said, the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Dublin (Dr. Lyons) simply took up the ground that remedial legislation ought to precede any measure of coercion, and that it would be more consistent with the nature—or rather, to paraphrase his words, the "good nature"—of Parliament to adopt that course. He did not deny for a moment that the discussion had taken a much, wider range than usual upon the introduction of a Bill, and that many important issues had been raised. Personally, the standpoint he took up was a different one from that which had been occupied by most hon. Members who had taken part in the debate. He was an Irish landlord, and the greater part of his income—probably three-fourths of it—was derived from, the receipt of rents from land. Like most Irish landlords, he found that from time to time he had something to complain of. He had a good deal to complain of in regard to the present year, and, perhaps, more in regard to last year. At the same time, he was able to aver solemnly to the House that he had had nothing to complain of which in the least degree amounted to panic. Although many unwise observations had been made in his hearing by Irish tenants and their friends, he believed that the opinion which they formed of the state of affairs in Ireland was, on the whole, more rational than the opinion formed by the House of Commons. He had often been told in Ireland, when he complained in his own way against certain of his friends for putting the case of the tenant too high, or attempting to make out an impossible case for them, that they had for their sustainment the sympathy of Her Majesty's Government. Long before the Government showed their hand in the matter of coercion, he had arrived at the opinion that it was extreme folly for some of the speakers at the local meetings of the Land League to have placed so strong a policy before the public. Since he entered the House of Commons—now 15 years ago—in almost every Session there had been some discussion npon the question of the Irish land, and a good deal had been done within that time to establish certain rights in favour of the tenantry, which were previously only local customs, and had no existence or place on the Statute Book or in the Irish legal system. But the experience of the tenant farmers of Ireland as to the agencies by which such reforms as they had already got had been accomplished, was that invariably they had been obtained in consequence of the manifestations made by people who had been driven for a time to excess. At the present moment they saw actual coercion placed in juxtaposition with a promise—but only a promise—of remedial legislation. As usual, the two went hand in hand together. Under these circumstances, he asked if there would have been any promise of effectual remedial legislation even now if it were not that the Land Leaguers had committed—if they chose to say so—excesses? Excesses of speech, however, were all that could be attributed to them; and it was a matter of extreme doubt to him (Sir Joseph M'Kenna), if the people had not been stimulated by these speeches, but had maintained themselves in the ordinary fashion duly submissive to the law, whether the remedial legislation they were promised would now be so near at hand. He, for one, certainly did not believe it. The unhappy experience of the people of Ireland was this—that if they were too chary about the legality of their acts nothing would be done for them. He was sorry to say this; but it was really the fact. Again, he would ask, in extenuation of their excesses of language, if the Irish people had not a perfect right to believe in the utterances of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright), and in the speeches made from time to time, and especially in recent years, by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury? Those utterances contained a full concession that the people of Ireland were treated with injustice, that that injustice ought to be remedied, and that so far it had not been remedied, or only partially so. He asked how it was possible, when the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government told them that ejectments in Ireland meant, in their minds, death, that such a statement should not go directly home to the hearts of the Irish people? And if the assertion were true, would not the rude and ignorant peasant feel justified in coming to the conclusion that if ejectments meant death, they ought to be resisted unto death? Personally, he was not prepared to say that they should be resisted unto death; but he asked the House calmly to consider what effect strong language of sympathy like this must have on the minds of ignorant Irish peasants, and whether they were to be too much blamed, or blamed at all, for improving on the right hon. Gentleman's language by their conduct? When he heard the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster rebuke his hon. Friend the Member for Tralee (The O'Donoghue) for some of the remarks he had made in the course of the present debate, his (Sir Joseph M'Kenna's) mind was insensibly carried back to a period of 14 years ago. In the month of October, 1866, the right hon. Gentleman was entertained at a banquet at Dublin, and the hon. Member for Tralee was chairman on the occasion. Very few of the utterances of the right hon. Gentleman were likely to receive censure from him (Sir Joseph M'Kenna). He admitted, as fully and as freely as the late Mr. John Martin, that in the course of the right hon. Gentleman's career nothing contemptuous and nothing unfriendly towards Ireland had ever fallen from the right hon. Gentleman's lips; but he was of opinion that the right hon. Gentleman viewed the case of Ireland from an entirely erroneous standpoint. At the Dublin banquet, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster delivered a speech which was precisely of such a character as might have been delivered by any well-wishing English Member at the present day. It was, he thought, before the right hon. Gentleman joined any Ministry, and when he was less trammelled by Party ties. The right hon. Gentleman stated that just 500 years ago, at the Parliament of Kilkenny, a question was raised how it came to pass that the King was never the richer for his Kingdom of Ireland? and the right hon. Gentleman further told his hearers that at that day—1866—precisely the same question might be asked. He went on, in his own impassioned and eloquent language, to point to various transactions and passages of Irish history which struck most forcibly upon Irish ears and Irish hearts; but he (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) would offer this opinion—that it did not become Englishmen, and men in high office, to express sympathy with the Irish people very much in advance of what they were prepared to do. Upon that occasion the right hon. Gentleman said enough, as he had also done on many other occasions, to justify—if not expressly, inferentially to justify—revolution in Ireland, if it were a feasible thing to accomplish. A great change appeared to have come over the right hon. Gentleman. He now drew nice distinctions. He admitted that in the past that the Irish people were bound by unequal laws; that the whole policy of England had been adverse to Ireland; that the Land Laws of Ireland were in a most unsatisfactory condition, and that remedial legislation was needed; but, notwithstanding all those admissions, he turned round when the conduct of the people was brought under consideration, and because, in isolated instances, acts of violence had been committed, he called upon the House of Commons to come to the conclusion that because 2,500 cases of crime, or supposed crime, including threatening letters, had occurred, 5,000,000 or 6,000,000 of people ought to be deprived of their rights and freedom. What was it but doing away with protection to life and property in Ireland, if any single individual was to be entrusted with supreme power over their personal liberty? By the Bill which the Government sought to introduce, the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, or the Chief Secretary, was to be empowered to send into gaol any man who was merely suspected of entertaining seditious and treasonable views, and keep him there for 20 months without trial. And the Chief Secretary or Lord Lieutenant would be able to do this for any offence alleged or suspected to have been committed before, as well as after, the passing of the Act. He knew of nothing more contrary to all the principles upon which British liberty was established, and upon which Irish liberty ought also to be established. ["Divide!"] It was unnecessary for hon. Members to cry out "Divide!" so peremptorily. The question now before the House and the country was not that which was before the country 14 years ago, and was not the question mooted in the Parliament of Kilkenny—How the King was never the richer for Ireland?—but the question for consideration, both in Ireland and here was, How was it that Ireland was the poorer? That was the real question they had to deal with now. He contended that Ireland was the poorer because of the unjust legislation of England; and he, therefore, opposed the introduction of the Bill until a measure of remedial legislation was placed before the House such as would tend to put an end to the present state of things. On a recent occasion the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) stated that the vital question was one of £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 a-year. That was so, or very nearly; at any rate, it was proved to be a question of some £3,000,000. At present the landlords derived an income from the land of Ireland which amounted to about £3,000,000 a-year more than was estimated under Griffith's valuation in 1852. It might be asked why this should not be the case, seeing that the price of produce had gone up considerably since 1852, and why should not rents go up equally with them? [Mr. WARTON: Hear, hear!] The hon. and learned Member said "Hear, hear!" He (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) put the question very plainly. The proposition was this, Why should not rents also go up? [Mr. WARTON: Question!] That was the Question—Why should, rents not go up along with the value of produce? The answer was, that between 1852 and 1870 there had been not only an increase of £3,000,000 in the rents of the Irish proprietors, but more than £3,000,000 annual burden had been placed upon Ireland in the shape of increased taxation. The case of Ireland would never be fairly settled, nor justice done to the Irish landlords as well as the tenants, until Parliament was prepared to indemnify the landlords for consenting to part with some of their existing rights. He desired to be plainly understood. He had no interest in the matter, except as an Irish landlord, apart from the feeling of patriotism which animated him as an Irishman; and he boldly asserted that it was impossible for Parliament to do justice to the Irish landlords and tenants without the Ministry coming down to the House of Commons and asking for a Vote of money. Passing from that subject, he was prepared to admit that Griffith's valuation could not be held to represent the present value of Irish land. It was quite true that in 1850 the instructions issued by Sir Richard Griffith were consistent with the valuation they had placed upon the land at that time.

The hon. Member is now discussing the details of a Land Bill which is not before the House. He must confine himself to the Question before the House.

said, he would endeavour to keep himself strictly to the Question before the House. He had been endeavouring to put hon. Members right with respect to something which had passed in the course of the debate that evening. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Meath (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) had referred to the question of Griffith's valuation, and had made a point of the matter; but if he (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) was irregular, he would not refer to the subject further. In the main he agreed with the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Meath; and when Mr. Speaker permitted his hon. Friend to say certain things in the course of the discussion, he had assumed that he (Sir Joseph M'Kenna), without any great violation of Order, would have been permitted to say how far he agreed with and how far he took exception to the views of his hon. Friend. He had nothing more to say on that head, and would now simply address himself to the Question before the House, which was, Whether remedial legislation ought to precede, or ought to follow, coercive legislation? The position taken up by his hon. Friend the Member for Dublin (Dr. Lyons) was that it ought to precede coercive legislation, and many hon. Members who sat upon the Benches below the Gangway on each side of the House entertained the same opinion. Personally, he was anxious to clear himself from all responsibility for coercion in any shape. He believed that coercion would have been quite unnecessary if the Government, six months ago, had shadowed forth their Land Bill, even if it went far short of providing full justice to the Irish tenants. If the Government had intimated their readiness to bring in such a Bill, and endeavoured to carry it through Parliament, while at the same time they would strictly punish agrarian crime, there would have been no necessity for any such measure of coercion, nor would the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary have been able to lay before the House the long catalogue of criminal offences which he had submitted.

remarked, that, in obedience to the advice of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of Her Majesty's Government, he proposed to sift the facts which had been laid before the House by the Chief Secretary. He was sure that in respectfully following the advice of so eminent a statesman the House would give him a patient hearing, and he promised that he would endeavour to confine his remarks to the Question before the House. He also ventured to address the observations he was about to make to the House in obedience to a higher call than even the instructions of the Prime Minister—namely, from a sense of duty to the constituents who had sent him there for the important purpose of preserving the liberties of his country. In most of the addresses which had been delivered, the facts of the case and the figures had been studiously ignored. They had only been dwelt upon by the right hon. Gentleman who moved the introduction of the Bill and the right hon. Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland. The figures adduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary—bare and ridiculous as they were—were totally insufficient to establish the case of the Government—neverthless, the right hon. Gentleman found it necessary in common decency to submit some figures, and the Solicitor General for Ireland found it an easy task to reiterate the statements of his Colleague. But in the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, and in the statement of every hon. Gentlemen who followed him except the hon. Member for Stoke, no attempt was made to deal either with facts or figures. If they were to suppress the Constitution of Ireland and to deprive the Irish people of their rights, liberties, and freedom, there ought to be some better justification for their action than the anonymous letters which had been quoted ad nauseam. If they were to be the groundwork of the suspension of the liberty of Ireland, he was not prepared to deny that Her Majesty's Government might not have made out a case; but he did not think the House should be led away either by newspaper statements or anonymous letters. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster told the House that it was the letters which he had received which induced him to leave the path he had hitherto travelled and support a policy of coercion. He (Mr. Dawson) wished to show what the real character of these anonymous letters was; and he could not do so better than to refer to the instance of an hon. Member who represented an Irish constituency (Mr. Tottenham). A false report was inserted in The Dublin Daily Express, a Tory journal, of a speeeh the hon. Member for Leitrim was alleged to have delivered in Lancashire, and the hon. Member wrote to The Daily Express to contradict it. He (Mr. Dawson) would ask the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government to give him his attention while he read the letter. His object was to show the right hon. Gentleman that no reliance was to be placed either upon anonymous letters or many of the statements contained in the Irish papers. The letter of the hon. Member for Letrim was written to the editor of The Freeman's Journal, and was as follows:—

"Carlton Club, Pall Mall, S.W., Jan. 7th.

"SIR,—My attention has been called to a letter in The Freeman of some days back from the Rev. John Maguire, written apparently in consequence of a false report in some of the newspapers of what I said at a meeting at South-port, in Lancashire, on 29th ultimo. I beg to inform you that on the 30th I addressed a letter to the editor of The Daily Express denying the accuracy of the report, in as nearly as I can recollect the words of enclosed copy from memory. As you have given publicity to the same report, and also to the Rev. John Maguire's letter, I shall feel obliged if you will give this letter and the copy of letter to The Daily Express also a place in your paper. I may also add that on the 2nd inst., finding no correction had been inserted in The Express, I telegraphed to the editor asking him to publish my letter, but my request was not complied with.—I am, sir, your obedient servant,

"A. LOFTUS TOTTENHAM."

This was the letter written by the hon. Member to The Daily Express, which published the inaccuracy, and which The Daily Express, which gave the inaccurate report of the meeting at Southport, refused to publish—

"Carlton Club, Pall Mall, S.W., "Dec. 30th, 1880.

"SIR,—In a short report of the proceedings at a meeting at Southport yesterday, which appears in The Daily Express of to-day, I am reported to have said that 'I was obliged to leave the country and bring my wife and children to England for protection.' I beg to inform you that I said nothing of the kind. In a recent paragraph based upon a letter to The Times, written by my brother, you describe him as a magistrate and resident landlord, and as being of Glenfarne, though his own letter begins by saying he is neither one or other, and gives his correct address. If such matters are worth reporting at all surely they should be reported correctly, as such mistakes lead to very unpleasant misapprehensions.—I am, sir, your obedient servant,

"A. LOFTUS TOTTENHAM."

That letter was suppressed, notwithstanding the fact that the falsehood was freely circulated. But there was another circumstance in the matter which must not be lost sight of. The editor of

"Now you have great sympathy with a few hundred landlords, but point out to me any sympathy which has been manifested for the hundreds and thousands and millions of Irish people who were expatriated from their homes in the Famine of 1846."

Although the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had now become the advocate of the few landlords, the hon. Member for Manchester reserved his sympathy for the thousands of Irish people who sought refuge in foreign climes from the unjust legislation which had thrust them from their homes. Frequent allusions had been made to a speech of the right hon. Gentleman in 1866, in which, referring to the Coercion Bill of that year, he said—

"And it may be that those who sit here 18 years hence will find another Ministry and another Secretary of State ready to present you with a cup of the same overflowing and ever poisoning medicine."

The hand which now presented the overflowing and ever poisoning cup was the hand of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. He said, in the same speech, that the majority of the people would wish that the Island were unmoored from its fastenings in the deep. There was as much truth in this now as there was at the time it was spoken, for when the course taken by the right hon. Gentleman was considered it would seem to sever the last chain which bound Ireland to this country. The right hon. Gentleman had abandoned figures. But the Prime

"When a farmer failed they scarcely ever saw his name in The Gazette; that the people who made the Corn Laws also made a new law, which was that everything payable to landlords must be paid first. The farmer might migrate; he might take a wayside public-house or become a labourer, while the consequence was there were 20 others ready to step into his shoes and pay more rent than he had given. The man who did so might struggle on, but only until he also went down into the vortex."

That, he submitted, was the very argument of the Land League. They had no need to propose violence; but they had told the Irish farmer, as the right hon. Gentleman had told the English farmer, that when they took farms upon which others had failed to pay a rent beyond their scope, they only went into a vortex in which they were sure to be engulphed. Again, some of the so-called poetry published at the time of

"Dear Sir,—One night, about 7 o'clock, a window of my house was broken in. I can prove that the police were seen going towards the house within half-an-hour of the time the act was committed. I reported the matter to the inspector, but no notice was taken of it. On the same night that the window was broken, a poor man living here, going out to the place where his donkey was kept, found a policeman in the house. When asked why he was there he was unable to give any excuse. There is no doubt in my mind as to who are responsible for such outrages as knocking down hay-cocks, removing loads from carts, and other acts of a similar nature.

Signed, EDWARD BURN."

From 1844 to 1880, and from 1880 to the close of that system, they would find that there were always persons who were ready to swear away the lives of the Irish people. He thought the admission of the Chief Secretary, in his speech, was a more powerful argument in their favour than all those he had used. The right hon. Gentleman acknowledged himself, when referring to those outrages, that they had, perhaps, been somewhat magnified, and that they were the result of evil laws. Was it just, then, for Parliament to punish the people for falling into the trap that same Parliament had laid for them? It was frankly admitted that the present state of affairs was due to the existence of evil laws; and yet they were then asked to punish the people of Ireland before any steps whatever were taken to remedy the evils from which that people suffered. Looking upon evictions as sentences of death—and as such they were described in eloquent words by the Prime Minister—instead of condemning the Irish people for what they had done, they should consider it slight and trivial under the circumstances, and feel surprised at the resignation and patience which had been manifested. He could not describe what that resignation and patience had been and was.

"Who made the heart? 'tis He alone

Decidedly can try us;

He knows each chord, its various tone,

Each string its various bias.

Then at the balance let's be mute,

We never can adjust it;

What's done we scarcely can compute,

But know not what's resisted."

He would ask the Government to do what they did last year. They brought in a measure of justice, and they dropped that measure. They had now brought in a measure of injustice; let them drop that. It was introduced to the House,

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

I beg to say, on the part of the Government, that we propose to resist that Motion.

regretted that neither the hon. Member who proposed the adjournment, nor the Prime Minister, had thought it right to refer to, or seemed to forget, a little incident which must be in the recollection of the House. On Saturday morning the Bill was circulated amongst hon. Members. The House was supposed to have no cognizance of it, yet it was distributed. It had transpired that the circulation of the measure was an entire mistake, and hon. Members were informed that they ought to shut it out from their recollection. But they could not "shut it out from their recollection," and it was, and must remain, known to the House. The whole current of the debate had been changed by the production of the Bill. ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Members might cry "Oh!" but surely they would not say that they would debate a Bill, the provisions of which they were acquainted with, in the same way that they would debate a measure the provisions of which they were ignorant of? If hon. Members could reply that they would debate both in the same manner, his argument would fall to the ground; but he denied that they could make that answer, and he would say that the mere fact of their knowing in a definite manner what were the precise provisions of the Bill must have a considerable effect upon their minds, particularly when they considered the enormous importance of the measure with which they were dealing—a measure to suspend the Constitutional liberties of the people of Ireland. If the Government would take into consideration the fact that hon. Members were now, for the first time in their lives, on the Motion for its introduction, debating a Bill with the clauses of which they were familiar, he was sure they would agree that not one more, but probably two or three more nights, should be given up to the discussion. He did not think the Bill had improved, now that he had seen it; on the contrary, he thought it was a somewhat worse measure than the one the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland in his opening speech sketched out. He had thought the right hon. Gentleman's statement a candid one, although he had been long enough a Member of the House to know that a Bill as seen in the opening speech of its chief advocate on the Motion for its introduction, was a very different thing to the Bill as brought in and laid upon the Table. This, in fact, had become a maxim in the House. It must be admitted that the Irish Members would now debate the Bill in a different manner to what they had intended; therefore, the Government ought to concede to them a little more time, and he trusted to hear a somewhat more favourable reply to these appeals than had been made on former occasions.

said, the hon. Member who had just spoken had pointed out that the current of the debate had changed in consequence of the Bill having, through inadvertence, been published to Members since the last evening of the debate. He (Mr. Dillon) desired to point out also that the character of the debate had changed in consequence of the total change in the position of the Government, as shown by the speech of the Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman, with regard to the policy of the working of the measure in Ireland, contradicted in almost every sentence the speech of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and had therefore, by his utterances, entirely altered the character of the debate. There were several statements in the speech of the Prime Minister which, before the Bill was allowed to go to another stage, the Government ought to be distinctly pledged to. They were very important statements; and, however much the right hon. Gentleman made them in good faith, he believed the Government of Ireland would go behind every one of them. The Prime Minister, had stated that if the Bill passed its provisions would not be used to put down the members of a certain organization in Ireland; but the Chief Secretary for Ireland had said that they would be used for that purpose. From the point of view of the Irish Members, this was an essential consideration in decision of the attitude they were to take in regard to the measure. He should like very much to know whether they were to believe the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, or whether they were to believe the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, as to the purpose the Bill was to be used for in Ireland. He would repeat that the debate had assumed a new character from the speech of the Prime Minister, and he, for one, thought the Government were not treating them fairly in not allowing another night to debate the question. Before he sat down, he would say that to his mind a most unjust and indecent pressure had been put on some English Members who were going to speak for Ireland to-night, to prevent them from raising their voices. He was sure there was truth in the statement that such pressure had been exercised, because he knew several English Members who had intended to speak against the Bill, but had not done so.

The hon. Gentleman must address himself to the Question before the House. The observations he is now making have no relevancy to the Question.

said, that, in conclusion, he would merely say the announcement made at the beginning of the debate by the Prime Minister, that it should close this evening, had a very unfair effect in prejudicing the opposition of the Irish Members, and preventing English Members from giving them that assistance which they had a right to expect.

doubted whether the Prime Minister was well advised in adopting his present course for the purpose of saving the time of the House, because, so far as he (Mr. Parnell) himself was concerned, he did not think it would result in the saving of any time whatever. If they were to have another night's debate, those hon. Members who wished to speak on the Question before a division was taken would, no doubt, have sufficient opportunity for doing so. He himself had not yet spoken on this matter. Of course, he did not put that forward as a matter of any great importance; but he should have liked to have had an opportunity of alluding to some passages in the speech of the Prime Minister, more particularly to a charge the right hon. Gentleman had made against him, and to a speech which the right hon. Gentleman had put into his mouth—a speech which was delivered by another person. The House, at the time the Prime Minister put this speech into his mouth, did not desire him to interrupt with an explanation. He had desired to do so; but the House had in a most distinct and emphatic manner refused to grant him permission whilst the Prime Minister was speaking. The matter was of some slight importance, because the Prime Minister was at the time endeavouring to prove that he (Mr. Parnell) could be justly convicted under the provisions of the proposed Bill, because he had made the speech in question—a speech really not made by him, but by another person. If the Prime Minister persisted in going on with the debate, he did not, as he had said, believe that time would be saved; and, moreover, he was sure that the dignity of Parliament would not be enhanced. The House heard a great deal about impediments placed in the way of Public Business. He should be very sorry, indeed, to place any impediment in the way of Public Business—["Oh, oh!"]—Perhaps hon. Members who signified their dissent in the articulate fashion that was sometimes customary in that House would kindly inform him on what occasion he had ever placed any impediment in the way of the transaction of Business by the present Government? He admitted that, with the exception of the present measure, the measures to be introduced by the Government would be for the advancement of liberty and the amelioration of the suffering classes in Ireland, and he should be very sorry to stand in the way of measures of that kind. He would repeat that he had never, at any time, stood in the way of the Business of the present Government. Well, shortly, the situation seemed to be this. If they were kept up all to-night and all to-morrow and all to-morrow-night, they would not be so far advanced in the end as they would have been if they had been allowed to continue the debate in its ordinary course to-morrow, for in all probability they would have come to a division to-morrow night. The passions on both sides of the House would have been roused, and the compromise, now possible, would have been rendered impossible. He regretted exceedingly that the House was placed in this position. It was very easy, he knew, for the Government to get up a shout of "Obstruction!" Nothing was easier; but if he were in the position of the Government, he should be ashamed of pandering to such a manifestly unjust accusation. But, of course, the shout of "Obstruction!" having been got up, the path of this Bill would be proportionately smoothed, and the Government would be enabled with greater ease to ride roughshod over the opposition, and still further deafen the ears of the people of this country to the voice of reason in the matter. He had ventured to urge on the Government that they should not go on with the Bill now; but, of course, if the Government insisted, the Irish Members would endeavour to fight the battle out as strongly as they could, and in this course they would be supported by the public opinion—["No, no!"]—he maintained that the Irish Members would be supported in this cause by the opinion of the majority of the people of Ireland. [An hon. MEMBER: Of Ireland only.] An hon. Member said, "of Ireland only." Well, he (Mr. Parnell) estimated at much greater value the wishes of his constituents than he did those of the ill-informed persons who had sent the hon. Member interrupting him into the House. Although the Irish Members—or those who acted with him—were few in number, yet they had the consciousness, when they were now trying to do their duty, that they were endeavouring to stand up for a people who were worthy of all the poor exertions they could make for them. To his mind, it was a glorious task to attempt to defend their people. He believed the tide was near turning, and that this would be the last insult which would be offered to Ireland by a Liberal Government. The Government were to blame. They had turned their back on all their pledges and all their promises, although not all their traditions. It was, unfortunately, too true, that the present Prime Minister had been, perhaps, more identified with coercion than any other Minister in that House. In 1866, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, said he felt ashamed to be a Member of a Parliament which was called on to enact a Coercion Bill for Ireland; but, to-day, he was not only a Member of a Parliament, but Member of a Government, which came forward, when Ireland was at perfect peace, and endeavoured by getting up a shameless panic in England, by the spreading of unfounded rumours, by the manufacture of reports of outrages which had never taken place, and by every means which a powerful and unscrupulous Government had at its hands, to create a constituency for the reception of this measure—a measure which had not been equalled in severity since 1846. The House had taken four nights over the discussion of this first reading. In 1846, the first reading of the Coercion Bill which was then introduced occupied seven nights in its discussion. Why did the discussion of that stage of the Bill occupy such a period? It was because the Coercion Bill of that day was made the battle-ground of the rival English political Parties. The Tories introduced it, and the Whigs opposed it. It was unfortunate for Ireland that the Tories were not in Office to-day; they would not then have had this attempt to bring forward a measure of coercion of this kind, or if they had made the attempt, the Irish Members would have had the assistance of the united Whig and Radical Party. They would have heard, then, all those platitudes about the desire of the Liberal Party to pass equal laws for Ireland—that everything that was to be applied to Ireland should also be applied to England, and that there should be no difference between the treatment of the two countries—all the stock phrases that did the various Members of the present Liberal Cabinet such good service in the days when they were out of Office, but which were now forgotten, would be repeated for the confusion of Tory attempts at rising a cry of "Obstruction!" Unhappily, there was now a Liberal Government, and they had now the spectacle of two united Parties; but only united for one purpose—to crush, put down, and bully a poor, weak, and starving nation which they had not attempted to assist during years of famine and suffering. There were those two Parties united to coerce Ireland, and for nothing else. He did not know how long the debate was to last; but the duty of the Irish Members was to use every Form of the House in order to prevent the passage of that stage of the measure until they had had a fair opportunity of discussing it. He would call to mind some words spoken by the Prime Minister a long time since, which, perhaps, the right hon. Gentleman had forgotten. They were uttered during the passage through the House of the Divorce Bill; and it was a true saying which, perhaps, the Prime Minister had heard, that "curses, like chickens, came home to roost." The things people said in past times were often used against them. The right hon. Gentleman, perhaps, remembered his own conduct on that Bill, when he declared that he and the 40 Members with him would strain every Form of the House to defeat the Bill.

Give me the reference.

said, he should be happy to give the reference; but did the right hon. Gentleman deny that?

I want the reference.

resuming, said, the death of a relative of the right hon. Gentleman, and the adroitness of Lord Palmerston, only secured the passing of the Bill.

Are those my words?

said, he had not quoted them as the words of the right hon. Gentleman, but as the substance of what he had said. Of course, if the right hon. Gentleman could deny the correctness of the quotation, he would be able to do so. Now, the Irish agitation had been contrasted very much with O'Connell's, and they had been told that if only they were like O'Connell, nobody would have anything to say against them. It was said to-day that O'Connell's agitation was Constitutional and orderly, while the present agitation was the reverse. But O'Connell was denounced just as they were to-day—in fact, much more so—and experience of Irish politics taught them that no Irishmen could conduct an agitation in Ireland without being denounced as murderers and ruffians. The Edinburgh Review had said—

"The most common excuse of the 'great shabby' is that the Catholics are their own enemies; that the violence of Mr. O'Connell and Mr. Shiel have ruined their cause, and that but for their boisterous courses"—

precisely the same charges that were made against the present agitators—

"The questions would have been carried before this time. The answer to this nonsense is that the very reverse is the case. The mild and the long-suffering may suffer for over in this world. If the Catholics had stood with their hands before them, simpering at the Earls of Liverpool and Bathurst, they would not have been emancipated until the year of our Lord 4000. As long as the patient will suffer, the cruel will kick. No treason, no rebellion, but as much stubbornness and stoutness as the law permits; a thorough intimation that you know what is your due, and that you are determined to have it if you can—this is the conduct we recommend to the Irish. If they go on withholding and forbearing and hesitating whether this is the time for discussing or that is the time, they will be laughed at as fools for another century, and kicked for another as slaves. 'I must have my bill paid,' says the sturdy and irritated tradesman. 'Your master has put me off 20 times under different pretences. I know he is at home, and I will not quit the premises till I get my money.'"

An hon. MEMBER: I rise to Order. Sir. I should like to know if this has anything to do with the case before the House?

I do not see the connection, and the remarks of the hon. Member seem to me to be irrelevant.

, resuming, said, he had intended to point out the connection between his remarks and the Question when he had concluded the extracts; but he would do so at once. In the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and also in the speech of the Prime Minister, it had been repeatedly charged against the Land League that they had conducted their agitation in an improper manner. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster went so far as to say that if the Land League had conducted its agitation in a proper manner, he would have joined it and sent a subscription; and he was endeavouring to show by reference to history the analogy between O'Connell's agitation and the present agitation. Just as this agitation was said to be conducted improperly, so there were men who charged O'Connell with conducting his agitation in an improper manner. He would quote from Sydney Smith to show that there were men in those days who believed that O'Connell was right in the method and plan of his agitation, just as the present agitation was the only way in which to win this great cause. But he did not wish to persevere in reading the extract if Mr. Speaker should decide that it was not relevant. The Edinburgh Review continued—

"Many a tradesman gets paid in this manner who would smirk and smile himself into The Gazette if he trusted to the promises of the great."

Every word of that, he thought, was singularly applicable to the present day. O'Connell was described as the most restless and reckless of demagogues in 1830. Sir Robert Peel thus spoke of him in 1841—

"O'Connell came down to the House every night, increasing the difficulties of the Government of Lord Melbourne, and denouncing their measures by every calumnious expression which an imagination could invent."

But O'Connell himself told us how he was treated by English statesmen. He said—

"I do not think I am guilty of the least vanity when I assert that no man ever made greater sacrifices to what he deemed the cause of his country than I have done. I care not how I may be ridiculed or maligned. I feel the proud consciousness that no public man has made more, or greater, or more ready sacrifices. Still there lingers behind one source of vexation and sorrow—one evil, perhaps, greater than any other—upon the gratitude of my countrymen. It consists in the bitter, the virulent, the mercenary and, therefore, the more envenomed hostility towards me, which my love for Ireland and for liberty has provoked. What taunts, what reproaches, what calumnies have I not sustained? What mode of abuse? What vituperation? What slanders have been exhausted against me? What vials of bitterness have been poured on my head? What coarseness of language has not been used, abused, and worn out in assailing me? What derogatory appellation has been spared? What treasures of malevolence have been expended? What follies have not been imputed? In fact, what crimes have I not been charged with?"

In those days no Irishman could enter on an agitation without being charged with every crime. In those days it was possible to direct public opinion with fatal force against any Irish agitation, no matter how Constitutionally carried on or properly conducted. But how was Mr. O'Connell's agitation carried on? What were the features of dissimilarity between the agitation of those days and that of ours? He quoted the following passage from the Duke of Wellington's letter to the King in 1827, with reference to O'Connell's trial. He said—

"I do not suggest an impossible hypothesis to your Majesty, and I state the possibility—I might state it more strongly—of the Roman Catholic tenantry of the country refusing to pay tithes or rents. The clergy and the land- lords might have recourse to the law. But how is the law to be enforced?"

I rise to Order. Has this anything to do with the adjournment of the House?

The Question is that the debate be adjourned. The hon. Member is speaking to that Question. He has not yet shown any reason why it should not be so adjourned, and I am bound to say that the House would be better pleased to hear some original observation. These long extracts do not seem to bear very strictly upon the Question.

thought he was speaking to the Question of adjournment when he said that Members ought to have full liberty of placing their case before the House. He was showing how easy it was to slander any Irish politician. The Duke of Wellington went on to say—

"How can they distrain for rent or tithes upon millions of tenants? This measure, which will most probably be the first of resistance and rebellion in Ireland, will occasion the ruin of all your Majesty's loyal subjects residing in that country, and of many in this; and it must be observed that it will give the rebellion a vast resource of money of which your Majesty's loyal subjects will have been deprived."

But the right hon. Gentleman had accused the Irish Members in a speech which he put into his (Mr. Parnell's) mouth—a speech which was spoken by somebody else—of having incited to crimes of violence and to disturbance of the public peace; and, as a consequence, the right hon. Gentleman indicated him as one of the persons who ought to be imprisoned. Now, if he imitated the Prime Minister in certain speeches he had made in the House, and in the country upon the Irish question, he should have fallen, and justly fallen, under the criticism of the right hon. Gentleman. He had been very much struck by a speech delivered by the right hon. Gentleman in Scotland in 1879—

I must really put it to you, Sir, whether the observations of the hon. Member at the present moment have anything to do with the Question before us?

I rise upon a point of Order, Sir, to point out that the right hon. Gentleman who has just addressed you has interrupted the hon. Member who was addressing the House in the midst of a sentence.

I invited the hon. Member for the City of Cork to speak more strictly to the Question, and I am bound to say that, in carrying on the observations he has been making and in reading so many extracts, he is really trying very severely the patience of the House.

said, he would not for the world transgress the ruling of the Chair; but he was bound to say that he should have to try very severely the patience of the House in the course of the debate. He was not aware, however, that trying the patience of the House was a breach of Order, and it sometimes became necessary to do so. Personally, he should be very unwilling to do so; and if he was told by the Chair that he was not entitled to read the extract he was reading at the time, he should at once desist from doing so. His object was to show that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, delivered in Dalkeith, on the 24th of November, 1879—["Order!"]—was far more criminal—["Order!"]—and far more liable to censure than the speech which the right hon. Gentleman quoted from him (Mr. Parnell) on Friday night, and which the right hon. Gentleman intimated ought to include him within the scope of the Bill about to be introduced. The right hon. Gentleman intimated as plainly as he could, and gave the House to understand, in fact, that his (Mr. Parnell's) speech on a particular occasion was calculated to incite to a breach of the public peace. The point which he wished to establish now was simply this—["Question!"]—was simply this—["Question!"]—

Two can play at that game.

The point he wished to establish was simply whether the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, delivered in Scotland, in November, 1879—["Question!"]—

I rise to Order. I wish to appeal to you, Sir, what the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister's speech at Dalkeith has to do with this debate?

The hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork does not appear to understand clearly the Question before the House. The Question before the House is that the debate be now adjourned, and the hon. Mem- ber is, in speaking to that Question, entitled to refer to the Main Question, before the House in so far as it relates to the question whether this debate shall or shall not be adjourned. References to speeches which have been made at different times and not bearing upon the question, as I have pointed out to the hon. Member, are not in Order.

continued: Of course, after the ruling of Mr. Speaker that a reference to the speech in question was not in Order, he should not think of pressing it for a single moment, and he should have desisted long ago if the Chair had distinctly expressed that opinion. He might state, as explanation, that his reason for making the reference to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was this—["Question!" "Order!"]—that the Irish Members were particularly upon their trial in that House. The Irish people were also upon their trial; and he considered—until he heard the ruling of Mr. Speaker—he considered he was entitled to show, by reference to the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, and by a comparison between the right hon. Gentleman's speeches and those which he (Mr. Parnell) had delivered, the harmlessness of his own contrasted with the particular statements made by the Prime Minister. The speeches of the right hon. Gentleman were, of course, made at a time when he was not Prime Minister. ["Order!" and "Question!"] He would now leave the question of the Prime Minister's speeches, and merely say he believed that if he (Mr. Parnell) had uttered the sentences which he had been about to read from the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman in Scotland as his own, he would have been prosecuted. ["Question;" "Order!"]

I rise to Order. I understood you, Sir, to rule that the hon. Gentleman was to confine himself to the Question before the House, and that it was not in Order to refer to the speeches delivered by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government in Scotland. I put it to you, Sir, whether the hon. Member for the City of Cork is obeying the ruling of the Chair or not?

I must call upon the hon. Member to speak to the Question before the House, which is, that this debate be now adjourned. He is entitled to refer to the Main Question before the House in so far as it has any bearing on the Question that the debate be now adjourned.

Mr. Speaker, may I say a word upon this point of Order—["Order!"]—I wish briefly to submit to you—

I have been appealed to on a point of Order, and I have expressed my opinion upon that point of Order. Having done so, the hon. Member for the City of Cork is in possession of the House.

The Irish Members asked for more time to conclude the debate, and they expressed the opinion that one night more would be sufficient. If the Prime Minister and the House refused to give them that one more night, it would be a sign that they did not desire the Irish Members to have that full and fair opportunity of discussing the question which they thought they were entitled to. He submitted to Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, that the Irish Members were the best judges of the extent and nature of the resistance which they ought to make to this measure of coercion. If Her Majesty's Government continued to oppose the adjournment of the debate that night, they could not possibly save the day that the Irish Members desired to have for the purpose of full and fair discussion. He asked in the name of common sense, and common reason, what was the use of entering into the contest that the Government now proposed to enter into? What did they propose to gain by it? They would not save time. Did they think they would save the credit of their Assembly? Did they think when the Government was exhibited, as they must be exhibited, to the people of Ireland as a Government bent on forcing a policy of coercion down the throats of the Irish people in hot haste, and almost at the point of the bayonet, pressing it forward from day to day almost without allowing proper time for the inspection of the Returns which had been laid on the Table of the House, without waiting for the other Returns explaining the outrages during the months of November and December on which they based their entire case—did they think that such conduct would be looked on as fair or generous in Ireland? Did they expect that the reputation of that Assembly would be maintained as one desiring to hear both sides of the question before it pronounced its judgment; and did they suppose that public opinion, either in Ireland or in this country, would not support the Irish Members in the appeal to all the Forms of the House against the indecent haste with which the measure was being pressed forward?

remarked, that a few moments ago, when he heard the scornful laugh with which an appeal for fair play was met—["Order!" "Question!" Divide!"]—he would repeat that when he heard, a few moments ago, the scornful laugh with which the appeal for fair play from those Benches was received by the Liberal Benches opposite, when he heard the derisive cheers which greeted the appeal of the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) for fair dealing in the matter, he could not help thinking that it had not been, and was not, a fair discussion that hon. Members wanted so much as they wanted to exercise upon the House a somewhat similar coercion to that which the promised Bill proposed to apply to the Irish people. It might be that the Constitutional liberties which they enjoyed there might be of as short duration as he feared the Constitutional liberty of Ireland would be; but while hon. Members did enjoy them, they were entitled to insist upon them, and insist upon them they would. He believed that one of the Constitutional privileges of a Member of that House was to express his opinions upon any subject that came before the House of Commons. That was not only a Constitutional privilege; but it was the bounden duty of a Member of that House to express his opinion upon a matter that vitally affected the freedom of his constituents. He should certainly like to express his opinion upon the Question that was before the House. There had been speeches made by the Prime Minister, by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Charles Lewis), which he should much like to comment upon. There had been other speeches that he had heard and read upon which he should also like to comment. He did not believe that the question was at all exhausted. He did not believe that the cause was decided because the Prime Minister had spoken. He did not believe that the cause was decided because the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had turned his back upon his lifetime, and professed upon this question opinions which he had been reprobating all his life. He did not believe that the cause was decided because the Representative of a small handful of people in the North of Ireland professed to speak for the majority, but which the hon. Member (Mr. Charles Lewis) no more represented than he (Dr. Commins) represented the Republic of France. He, therefore, contended that the question had been by no means argued out, and the people of Ireland and the people of England, too, would require it to be argued out. If, therefore, the slightest indecent haste was exhibited, if the slightest suspicion of endeavouring to burke discussion was aroused—["Divide!"]—he would pay no regard to the clamour of hon. Members and their inarticulate cries of "'Vide, 'vide!" He warned them that they would have to answer to the public opinion of their countrymen for their actions. There was a Court of Appeal beyond the floor of that House, and the seats of some hon. Members might not be as safe as they imagined if they persisted in this course of endeavouring to stifle discussion and put down the voice of Ireland. ["Question!"] He did not propose to take up a minute of the time of the House unnecessarily; but the clamour to which he was subjected would certainly not have the effect of inducing him to abridge by half-a-minute the remarks which he intended to make. ["Speak up!"] Hon. Members who cried "Speak up!" were Members whose reason was as steeled against argument, whose minds were as hardened in prejudice as a blacksmith's anvil; and it were just as easy to endeavour to make an impression upon an anvil as to endeavour to bring them to reason. He had spoken much longer than he should have done if he had not been interrupted. Indeed, he would have finished all that he had to say in one-half of the time. He had only wished to suggest that an opportunity should be afforded to himself and many hon. Members on the other side of the House who had not spoken, of addressing the House upon the Main Question. He knew that many Members on the Liberal side who had not indulged in clamour, but, on the contrary, had sat quiet, wished to speak, and it was only a matter of justice and fair play to the people of Ireland, that the question should be allowed to be discussed at greater length. He had, therefore, risen to support the Motion for the adjournment of the debate, and he trusted that right hon. and hon. Members on the Treasury Bench, if they wished to show that they were prepared to give the Irish Members fair play and a fair hearing, would consent to give way. If Her Majesty's Government wished to rule the Irish Members by argument and reason, and not by brute force, they would accede to the proposition now before the House, which he had great pleasure in supporting.

said, that, in rising to support the Amendment for the adjournment of the debate, he felt bound to say that it was too important a question to be dealt with in a hurry. The English Members regarded it as an inconvenient thing that they should be kept there for a few nights; but the Irish Members were fighting for the liberty of their country, and not for the convenience of hon. Gentlemen who objected to be kept there night after night. He himself was anxious to say a few words upon the Main Question in regard to the views of his constituents, and he had not yet been able to catch the eye of the Speaker. There were upwards of a dozen Irish Members who still desired to address the House, and it would be unfair to close the discussion until they had had an opportunity of being heard.

expressed a hope that he might shortly be permitted to retire to rest. He was glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had already retired, for no one would wish to shorten a life that was of so much value to his country. He trusted, however, that the right hon. Gentleman had left with some of his able lieutenants full discretion how to act. His own impression was that at about 2 o'clock to-morrow afternoon, after a number of them would have spent the night and day on the floor of the House, and some of them would have lost their tempers as well as their night's rest, something would happen which would be likely to lead to a compromise. ["No, no!"] He knew that it was the correct thing for hon. Gentleman to cry "No, no!" to such a suggestion when it was made at the beginning of the struggle. He had seen it done three or four times already, and "No, no!" was sure to be cried out to any hon. Member who rose, as he did now, to suggest a compromise He hoped his words would be on record, so that those who shouted "No, no!" so lustily now might be able to refer to them at 2 o'clock to-morrow. All of them were ready to fight and see it out; but they all knew what would happen at 2 o'clock. A few men with cool heads would meet as if by accident in the Lobby, and negotiate a common sense course of getting out of the dilemma. He asked why they could not take that course now, and cut out the 15 or 16 intervening hours, doing now what they were pretty certain to do if the House consented to sit until 2 o'clock to-morrow? ["No, no!"] Of course, hon. Members opposite cried out "No, no!" That was quite correct and according to the card; but he would put it to the Treasury Bench. ["Question!"] This was the Question. The reason for the adjournment of the debate was the question; and if any hon. Gentleman was calling out "Question!" in his sleep he hoped some other hon. Member would push him and wake him up. The reason for adjournment was one of justice. The Government could not be so unfair as to expect that the hon. Member for Cork was prepared to make his speech in reply to the terrible attack which had been made upon him on Friday by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government at an hour when he knew that his remarks would not be reported. The attack which had been made upon his hon. Friend was almost an unprecedented one, and it was most desirable that a fair opportunity should be afforded for a reply. It was but justice that the discussion of the Bill should be heard at a time when the Press of the country could report the hon. Member's explanation. There would be nothing lost, inasmuch as the hon. Member had intimated that the debate would close on Tuesday, when all the speeches to be made could be reported. Unless the Government agreed to the adjournment, the House would be in precisely the same position at 3 o'clock on Tuesday as they were at that moment, and nothing whatever would be gained. He thought that the debate should be resumed at the usual hour on Tuesday in a manner worthy of that Assembly, when the division would be no doubt reached.

said, the hon. Member who had just sat down had made use of the only argument that had been advanced in favour of the adjournment of the debate. The hon. Member urged that the debate should be adjourned in order that the hon. Member for the City of Cork should have an opportunity of replying to the speech of the Prime Minister at a time when his explanation could be recorded by the Press. He entirely agreed with the hon. Member that this was desirable; but what was to prevent the hon. Member doing so at an earlier period of the evening? The House would undoubtedly have accorded the hon. Member a careful and attentive hearing at any hour that he might have thought fit to rise. He had not, however, risen, and it was not thought too much to ask the House to protract the debate simply because the hon. Member had not thought fit to reply to a speech made last Friday by the Prime Minister. The hon. Member had stated that no instance could be brought forward in which he had obstructed the Business of the House; but it was difficult to reconcile that assertion with one which he made shortly afterwards, when he stated it was the duty of Irish Members to exhaust every form of opposition in the House to this Bill. It was true the hon. Member had qualified this by adding the words—"until it was properly discussed;" but who was to be the judge? The Government's sense of propriety in the matter was that every Member of the Party opposed to the Bill should be heard. But this was not the idea of proper discussion which had prevailed in that House. It had generally been considered sufficient that a certain proportion of the Party opposing a measure should lay their objections and views before the House of Commons. But the hon. Member said that Irish Members must be the best judges of the amount of resistance to be given to this Bill. Hon. Members had a perfect right to offer any resistance they pleased; but he (the Marquess of Hartington) submitted that the majority had also a right to state what amount of endurance they were prepared to show. It was all very well to come down after a great deal of time had been expended, and, like the hon. and learned Member for Meath (Mr. A. M. Sullivan), propose a compromise. The time for compromise on this subject had almost past; but, if some such suggestion had been made at an earlier stage of the discussion, the House would possibly have been glad to entertain it. But hon. Members opposite had not asked for any compromise. The discussion which had taken place during 10 nights had been on precisely the same subject. It must be remembered that the House was only discussing the introduction of the Bill, and that its forms as well as the principles it contained would form the subject of further discussion, while its provisions remained to be discussed in Committee. The question before the House at that moment was very simple and limited—namely, whether any such measure of protection for life and property as Her Majesty's Government had brought forward was required; and whether, after four nights' debate, further discussion was necessary?

remarked that, although, no doubt, some hon. Members were anxious for a division, it appeared to him that the speech of the noble Marquess should not pass unanswered. It would be found that any unfavourable change which might take place in the tone of the debate dated from that speech. He had hoped up to that moment that the discussion would proceed in a calm and moderate temper; but that expectation had been removed at the time the noble Marquess intervened. When the Prime Minister was pressing any question it gave some pain to hon. Members on those Benches to find themselves in opposition to the right hon. Gentleman, who never treated them with unfairness, but with the courtesy and chivalry of his nature. When, however, they had to deal with the noble Marquess, they had the same experience as those who were called upon to deal, not with the knight, but with the knight's squire—they felt, in short, that Don Quixote had been succeeded by Sancho Panza. He felt that hon. Members opposite, who interrupted him with so little courtesy, were the very men whose hearts responded to his description of the situation of the Leadership of the Liberal Party, and who knew that the day when the noble Marquess succeeded to the Leadership of the Party—

I must point out to the hon. Member that the Question before the House is—"That the Debate be now adjourned."

was endeavouring to show how the speech of the noble Marquess affected the Motion. There was another difference in his mode of dealing, very different from that of the Prime Minister. That right hon. Gentleman made some show of reason in his addresses; but the noble Marquess laid down the proposition that, in all the evenings of discussion which had taken place on the Queen's Speech, and on the Motion for leave to bring in this Bill, Irish Members had been practically discussing the same question. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) utterly denied that proposition. In the course of conversation with an hon. Member on the subject under discussion that evening, and on the question discussed on the Address from the Throne, that Liberal Member observed to him that in the debate on the Address the English Liberals and Conservatives were allowed to take the greater part in the discussion, while poor Ireland was but a pawn on the chess board. "But," added he, "if I were an Irishman I would insist on spending as many hours on the first stage of the Bill as were spent on the Address from the Throne." Therefore, his reference was quite relevant to the discussion before the House. But the position of the original question had changed, because, on Tuesday morning, for the first time, the House had been placed in possession of the documents showing the evidence on which they were asked to take away the liberties of the Irish people. At that time a portion only of the indictment against Ireland was laid on the Table of the House; and hon. Members had not, even at the present moment, the whole of that indictment before them, for the Returns of crime for November and December had not yet been presented to them, and these constituted the most important part of the charge. The reason for this was that Her Majesty's Government had, in November, refused to accept coercive proposals. Why, then, he asked, had they decided to adopt in December what they had rejected in November? It was the crime of these two months which had decided the mind of a vacillating Government. But he again pointed out that the Returns of that crime were not yet before the House; and that, as they constituted that portion of the indictment which changed the minds of the Government, they might also change the minds of hon. Members with regard to the policy of the Government. By presenting to the House only the mendacious and disputed totals to which he had referred, the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant had obtained the pledges of his Colleagues to receive his proposals under false pretences. Not till then had Irish Members been, enabled to test the truth of the figures and facts, the examination of which had destroyed the basis of the whole case. Therefore, he maintained that since last Tuesday the whole question had not been before the House. Whatever might be the indictment of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, he could not but observe that the production of the Returns was remarkably slow. The little truth that had appeared with regard to this question leaked out on Tuesday morning, and everything that had gone before had proceeded on imperfect information, and upon false issues. While the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) was speaking on Thursday night last he had watched the Prime Minister, and felt himself justified in saying that the expression on the countenance of the right hon. Gentleman was that of surprise and shame; and he appeared to be shocked by the revelation made to him by the hon. Member with regard to the case of his right hon. Colleague, which made clear to him the trap he had fallen into, and the means by which his Ministry had been led to propose measures of coercion for Ireland. He, therefore, said that the publication of those Returns had revolutionized the question before the House. There was a second revolutionary change in the position of the question. The character of the Bill which was to be brought before the House could not, he knew, be discussed at that stage; and he should not, in the remotest degree, go against the ruling upon that point. But he thought he might be allowed to say that the character of that measure was pretty generally guessed by Members of that House. They had a vague idea of what it was going to be. [ Cries of "Question!"] Perhaps he was speaking a little too much to the Question for the minds of some hon. Members listening to him. He thought he might interpret the feelings of hon. Members opposite by saying that they would support a coercive measure of the same character as the document which was then distributed among them. But, perhaps, when that measure was brought in, it would be found to be of another character. That was the second revolutionary change. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) was the temporary, but he hoped that be would not be for long, the Leader of that House. The hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had truly said that the noble Marquess might, with advantage, confine his attention to his own Department. The noble Marquess had said that the question before the House was the same as that debated a short time ago. But in the face of two revolutionary changes in the character of the Bill, was it too much to ask for another night's discussion? He was strongly of opinion that another night's debate might be fairly taken upon that question. If his hon. Friends were willing to obey the dictates of selfish prudence, he was not sure that they would not be acting wisely in agreeing to a division. There was nothing so useful to a Government that wished to pass unpalatable measures as to keep those measures for a long time before the House, so that a feeling of weariness and apathy might ensue. Weariness was, in fact, the great ally of Ministers when they wanted to pass unpalatable measures. Any measure could be passed by the aid of hon. Members who were willing to obey the directions of Whips. When a Bill, however objectionable it might be, had been discussed for some time, hon. Members refused to listen to the merits of the case any longer. [ Ironical cheers. ] Those cheers which he had just heard confirmed his worst suspicions as to the intention of Ministers in regard to that question. He hoped that the Bill would be discussed upon its merits. There was not one Member of the Government speaking from the Treasury Bench who had attempted to discuss that question, or to answer the speech of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). One right hon. Member had said that he was quite willing to discuss, but would not do so, the interesting and amusing speech of the hon. Member for Northampton, for he was quite willing to trust the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. That was a new dogma of Liberalism—that the liberties of 5,000,000 people should be curtailed by a so-called Liberal Ministry, because one of their number said that it was necessary to do so. If that right hon. Gentleman was willing to rest his case upon the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary (Mr. Forster), he would be, to his (Mr. O'Connor's) mind, mainly responsible for the committal of that blunder and crime towards Ireland. If the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Bright) was willing to take the ipse dixit of the Chief Secretary in January, why was he not ready to do so in November and December? If he was willing to vote for coercion because the Chief Secretary said it was necessary, why not when the Chief Secretary asked for it in November? Why hold out when the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was begging and imploring coercion in an abject manner? It really showed what a misfortune it was to the two countries when a man like the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was placed in a position of responsibility. The Government had forced that contest upon the Irish Members, having a clear perception, and laving made sagacious calculations as to the consequences. They knew that every contest like that one tended to raise public opinion and that of the House against the Irish Members. They knew that if these all-night Sittings took place then they would be able to curtail discussion of a free and frank character on the second stage. Hon. Members on both sides would then be irritated against the Irish Representatives, and would not listen to any arguments they might use. The fact was, he Government did not want the merits of the Bill discussed, nor did they want to give time to them to appeal to the Democratic feelings of the working classes of the country. They wanted to raise a false issue before the people of this country. The so-called Liberal Ministry were guilty of a high national crime in exciting the passions of the people of England against those of Ireland, in order to help them to carry their coercive legislation. He had said that the Government were afraid to give them time to appeal to the working classes of the country. If they would only give them one fortnight between the different stages of the Bill, he would venture to say that from every town in England, in which there was a large working-class population—["Question!"]—he was arguing whether or not it was advisable to adjourn—the voice of that class would be raised against that Liberal Ministry which was thus betraying them. He spoke with some experience on that question. He did not neglect, so far as his pursuits would allow him, to observe the opinion of the working classes of the country. [An hon. MEMBER: Clubs.] Some hon. Gentleman said "Clubs." He was quite willing to take those as representatives of working class opinion. They were better exponents of that opinion than subsidized Associations. There was not a Radical Club—[ Cries of "Question!"] He was endeavouring to show that an adjournment would give them an opportunity of appealing to the opinion of the working classes of the country. He had read out at Question time the names of some Clubs where that question had been discussed. It was a list of some 20 or 25. He did not know a single Club in London, at any rate, that had not pronounced its opinion against the coercive policy of the Ministers. His hon. Friend the Member for County Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) had spoken at a meeting, at which Englishmen were present in large numbers, at Birmingham. The inhabitants of that town were willing to adopt the policy of a Ministry in which two of their Members held Office; but at that meeting, which was a free and open one, attended by English and Irish Radicals, the policy of the Government was condemned. He himself had attended in London within the last few days two meetings open to the public, which was attended by Englishmen as well as Irishmen, where resolutions were passed condemning the policy of the Government. At Newcastle, on Saturday night, there was a meeting of 5,000 people, and at that meeting only 13 were found to support the deliberate conspiracy of the Ministry against Liberalism. Therefore, if a fortnight were given them, they would show that the working classes were opposed to the action of the Government. If hon. Members opposite were free to vote, and not hampered by Party ties and other undue influences—

asked if the hon. Member were in Order in speaking of hon. Members on those Benches in the way he had? It seemed to him that those remarks had nothing to do with the adjournment of that debate.

wished to say a word on the point of Order. The Prime Minister, in his speech on that debate, referred to communications from various Associations in the country expressing their confidence in the course being taken by the Government upon that matter. It was perfectly in Order for his hon. Friend behind him to show that the adjournment of this debate would convince the Prime Minister that he was wrong in the statement he had made.

I understood that the hon. Member was giving as a reason why the debate should be adjourned that they might have time to inform public opinion upon the subject. I cannot say that in doing so he is out of Order.

said, his objection was not to that portion of the speech of the hon. Member; but to the allusion to the influences under which a certain portion of that House was. He said that they could not give their votes as they desired.

If the hon. Member charged Members of this House with being under improper influences he is out of Order.

did not say that they were under improper influences. He accused them of being under influences of Party ties. It might be that there were other improper influences; that he would leave to their own consciences to decide. In conclusion, he would say that if Ministers would give them opportunity, they would appeal to that public opinion outside which was in their favour. That opportunity would not be given them, for the Government wanted to force the Bill through before they could have time to bring in protests against it. Therefore, the Government had taken the initiative in the contest into which they were driven. For his own part, he did not like physical contests; he would rather the debates were conducted with decency and de- corum. If the present state of things was indecent and indecorous, the responsibility for that rested with the Government. But he thought that when passion cooled and better judgment intervened, the public verdict of this country, as well as of Ireland, would be that this Liberal Ministry were guilty of apostacy from Liberal principles, and the consequences would be the same as those which always followed Ministers who adopted that course.

wished to make a few observations, and he would confine himself as closely as possible to the question whether the debate should or should not be adjourned. He did think that the issue was, at the present moment, somewhat confused. There was, in reality, but a small issue before them. The Prime Minister had stated his desire—and in that there could be no doubt that he spoke the desire of the majority of the House of Commons—that the first stage of that Bill—that was, its introduction—might be disposed of at once. The hon. Member the Leader of the Irish Party opposite (Mr. Parnell) had said that he would permit the Bill to be introduced if the debate could be allowed to go on until to-morrow. The dispute was really between a small minority of Irish Members—amongst whom he himself was one—and an enormous majority of the House of Commons. He would ask hon. Gentlemen whether it was worth while to raise a dispute of that kind on so small an issue, and to fight à l'outrance, seeing that all their strength and resources would be required for the second reading and the other stages of the Bill? They would then have something to fight about; but what was there now to sit up all night for, destroying their constitutions and losing their tempers? To settle the question whether the Bill was to be introduced now or introduced to-morrow! The reasons given by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down appeared to him to be of a most contradictory character. ["No, no!"] Well, they were contradictory in his opinion, and he should show the hon. Gentleman how he thought they were so. The hon. Member said that if they wished to consult public opinion they ought to allow the Bill to be introduced, and he had told them that what he most desired was to have public opinion at his back. If that was the case why, did not the hon. Member and his Friends allow the Bill to be introduced? Another hon. Member had told them that in consequence of the course that had been taken what he might call the "Irish cause" at this moment was deprived of the support it would have received from the speeches of a certain number of Liberal Members who sat on that (the Ministerial) side of the House. Why were they deprived of the services of those hon. Gentlemen? It was because some of the Irish Members were persisting in a course which was really unreasonable. [An hon. MEMBER: No; the Government are.] He did not speak of the Government, but of hon. Members opposite, and he protested against being interrupted. He, on his part, had not interrupted hon. Members who had fairly expressed their opinions, and he claimed liberty to express his without hindrance. He did think the course which was being adopted was unreasonable. The issue must be fought out, and the majority must eventually prevail against the minority, or else, instead of having Members of Parliament chosen from amongst gentlemen of position and education, they had better select them from amongst the coalheavers of London and the Quay porters of Dublin. People of that kind would be able to sit up all night; but why those who had to contend for the rights of a country by their intelligence, and not by their physical force, were to enter into these contests, he could not for the life of him understand. But this Bill, with which they had become acquainted on the night the Chief Secretary moved for leave to introduce it, he had a right to assume was not unknown to hon. Members in its details. By an accident which had occurred—and to which he would not further allude—the measure had become known to them in a manner it was not known before; and he was certain that all that was necessary was to allow the Bill to be introduced into the House of Commons and to go forth to the country to insure a much more active opposition to it than anything that had yet been threatened. The description which had been given of it by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was bad enough; but the reality was worse. Let them get to the Bill. Let them have the document before them. What was the subject before them now? It was the question whether they should sit up all night debating whether the Bill should be put on the Table now or 12 hours' hence. What sort of an issue was that to those who were defending the rights of their country?—what sort of a ground was that on which to fight this great battle? Let them fight for an issue on ground that was intelligible. Let them have the Bill before them, as the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) admitted they must have it before them to-morrow, and let it go before the country and be debated. Under the circumstances, he ventured to appeal to hon. Members whether it would not be wiser in the interests of the people whose rights they defended not to force this contest any further, but to allow the division to be taken on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dublin (Dr. Lyons), and then the division on the question of the introduction of the measure. They would, by doing that, only be forestalling the inevitable by a few hours, and would insure that the Bill in all its deformity and wickedness should come before the country for full and candid discussion on its merits. Under the circumstances, he trusted that hon. Members would allow the House to go to a division; but if not, not being so young and enthusiastic as some of his hon. Friends, he should have respectfully and sorrowfully to take leave of Mr. Speaker for the night.

appealed to the common sense of the noble Lord opposite (the Marquess of Hartington) and the Government, and requested them to go back in their memory to the period when the debate was resumed to-day. The first hour and 20 minutes was occupied by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Charles Lewis), who was certainly no Irish Obstructionist or sympathiser with Obstruction. Then a long period was occupied by the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. C. Russell), who, though a good Irishman, was not one of the Irish Active Party. Let the House bear in mind that the issue to be fought was the destruction or maintenance of the liberties of the Irish people. The Irish Members declared that they resisted the Government proposal because it was founded on supposed conditions that did not really exist, on exaggerated facts, and on allegations that had been multiplied; and, under the circumstances, he maintained that it was not unreasonable for hon. Members to ask for a fair opportunity of examining the proposal. Some little opportunity had been afforded them of examining the facts by which the Government had been guided; and he had devoted his attention to those relating to the county from which he had come. The outrages relating to that county, as shown in the Blue Book, were certainly no foundation for threatening the liberties of the people. The hon. Member for Galway County (Mr. Mitchell Henry) had said that the Active Irish Party were unreasonable, and that they should forestall the inevitable and not prolong the struggle until to-morrow; but he (Mr. Daly) considered it still more unreasonable in the noble Marquess and in the majority at his back to compel the Irish Members, on an issue so momentous, to come to a decision to-night. Such a course certainly would not add to the dignity of the House; on the contrary, it would detract from its dignity and from the dignity of the noble Marquess and the majority at his back. The question should not be one of endurance, but of reason and common sense. The noble Marquess had said that it was unusual to prolong a discussion on the mere question of leave to introduce a Bill. But he would ask the noble Marquess the character of the present introduction or of the present measure. The Bill was prefaced by a most momentous and weighty statement by Her Majesty in the Speech from the Throne, the truth of which statement he utterly denied. Then the right hon. Gentleman introduced the Bill in a long and important speech, and the personal character of this Member of the Government stood so high that many would accept the accuracy of his statement purely on his allegation. A notable fact—which he had noticed at the time—was that one of the most gifted Members of this Parliament—a right hon. Gentleman who, by his own admission, had been 37 years a Member of the House of Commons—had so forgotten his own responsibility as to declare that he accepted the accuracy of the facts on the authority of the Chief Secretary. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lan- caster (Mr. John Bright) had in this way shelved a weighty and solemn responsibility. A man, in making up his mind on such a question as this, had a right to think for himself. Well, taking all these things into consideration, and bearing in mind the importance of the statement of the Chief Secretary, if the Irish Members could prove to the English nation, and to the independent Members of the House, that the right hon. Gentleman was not warranted in making that statement—that what he put forward as facts were inaccuracies and untruths, although he was not aware of it—despite the high position of the Government, the whole indictment against the Irish nation would fall to the ground. He would ask, therefore, was he, who had been sent to the House of Commons to take his part in the Legislature of the country, to be debarred from the opportunity of proving that the series of accusations in the Blue Book—the series of crimes alleged to have been committed by the people of the county of Cork—were ill-founded, and that no crimes had been committed, or the few that had been committed had been grossly exaggerated? He would put it to the noble Marquess that his position in the House had its responsibilities as well as its assurances. The noble Lord might think he was vindicating British pluck and endurance by prolonging this unseemly scene to-night; but, with great respect, he (Mr. Daly) would say that it would argue much more for his personal dignity and the Party he led, if he would accept the fair alternative proposed by the Irish Members that they should meet again to-morrow afternoon to discuss the present stage of the Bill.

was not surprised that the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India was unwilling, in the absence of the Prime Minister, to resign the Leadership of the House to the hon. Member for the City of Cork. The noble Lord was unwilling to acknowledge that the Forms of the House had been permitted to be so systematically abused, not for one Session but for four, that the minority could dominate the House. This was contrary to the whole system of Constitutional Government, and he begged to recall to the recollection of the noble Lord the evidence that Mr. Speaker had given before the Select Committee on Public Business, when he (Mr. Speaker) had favoured that Committee with his presence; and he (Mr. Newdegate) begged to suggest to the Government that the House was being made a focus for agitation out-of-doors, as declared by the hon. Member for the City of Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) when he said—"Give us a fortnight, and we will rouse the working classes against this House"—["No, no!"]—well, against the decision of the majority of this House.

was sorry to be obliged to interrupt the hon. Member; but he did not wish to be misrepresented. What he had said was, that if the Government would give them a fortnight, they would be able to rouse the public feeling of England against the Government.

said, the hon. Member had not correctly repeated his words, although they came much to the same thing. A section of the House had used the House as a focus of agitation for some time; and he believed he represented a large majority of the people of England and Scotland in what he was about to say—namely, that the people were most impatient at the delay of this Bill, and looked to the Leader of the House to suggest such means of correcting its proceedings as would enable those proceedings to be properly transacted. The noble Lord, he hoped, would take what he said in good part; but he did not think what was occurring was conducive either to the credit of the Government or to the credit of the House, and that it would lead to much greater changes than any reasonable politician desired, if this House were degraded by repeated physical struggles of this kind. It had already become the duty of the Leaders of the House to suggest some remedy for the domination of a minority, and against the House being used as a focus for agitation. He hoped that Mr. Speaker would take into consideration the position in which the House stood, and the danger under which it rested of being discredited as an institution for exhibitions such as had occurred last week, and would not improbably occur again.

so far agreed with the hon. Member who had just sat down that he thought the fault was more with the Standing Orders than the Irish Members, for he could not feel surprised that these Gentlemen should use to the utmost all the Standing Orders of the House in order to debate a Bill which practically was to enable the Government to put in prison without trial either them or their constituents. He was perfectly convinced that if the positions were reversed, and English and Scotch or Welsh Members were threatened with imprisonment, they would act in the same way as the Irish Members. He was one of those who did not see his way to aid and abet the Government in paving the way towards the introduction of this Bill; but, at the same time, he did not see any call upon him to sit there all night aiding the Irish Members, because it seemed to him that those Gentlemen could take exceedingly good care of themselves. He would ask the House to look at the matter from a plain, political, common sense standpoint. Let them look at the thing practically. By the Rules of the House hon. Members were able to continue moving the adjournment of the House and the adjournment of the debate from now until 4 o'clock to-morrow, and beyond if necessary. They could speak upon these two questions, so that, practically, they could effect their purpose—namely, discuss the question for another evening. The question, therefore, was, was it wiser for all of them to go home now and return at 4 o'clock to-morrow, or to sit there dividing and listening to very interesting speeches, no doubt, from hon. Gentlemen opposite; but, at the same time, rather monotonous speeches? It was a matter of choice for the House. If the Government could bring on a division at once, he could perfectly understand their forcing it on; but they could not do that. They could not prevent the Irishmen having their way—going on dividing the House, and continuing the discussion through to-morrow. The question was not whether the division should take place now; but whether hon. Members should remain in the House all night, or whether they should return at 4 o'clock to-morrow. He would call attention to another thing. They must not lose sight of the impossibility of pursuing the course suggested by the noble Marquess. He pointed out that the Speaker had then been in the Chair for 11 hours; but his endurance could not last much longer, and he would then have to resign his seat to the Deputy Speaker. A Standing Order of the House provided that—

"Whenever the House shall be informed by the Clerk at the Table of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker, the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means do perform the duties and exercise the authority of Speaker in relation to all proceedings of this House as Deputy Speaker until the next meeting of the House."

He would not read further, for that was his point—that when the Speaker was replaced by the Deputy Speaker he would not be able to resume his place so long as the Sitting continued. How, then, was it possible to ask the Deputy Speaker to remain in the Chair from, say, 4 o'clock this morning until 4 o'clock on Wednesday morning? He should like to have some practical answer to that point, because the endurance of the Deputy Speaker was limited; and if the House pursued that course they would find themselves eventually unable to carry it on, and the Sitting itself would have to be suspended.

thought that, while the right hon. Gentleman the Deputy Speaker was resolving the difficult proposition put before him, it would be more practical to discuss the statements of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) than anything that could be said on a wider aspect of the question. The noble Lord had, he thought, properly stated the case as regarded the majority, that the majority should determine when a debate should be brought to an end; but he must remind the noble Lord that the majority generally acted in such circumstances on the advice of the Government, and the noble Lord could not shift the responsibility of protracting this discussion on the Motion for adjournment on to the majority. The noble Lord entirely left out of sight the exceptional character of the Bill the House was now discussing. It was perfectly true what the noble Lord had stated, as to the usual rule of the House in dealing with Bills of an ordinary character; but until the noble Lord was prepared to show that the opposition of the Irish Members to this Bill, notwithstanding that it was of an exceptional character, was of an exceptional character in itself, his argument would remain inconclusive. He (Mr. O'Connor Power) was as little anxious as his hon. Friend the Member for the County of Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) to enter into a purely physical contest; but he felt that he ought not to spare himself in any effort to defeat the policy of the Government, and that if he neglected to exercise in a reasonable and manly spirit the Forms of the House to resist the Bill he should not have acquitted himself of the duty imposed upon him as the Representative of an Irish county. If the Bill were of an ordinary character he agreed with the noble Marquess that it would be unreasonable to ask the House to afford facilities to every Member opposed to it to make a speech; but he insisted on the exceptional character of the Bill, and he could not contemplate with satisfaction the position of any Irish Representative who went back to his constituents and said it was true he was opposed to coercion; it was true that, like the hon. Member for Galway and several other Members, he was anxious to speak against coercion, but he was restrained from doing so, from a desire to accommodate himself to the convenience of the House. On any ordinary Bill that would be a very fair defence; but no Representative could go back to his constituents and say he was anxious to speak upon this Bill, but consented in silence to it, and had not protested against it, because he was told by the Leader of the House that that would be for the convenience of the House. That would be a poor defence, and Irish Members were justified in resisting the Bill. He objected to the noble Marquess, or any other hon. Gentleman, prescribing the limits of the debate; he objected to the hon. Member for Cork City saying the debate would close to-morrow. He did not know that it would close then; but he did know that if all his hon. Colleagues were anxious to speak it would be difficult to close the debate to-morrow. He objected to any individual Member, no matter what Party he represented, or how high his authority, prescribing the limits of the debate and saying—"Thus far shall the debate proceed and no further." The opposition of the Irish Members should be an opposition which, on the one hand, should not be calculated to forfeit the sympathy of people outside the House; but, on the other hand, should be a guarantee to those they represented that they had not been a party to the humiliation and enslavement of Ireland. That was his view, and he had not been convinced by anything that had been said from the Treasury Bench, or from any other part of the House, that it was an unreasonable thing to adjourn the debate still further. Every Irish Member who was opposed to the Bill should have an opportunity of making his opposition audible in speech as well as manifest by votes. The issue he conceived to be this—that this was a Bill of so extraordinary a character that it was unseemly on the part of anyone to seek to prescribe the limits of a discussion upon it; and upon that ground, and not upon the ground of affording any particular individual an opportunity of addressing the House, he based his support of the Motion for adjournment; and if his hon. Friend took it to a division he should support the Motion.

argued that, in the opposition to the introduction of the Coercion Bill, there really was nothing extraordinary or exceptional whatever. It would be an unusual course in ordinary times to oppose the first reading of a Bill; but when the Bill proposed was of a remarkable character, introducing any great Constitutional change, or making any sudden innovation on the practices of the House, it had not only been habitual, but almost invariable, to have a long discussion on the first reading; and sometimes even to give the first reading a distinct and decided opposition. For examples of that, the House had only to look to the introduction of almost any Bills in themselves exceptional and remarkable. He had already referred to the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, which he said was a Bill in itself of the slightest practical importance as bearing on the Constitution of the country. It was admitted to be a Bill of very little practical effect whatever. It was brought in by the Government because they felt bound to do something, and did not know what else to do; and yet, on the first reading of the Bill, there was strong and decided opposition offered, in which some of the most illustrious Members of the House, including the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, took part, and the discussion was prolonged over five, six, or seven nights. Then there was the discussion on the proposal to introduce the Coercion Bill of 1846. There, again, the introduction of that measure was opposed; and the debate, extending over seven or eight nights, took place without any indignant protestations on the part of any Minister that the time of the House was being wasted, or that the impatience of the country was being roused against insolent opposition. Then, again, when Lord Grey's Reform Bill was introduced, it was announced, over and over again, by the speakers who opposed the Bill, that they did not intend to divide against the introduction of the measure. Yet the House was occupied in a debate on the first reading for eight nights; and when, in the course of that debate, some objection was raised by impatient Reformers to the occupation of so much time on a debate which was to lead to no division, Sir Robert Peel indignantly asked whether the House supposed that Constitutional changes were to be introduced of that kind without Members having an opportunity of discussing the Bill at every stage, even where it was not proposed to take a division? The introduction of the present measure was more important to the Irish people than two, at least, of the three measures referred to; and yet, on the introduction of each of those three, there was a longer debate than there had been on this measure. How, then, could the Irish Members, with any show of fairness or justice, be accused of breaking through the traditions of the House? Why should they be threatened with something like being dragooned by the Government because they claimed the right to express their opinions against the whole principle of this measure? He could not but wonder that there should, apparently, be no sympathy among hon. Members who claimed to be Liberal and Radical—at least, among the majority of them—no sympathy for the small minority who were struggling as well as they could to oppose, at every stage, a measure which was, in sentiment, an insult to the country, and which, in practice, would place the liberty of everyone in Ireland at the mercy of every pelting petty officer. Even if Liberal Members could not go wholly with them, he should have thought they might have shown some sympathy and tolerance for a small minority charged with so essential and important a duty. That was, indeed, an exceptional state of things. Under the auspices of a Ministry from whom they expected only remedial measures, they were having this measure of coercion forced upon them. They were entitled to ask to be allowed to fairly discuss it. They might be asked why they did not go on then with the discussion; why the hon. Member for Cork City had not gone on discussing it? He thought the temper which the House exhibited when the hon. Member rose was a sufficient answer to those who said he could have continued the argument against the measure with any profit. Hon. Members did not, he presumed, speak merely to hear the echo of their voices, or for the gratification of their friends; they wished to set forth their opinions inside the House and outside the House, and at that hour it was too late to do that. That, he thought, justified the course that had been taken to induce the Government to assent to an adjournment, in order to give Members a fair chance of expressing their opinions upon this subject. There were hon. Members who were well able to speak on the subject, and who were bound in duty to their constituents to express their opinion, but who had not yet had a chance of speaking on the introduction of the measure. He wished to remind the House how unfair it was to say that the Irish Members were repeating the same arguments and on the same question as when speaking on the Address. On the Address they had to discuss the whole policy of the Government; on the first reading of this Bill they had to discuss the policy of the Government on coercion, and they maintained that coercion was not needed in Ireland; and when they came to the second reading of the Bill, they would have the actual principle of the particular measure proposed by the Government to face. He urged the House to be a little liberal in spirit with regard to the minority. The stronger the majority the more they were bound to consider the rights and the freedom of speech of the minority. He expressed a hope that the time would never come when a small minority might not have every opportunity of resisting any measure which might be fraught with the greatest evil like the present Coercion Bill, and could not produce the smallest amount of good.

expressed the belief that every Member on that (the Liberal) side of the House had made up his mind on the question, and complained that Members should be required to sit there night after night without cessation upon this debate. It was still worse when they were charged by hon. Members on the other side with being unduly influenced ay Party considerations; for he did not relieve that Party considerations would induce any Members to vote for this measure, unless they felt that they could conscientiously do so. With regard to the statement of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), that, if an adjournment were granted, they would convince the people of England that this Bill should be resisted, he (Mr. Craig) felt convinced that the Irish Members would not succeed in any such attempt, unless they dealt with the question in a very different manner from that which they had adopted. He knew something of the feeling of the people. During the Vacation he had had occasion to address something like 15 meetings, and he had found everywhere that the people were ripe to do justice to Ireland, and that they had the strongest aversion to coercion. It was, therefore, with the greatest disappointment when the House met, and the Queen's Speech was delivered, that he saw such prominence given to measures of coercion. He had listened to every speech which had been delivered in the course of the debate on the Address, and especially to that of the Solicitor General for Ireland. The hon. and learned Gentleman certainly made out a strong case for coercion. Time passed on, and then the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant brought forward his Motion for the introduction of a Bill. That right hon. Gentleman also succeeded in making out a case, which he (Mr. Craig) thought had not been successfully assailed. The right hon. Gentleman rested his case on the fact that there was a power in Ireland which had usurped sovereign authority—that the Land League was supreme as a power opposed to law and order, and that it was in consequence of those circumstances that the present measure was sought to be introduced. All the speeches on the other side had been addressed to a different ground from that on which the Chief Secretary rested his case. They had been addressed to a consideration of the agrarian crimes alleged to have been actually committed which had been enumerated. The Irish Members had endeavoured, and he believed had successfully endeavoured, to reduce the number of such crimes, and to show that they were by no means so formidable as had been stated. But what did that come to? It simply came to this—that the Land League, by the enforcement of its unwritten laws, had not committed all the crimes it was possible for that organization to commit. But, in the same breath, the Irish Members confessed that the Land League did rule supreme, and that it was intended that it should do so. The Irish Members had, therefore, by such confession, more firmly established the ground on which the case of Her Majesty's Government rested; and he was satisfied that if they were to go to the English constituencies now, and endeavour to convince them that there was no ground for coercion, they would entirely fail. Up to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Meath (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) no attempt had been made to cut away that ground; and the general impression on the mind of the public would be that the measure proposed by Her Majesty's Government was amply justified by the facts. Personally, he would gladly sit there night after night to listen to hon. Members opposite, if they would address themselves to that part of the question. Perhaps, under all the circumstances, it would be as well to adjourn the debate. It was demoralizing to every Member of the House to have these physical contests, and it was unquestionably degrading the House as a deliberative Assembly. He trusted, therefore, that Her Majesty's Government would re-consider their decision in regard to the question of adjournment; and, in the event of the debate being adjourned, he trusted that the Irish Members would address themselves rationally to the real question before the House—namely, the soundness of the ground upon which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary rested his case. If they succeeded in proving that the Land League was not the usurping power which it had been alleged to be, but that it was merely a legal and legitimate agitation to remedy harsh and unjust laws, he (Mr. Craig) would willingly give his vote against the coercive measures of Her Majesty's Government.

was desirous of saying a word by way of personal explanation. The hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had misunderstood him. He had not said that hon. Members opposite were acting under undue influence; but what he said was, that their votes were given, not on the true merits of the Bill, but on the larger question of Party policy.

was sure that every Member of the Irish Party had listened to the speech which the hon. Member for North Staffordshire (Mr. Craig) had just addressed to the House with great attention. If, as a general rule, the Irish Party were addressed, even by the Ministers of the Crown, in the manner in which they had been addressed by the hon. Member for North Staffordshire, there would be a very different feeling prevailing between Her Majesty's Government and the Irish Representatives. The hon. Member had spoken firmly and earnestly on behalf of his convictions. He blamed the Irish Party severely for many points both of omission and commission; but, from the beginning to the end of the hon. Member's speech, there was not a single sentence to which the most susceptible Irish Member could take offence. The speech of the hon. Member was most unlike the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, unlike the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and unlike the many speeches, full of appeals to passion, which had been uttered by the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for India. It was unnecessary, however, to go through all the speeches which had been made from the Treasury Bench. Considering all the circumstances of the case, he could only say that one was no worse than another. The speech of the hon. Member for North Staffordshire was really the speech of the evening. It was the only speech which it behoved the Irish Members to answer. He did not intend in the slightest degree to pay a compliment to the speech of the hon. Member. It was a plain, straightforward speech, without ornament or rhetoric. ["Order!" and "Question!"] Observations which, either in disparagement or otherwise, came from that part of the House, were not deserving of attention from Irish Members. The Irish Members were anxious to place their case before a larger audience and a fuller public. The hon. Member for North Staffordshire himself admitted the importance of that object, and recognized that the challenge which had been given in that respect ought to be taken up at a different hour. The hon. Member went so far as to appeal to Her Majesty's Government to afford a fair opportunity for discussion by forthwith adjourning the debate. The hon. Member was under the impression that the Land League was the supreme power in Ireland; that it overrode respect for the Crown and the Government. Did the hon. Member for North Staffordshire mean to say that he considered success—the success of a popular agitation—as an overwhelming and irrefragable proof of its guilt? Did the hon. Member only recognize the legality of a popular agitation which failed to be popular? So soon as a popular agitation was found to answer the wants of a nation; so soon as it included practically within its ranks the entire nation, when morally, and as a matter of fact, its opinions were supreme, because it coincided with the opinions of everybody else, the hon. Gentleman asked for no proof, but said it was an illegal organization. He granted that the Land League might have failed, and he himself had considered that a different form of organization would have been preferable, and he had opposed to the utmost of his ability the formation of the Land League on its present basis; but he had found that the Land League answered more correctly to the wants of Ireland than what, in his opinion, was the organization that ought to be applied to the wants of Ireland. He had since fallen in with the feeling and general opinion of the Irish people, just as the hon. Member for North Staffordshire would fall in with the general feeling of England, were two contending schemes presented to his choice. The hon. Member would go with his country; and he (Mr. O'Donnell) had simply gone with his. If the Land League had failed, the hon. Gentleman would have had no objection to make. Was it merely because it had succeeded that he objected to it? Why did the hon. Member object to it? Was it because the Land League distinctly differed from the permanent Government of the country that it was perilous? It was ostentatiously and undeniably a temporary organization to meet the temporary wants of tens of thousands of persons; and there were millions more who only desired the possession of settled forms provided by the Government to induce them to declare, with the leaders of the Land League itself, that there was no longer a necessity for the organization of the Land League. The Irish Members had plenty of other businesses to look after in Ireland besides the important business of the Land League. They earnestly desired to see the end of the Land Question and of the Land League, and to see all the tenant right organizations that might be started set about some other portion of the national work. They wished, as soon as possible, to organize the country for the highly useful purpose of county government. At present the Land League was a stumbling block and an obstacle; but it would not be got rid of so long as Parliament refused to grant the reform which the Land League was established to obtain. The Land League had put forth a number of programmes. With some of them he perfectly agreed; with some of them he disagreed. But of this he was perfectly certain—that as soon as a Land Reform, substantially calculated to root the Irish tenantry in the soil was passed by Parliament—call it what reform they liked—the days of the Land League would be numbered. A distinguished Member of the Liberal Party—the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. C. Russell)—had declared that in its inception, and in its general powers, the Land League was perfectly lawful. Of course, it was called illegal—most illegal by its opponents, by the men most interested in stopping its growth, and in the failure of any scheme if thorough-going Land Reform; but he would ask what popular agitation ever arose in England against which its enemies did not vomit forth imprecations and denunciations of the most extraordinary character? He had listened with surprise and astonishment to the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and of the Premier, in which those right hon. Gentlemen denied that there was any comparison between the organization of the Land League and the orga- nization of the Anti-Corn Law League and of the trades unions.

I must point out to the hon. Member that he is now wandering from the Question before the House, which is that the debate be now adjourned.

said, he was replying to the arguments which had been employed by an hon. Member, and he was replying to those arguments for the special purpose of giving force to his appeal to the House to adjourn the debate until a time when this most important question could be properly discussed. It was not new, he freely admitted, to point out that the Corn Law League, and other Leagues, had been violently denounced, and that hon. and right hon. Members who now sat on the Treasury Bench had been spoken of by their political opponents as criminals and agitators of the worst description. No epithet had ever been applied to the hon. Member for the City of Cork which had not been applied to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The right hon. Gentleman had been denounced as a firebrand from one end of England to the other, and as a professional agitator whose object was to set class against class. ["Question!"] It was the question. The question was that the guilt of the Irish Party was so clear, and the guilt of the Land League so clear, that they might proceed at once and come to a vote upon this Bill—a Bill worthy only of the Ministers of King Bomba—and pass it at once, because it was clearly proved that all the allegations made against the Irish Party were true. What he now said was, that allegations as serious had been made against the Leaders of the Liberal Party. The pages of The Quarterly Review and the columns of The Times were filled with epithets quite as bitter and as venomous against the leaders of the Anti-Corn Law League as any that were littered against the Irish Party in the present day. If hon. Members admitted that the mere calling of names proved a case, they would be obliged to admit the justice of all the hard names which the Irish agitators employed against English statesmen. He believed that, hotly as the hon. Member for Cork had been abused in England, a number of English Members had been abused just as hotly in Ireland. He contended that the House ought not hastily to rush to a decision under any idea that if they called plenty of nicknames the case would be decided. Calling nicknames had really been the main argument made use of as yet against the Irish Members. ["Question!"] If it was not alleged that the success of an Irish organization proved its guilt, then the hon. Member for North Staffordshire was morally bound to vote for the Irish Party. It was complained that the general Business of England and Scotland was impeded by the action of the Irish Members. He denied this. It was not the Irish Members who insisted upon priority for Irish coercion; and it was not the Irish Members who were taking away from the English and Scotch Members every opportunity of giving expression to the grievances of their constituents. It was not the Irish Members who were upsetting the constitution of that House; but the Representatives of England and Scotland, who were doing all in their power to convert the House of Commons into a mere registering Chamber for the ukases of the despotic Minister for Ireland. In all his references to the Chief Secretary, whenever he had spoken severely of the right hon. Gentleman or condemned his actions, he wished the House to remember that his denunciations were intended to be considered in the most figurative sense. In point of fact, the right hon. Gentleman was a mere lay-figure, introducing in the House of Commons measures for which Colonel Hillier and Mr. Burke of Dublin Castle were really responsible. He wished to explain to the House that there was no personal animus in their references to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and that they endeavoured to separate the man from the office, and it was certainly amongst the Irish Members that the most flattering and cordial appreciations of the right hon. Gentleman could be heard. He concluded that Irish Members were in no way responsible for the priority granted to the discussion of Irish measures. Another reason why they appealed for the adjournment of the debate was that Her Majesty's Government had done all in their power to prevent the Irish Members having a fair opportunity of stating their case in public. When the Bill was first brought in almost all the evening had been occupied by the long and in- flammatory address of the Chief Secretary for Ireland—one of those phonographic speeches he had just referred to produced at Dublin Castle and despatched to the right hon. Gentleman. That speech, as he was sure would be corroborated by the senior Representative of the Government, led to a brief debate in which there was no sufficient opportunity given for testing the astonishing statements which it contained; and amongst other reasons which prevented this being done was the fact that the Chief Secretary for Ireland had been instructed to make his accusation speech while still keeping back the Returns which he alleged justified his measures, A large portion of that evidence was still kept back. He would not accuse any individual Member of the Government of that; but could the House consider that if there existed any real urgency for the Bill all this time would have been allowed to elapse without the presentation of the November and December Returns? It was well known that with regard to these Returns a thousand brief Reports could have been put in order and printed within 48 hours at the presses at the disposal of Her Majesty's Government. But the Government had not thought fit to hasten the production of these Returns, to which they were always pointing with lowering gestures, indicating that there was something evil behind the curtain. This delay had forced upon the Irish Members the belief that they were keeping back evidence for the purpose of leading the country to come to a false conclusion, which, of course, as the depositaries of all the virtues Her Majesty's Government would deny. The debate of Monday had closed at an hour which did not give Irish Members an opportunity of meeting the charges contained in the speech of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and the next day was taken up by the Motion of the Prime Minister to give priority to the Coercion Bill. Without referring to the debate on the Motion for priority, which would be out of Order, he would remind the House that Mr. Speaker had, in the course of that debate, ruled that any reference to the speech of the Chief Secretary for Ireland was entirely out of Order. According to the Rules of the House, Her Majesty's Government were able to add Tuesday and Wednesday to the days deliberately taken from Irish discussion. On Tuesday the lion's share of speaking fell to Irish Members, who had also reserved for them some hours at the end of last evening for their especial use. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman had done well in picking and choosing the hours of debate for the purpose of urging all his charges against Ireland, Irish Members being put off till the dinner hour, or to an hour as late as that at which he was speaking. Then came Friday, which was similarly taken up, the dinner hour being again assigned to Irish Members. Then the Prime Minister himself lay in wait for an opportunity of occupying the rest of the evening to deliver an official oration against that unfortunate Ireland which the tactics of Her Majesty's Government still persisted in gagging. The debate was again adjourned on Friday; and he had certainly expected two days, at least, to reply to Her Majesty's Government would have been afforded. Her Majesty's Government might, in common Parliamentary decency, have left the counsel for the defence two clear nights to reply to the voluminous, he might say obstructive speeches, which had been launched at the Irish cause. But they had acted in a way quite contrary to this. In the first place, they had persisted in doing their utmost to poison the public mind of England against the Irish Members and all their arguments in the House of Commons. They had declared that the object of Irish Members was not debate, but Obstruction. But the course pursued by Irish Members was not Obstruction in the proper sense, but partly Obstruction to a particular Bill for oversetting Constitutional liberty through the whole Kingdom of Ireland. But before proceeding to that kind of Obstruction Irish Members wished to have an opportunity of proving their case, and this Her Majesty's Government had prevented their doing by forcing them to listen to the interminable speeches of the Law Officers for Ireland, the Solicitor General for Ireland having occupied three hours in delivering an oration which contained nothing against any Member of the House or anybody else. If the Government continued their tactics of silencing such Members of the Irish Party as were desirous of speaking, they could not be surprised if further time was asked for. The whole essence of their tactics was to push back the Irish Members to such hours of the night when they would be placed in such a position that it would be impossible for the English nation to know what sort of case they were making. In answer to one portion of the speech of the hon. Member for North Staffordshire, who continued to imagine that the Land League was favoured by the Irish nation more than Her Majesty's Government, he pointed out that the Irish nation was trying to do nothing more than to go on money making, and get its own profit out of farms which a robber race of landlords had hitherto prevented their doing. But it was clear Her Majesty's Government intended to carry on the debate until the Irish Members were exhausted, and that when the time of publicity came it was hoped they would be unable to talk against time. No matter how triumphant might be the arguments of Irish Members, there was not a single English constituency that would be able to hear them, nor the most convincing speech which they might deliver. Could hon. Members be blind to the evident intentions of the Government? Doubtless, it was considered a legitimate dodge to suppress the expression of their views, and Irish Members might take such a dodge in a good spirit if the subject of discussion were some fifth-rate measure. But here the Government were proposing nothing less than to set up a third French Empire in Ireland, or even something worse than the reign of King Bomba.

The hon. Member is not confining his observations to the Question before the House. I have had to call the hon. Member to Order in that respect several times.

It was not at that hour that a proposition of that kind should be presented. It ought to be brought forward in the full face of publicity. They asked for an adjournment because they knew that at that hour the people of England, who were masters of Ireland, in spite of the Land League proclaimed by the hon. Member for North Staffordshire, had no opportunity of learning what were the facts of the Irish case. He openly challenged the hon. Member to give him an opportunity of addressing his constituents upon this question. Whenever an Irish Member went down to an English constituency and stated the case of Ireland he was always told in reply that they were not going to vote again for a Government that presented coercive measures against Ireland. There were a dozen Irish Members perfectly prepared to discuss this question before any English constituency; and Her Majesty's Government knew right well what would be the effect of their accepting the challenge of the Irish Members to bring them face to face with English constituencies. He had no desire to stop Public Business; but he wished to postpone the further consideration of so dangerous a matter to a proper time. He was anxious to facilitate the progress of the debate, and the discussion of the Business, within proper limits. He had only to re-echo the expression of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), and warn the Government against proceeding in a manner which was not calculated to facilitate the termination of the discussion. If the Government were objecting to the waste of time they were acting against their own interests in refusing to accept the Motion before the House. As regarded the Irish Members, they could, if they wished, waste time until 10 or 12 o'clock of the next day, and, after that, go into a lengthened discussion on the Amendment, and then upon the original Motion, and then they could proceed again with Motions of adjournment. That time could be wasted if the Government refused to yield in this matter. If only fair opportunity had been given to Irish Members to discuss that stage, and facilities had been given for obtaining information that had never yet been produced, he was quite sure that the present stage would have been soon successfully passed over. If the Irish Members chose to waste time, the first stage of the Bill would not be gone through within 36 or 40 hours from that time. Why did not the Government recognize that? He might say that unless Irish Members were superior to ordinary temptations, and most accomplished debaters, it was impossible that they could give that care to the marshalling of facts, at an hour like that, which they would be happy to give before a proper audience at a proper time. If English Members were only anxious to understand the Irish case, about which they confessed themselves to be ignorant—and he would not deny the accuracy of their professions, they would allow Irish Members to bring forward their case at a reasonable time. A very just and due stress had been laid by Irish Members upon the plea that time should be given for popular agitation throughout England, not merely agitation by Irish Representatives, but also by English friends of Ireland. He certainly thought there could be no more valid plea than that, unless the Government were anxious to convince the classes of the Irish nation that what they wished was to act by the brute force of a majority. Such conduct as that was not likely to promote permanent conciliation between the two Kingdoms. Time should, moreover, be given to the hon. Members of that House to reflect upon the difference which they already perceived to exist between the original statements of the Government and the later ones. It was quite impossible that hon. Members could have an opportunity of revising their own judgments, when one section of them was present merely for the purpose of keeping a House, and another section necessarily absent recruiting themselves by sleeping or taking nourishment.

I must call the attention of the hon. Member to the Question before the House. I have already three times called him to Order. The patience of the House is nearly exhausted.

was sorry to be the object of the slightest misunderstanding on the part of the Chair. He was not desirous of being out of Order. He thought he should be quite in Order in calling attention to the necessarily divided condition of the House as a decisive reason for adjournment. That was purely and entirely why he had referred to it. If they went to the vote then, an enormous mass of that Legislature would be absent, at a time when they were pressing the first stage of a Bill for suspending the Constitution in Ireland. He would venture to say, with all submission to the Chair, and if he was wrong he would withdraw the expression, that that question ought to be decided before a full House, under every circumstance of deliberation. The division of that House would, no doubt, be against the adjournment. He was afraid that others would then move another adjournment, and thus really promote the waste of time which the Government wished to avoid.

thought that right hon. Gentlemen ought to agree to the adjournment, for a reason which had not yet, he believed, been stated. If they divided upon the Main Question then, it would go forth to Ireland that the decision had been come to in the absence of the chief Member of the Party to which he had the honour to belong. His hon. Friend the Member for Cork City (Mr. Parnell) had not yet spoken. If the Government had taken the usual course that difficulty would not have occurred. Every Irish Member would be held to strict account for his proceedings in that matter. A score, at least, of Members from Ireland had not yet spoken. He really hoped that, instead of their being met by eloquent silence of right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench, as they had been up to that time, they would agree to adjourn. If not, that Motion would be hurried through without proper discussion. He, himself, was an Irish Member, interested in the very order that that Bill was intended to restore. The members of the Land League were entitled to have their principles laid before the House and considered before they were handed over to the tender mercies of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. He did not say that from any personal interest in the Land League, for he was not a member of it, nor had he ever been so; but he felt sure that the country would appreciate the action of that House better if full opportunity were given for discussion.

said, that the question then before them ought to be decided in what he had always held to be the proper way of conducting Business in that House. He had always contended that no Business should be carried on after the hours in which reporters could take speeches, so that they appeared in the next morning's papers. The House ought to adjourn soon after half-past 12. There was a Standing Order to that effect, for one of those Orders said that no contentious Business should be taken after that hour. The Bill before the House ought to be discussed at a time when hon. Members were in physical and mental vigour. It was, also, very important that in such matters the public outside should have the opportunity of seeing what had been said on that question. The Irish Members said that public opinion had been misled with regard to the outrages in Ireland. If so, it was important that opportunity should be afforded for making out the best case they could, in order to combat the misrepresentations that had been made, and to reply to the speeches of Cabinet Ministers. Inasmuch as the Leader of their Party had not had the chance of setting forth his views, it could not be said that reasonable and full discussion had taken place. He could not appeal to the Government, because he had but little confidence in their disposition to do what was fair; and he doubted whether hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench had any authority to come to any conclusion then, or to accept anything contrary to their instructions. There were many reasons why the Government would have done well to have agreed to an adjournment. An Act of Coercion passed by physical force, and by the influences of Party discipline, would not be so passed with the approbation of the people, not only of Ireland, but of these countries. The influence of the Land League was of an entirely moral nature. The hon. Member for North Staffordshire (Mr. Craig) said that the Irish Members had not convinced him that the Government were wrong. The fact was that fair opportunity had not been given for discussion, or the hon. Member would have been convinced. He thought that if the public men in England entered into a physical contest they would make a great mistake. For physical contest men should not be selected for intellect, but for physique. The time might come when men, stronger in body and not so intellectual, would be at the head of affairs. Notwithstanding that, that was a very important Irish question—a very small portion of Irish Members had spoken; Members from Ireland had been crushed out by English Members. So many of their Party had not spoken on the Main Question, that that discussion might be kept up for an interminable time. He did not utter that as a threat; but merely to show that they had not occupied the time of the House. If the time occupied by Irish Members were put together it would not occupy more than two ordinary Sittings. They were an innocent Party, prevented by two others, who were following the Government on that occasion in supporting the vilest con- spiracy. [ Cries of "Withdraw!"] He would say deliberately that there was a conspiracy of Irish landlords to mislead, first the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, then the Government, and then English public opinion, in order to obtain the means of enabling them to continue in the unjust course practised by them heretofore. He did not believe that any Member had got so many valuable Amendments inserted in Bills as his hon. Friend the Member for Cork City (Mr. Parnell), and he was then charged with Obstruction. If the hon. Member for Mid-Lincolnshire were present he should ask him to apologize for bringing so unfounded a charge against his hon. Friend. It was too bad that Members who had done their duty should be attacked in that way, and charged with bringing on clap-trap Motions and talking bunkum. The Bill then before them was one which struck at the root of Irish liberty.

rose to Order. He asked Mr. Speaker if the hon. Member was in Order in alluding to a Bill which was not before the House?

wished to apologize if he had exceeded the bounds of Order.

The Amendment is, "That the Debate be now adjourned." The hon. Member should address himself to that point.

said, that, as he understood the ruling of the Chair earlier in the evening, they were justified in criticizing the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary so far as they could bring it within the Motion for adjournment. If they could show that that question for adjournment was desirable because the Bill was so objectionable, he hoped that Mr. Speaker would rule that he was justified in making some remarks with regard to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary in introducing the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman made several statements in introducing the Bill. ["Question, Question!"] He wished to be perfectly frank with Mr. Speaker. He wanted to show why time should be given them. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had raised certain points, and those he could, he believed, reply to. The right hon. Gentleman had raised the question whether the Bill was necessary. He had said that the lives and property and liberty of the Irish people had been set at nought by a certain combination called the Land League. He held a different opinion. He held, and he should be able to show when they had adjourned to a proper time, that the contention of the right hon. Gentleman was entirely erroneous. There were no outrages in Ireland that did not occur in all countries, and would occur, to the end of time. They would be able to show that the statements in the Returns were exaggerated.

The hon. Member is making a speech on the Main Question, and not with reference to the adjournment of the debate.

did not care to prolong his speech at the present time. He only wished to show what they would attempt to upset in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman if they had the time to do it. They could, he was sure, prove that the right hon. Gentleman was wrong. The right hon. Gentleman had shown great ignorance as to the real facts of the case. He had told the House that his information was that which came from particular sources. He (Mr. Biggar) thought it desirable that all matters suggested by the right hon. Gentleman should be, in the words of the Prime Minister, "sifted and re-sifted" before a decision was come to. Up to the present, sifting and re-sifting had not taken place. He was not present at the time when the adjournment was moved; but he understood that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had given no reason why an adjournment was not necessary. He simply said that a decision must be come to before the House could adjourn. That, in his opinion, amounted to coercion in that House. The right hon. Gentleman had a large majority at his back, and he was going to compel the minority to give way. He hoped, however, that the House would agree to the adjournment.

Mr. SPEAKER having retired, the Clerk at the Table, after some time, informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker:—

Whereupon, Mr. PLAYFAIR, the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, took the Chair as Deputy Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order. [4.50 A.M. TUESDAY, FEB. 1.]

said, that the hon. Member who had just sat down wished to refer to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary; but was not allowed to do so. He wished to say a word on a remark which fell from the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington). The noble Lord had stated that if his hon. Friend the Member for Cork City (Mr. Parnell) wanted to speak he could have done so earlier in the evening. The noble Lord's judgment deserved to count for a good deal; but he (Mr. Sexton) had yet to learn that the hon. Member for Cork City was bound to suit himself to the ideas of Order in debate that might be recognized and received by the noble Marquess. His hon. Friend had many calls upon his time, and could not rise at such time as the noble Lord might think convenient if he were disposed to do so. That debate would be regarded in Ireland as a fragmentary one. Every Member should have full opportunity of placing his views before the House. In the course of the debate the hon. Member for the County of Limerick (Mr. O'Sullivan) informed the House that he was desirous of speaking. No other Member had a stronger claim to be heard. The crime said to be committed in that county had been based upon fictitious evidence; and, therefore, his hon. Friend ought to be given an opportunity of replying to the charge which had been brought against the county he had the honour to represent. The noble Marquess, who had taken up the position of temporary Leader of the House, informed hon. Members that he considered four nights' debate sufficient for discussing the Motion to introduce this measure. That opinion was entitled to a respectful reception; but he was not aware of any Constitutional theory which entitled the noble Marquess to prescribe the duration of a debate, which ought to be left to the honest and deliberate judgment of the Irish Members. It must be obvious to any logical-minded person that this Motion ought not to be pressed forward unintermittingly until the whole of the evidence relevant to the case was in the possession of the House. But the evidence before the House was only of a fragmentary character; and the result of the criticism bestowed upon it had been, he believed, to discredit it in the minds of hon. Members on that side of the House. They were, therefore, entitled to de- mand that the remainder of the evidence on which the Government rested their case of coercion should be produced, in order that it might be fully and fairly examined before it was finally decided what further time was necessary for the consideration of the question. It had been shown that the evidence produced had been compiled on principles more in accordance with the proceedings of a lawyer striving to convict an individual, than with the principles that ought to guide a Legislative Assembly in its endeavours to arrive at a remedy for the state of things in Ireland. It was within the memory of the House that a Return, proving the decrease of crime within the last fortnight, was only agreed to by the Government after a Motion made by himself and supported by the hon. Member for Cork City. The Government had allowed the Order on his Motion to stand on the Books of the House of Commons, while they placed the name of the Chief Secretary for Ireland on the Papers to lead the public and the House to think that they had produced the evidence of their own accord, and not in answer to the demand of the Irish Members for its production. Again, only yesterday he had given Notice of Motion for a Return of agrarian crimes committed in that month, the effect of which would be to show that serious crime had disappeared, and that the evidence upon which the Government based their case was breaking into fragments; and it might be urged that, as the Government were proceeding with their policy on a weakening case, Irish Members were entitled to say that during the last fortnight that case had been still further weakened. When the Government produced their Bill they were able to say that during the month crime had increased; but Irish Members were now in a position to show that crime had decreased since that time 50 per cent; and, therefore, he was entitled to call upon Her Majesty's Government to give time for the purpose of showing that the decrease of crime proved that the necessity was every day disappearing for any exceptional legislation towards Ireland. Another reason for adjourning the debate was to afford time to make use of their right of appeal to the intelligent and generous feeling of the population of England in favour of the rights of the Irish people. No one could deny that there was, firstly, a slow uprising of popular revolt against the coercive policy of the Government as a cure for the distresses of a suffering people; and, secondly, a feverish mistrust of the indecent haste with which that policy had been forced upon the House. The Government, therefore, feared delay, because they believed it would open the eyes of the English public to the enormity of the course they were pursuing. The arguments he had addressed to the House were intended to show that there was no practical utility in continuing the policy inaugurated by the autocratic speech of the noble Marquess. Irish Members had amongst them sufficient resolution and energy to keep the Question before the House at its present stage until the time went by at which the Government might have hoped to gain anything by the continuance of the debate. The Government had not seen fit to adopt the suggestion offered at the beginning of the Motion for adjournment to allow the debate to conclude to-morrow night. In conclusion, he would add that, in opposing the continuance of the debate, Irish Members were showing their determination that the liberties of a law-abiding and peaceable people should not be placed at the mercy of the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary for Ireland.

had been surprised when the Prime Minister stated that he could not assent to the Motion for the adjournment, because it was only a few days before that he had stated his intention of giving Irish Members an opportunity for the fullest and fairest discussion. But, although it was now evident that the Bill was one of the most stringent measures ever submitted to the House of Commons, no such opportunity had been afforded. It had been said the Irish Members were offering Obstruction to the Motion, as they had to the Motion on the Address; but the fact was that of the Members who spoke on the Amendment of the hon. Member for the City of Cork the majority were to be found on the Benches opposite. Again, they were told that English feeling was rising against them; but he would refer to the meetings held at New-castle-on-Tyne to show there were some parts of England in which popular feeling was in their favour. But how often had English prejudice been unfairly raised against Ireland? He believed that the time would come when the English people—

I must call the attention of the hon. Member to the subject before the House, which is simply the adjournment of the debate.

regretted to have travelled beyond the Question; but he understood that references had been made to English feeling as an argument against the course pursued by Irish Members. It was idle to expect that the Irish Members could come to any decision when they believed the Chief Secretary for Ireland had not made out his case, which was based upon outrages alleged to have been committed during the first 10 months of the year. But they had not received the Returns for the last two months, which it was desirable should be in the hands of hon. Members, if only for the purpose of showing how many more panes of glass had been broken. He pointed out that there was no use in the Government keeping hon. Members any longer. The hon. Member for the City of Cork had said all that it was possible to say when he stated that it was probable the debate would finish to-morrow; but he could not control other hon. Members, who would certainly be wrong in surrendering their rights to anyone. When a Bill was introduced which placed the liberties of Ireland in the hollow of any man's hand, they all felt it their duty to resist the demand to the fullest extent of their powers.

rose to support the Motion for adjournment. There was, in his opinion, no need for hurrying this Bill forward, nor did he see any occasion for the unseemly haste displayed with regard to this matter by some hon. Members. The Government, he thought, should have time to reflect on their position, and trusted that a better discretion was coming upon them, especially after the discussion which had taken place on their statistics. The House had been recommended to hurry through the discussion in order that they might see what the Government measure really was. Well, Irish Members had seen it, no doubt without the will and intention of Her Majesty's Government; but some good fortune had put it into their hands, and they did not like it at all. The people of England had also become acquainted with its provisions; and, at all events, he thought a large portion of them liked it as little as the Irish Members. For that reason, also, he thought further time ought to be given in order to allow the people of England to express their opinions respecting the Government proposal. It was quite impossible at that hour for English Members also to give the Bill the amount of consideration which it required. It concerned the liberties and happiness of many thousands of the Irish people; and they would fail in their duty did they not obtain for it time for full discussion on the part of the people of this country.

rose to support the Motion for adjournment, which, considering the number of hours the House had been sitting, was certainly not unreasonable. He expressed his great surprise and indignation at the course pursued by Her Majesty's Government in trying to force a division on their measure without giving Irish Members a full and fair opportunity of discussing it, and, in the words of the Prime Minister, of sifting and re-sifting it before it was passed into law. He ventured to assure hon. Members opposite that there was scarcely a Member for Ireland who dare allow the opportunity to pass without entering their strong protest against the passing of the measures now proposed to be applied to Ireland. They would lose their seats if they did not do so. With reference to the statement that a full and fair opportunity had been given for discussion, he begged to point out that neither in the debate on the Address, nor in the course of the present discussion, had he and a number of Irish Members addressed the House. If the present measure were accompanied by a measure of reform—

I must call the attention of the hon. Member to the fact that the subject before the House is the adjournment of the debate.

would try to confine himself to that subject. He failed to see the advantage which the Government would gain from a series of Motions for adjournment, and trusted that the temporary Leaders of the House would agree to the suspension of the debate.

said, from the speeches of hon. Members opposite it might be supposed that the Irish people were the most turbulent in the world, and that their Anglican Friends were just dealing with them as a parent dealt with a child—teaching it by a slap on the head to become better.

I must remind the hon. Member that the Motion before the House is of an exceedingly limited character, and that it is for the adjournment of the debate.

I wish to point out that when Mr. Speaker was in the Chair he laid down the principle—

I have already decided on the point of Order.

said, he now understood that he must simply speak on behalf of adjournment, without giving any reason why the adjournment was claimed. It should never be said that the liberties of Ireland were surrendered by her Representatives without a struggle. In answer to the observation of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Charles Lewis), who charged them with being demagogues, with the spirit of the murderer without his courage, he said that when men charged persons like himself with having such feelings they calumniated the Irish people.

I rise to Order. I wish to ask whether the hon. Member is in Order in alluding to a speech delivered on a previous Motion for adjournment?

I must again remind the hon. Member that the Motion before the House is simply one for adjournment, and that it is not the Main Question, although I do not think he is intentionally travelling beyond the Question.

rose to Order.

I remind the hon. Member that the point of Order is already settled.

rose to a new point of Order, He wished it to be understood that the Motion he was about to make was one that he should move with the utmost personal respect for the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair —namely, "That the House do now disagree with Mr. Deputy Speaker in his ruling." He had precedent for that Motion, and moved it because on his rising before he had been refused a hearing upon a point of Order. It was within the right of every Member of the House respectfully to address the Chair upon any point of Order before it was ruled, and upon that point he referred to the records of Parliament, and challenged contradiction in saying he was within his rights when he had attempted to do so. He said, with profound respect, that he was entitled to be heard on a point of Order, and that Mr. Deputy Speaker had denied him his right as a Member of Parliament. He therefore moved—"That this House do now disagree with Mr. Deputy Speaker in his ruling."

I rise to a point of Order.

I am already debating a point of Order.

I wish to draw attention to an observation I distinctly heard in my place across the floor of the House, made by the hon. and learned Member who has just been pretending to speak upon a point of Order—an observation which, I think, shows the real spirit which prompted his observations. When interrupted by loud cries of "Divide" and other noises, the hon. and learned Member turned half round to his Friends behind him, and cried in a loud tone, perfectly audible at a considerable distance—"Never mind; this will do as well as anything else."

I rise to a point of Order.

I wish to say on the point of Order that the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Samuelson) interrupted the hon. and learned Member who was addressing the Chair under the pretext of a point of Order, but brought no point of Order before the Chair.

I beg to explain the point of Order I brought forward—

called on Mr. A. M. SULLIVAN to continue his observations.

I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I thank you also for protecting me from eavesdroppers in an Assembly of Gentlemen. Any observation I addressed to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is intended for the Chair; but any observation I address to my Friends is intended for them. I say that my taking my time, and not allowing myself to be disturbed or shaken from the sentence I am about to utter, will answer me just as well as if I attempted to talk in the midst of cries and interruptions. When I was told by my Friends to "Go on," I said that my pauses would do as well as anything else.

Will the hon. and learned Member come to the point as to what he intends to do, because I think I will be able to explain to him that he is acting quite under a misapprehension.

If you tell me, Sir, that I am acting under a misapprehension, I will not continue, as I do not wish for an instant to occupy the time of the House unnecessarily.

This is where the hon. and learned Member was mistaken. He rose to a point of Order as I myself rose to answer a point of Order, and he had no right to speak until the Deputy Speaker had resumed his seat. That is why I did not call on him.

The ostensible object of the hon. and learned Member was—

called on Mr. NELSON to resume his address.

I think you will find I am in Order in the observation I am about to make, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that the House will find I wish to extract it from an unfair position. I made a Motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which, on your statement of the case, I wish to withdraw. Until I withdraw that Motion no one else can be heard. I beg to withdraw the Motion I made.

thanked Mr. Deputy Speaker for his courtesy, and could assure him and the House that he would always receive the smallest contributions thankfully. He was a novice, and was only just learning the Forms of the House, which he should obey as long as he understood them. He had material for a dozen speeches in his hand; but he would just take at random an item from the bundle, to show how necessary it was for the House to adjourn to allow hon. Members an opportunity of going seriatim and deliberately through their objections to the Bill, and that the stake was of too much importance for them to hurry over the question at this hour of the morning. All he wanted was that the House should adopt a course of festina lenti if Irishmen were to be put into the position of culprits. Irish Members had not come there to obtain a character from English Members, although they were put upon their trial as culprits. They were the equals of English Members in intellect. Some hon. Members had spoken of the head being in one Lobby and the heart in another; but the heads and hearts of the Irish Members went together, and they would not be put upon their trial; and it was said, again, that Ireland had been committing outrages from Lough Mask in the one direction to the Riding School in Dublin in the other, and this statement the Irish Members wished to prove to be without foundation. The shortest way to get rid of such men as they were was to give them rope enough. If they hanged themselves it would only be felo de se. As to the battle, they were not afraid of it. They had only been skirmishing, and had not yet entered into the thick of the fight. People had charged them with having the spirit of murderers, and had described them as dissolute ruffians; but these charges he would not reply to. Their cause was rational, and was one of the head and the heart united, and was the cause, not only of the suffering people of Ireland, but, on a fair analysis of the whole subject, of Europe, and probably also would ultimately become the cause of America. ["Question!"] He heard the word "Question," badly pronounced, by some hon. Member, and in reply would observe that he was speaking to the Question—the Question of adjournment—and not at all with a desire to waste time. ["Oh!"] That emphatic "Oh!" no doubt meant that he was telling lies; but he could assure the House that he was speaking conscientiously, and not either as a Pharisee or as a pretended philanthropist of England.

declared that the Irish Members and the Irish people were on their trial; but the evidence was not yet complete, and that portion which had been laid before the House was not only incomplete, but insufficient. The present stage was like the first stage in a criminal trial—the finding of a true bill by the Grand Jury; and hon. Members, like members of a Grand Jury, had a right to be conscientious, and should not allow themselves to be guided by those who said—"Bring in a true bill, for if it is found to be not what it ought to be the case can be tried in the Court below." Every conscientious grand juror knew that he took the first step towards a conviction when he brought in a true bill; therefore, he ought not to allow it to be brought in unless there was the strongest primâ facie case for it. In the present case there was no primâ facie evidence in support of the Bill. ["Question!"] The Question was one of adjournment, and he wished that adjournment to take place, in order that the House might have time to study the Bill, which they had not yet done. If the case had reference to South Africa or Malta, or if it was merely a sugar question, they would see the Blue Books in the hands of every Member, and everyone would be studying the question; but in regard to the matter before the House he had never seen an official document in the hands of an hon. Member opposite. Let the matter be adjourned, so that hon. Members opposite could study the Blue Books. The Irish Members, who had studied the question, were anxious to have further Government Returns—were anxious to have the second Report dealing with outrages in December, because they knew that when it was forthcoming it would be seen by everyone that the case of the Chief Secretary was weaker; in fact, that it was totally incapable of substantiation. He remembered an anecdote of an eminent ecclesiastic who, at an hotel, having, in spite of numerous attempts, failed to attract the attention of the domestics, at last, in sheer desperation, broke something and was at once waited on. The Irish Members were in a similar situation. They had tried every pacific course—had adopted every measure that was mild, persuasive, and logical, but had failed, and now it was necessary for them to do something violent to wake up the Government. They must break something. The hon. Member for the City of Cork had not obtained that opportunity he desired of making an explanation that he was anxious to make. The Prime Minister had attributed to him words which he had not used; but he had not been allowed to clear himself. When the House silenced the hon. Member for the City of Cork, they silenced the Irish Members who were led by him; and when they silenced them they silenced Ireland, for they represented the majority of the people of that country. If there were any Rule that prevented the Prime Minister from making an explanation when occasion called for it, that and all Rules would have to give way. Let the English Members put themselves in the position of hon. Members from Ireland, and suppose that they represented England in a French Parliament, and suppose it was proposed by the French Government to suspend the liberties of the English Members and people—

The hon. Member is not adhering closely to the point before the House, which is the Question of the adjournment of the debate.

said, he was saying that if England were in the position in regard to France that Ireland was in in regard to England, English Members would adopt the course which the Irish Members were following. [An hon. MEMBER: No; we would not.] Then they would give up struggling against the French Parliament, and give up the liberties of the English people. ["Question!"] They would, at any rate, ask for an adjournment in such a position as the present—

The introduction of the word "adjournment" is not sufficient to enable the hon. Member to depart from the Question before the House.

thought he had a right to say that if other hon. Members were in a similar position to that occupied by himself and his Friends they would do just as the Irish Members were now doing—

Mr. Deputy Speaker, the hon. Member has again transgressed the very Rule you have just laid down.

I have just told the hon. Member that I do not think he is speaking to the Question.

said, he would abandon this portion of his speech; and if he had in any way trespassed upon the patience of the Deputy Speaker or of the House he could assure them that it was the necessity of the case that had driven him to it.

said, that if he wished for another argument beyond those already used in favour of adjournment he could not put a stronger one than by pointing to the clock (half-past 6 o'clock a.m.) He regarded the principle underlying coercion as bad under all circumstances, and whether the Bill was introduced to-night or to-morrow night he should oppose it. It would fail to accomplish the object for which it was intended; and it would, therefore, be a waste of time to proceed further with it. Certainly, he did not see why hon. Members should sacrifice their sleep in order to pass the measure; and many of them would be much better employed if they were in bed just now. Nothing that the Government could do would enable the Bill to be proceeded with more rapidly, because, according to the Rules of the House, the minority had a right to prevent any further progress being made; and as the Irish Members intended to exercise that right to the fullest extent, the Government were simply wasting time by prolonging the contest.

I wish to ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether the hon. Member is not treating the House with contempt, when he says that he intends to use the Forms of the House, not for the purpose of defeating this Bill, but for the purpose of preventing the progress of Business?

I did not receive the hon. Members remarks in that way. I understood him to mean that, considering the measure a bad one, he will do his best in every way to resist it.

thanked Mr. Deputy Speaker for the fairness of his ruling. The difficulty the Irish Members experienced here was to get anything like a fair hearing, because there were a number of Gentlemen amongst them who were in the habit of interrupting, although no one knew anything about their ideas—if, indeed, they had any at all—and who seriously inconvenienced hon. Gentlemen like himself, who were not very used to public speaking. The opinions of the Irish Members ought to have considerable weight with the House, for they, as much as any English or Scotch Members, were the Representatives of the people, having been elected under the same Constitution and by the same method, and having exactly the same Constitutional standing in the House. His voice had—or ought to have—as much weight as the voice of any other Representative whose ability was not greater than his own; and, therefore, he was bound to say it was of more value than those of a great many Members on the other side of the House. They required an adjournment, in order that the question involved—this question of coercion—might be fully debated, and in order that more time might be given to Members in the House, and to the public outside, to consider what would really be the result of this coercion, if adopted. The House could have no particular object in passing a Coercion Bill, unless, by that method, they achieved some definite end. The Government expected to achieve a definite end; but the Irish Members denied it, and declared that, instead of giving peace to Ireland, it would cause disorder, and, instead of rendering life and property safe, it would render them more unsafe than ever. Being conscientiously convinced of these facts, they could oppose, to the fullest extent of their Constitutional right, the progress of the measure. It was in keeping with the history and antecedents of the Tories that they should look on the opposition of the Irish Members with dislike, if not with anger; and he held that the policy which underlay the measure was essentially a Tory policy.

I rise to Order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I submit that the hon. Member is going far beyond the Question now before the House.

I rose at the same time as the hon. and learned Member to draw the attention of the hon. Gentleman to the fact that he is travelling much further than the Question, which is simply one of the adjournment of the debate.

considered that the debate ought to be adjourned, for the reasons that he had already alleged, and for the further reason, that there was nothing to be gained by continuing this debate. He considered that the action taken by Her Majesty's Government this evening was one that was likely to bring discredit not only on themselves, but upon all Liberal Governments; and he, as a man whose sympathies, at least, were with Liberalism, though he might not be able to agree with the Gentlemen at present in power, was anxious that a Liberal Ministry should be saved from itself. The question whether the Bill was justifiable or not hinged on the fact whether the state of things alleged by the Chief Secretary for Ireland had any real existence or not. They had no proof whatever before them that the condition of outrage which the Chief Secretary so theatrically described the other night existed in Ireland or not, for the reason that the Returns on which the facts of the case must rest were not yet in the hands of hon. Members. Until the Returns giving details of these scenes of crime and outrage, which it was alleged had occurred in November and December, were before the House it was not possible for them properly to discuss the Bill. At present they had not sufficient data before them to form such an opinion of the measure as an intelligent man ought to form before lending himself to that which, in effect, would deprive a whole nation of its Constitutional liberty. He held that, without entering into the provisions of the Bill, the proposition of the Government primâ facie was not one which ought to be supported by any reasonable man.

Question put.

The House divided: —Ayes 27; Noes 148: Majority 121.—(Div. List, No. 15.) [6.30 A.M. TUESDAY, FEB. 1.]

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

said, it seemed fitting that he should now offer some observations on the general question; and, at the outset, he would say that the manner in which the debate had been listened to and the good temper which had been displayed had been a pleasant feature in this discussion, which had been found wanting on previous occasions. He proposed to go through the speech of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and to refute as many of the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman as he thought would show their insufficient character. The right hon. Gentleman had asked them to pass the measure on the ground that they were about to have a Land Bill. That argument had been well referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. C. Russell), who had asked—"Are we so sure that we are going to have a Land Bill?" and had reminded the House of the manner in which the Compensation for Disturbance Bill had been thrown out in "another place" last Session. How could they be sure that the fate which had attended the measure of last year would not wait on the Bill of the present Session? The right hon. Gentleman had then gone on to say that it would be his duty to show that person and property were not sufficiently protected, and that liberty was not secure in Ireland. Well, he (Mr. Healy) submitted that the right hon. Gentleman had failed to prove any one of the conclusions he had set out.

The hon. Member, so far as I can hear, is speaking to the Main Question now, and not to the Question of adjournment.

said, that was so. Mr. Deputy Speaker had exactly stated the conditions of the case, and he was happy to recognize the fairness with which the question had been put. He had been saying that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had stated that life and property were not secure in Ireland. Well, he (Mr. Healy) could speak from his own knowledge on this question, having been resident in that country during the whole time the alleged disturbances were going on; and he could say this as the result of his experience—that there were very few countries in which life and property were so secure as they were in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman had also said that there had been many exaggerations in the newspapers. Well, this was exactly the position taken up by the Irish Members, for they contended that it was the exaggerations on the question that had caused the panic. He thought he could easily explain to the House how these exaggerations had been got up. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had said that because these statements had appeared in the newspapers there must be some ground for them; but if the House would bear in mind that the chief organ of English opinion, the London Times —["No, no!"]—well, the chief organ of London opinion—["No, no!"]—at any rate, an influential organ of opinion, the London Times, was represented in Ireland by the Editor of The Dublin Express —the "Landlord Daily Express," the paper by which the Boycott expedition had been got up, and into which the landlords poured their daily woe—they would see what little value was to be attached to what they read in that paper concerning the Irish people. The Dublin Correspondent of The Standard was a gentleman who had been for many years engaged on the Dublin Evening Mail, and it was upon these two gentlemen that the English public had to rely for their information about Ireland. He submitted that if ever a history of any country was written by its enemies, that had been the case with Ireland. It was, therefore, not surprising that they had such bloated accounts of the condition of the country as got into the minds of the English public. That was how he explained the way in which panic was created in this country. The right hon. Gentleman stated that the facts he referred to had been furnished officially; but he characterized that statement as one of considerable hardihood, seeing that at the time the Blue Book was not in the hands of Members, and the right hon. Gentleman was, of course, safe in getting up his Bill, and making any statement he liked about crime and outrage. Irish Members had not had the least opportunity of examining the facts; and the right hon. Gentleman, on the principle that everything in Ireland was horrible, was able to say that everything was, in the highest degree, intolerable. Hon. Members had got the Blue Book next morning, and what did they find the alleged outrages to represent? One case was the breaking down of a few yards of wall; another was the breaking of a window; and another was the cutting of a telegraph wire. He was at a loss to understand how, even in the fertile imagination of the Irish Attorney General, the cutting of a telegraph wire was an agrarian offence; and he invited the right hon. Gentleman to explain how that constituted such an offence. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that the entire number of outrages for the last 10 months had been 2,590; but if each of the cases had been committed by a single individual, that would not be a sufficient reason for suspending the liberties of 5,500,000 people; 2,590 outrages did not form a sufficiently large unclean bill of health upon which the House might be asked to give a Lord Lieutenant power to put in prison any person he chose, and keep him there for 18 months. He had considered the agitation in Ireland, the famine that preceded the agitation, the intense state of distress that had prevailed, and the way in which landlords had aggravated the distress by decisions on the bench, and by their general conduct. If this number represented so many individual cases, and each case was a serious case, the argument of the right hon. Gentleman was not a sufficient ground for suspending the Constitution. It was a very weak argument, and could not for a moment hold good. But what were the facts with regard to those outrages? Exclusive of threatening letters, there were only 1,337, and the matter actually came to this—Was the House prepared to suspend the liberties of 5,500,000 people on account of 1,337 outrages? He put it to the unflinching Members of the Radical Party whether, if there were 1,337 criminals in London, they would be prepared to suspend the Constitution? There was in London a standing criminal population of 50,000; and if they were not prepared to suspend the Constitution on that account in London, how could they suspend the liberties of Irish people because of 1,337 crimes? With regard to the threatening letters, the hon. Member mentioned that on Christmas Eve every one of the colonels of the regiments in Dublin had received a threatening letter, which, he supposed, was intended as a grim Christmas-box; and how could members of the Land League be acquainted with the proper names of all the Dublin colonels. These threats, therefore, were sent by someone well acquainted with military matters; and he submitted it was some Government official who wrote these letters. A number of threatening letters had been sent to the Irish Judges, and these were garnished by scraps of French which indicated a certain amount of education; and surely these were not sent by unlettered pea- sants. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that two-thirds of the entire cases of crime had been committed in the last three months of the last year. But it was strange that it was for two of those months, November and December, that they were asking for details. He made the unblushing statement that two-thirds of the crimes had been committed within the last three months of the year; but had carefully withheld from the House every detail of those crimes. That was not a fair way to treat Members of that House. They must be expected to approach Bills of that kind in a critical spirit; and he did not think the right hon. Gentleman should be surprised if they asked him for a little information with respect to the crimes of the last three months. They had not even the slightest idea when those particulars would be furnished; but in regard to the right hon. Gentleman's statement that the greater portion of the crimes had been committed in the last three months of the year, he would point out one extraordinary argument. The Prime Minister had said that the Land League meetings were dogged by the steps of crime, and he pointed out the great increase in December, together with the fact that there had been a great increase in the number of meetings; but he would point out that winter was the time which afforded the greatest facilities for crime; and it was well known that the number of crimes was greater in London in December than in June. In the same way, although the Land League meetings had reached the highest number in December, the increase of crime had not been caused by these meetings; but by the facilities afforded by the winter season for their commission. The right hon. Gentleman, dwelling on the statistics of crime, said, in Wexford, for the entire year, the crimes were 56, of which 48 occurred in the last three months. It was very disingenuous of the right hon. Gentleman not to have told the House that of those 48 something like three-fourths were threatening letters. The hon. Member read a telegram he had received a few nights ago from Wexford stating that the Grand Jury at the Quarter Sessions had not been sworn because there was no criminal business laid before them, and he also quoted a resolution passed by the Wexford Board of Guardians on the 29th of January, ex- pressing their opinion that the country had never been in a more peaceable, orderly condition than it then was, as instanced by the fact that there had been no criminal business before the Grand Jury, and protesting emphatically against the introduction of coercive measures by the Government, and calling upon their Representatives to use every legitimate means in Parliament to prevent the passing of such a measure. He declared that the entire arguments of the right hon. Gentleman were unstable, and unworthy of being received by a great deliberative Assembly; and, criticizing the case mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman of a man named Peter Keohane who had been visited at night by a party, dragged from his house, stabbed, and otherwise ill treated, he asked that hon. Members should be allowed to see Peter Keohane in the flesh, for the right hon. Gentleman had not stated any thing which would enable them to identify the man. Speaking of the alleged outrages on animals, he said that of the 300 or 400 cases given half of them were owing to the accursed Grand Jury system. If a man had a bad stack of hay, which, instead of being worth £3 or £4, was worth only 15 s., he had only to get a boy to set fire to it and obtain compensation for it under the present system. He contended that if there were some popularly elected magistrates on the Bench who would go into these cases there would not be so many of them occurring as there were under this system. The right hon. Gentleman, to vary his narrative, had dealt with persons, and then with property, and then gone back to persons again, and he had given the case of a man named O'Donnell; but he had given no further clue to his identity than that he lived in Clare. He said that shots had been fired in that man's house, and had ventured to say that, on the following day, O'Donnell had gone and joined the Land League. That was a very safe statement, seeing that he had not said where the man was, in order that they might ascertain whether he had done that or not. If the right hon. Gentleman persisted in giving them such meagre details as that, so long he could not be surprised, even at such an advanced hour as that, that they asked him to produce his O'Donnell just as they had asked him to produce Peter Keohane. The Solicitor General for Ire- land had been pathetic over the operations of the Land League Courts, just as though, they were some secret tribunal carrying on their operations in the dark; but the fact was that the right hon. Gentleman was able to send one of those eternal policemen to attend any of those meetings at any time, and he submitted that Courts of that kind had been wrongly described. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the tremendous power of those Courts; but he had carefully abstained from giving a single sentence pronounced by those Courts. It had been alleged that those Courts were carried on by a system of terror; but the minds of the people in Ireland were too independent to be controlled in that way. The people of Ireland, in spite of England's conquest over them, had never admitted that conquest; and were they to be told that a people who had not submitted to the British Government for 700 years had succumbed to the Land League within 12 months? They had fought England in various ways, and would again. They had not always been successful, but they had tried to keep their backs straight and their faces to the enemy; and to say that the Land League had been able to subdue these people who had been described as "tameless, frank, and free," that they would yield to the most humiliating terms of submission within 12 months, was like talking of something from Alice in Wonderland. The right hon. Gentleman, in fact, had been indulging in a poetic imagination, of which he should not have believed him capable. The right hon. Gentleman had said that Judge Fitzgerald, in his Charge to the Grand Jury at Cork, had alluded to the failure of justice; but he himself had heard Judge Fitzgerald comment in the severest terms on the way in which magistrates sent up trivial cases to be tried, and on the way in which they kept women and their infants and children for months in prison without bail, who were afterwards discharged; and he ventured to think that if the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland was himself performing his usual functions at the Cork Assizes and witnessed these things he would be ashamed of the magistrates. So long as that system was possible in Ireland, so long would the Irish Members risk the censure of that House in trying to get it remedied; and he would be content to be considered a most objectionable person in taking the course he had pursued. Judge Fitzgerald, whenever he got the chance, condemned the land agitation in the blackest terms. Now, Judge Fitzgerald was simply a creature of the Crown, and the Crown overshadowed him and creatures like him in the Four Courts, Dublin, where there was an army of placemen without an independent spirit amongst them. It might be said that Judge Fitzgerald had nothing to expect from the Crown; but all the Judges had something to expect. Judge Lawson got a very nice thing in the Church Temporalities which added some thousands to his income. Baron Dowse had got a very agreeable peripatetic appointment as one of the Land Commissioners. He was well paid for it, and they were all well paid. Everything an Irish Judge or an Irish official did was well paid for, and in that way the Government had a continual pull and influence over its Irish officials; and, if Judge Fitzgerald was not expecting a Lord Chief Justiceship, he was expecting a pension or something else. It had been said that Judge Fitzgerald was an ornament to the Irish Bench. There was one country to which he thought Judge Fitzgerald would be an ornament, and that was Egypt. There was one place in that country which he would particularly ornament, and that was the banks of the Nile, for a greater old crocodile than Judge Fitzgerald never lived.

The hon. Member is considerably wandering from the subject before the House.

, continuing, said, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had also trotted out Judge Barry as having said at the Waterford Assizes that convictions could not be obtained, and that out of 205 jurymen summoned only 118 attended. For 118 out of 205 people to turn up to try men for picking pockets was a very decent proportion, and as large a proportion as would be obtained in London. The right hon. Gentleman said they did not attend because they dared not. Why did they not attend? Why did not a good many Members come to that House at an hour like the present? Was it because they dared not? It was not; it was because they suited their own convenience; and so did the jurymen at Water- ford. With regard to the statements that convictions could not be obtained, it was a strange thing that the jurymen, who had come forward at Waterford, were the men who had given convictions; but the men who dared not come forward were the men who, perhaps, if they had done so, the Government would not have been glad to have, because they, perhaps, would have taken an independent view of the situation, and would not have returned convictions. With regard to the allegation that lawlessness prevailed because civil bill processes could not be served, the hon. Member said there was one thing that always put a stop to serving bill processes, and that was that the people had no money and no crops to meet them with. Then, again, the right hon. Gentleman said that no man in Ireland dared do anything against the laws of the Land League; but had the rule of England really placed Ireland in such a condition that the people preferred the rule of the "dissolute ruffians" who, it was said, had obtained a hold over them within 12 months? It was a confession of failure on the part of the Government, seeing that a few unknown nobodies started up in Ireland and, in the space of 12 months, were able to render the ordinary law powerless. If the people of the country did not sympathize with the Land League, how would they submit to the Land League law? It was by reason of this sympathy that the people were able to carry on their agitation. This was the right hon. Gentleman's own admission; but let him base his laws on justice and equity, and he would not find it necessary to ask for coercion. Until he was able to base his laws on the same grounds as the Land League based theirs, so long would they be able to claim that the Land League was a superior institution as a law-keeping and law-making body. The right hon. Gentleman complained that the ordinary law was powerless; there was one ordinary law that would not be powerless in Ireland, yet it was not an ordinary law, because they never got it in Ireland. If, instead of making Coercion Bills the ordinary laws, and Land Bills the exceptional laws, England would reverse the process, the ordinary law would not be powerless; but, based on the affections and interests of the people, it would be looked up to and obeyed. The right hon. Gentleman said—"We must arrest the criminals." That was exactly the position of the Irish Members. Why did he not arrest them? If he knew them, why did he not arrest them? The Irish police were not so nice and delicate like a surgeon handling a dangerous wound. Why did they not try a pot-shot at catching some of those criminals. He had a suggestion to make. The right hon. Gentleman said the police of each district knew the criminals. Well, let him name them in his Bill. And another suggestion he had to make was, that the right hon. Gentleman should name in his Bill the Petty Sessions districts where those criminals dwelt. He was gratified to see, after speaking for two hours, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had returned to his place, for he (Mr. Healy) should not now have any longer "to waste his sweetness on the desert air." His experience of the country gentlemen and magistracy of Ireland was that they were the real "dissolute ruffians," the "village tyrants," who had nothing to do but to grind the people. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman, who lived within a wall of brass in Dublin Castle, knew nothing of the drunken, dissolute character of those men. He had never even been at the Strawberry Beds.

rose to Order, and appealed to the Deputy Speaker (Mr. Lyon Playfair) as to whether the hon. Member was not deliberately wasting the time of the House in the course he was pursuing?

The hon. Gentleman is speaking to the Main Question, and in doing so has considerable latitude; but he will judge whether he is trying the patience of the House by the very long statement he is making, and whether some of his argument's have not been reiterated. I cannot say that, under existing Rules of debate, he is out of Order.

said, he was much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his ruling. He proceeded to comment on the crass ignorance of the Chief Secretary for Ireland as to the condition of the country. [ Cries of "Order!"]

Such expressions with re- gard to hon. Members of this House are not usual.

, resuming, disputed the necessity for coercion, and deprecated the retrospective character of the Bill. He strongly objected to it on that, as well as other grounds; for, under its provisions, it would be possible to arrest innocent persons, as, for instance, Sir Charles Duffy. He also doubted whether the Land Bill would ever get through the House of Lords.

rose to Order, and

said, the hon. Member could not discuss a Bill which was not yet at all before the House.

Quite so; but he was referring to the remedial legislation which had been so often mentioned in the course of this discussion. The Irish minority knew they could not pass Bills, but they could prevent bad Bills from passing. That was a very important matter, and in that case they meant to try it.

asked whether the hon. Member was not now threatening Obstruction?

I am not, Sir.

What the hon. Member said, as I understood him, was that he and some other Irish Members would do all they could to prevent the passing of a particular measure. [Several hon. MEMBERS: Bad Bills.] That is not Obstruction. He is not out of Order.

said, that if the hon. Member opposite who interrupted was fighting for his people as they were fighting for theirs, he would be ashamed to act as they had done. But, notwithstanding the interruptions to which he had been subjected, he should still go on until he had finished his speech. In the same way the members of the Land League would stand to their guns; and if there were to be any such thing as going to prison, he, for one, was ready to go with them. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland said that if the evils of the Land system were removed, the outrages complained of would be no longer possible. He (Mr. Healy) rejoiced that he could concur heartily in that statement; but if the right hon. Gentleman was of that opinion, why did he not endeavour to remove the evils of the land system, instead of bringing in the present pettifogging Bill? But the right hon. Gentleman had been a contradiction all his life, and he had been elected by the Tories in Bradford.

I beg to ask, Sir, whether what has taken place in the career of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland has anything to do with the present debate?

I cannot say he is out of Order; but the hon. Gentleman is trying the patience of the House by his remarks.

Well, then, Mr. Speaker, I will not try the patience of the House any longer, but will subside. I beg to conclude by moving the adjournment of the House.

I beg to second the Motion. We have now been sitting for 17 hours, and I think we may now be permitted to retire to rest. There never was a more inquitous, unfounded, and unjust attack made upon a country than that which has been made upon my country; and, therefore, we are perfectly justified in the course we are taking.

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

supported the Motion. The hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) had referred, in support of his opposition to the Bill, to the Charge of Mr. Justice Fitzgerald. Well, he (Mr. Daly) had only to say that that learned Judge was as much under the influence of the whisperings of Dublin Castle as was the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland himself. There was no person between the four seas who knew better than did that astute Judge that his reading of threatening letters from the Judicial Bench was an advertisement for the writers of them, and a direct encouragement for their repetition. Mr. Justice Fitzgerald knew that such letters could only come from one class, and that was the semi-educated class in Ireland. ["Order!"]

reminded the hon. Member that the Question before the House was the adjournment of the House, and not the Main Question.

went on to say that a cogent and, indeed, one of the primary reasons for the adjournment of the House was to afford hon. Members a reasonable opportunity for considering the weighty arguments advanced by the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell), and of inquiring into and sifting the evidence which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had adduced as the foundation of his Coercion Bill. He (Mr. Daly) did not deny that grave and serious outrages had occurred in Ireland; that a certain amount of intimidation had been exercised; that what was called "Boycotting"—but to a very limited extent indeed—had taken place; but of this he was sure—that the more the Returns placed upon the Table were examined and tested, the more the House would be convinced that they afforded no just ground for depriving 5,000,000 of people of their liberty and privileges. With regard to "Boycotting," he maintained that it was a perfectly legal and Constitutional system, which it was perfectly fair and reasonable to resort to under certain circumstances; while as respected the constitution of the Land League, he would ask hon. Members to give their attention while he informed them as to the branch formed in Cork, of which he (Mr. Daly) was a member.

said, he failed to see what bearing these subjects had on the Motion before the House.

, continuing, said the Irish Members would be guilty of gross dereliction of duty if they did not use every Form of the House to oppose the introduction of this Bill; and, speaking for himself, he should continue, to the last, to resist, until it had been made plain to him that there was a necessity for such a measure becoming law. It was no desire of theirs that the Business of the House should be suspended to allow that Bill to be carried; and it was a great mistake to suppose that Irish Members were sent to Parliament to obstruct the ordinary Business. He wished to refer to the immunity of the county of Cork from crime; for, in his opinion, it was a strong reason for the adjournment of the debate, so that a careful examination of the statistics should take place in order that the House should see the smallness of the percentage of crime in a constituency so large as that of Cork. In conclusion, he would make an earnest appeal to the House to avoid adding another to the long record of crimes which Ireland had registered against the English Parliament; and he would warn hon. Members who were now flocking in after a night's rest, which was denied to the Irish Members, that though they might resort to the force of numerical strength and continue to pour in fresh relays of hon. Members for a week, they never could, and never would, stifle the voice of the Irish Party, when they wanted to give expression to the grievances of their country.

said, that the hon. Gentleman had warned the House against legislating in a panic; but he begged to assure him that there was no panic in the House, or in the Government, or in the country; but, on the contrary, a calm determination to put down lawlessness, outrage, and crime in Ireland. The country was determined that the scoundrels who were the police of the Land League, and who had hitherto carried out its behests, should no longer triumph over, and put violence on, the well-ordered and law-abiding portion of the people of Ireland; and he rejoiced to know that hon. Gentlemen opposite, who claimed to represent the people of Ireland, spoke the language of a small minority only of that people. It was a terrible thing to many Englishmen, who had friends in Ireland that the country was disgraced in the eyes of Europe by the outrages and atrocities that were committed there; and he would ask those hon. Gentlemen, what had they done to discountenance them? Something better might have been expected from hon. Members opposite, some of whom had been well born and well educated. Foreigners were beginning to understand that it was not the English who oppressed Ireland, but the Irish who oppressed one another. The last half-century of English government had done all that could be done to improve the condition of the Irish people. One law after another had been passed with that object. [ Cries of "What law?"] Well, taxation had been lightened and the sale of encumbered estates facilitated. If the latter measure had not benefited the country so much as it was hoped it would, it was because the owners of estates had not gone to reside in a country where a course was pursued which had the effect of neutralizing the objects which those laws were intended to bestow, by driving capital out of the country, without which it could never be prosperous.

interposed, and pointed out to the hon. Baronet that the Question was not a Land Bill, but simply the adjournment of the House.

said, he had simply intended to reply to the strictures which had been passed upon English government in Ireland; but he would, of course, bow to the ruling of the Chair.

said, that it was very refreshing to see one of the new relays, the hon. Baronet the Member for Buckingham (Sir Harry Verney), come down so fresh from a good night's sleep to give them his opinions as to how Ireland ought to be governed. The hon. Baronet had said that the Irish Members spoke for only a small section of the Irish people. They knew, however, that they represented not only the majority, but the vast majority, of the Irish people; and he would instance his own election as an illustration of the fact. He was elected by a majority of 3,000 over his opponent, while the hon. Baronet was only elected by a majority of 8 against his opponent.

I rise to Order. I wish to ask whether the remarks of the hon. Gentleman are applicable?

I do not see how they are in the least applicable.

, resuming, urged that the measure was not required, his country never being freer from crime than at the present moment, and that the game of the landlord party was to keep up terror in Ireland in order to get coercion, so as to enable them to collect exorbitant rack rents.

asked whether the hon. Member was in Order?

I must draw the hon. Member's attention to the fact that he is not in Order.

, resuming, addressed himself to the subject of the Returns, when—

again asked if the hon. Member was in Order?

I beg to be heard on this question of Order. I wish to point out that there is a serious difference between Motions for the adjournment of the debate and Motions for the adjournment of the House. It is quite true that, according to the usages of Parliament, the Speaker will hold a Member to a rather strict line on Motions for the adjournment of the debate; but, if necessary, I can show that Lord Palmerston and other statesmen, during the last 40 years, have made speeches about China, Greece, and Turkey, and other subjects, on Motions for the adjournment of the House.

The hon. and learned Member for Meath (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) is right, no doubt, on the Motion for the adjournment of the House as a Main Question, but not on a Motion for the adjournment of the House pending a debate.

resumed, and immediately afterwards—

asked, whether the hon. Member (Mr. O'Sullivan) was not disregarding the authority of the Chair?

said, he thought the hon. Member was speaking under a misapprehension, and was not wilfully disregarding the authority of the Chair. He must remind him, however, that the Main Question was not before the House, but merely the adjournment.

, resuming, said, he would try to obey the ruling of the right hon. Gentleman, and, in conclusion, would merely ask the House to agree to the Motion for adjournment as a matter of simple justice to the Irish people, because it was of vital importance that statistics of crime should be examined before this Coercion Bill was passed.

pleaded for an adjournment, on the ground that the Irish Members required further time to counteract the horrible conspiracy which was going on throughout the length and breadth of England to inflame the minds of the people of England against Ireland. He found, on the occasion of a recent visit to the North of England, that the greatest alarm existed, infamous re- ports having been circulated that the Irish intended to blow up the towns and commit other atrocities.

wanted to know if such remarks were in Order?

said, that he understood that the hon. Member was asking for further time, in order that the Irish Members might have an opportunity of contradicting misrepresentations, and, in doing so, he was in Order.

went on to say that the temper of the country was unjust to the Irish cause, owing to the false rumours which had been purposely circulated. For instance, it was publicly stated in Manchester that the Irish intended to poison the wells of that city. He could not absolve the Liberal Party with respect to this matter. They had taken advantage of the state of public feeling which it excited to pass their coercive measures before the English people understood the Irish case, which they were now, fortunately, beginning to do. It was a sinister omen that while the Irish Members were struggling against a measure intended to strike down the liberties of their country, they should be assailed all over England by these extraordinary rumours of blowing up barracks and workshops. From invitations he had received to address meetings in the Provinces of England, he was glad to say that the English people were anxious to hear their case; and he implored the House to stay the passage of this Bill until the Irish Party had an opportunity of setting public opinion right upon the question, for he had to complain that the speeches of the Irish Members were not reported in the English newspapers, while the speeches of the Prime Minister were fully reported, and read by every man in the country. Members on the other side of the House had now entered into a conspiracy of silence, and no attempts were made to answer the arguments put forward; but a conspiracy had also been entered into to prevent hon. Members, who intended to do so, giving the Irish Members their support. By the course of conduct they had adopted, the Ministers of the Crown were contributing to the disgrace of Parliament, and he thought they were beginning now to see that they were losing rather than saving time in attempting to pass this measure by brute force. All the Irish Members asked was another adjournment.

urged, as a strong reason why the debate should be further adjourned, that the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had not been able to reply to the attack made on his character by the Prime Minister; and if he had yielded to the wish of the right hon. Gentleman, he would have stood up to do so after 1 o'clock that morning. He (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) asserted that the entire public opinion in Ireland was against coercion, and the Government were acting unwisely in pressing the Bill through Parliament. The merchants, the farmers, the clergy—all were opposed to it, and it was only the land classes, whose opinions were not worth much, who were in favour of it. The object of the Bill was not to put down the outrages which, undoubtedly, had arisen, but to suppress the agitation itself. The magistracy of Ireland would have the execution of the Bill, and that magistracy existed only to put down agitation.

I rise to Order. I wish to know if the hon. Gentleman is in Order?

Order, order! [The hon. Gentleman had just sat down.]

Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY again rising—

I beg to say that the hon. Gentleman has not sat down—

Order, order! I do not think the hon. Member was out of Order.

said, he was only about to conclude by urging on the House that the measure was so unjust and so undeserved by the Irish people, that the Irish Members were, in common fairness, entitled to discuss it at reasonable length. If the Chief Secretary for Ireland's Bill was forced through, the administration of its provisions would be entrusted to Irish magistrates. The Irish magistrates would do everything possible to put down the Land agitation; and if they succeeded in doing so, the Irish people would never get remedial legislation. Therefore, he felt justified in prolonging as long as possible the time when the Irish magistrates would obtain that power; and taking into ac- count the grave injustice and impolicy of the measure, he thought the Irish Members were entitled to demand at least another night for its discussion.

said, the course the Irish Members were taking was one of a very unusual character, and would be very censurable if they were raising the issue upon any but a Bill of the first magnitude, and of such an accursed nature as the one before the House. In asking for an adjournment, the Irish Members were fortified by this distinction between the Coercion Bill and any other measure ever heard of—that its clauses were to be taken seriatim, and passed through the House at one Sitting with one discussion, and by a suspension of all the stages that mark the passage of ordinary Bills. With regard to obstructive tactics, he would ask the attention of hon. Members to a debate on a Turnpike Acts Continuance Bill, in which English Members resorted to more of what would be called Obstruction than had been attempted in this case; and surely there was no comparison between the suspension of the Habeas Corpus and a Turnpike Act. There was not a volume of Hansard in which many like cases might not be found, and where contentions for adjournment, resisted by the Government in an attempt to rush an important Bill through Parliament, eventually succeeded in favour of those who pleaded for deliberation before the liberties of the people were frittered away. In former times men fought for the Bill of Rights at the peril of their heads; his Friends were as great to Ireland as those Noblemen were to England in that hour; his Friends represented in that House the national will and wish of the Irish people as truly as the patriotic Noblemen who fought for the Bill of Rights. The course pursued by the Government looked like pushing through the Bill at one continuous Sitting; and he would, therefore, appeal to the Government for a little time, and not to exhibit to the people of Ireland a hungry avidity for stealing away their rights. He believed that if the House was adjourned, they would return at 4 o'clock in the afternoon with clearer intellects, and that every advantage would result from further deliberation. They might then resume the discussion, and, after debate, a division on the Main Question might be taken. As a further reason for adjournment, he would relate to the House the substance of a conversation he had with a leading member of the Land League, whom he had the honour of defending in the miserable and abortive prosecution in Dublin. He advised that gentleman, to use all his influence with every official of the Land League and the people to avoid the slightest conflict with the authorities and the police, or anything that would lead to civil commotion or strife. His friend said that if they had even the usual period of deliberation over the Bill, they would have the people so adjured and so addressed that every vestige of crime and outrage would disappear from the country in a fortnight; but his friend remarked that if this Bill were forced through, the leaders of the Land League could not undertake to be responsible for the conduct of the people of the country. In conclusion, he adjured his Friends to stand out to the last, for he had not read English history in vain; and, though they might be scorned and denounced now, Englishmen themselves would yet do them justice. He had taken part in more than one All-night Sitting, and he felt bound to acknowledge that last night nothing had occurred which was not characterized by that good feeling which he hoped would be continued unbroken.

said, that he had been urged from all parts of the county he was connected with to oppose the Bill; but he had not yet had an opportunity of doing so. The Government had been paying spies to give them information which, if he had an opportunity, he could prove was worthless.

said, the hon. Gentleman was going beyond the limits of the discussion.

said, he was much obliged for his attention being called to his departure from the subject; but really he was desirous of showing that the Government should make independent inquiries respecting the reports furnished to them. They should not exhibit a want of information with regard to matters of which they should be correctly informed, and he thought that a reason why the House should adjourn. He really thought that the Government should look to their own interest in the matter.

called the hon. Member to Order, saying that he had already called attention to the fact that he was going beyond the limits of discussion.

proceeded to say that the Government should take time to inform themselves on these outrages. He thought that the House should have an opportunity of knowing the real facts of the case before a Bill was introduced which the Irish Members believed to be unnecessary. As an evidence of the unreliable character of the evidence adduced by the Government, he pointed to the fact that no jury would Convict on it.

, rising to Order, said: I appeal to the Deputy Speaker whether the remarks of the hon. Member are not entirely irrelevant, and only wasting the time of the House?

I was waiting a little to see if I could observe the relevancy of the hon. Member's remarks; but they now appear to me entirely irrelevant.

I am sure I apologize to the House; and I only wanted to urge the desirability of not hurrying legislation.

supported the Motion for adjournment. This was no mere matter of franchise, but a question involving the most cherished right of freemen—the right of personal liberty. The Statements laid on the Table were, in the main, fallacious, and he considered that the Irish Members ought to be allowed to make out their overwhelming case. He had to complain that they had not got the Agrarian Reports for November and December, which formed the foundation-stone of the case of the Government. Before the Government proceeded with the Bill they were bound to give the House full details of what were called agrarian outrages for November and December. He, therefore, asked for time. He had strong reason, too, for believing that the diminution of agrarian crime in Ireland recently afforded good ground for the assumption that a further diminution would take place; and, therefore, it was undesirable and unjust to force this measure through the House, while the minds of hon. Members were excited against the Irish Party.

maintained that the working classes of England, not the landlord interest, not the Whig interest, not the territorial interest, so powerfully represented in the present Whig Government, had the right to demand that the terms of indictment against the Irish nation should be clearly laid before them. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had placed on the Table a most venomous Report, consisting of garbled and erroneous statements. They were entitled to time to examine into these false statistics. He would mention a case which was said to have occurred in County Clare—

, appealing to the Deputy Speaker, asked if those epithets were in Order?

said, he did not think that, though the hon. Member had employed strong expressions, he could rule them out of Order.

proceeded. He used the word "venomous," to which an hon. Member seemed to take objection, in a purely Parliamentary sense. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had presented a most garbled Report, and time ought to be allowed in which to examine the false statistics, false statements, and false issues. The right hon. Gentleman, with that nonchalance of a Minister used to the trickery of debate, exhibited an indignation amounting to Pecksniffian feeling, and had spoken with a depth of feeling which he could "so well assume" when occasion suited him—

Order, order!

ruled that the hon. Member was travelling beyond the courtesies of debate.

said, he was endeavouring to show that the House ought to have more time to examine the false statistics—

I rise to Order, Sir. You have already ruled that the observations of the hon. Member were out of Order. I put it to you, whether he is not disobeying your ruling?

I understand the hon. Member wishes to make out a case for more time. If he endeavours to do that, without again transgressing the courtesies of debate, he will be in Order.

, resuming, contended that the national gravity of the case demanded that an adjournment should take place. The Government were obstructing Public Business by their obstructive and coercive policy. The Prime Minister prided himself that he had England with him; he (Mr. Finigan) and his Colleagues could congratulate themselves that the whole of Ireland was against the right hon. Gentleman. At an Orange meeting held yesterday in Ulster, resolutions were adopted declaring that no case had been made out for coercion—

We are now on the Question of adjournment. Is any reference to a public meeting in Order?

If the hon. Member speaks of a public meeting in reference to the question of coercion, he is out of Order.

expressed his surprise at the impertinent interruption. ["Order, order!" and "Withdraw!"]

The hon. Member used an expression which ought not to be applied to any hon. Member of this House. ["Withdraw, withdraw!"]

, resuming, said, he withdrew it with great pleasure. The ordinary law was amply sufficient to cover the whole field of agrarian and other outrages, and what was wanted was to impress on the Government the necessity of putting that law into regular and fair execution. The House could gain nothing by further resisting adjournment. If the Government would not consent to the adjournment, it would prove that they had neither confidence in the people of England nor in their own envenomed indictment. He denied that the Government was the Government of the "three F's." It was rather the Government of the "three E's"—the three errors. [ Cries of "Order!"]

, interposing, said, the hon. Member was again getting dangerously near being called to Order by the Chair, and he would strongly recommend him to confine his observations to the Question before the House.

said, he felt the difficulty of keeping a safe course and avoiding a hard fate at the hands of a hard House, as he knew he was steering between the Scylla of Whiggery and the Charybdis of Toryism—

, interposing, said, he had heard an hon. Gentleman opposite shouting across the floor the word "Disgraceful!" He asked whether that was a proper epithet to be applied to any Member of the House?