I think, Sir, that the House will be unanimously of opinion that the assassination of a great Sovereign, placed upon one of the highest Thrones upon earth, would, under even ordinary circumstances, supply a fitting occasion for us to carry to the foot of the British Throne the expression of our sentiments of sympathy and condolence; but, Sir, in the present instance, there are many heightening circumstances which cannot be excluded from our view. There is, first, the noble self-forgetfulness with which it appears that the Emperor, having escaped from the first deadly attack made upon him, was induced to disregard the cautious advice of those around him, that he should again seek the shelter of his carriage, and to say, "No—it was his duty to see to the wounded." Again, Sir, we cannot but bear in mind that the circumstances of this assassination have reached a pitch of cruelty and horror, perhaps hardly known in the melancholy annals of such deeds. And, finally, we must express our feelings of the black ingratitude to such a Sovereign, which alone, according to all human judgment, could have led to the conception and execution of such a crime. It recalls to my mind some lines in which the patriarch of all poets has recorded his feelings upon the case of a very ancient Sovereign, whose wise and good reign had failed to elicit the universal gratitude which ought to have been its consequence and its reward. As his thought is represented by Pope, Homer says—

"Let tyrants govern with an iron rod,

Oppress, destroy, and be the scourge of God;

Since he who, like a father, held his reign—

So soon forgot—was just and mild in vain."

For, Sir, all know that, whatever there may be in that great Empire, as doubtless there may be found in all communities, to call for criticism or for censure on the imperfection of human institutions, none of it was owing to Alexander II. If it existed, it was part of the inheritance he received. The sole labour of a devoted life was, with him, to improve that inheritance for the benefit of his subjects and of mankind. But, Sir, I believe it is not the language of flattery, nor even the language of mere feeling, naturally excited by what has occurred, which leads me to state with confidence that there cannot be a doubt that the reign of Alexander II., in the history of Russia, and in the history of European and Christian civilization, will ever be regarded as an illustrious and memorable reign. He came to the Throne when his country was locked in a deadly struggle with three of the Powers of Europe, two of them among the greatest Powers in the world, and he extricated her from that struggle with all the promptitude and all the honour that the most loyal citizen of his country could have desired. It was not his fate to pass through a long reign without again seeing his country involved, towards the close of it, in another great and dangerous struggle; but that great and dangerous war was ennobled, at least to him, and to many who shared with him the deep conviction of his heart and mind, that it was a war of duty and a war of liberation. But, passing from considerations of peace and war, which must ever awaken in our minds mixed associations, let us only ask ourselves whether modern times have exhibited any reign more distinguished, more remarkable for the great works of peaceful legislation which he bequeathed to that great Empire. Perhaps, Sir, we are none of us aware—I certainly cannot pretend to any accurate or minute knowledge—of those works; but even the outlines of the names of a few of them are such as to demonstrate that they were due not only to a sense of high duty and Christian philanthropy, but also to an enlightened intelligence and a powerful will. It was the happy fate of Alexander II., by one of the greatest acts ever peacefully accomplished in the annals of civilized change, to give civil and social freedom to a population of serfs estimated at more than 20,000,000 of human beings. It was his happy lot to establish in Russia a system of local government which, as a local government, I believe to be thoroughly free, independent, and popular. It was also among the triumphs of his reign to introduce into Russia an institution which we fondly think to be especially associated with our own history—the institution known as trial by jury. Nor were these the only acts for which he may claim the favourable judgment of the enlightened historian. My duty is not to enter into a catalogue of these acts; it is only to point to a few of the more memorable among them; and it is, indeed, sad to think that such a man should be reserved for such a fate. Doubtless, there are counsels of Providence behind which it is not for us to scrutinize, and which, we must believe, will tend to all that is wise and good. In the illustration which I just now cited it was deplored that the mild Sovereign was so soon forgot. That will not be the case with Alexander II. The fond affection of his people will ever cling around his memory, as well as the sympathy and admiration of the world. In these circumstances, it is easy for us to understand with what feelings the Queen, allied as she is with the late Emperor of Russia by domestic ties, and thoroughly cognizant of all that has taken place in a reign contemporary with her own—it is easy to understand with what feelings she must have heard of this terrible catastrophe. Therefore, I have no more to do than to invite the House, loyally, earnestly, affectionately, and unanimously, to go to the foot of the Throne, and assure Her Majesty of the grief and the horror with which we contemplate this act, and of the sincere and respectful sympathy with which we enter into all the feelings which she must entertain with regard to this act. I move—

"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, to convey to Her Majesty the expression of the indignation and deep concern with which this House has learned the Assassination of Her Majesty's relative and ally, His Imperial Majesty the Emperor of all the Russias, and to pray Her Majesty that She will be graciously pleased to express to His Majesty the present Emperor, on the part of Her faithful Commons, their abhorrence of the crime, and their sympathy with the Imperial Family of Russia, and with the Government and people of that Country."

Sir, it must be quite unnecessary for me to add anything to the eloquent language which has just proceeded from the Prime Minister. I only rise that there may be no doubt whatever in the minds of all who may take note of the proceedings of this House on this occasion, of the universal feeling of sympathy and the universal feeling of admiration for him whose life has just been cut short, which animates the people of this country and the Members of this House. I believe that throughout the European family there is no member which has felt the thrill of that horror more sincerely or more deeply than has England. We have known of, we have watched, we have sympathized, with the works which have been now so eloquently and so truly set forth. If there have ever been moments in which political differences may have caused the shade of jealousy with regard to the external policy of that great Empire, I venture to say that never even for a moment have the hearts of this people ceased to beat with feelings of sympathy for the personal character and the great domestic labours of the Emperor Alexander II., who has just been taken from his people. We have seen and we have known how truly, and in what spirit of self-sacrifice, he has laboured in a field strange to us in some respects, and we have, perhaps, appreciated his labours all the more on account of the great differences which existed between that Empire and our own. We have, indeed, shuddered to think of the long agony he must have endured under the crime which has been, one may say, in the course of commission now for more than two years, and which has culminated, which has been at last consummated, in a manner the most terrible and most repulsive; and we can but share the feeling expressed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that, sad as has been, in one sense, the termination of that career, the sadness and the horror will after a time pass away in the recollection of the great work which has been done and the great name which has been left behind. I cordially—and I know that I speak in the spirit of the whole House—agree to and second the proposition which has now been placed in your hands and read by the Prime Minister.

Resolved, Nemine Contradicente, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, to convey to Her Majesty the expression of the indignation and deep concern with which this House has learned the Assassination of Her Majesty's relative and ally, His Imperial Majesty the Emperor of all the Russias, and to pray Her Majesty that She will be graciously pleased to express to His Majesty the present Emperor, on the part of Her faithful Commons, their abhorrence of the clime, and their sympathy with the Imperial Family of Russia, and with the Government and people of that Country.

To be presented by Privy Councillors.

Sir, I have to ask the House, with the full anticipation of a similar assent being given, to concur in a proceeding somewhat different in form, but the same in substance and intent. I move—

"That it be ordered, that a Message of Condolence be sent to Her Royal and Imperial Highness the Duchess of Edinburgh, and that the Marquess of Tavistock and the Earl Percy do attend Her Royal and Imperial Highness with the said Message."

In regard to this Motion I need say still less than on the last one which I had the honour to move. When the Duchess of Edinburgh became the wife of the second son of the Queen, it was authentically known that there never had been a daughter in any rank of life more tenderly loved by her parents, or more worthy of that love; and when they committed her to the care of the Sovereign and the people of this country, it was the fond and affectionate desire of the Emperor that she should be cherished and appreciated here as she had been by him. The experience we have had of the Duchess of Edinburgh has convinced all who have had the opportunity of judging it of the perfect worthiness of Her Royal and Imperial Highness to fill the place which she held in the Imperial Family of Russia, and to fill the place which she holds in our own Royal Family. The qualities of character which I dwelt upon in recording the virtues and deeds of the dead Emperor are qualities happily reflected in his daughter. This sorrow is, indeed, a deep one, and one which goes to the centre and heart of her life. As a matter of fact, I follow precedent in the Motion which I make; but if I did not this would be an occasion for making one. I therefore make the Motion of which I have given Notice; and in doing so venture to say on behalf of the House that we assure Her Royal and Imperial Highness of the deep sympathy and sincere condolence which alone we can offer to her in her grief and bereavement—a grief and bereavement which I trust will draw their consolation from a higher source.

Sir, I rise to second this, as I seconded the previous Motion of my right hon. Friend. Since Her Royal and Imperial Highness the Duchess of Edinburgh has become a daughter of England, as well as a daughter of Russia, she has learned sufficient of the English character to be assured that words of sympathy proceeding from our tongues are never words coming from our lips only; and I am sure that the expression of sympathy and condolence of this House will be received by Her Royal and Imperial Highness as being as true and as hearty as it really is.

observed, that this was a Vote for the Local Government Board, which Department had the administration of the Act passed last Session for the relief of distress in Ireland, and he expected, in view of the announcement made by the Government, that they were to take a Vote on Account to last up to Whitsuntide; that this Vote would have been postponed to a late period in the Session; and that the Chief Secretary for Ireland or the President of the Local Government Board would have furnished some information as to the working during last year of that Act. The matter had been before the Government for some considerable time; and he certainly thought that the Committee generally was entitled to complain that so little information had been put before the House in the shape of Returns, although there had been a great many Returns with regard to agrarian outrages in Ireland; and although a great deal of pains was taken by the Irish Commissioners to manufacture a very bulky volume of agrarian offences, not a single Paper had been issued this year to show the working of the Relief of Distress (Ireland) Act. Last Session exceedingly meagre information was given; he thought there were two Papers, one of which, however, he had been unable to find in the Library, and which seemed to have disappeared during the Recess. This Session they had no Return whatever, except a Return which was moved for by the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. A. Arnold), and which he had not yet been able to see. It was of the utmost importance that the Committee should have some information as to the working of the Act, to show what had been done to carry out the intentions of the Government. It was of importance, both as regarded the past and with reference to the future. He feared there might be many abuses in connection with the distribution of this money when the Act was passed, and took occasion to object to the allocation of money to the Irish landlords for the relief of the distress in Ireland, pointing out that it was merely adopted by the late Government to enable the landlords to collect their rents, and that it could not be of any advantage for its ostensible object as set forth in the Preamble of the Bill; and that so far from any large portion of the money allocated in the last Session of the last Parliament and the first Session of the present Parliament—over £1,000,000 was given to the landlords for the relief of the distress—so far from any large portion of that money being made available for the relief of distress, he would prove to demonstration that a very small proportion of the amount could by any possibility come into operation to check the very intense distress which might exist in many parts of the West of Ireland. He wished to ask the Government if they had information—and if they had not the information, he could not understand why they had not—as to how much of the £1,100,000 had been granted for the relief of distress in Ireland up to date? He also wished to know how much of that money the landlords had actually spent upon relief works; and whether the Government could state how many men were employed with that money, and for how many days? He also wished to know if they could give him any information as to the districts in which that employment had been given, and as to the amount of money disbursed in each Poor Law Union? These were all matters upon which he thought the Government would have informed the House at the commencement of the Session. An Act of the exceptional character of that passed last Session should, he ventured to submit, have been closely watched in its operation by the responsible Executive Government of Ireland. It was money belonging to the Irish people which had been given in trust to the Government by the Irish Church Act of 1869, to use for the benefit of the Irish people, and for certain purposes in Ireland. This money was seized upon by the late Government, and £750,000 was granted for the relief of distress; and the present Government upon coming into Office supplemented that amount by another sum, and revived the Act previously in force. Now, they were fairly entitled to ask what had become of that £1,500,000, or, at least, of the £1,100,000 granted to the Irish landlords? They were fairly entitled to ask what had become of that £1,100,000, belonging to the people of Ireland, which the Government of England laid hands on last Session upon the pretence of relieving distress in Ireland; and he hoped that before this Vote was passed the Government would be able to afford the Committee some information in reference to the points that he had ventured to lay before them.

wished to refer to the question which more immediately concerned the action of the Local Government Board in Ireland last year. That Board had received powers to grant relief in every Union in the shape of food and feel, receiving labour in return. Those powers were, in his opinion, sparingly exercised; but, in so far as they were exercised, they were the means of preserving human life, and warding off great suffering. Those powers had now expired, and as it was quite possible, and even probable, that there might be a re-appearance of distress, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary to consider the advisability of bringing in a short Act to confer on the Local Government Board power, when necessary, to give out-door relief in any particular locality. Within the last few days an instance had happened to justify his suggestion. In the South Union, in Dublin, there had been great distress, but the Local Government Board had been quite powerless in the matter, having no authority to give out-door relief; and it was only by what might be called a Providential accident that the workhouse happened to be overcrowded, and relief could, therefore, be given to a certain number of men in return for labour. There would be no danger in adopting his suggestion, judging from past experience of the way in which the Local Government Board had used their powers, and judging from close observation of the past action of Boards of Guardians in the matter.

also wished for some information from the Chief Secretary with regard to the details of this Vote, especially with regard to the number of Inspectors temporarily employed, and the amount of money paid to them. The Irish Office had always been remarkable for deliberate suppression; but he hoped the Chief Secretary would not allow that characteristic of the Irish Office to continue. He had asked that night for a Return of Information. Of course, some trouble would be involved in giving that information; but the information would spare the House a great deal of time, and it was the duty of the Chief Secretary to see that his understrappers and officials in Dublin Castle furnished that information. He wished to know how many of those Inspectors had been temporarily employed, how much they had been paid, and whether any of them wore still retained. Then he would like to know what gratuities had been paid to the Assistant Secretary and seven clerks for extra services, and how much the Assistant Secretary had grabbed for himself. He further wished to have some information as to the bill of costs of the Solicitor to the Board for several years, which amounted to £1,017. These were all matters to which the tax-paying public attached great interest, and the information would save a great deal of that unnecessary friction which existed with regard to the present occupants of the Irish Office.

, in reply to the Question of the hon. and gallant Member for Cork County (Colonel Colthurst) as to how far the Local Government Board should have power to authorize the Guardians to give out-door relief, said, that he could not give any definite answer on the subject. His own inclination was in favour of the hon. and gallant Member's proposition, and he promised to keep the matter in mind, although be could not undertake to bring in a measure on the subject. In reply to the hon. Member for Cork City (Mr. Parnell), he did not think that the present was the most opportune moment for reviewing the state of the country in reference to the Relief Acts. He thought that the subject would more properly come on when the General Estimates were brought forward for the next year. He was most anxious that the House should have the information desired by the hon. Gentleman, and he would have granted a Return on the subject if the hon. Member had moved for it. The money granted had not yet all been expended. In January last the loans to landowners then sanctioned amounted to £1,068,000, and at that time about £639,000 had been distributed. Thelarger part of the balance, £427,000, would be spent in wages before August next. On baronial works completed or in progress £173,000 had been spent; while works had been commenced which required more than £2,000. With regard to the Question of the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan), three additional Inspectors were employed during the height of the distress. With regard to the gratuities, they were given for very hard work—he did not think it was easy to exaggerate its severity. Gratuities varying from £120 to £40 had been paid to the Assistant Secretary and the seven clerks, the total amounting to £600. With respect to the Solicitor's bill of costs, he explained that they were fully certified and taxed up to October, 1879; but as accounts had not been furnished in June last, it had become necessary to make provision for them in the Estimate for the present year. The amount of all costs during the last 10 years was £1,458.

thought that, before the Vote left the Committee, it would be convenient to put a question or two with respect to the use which the Irish Government had made of out-door relief as applied to the distress in Ireland. The Relief of Distress Act was passed with the object of providing for distress caused by the failure of crops in the year 1879, and the House assented to it on that account. But the Irish Government, in the winter months, made another use of the powers of the Act, and one which that House had not foreseen; because, in the months of December, January, and February, permission had been given by the Local Government Board to the Boards of Guardians to grant out-door relief, not for the purpose of relieving distress suffered from the failure of crops, but for the purpose of relieving distress caused by numbers of persons being thrown out of employment in consequence of the exodus of Irish landlords. The question had been thereby raised as to whether the operations of the Land League had not, to some extent, interfered with the material prosperity of the Irish labourers; and it was thought possible that the labourers, seeing the effect which the operations of the League had had on the agricultural interest of the country, might have expressed opinions against the League. However that might be, opinion was strong in December that the use which the Chief Secretary for Ireland authorized to be made of the powers of the Relief of Distress Act had had the effect of preventing classes in Ireland who depended on daily labour from seeing the real result of the policy of the Land League. As a matter of fact, in many parts of the country the distress consequent upon the want of employment had been so great, that bands of men paraded the country, one of which actually stormed the office of a Board of Guardians while it was sitting, and clamourously demanded outdoor relief. It was then that the Chief Secretary used the Relief of Distress Act for the purpose of authorizing out-door relief to be given to persons thrown out of employment. Now, that was a use which the House had not contemplated when it gave assent to the Bill, and he thought that assent would not so easily have been obtained had the House had any idea that the Irish Government would have made such a use of the Act. In December, 1879, there were 2,000 persons more in the workhouses than there were in December 1880; and in December, 1879, there were 10,000 persons less in receipt of out-door relief than in December, 1880, when there was absolutely no distress consequent upon the failure of crops. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he could give any explanation of the policy which he authorized the Local Government Board to pursue—namely, that of giving outdoor relief to provide for distress that was not consequent upon the failure of crops, but was due to a totally different cause—that was to say, to the exodus of the landlords and the consequent want of employment over large portions of the country? He would also like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman could explain on what ground he considered himself to have power to use the act in the manner referred to. It would appear, he thought, that the Chief Secretary had committed, what in legal phrase was called a fraud, on the power of the Bill, by authorizing the application of it in a manner not contemplated when the Act was passed.

desired to mention a circumstance with regard to which he had received some private communications. The poorer class of farmers in Ireland had had the benefit of an Act passed last Session, call the Seed Potatoes Act, one of the provisions of which was that loans were granted to poor farmers by the Boards of Guardians for the purpose of purchasing seed potatoes, the cost of which was to be repaid in two instalments. In many parts of Ireland the crops had been bad, and these payments had pressed with extreme severity on the poor persons who received the loans; and he wished to impress on the right hon. Gentleman the propriety of allowing the Local Government Board to consider whether the repayment could not be made in four instalments instead of two. If the Local Government Board had no power to do this, then he suggested that the Chief Secretary for Ireland should bring in a short measure to give them power to relieve the poor farmers to whom he had referred in respect to the repayment of loans.

said, that the policy of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock was of a Machiavellian character; it would have been cruel, and might have excited insurrection. The noble Lord said that the Chief Secretary ought to have allowed the labourers to feel the prick of poverty arising from want of employment; but the hon. Member (Mr. Macartney) had stated that in many places the people would not be able to pay even for the seed potatoes they had got, because they had not full crops. In many districts the policy advocated by the noble Lord, instead of having the effect he expected, would have driven the labourers to desperation. He gave the Chief Secretary great credit for following the policy which the noble Lord had condemned. He hoped the Chief Secretary would consider the propriety of receiving the price of the seed potatoes in several localities in Ireland in four instalments instead of two. There had been nothing like general failure of potatoes; still there had been some, and the condition of the poor farmers was in itself a sufficient reason for the postponement of the instalments. He admitted that in his own county the right hon. Gentleman had behaved very well in this respect. He would like to know what was the policy of the Local Government Board in connection with the matter to which reference had been made last night, but which had not been pursued owing to a point of Order being raised. He desired to know whether the right hon. Gentleman had fully considered the question of instituting relief works in some of the localities in Galway and other counties, or whether he would make some further provisions? He had no doubt that the works were very much required in some places, and would be for a short time, although the cost of them would not be very great.

wished to point out a remarkable instance of remissness on the part of the Local Government Board in connection with the Relief of Distress Act. In December last the Killarney Board of Guardians adopted unanimously a resolution in favour of holding extra baronial sessions, as there had been great distress in the neighbourhood. The Local Government Board assented to the resolution; the sessions were held and attended by all the proprietors in the district and by the associated assess-payers, and a considerable sum was voted for the works. A resolution was also passed, pointing out to the Lord Lieutenant the extreme urgency of the case, in reply to which they were given to understand that the works would be almost immediately carried out. Inspectors were sent down, and the attention of the Local Government Board was drawn to the facts of the cases by several local proprietors. He had himself asked a Question upon the subject; but he regretted to say that, after the considerable lapse of time which had taken place, nothing had been done.

said, with regard to the Question of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, it had been decided to postpone the works in question until after the spring sowing. In reply to the Question asked by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock, as to the extent to which the Government had made use of the powers of the Act to give out-door relief, he had received from the Vice President, in the beginning of the year, a statement to the effect that he foresaw there would be a period of distress, and that he feared out-door relief would have to be given in several cases. In consequence of this, 72 Unions were authorized to give out-door relief. There were now, however, only 27 in which out-door relief was given. The Government, at the time, saw no other way in which they could meet the distress. It was believed that there was then a great chance of the distress increasing; but, happily, the result had been different, and it had greatly diminished. The reason why relief was given was partly owing to the circumstances of some Unions in which the people had not recovered from the failure of the crops. In one or two Unions there had been great distress through mismanagement in the planting of potatoes, although this had not been general. Then there was another cause of a temporary character, but nevertheless of great weight, and that was the exceeding severity of the winter. Then there came the want of employment. No doubt, a large number of labourers had been thrown out of work. He did not think the administrative of the Poor Law in England or in Ireland had any right to allow anything except the fact of distress to weigh with them in such a case, and it would be fatal to the right working of the Relief Act to allow social and political considerations to stand in their way. There were persons at the time who said if you do relieve these people, they will tell the farmers they ought to pay their rents, so that the landlords may give them employment. On the other hand, persons said if you do not relieve these people, they will be in a condition of destitution and become an easy prey to agitation. Well, the Government paid no attention to one argument or the other. They considered the extent of distress and the best way to deal with it; and with respect to it there were three courses open. They might have forced the people into the workhouses, given them out-door relief, or set them to work by means of baronial sessions. In the case of the county which came before him first, the gentry were unanimous in advising against forcing the people into the workhouses, and were also in favour of a system of out-door relief, with work where it could be substituted. Then came the question of work or relief, and he could only say he had tried, in connection with the Vice President, to get as much work for the people as possible. On the 5th March, 1881, the total number of persons in receipt of out-door relief was 67,667, and, comparing the present month with the corresponding month of last year, the number was 67,667, as against 59,548. It was, no doubt, the case, that in many Unions some demoralization had existed, consequent on the relief given last year, and which, in his opinion, had not been diminished to the extent it ought to have been. With regard to the seed potatoes, the cost of seed in 253 Unions was £599,000, and the half which was to have been collected this winter amounted to about £300,000. In consequence, however, of provisions made under the Act last year, payments had been postponed to the extent of £146,000. The hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Macartney) desired that the repayment should be in four instalments, instead of two, in some of the distressed Unions; but he wished to point out that this could not be effected without another Act of Parliament, and he very much doubted whether the proposal was a wise one. Generally speaking, no doubt these seed loans had been of great advantage to the farmers; but he could not help thinking that they would feel the repayment, after four or five years, to be a very heavy tax upon them. Of course, the law must be carried out; but it was not the intention of the Government that it should be carried out with severity. He confessed that he did not think the circumstances of the country were such as to warrant any alteration in the conditions on which the aid in the construction of public works had been afforded. The time fixed for the payment of the instalments of the loans could not be extended without an Act of Parliament.

asked, if a Return would be given of the number of Unions to which advances had been made?

said, the names of the Unions would be given if the hon. Member would move for a Return.

asked, if there was any chance that relief would be afforded in the matter of repayments if a representation were made as to the state of particular Unions? The Poor Law Union of Dundalk was one of the richest and most prosperous Unions on the East Coast, but it was connected with districts that were miserably prior. If in such a case a representation were made, would the Local Government Board be in a position to make some concession so as not to insist on terms of repayment which, at the present moment, would press very heavily upon the Union? He was afraid that if the terms of repayment were absolutely insisted upon, it would be necessary, in many cases, to seize the household furniture of the people of the district, as by no other means would it be possible to get anything whatever. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to consider the propriety of extending the period of repayment still further—say for another year—in regard to those Unions in which the Government were satisfied that there still existed extreme distress. There could be no harm in giving the Local Government Board a discretion in the matter.

said, that a discretion had already been given in regard to increasing the number of Unions in which a postponement of repayment would be allowed. Great care had been taken in preparing the rules that were laid down in reference to postponement, and he feared that it was now too late to re-open the subject afresh. He presumed, however, that the hon. Member would not expect him to give an answer as to any particular case until he had had an opportunity of making an inquiry. He would ascertain whether the regulations as to postponement were final.

said, the concession was only asked for in the case of part of a Union, and he thought the case was one which would commend itself to the consideration of the Government.

thought the regulations in regard to the suspension of relief works would be most unequal in their operation. In many districts, where the relief works might interfere with the spring work, the suspension would not avail because the work was generally done by contract; but it would materially affect the relief in remote and mountainous districts, where the spring work was almost nothing, and where the work was generally done under the county surveyor. It had thus been the means of providing employment for old men and boys, who could not obtain work otherwise, and who were not likely to be employed by a contractor. These were the very classes who could not obtain employment in the spring work; and if the suspension was intended to be carried out generally now, it would inflict great hardship upon this class of labourers, without giving any appreciable advantage to the farmers.

said, he had not got the Circular with him; but he was very much mistaken if there was any rule for the suspension of relief work under the circumstances mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member.

asked, if the right hon. Gentleman would consent to send instructions to the local Standing Committees, so that they might have a discretionary power to continue the relief work, merely displacing such labourers as the farmers chose to take? If the right hon. Gentleman would give that discretion, it would settle the whole question.

thought that, as a rule, the relief work ought to be suspended in the spring; but he would give an assurance to the hon. and gallant Member that his statement should be thoroughly considered.

said, there were a number of Unions which, although in a comparatively flourishing and solvent condition, had in them electoral divisions which were in the poorest possible condition. That was the case in his own Union, and three or four attempts had been made to induce the Local Government Board to postpone the re-payments, on account of the extreme poverty of the people, and because, having got their seed very late in the season and owing to the wet weather, they had hardly any crop. The circumstances of one electoral division in a Union was no criterion of the condition of another in the same Union. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would allow representations to be made in favour of these divisions.

said, there was a special case upon which he should like to have the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. In some Unions—for instance, in the Galway Union—seed was supplied which purported to be champion seed, but when the crop came up it was found to be very bad seed of some other kind of potato. The districts in the Union were willing to pay their instalments, but they considered themselves to have been very badly used. Instead of being supplied with good seed, they had simply wasted the manure they had put upon the land. He wished to know what steps the Local Government Board intended to take in the matter? In many instances the people had bad seed not worth 5d. a-stone. They considered that they would be very badly used if they were compelled to pay the seed tax, and the Local Government Board and the Poor Law Unions said they had no authority to do anything except to charge it. It was certainly a case which might be considered by the Government, and some rule laid down.

said, that a special case of that kind could not be subject to any rule, but must be left to the Boards of Guardians.

thought the Chief secretary had not quite caught his point. The Boards of Guardians did not consider that they had any power in the matter. Of course, the Local Government Board were not responsible, but they ought to give the Guardians power to charge over the whole Union the loss occasioned by the supply of bad seed to a particular district. The Local Government Board, however, required to have the power to make this charge upon the whole Union.

said, he would communicate with his hon. and gallant Friend upon the subject.

said, it was undoubtedly the case that primarily the expense of the seed was charged on the land, and the year's crop should be able to pay for it. But the illustration given by his hon. and gallant Friend applied to a particular district, and it showed that, in certain instances, there was a tendency to encourage jobbery. He believed that hon. Members representing different parts of the country had been urged to use their influence with the Government in regard to particular localities. That, in itself, was a very mischievous prin- ciple, and if the payment for these seed potatoes was dispensed with, it would only enable the landlords to drain a little more of the life-blood out of their poor tenants. The first thing provided for should be the expense of the seed, and the landlords should only get their share of what was left. If the payment for the seed was not made, the practical result would be that the landlords, for some time longer, would be able to obtain extortionate rents. The charge for the seed should be payable in one sum, and it should be paid before the rent, the money due to the landlords being paid afterwards. At the same time, in a district which had been impoverished by the exceptionally extortionate demands of the landlords, and the exceedingly bad crop of the year 1879, it might be legitimate to allow the payment for the seed to extend over a period of two years. The same thing applied to the baronial works. The execution of these baronial works had, he believed, afforded an opportunity for a good deal of extensive bonô fide fraud, and in some cases gross jobbery and rascality had been perpetrated. He knew, personally, of cases in which jobbery had been committed. And he thought it would be well if the Government refused to lend too willing an ear to the appeals made to them to encourage this baronial expenditure, which, in many cases, simply meant the throwing away of money. He very much approved of the view of the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill) that, in granting relief, they should not inquire too closely into the reason how it came about that relief was wanted, but only into the fact whether relief was required. Where the suffering was wide-spread over the country, it was desirable that the people should not have their homes broken up, and that whole families should be sent to the workhouse; whereas, by temporary relief, they would be able, after a certain time, to tide over their present condition of pauperism. He did not think there was anything in the contention of the noble Lord that many men were out of work because the landlords had left Ireland. The real fact of the matter was that the employment of labour in the cultivation of the land was an unprofitable business. The money granted to the landlords was a serious part of the case, and had been a real evil. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to state, if he could conveniently, to what extent aid was likely to be still given to the landlords? In a great majority of cases the money paid to the landlords had been a complete fraud, and a perfect scandal. A friend of his, in the county of Cork, informed him that the agent of Lord Kenmare—which noble Lord was a Member of the present Government, a Catholic in religion, and a Whig in politics—had received money for the relief of persons in distress; but instead of making advances in cash to the parties who did work, he had simply given them a receipt for their rent in advance. His friend wrote to say that so recently as the 11th of February, Mr. Downing, the law agent of Lord Kenmare, gave a receipt for rent up to the 1st of March. The landlords refused to give cash to people who were members of the Land League; and, beyond that, the actual amount of work done was misrepresented—credit being taken for seven and a-half yards where only five yards had been done. The person he referred to—Mr. Downing—only represented a class, and was no worse himself than the great majority of land agents in Ireland, who obtained plunder from the public works sanctioned by the Government, and were able, at the same time, to gratify their political animosity against the Land League agitators. They got their rent, charged for more work than was actually done, thus making an improper profit out of it; and, in addition, they borrowed the money from the State at a nominal rate of interest. He thought it was the duty of the Government to attempt, in some way, to remedy the evils of such a system. He should be glad to learn if the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary intended to do anything in the matter, and if there was any possibility of getting off without paying the landlords anything further.

said, the hon. Member must be aware that the loans had already been made, and the work, to some extent, done. There was no discretion as to the allocation of the loans. In regard to the specific complaint made by the hon. Member, his attention had not been called to such a case, and the deduction of rent from the money earned for labour was illegal.

asked for an explanation of an item of £391 in the Vote for an additional Auditor appointed at a salary of £500, of which £400 was to be repaid by the counties, and £100 by the Port and Docks Board, Dublin. Why was this sum to be paid first by the Government, and then repaid?

understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the employment of money advanced to the landlords as loans for public works in the payment of rent was illegal. That was quite true; but was there any cheek upon the expenditure, and were there any means of ascertaining how the money was employed? Had the right hon. Gentleman any means of knowing that the money was actually expended in the payment of labour?

stated, that an endeavour had been made last year to ascertain how the money was expended, and it was found, almost universally, that it was paid for labour. The law was that the persons employed should receive the full value or consideration agreed to for their labour respectively in the current coin of the Realm. In regard to the Question put by the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), if he would refer to the Estimates for 1881–2, he would find that £216 13s. 4d. per annum was paid to the Auditors; but the Local Government Board found that the existing staff could not get through the work, and they had appointed an additional Auditor.

said, there was an item under this Vote of £3,100 for foes to Law Officers and fees to Counsel consequent on the recent State Prosecutions in Ireland, and also an item of £3,000 under the head of General Law Expenses. He should ask, by-and-bye, for some information with regard to the item "G, General Law Expenses;" but he proposed, for the present, only to move to reduce the Vote by the sum of £3,100 under the sub-heads B and F, for fees to Law Officers and fees to Counsel.

By what sum does the hon. Member propose to reduce the Vote?

said, he proposed to reduce it by excluding sub-heads B and F, amounting to £3,100. The prosecutions in Dublin were undertaken in pursuance of he knew not what policy. In fact, he supposed that the Government had not, at the time, quite made up their minds what policy they were going to pursue; but they imagined that they might waste a little public money in carrying on a farce in the Four Courts, Dublin, at the expense of the public. He did not understand why a Liberal Government, in any case, should have resorted to the obsolete device of an indictment for conspiracy. When the attention of the late Government was directed to the Land movement in Ireland, they did not adopt the plan of an indictment for conspiracy. They could have done so if they pleased. The materials for a charge of conspiracy were just as much open to them as they were open to the present Government; but they preferred the more honourable and the more straightforward course of making each man responsible for his own action and his own words, and they prosecuted Mr. Davitt and one or two others at Sligo to that end. He did not think that anybody could object to being made responsible for what he said and what he did himself; but he did object to the doctrine of constructive conspiracy being called in by Her Majesty's Government for the purpose of a political prosecution. In fact, if they intended to persevere in such a course, no man would be safe; but men might be held to be responsible for what somebody else said in America or Australia, provided they could get a jury to believe that the persons in question were acting in mutual combination. In fact, the doctrine of constructive conspiracy was a most dangerous one; it was dangerous to individuals, and it was also dangerous to the public good. He regretted exceedingly that it should have been reserved for a Liberal Government to take refuge behind that doctrine for the purpose of attempting to put down a political agitation in Ireland. Now, what was the doctrine of constructive conspiracy? A man's words were seized upon for the purpose of making out a case. The Crown Lawyers seized upon certain isolated passages in a speech; they said that a certain individual had made a certain reference in one part of his speech, and that some other individual made a somewhat similar reference, and then they collected the passages, and, putting them together, they tried to make out that an understanding had been arrived at by many persons, and that that constituted a breach of the law of conspiracy. But in the present day men came to a political agreement without coming to any distinct personal understanding. A doctrine was announced by one public man, which he (Mr. Parnell) read in the newspapers, and, approving of that doctrine, he went on to a public platform and recommended the same thing. It followed, according to the doctrine of constructive conspiracy, that he had been conspiring with the man who made the first speech—whom, perhaps, he had never seen—simply because he adopted his published ideas and endorsed them as reasonable, fair, and proper. He now wished to ask the Government whether they intended to set in motion the law of constructive conspiracy in Ireland, or whether, on the other hand, they would simply make every man responsible for his own words and actions? Did they intend to arrest men under the suspension of the Habeas Corpus under that law of constructive conspiracy? An act, which, if committed by one man, would not be an offence against the law of the land, became a criminal offence when two or more persons conspired together to commit it; and hence it followed that under the suspension of the Habeas Corpus the Crown might claim the right to arrest persons because they might think they had conspired together to do things which, done by one person, would not have been a breach of the law. The matter was of considerable importance in connection with the new powers which the Government had been given; and however much they might have been disposed to forgive the Government for their sins of commission in the past, and for instituting prosecutions under an obsolete law, which had broken down—yet, when they were asked to vote money for such purposes, he thought they were entitled to inquire whether the Government intended to arrest any persons in Ireland in the future under the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act for any offence which might come within the law of conspiracy. He begged to move the reduction of the Vote by £3,100. Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £3,500, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1881, of Criminal Prosecutions and other Law Charges in Ireland, including certain Allowances under the Act 15 and 16 Vic. c. 83."—(Mr. Parnell.)

said, he did not suppose any hon. Member wished to occupy much time that evening in debating questions which had taken up so much time during that Session. The hon. Member for Cork City had asked whether the Government intended to arrest persons under the law of conspiracy when putting in force the Protection of Person and Property Act. With regard to the policy of the Government in instituting those prosecutions he did not intend to enter into a legal definition of the words "constructive conspiracy." He would leave that to the Law Officers of the Crown. He could only say that what chiefly operated on the mind of the Government was the fact that they found several persons advising men in the strongest possible terms to break their contracts, and not to pay their debts. They were advised that if that was done by a combination it was a breach of the law. They considered that it was a breach of the law, and that it was their duty to bring the matter before a jury, so that if the evidence was sufficient a conviction might follow. He thought the Government were perfectly justified in doing so, and would have been very much to blame if they had allowed the law to be broken without attempting to vindicate it. The hon. Member asked him a Question with regard to their action under the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. He could only refer him to the terms of that Act. They would not arrest any persons except those with regard to whom they had reasonable suspicion that they had either committed a crime punishable by law—such as acts of violence, intimidation, or having incited to these acts. That had been very frequently described in the debates on the Bill; and, so far as he knew, nobody would be arrested under it unless they came within the category mentioned.

said, he was glad the hon. Member for Cork City had raised the question of conspiracy. He had had an opportunity of consulting a friend of his who was well known as an authority on the law of conspiracy—he meant Mr. Henry Crompton. He now charged the Government with inventing or re-inventing the old law of conspiracy against labour which had been altogether destroyed by the legislation of the last 10 years, as being part of a system of thoroughly bad legislation. He thought that charge was made in sufficiently definite terms to receive a definite answer. He would go a little into details. It was not many years ago, as the right hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well, since in this county it was a criminal offence for a workman to enter into anything like a combination, the moment the combination became of an effective character. It was held by the laws of that time that workmen were perfectly justified, and were not disobeying the law, in entering into a strike; but the moment workmen, in order to make their strike effective, "picketted" the streets to discover who were standing out and disregarding the union, then the Criminal Law was put into operation, and the workman was made a criminal offender. The legislation of that time, which did not come from the Liberal, but from the Conservative side of the House, took a very sensible view of the situation, and said—"If working men are entitled to enter into a combination at all, every act which is a fair and legitimate result of that combination is a fair and justifiable act." Now, he applied that course of argument to the Land League. The statements of the Chief Secretary for Ireland was that he found a number of persons going about the country inciting persons to make a breach of contract. Now, he asserted positively, on the authority of Mr. Henry Crompton, that it was perfectly lawful for a number of men to combine even to effect a breach of contract. Now, if it be justifiable with regard to a breach of contract between master and workman, he contended it was justifiable between landlord and tenant. It might be said that the case of the landlord and tenant was essentially different, because the subject-matter was the property of the landlord. He denied that proposition altogether, He denied that the subject-matter of dispute between the landlord and the tenant was in any sense solely the property of the landlord. It was the joint property of the landlord and the tenant. The Solicitor General smiled sceptically when he made that proposition; but, perhaps, he had not read carefully the reports in Hansard of the debates on the Land Act of 1870. He challenged the Solicitor General to deny the proposition of joint ownership or partnership between landlord and tenant. If there was no such joint ownership, what right was there to give a tenant compensation upon being turned out? His proposition was, therefore, that the farm—he did not profess to speak in legal language—was a piece of goods in which the landlord and the tenant had a joint interest and ownership. Under the law, as it existed in this country, it was perfectly permissible for a tenant to break his contract, or to enter into a combination to break his contract, if he thought proper to do so. Therefore, his charge against the Government was that, under the pretext of law, they were merging into lawlessness; and that, in the defence of property, they were stamping upon the rights of tenant's property, and trampling upon that liberty of combination which successive statutes, coming from both sides of the House, had given as an unquestionable privilege to the working classes of this country. He challenged altogether the accuracy of the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman as to the arrests which had taken place. He contended that the majority of the arrests which had taken place already were in distinct contravention of the terms of the Act itself, and in still more distinct contravention of the pleas upon which that legislation was passed. He challenged the Chief Secretary for Ireland to say that any of the men who had been imprisoned under the Act were men in any sense belonging to that class of dissolute ruffians or mauvais sujets who had been so often spoken of. He knew himself of one case—that of young Mr. Kelly, who had been arrested and imprisoned, and he was a most respectable, well conducted, and orderly young man. He had taken a rather prominent part in the demonstrations made in connection with the land agitation; but he would challenge the Chief Secretary to say that he was imprisoned because he had advised a breach of contract to anyone.

said, what he had said was that those arrested were suspected of having committed a crime punishable by law.

By no stretch of the imagination could the conduct of Mr. Kelly be brought under that definition.

And inciting to violence or intimidation.

said, they could not call inciting to breach of contract an act inciting to violence or intimidation. Another point he wished to remark upon was the amount of legal ability which was engaged by the Crown at the prosecutions. He did not begrudge hon. Members their share of the spoil, which was, no doubt, well earned; but he thought their high ability might have been better directed than in trying to bring home a criminal charge against those whom the people regarded as the saviours of their country. What he did complain of was that the right hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite, who were surely competent lawyers and men of the greatest ability, should have found it necessary to surround themselves with a perfect constellation, a galaxy, a panorama, of legal talent. What was the meaning of it? What was the necessity of half those lawyers? There was no necessity at all, except that they wished, by a side-wind—he would not say a "dodge"—to deprive his friends of as much legal ability as possible by engaging it themselves. He asked an explanation upon that point, and he thought he had a perfect right to do so with some energy, for the reason that it was only that system of bribery and fees which had prevented such able Gentlemen sitting by his side as supporters of the Irish movement, instead of being on the Treasury Bench. Those were the points upon which he wanted information—his main point being, whether the law of conspiracy was applied to contracts between landlord and tenant.

also wished to ask some questions with regard to the trials. He found, from a sub-head, that the expenses of the trial for 20 days amounted to some £1,550. When he compared that sum with the sums he had seen marked on the briefs held by gentlemen of the English Bar, he felt almost ashamed of the Irish Bar to think that the Law Officers of the Crown should accept such paltry fees. The education of those gentlemen was just as expensive, and they were just as accomplished, as the Law Officers of the Crown for England. In trials in England, it was common to hold a large number of consultations; but, in the State Trials, he found that there were 20 days' sitting without any consultation at all. Supposing that trial had taken place in England, what would it have cost? He should like to give the English Attorney General's clerk such a brief as the Law Officers for Ireland had in the late trials. He wondered what he would do with it? In England, at the very least, the trial would have cost £5,000; and yet, in Ireland, it was put off for the paltry sum of £1,500. The leader for the defence, familiarly known in Ireland as Frank Macdonnell, he was informed, got 1,000 guineas for his brief; and he was told that none of the leading counsel for the defence received less than £500. There was one item which he certainly would like an explanation about, and that was the item "General Law Expenses," £3,000. He found he was referred to a note or subhead, and that note put down the details as miscellaneous. Now, he got quite as much information from the word "Miscellaneous" as he did from the title "General Law Expenses;" and, therefore, he thought some further explanation should be given.

said, he only wished to say a few words in reply to the observations made by hon. Gentlemen opposite. He had no reason to complain of the manner in which the Law Officers had been criticized. But the most important matter, in his opinion, was that part of the speech of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), where he asked for information with regard to the application of what he called the obsolete doctrine of conspiracy. He (Mr. Law) took excep- tion altogether to the statement that conspiracy, as a branch of the Criminal Law, was obsolete. He thought, during the last 10 days, he had seen several criminal prosecutions for conspiracy in England; and there was a large class of mischievous offences which could not be dealt with by any other process than that of a prosecution for conspiracy. Complaint was made that in a prosecution for conspiracy one man was unjustly made responsible for what was said or done by his associates; but he (Mr. Law) must point out that this was nothing more than happened in all cases of association, whether for lawful business or for a guilty purpose. In all partnerships alike there was a combination for a common object, the essence of the thing being that each man should not have to depend upon his own exertions merely, but should also have the benefit of the exertions of the persons associated with him. Given a common purpose, and a combination for that purpose, it was just as reasonable that a man should be held criminally answerable for the acts of his confederates in furtherance of their common guilty purpose, as that one partner in a business should be held liable for the acts of the other partner or partners done for the benefit of the firm. In this case, however, there was no occasion to stretch the law by any construction whatever; the persons prosecuted took credit, and they had justly taken credit, for having, in all they had said and done, acted entirely above-board. They declared plainly that what they had meant to do was to combine for a certain purpose; and if it were held that by that course they had exposed themselves to a prosecution for infraction of the Criminal Law, well and good. The Government would have been guilty, under the circumstances, of a dereliction of duty if they had not brought the matter to an issue. It was always part of the contention of the traversers that the course they had taken in thus combining, and their action in furtherance of the objects of that combination, were within the limits of the law. The Law Officers of the Crown, however, believed that the traversers were acting, not within the law, but in flagrant violation of it. On that point he would not go further than to state that the case was tried not before a single Judge, but before the Court of Queen's Bench as then constituted; and it was held by the Court that it was a breach of the Criminal Law for two or more persons to combine to induce others not to pay their just debts, and also that it was a crime to combine to prevent persons taking farms from which tenants had been evicted—in other words, to prevent people from doing that which was a thoroughly legal act. Those were the two principal charges against the traversers, and the justification of the opinion the Government formed as to the nature of the acts of which those persons had been guilty was sufficiently shown by the decision of the Court. So strong, indeed, was the opinion of the Court upon that matter that one of them stated that if the case had been a civil one he should have directed a verdict for the plaintiff; but he (the Attorney General for Ireland) would pass that by. The hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) seemed to think that the law of conspiracy would not apply in cases of "picketting," and that one man might in that way lawfully injure another who took a course opposed to his views.

said, that as he was informed it was perfectly lawful at the present moment for a member of a trades union, when a strike had been agreed upon, to go as close to the place of business in connection with which the strike had occurred, as to be able to ascertain whether any of his companions went there or not.

To go for the purpose of acquiring knowledge is not picketting.

I am informed that it is picketting.

said, he did not consider it such, although, of course, the hon. Member could call such action by any name he liked. He should not have advised a prosecution of the Land Leaguers if they had confined their operations simply to obtaining knowledge as to who paid his rent and who had not. If they had simply gone to the trouble of watching the rent offices, and had never taken a step beyond that—never tried to induce people to break their contracts, or to intimidate their neighbours, if they had never advised the besetting of people's houses, or following them from place to place to annoy and injure them, he should not have advised the prosecution; but to abstain from this would not have served the purpose of the Land Leaguers. Their object was to bring the landlords on their knees; and he begged to say that a combination for that purpose—a combination to do mischief to any man or body of men—had, from the earliest time, been dealt with as a criminal offence. It was indisputably a breach of the law to intimidate a man to prevent him from fulfilling a lawful contract. Personal liberty consisted, not merely of freedom of body, but also of freedom of mind and will; and, as they had been told by a learned Judge, now a member of the Court of Appeal, any persons who sought, by watching, besetting, or by black looks or otherwise to coerce or interfere with a person's freedom of will, were guilty of a criminal act. He would therefore repeat that what had happened not only justified, but imperatively called, upon the Law Officers to advise the Crown that a prosecution should take place. As he had said, it was contended and loudly declared by the Land Leaguers that they, in everything they had done and were doing, were strictly within the limits of the law; and that being so it was only right that they should be disabused of their mistake. It had been argued that the landlord and the tenant were co-partners, inasmuch as they were both interested in the farm. Well, he did not dispute that they were both interested in the farm; no doubt a tenant had some interest in the land, and a co-partnership might exist, though the share of one partner might be comparatively small. He would ask, however, whether the fact of their both having an interest in the land gave one of them a right to combine with other people to do an injury to his partner? The late Lord Chief Justice Cockburn had had before him a case in which this very point had been raised—where one partner wont into a mischievous association with an outsider to do an injury to the other partner. The man was indicted for conspiracy, and the Court of Criminal Appeal held him to be rightly convicted of the crime, although it would not have been possible to punish him if he had acted by himself. He now came to another point upon which he had an observation to make. It had been alleged that the Crown had acted unfairly by surrounding itself with a "galaxy of legal talent." No doubt there were a number of very able men engaged upon the trial; but the "galaxy" was on behalf of, as well as against, the traversers. Certainly the defendants were not so badly supplied with legal ability that their case suffered in the least; and the Crown had only acted with propriety in selecting those legal gentlemen to assist in conducting the case that they thought would be most useful. Though the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) declared that the traversers were left in a pitiable plight, it must be acknowledged that they had the advantage of the services of most able counsel; whilst the happy result of his piteous complaint was that a considerable stream of gold flowed in at once to the coffers of the League from Ireland, America, and elsewhere. As to the magnitude of the case, it should be remembered that the proceedings at 128 or 130 meetings were to be proved, and that some 500 speeches had to be considered. There were eight counsel for the Crown and eight for the defence; whilst there were 14 persons upon their trial, and the Government could not have been acquitted of dereliction of duty if they had not secured the best counsel they could possibly procure. This, at all events, he could say—that the selection of counsel on behalf of the Crown was not in the slightest degree made for the purpose of prejudicing the defendants, but simply with the object of doing proper service to the Crown. He trusted he had now given sufficient explanation upon the matters which had been referred to. He did not wish to reopen old sores. He was glad that the whole thing was over, because not only was the case the source of considerable anxiety, but it was, in some respects, a painful one to those who had to conduct it.

regretted that he had been so unfortunate as not to hear any explanation from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, or from anyone on the Treasury Bench, as to the question that naturally arose to everyone's mind in connection with that trial—namely, why it was that the prosecution had been instituted at all, and why it had taken the shape that it had in the Court of Queen's Bench? Let the Committee recollect that the offences charged against the traversers were 10 months old. No doubt, if he might use such a colloquial phrase, it was by way of "piling up the agony" that some offences were brought up to the very eve of the trial; but if the Crown believed their own case, they had evidence of acts and language used in the months of January and February of last year on which to found an action. He wished to know from the Crown if they could say why they lay by apparently slumbering? Was it in order that those men for eight long months might be allowed to believe that they were on the path of legality? Why did the Attorney General lie by, he would repeat? The right hon. and learned Gentleman had the evidence circulated by the late Government; and he was able to obtain information from all kinds of newspaper reports from Gurney's reporters and from the police reporters. The evidence adduced on the trial in Dublin presented to his (Mr. Sullivan's) mind an impression which he could never forget, and it was this—that, but for what he knew of the personal character of the Attorney General for Ireland, and only for the fairness with which he conducted the prosecution, he should have said, if he had been a stranger, not knowing the right hon. and learned Gentleman, or anything of the circumstances, and judging merely by what he had heard in Court, "that he was, in a moral sense, most culpable for having lured those men to their ruin"—if they had been ruined. If the traversers had been on the path of illegality, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman was aware of it so many months before, it was his duty promptly to tell them so. If he had known that crimes were being committed in February, was he not bound, and were not the officials of Dublin Castle bound by their oaths to come forward and vindicate the law? If illegality was being perpetrated in February, March, April, May, why did not the prosecutions take place before September? Eighty years ago, on no less an authority than that of the King, complaint was made of a similar course, and it was stated that certain officials had done what was in the highest degree culpable by allowing crime to continue, by winking at it, by conniving at it, by allowing those who committed it to believe they were on the path of legality. It was declared by the King of England that it was a criminal act for officials to store up crime against individuals for the purpose of enmeshing and ruining them. Why was no warning voice raised in Ireland to tell the people to keep away from those meetings—to have nothing to do with those criminals who were luring them on to destruction? Had not the Government been like the panther watching behind the tree, waiting his time for a spring? If they had not known that the Attorney General for Ireland was not only a kindly Gentleman, but an honourable public official—and he was glad his Colleagues had spoken of the right hon. and learned Gentleman in that spirit—they would have accused him of having lured on the traversers to their ruin. He did not wish to be personal in the slightest degree, and he only used those phrases in the sense of his argument; but why did the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the Castle officials lay by silent, motionless, conniving by their silence, even up to the month of September? One man had been prosecuted for saying that the landlords ought to be shot like rabbits in a warren. No one would deny that that was language of a most heinous and culpable kind. He (Mr. Sullivan) had no political sympathy which would induce him to say the use of such language was not a wicked and culpable act. Why, then, was that language allowed to pass unnoticed, and why was the man who uttered it allowed to remain at large—a man who, not in one but in several speeches, incited to assassination? Now, he asked the serious attention of the Government to that question, why did they allow that individual to force himself on the Land League meetings? The man was never a member of the Land League at all. The Government allowed him for months to go round and tack himself on to the tail end of Land League meetings, allowed him to rush on platforms before the chair was taken and let off some of those incentives which figured next morning in the London newspapers as language used at Land League meetings—for the Crown confessed that they knew what was going on? They threw that into the common charge in order that this abominable language might stick to such men as the hon. Member for Cork City, whom they wanted to bring down. With all his respect for the Law Officers of the Crown in Ireland, this was not a course of conduct that befitted their high position. They had their police spies, and their police reporters, giving them information of the language that was used at those meetings; and it came out in evidence on oath in Dublin that the man to whom he had referred, before he had gone on platforms and after he had gone on platforms, before the day of meeting, and after the day of meeting, was drinking in public-houses with those police officials. The police gave him drink before he went on to the platforms, they gave him drink after he left the platforms; and he, in order not to appear a mean fellow, although he was exhorting people to wicked and outrageous acts, treated the police to drink in return. That was the sort of man who was allowed by the police for five months to go making seditious speeches through the country, getting every day worse. There was for the conduct of that young man Nally an explanation that might lead some of them not to attach so much blame to him as at first sight one would suppose he deserved. It seemed he was not exactly a believer in the Permissive Bill, and, perhaps, was not often accountable for his language—in fact, it came out on the trial that the young man was, from a very early hour in the morning until a very late hour at night, in an exciteable condition—he would only describe it in that way. That young fellow was put upon his trial, and his ravings were read gravely over to the jury by the Irish Attorney General, though the right hon. and learned Gentleman had in his possession at the time the explanation of that language. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman had not that explanation in his possession, why did he for five months hesitate to prosecute? Now, the late Government in Ireland, at all events, had acted in a more candid and straightforward manner. They found some of those men attending Land League meetings, and using what they considered to be illegal language, inciting the people to crime and violence, and they grasped the men there and then. The right hon. Gentlemen now sitting on the Front Opposition Bench, at any rate, deserved credit for this—that they did not allow those people to walk into the pitfall—did not allow them for eight long months to believe that they were endeavouring to attain an object by legitimate means—by public agitation. When the crime—as the late Government considered it—had been committed they struck the offenders in the name of the law, brought them to the Bar, and prose cuted them for their conduct. Nor were the late Government guilty of—and he wanted to use a word that would most strongly describe the conduct of the present officials in Ireland without personally reflecting on them—the unfairness of allowing a thing which they considered to be illegal to go on without taking each offender to task for his conduct. The late Government would not have bundled all the defendants together in a group as the present Government had done, so that the Member for Cork City, while away in Philadelphia, hat in hand, begging for alms at crowded meetings in America, was held responsible for the ravings of that peasant he had referred to in the wilds of Connemara. Was the action of the Government in that matter worthy of British justice? Why did not the Attorney General prosecute Nally for his language and the hon. Member for the City of Cork for his? He had abundance of evidence in the one case to convict any man of using seditious language. He (Mr. Sullivan) put it to the Attorney General on his reputation as the head of the Irish Bar, to which he was a credit—he put it to the right hon. and learned Gentleman on his own reputation whether he had not had abundant evidence to sustain a charge for sedition? Now the trial was over, he had no hesitation in telling the right hon. and learned Gentleman what he had said all along to his own Colleagues—namely, that it would have gone very hard with them if they had had to defend themselves against a charge of sedition. But the right hon. and learned Gentleman raked up, not an obsolete doctrine of sedition, for the doctrine was not obsolete by any means, but what was, as regarded those political prosecutions, a discredited resort. As regarded political prosecutions, where the men could be indicted for their individual acts, the course adopted by the Government was by the enlightened public opinion of this country—nay, he would almost say, by the dicta of the great men in the Legal Profession—held to be a discredited and unfair resort. In pressing this matter in the most forcible manner, he desired to exempt from blame the Attorney General for Ireland, to whom belonged the credit of conducting the first State prosecution in Irish history that had been fairly conducted by an Officer of the Crown; but he challenged the Government on these matters—first, that the Crown remained silent and inactive for several months; and, secondly, that when they did take action they proceeded upon a miserable charge of conspiracy instead of prosecuting for sedition. It was really painful to see the minuteness with which the case for the Government was got up; but in the two or three days' opening speech of the Attorney General there was not a superfluous word. It was, however, impossible to listen to the speech without feeling that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had proved too much, for he told an awe-stricken audience of words uttered at 157 meetings, while words uttered at three meetings in May, and when Parliament was sitting, would have been sufficient for any evidence necessary for the case. Why, before Parliament broke up, were not the Irish people treated to a word of warning upon the illegality of those meetings, if they were illegal? He complained that the prosecution, when instituted, was for political exigencies. In the academical sense, it might be said that the Government acted as they did from a pure love of abstract justice, and could not have taken action a week sooner or a week later; but it was known that the prosecution was not dreamt of until a wicked Press in London had hounded on the Government to take a step which ended in failure. This great State Trial was the huge blunder of the Irish Administration, just as the Coercion Bill had been the blunder of the English Administration. Two nights' discussion would not exhaust the important issues involved; but, under the present circumstances, on account of the pressure on public time, he would not enter fully into the matter. Of course, the form of the objection was to the Vote; but none of the Irish Members objected to the Vote in this sense—the Irish Law Officers did their duty, they did it fairly and honourably, and the remuneration represented in that Vote was not too much for them. He hoped, therefore, that the Committee would understand the Irish Members in that spirit. They had raised this contention upon this Vote, because they considered the prosecution a mistake, because they thought it ought to have been begun at once if crime was afoot, and that a charge of conspiracy ought not to have been the form of the proceedings.

said, that if there should be a division he should deem it his duty to vote with the Government, although he did not think the prosecution which was instituted was the wisest or the most effective way of dealing with the particular crisis with which the Government were unfortunately called upon to deal. The prosecution was commenced on the 2nd of November; and although it was commenced on November 2nd, and was founded on the legal opinion that the operations of the Land League were illegal, not a single meeting of the Land League was interfered with for some months after that opinion was given. Therefore, so far from being effective as a moral teaching of the magnitude of the law, in the month of November, after the institution of the prosecution, the crime doubled, and in the following December it quadrupled. The institution of the prosecution was thus far from being an effective agent; nor, looking at it as moderately and reasonably as he could, did he think the institution of the prosecution could be regarded as the wisest Executive step that could have been taken, because he did not think it right or wise to institute a State prosecution unless it was founded upon a serious and well-considered belief that it was likely to be successful, and to result in a conviction. He asserted, as a matter of almost universal belief at the Bar, and he believed of almost universal belief in Ireland, amongst educated people, that there was hardly a shadow of chance, in the then system of constituting juries, of getting a conviction from the prosecution; and that was an immense element when the wisdom and prudence of the prosecution came to be considered. He did not for a moment question the perfect soundness of the advice given by the Law Officers in Ireland, whose advice he was sure was supported by law, and was what he should expect from their position and experience; but the prosecution was not one for which the Law Officers were to be considered primarily responsible. The prosecution must have been instituted on the authority and at the instance of the Government; therefore it was one for which it was not reasonable to regard the Law Officers of the Crown as answerable. Of course, it would not be reasonable to ask for the production of their opinion; but he ventured to suggest that in the advice they gave upon this question, in addition to stating what legal offence could be put forward in the indictment, they also indicated the grave uncertainty that existed as to a conviction. He was disposed to think that they pointed out the certainty, in the then constitution of the jury system, of not getting a conviction. The hon. and learned Member for Meath (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) asked why the prosecution was instituted. He did not think that they would have far to seek for a reason. It was necessary that something should be done in the then terrible state of affairs. He was disposed to think that the assertion of the ordinary law, although it might not have been sufficient to cope with a crisis then so grave, might have been more vigorously applied at an earlier period. Unquestionably the ordinary powers of the law were not applied with anything like reasonable vigour until after the meeting of Parliament. Another thing might have been done. In the then unfortunate condition into which Ireland had been allowed to get, Parliament might have been summoned. That not having been done, it was absolutely necessary that something should be done; the Government arrived at the conclusion that it was their duty to institute the prosecution. That prosecution did one thing—it put the Land League and its operations at arms-length from the Government, and that he considered a distinct gain. He did not understand that any of the Irish Members who had discussed the subject questioned that the Government were proceeding on an entirely legal course; he himself had not the shadow of a doubt as to that, nor did he find, in the course of the trial in Dublin, that anyone suggested that the indictment was not legal and sufficient. He believed that no one attempted to question the legality and the fairness and the sufficiency of the way in which the Government put forward their case. If the Government put forward a legal case reasonably and fairly and bonô fide, according to their opinion of what was required for the country, it would be a strange thing to ask the Committee to divide against that Vote because the prosecution was not successful. The hon. Members who had criticized the Vote had abstained from criticizing the small details, which would have been unworthy of them; but his professional eye had been caught by finding amongst the English Votes the expenses of two prosecutions, each of which amounted to over £7,000. That was far in excess of the sum asked for in the Vote. The prosecution, in addition to putting the Land League at arms-length with the Government, had elicited from two able Judges a clear exposition of the law, which he thought had been attended with great advantage in Ireland. No one could question the absolute judicial fairness and great judicial power of the two eminent Judges who presided at the trial; and those two Judges had given well-considered and able and weighty decisions in favour of the legal opinion of the Law Officers. That, he believed, had had a substantial influence in Ireland, and had shown those who had been previously misled what the law was and what law could be asserted against them. It was not for him to make a suggestion to hon. Members as to whether they should divide on the Vote; but he thought this was a question that was more for discussion than division, because any division must take the form of reducing the fees of the counsel engaged, and that, he was sure, was the last thing in the world that hon. Members desired.

said, it was not at all unnatural for hon. Members representing Irish constituencies to discuss the Vote, and there was nothing in the tone of the remarks that had been made to which he could object. One or two remarks, however, had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Meath (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) which could not pass unnoticed. The hon. and learned Member had made the serious charge against the Government that they had lured men on so that they might prosecute them.

explained that what he had said was that a stranger might have taken that view if he had not known the personal charac- ter of the Attorney General for Ireland.

asked what was it that the hon. and learned Gentleman suggested that the Government ought to have done? The right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) had said that no Government ought to institute a prosecution unless there was some certainty of success; and he gave as a reason for uncertainty in this case the constitution of the jury system. He (the Attorney General) must dissent from that view. He thought no Government should institute a State prosecution unless there was a certainty that they ought to succeed. But how would that affect the jury system? That a State prosecution should not be instituted because there was uncertainty of conviction, because of the jury system, was a doctrine he could not understand; and if the right hon. and learned Gentleman's view was correct, the Government could never prosecute anyone in Ireland.

explained that he had said that the Government was bound to consider the probability of getting a conviction, and that in this case that probability was not held out.

could only say that it was the duty of the Government, whether there was a defect in the jury system or not, to see that the law was in force, and to enforce the law even by criminal prosecution, when that law had been broken; but he was equally certain that the Criminal Law ought not to be brought into effect until the Government were certain that it would be for the benefit of the community; but if there was a crime committed, they must wait until they saw that they had a real offender whose offence required punishment as a matter of example; and the Government ought not to lightly undertake a State prosecution until they were certain that the effect of the trial would be great. Had there not been a slow but certain growth of crime in Ireland? There was a time in the existence of the Land League when there were speeches by comparatively unmarked men, who had brought themselves technically within the law; but at that time it was the duty of the Government—with the qualification that they should consider whether they were likely and ought to obtain a conviction—to consider what would be the effect of letting the chief offenders escape and picking out minor offenders. There were Members of that House who left their duties in Parliament in the early part of September last, and took part in promulgating the doctrines of the Land League; and on the 19th of September that disgraceful creed of inciting to crime by what was known as "Boycotting" was preached. A Member of the House committed a crime within the definitions of the law when he, in common with others, taught the creed that when a man had made a contract and was urged to break that contract, and when the person with whom the contract was made had recourse to the law to enforce the contract, the man who enforced the law was to be shunned and condemned, and passed by as a leper; while anyone who afterwards sought to obtain the natural use of his capital by taking the land vacated was to be subjected to consequences worse sometimes than violence. That was a criminal act. There could be no doubt whatever, after the ruling of the late Lord Chief Justice and the ruling of Mr. Justice Willes, that that was a criminal act. If two men combined to prevent a person obtaining the fair performance of a contract, they were criminal—and that had been openly preached. When? Not in the early Spring, but in September and October. That doctrine was preached by men of such mark that they, and not the ignorant men, ought to be held primarily responsible. When was the charge made? Unless the Attorney General for Ireland had instituted a prosecution before June, the 2nd of November was the earliest time at which he could do so—and upon the 2nd of November he did institute proceedings. He lost not one day open to him, after the June sittings, for opening proceedings—and what had occurred between June and November? If there was no probability of a conviction in November, how much stronger would the improbability have been in June? In June the Government still hoped that a policy of forbearance towards Ireland would have produced good fruit, and that the legislation contemplated for Ireland would have had an ameliorative effect. What censure could be justly cast upon the Government because in June they had not instituted proceed- ings? Yet that was the only charge which the hon. and learned Member (Mr. A. M. Sullivan), who had given such proof of his ability at the trial, and who had every knowledge of every feature of the case, could find to present to the Committee against the Attorney General for Ireland. It might be that if the Government had, with all the quickness and desire of some criminal lawyer, been disposed to pick out a word here and there, they could have done so in May and June; but he held that it was not the duty of the Government, instead of endeavouring to pass a measure of amelioration, to have employed themselves in picking out words of sedition uttered by some obscure and drunken man; but, when they found men of conspicuous position, whose example ought not to be an example of crime, but of peace and order, teaching criminal doctrines, then the Government, and not till then, put the law in force against the utterance of words which amounted to crime; and he should think that the last censure upon the Government which the hon. and learned Gentleman could have discovered to make would have been for having acted too slowly. There was one matter to which he must refer——namely, to the assertion made by those who, with very little knowledge of the law, said that the enforcement of the law of conspiracy had become obsolete. That law was not obsolete; and, in his opinion, it would be a day fraught with danger to the country when conspiracy ceased to be a crime. One man might speak foolishly and wickedly, and one man might not have to answer for words which, spoken alone, might have very little effect; but when they had to deal with combination—only dangerous because it was combination, when they had the banding together of many men who could defy the law by virtue of the strength of their numbers, and who, when so coming together, were able to inflict injury on the individual and danger to the commonwealth—then it was for the law to say, you who enter into combination and become in the eye of the law conspirators together—you must answer for the acts of each other. It was a combination that the Government had to deal with, and had for its object to cause persons illegally to break their contracts. The Government could deal with this combination in no other way than as conspiracy. The conspiracy they had to deal with had developed to such an extent that it had been said, in the now hackneyed phrase, to have succeeded in "knocking the Queen's law in Ireland into a cocked hat." That was the object of the combination; it was for that these proceedings were instituted in the manner which even his hon. and learned Friend opposite said he had nothing to complain of, and within a time which was perfectly proper and reasonable.

said, the hon. and learned Attorney General had misunderstood the nature of the objection which had been taken against these prosecutions. He had not understood it to be said that prosecution for conspiracy was obsolete. He heard it contended that the doctrine of conspiracy of the constructive kind—that was, conspiracy for which they made one man responsible by citing against him every word any other man might utter—was obsolete. He understood it to be contended that the true principle was that actually reduced to law in the case of combinations of working men; that what a man might do of himself he might do in combination with other men, and persuade any number of other men to do in combination with him. They contended that the Government had departed from that sound principle in endeavouring to restore the old doctrine of constructive conspiracy; and that when they found a man doing what was in itself lawful, they had endeavoured to throw a legal network around him for the purpose of making him responsible for the acts and words of other men. It was well known that every reform in the law tending to give liberty of speech and writing had been brought about by violating to some extent the existing law, and by Governments gradually dropping that law from practice, and allowing it to become obsolete. He and his Friends contended that a perilous condition of things had been reached when the Government endeavoured to revive the doctrine of constructive conspiracy, and make it a living principle of law again. They held that the leading men who were placed on their trial in Dublin were simply leaders of a political Party; that they had done nothing whatever opposed to the principles of the law of England; and that the Government had taken ad- vantage of a law which had fallen into disuse in order to punish them. The Government found men acting as political opponents, and converted them into criminals. Being unable to put down political agitation by fair discussion and by remedial legislation, the right hon. and learned Gentleman then fell back on the principle of constructive conspiracy. The manner in which the Government had acted from the beginning of this prosecution made it almost impossible that it could succeed. An hon. Member had suggested that the Government should not have instituted the prosecution unless they were well assured it would succeed. For his part, he did not go so far as that. He agreed rather with the Attorney General for Ireland, in saying that the Government ought to be guided by the opinion that the prosecution ought to succeed, rather than that it was likely to succeed. But certainly success was an element that ought to have been taken into consideration. With regard, however, to this prosecution, everyone knew that it never would succeed, because it was a political prosecution in the least noble sense of the term—a prosecution which sought to repress political opposition by criminal law. How did Her Majesty's Government show reason and excuse for that prosecution? They found that the leading men had said and done nothing which was outside the range of fair political argument and organization; they found that the objects they professed to have at heart were in no sense whatever illegal. But the Government found also that hanging on the skirts of this movement there was a number of utterly irresponsible men, without education, without position, without leadership, absolutely unknown to the majority of the leaders, and they sought out for every occasion when one of these men made some idle threat, and then applied their doctrine of conspiracy to make it appear that the whole of the leaders were actually responsible for what one man had expressed in the language of braggadocia. The acts and sayings of such men had been brought against the hon. Member for the City of Cork in order to convict him of unlawful combination; and the whole proceeding formed a picture so ignoble, pitiable, and discreditable to the Government that nothing like it had occurred since the days of Lord Norbury and the informer Jerry O'Brien. No jury would convict on such evidence unless it was composed completely of policemen or informers. What the Government had to deal with was this—they had some honest men speaking from their convictions; while, on the other hand, they had a number of obscure, irresponsible, reckless men delivering speeches which were in open defiance of the Criminal Law. Why did they refrain from prosecuting men who advocated the shooting of landlords? Why did they not put the leaders of the land movement on trial for their own utterances, and their own acts? Instead of doing so, they endeavoured to apply to them the all but obsolete doctrine of constructive conspiracy; and they endeavoured to convert an open, Honourable agitation into something like felony. In the course of this discussion there had been a great deal of loose language indulged in, and a singular mixing up of politics and law. The Attorney General for England (Sir Henry James) made it one of the accusations against the hon. Member for Cork City (Mr. Parnell) and some of his Colleagues that they had not employed themselves in endeavouring to lessen the popular feeling in Ireland against the Government of this country. Now, he wanted to know what public man carrying on an agitation ever attempted to lessen the popular feeling against a Government. He wished to know whether, in the famous Mid Lothian campaign, the eloquence of the Prime Minister was occupied in endeavouring to mitigate and soften the feeling of the Scotch people against the last Government? Had the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright) ever occupied himself in any of his reforming campaigns in endeavouring to mitigate the popular feeling against the Government against whom he was carrying on the struggle? The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland seemed to think that the fact of a law being in existence, and on the Statute Book, justified the Government in instituting a prosecution under it. Now, he (Mr. M'Carthy) believed there was upon the Statute Book a law prohibiting the Jesuits from living in this country. But was there any reason for instituting a prosecution under that law, and would there be any justification for doing anything so foolish? The Attorney General for Ireland attempted to make it out that the only object of the Government was to get a decision upon the question of law. In the view of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the law was not quite certain. Some people thought certain things were lawful, while others thought they were not. Therefore, said the right hon. and learned Gentleman—"Let us seize the hon. Member for Cork City, bring him up, and have a trial, in order that we may learn what is the law." If that was really so, he did not wonder at the want of success which attended the trial. The Law Officers of the Government ought to have something of the politician in them, as well as of the lawyer; and it would have been wiser for them to consider how far the spirit or the letter of some decaying law was in harmony with the natural laws of modern political movement than to force on a prosecution against a great public agitation in order to find out what the law was. He hoped that his hon. Friend who had moved an Amendment to the Vote would press it to a division. It was only right that they should know what the opinion of the Committee was in regard to the prosecution which had been instituted, and whether they considered it right to pay the cost of a prosecution which had been entered into without any possibility of success.

said, it was his intention to divide in favour of the Amendment of his hon. Friend. He was, however, unwilling to give a silent vote. He would, therefore, trespass for a few moments on the patience of the Committee, while he gave his reasons for the course he was about to take. The reasons why he should vote for the Amendment had not as yet been given by any other Member. He was quite willing to admit that in the circumstances in which the Government were placed the prosecution of the traversers was almost unavoidable; and he also believed that the prosecution, when it did commence, was conducted with fairness. But he must hold the Government, and particularly the Prime Minister, accountable for the fact that the necessity ever arose for these State Trials at all. In the year 1870, when he had just ceased to have the honour of a seat in that House, a Land Bill was brought in by the Government; and there was never, perhaps, such an opportunity given to any Government to legislate effectually upon any question as upon that occasion. The Prime Minister had it in his power to manage the large majority he had in his own way, and to make the Bill a most efficient measure. Had the right hon. Gentleman then introduced such a measure as, by general supposition, was now about to be introduced, they would have had peace and quietness in Ireland for many years past. When the Government came into Office last year, great and reasonable hopes were entertained that they would inaugurate their government by the introduction of a suitable measure of Land Reform in Ireland. But in that respect the hopes of the people were disappointed. They all knew—at least those who had been in the House as long as he had—his acquaintance with the House having commenced some quarter of a century ago—that hardly anything had been given to Ireland for the sake of abstract justice, and that without agitation nothing could be accomplished. Now, his hon. Friends around him, who took an active part in the land agitation, and a part in which he was afraid they were carried somewhat too far by their enthusiasm—knew very well that unless agitation was kept up in Ireland, and very strong reasons were given why an adequate measure should be introduced, there would be very little hope for them. He thought he could cite no better witness as to the necessity for agitation, and the good results that were likely to follow from it, than the Prime Minister himself, for the right hon. Gentleman had fully admitted that without the agitation that took place on the Land Bill and the Church Question on a former occasion he would have failed to carry those measures to a successful issue. He (Mr. Blake) considered that the agitation in Ireland had, perhaps, been carried a little too far. He was himself, to a certain extent, one of the victims of the very strong feeling which existed in Ireland that rents should be limited to a particular standard. It was one of the recommendations of the Land League—and hon. Members beside him would correct him if he was wrong—that, under certain circumstances, the people ought not, until the Land Question was finally settled, pay more than Griffith's valuation. He must give the Land League credit that they did not mean this in a general, but in a particular sense; but, unfortunately, the people took it as it suited them, in many instances in a general sense, and he (Mr. Blake) was, in consequence, in this position at this moment, that unless he consented to receive from his tenants about half of the income he was entitled to he would get no income at all. He therefore waited with the greatest impatience and anxiety, stimulated by his own particular necessities, the period when the Prime Minister would bring forward a measure that would enable him (Mr. Blake) his rights. He was very sorry to say that in Ireland there were some hundreds, perhaps some thousands, in exactly the same position as himself. Therefore, speaking entirely from a landlord's point of view, he trusted that, for the preservation of their lives and the peace and quietness of the country, that the Government measure of Land Reform would not be long delayed, and that it would be of a satisfactory character, just to the tenant as well as the landlord. The only Member of the Government present now who took an important part in the agitation of 1870 was the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright). So far as popular rumour went, if the right hon. Gentleman had had his way on that occasion, the Irish landlords would now be in possession of their rents, and the country would be in a state of peace and prosperity. It was because he regarded the Government as the primary cause of the agitation which had led to such unpleasant results in Ireland, and which culminated in the late State Trials, that he should vote in favour of the Amendment. He protested against the Government not having taken the measures they were bound to take on coming into Office, in order to allay the just discontent that existed. He should enter his protest against their inaction in that respect by voting in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman if he pressed it to a division.

regretted to say that the hon. and learned Attorney General for England had introduced into the debate an amount of acerbity which did not belong to it before. He (Mr. O'Connor) had no knowledge of the law whatever; but he had taken the trouble to consult those who knew something about the law of conspiracy, and he found that on the 4th August, 1873, in the debate on the "Conspiracy Law Amendment Bill," Mr. Vernon Harcourt made some remarks which might be applied now to the operations of the Land League in Ireland. It was really a very remarkable speech. The hon. and learned Gentleman was moving that the consideration of the Lords' Amendment to the Conspiracy Law Amendment Bill should be taken that day three months, and he said—

"Under the pretence of limiting the penalty the Bill did, in fact, affirm the offence, for if they passed the Bill it would give a statutory assent to the doctrine which Parliament had never yet sanctioned—that an agreement to break a contract within the provisions of the Master and Servant Act was a criminal offence properly indictable as a conspiracy."—[3 Hansard, ccxvii. 1533.]

[Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT dissented.] The right hon. Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt) shook his head. But these were sentences open to the interpretation of any hon. Member of that House. The speech said distinctly—

"This Bill would, for the first time, recognize in an Act of Parliament an agreement to break a contract to be an indictable offence. … To so dangerous and mischievous a proposition he, for one, could never assent."—[Ibid.]

In this case the tenants were advised not to keep a contract, and, according to the doctrine laid down by Mr. Vernon Harcourt, it was not an indictable offence to combine in order to agree to break a contract. He left the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to settle conclusions with the Attorney General and his hon. Colleagues as to what the real state of the law was. That was the first point that arose. The second was that the right hon. Gentleman laid down that because two eminent Judges, Justice Fitzgerald and Justice Barry, declared certain things to be illegal, that therefore they were illegal, and in this very same speech by Mr. Vernon Harcourt on the 4th August, 1873, he found the hon. Gentleman protesting against this Judge-made law in these terms—

"If Parliament was to keep faith with the working classes in respect of the pledges it had given to secure the freedom of labour, it was bound to protect it against the practical super-session of its will—by this sort of Judge-made law. No one had a more sincere respect than he had for the sages of the law; but that respect was limited to their legal province—Cuilibetere-dendam est in arte suâ. Even men so just as Mansfield and Eldon and Ellenborough and Kenyon had laid down doctrines on political and economical subjects which it had been the duty of Parliament to correct, and upon no head of the Common Law had decisions gone more astray than upon trade questions."—[Ibid. 1535.]

These were the words used by Mr. Vernon Harcourt with regard to the Judges of England when dealing with State questions or questions between masters and servants. If it was justifiable on the part of the hon. and learned Gentleman to raise that objection against the decrees of the English Judges on questions affecting masters and servants then, à fortiori, it was justifiable for the Irish Members to raise the same question on the decision of the Irish Judges upon questions between landlords and tenants. It must also be borne in mind that in the latter case the Judges were political in their origin, that they were raised to their places by political Parties for political services, and that they were called upon to decide questions of political struggle between one Party and another. The right hon. Gentleman was now chief guardian of the law; and although it was quite permissible for the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Oxford to cast this slur upon Judge-made law, it was regarded by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary as an indescribable offence for the Irish Members to raise the same objection against Judge-made law in regard to questions of dispute in which the Judges themselves were personally interested. He (Mr. O'Connor) had great respect for the two Judges who had given their decision on this Judge-made law; but he was not prepared to abnegate all the rights of the Irish people because Justice Fitzgerald and Justice Barry happened to say that such and such things were illegal. He did not see why the fact that they said it was illegal should make it illegal. He certainly failed to see why the mere dictum of Justices Fitzgerald and Barry was to make a breach of contract between landlord and tenant a necessarily overt offence. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland thought it necessary to go out of his way to refer to transactions which had been only incidentally alluded to, and which he might have known would awaken painful and disturbing recollections which ought to be allowed to rest. The right hon. and learned Gentleman alluded to the famous advice of his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) at Ennis in reference to what was called "Boycotting." He challenged the right hon. and learned Gentleman upon that point, whether it was or was not a fact that "Boycotting" was a part, and a necessary part, of every trades' union organization in this country. Was that so, or was it not? What was "Boycotting?" "Boycotting" meant simply that certain persons belonging to a certain class, opposed by another class, found that their only strength and defence lay in combination; that that combination was only possible by the observance of all the conditions of combination by the combined, and that in order to preserve that combination they must have the moral sanction of a social breach of intercourse with those who disobeyed the combination. As a matter of fact, if he was rightly informed, in some of the instances of the trades' organization of this country a fine was imposed in the Trades' Union Court—a Court which he supposed, if sitting in Ireland, would be accused of high treason by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland. That Trades' Union Court called before it any man of the Union who worked for an employer against whom a decree of the union had gone forth. Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman deny that? Could he deny further that the offender was brought before the Bar of the Trades' Union Court, and that the Court, usurping the functions of the Sovereign, frequently imposed a heavy fine for any breach of the trades' union regulations. He was glad to see his hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) in his place. He would appeal to his hon. Friend if it was not a necessary and prominent part of trades' union organizations that a person belonging to the union, and disobeying the decree of the union with regard to taking work under certain employers was visited by something like those social penalties which were summed up in the word "Boycotting?" Yet the right hon. and learned Gentleman dare not bring into that House a Bill which would in any way interfere even with the fringe of these rights of combination, and of "Boycotting," and of social ostracism, encouraged by the trades' unions in this country. It was only when they were established as adjuncts to the land agitation in Ireland that they were looked upon as intolerable. The right hon. Gentleman had not proved to his mind, nor had the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, that this mischievous doctrine, as it was called by Mr. Vernon Harcourt—that an agreement to break a contract was a criminal offence was recognized by the law of England. Therefore, before he received this doctrine as the law of the land, he should like to see it a little better tested than it had been at present. He was certainly under the impression that it was perfectly legal for the tenants to combine together for the purpose of breaking a contract, and that it was not an indictable offence. The right hon. and learned Gentleman thought it necessary to speak of the advice which had been given—not to take a farm from which a person had been evicted; and he went so far as to characterize that advice as disgraceful. Now, that advice, disgraceful as it was in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's mind, was, in his (Mr. O'Connor's) mind, justified by overwhelming national necessities. It would be highly dangerous to leave to the landlords the power of eviction, unchecked by some such power as this. If there had been no such part during 1879 and 1880, the people whom they tried by their Disturbance Bill and failed to save would have perished. A combination to prevent the taking of a farm from a man who had been unjustly evicted was no more morally criminal than the combination brought about by the trades' union to prevent men from entering certain employments. Thought hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of the difficulty of getting Irishmen convicted by Irish juries. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman would reflect for a moment on the hidden meaning of these words—the difficulty of getting Irishmen convicted by Irish juries, he thought he would find that it would have been more correct to say—the difficulty of getting an Irish politician like the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) convicted by an Irish jury. The Government knew that no jury of Irishmen fairly brought together would convict his hon. Friend, or any of his hon. Friends, upon such evidence as that adduced at the recent State Trials. It was the doctrine of persons who believed in the Divine right of Monarchs that Kings could do no wrong; it was his doctrine that no nations could do wrong in its own interest. The Government must know that in the State Trials, while they were on the one side the Irish nation were on the other, and it followed that the Government were wrong, and that the Irish nation could not be wrong in failing to convict its public men. The sooner the Government took the lesson to heart, the sooner they refrained from oppression, coercion, gagging, and tyranny, and the sooner they governed Ireland according to the principles of equality and justice, the more conducive it would be to the welfare of both countries.

was prompted to make a few observations in consequence of certain remarks which had been made in relation to the law of conspiracy. As far as he understood the law, it was an offence for two or more persons to agree to incite a person to break his contract. It was an offence, not only created by Act of Parliament, but by a series of decisions extending over a considerable period of time. He did not wish to discuss its propriety. The alteration of the law, which took place in 1875, in favour of workmen, when a general trade dispute arose about wages, was just; and if he thought the Land League only incited tenant farmers, who had themselves united to complain of high rents, to break their contracts, he did not know that he should oppose its operation. But the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) was mistaken in supposing that there was any analogy between breaking a contract by a labourer and the course the Land League had advised. A labourer retired from the building or place where he was working; but a tenant farmer in Ireland was incited by the Land League not only to break his contract by non-payment of rent, but to remain in the possession of the property, and to compel, by intimidation, the landlord to accept the terms which the tenant dictated. The case of the workman could only be analogous to that of the Irish tenant if the workman not only broke his contract, but took and kept forcible possession of the factory, employed the capital and gave the master just such a share of the profits as in his—the work- man's—opinion he ought to receive. It was a most unjust and criminal proceeding on the part of a tenant, after breaking the contract he had entered into, to remain in his holding, and thus endeavour to compel the landlord to accept his terms. An undoubted crime was being committed by the Land League, and it was the absolute duty of any Government, worthy of the name, to suppress it.

had been extremely amused by the remarks of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Willis). He had little expected to hear from one professing broad Liberal principles such a very narrow view of the law of contract. Contracts were never justifiable, unless there was an equality and a freedom on the part of both contracting parties. In Ireland, contracts between landlords and tenants were very like those existing between the wolf and the lamb. The unfortunate tenantry were bound to live by some means or other; there was no industry, they had no money with which to leave the country, and they were simply placed at the mercy of the landlords, who were ever ready to demand unjust and inequitable rents. It was owing to this state of things that tenants of Ireland were obliged to enter into unjust contracts. He knew of no body of men claiming any acquaintance with jurisprudence who would hold that such a contract was binding. Until the House of Commons learned that the ordinary law in Ireland was administered in a just and fair spirit, and that the convictions under that law were greater than in England, it would not realize the precise condition of affairs in Ireland. Wherever there were no politics concerned the ordinary law was administered in Ireland justly and with dignity; it was only when polities were infused into the administration of the law, and when it was defined that disobedience of unjust laws was a crime, that the Irish people and Irish juries rejected what was called law, but what was a sheer and undoubted wrong. It had been alleged, in this House, by the Prime Minister, that evictions were sentences of death; and it had been stated, without this House, by Members and supporters of the Government, that the law of eviction was an injustice. To punish a man for breaking an unjust law by breaking his contract was a parody on legislation, and a parody on equity. He never advocated the breaking of the law in Ireland; but in reference to what was called "Boycotting," he now desired to call the attention of the House to a clause in the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act of 1875. Clause 3 of that Act provided that—

"An agreement or combination by two or more persons to do, or procure to be done, any act in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute between employers and workmen, shall not be indictable as a conspiracy, if such act committed by one person would not be punishable as a crime."

Now, he held that the indictment for conspiracy brought by the Government against his hon. Friend and Leader the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) and others was an act of tyranny. The Government ought to have remembered that they should have applied to Ireland the principles of the Act passed in 1875 for England. He was ready to admit there were several cases in which the Government could and ought to have brought indictments; but against those who were indicted recently in Dublin there was no case for any Court, unless it were the Court too long known in Ireland—namely, the Court swayed by politics corrupted by Party. In any ordinary case brought before an Irish jury, a verdict would be returned equal in point of justice to any given in an English Court. He objected to the Vote now before the Committee, and he intended to support any division upon it; because until the English Government, whether it be Liberal or Tory, learned that the law of Ireland must be framed in accordance with the opinions of the people, there could be no respect for the so-called law—law which was now so much affected by political considerations. He trusted nothing would be done to-night to delay the progress of Business; but at the same time he hoped that Ministers who called themselves Liberal, who called themselves men of justice, would not attempt to defend an indictment for conspiracy, which, though it might be technically right, was judicially and equitably wrong. It ought to be understood by the Government, and by hon. Gentlemen generally, that it was not against the law, but against the system of injustice carried on by official corruption, that the Irish Representatives so persistently contended in this House. So soon as the same spirit of legislation was evinced in regard to Ireland as in regard to England, the Irish people would be found as true and as firm to the principles of justice as the people of England.

was not only favourable to the reduction of the Vote now proposed, but he was in favour of its complete abolition. He considered the late State prosecution was unwisely conceived, and from first to last a waste of public money. There was no man of common sense in England or Ireland who did not know from the very commencement of the proceedings that they could only have one termination. It was said in this country, and in Ireland, as it was said in the newspapers of all parties in both countries, that the trial could only end in the acquittal of the traversers. Nothing, in fact, was expected from the prosecution but a field day for the lawyers, and the waste of a great deal of money of the British taxpayer. In Ireland there was, moreover, another view taken of the matter, and when people were casting about to ascertain why on earth these prosecutions were instituted at all, this view commended itself to many minds; it was this—that the officials of Dublin Castle were resolved to pit the British Exchequer against the funds of the Land League, and thus to impoverish that association by causing it to expend a large sum of money which might have been much better employed. They had heard to-night something on the question of contract; but they had not heard it for the first time. What seemed to be the key to the whole position, in this and other debates was, the sacredness of contract between landlord and tenant. But he denied—as he and his hon. Colleagues had denied many times previously—that a contract for the payment of a rack rent was, in reality, a contract at all. Contract was too good and too sacred a word to apply to an arrangement between landlord and tenant under which the latter was to pay an exorbitant rent. He believed that a real crime on the part of an Irish tenant would be, not in refusing to pay a rack-rent, but in paying. it. The most sacred duty a tenant could have was first of all to support in decency and in comfort out of the proceeds of his labour, himself his wife, and his family. [A laugh.] Whether hon. Gentlemen laughed at this opinion or not, he boldly asserted it. It was his conscientious opinion; he bad uttered it elsewhere, and he had no hesitation in uttering it on the floor of the House of Commons. A large number of Gentlemen connected with the Legal Profession had spoken to-night on this subject. They had spoken very highly of the State prosecutions. The hon. and learned Member for Meath (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) said they were in some respects conducted in a model manner; and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) had complimented the Irish Members on the fact that they did not too narrowly scrutinize the Vote. He (Mr. T. D. Sullivan) wished to bear his testimony to the fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland conducted the prosecutions in a fairer spirit than they had ever experienced before in Irish political trials; but, at the same time, the prosecutions were, in his opinion, a great mistake, and a needless waste of money. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, in opening the case, spoke for two days. That, of course, meant a round of refreshers for all the lawyers, while half the time—nay, even a quarter of the time—would have sufficed. The defence of the traversers cost the Land League about £10,000. He, in common with every member of the Land League, would very much have preferred to see that money distributed to the families of evicted Irish tenants. It would in this way have been much better employed. He should, of course, vote for the proposed reduction; but he would more cheerfully vote for the abolition the entire amount asked.

thought he was justified, both as an Irish Member of Parliament and as a taxpayer, in contesting this particular Vote, and in offering some of his experiences in connection with the late trials, and some of the reasons why he considered the Vote ought not to be passed in its present form. The charge brought against the traversers was that of conspiracy. It was attempted to be shown that they had advised the people to break their contracts; but it was rather strange that very little stress had been laid upon the question as to whether such a thing as contract existed between the tenant farmers and landlords of Ireland. He dis- puted that, even legally speaking, contracts existed between these people. They had seen that the Court of Chancery had held that a man was not even legally, and certainly not morally, compelled to abide by an arrangement under which a landlord or usurer sought to procure from him an extortionate amount of money in relation to any transactions between them. That was a matter of law as clear as anything could be, and he did not think it could be controverted. What was the state of things with regard to the needy Irish tenant? If he did not choose to consent to the terms of the landlord, he and his family were evicted, and might straightway have to go to the workhouse. Much had been said in respect to the question of conspiracy; but it was a remarkable fact that no attempt was made by the prosecution in the late trial to make it appear that there was any connection between the different parties indicted. A great deal had been said about the Land League; but it was never proved that any one of the persons prosecuted was a member of the League. It was a notorious fact that several persons who were put on trial were not members of the League at all. Some of the traversers he had never seen before the trial; he did not even know that such persons existed, and yet he was told he had conspired with them to incite people to break their contracts. What he admitted he had done was to recommend the tenant farmers not to pay unjust rents. He and his colleagues never advised the people not to pay reasonable rents, or not to pay rents in the cases in which the landlord had not acted in an extortionate manner. They merely told the farmers, as they told them still, to abstain from paying unreasonable rents. Another charge brought against them was that they recommended what was called "Boycotting." Now "Boycotting" of certain kinds would be very illegal and very improper. It would be illegal and improper in cases in which actual violence, or a pretence to violence occurred; but would it be pretended that they were not justified in telling the people to hold no intercourse with persons of disreputable character? They held, of course, a man to be of disreputable character who would take land from which another had been evicted on account of his inability to pay an unjust rent. He maintained that any man who would take land under such circumstances ought to be avoided, and he did not imagine that any hon. Gentleman on that side of the House would pretend to controvert that proposition. "Boycotting" was practised in every profession. In legal circles it was very well known that if a barrister took less than the recognized fee, other barristers would not act in the case with him. It was well known, too, that if a barrister took a fee direct from a client, or before it had passed through the hands of a solicitor, he was "Boycotted." These were notorious facts; and, therefore, it did not become lawyers, who fattened on the system of "Boycotting," to attack Irish Members of Parliament when they advised the tenant farmers in Ireland, who had most keenly suffered, and who continue to suffer, to follow the example of a Profession which held a very high position in the social world, although, of course, in some circles, in which he did not join, it was the fashion to bring general charges against the members of that Profession. Reference had been made of late to what were called Land League Courts. He had no means of knowing what had taken place in any of the Land Courts, inasmuch as he had never been present at any of them; but what he believed was really intended, and what he was sure was usually practised in those Courts, was a system of arbitration. There were Chambers of Commerce in the different business centres, and it was a very common thing for these Chambers to settle trade disputes by arbitration, and thus obviate a law suit involving the expenditure of a considerable sum of money, and possibly a very great delay. What was more likely than that a business disagreement should be left to a committee of the trade? Of course, there were no means of enforcing a decision of such a body; but the honour of the persons concerned was at stake, and if a person acted contrary to the opinion expressed by the committee of his trade, the result would be that he would, in point of fact, be "Boycotted," because no one would have confidence in his future dealings. It was quite a common thing for the different trades to have such a committee, and the system had a very salutary effect. It seemed, however, to be forgotten that "Boycotting" had been practised by landlords in respect to tenants. In the case of contested elections before the Ballot Act was passed, it was well known the landlords of Ireland attempted to exercise considerable influence over their tenants; and it was equally well known that whole districts had been depopulated because the electors had exercised their privilege as their conscience dictated. In point of fact, the landlords of Ireland "Boycotted," and thus ruined many tenant farmers, simply because those farmers had at an election supported the so-called Liberal Party of England. A complaint had been made, and it was one which especially referred to the Vote now before the Committee. It was to the effect that a large number of counsel were engaged, and that this had led to a great waste of money. The Attorney General for Ireland had said there were eight counsel in the case. He (Mr. Biggar) was present during a part of the trial, and, in his opinion, four counsel would have been quite sufficient. All the counsel had to do was to, perhaps once in two days, examine a witness. The rest of the time was spent in looking on; but he supposed they got their refreshers all the same. In point of fact, one-half of the money given to counsel was wasted; and he, therefore, thought that the Committee would be justified in supporting the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork. The amount suggested should be struck off the Vote, simply for the purpose of insuring that for the future legal business should be properly conducted. It was one of the great complaints, and, he thought, a very just complaint, against the administration of justice in this country that such great expense was incurred, and that those little games of trade unionism were allowed to exist, whereby counsel encouraged the system of employing more legal assistance in a case than was required. This was a question which deserved far more attention than was at present bestowed upon it, and he thought the Committee should declare very strongly on the fact that more counsel had been engaged in the case they were discussing than were necessary. Another complaint was that on this trial, which was a very serious one, the Crown submitted evidence in regard to transactions which took place after the proceedings commenced. The Government were asked to give particulars of the circumstances on which they intended to base their case, and they mentioned a certain number of meetings at which the different traversers had been present and had spoken; but reserved to themselves the right of bringing forward evidence with regard to meetings which took place after the commencement of the trial. Well, that was an unsound principle, and one which the Committee should very strongly censure. A point had been raised by the Government in this discussion which he did not think they were justified in bringing up, and that was with regard to Irish juries. The late Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Gibson) had said that the trials should not have been commenced, because of the well-known difficulty of getting a proper jury in Ireland. That was a libel upon Irish juries. Irish juries were exceedingly fair; and he thought that probably one of the best things which had ever been done for Ireland by a so-called Liberal Government was Lord O'Hagan's Act with regard to the reform of the jury system in that country. Before the passing of that Act, it was the invariable practice of the Government to pack the juries in such a way that it was impossible for a prisoner to get a fair trial. It was notorious that the juries were packed, and the jury laws, as reformed by Lord O'Hagan, rendered the practice more difficult; and, under existing circumstances, the administration of justice in political and other crimes was much more fair than they used to be, for juries were packed much less frequently. He could not, however, say that even yet the people of Ireland had much confidence in the administration of justice. It was the custom in some quarters to attack Lord O'Hagan; but, for his part, he considered him entitled to the greatest credit. The noble and learned Lord deserved the highest credit for his honesty in bringing forward a reform which he knew, from his practice at the Bar, was so much required. Now, a very curious thing raised as to that trial was this—that the Government fully adopted the responsibility of the proceedings. They did not lay the responsibility on the Law Officers of the Crown for instituting the trial and incurring such a large expense, and this was another of the blunders that the Government had committed, for they must have known very well that the alleged offences, which had so often been referred to during the progress of the discussion, were only offences according to Judge-made law, and that, as a matter of fact, no moral offence had been committed at all. This was only another of the blunders calculated to make the members of the Land League much more popular with the Irish people, and to discredit the Government. Even from a selfish point of view, anyone would have thought that the Government would have conceived it to be desirable to be on better terms with the Irish people; but they had succeeded in alienating the whole Irish race from them, and consequently in permanently injuring the interests of their Party. Another matter connected with the trial which he wished to point out was this—that the proceedings were so arranged that they were going on while Parliament was sitting. That had been hardly fair to the Irish Members, more especially as everyone knew there was a proposal for passing a Coercion Bill. It was important to the Irish Members, or those of them who were included amongst the traversers, that they should be present in Dublin during the trial, and it was also desirable that they should be in their places in Parliament in the interests of their constituents. The Government should have so arranged the matter that the sitting of Parliament and the trials should not have gone on at the same time. To his mind the Government were not justified in acting as they did. He had gone over all the references made in the discussion that had taken place on this matter, and would shortly refer to some of the things which he had himself observed during the trial, and which he thought justified him in challenging this particular Vote. First of all, with regard to the question which he had asked the Prime Minister, and to which he wished to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention before he went away—the question in regard to the evidence of the police constables. He considered that the policemen should not have been taken as witnesses at all in such a case, and he would give a reason why he thought so. He had been present at a meeting in the county of Cavan, of which evidence was given at the trial, and there was a police officer present at that meeting. He (Mr. Biggar) did not observe the policeman taking notes; but a Catholic priest afterwards informed him that he saw the man doing it, and that he had noticed that he had simply taken down those of his (Mr. Biggar's) words which he had thought would appear to be a breach of the law if taken by themselves. When he had said anything to counteract or lessen the influence of anything he had said before it did not find a place in the notes. Well, he did not think the evidence of such people as these police reporters should have been taken at the trial, and he did not think that in a criminal matter of that kind the Crown Counsel were justified in bringing it forward. In regard to every police officer examined at the trial, the invariable result of their cross-examination was that they acknowledged their inability to take down in shorthand all that a person spoke. Some of them said they could take down a large proportion of what was said, whilst others could only take a small portion; but they all acknowledged that they could not take all that an ordinary speaker could utter. Well, the Committee knew what was the value of evidence of that sort. They knew that unless a person was reported verbatim a correct idea was not conveyed of what that person had really said. In each of these cases he had referred to, when the witness had broken down and acknowledged his incompetence to report what had been said, the duty of the Crown Counsel should have been to order the witness to get off the witness table. The Crown Counsel had done no such thing, however, for they had gone on examining these men, and a great deal of valuable time and a great deal of money had consequently been wasted. These were things that had occurred under his own observation, and which were notorious. Another matter he wished to refer to was this—and it was the last point with which he should trouble the Committee with reference to these trials—that in giving the evidence of the witnesses from the printed copies of the speeches in possession of the Crown, the Crown Counsel threw great difficulty in the way of supplying them to the counsel for the defence. The leading counsel for the traversers applied to have a full copy of each speech as soon as a part of the speech was put in in evidence by the Crown. Of course, it would be easily understood that giving an extract from a speech did not give a correct idea of what that speech was. The Attorney General, artfully enough, seemed to fall in with the view of the Judge as soon as an expression of opinion had been given by that personage, and said, in an off-hand way—"I will give you a copy of the speeches tomorrow;" but what was the result? The result was that in each case a formal application had to be made, to be followed by a new order, and the requisite document was not supplied until a new branch of the trial was reached. The counsel for the defence did not get the copies of the speeches which were offered in evidence until the day after they had been referred to by the Crown Counsel. As soon as the reasonableness of the contention of the Attorney General was brought before the attention of the Court, the proper order was made, and each speech was put into the hands of the counsel for the traversers directly the evidence of each witness commenced, which gave an opportunity, more or less, for the traversers' counsel to get witnesses examined in regard to other portions of the speeches than those referred to by the Crown Counsel. But, even under the reformed circumstances, it was not at all easy for the counsel for the traversers to make a good cross-examination of witnesses, because they had to go over the whole speech and pick out any extract which seemed to tell in favour of the traversers during the progress of the examination in chief by the Crown. He only pointed out those things to show that, according to his idea of what a prosecuting counsel ought to be, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland was not entitled to the very warm eulogiums that were passed upon him with regard to the fairness of his conduct of this particular trial. His (Mr. Biggar's) opinion of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman's duties were might be erroneous; but it certainly seemed to him that in a criminal case a prosecuting counsel should not be permitted to explain the evidence. He should come to the real merits and justice of the case, and not fish for a verdict in opposition to what might be the real merits to be submitted to the jury.

said, he had not heard an explanation of an item with regard to which he had asked for information early in the evening. He found that under the Vote there was a sum to be granted in connection with the Chief Secretary's Office, and of that the Chief Secretary had not thought fit to offer the Committee the slightest explanation. The word "miscellaneous" was supposed to account for an item; but that was a vague phrase, which was not worthy of a public office. He trusted that some information with regard to that matter would be given, if not by the Chief Secretary, at any rate by someone on his behalf.

stated that the item included the printing and stationery department in connection with legal matters in the office.

did not wish to detain the Committee any length of time, but merely desired to say that he supported the Motion of the hon. Member for Cork for three reasons. In the first place, as a protest against the whole policy of Her Majesty's Government ever since they had been in Office; in the second place, because he considered these State Trials were a perfect farce; and, in the third place, because he believed the effect of the trials had been to advertise widely the very principles and doctrines the Government professed to dislike. Question put. The Committee divided:—Ayes 20; Noes 153: Majority 133.—(Div. List, No. 160.) Original Question put, and agreed to. (4.) £3,500, Queen' Bench, &c. Divisions, Ireland.

said, it was possible there might be no occasion to move to reduce the Vote; but he noticed that the salary of the Master of the Queen's Bench Division was £1,200 per annum. He believed that according to the terms of his appointment that gentleman ought to give his whole time and services to the office. The salary was large; but he (Mr. Biggar) believed the Master carried on a prosperous business as a solicitor in Dublin, and also prepared candidates for examinations. Under those circumstances, he thought that the Government were not justified in paying him a full salary, when he did not give his whole time, but carried on a private practice of considerable profit.

thought there was something very unsatisfactory in the Vote, because it was proposed to increase very considerably several of the expenses connected with the Courts in Ireland. The Taxing Master's salary was to be increased, the Registrar's salary was to be increased, and three Town Registrars' salaries were to be increased. It was perfectly notorious that the cost of the Supreme Court was much larger than the circumstances of Ireland required. There were likely to be proposals for some decrease with regard to the Courts in Scotland; and he believed that would be a right course; but he hoped it would be accompanied by a decrease in the cost in Ireland. There was very little information in the Paper with regard to these costs, and the Paper was exceedingly unsatisfactory.

observed, that when the English system of Judicature was re-modelled, a Committee was appointed to inquire into the offices which were in existence under the old system, and to ascertain which of them it was necessary to retain, and which should be abolished. When the Judicature Act for Ireland was passed a similar Committee was promised with regard to the offices in Ireland. He did not know whether the Committee had reported; but it was an ominous circumstance that when they were looking for retrenchment they found a Supplementary Estimate proposed, to increase some of the salaries of the Irish officials.

observed, that the salary of the Master of the Queen's Bench was formerly paid from the Consolidated Fund; but the salary had now been included in the Estimates. As to the other matters mentioned, there had been a re-organization of offices, and there was an apparent increase; but the number of offices had been considerably reduced, and although some of the salaries were increased there was really a decrease in the total cost. As an instance of this, he mentioned that the number of Taxing Masters had now been reduced to two.

said there had been a large reduction in the number of offices; but the Taxing Masters found themselves hardly treated, because they had not received a considerable increase in their salaries. They considered them- selves ill-used, because their salaries had not been increased, while their work had been increased.

wished for some explanation on the question of Election Petition trials. He found £220 put down for reception of Judges; but on turning to the sub-head under which it was stated that the Vote would be accounted for by the Chief Secretary's Office he found no details given. He found that in England an average of £244 had been allowed, in connection with Election Petition trials, for disbursements to sheriffs and mayors, while in Ireland an average of only £154 was allowed. He also found that the same amount was not allowed for officers in attendance upon Judges as in England, £120 being paid in England and only £46 being allowed in Ireland. These were matters requiring explanation, and he should oppose the Vote unless that explanation was given.

directed attention to pages 24 and 30 of the Estimates to show that the Irish Office was not so far behind England in this matter. In the Irish Estimate, page 31, the item £220 for reception of Judges was put by itself; but at page 24 the cost for hire of Court Houses, reception of Judges, and other expenses in England, amounting to £6,100, were put down altogether.

asked whether it was in contemplation to reduce the number of the Judges in the Land Court, pointing out that some years ago the business was much larger than it was now, and that the Judges were now almost idle; and at that period Judge Flannigan had offered the Government to do all the business himself. Under the circumstances, with only a quarter of the work to be done now that there was then, the two Judges must be almost idle.

reminded the hon. Member that the Act provided that when a vacancy occurred in this Court it should not be filled up until it was ascertained that a second Judge was necessary.

wished to know whether it was the case in Ireland that some of the Judges of what used to be looked upon as the Superior Courts now went Circuit?

said, he was a Member of the Committee on what were called the "Bright Clauses" of the Land Act, and it was then expected that the Land Courts would have a great deal of work in consequence of those clauses. The House was now expecting another Land Bill. He believed that under the new Bill a Land Court would be necessary, and he thought it was unwise of the Irish Members to attempt to reduce the Judges.

wished to know what was the explanation of the sum of £1,460 for Clerks of Crown and Peace?

explained that formerly Clerks of the Peace were paid from the county rates; but in consequence of the consolidation of that office with the office of Clerk of the Crown they were now paid by Votes in Parliament.

wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the foot note gave correct information? It stated that the total original Estimate was £1,134,461; but the column stated it to be £778,161. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman was in a position to explain this difference. He would also like to know how much, if any, of the charge was thrown upon the Consolidated Fund, in addition to the sum named in the Estimates, and whether the Government had information as to the amount paid by the various counties for extra police during the last year?

said, no account had been received for the county charges; but he believed there was no extra charge upon the Consolidated Fund.

asked if the counties to which an additional force had been sent were up to their full strength?

said, he imagined they were nearly so. The charge was for 5,381 men, which was a little under the full strength.

said, some years ago the number of police to be placed in each county was declared by Act of Parliament. No power had been given to vary the number of men. Nevertheless, reductions had been made, and in his own county, for instance, the number of men had been reduced to about 130. His hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork asked whether the number of men allocated by the Act of Parliament were really stationed in each county, or did the Irish Office persist in the course which had been on many occasions condemned by the House, of charging the extra police to the county. The counties of Galway and Mayo had been charged with extra expense for the force sent there; but no allowance had been made for the force taken away from other counties. Therefore, he wished to know whether, when the Government charged the Western counties of Ireland for extra men, they allowed the counties from which those men were taken the difference of cost?

desired to draw attention to the subject of a question put by his Colleague about three weeks since. As many as 80 or 90 police were brought into the City of Limerick during the election, and were kept there a considerable time. The city had not then the force it was entitled to, notwithstanding which, an extra charge was made for the men. The Attorney General for Ireland had stated, in reply, that the extra force had been demanded by some of the local authorities, and, as he (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) understood, either by the High Sheriff or the Corporation of the City. As soon as this statement was published it caused much astonishment, and on inquiry it turned out that no such demand had been made by any of the authorities of the city. He therefore trusted the Chief Secretary for Ireland, in the absence of the Attorney General, would be able to give some explanation of the circumstances under which the men were sent in, and say whether the city was to be charged for them, seeing that the authorities had made no demand.

said, the point he wished to make clear to the Committee was this. An Act of Parliament provided that each county in Ireland should have a certain police force. After the passing of the Act the force in the various counties had been allowed to fall below the number provided in the Act. In 1865–6, during the Fenian disturbances, the Grand Juries throughout Ireland petitioned in many cases far extra police, and the Government sent them into the counties which had not their complete force and charged them as extra police, although they only brought up the number of men to that guaranteed by the Act of Parliament. In other words, the Government got rid of the necessity of paying out of the Imperial resources for a certain number of ordinary police sent to a number of Irish counties. That question had been over and over again raised by Grand Juries in Ireland; but the matter at the present time assumed more importance than at any period since the Fenian rising in 1865–6, inasmuch as the Government had been proclaiming a number of counties, and sending to them what they called an extra police force, which was charged upon the local rates. His point was, that many counties into which an extra police force had been sent did not possess their full force previously, and that the Government should have paid the cost out of the money voted by Parliament, instead of throwing it upon the local rates, seeing that, even with the extra force sent in, the counties in question had no more than the number of men allowed by the Act of Parliament. This practice was especially unfair when it was considered that the Government had taken men from certain peaceful counties and transferred them to Western counties like Mayo and Galway, and to Southern counties like Cork, and charged them upon the local rates, without taking off any of the charge made upon the counties from which they had drafted the police. He thought the Government should lay upon the Table of the House a Return showing the number of men which each county was entitled to out of the moneys voted by Parliament, and out of the Consolidated Fund, in a normal state of affairs; the actual number of men in each county supported out of the moneys voted by Parliament, and the extra force which are charged in such counties on the local rates. If a Return showing these three particulars were furnished, hon. Members would be able to see what foundation there was for the repeated charges made by county authorities, from time to time, that the Government had been acting unfairly in throwing the charge for extra police on the various counties.

said, the police were sent into the counties under two provisions. One of these was upon the requisition of the magistrates, and was independent of the proclamation that the county was in a state of disturbance. He imagined the hon. Member for the City of Cork alluded to that. He could not positively say there was no case of a county having been below its full force and calling for police, the cost of whom were charged to it; but certainly he did not think that had been so to any extent. On the contrary, he believed the extra force had been only sent in when the counties had their full number of men, or nearly so. If any case of the kind alluded to had occurred, it was probably of a temporary character only, as in the instance quoted by the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy). By the Return of the 1st March, the whole extra force sent into the counties, independently of the proclamation for disturbances, was 628 men. This number had been spread over several counties, and showed, speaking generally, that the counties to which they were sent were up to their strength before they were sent in. The numbers sent in under proclamation was 1,056.

asked whether extra police had been sent into all counties which had been recently proclaimed as requiring such extra police?

thought the hon. Member was confusing the two modes of sending police to the enmities. He believed that in every case in which a county had been proclaimed in a state of disturbance extra police had been sent.

, seeing the Attorney General for Ireland in his place, took the opportunity of repeating his question with regard to the police sent to the city of Limerick at the time of the Election. Contrary to the reply given by the right hon. and learned Gentleman on a former occasion, that they had been sent in at the request of the authorities of the city, it appeared on inquiry that no such demand had been made.

said, that, whoever the parties were, the police had been sent in at the request of some of the city authorities. He could not, from memory, give the name of his informant.

said, the fact that there were two methods of sending police to counties—one at the request of the magistrates, and another on proclamation by the Lord Lieutenant of the counties in a disturbed state, did not alter the question at all as regarded the charge for extra police. Whether they were sent in under requisition or proclamation mattered nothing so long as the result was that the charge for these extra men was thrown upon the local rates, and when the extra men did no more than bring up the force to the number the counties were entitled to have under the Act. The right hon. Gentleman must see that it was unfair, when the force in the county was insufficient to maintain law and order, and, if that force was also below the number allotted to the county by Act of Parliament, to send in an extra force under the proclamation of the Lord Lieutenant to bring up the force to its proper strength, and at the same time to charge the draft upon the local rates. If the right hon. Gentleman would say that each county should have the full quota of men allotted to it by Act of Parliament before it was charged for extra police sent in under proclamation or on requisition of the magistrates he would meet the point raised.

entirely agreed with the hon. Member for the City of Cork that it was unfair to charge a county under the circumstances pointed out by him. He could not, however, believe that this had been done.

said, it was not often that he agreed with the hon. Member for Cork City; but in this case he did so entirely. He was aware, from personal knowledge, that some counties, his own, for example (Leitrim), had been below their fixed establishment of police, and that extra police had been imported on the requisition of the magistrates, or otherwise, and that the cost had been thrown upon the local rates. He thought it desirable that the right hon. Gentleman should give an assurance that the anomaly complained of should be looked into, and that where it was found that a county had been debited with the cost of extra police it should be disallowed when its fixed establishment was not complete.

said, the late Chief Secretary, the right hon. Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), would be aware that it was a very common occurrence indeed for the force of a county to be kept below its proper number, and then for a large additional constabulary force to be sent in from another county.

thought it was highly objectionable to take away the ordinary force of a county, and then to charge upon the local rates the expense of an extra force. They ought to receive an assurance from the Chief Secretary that this would not be allowed to happen again, but that a county would have its own ordinary quota of constabulary before it was charged with an extra force. He did not mean that the force should not be reduced in consequence of casual changes by some two, three, or four, but that no considerable number should be taken away even in quiet times. It was obviously unjust to reduce the strength of a force in a county and then charge it with extra police.

said, he could explain how the matter worked. Suppose they took the police from a county like Carlow and sent them into the county of Mayo, they charged Mayo with an extra police force, although it was probable before they went there that the police force in Mayo was not up to the full strength provided by Act of Parliament. The consequence was that the cost of the extra force in Mayo was taken off the Imperial Exchequer and thrown upon the local rates, and at the same time the force in the county of Carlow was reduced below its proper strength. By-and-bye Carlow became a disturbed county, and the force in Carlow having been left below its proper strength by the drafts made from it because there were possible disturbances somewhere else, men were sent in under the provisions of the Lord Lieutenant's proclamation to make up the full strength, and the men necessary to bring it up to its full strength were then charged on the local rates as extra police.

said, he would certainly look carefully into the matter. He admitted that such a practice of charging the extra police upon the county under such circumstances, if it should happen to any extent, would be very unfair, but doubted whether it had been largely followed. He did not believe that in any county the force was kept exactly up to 100 per cent, taking one county with another; but, as a general rule, the proportion was about 95 per cent. A few were generally undergoing a course of training at the depôt; and, therefore, 95 per cent was usually taken to be the full quota, and would be a very fair proportion of the nominal strength. The whole matter would, however, be carefully considered; and if he found it was the case that counties were paying for extra police for a force which was only sufficient to fill up the gap occasioned by the withdrawal of the regular police, something would be done to provide a remedy.

was unwilling to prolong the discussion; but the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had expressed the opinion that the practice of removing the police and then charging for an extra force could not have been carried on to any appreciable extent. He (Mr. Tottenham) would mention what occurred in the county of Leitrim five or six years ago. [Mr. W. E. FORSTER: I was not in Office then.] The Grand Jury, on the occasion he referred to, signed a strong remonstrance against paying for an extra police force when their own fixed force had been reduced by withdrawals to 40 or 45 men, speaking from recollection, below its proper strength. When there had been so large a reduction as that, it was obviously unfair that the county should be called upon to pay out of the local rates for extra men, under circumstances for which it was not in the slightest degree answerable.

said, that with regard to this Constabulary Vote the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had very fairly promised to look into the matter, and had stated that he was not accountable for it. There could, however, be no doubt as to the normal condition of things, which was to keep the force very much below the recognized number, and to send in an extra body of police and charge it upon the county as an additional force. The consequence was that the county was not only charged with its regular quota of police, which, as a matter of fact, it did not possess; but it was also charged with an extra police, which did not bring the force beyond its recognized number. This, he thought, was most unjust to the ratepayers, who had not demanded the services of any extra force. On the contrary, where an extra force was sent in by a proclamation made by the Lord Lieutenant, it would be found that the people of the county had protested against the special laws under which Her Majesty's Government took power to send in an additional force. It was, therefore, not only unfair, but unjust, to compel them to pay for the services of a body of constabulary which they believed to be entirely unnecessary. In the instance referred to by the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken (Mr. Tottenham), the county was charged with extra police when its own regular force had been steadily kept from 40 to 50 below what it ought to have been. In that case even the magistrates protested against the county being saddled with the cost, and sent in a requisition to the Government to that effect. Under the Coercion Acts now applied to Ireland one or two magistrates could send in a requisition and obtain an extra force for the simple purpose of terrorizing over the tenant farmers of the country, and then the people were compelled to pay for being tyrannized over. In the first instance, they were tyrannized over, and then they were made to pay for the expense of the tyranny. He strongly protested against such a principle, on the ground that it was both unreasonable and preposterous.

expressed his obligations to the Chief Secretary for having kindly undertaken to look into the matter, and to inquire into the mode in which the police force of the various counties was dealt with. He wished to say, before the Vote was taken, that the Irish Members had intended to raise a debate upon the question of the constitution of the Constabulary Force, and more especially upon the practice of sending extra police into the different counties which the present arrangement warranted. But as the hour was very late, and as it was impossible to have a satisfactory debate upon the question owing to that lateness, and as he was unwilling, having regard to the state of Public Business, to ask the Government to report Progress, so as to give an opportunity for raising a debate at another time, he would simply confine himself to making a short protest against the principle involved in the Vote, and to taking a division upon it when it was put from the Chair. He thought that if the Government had acted with sufficient determination at the end of last Session the services of these extra policemen would not have been necessary. The money the Committee were now called upon to vote would certainly not have been required if the action of the Government had been different. But, unhappily, Her Majesty's Government had chosen another line, which would, he was afraid, render it necessary for them to come to Parliament and ask for an additional force, not only this year, but for many years to come. The Irish Members thought that the employment of this force was a mistake from beginning to end. They considered that the arming of them with rifles and bayonets was entirely unnecessary. They would be able to discharge their duties quite as effectually if they were only armed with the ordinary policemen's batons. Their services were generally required to protect process-serving. Crowds of women and children went out to obstruct this process-serving, and in some instances it would be found that the force engaged in protecting the process-servers had wounded these women and children with their bayonets. His own opinion was that a constable would be able to remove women and children more effectually if they were not encumbered with rifles and bayonets. They would also more effectually aid in the serving of the civil processes of the law if they were armed as the constables of England were. He observed the other day that when a body of the English police were called upon to disperse an angry and riotous mob in the mining districts in the North of England—a mob far more excited, far more violent, and using weapons which no mob in Ireland was accustomed to use in arresting process-serving—yet the police were able to disperse this mob with the aid of their staves only. If they were able to do this in regard to a mob of riotous men in England, they ought to be able, in Ireland, to disperse a riotous mob of women by the same means; and they were certainly not entitled, in such an emergency as he had described, to send in an armed force of constabulary. He believed that there had been a great deal of marching about of the constabulary in Ireland with the view of protecting process-serving. He considered that a great deal of this marching about had been entirely unnecessary, and that if they had relied more upon the justice of the operations of the law they would have been able to dispense with these movements. Most of the process-serving had taken place in distressed districts in the West of Ireland, where the people were absolutely unable to obtain bread; and he very much feared, now that the landlords had obtained the power of coercion, that they would be encouraged to carry out evictions in these distressed districts. If this should really prove to be the case, he was satisfied that there would be stories of evictions which would horrify the House of Commons. He trusted that, later on, he might have an opportunity for reviewing the action of the Government when the main Vote for the Constabulary was brought forward. He also hoped that the Vote would not be postponed as late as it was last year; but that it would be brought forward some time before the last few weeks of the Session, and at a time when criticism would be of use. At present he would confine himself to making a protest against the whole policy of this armed force in Ireland, believing it to be entirely unnecessary; and he should certainly take a division upon the Vote.

remarked, that in 1870 the power was taken from Parliament and placed in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant of dealing with the Irish Constabulary, and within six months after the passing of the Act there were proclamations issued putting the powers conferred by the Act in force. In 1877 other powers were given to the Lord Lieutenant; but they were simply to alter and vary the number of sub-constables. In 1865 the number of police stationed in the county of Louth was fixed at a certain figure; but it had never been kept up to within 30 of the fixed number, and yet constables had been sent from Louth to Galway, and Galway had been surcharged for an additional force. If the Chief Secretary would look into the matter, he would very much facilitate the discussion of the Constabulary Vote. The Chief Secretary seemed to be altogether governed by the views he received from Dublin Castle—so much so, that he did not appear to be able to call his soul his own. Now, that was just the kind of Chief Secretary they did not want, and the kind of Chief Secretary it should be the object of the country to get rid of. Unless, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman entered upon a new course, he hoped the country would soon be relieved of such an incubus. To-day, he (Mr. Callan) had given Notice of his intention to move for a Return of the number of sub-inspectors, stating the number of years they had served in any particular county. A great deal of dissatisfaction existed in Ireland in reference to the favouritism displayed towards different members of the Constabulary Force. A Catholic sub-inspector was never allowed to remain permanently in a county, or, indeed, for a longer period than 10 or 15 years. If any remonstrance were made, the stereotyped answer was that it was the usual practice, and that it was not desirable to allow any sub-inspector to remain in the same county for more than 10 or 15 years. But they would, nevertheless, find that Protestant sub-inspectors had repeatedly been allowed to remain in the same county for 20 or 25 years; and he wished to know what special ground there was for the exemption or departure from the general rules in these instances? He had been told that he could himself obtain the materials for the Return he asked for. He did not see why the officials in Dublin Castle should not be called upon to make it, and why the trouble of hunting through the pages of some 20 or 30 volumes should be thrown upon a private Member. He thought the Chief Secretary would facilitate matters if he would pay a little more attention to the wishes of the Irish Members; and in regard to the Irish Constabulary, he specially advised the right hon. Gentleman to adopt some new course of procedure, unless he was desirous of getting into more hot water than he had got into already. He pressed upon the right hon. Gentleman the propriety of giving this Return, as he in- tended to found a Motion upon it for impugning the conduct of Mr. Mc'Dermott and the authorities at Dublin Castle. Question put. The Committee divided:—Ayes 189; Noes 16: Majority 173.—(Div. List, No. 161.)

said, he would now move that the Chairman report Progress; and, in doing so, he wished to express the grateful thanks of the Government for the very great forbearance and indulgence which had been shown on both sides of the House. He hoped they might be permitted to proceed with Supply again to-morrow, which would be greatly to the convenience of Public Business. He believed there would be a disposition on the part of hon. Members to make the necessary concession; and if it were made, the Government would propose to take the Vote for the subvention to the Indian Revenue in respect of the expenses of the Afghan War. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Gladstone.)

asked the right hon. Gentleman, if he was in a position now to inform the House when it was likely the Transvaal Vote would be taken?

replied, that they might have gone on with the Transvaal Vote perfectly well; but, although he could not say absolutely what might happen in a case of that kind, he thought there was a sufficient likelihood of the Government being able to put the House in a greater command of the subject than it now was, by the production of further information, to make it quite worth their while, in the interest of the House, to postpone the Transvaal Vote for two or three days. That was the sole motive for postponing it; and otherwise the Government would have been disposed to proceed with it.

inquired in what order the other Votes would be taken? They had got the Army Estimates and the Navy Estimates fixed, and it would be convenient to know on which days the other Votes would be taken.

stated that it was proposed to put down after the East Indian Vote to-morrow the Vote on Account of the Civil Services. The Army Vote was already fixed for Thursday; and if they were allowed to take Supply again on Friday, as he hoped they would be, they would propose then to make the Statement relative to the Navy, and to take the first Vote. He was now assuming that it would probably be found convenient to take the Transvaal Vote on Monday; but he would like to reserve a little discretion with regard to that point.

asked the right hon. Gentleman, whether he intended to make a statement with regard to the East Indian Revenue Vote of £5,000,000; or whether it would be made by the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for India?

replied, that it would be in regular order for him, on behalf of the Treasury, to move the Vote, and he would be prepared to offer an explanation of it if required.

said, before the Chairman left the Chair, perhaps the Committee would allow him a moment for a personal explanation. Last night he stated that he considered the Committee had good ground for complaining of the conduct of the Government in not furnishing the Committee with the necessary documents, which they ought to have had before being called upon to pass the Excess Votes in Supply. The hon. Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland), as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, rose immediately afterwards, and stated that those very documents had been furnished to hon. Members a week previously. He (Mr. O'Connor) heard that statement with considerable surprise, and felt that he was in the position of a man who had discovered a "mare's nest." He was on the point of rising to withdraw the adverse observations which he had made with regard to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury; but the Chairman put the Vote so quickly that he had not time to do so. Now, however, he learnt from a letter which he had just received from the hon. Member for Midhurst that he was perfectly right in his complaint, and that the hon. Member for Midhurst was under a mistake with regard to the issue of the documents in question. It turned out that the Report of the Committee on Public Accounts had never been furnished to Members, and that they really had not the information which the Treasury and the Committee had repeatedly declared to be necessary.

said, he was exceedingly anxious that the Committee on Public Accounts should be appointed in time to prepare Papers for the Excess Votes, and after the Committee was appointed he believed they reported on the subject on the very first day.

said, that was so. They met on Wednesday, March 2, and reported upon the Excess Votes, and presented their Report on the same day to the House. He had certainly supposed that between that time and yesterday the Report had been circulated, especially as he had seen it in print; but it now appeared that it was not distributed.

suggested that on future nights, when Supply was the first Order of the Day, the Government should put down sufficient Votes to occupy the House while it was disposed to continue its labours. Last night the Committee closed before 12 o'clock, because there were no Votes remaining of which Notice had been given, whereas two or three hours more might have been occupied. To - night the same thing had happened, the Votes put down being exhausted. Supply was, no doubt, urgent at the present time, and it was most important for the interests of the country that it should be taken. Therefore he hoped the Government would consider his suggestion.

reminded the Committee that, at 5 o'clock, it was explained that yesterday the Irish Votes were postponed at the request of the Irish Members. But in closing the Committee at 12 o'clock, they were only following what used to be the uniform rule; and, personally, he was averse to putting down too great a number and variety of Votes for one evening.

inquired whether, before the Transvaal Vote was taken on Monday, the Government would circulate Papers which would put hon. Members in a better position to discuss the question.

said, what he had stated was that it would be impossible for the Government to come to a conclusion on that point without consideration. Concerning negotiations carried on by telegram, it was not possible to say absolutely beforehand at what time information could be laid; but the Government hoped, if the Transvaal Vote were postponed, to be able to put hon. Members in a position to discuss it.

wished to say, in reply to the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), that he doubted very much whether putting down a large number of Votes conduced to the saving of time. He thought it more likely to lead to long wrangles and discussions on reporting Progress, and debates on minor points, with the view of keeping back other Votes. On the other hand, if only a moderate amount of Business was put down, hon. Members were disposed to get through it; and therefore he thought the latter plan the better.