrived to do it by the peculiar manner of his presentation of this subject to the House—a subject which of all subjects finds its way straightest to the heart and to the thoughts of every Englishman and Scotchman, as well as Irishman. The hon. Gentleman, having contrived to establish an invidious association between Irish valour and the general strain of his remarks, turned round upon the House and said, in effect—" This is the way in which you treat the services rendered by Irish valour." That is the only remark that I shall pass on that portion of the hon. Member's speech. The hon. Gentleman supports the Motion for the adjournment of the debate. What are his arguments? I did not rise at the first moment, because I was anxious to know whether a fair plea could be addressed to our understanding in support of the proposition. To what did the arguments of hon. Gentlemen amount to? In part they were irrelevant, and in part destructive of the proposition itself. They were irrelevant in this respect. It has been established beyond all doubt, to our great regret, that a particular Member of this House cannot take part in what remains of the Sitting this evening. [ Cries of "Order!"] It has been alleged, on account of his absence from the debate—

I rise to Order, Mr. Speaker. Any attempt by an Irish Member, which was understood by you, Sir, to refer to that question, was ruled to be out of Order; and, in the discharge of your duty, you peremptorily forbade any reference to that matter. As a point of Order, therefore, I object to the right hon. Gentleman assuming anything in regard to what had to remain unspoken.

If you, Sir, correct me I shall stand corrected.

I rise to Order. I believe that you, Sir, were rising from your seat when the right hon. Gentleman also rose. ["Order!"] I am perfectly in Order. I have risen to Order. I wish to ask the Chair for its decision. You were about to rise, Sir, when the right hon. Gentleman assumed that you were not going to do so. I now venture to appeal to you for your decision.

I have ruled that it is not in Order to call in question a vote of this House; but I did not understand the right hon. Gentleman to do so.

I wish to say a word upon the point of Order. You have ruled, Mr. Speaker, that as long as any hon. Member made a reference to the recent incident which occurred in this House, and did not propose to challenge the ruling of the Chair, he would so long be in Order. The right hon. Gentleman appears to take that course. ["Order!"] I am speaking on a point of Order.

The point of Order to which the hon. Member is now referring has already been determined.

Sir, I made no reference whatever to the matters which you had ruled out of Order, in referring to an argument which had been made, and which was perfectly in Order—namely, the argument that in consequence of the absence of a particular Member, this House was disabled from pursuing, with full advantage, a particular subject in which the interests of the constituents of that hon. Member were supposed to be specially involved. That argument was not, in the slightest degree, affected by your ruling, seeing that it did not question the vote of the House; and I was perfectly in Order in referring to it as an argument, though I am bound to say it is perfectly worthless, because it would amount to this, if it were to be prosecuted to its logical sequence, it would be pronounced unreasonable, that whenever an incident of this kind happens—which we must all regret—the House should pay the penalty of being totally precluded from proceeding with its Business as regarded that particular discussion. Let me, therefore, dismiss it with that observation. Well, the other argument of the hon. Gentleman—if, indeed, there was an argument to be discovered in the midst of his redundant declamation—was this, if you would only give him the opportunity, he would show how false were the statements, how untrustworthy were the statistics, how worthless were the arguments and the reasonings upon which my right hon. Friend near me had founded his proposition last night. But that is exactly the opportunity we want to give him. The whole charge against us is that we want to give him that op- portunity, without stint and without limit; and that we have even requested private Members of this House, for a time, to abate their peculiar privileges, in order that the hon. Gentleman may enjoy, in a measure never before afforded to him, the means of making his case known. That is the case for the adjournment of the discussion; and, as Leader of the House, wishing to preserve, above all things, the good humour of this debate, I must say I think I am not over-stating the matter when I say that a portion of the reasoning of the hon. Gentleman was wholly irrelevant, and the remainder is utterly self-destructive.

Question put.

The House divided: —Ayes 35; Noes 269: Majority 234. — (Division List, No. 10.) [B.M.]

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

, in rising to move the adjournment of the House, said, he was very glad to learn from so high an authority as the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister that it was perfectly in Order to discuss, on a Motion of that kind, the question whether it was desirable to continue the discussion on the Main Question before the House in view of the incident which they all regretted so much, and which had just occurred in the suspension of one of their brother Members. In view of what had occurred previous to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, he (Mr. Gray) was of opinion that that was, in fact, the real question; and it was the only question which induced him, as an individual, to move the Motion he now proposed to the House. He was very glad that that question might, upon that Motion, be fairly brought before the House. He certainly should endeavour to keep free from the censure of the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair, because he should be very sorry to incur it by questioning the previous decision of the House, and he had no idea whatever of questioning the propriety of that decision, although it was notorious that four-fifths of the Members who came to decide it knew nothing whatever of the merits of the question. ["Oh, oh!"] It seemed to be the function of hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Benches below the Gangway on the Liberal side to interrupt, no matter whether the speaker was a Liberal or a Conservative; but really that was a sufficiently grave question to induce hon. Members, even though they were in the irresponsible position of sitting below the Gangway, at least to listen for a few minutes while a small minority, placed in a very invidious, and to many of them, certainly himself, in a very painful position, pleaded for what they considered to be rights of the most vital character. The proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, and which he had himself stated to be of supreme importance, was a very simple one—namely, that day by day they should sit until they should take away every shred of Constitutional liberty from every man living in Ireland. The proposal of the Government was a very short and a very simple one. It was that the liberty of every man in Ireland should be placed for 18 months at the absolute discretion of two men. He supposed that, in the United Kingdom, there was not a man who commanded, or who more deservedly commanded, the respect, the confidence, and the affection of the people than the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House; but he would ask hon. Gentlemen sitting above and below the Gangway upon that side of the House whether, if it was suggested that the rights and liberties of every man in England should be committed to the absolute discretion of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, high as was their regard for him, and great as was their confidence in his discretion, his honour, and his patriotism, what would they say to such a suggestion? If this proposed measure of the right hon. Gentleman passed, its result, as they all knew, would be that in a fortnight or three weeks the liberty of every man in Ireland would be gone; and he (Mr. Gray), when he returned to Dublin in a month's time, would have no guarantee that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland would not order him to be sent to prison for 18 months. There was no man inside or outside the House upon whose honour he would place more reliance; but suppose a proposal to place his (the Chief Secretary's) liberty at his (Mr. Gray's) discretion for 18 months, or that any man should have the right to lock him up, even as an untried prisoner, with or without the plank bed and the other amenities with which up to the present they had treated their political prisoners, he wondered what would be thought. And if an hon. Member of the House, on the preliminary discussion of such a question as that, endeavoured to bring forward evidence to show that some of the proofs upon which the Government relied in making out their case for withdrawing all liberty" from 5,500,000 people for a long period were not well founded, and should not be accepted as gospel, even although he might not put his case as artistically or as skilfully as the more experienced speakers on the Treasury Bench, surely that should be no reason why he should be suspended from his right of speech. Would hon. Members, then, think it very unreasonable that his Colleagues should ask for a little time, until he was given an opportunity again of bringing forward his case, feeble and poor, and unworthy of their consideration though it might be? That was their position now. The Liberals and Conservatives were a united band of brothers in their determination to withdraw liberty from Ireland. Now that they, who had never voted together before, found themselves arm in arm together to crush some 40 or 50 men, surely the knowledge of their power should incline them to use it with mercy. Surely, if the Irish Members sometimes lost their temper, and occasionally exhausted the patience of Parliament, most certainly there was some excuse for it. It was the opinion of the men with whom he acted that they should not barter away the rights of their countrymen for any concession whatever. It was not a question of expediency with them. It was not a question whether the Chief Secretary for Ireland would not be able to bring in such a good Bill on account of the resistance he met with. Their position was, that they were asked to sacrifice the rights of the Irish people in such a way that it was a matter of conscience to them to resist to the last. All that they asked was that the debate should not proceed until their little Party was again complete. They held that every argument capable of being adduced by the most insignificant Member of the Party should be heard; and though it was quite certain that the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) was out of Order, seeing that that was the ruling of the Chair—

The hon. Member is out of Order. He proposed to move the adjournment of the House, and he is bound to speak to that Question. He is now reviewing what has taken place in the House, and calling into question indirectly the vote of the House. He must confine himself strictly to the Question before the House.

said, he was endeavouring to show that it was quite right that the House should adjourn until it was itself completed; and he should have thought that, on an occasion of such importance, hon. Members should not only not be unfair, but should avoid the slightest appearance of unfairness to the Irish Party. He did not wish to stand between the House and what it wished to consider; but he thought the present was an occasion when a point might be strained. It was on that ground that he appealed to the Government to allow some such Motion as that he had moved to be adopted, in order to avoid the slightest appearance of unfairness even to the most insignificant Member of the Irish Party.

seconded the Motion.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—( Mr. Gray. )

said, it was desirable they should understand the position in which they stood. He had a Notice on the Paper for that evening with regard to Irish magistrates, the men in whose hands the House proposed to place unlimited power. He maintained that no case for urgency in the matter of coercion had been made out by the Prime Minister; and he desired to avail himself of this occasion to complain of the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. He (Mr. Callan) had put a Question to the right hon. Gentleman on the previous day, and it would be in the recollection of the House—

The hon. Member is quite aware that in discussing questions that are not before the House he is altogether out of Order. He is bound to confine himself to the Question, and not to the Order Book of the House.

I was not referring to the Order Book of the House, but to a Question which I had given Notice of.

If so, the hon. Member is clearly out of Order.

, resuming, said, they might as well have the clôture instituted at once, for that was what the action of the Government amounted to in silencing the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar). He should support the Motion for adjournment in consequence of the intolerance of the Radical section of the House, if for no other reason.

said, it was clear that the House was not asked to adjourn for any of the usual reasons for that course, as they were only just approaching the hour at which that Motion was generally made. It would seem, then, that they were asked to adjourn because of the occurrence of what had been called a "melancholy event." In these circumstances, he felt bound to resist the Motion for the adjournment of the House. If there was an attempt to close the discussion upon the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, he (Mr. Mitchell Henry) would resist it; but he never had, and he trusted never would, do anything to reduce the House of Commons as a legislative and deliberative Assembly to contempt. The Motion for the adjournment was based upon the fact that an hon. Member, whose duty it was to observe the Rules of the House, had violated them. If that course was made a precedent, a Member would only have to conduct himself in a disorderly manner in order to have an appeal ad misericordiam brought before the House, and all Business be stopped. Against that policy he strongly protested. To do such a thing would be trifling with the interests of the country, and with the interests of all free Representative Legislatures in the world. He had left the House before the former division, because he had not understood what the Motion was, as he had not been present when the "melancholy event" referred to took place. But he would not countenance the procedure involved in the present Motion; and he should, therefore, vote against the adjournment.

said, that in the few observations he proposed to make he should place himself unreservedly in the hands of the Speaker, and, by that means, endeavour to avoid the irregularities into which some of his hon. Friends had fallen. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had assumed that the measures which the Chief Secretary had proposed to introduce on the part of the Government were of a most urgent nature; but the right hon. Gentleman failed to show the urgency which he claimed. Many of the crimes which were alleged as creating the necessity for these measures were non-agrarian in their character.

I have to point out to the hon. Member that he appears to be replying to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who brought in the Bill. To refer to a past debate, as the hon. Member knows, is irregular; and I am bound to say that, although the observations which the hon. Member is now making on the speech of the right hon. Gentleman would be perfectly in order when the adjourned debate on the right hon. Gentleman's Motion is resumed, yet that, on the present occasion, that Question is not before the House. The hon. Gentleman is bound to confine himself to the Question immediately before the House.

said, that what he wished to show was that the outrages were not so terrible in their character as they had been described by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Forster). It was not his wish to exasperate any hon. Member, much less to exasperate the Chair; and if the Speaker decided that when he was addressing the House he was not in Order in attacking the groundwork of the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, and that in so doing he was evading the Rules of debate, he would bow at once to the Speaker's decision. The proposal before the House was that the Irish people should give up their special liberties; that special powers should be placed at the disposal of the authorities; and it was further proposed that at such a time the rights of private Members should be suspended, and all their privileges wiped out. It was under these exceptional circumstances that he had desired to reply to the appeal of urgency put forward by the Prime Minister, because it was only a plea of urgency that would justify such a course of procedure. Was he not, therefore, in Order if he pre- sumed to say that the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, which hon. Members said was so terrible, was not terrible; that the statement which they said was urgent was not urgent; that the picture which had been painted in such terrible colours could not bear the test of examination. Was he not, therefore, within the Rules of the House if he said that, taking the alleged murders as a whole, the number was few; that if they took the maiming of human beings in 5,500,000 people during 12 months the total was only 10; that if they took the killing and maiming of cattle the total was only 100.

I must point out to the hon. Member that he is answering a speech which was made last night, and that he is not addressing himself to the Question now before the House. The observations which the hon. Member is now making would be perfectly relevant and in Order if made in the adjourned debate upon the Bill which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland proposes to introduce; but, in my opinion, the hon. Member is not in Order in making these observations upon the Motion at present before the House, which is simply to give preference to certain Bills over the other Orders of the Day.

remarked, that he had simply risen to speak to the question of urgency; and if the Speaker ruled that he could not show that urgency did not exist he bowed to the ruling. At the same time, he wished the House to understand that while he bowed to the ruling of the Chair he did so firmly convinced that when a case was said to be urgent, those who said it was not could get no opportunity of laying their views before the House. He should resume his remarks, and he intended them to be of a cairn and business-like character. Indeed, he was prepared to go through every item of the right hon. Gentleman's statement which struck him as of importance; and, as he should not like to do that to an unwilling and irritated audience, which evinced no desire to listen to him, he should not press his "analysis" at present. He thought the Irish Members were justified, on the present occasion, in the opposition they were giving to the Government measures. They were measures of an extraordinary character, and they had been introduced on the ground of urgency. He was prepared to show that urgency did not exist; but it seemed that he could not proceed with his remarks, as they would be out of Order. He was a new Member of that House, and he had been under the impression that he was entering an atmosphere of freedom and fair play. He had, however, been very much struck indeed by the number and complexity of the trammels by which private Members were surrounded. He could only say that as he should have another opportunity he should certainly make use of it; and he should then be prepared to prove that there had been, upon so important an occasion, so baseless a case put before the House. He should be prepared to prove that the maiming of cattle, and the injuries to property, were not only of an ordinary, but, in some cases, of a very ridiculous aspect. He thought the House, when the proper time came, would be considerably surprised at the want of foundation and superstructure upon which the measures of the Government were based. At that moment he would not trouble the House further.

Question put.

The House divided: —Ayes 34; Noes 277: Majority 243.—(Div. List, No. 11.) [11.55 B.M.]

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

said, that having vindicated their position so far by the two divisions which had now been taken, the Irish Members had no objection to resume the debate until the usual hour which the Government accepted for adjourning it. He opposed the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, because he considered it unprecedented to adjourn the ordinary Business of the House for the purpose of passing a Coercion Bill. So far as his acquaintance with Parliamentary history was concerned, he believed it was not in accordance with the practice of the House to have all the other Business put aside, except for the purpose of passing a Coercion Bill for Ireland. Before he became a Member of that House the Business was, he believed, suspended on one occasion, and a Coercion Bill passed through all its stages in both Houses of Parliament, and made law in less than three days. Her Majesty's Government could pride themselves at present on having the support of the Conservative Party in pushing forward their Coercion Bill for Ireland. They were quite sure of having that support, because the Conservative Party had always felt it their duty to vote in favour of a suspension of the liberties of the Irish people. Upon many questions of detail on other measures there would be strong battles between the Liberal and the Conservative Parties; but when it came to a question of coercing the Irish people it would be found that the English Members would be ready to bury the hatchet and walk as one man into the Lobby. He had already referred to the fact that at one time a Coercion Bill was passed in the course of three days; but at that time Ireland had only a few Representatives in the House of Commons to speak the wishes of the Irish people. He was glad to see surrounding him now on those Benches many men who would not tamely allow the liberties of the Irish people to be made away with in a few days, and it would be found that many weeks would be necessary before the Government would be able to do it. Her Majesty's Government said they required coercion for Ireland. What had been brought forward to show that. The Returns showed, at the most, 26 murders in Ireland during the last 12 months. According to The Standard of that morning, the coroner for one county in England had held 66 inquests during the past year, of which 9 were cases of murder, and 5 of manslaughter—while, for the whole of the 32 counties of Ireland, the Returns showed only 26 murders, and only 5 of them were agrarian outrages. Under these circumstances, if they wanted coercion at all, they required it for England, where, in one district, there had been 9 verdicts for murder and 5 for manslaughter, against 26 in the whole of the 32 counties of Ireland. What, then, was the meaning of this desire to suspend all the other Business of the House in order to bring in a Bill for the Protection of Person and Property in Ireland? It would be a better name to call it a Bill for depriving the Irish people of their rights and liberties, and not a Bill to preserve those rights and liberties and to protect their property. It was said that the control of these measures would be left to the Lord Lieutenant and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland; but he knew, from experience in 1867, that the liberties of the people were not left to the Lord Lieutenant, nor to the Chief Secretary, but were in the hands of every policeman, and of every police magistrate in Ireland, who carried them out with a vengeance. Many men were arrested and thrown into prison on the mere recommendation of a policeman, and seven or eight days elapsed before the Lord Lieutenant's warrant came down for their arrest. He maintained, without fear of contradiction, that if the Government brought in a good Land Bill instead of their measures of coercion it would be found that there was no necessity for coercion. If, however, they persisted in forcing the present measures through Parliament, every advantage would be taken of the Forms of the House to prevent them from becoming law. Coercion was not needed in Ireland; but he had no objection that the debate upon the Prime Minister's Resolution should now go on until half-past 12, when, in accordance with the usual practice, he presumed the debate would be adjourned. But, as a Representative of the Irish people, he warned the Government that, in the interests of those people, he should feel it his duty to oppose the present measures in all their stages, whether first, second, or third reading.

said, the Prime Minister had expressed a hope, which he addressed to hon. Members for Ireland, as well as others, that the very grave and important Motion he had made would be considered with all possible speed. In the course of his remarks, he mentioned, also, the difference of opinion which existed between Her Majesty's Government and the Members of the Conservative Opposition, as to the time when the Motions for exceptional legislation should have been brought before the House. Several hon. Members were of opinion they should have been made some months since; while, on the other hand, the Government considered that they had not, at that time, sufficient grounds on which to rest the case; in fact, that the case at that time had not been made out. Now, the Irish Members had also their opinion upon this question, and they maintained that no case for coercion had been made out even at that moment; and upon that vital question he thought that the Liberal and Home Rule Members of this way of thinking had as much right to their opinion as either Her Majesty's Government or the Members of the Conservative Opposition. They believed that no case had been made out, and even the most hasty glance at the Return of agrarian crimes in Ireland, on which was based the case of the Government for coercion, would show that there were included therein offences of a most trivial character. Indeed, the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had at once ponited to two cases, one of which was the breaking of a pane of glass, and the other the cutting of a telegraph wire. It had been said, very truly, that such cases as these would be very misleading as causes for legislation in the direction proposed; and, supposing such small matters were taken out of the hurried Return furnished by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, it would be found that the total of crime for the year 1880 compared very favourably with those for other years. Again, the Return furnished for the present year also showed that there was a very marked decrease in crime as compared with other years. It would be argued that the intention of the Government to apply to the House for exceptional powers had had a deterrent effect upon the promoters of these crimes; but he thought it might be as truly stated that the hope of Land Reform had also produced a good effect. It had been primarily admitted, both in and outside the House, that agrarian crime sprang from, and was caused by, agrarian wrong, and it was the most natural thing that men who suffered such wrong should attempt, when all other just methods had failed to procure them relief, to redress it for themselves; and, failing that, try to take some vengeance on the wrong-doers. It was well known that for the last six years Irish tenants had been completely at the mercy of their landlords, and were cut off from all hope whatever; and they were at that moment also equally at the mercy of that class who had behind them an unjust law. The landlords had proved them- selves to be stronger than the House of Commons, and had caused the rejection of the measures which had last year passed the House for the benefit of the tenantry of Ireland. After that, what wonder was it that some men should be driven to despair, and have recourse to violence, to prevent the action of a law which they believed to be harsh and unjust, and to deter landlords from putting it into force? If the right hon. Gentleman desired to see these crimes diminish, and finally disappear from Ireland, he should substitute for the law now existing some broad measure of Land Reform. If he would but do that, and show that the tenant in Ireland might safely lean on some power stronger than landlordism, there would be very little need for any measures of coercion. Irish Members believed that the most effectual way of getting rid of the evils complained of as existing in Ireland would be to get rid of the evils which had caused them. The Prime Minister had come down to the House and made a Motion of great import; but he had not thought it necessary, in putting forward that grave proposition, to deprive private Members of their Parliamentary rights and privileges, to offer any evidence in support of the application which he made. The right hon. Gentleman knew, of course, that such evidence would be required of him neither by his own immediate following nor by the Opposition, who were only afraid that the Motion would not be passed soon enough. But surely the Irish Members had a right to know on what grounds of evidence the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman rested; and although they were but a small minority in the House of Commons, they were still the majority of the Representatives of Ireland. They might be but a forlorn hope, yet they considered it their duty to resist the present attempt to strike down the liberties of their country by every means in their power; and if they omitted to perform that duty, they would be false to their country, themselves, to that House, and the Constitution. They were told by the hon. Member for Glamorganshire (Mr. Hussey Vivian) that the minority should submit itself to the majority in that House; but he would say no more in answer to that advice than that it had already been disposed of by the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar). The hon. Member, however, had also said that if the Prime Minister had the time which he asked for placed at his disposal he should take care that it was not wasted. He (Mr. Leamy) had certainly no wish to see the time of the House wasted. It had never been wasted by him, for he had seldom taken the opportunity of addressing hon. Members; however, the suggestion of the hon. Member for Glamorganshire was nothing less than an inducement held out to the Prime Minister to attempt to stifle and silence the utterances of Irish Members in debate. However much hon. Members might think it desirable to confer upon the Prime Minister the power which he sought Irish Members were, on the contrary, of opinion that such a course would be one of the most fatal that the House could follow. No Prime Minister would dare to demand such power as was then asked for, were the liberties of the English people in question. Notwithstanding the majority at the disposal of the Premier, and notwithstanding his Tory allies, Irish Members owed it to the people of Ireland who sent them to Parliament, to the people of England, and to the House itself, to defend the liberty they possessed.

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

Sir, I am not able to agree to that Motion; and I feel it quite necessary to state, in a few sentences, the reasons which compel me to oppose it. We came down to the House with the impression that the Motion which I had given Notice of my intention to move was one that might very well be debated and disposed of in a reasonable time. But, at the same time, we had no intention to endeavour to use any strong measure of appeal to the majority for the purpose of limiting the discretion of those who might think otherwise. Consequently, our intention was this—if the debate had proceeded in the usual manner, and if, between 12 and 1 o'clock, a Motion for adjournment had been made—although we might have objected to that Motion, we should not have objected to it with the purpose of pursuing our objection through all the occasions on which it might be repeated. Now, however, I am bound to say, so far as the Govern- ment can advise the House, we feel compelled to advise the House to decline to accept this Motion, and to decline to accept any subsequent Motion. The reason is to be found in the manner in which the latter moiety of the evening has been spent. It has, in the first instance, been spent in a contest with the Chair; and, in the second place, in Motions for adjournment, commenced not at the usual hour, but at 10 o'clock, apparently with the view of either casting discredit upon the proceedings of the House, and weakening its authority, or, at any rate, of causing such a consumption of time as to make practical progress with Business impossible. I do not wish to put any extravagant or exaggerated interpretation on anything that has taken place; but it appears to us that this Motion is a distinct challenge to the House; and it is for the House to determine for itself whether, in this House, as in every well-organized and well-regulated Assembly, the majority is to prevail, and, I will say, not an unfair majority; not a Party majority; but one which, if it combined Parties, only did so because it is by such a combination that the general sense of the House, and what I may venture to call the moral unanimity of the House, is expressed. For that reason, and as this question has been raised in a manner most unequivocal and entirely beyond the risk of its being misunderstood, by this series of Motions for adjournment, which commenced at 10 o'clock, and which were cleverly intermitted for the space of half-an-hour, when the clock touched upon midnight, we conceive the question is raised whether the House is to retain and act upon its capacity of transacting Public Business; and if the House deems it to be its duty not to allow that capacity to be impaired and nullified, it is to be done by declining to accede to the Motion now made, and to any subsequent Motion for adjournment.

Sir, the Government having decided upon the course which has been announced by the Prime Minister, I rise to say that it will receive the support of hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House. I do not now discuss—what at the proper time may be discussed—the course which the Government has taken hitherto. We consider only the position of affairs at the present time; and, looking to the fact that at the beginning of the evening the Prime Minister put before us, in strong language, the appeal which he made on the ground of the urgency of the situation, that we should take the course of giving precedence to these measures before other Business was proceeded with—taking the case upon that ground alone, and considering the peculiar circumstances in which we stand, I think the Government have a right to the decision of the House upon the present question. We have been prepared, and are still prepared, as soon as it comes to the vote, to support them in the Motion they make; and, in the meantime, we are also prepared to support them in their resistance to any proposal for the adjournment of the debate.

said, with reference to the reprimand administered to Irish. Members by the Prime Minister, in which he was supported by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, he was compelled, on the part of those who sat near him, to say that whatever might be thought of their conduct by any section of the House they would take the course which they conceived to be consistent with their duty. He rose, however, to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland what course it was intended to pursue with reference to the Bill for the protection of life and property in Ireland, and when hon. Members might expect the resumption of the debate thereon?

said, the debate would be resumed when the present Motion had been disposed of.

said, he understood that the present and all subsequent Motions for adjournment would be resisted. But if the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman were debated, what prospect was there that the debate would be adjourned at a reasonable hour? Surely hon. Members were not, in consequence of time having been rightly or wrongly used, to sit all night debating the question of precedence to be given to the Coercion Bills introduced by Her Majesty's Government. Such a penalty would be in the nature of vindictive damages against Irish Members, and he was quite certain that such was not in the intention of the right hon. Gentleman.

said, as the hon. Member wished to know what was the exact purport of the advice tendered by the Head of the Government to the House, he could state to him in a very few words that it was to continue the debate on the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman until it was finally disposed of.

said, after the remarks just made, he felt justified in stating that the Government had no excuse whatever for thrusting through that House a Motion of the first importance to Irish Members on the ground that they were but a small minority. With regard to the incident which had occurred, he had only taken part in one division, along with other hon. Members, who took no part in the affair beyond dividing by way of protest. Certainly, nothing he had done was sufficient to justify the Government in declaring they would now force through the House at a single Sitting one of the most serious Motions ever submitted to Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had said that the Irish Members were a small minority to override the majority in that House; nevertheless, they were the majority of the Irish Representatives, and would convince the Government that they had at their back the majority of the Irish people. They would resist any attempt to force the Motion of the Prime Minister through the House. ["Oh, oh!"] He would withdraw that expression, and say sheer force. That, he believed, formed part of the plan which had been laid down by the Government. The designs of a Government often leaked out in the public Press; and hon. Members had not been blind to the revelations which had appeared in the public Press, or to a rumour which had been going round London during last week, that the Government had been preparing a scheme to spring upon the Irish Members if they resisted the coercion measure. He believed the Government, however small that resistance might be, intended to snatch at it as an excuse to put an end to the discussion, and force that measure through Parliament in as rapid a way as possible. If ever there was a case in which a minority was justified in resisting to the very utmost, that was a case. They had seen minorities smaller than that of the Irish Mem- bers resist just as large a majority as that which they had ranged against them for seven, eight, or even nine nights on questions of not one-hundredth the importance of the question they were now debating. They had also seen a minority of Englishmen so resisting without the excuse the Irish Members had, that they represented a majority of their own people. All he could say was that, small as they were, they were large enough to give a resistance to the proposed measure, which would prove that they were, at all events, in earnest in the declaration that had been made to-day.

, as one of the Irish Members, rose to enter his protest against this proposal; and, observing that the Prime Minister had said he acted on principle, expressed his belief that the right hon. Gentleman was actuated by the knowledge of his power. But there would be a wide difference between the recognition of his power and the recognition of what he deemed the justice of his proposals. The right hon. Gentleman might have got in his head an idea that he would punish the contumacy of the Irish Members; but it would not add much to the dignity of the British Parliament if the Premier came down to that House, backed by a large majority and by the old enemies of the Irish Party on that side of the House, and by that tyrannous coalition sought to crush the exertions of the Irish Representatives to obtain justice for the Irish people. With regard to other matters to which the Premier had alluded, he should have been glad if the contest with the Chair had not arisen, for he did not approve of trespassing on the patience and indulgence of the House; but he did claim that the House should give the Irish Members fair play on a question of such vital importance to the Constitutional liberties and to the lives and property of Ireland as this was. The Premier was taking undignified notice of what had occurred; but he (Mr. Daly) thanked God that a report of these proceedings would permeate outside the House, and that the judgment of men outside would approve of the action of those who sought to delay a proceeding by which any man in Ireland might, on the slightest pretext, be taken without leave or licence away from his family and immured for 18 months, and at the end of that time be released, without any explanation being given him, except by the whisperings of some secret spy, that a suspicion of him had been engendered in the minds of the Irish Executive. Now, what would be the effect of this hurry? It was the duty of the Government to consider the grievances from which Ireland suffered. He, and men like him, were not acting on a mere formula of Business; they were arguing on behalf of a people who, by the acts of the progenitors of the Government and their supporters, were condemned to a single industry—for a people who had been under English rule for centuries, who, for 800 years, had been bound to England, and whose wants England had systematically disregarded. Were the Government treating Ireland in a fair and impartial manner, or in a dignified manner, as an English Cabinet, when, by their overwhelming strength, they compelled the Irish Members to accept division after division that evening? For himself—and he knew that Members below the Gangway would commend it—he should feel it his duty on behalf of his country, and on behalf of himself as an individual, to protest by every means of action in his power against the course of attack indicated by the Premier—a course which he did not hesitate to declare impolitic and undignified. There would go forth to Ireland that not only was coercion to be imposed, but that an unfair advantage was being taken of the House; but he would withstand that to the last gasp of breath, because he felt it to be an exercise of tyrannical and numerical supremacy. A fortnight would not elapse before whatever good feeling existing in Ireland towards England would have disappeared in consequence of what had occurred that evening. He claimed for himself that he had been very careful not to trespass on the prerogatives of the Chair, and had always regarded the rules of debate, because he did not believe that in an Assembly so large as that it would be possible to continue the Business of the country unless order and the rights of minorities were recognized; but he would tell the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister that he was raising up a fatal bulwark against order, and a desperate hostility to the Rules of the House when, under the guise of the Leader of the House, he was endeavouring by means of the unholy combination with Gentlemen on that—the Opposition—side of the House, and by means of numerical authority, to break down the Irish resistance. He would protest against that unfair advantage by every action and deed in his power.

, referring to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon, said, the Party which the right hon. Gentleman led had only one article in its Irish policy; that article was force. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had declared some time ago that force was no remedy; but Members on the Opposition side above the Gangway believed that that was the only remedy. Therefore, he was not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Stafford Northcote) had tendered his support to the Government. He had listened to the right hon. Gentleman's speech not without surprise and sorrow—sorrow, that a man of his eminence should be looking forward to the use of coercion in Ireland. He entirely failed to perceive the connection between those divisions and the course resolved upon by the Government. The Irish Members felt that it was a most critical moment in the history of the Irish people. When a measure of immeasurable importance was pending they were deprived of the services of one of their Colleagues, and they would, by the only Constitutional means open to them, offer specific and Constitutional resistance to the course being taken. In the course of the debate that evening it had been stated that important particulars bearing on the question before the House had been circulated, and that hon. Members had not been able to devote such attention to those particulars as to enable them to fully expose the reality of the basis upon which the proposals for coercion rested. He thought that was a legitimate illustration of the course the Irish Members felt it their duty to pursue. They now found themselves face to face with a remarkable and unparalleled state of affairs. The question was, Whether, from day to day, from moment to moment, the House should continuously discuss the proposal to place every Irishman for 18 months at the mercy of the Lord Lieutenant, and of every officer and humblest servant of the Executive in Ireland? The right hon. Gentleman announced, in language sufficiently specific—which was put beyond a shadow of doubt by the curt speech of the Home Secretary—that a policy, bearing a remarkable affinity to that policy of force, was to be applied to the Irish Members that evening. They thought that the policy announced from the Treasury Bench was worthy of the policy proposed for Ireland. The Irish Members protested against the adoption of that policy as a wrong to the country they represented and as a shame to Liberalism; but it was, perhaps, suitable that a similar policy should be adopted in that Assembly. The challenge thrown down to them by the Government they would sorrowfully, but with resolute hearts, accept. He never in the course of his life felt more certain of the propriety of any action he had taken than he did of the patriotism and propriety of the action he should now take. For his part, as far as physical endurance would enable him, he would oppose most resolute and determined resistance to the attempt which had been made, and which had been described as an unholy combination, to break down and silence Irish Members in order that, at a moment of agony and suffering in Ireland, they might be placed in the hands of one man. It was a situation of a degree of gravity which could not be overstated; and whatever might be the issue of these important proceedings upon which the House was about to enter, whatever might be the issue of the question before them, and whatever might be the issue personally to themselves, they had the consolation of feeling that the proceedings of that House would come under the scrutiny of the world. From his heart he should welcome the scrutiny of the world; with all his heart he invited that scrutiny; and when he spoke of that, he did not mean merely the scrutiny of England and Scotland—although he believed there were in England and Scotland many men who would uphold the case of the Irish Members—but he referred to the scrutiny of the civilized world—of all who were the friends of liberty. The hon. Member declared that the remedy for Ireland should be in the nature of a salve rather than of a scourge; and, having referred to those Members who were content to sit in the House silent renegades when their own people were in agony, he said the principles of a wise Assembly should be first to apply a cure to an evil, and then, when the law had been vindicated by its justice and self-evident propriety, if it did not suffice it would be time to propose another course. He accepted with sorrow, but with a resolute heart, the challenge which had been thrown down, and awaited the result with confidence

said, the Motion before the House stood in a different position to the former Resolutions upon which votes had been taken. It appeared to him that his hon. Friends opposite had played most completely into the hands of the Government, and he would draw a lesson from what had occurred to-night—a lesson of which they were told, long ago, by one who was formerly the Leader of the Irish Party (Mr. Isaac Butt)—namely, that a policy of exasperation would eventually bring punishment on the whole of the Irish Representatives. But the fact that this policy had been adopted so unwisely—and especially, to-night, so clumsily and injudiciously carried on—was no reason why the Government should stifle discussion on this, which was one of the most momentous questions which had ever been brought before the House. The proposal of the Government was to postpone all the Business of the House in order to give precedence to two Bills. He wished, therefore, to ask Mr. Speaker a question of a different character to that put by the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon)—a question which appeared to him to be exceedingly pertinent. One of the Bills to which the Motion referred had been introduced to the notice of the House in a speech by the Chief Secretary for Ireland; but what was the position of the second Bill—the Arms Bill? The House knew no more about any Arms Bill than they did about, say, a Bill for the establishment of a silver currency. How could the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government deal in the manner proposed with the various stages of a Bill of which they had no knowledge whatever? If it were true that the Motion of the Prime Minister was applicable to the Bill which had been explained by the Chief Secretary, and which was on the Table of the House, that did not necessarily carry another Bill; or, if it did, why should it not carry all the measures which the Go- vernment wished to introduce to the House? There were several Bills mentioned in the Queen's Speech, and why should not precedence be given to all of them, and to all others the Government might introduce during the rest of the Session? The House would, of course, resent such a proposal. For his own part, as a Member of the House, he was unable to form an opinion as to the Arms Bill until he heard its provisions explained in the usual way; but up to the present it had not been explained. Not one word had been offered in regard to it by the responsible Government who were about to introduce it; and he therefore wished to ask Mr. Speaker, whether, if the Motion of the Government were carried, it would be possible for it to apply to the second Bill of the precise character of which the House knew nothing? Then, if Mr. Speaker would be kind enough to instruct the House on this point—which he thought was a definite one, and one not hitherto raised—he would say further, with regard to the Motion itself, that it had not been discussed at all, except incidentally in some remarks which had fallen from the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor). The general remarks to which he had listened in the course of the discussion were directed against the Coercion Bill, and decidedly not directed to the question whether the Government Business was to take precedence of all private Members' Business. The right hon. Gentleman who had made the proposal had not given them any references to former conduct of the House on this matter. After some hours' debate here they were, with no opportunity of referring to authorities, and having had no authorities placed before them, asked to make a precedent which should bind the House of Commons for all time. Did hon. Members know what it was to make a precedent in this Assembly; and were they, because some hon. Members opposite had wasted two or three hours in the making and discussion of injudicious Motions, to take revenge, not merely upon those hon. Members, but upon Constitutional Government and the freedom of debate in that House? They had listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman in making his proposal to-night; and, to-morrow, if an adjournment were granted, they might be able to throw some light on this grave Resolution. No lover of freedom and truth could refuse them this opportunity; and to say that they should not have it because two Motions had been made that ought not to have been made, appeared to him to be opposed to all the ordinary principles of fair play such as had ever regulated the Business of the House of Commons. Undoubtedly he should vote with hon. Gentlemen opposite, because they had declared that they desired to continue the debate on this grave subject; but, if they were to begin to-morrow to practice upon the Forms of the House, to introduce irrelevant matter, and, whether designedly or not, to bring ridicule upon the proceedings of the House of Commons, he should vote against them. At present, however, he could not refuse to give them an opportunity of considering this most grave proposal. Before he sat down he would again ask Mr. Speaker, whether, if the Motion were carried by a majority in the House to-night, it could possibly apply to that Bill of which they knew nothing whatever—namely, the Arms Bill?

In reply to the question put to me by the hon. Member, I may observe that the Bill for the Better Protection of Life and Property in Ireland and the Peace Preservation Bill stand very much upon the same footing. Neither the one nor the other has been actually introduced; neither the one nor the other is formally before the House. All that has happened with regard to the first Bill is this, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland has asked leave to introduce it; but it is not yet formally before the House, as no leave has yet been granted.

The right hon. Gentleman has not yet asked leave to introduce the Peace Preservation Bill, nor has he explained it. He has explained the first Bill and asked leave to introduce it.

said, it was material to bear in mind, in considering the question, that the first Bill had been fully explained to the House, but that the second one had not yet come before them in any shape or form. He agreed with the hon. Member who had just spoken as to the clumsiness of the two last Motions for adjournment. He re- gretted them exceedingly, and also the absence of the Leader of the Party that sat on that side of the House; but trusted that, in the absence of that Leader, hon. Members would not allow feelings of hostility to grow in their minds against the Irish Party, and would not persist in the course initiated by the Prime Minister. There were two Members of the House—belonging to totally different sections—who were regarded in certain quarters with feelings of animosity; and, undoubtedly, they produced a more irritating effect upon the House than any other hon. Members. He (Mr. Callan) had had the honour of sitting in that House for 12 years, and he must say, as an Irishman, that during that period one of those two hon. Members had on several occasions irritated him beyond measure. He remembered the one to whom he referred coming lumbering down with elephantine grace, and making remarks offensive to both the Catholics and Protestants of Ireland—to the Bishops and priests, and every section of the Irish community—and the objectionable character of those observations was their chief recommendation. He remembered the irritating influence of this Member during the discussions on the subject of the Transvaal. But, to turn to the other hon. Member to whom he had alluded, he knew that, unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman, who had temporarily retired from the House, did occasionally exercise an irritating influence on hon. Members who sat opposite. He must say that both the Home Secretary (Sir William Harcourt) and the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) exercised an irritating influence on the House. He merely mentioned these things for the purpose of urging on his hon. friends to excuse the impetuosity and heat of the Home Secretary, and to allow him to irritate them to any extreme to night; and he would appeal to the Prime Minister, who really seemed to enjoy the situation, to allow an early adjournment.

I must recall the hon. Member's attention to the Question before the House. His observations have no relevancy to it.