said, that, in the absence of his hon. Friend the Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay), he had a Motion to submit in regard to this Bill.

Does the hon. Member speak on behalf of the promoters of the Bill?

No; against it. He appeared there in the absence of his hon. Friend the Member for Forfarshire to oppose the Bill; and he begged to move, as an Amendment—

"That, pending the inquiry into Railway Rates and Charges by the Select Committee of this House, the Consideration of the Bill be postponed."

The original intention of the Bill was to make a new branch line, with power to increase the rates over such line. The Select Committee to which the Bill was referred refused the power of extending the line, but, strangely enough, consented to grant powers for increasing the rates. He wished to point out that if the decision of the Select Committee were confirmed by the House, the effect would be to increase the rates for the carriage of lime and manures, in the case of lots under two tons by 50 to 100 per cent, and in the case of lots over two tons by 25 to 33 per cent. A similar increase was allowed in the case of stones, bricks, coals, tiles, slates, draining materials, and iron. Another objection to the Bill was that it altered the classification of manures which was adopted in the Model Clauses Bill of 1845—the Model Act of 1864—and which was to be found almost uniformly in every Railway Act down to the present day. Another objectionable feature of the Bill, which had been confirmed by the Select Committee, was that it empowered the Company to raise the weight for parcels in certain classes of goods from 5001bs., at present the limit in nearly every Act, to two tons in certain cases, and four tons in others. The opponents believed that this decision was without precedent upon an opposed Bill, and it was tantamount to a general increase of maximum rates, pressing with great severity upon small farmers and traders. The Railway Company alleged that the Bill was required because they wanted money for the passenger service; and, forsooth, for that purpose they asked Parliament to impose an additional tax upon the farmer. The opponents submitted that, in the present condition of agriculture, it was very undesirable that the additional taxation proposed by the Bill should be imposed upon the shoulders of the tenant farmers. That the present rates were ample and sufficient for their purposes, and were remunerative, would appear from the simple fact that the net return of the Great North of Scotland Railway, on all the traffic of the line, was higher than that of the other Scotch railways. The following extract from a statement prepared in June, 1880, by the late manager of the railway, Mr. Milne, who held that office for 30 years from the beginning of the railway, was conclusive upon the point. Mr. Milne reports that—

"The net revenues amount to £29,000,000 for all the railways, and to £161,000 upon the Great North of Scotland alone, the latter being equal to an average return of upwards of 5 per cent on the Company's net expenditure of £3,000,000 (about £10,000 per open mile), as compared with only 4¼ per cent per annum on an average of all the Companies in the Kingdom—a striking result, to be explained mainly by the economy exercised both in capital expenditure and daily working. That the dividend on the ordinary Stock is no more than at present is accounted for, as formerly explained, by the duplication of that Stock under the Amalgamation Act of 1866, which converted or duplicated each £100 of the original Stock into £240, so that a dividend of only 1½ per cent on the ordinary Stock, as at present constituted, is equal really to a dividend of nearly 4 per cent on each £100 of the original ordinary Stock, and so on in proportion; and the high rate of preferential dividend, ranging from 5 to 10 per cent on some of the Guaranteed Stocks, also contributes to keep down the present state of dividends on the ordinary Stock."

The average net return of Scotch railways, abstracted from the published accounts, showed that the dividend paid by this railway was greater than that paid by any other railway in Scotland. The Glasgow and South Western Railway paid 5 per cent; the North British 4 per cent; the Caledonian 3½ per cent. The average of the three leading Scotch lines was 4 per cent, while the Great North of Scotland and branches, including Strathspey and. Deeside, paid 5 per cent, and the average of the Highland and Skye and Sutherland lines was 4¼ per cent. It was not his desire, nor would it be necessary, to trouble the House with a large number of details. He would only point out that the real Object of the Bill was to defeat and reverse a decision or judgment pronounced by the Railway Commissioners, and confirmed by the Court of Session in Scotland, by which the Great North of Scotland Railway Company were required to convey all kinds of manures in the lowest class. The fact was, that for a good many years the traders and farmers of the district through which this railway runs had, in their innocence, believed that no Railway Company could be so dishonest as to impose charges beyond those to which they were legally entitled by their Act of Parliament. However, the farmers and traders at length had their attention called to the subject, and having been led to examine the Acts of the Company, they discovered the in- justice to which they had been subjected. At great expense they obtained a judgment to compel the Company to observe the law. For many years the Great North of Scotland Railway had greatly overcharged for coal, lime, and grain, as well as guano and artificial manures. The Company did not come to Parliament for power to enable them to refund the money they had unjustly abstracted from the pockets of their customers; but they came to the House of Commons new to legalize a system which was begun in injustice and dishonesty. He believed that these increased powers were, in reality, not put forward simply on behalf of the Great North of Scotland Railway alone, but in the interests of all the great railways in the Kingdom. As the opponents of the Bill very justly observed, in a Circular they had issued—

"It was difficult to see on what ground it would be possible to resist the claims of other Railway Companies to similar concessions."

He submitted that the decision of such a question, fraught with important consequences to the small traders and farmers throughout the country, should not be given until the Select Committee on Railway Rates, which was at present receiving evidence upon this and other questions affecting charges by railways, should have made their Report to the House. Upon these, as well as upon other grounds, he begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name.

remarked, that, as he had had the honour of presiding as Chairman of the Committee to whom the Great North of Scotland Railway Bill was referred, perhaps the House would allow him to say a few words in answer to the remarks of the hon. Member for the County of Bedford (Mr. J. Howard). The Committee very carefully considered the question of the reclassification of artificial manures, and they were of opinion that the demand of the Railway Company for a re-classification was one that ought to be granted by Parliament. Ho would point out to the House that under their former classification they were carrying valuable artificial manures at the same rate as ordinary stable manures, worth, perhaps, 7s. 6d. per ton, whereas the artificial manures were worth from £2 up to £15 a-ton. He might remind the House that in the Clearing House Classification of 1852 guano was classed with grain, which was one class higher than the Bill of the Great North of Scotland Company proposed to fix. He would also remind them that the Royal Commission which sat in 1867 recommended the classification he had referred to as the basis to be adopted in Railway Acts of Parliament for the future. There were also several other cases in which Railway Companies had sought powers from Parliament for a re-classification of artificial manures, which powers had been granted to them. He might mention one case in particular which occurred as long ago as 1867—namely, that of the North Eastern Railway Company of England, which applied for power, and obtained it from Parliament, to put valuable artificial manures in a higher class than the ordinary scale of rates imposed for farmyard manures. He might add that the Clearing House Classification of 1852, to which he had already referred, placed guano in a higher class than the Great North of Scotland Bill proposed to place it in. Touching the question of differential rates, it was proved to the satisfaction of the Committee that this Railway Company were working their small parcel traffic at a dead loss to themselves, and the Committee accordingly gave them power to alter their differential rates, because, in the opinion of the Committee, there was no question that they ought to be allowed to have such a power. With regard to terminal charges, hon. Members would be well aware that terminal charges were sanctioned by every Railway Act in this country. He believed that an attempt was made some years ago by a Committee composed of Members of both Houses of Parliament to fix maximum terminal charges. That Committee—a very able Committee too—decided that it was not necessary, but most undesirable, to fix a maximum; but that the word "reasonable" in con- nection with terminal charges was a matter to be determined between the Railway Companies and their customers. If the House agreed to the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, they would, in all probability, postpone the matter indefinitely. They all knew the result of putting off a decision until a Select Committee of the House had time to present a Report. The Select Committee might report this year, or it might not. At all events, it was highly probable that some years would elapse before Parliament could act upon their Report; and he would, therefore, ask the House not to be led away by the reason assigned by his hon. Friend for his wish to put off the consideration of the Bill. He did nut think it would be fair towards the Great North of Scotland Railway to postpone the Bill, and he earnestly hoped the House would be induced to support the recommendations of the Select Committee, who had been appointed by the House to inquire into the merits of the Bill, and to reject the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire. One word more before he sat down. He wished to remind the House that if they sanctioned the Bill as it stood they would not be fixing a minimum, but a maximum rate. That maximum rate was one which it would be in the power of the Railway Company at any time, if they found their business falling off, to reduce without having to apply to Parliament for its sanction. They would have full power to reduce the rate of their own accord, and he believed they would be sharp enough to see whether a reduction was required in view of their own pecuniary interests. In regard to future legislation upon railways, he wished to remind the House that in the Bill they were now discussing there was a clause which provided that nothing in the Act should exempt the Company or the railways from the provisions of any general Act relating to railways, or from any future revision ea, alteration, under the authority of parliament, of the maximum rates of fares and charges, or of the rates for snail parcels. He hoped the House would be of opinion that the Select Committee had exercised a wise discretion in the matter. He really believed that the Committee had only done what was fair in the matter towards the Great North of Scotland Railway Company, and he believed the public would have great advantage in a better service of trains. For these reasons he trusted that the House would be disposed to reject the Amendment of his hon. Friend.

thought the opponents of the Bill were placed in a somewhat awkward position in the matter. Indeed, those who opposed a Private Bill always found themselves in an awkward position. If they objected to a Bill on the second reading they were told—" Oh, that is most unusual. For heaven's sake let it go upstairs, where it will receive every consideration." That argument was generally sufficient to defeat the opposition to the second reading of a Bill in a most effectual manner. Then, when it came down from the Select Committee, if any hon. Member presumed to oppose it he was at once told—" How can you ask the House to throw out a Bill which has already been carefully considered by a Committee?" Somehow or other these two arguments generally exercised a strong influence on the House. He had not a word to say against the Committee which had sat upon the present Bill. He was sure they had taken every possible trouble and care to arrive at a proper conclusion upon it; but he thought they had not had their eyes open—as had too often been the fate of hon. Members of that House—to the peculiar artifices of the Railway Companies and their general mode of dealing with Parliament. Now, what was the origin of this Bill? The Company first of all pretended to come to Parliament to make a new line, and upon that line they asked to be allowed to impose terminal charges. In their Bill the Company inserted what were called the Staffordshire Clauses, and they asked for powers to raise their rates along the whole of their line. The primâ facie ground for coming to Parliament was that they might have authority to make a new line. The Select Committee declined to allow them to make a new line, so that the prim facie ground of the Bill was destroyed altogether. The next ground, which was the real ground for coming to Parliament, was to raise the rates to the farmers of Banffshire and that neighbourhood, and they attempted to get from the House of Commons permission to do that which they had really been doing for a great many years illegally, and what they would still have been doing if the Railway Commissioners had not stopped them. The decision of the Railway Commissioners was afterwards confirmed by the Court of Session in Scotland; and thus, two judgments being against them, the Company, with unparalleled audacity, came to that House to ask the House to do what the Railway Commissioners and the Court of Session had pronounced to be altogether unjust. He would ask the House to consider what had been going on in a very large and influential Committee of that House. If any hon. Member had had the opportunity of reading, and had taken the trouble to consider, the evidence which had already been presented to that Committee, he would find that the Railway Companies were accused generally of making unfair charges, unequal charges, and unreasonable terminal charges. There had been mountains of evidence presented to the Committee already to this effect. He might be told that the case of the Railway Companies had not yet been submitted to the Committee.

rose to Order. He wished to know if it was in Order for the noble Lord to allude to what was going on in a Committee upstairs?

ruled that the noble Lord was in Order.

thought the hon. Member who interrupted him must have omitted to notice that the Amendment submitted by the hon. Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. J. Howard) asked the House not to deal with the Bill at present, because a Committee was sitting at this moment upstairs on a question of Railway Rates. It was, therefore, a fair argument to refer to the nature of the evidence already given before that Committee; and he thought the general result of what was taking place upstairs was that they should be very careful how they proceeded in these matters, and how they consented to place unbounded confidence in the views of a small Committee of three or four Gentlemen, with, perhaps, only one really active man upon it in regard to railway legislation. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Portman), who was Chairman of the Select Committee, said that the value of arti- ficial manures was greater than the value of stable manure. But that had never been admitted to be a proper basis of railway charge. It had never been admitted that the value of any article should determine the price to be paid for the carriage of it. The hon. Member had alluded to the recommendations of the Royal Commission of 1857, and said that they were in favour of a different classification; but at that time there had not been the serious agricultural distress which had prevailed since, which rendered it almost a matter of life and death to the agricultural in-rest that the railway rates should not be raised. Then the hon. Member talked, also, of terminal charges. On all these points it was very unfortunate that they could not allude to the evidence before the Railway Committee, because he believed it would supply a large amount of valuable information which might determine the House in accepting or rejecting the present Bill. The hon. Member said that if the House consented to put off the Bill now they would put it off indefinitely. As a matter of fact, the proposal of the hon. Member for Bedfordshire would do no such thing. It would only put it off for one Session. There must be legislation next year, in order to renew the powers of the Railway Commission, or else the Commission would expire; and he did not suppose that the House of Commons would lightly consent to allow it to expire. And, therefore, after the Committee on Railway Rates should have reported, and the powers of the Railway Commissioners should have been renewed, it would be quite time enough for this Railway Company to come to Parliament for a revision of the rates they were now entitled to charge. But at this moment it would be imprudent and unjust to allow any Railway Company, in the absence of the information which was about to be placed before Parliament, to increase their rates, and to do what two legal tribunals had already decided they had not the power to do.

said, the proceedings of the Select Committee on Railway Rates had nothing whatever to do with the question before the House; but he wished to say a few words as to the view of the Board of Trade on the present Bill. The question which arose was simply this—the Committee on the Bill upstairs had exercised its discretion, and, after a careful examination of the evidence and of the facts of the case, had given to this Railway Company powers which were by no means unusual, and were only the same as almost every important railway in the Kingdom had got. If hon. Members would look to the position taken by the Committee, they would find that the terminal clause in the new classification of artificial manures, and other provisions contained in this Bill, were provisions which had been inserted in almost all the Bills of the great Railway Companies for the last 10 or 15 years. At the end of the Bill the promoters inserted a clause to provide that any change of legislation which might modify the charges of Railway Companies should apply also to the Great North of Scotland Railway Company. Therefore, the question the House had to consider was this—was it going, because it happened that a Committee was sitting to inquire into a general question of railway rates—was it going to refuse the Great North of Scotland Railway Company, with the uncertainty of what the decision of the Committee would be, the privileges and powers which had already been granted to other Railway Companies, owing to the accident that the North of Scotland Company came to Parliament at the time the Committee on Railway Rates happened to be sitting. He humbly submitted that if they listened to what the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) said, and adopted the conclusion at which the noble Lord had come, and on that ground refuse to sanction the decision of the Committee upstairs, they would be actually prejudging the questions submitted to the Select Committee on Railway Rates before hearing the other side of the story. If the Report of the Committee on Railway Rates, when it was presented, should be found to invalidate what was done by the present Bill, future legislation would set the matter right.

declined to enter into the subject of the inquiry that was going on upstairs, although he was a Member of that Committee, nor would he pretend to form a definite opinion upon the questions which had been placed before that Committee; but he would submit that there was this salient fact—that very grave charges had been made against the Railway Companies for charging rates in excess of the maximum rates laid down in their Acts of Parliament. It had also been stated practically before the Committee that Parliament, behind the back of the public as it were, had from time to time raised the maximum rates, and that although the Board of Trade was primâ facie bound to report in all such matters to Parliament, yet that hitherto Parliament had had no opportunity of saying whether such, charges should be made or not. Parliament had, however, an opportunity of saying, in regard to the present measure, whether, under existing circumstances and considering the grave charges which had been made, it would allow, in this particular instance, at this particular moment, a serious increase of rates to be made. He must say, without for one moment wishing to dispute the propriety of the view formed by the Committee on the evidence before them, but seeing that the Committee had not had before them the charges made against the Railway Companies generally in the Select Committee on Railway Rates, which would at some subsequent period be the subject of a Report to the House, he must say that it did seem only reasonable that further procedure in regard to the present Bill should stand over until the Report of the General Committee had been presented.

said, he should have been quite content to leave to the statements which had been made by the Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Evelyn Ashley), and by the hon. Member who presided over the Select Committee upstairs to which the Bill was referred (Mr. Portman), any defence of the Great North of Scotland Railway Company, who were promoting the Bill, if it had not been for the fact that certain charges had been made against the Railway Company by the hon. Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. J. Howard) and the noble Lord opposite (Lord Randolph Churchill), which he thought it necessary, in the interests of the railway, to deny. It had been said by the hon. Member for Bedfordshire that this Company had been acting in defiance of its own Acts of Parliament for a considerable number of years until they were brought to book by the Railway Commission. He hoped the House would allow him to explain how the matter was, and what the position of the Railway Company was. Owing to a misunderstanding between the Railway Company and the traders as to the construction of one of the provisions of its Acts of Parliament, a case was brought before the Railway Commissioners as to its meaning. Certain traders put one construction upon the clause, and the Railway Company put another. The Railway Commissioners decided that the Company were wrong; and, upon an appeal to the Court of Session in Scotland, the decision of the Railway Commissioners was confirmed. It was a purely a question of law, and the decision of the Court of Session and of the Railway Commissioners had nothing whatever to do with the matter now before the House. The hon. Member for Bedfordshire had also said that the Great North of Scotland Company were paying a higher dividend than any other Railway Company in Scotland. The hon. Member must have been greatly misinformed. This unfortunate Company was paying nothing upon its ordinary shares, and for the last half year there was a deficiency upon its preference shares.

as a Member of the Committee who had sat upon the Bill, hoped the House would allow him to say a few words. He was bound to confess that, as the Representative of an agricultural constituency, when the Bill first came before the Committee he had almost made up his mind to prejudge the question, and to oppose any attempt on the part of the Great North of Scotland Railway Company to raise their rates; but when he came to hear all the evidence and everything that was to be said, both in favour of the Railway company and against it, he entirely turned round, and came to the conclusion that it was only fair the Railway Company should be permitted by Parliament to raise their rates to a certain extent as proposed by the Bill. He felt that although he represented an agricultural constituency, yet, at the same time, no agriculturist would wish to be benefited by what was manifestly unfair towards any other class. The Committee had evidence before them that the rates the Great North of Scotland Railway Company were permitted to charge had been settled as long ago as 1859, when guano and other artificial manures where almost, if not entirely, unknown. They had also evidence to inform them that dung and stable manures were allowed to be charged at the same rate as artificial manures, although the price of the latter was as high as from £12 to £15 a-ton, and there were none of a less value than £10 a-ton. They further found, from the evidence laid before them, that almost every other Railway Company in England, Scotland, and Ireland were permitted to charge differential rates for artificial manures, and they thought it only fair and right to permit this Railway Company to do the same. It appeared that the rates the Great North of Scotland Railway were permitted to charge were lower than those charged by any other railway in the United Kingdom; and, therefore, after very careful consideration, the Committee unanimously came to the decision that it was only right to permit the Company to have the provisions asked for in the Bill, so that they might be able to increase their rates, and not be compelled to charge lower rates than any other Railway Company. It had been said by the opponents of the Bill that the Railway Company were charging illegally increased rates some time ago, and that it was so decided when a case was brought before the Railway Commissioners. But the Railway Commissioners said the case was a very hard one indeed; and they added—

"Although we will not permit you to raise the rates, still we would recommend the Great North of Scotland Company to apply for a Bill to enable them to do so."

He trusted that the House would not defeat this measure upon the consideration of the Report of the Committee, because he was quite sure that it was only fair towards the Company that they should have the power of increasing their rates. They were told by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) that it was a matter of life and death to the agricultural interest in that part of Scotland that the rates should not be increased. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: No, no!] Now, these artificial manures were worth from £10 to and £15 a-ton, and the Committee allowed the Company to increase the rates by a very small percentage. Yet they were told that the result of such an increase would be to increase the price of artificial manures to the farmers to a very great extent. The hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) was a farmer on some part of this line, and the hon. Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. J. Howard) had been put up by the hon. Member for Forfarshire to oppose the because the rates charged to the hon. Member were likely to be increased. The Committee had evidence before them as to the amount to which the rates paid by the hon. Member for Forfarshire and other farmers in that part of the world, Who farmed a similar quantity of land, would be increased, and it was shown that the additional charge would come to the alarming sum of 10s. 6d. in the course of the year.

said, the claim had been put upon the ground that similar charges had been put into Railway Bills during the last 15 years; but he would remind the House that every Company came and increased the rates to the extent of 15 per cent in 1859. At that time they must have been perfectly well acquaint with the fact that guano and artificial manures were not classified with coal or grain, but with ordinary stable manures. They said nothing about terminals in 1859, although they must have been perfectly aware of how much would be required for terminals when they obtained a general rise of rates. He would not have taken part in that debate had he not observed that a desire to raise railway rates was an epidemic which was spreading far and wide. It began in North Staffordshire in 1880, and now they had this application on behalf of the Great North of Scotland. The rates in North Staffordshire had been very similar to this. The North Staffordshire Railway, for many years, charged above their maximum rates, and it went on with the consent of the traders, who were aware that they also charged below their maximum in many cases, and were, using that railway conscientiously for the development of the resources of the district. But they were assailed by a trader in 1878, and judgment was obtained against them. They had come to Parliament in 1879, just as that Company had done, in order to rectify and make plain that error in their Act which had led to the over-charge, and to obtain an increase of rates. The traders opposed that, and while they opposed it the Company were unable to obtain the increase which they sought. They thereupon held public meetings in the district, and agreed with these traders upon terms, and came in 1880 with an unopposed Bill and got what they wished. That Company ought to be required to do the same thing. They had charged more than their maximum, though upon less justifiable grounds, because there was admittedly an error in the North Staffordshire Act; but in that case there was none. The phraseology was such as to lead to no such misunderstanding, because manures were all classed together. He quite admitted that it was right to come forward and ask Parliament to rectify any errors; but when they considered that that Company came to increase the rate to the extent of 25 per cent in 1859, he thought it was too much that they should come forward now and seek another increase to the extent of 50 and 100 per cent under the cover of re-classification of those manure rates. Then, when they came to consider that this very thing that they were now re-classifying—artificial manures—was exceptionally high, they ought to pause before giving them this power. He did not think that any railway in the Kingdom charged as high for the carriage of coal as that Company. He might, perhaps, be allowed to observe this. In Ireland there were lines of railway being complained of as charging excessively high rates for manures and coal, and agriculture and trade suffered by consequence. It was stated that they were 1½d. per ton per mile for coal and l¼d. for guano; and that was said to be destroying the vitality of the agricultural industry of Ireland, and preventing the carrying on of trade. The complainants were petitioning for a reduction of both the coal and artificial manure rates. But here was an application by ate promoters of this Bill for 2½d. per ton per mile for coal and manure; and if they were to grant this concession to this Company they might depend upon it that all the railways in the kingdom would come and ask for the same thing. If there was to be a reclassification, let the whole question be considered. The present opposers of the Bill did not object to an increase for artificial manures, provided that they reduced the rates upon coal. He asked—What right had this Company to obtain a re-classification of certain goods with- out the traders having a word to say; and, in fact, they ought not to be allowed to do so without going into the whole question of re-classification. The hon. Member who sat as Chairman on the Select Committee (Mr. Portman) had referred to the patience with which the Committee had gone into that question. He did not dispute that at all. But there was one statement made by the leading counsel for the promoters which he thought was quite sufficient to shake the confidence of hon. Members in the decision of the Select Committees appointed to consider questions of this nature. It was stated that the Brighton Railway Company came to oppose an opposition Bill, and offered inducements for the rejection of the Bill by proposing to bring in a Bill to reduce their rates if the Committee would throw out that Bill. They did so upon this undertaking, and the rates were accordingly reduced; but three years afterwards they came and got the rise again. If there had been sound judgment on the part of the Committee they would not have necessitated this three years' disturbance of the tariff; but the fact was the decisions of Select Committees were notoriously uncertain and unreliable from well-known defects of such a course so hastily extemporized. He submitted that the Bill should go back, and that this Company should be required to allow the traders to come forward and state their case and agree with them upon terms, as was done by the North Staffordshire Railway Company, which was their only precedent.

said, he found from a Circular issued that morning to hon. Members of the House that his name had been attached to a statement issued on behalf of the promoters of the Bill without his knowledge and contrary to his intention. He was anxious to show how the mistake occurred. The day after the Committee upstairs reported upon the Bill a meeting of persons interested in the questions contained in the Bill was held; and, being a Representative of the part of the country affected by the measure, he was asked to attend the meeting, and the Minutes of that meeting were drawn up. Some days after a printed paper was brought to him in the Lobby, which he imagined to be a printed copy of the Minutes of the meeting, and he signed the document under that impression. He afterwards found that it was not a copy of the Minutes of the meeting, but a printed copy of the Circular which had been distributed to hon. Members. He wished to add that he did not for a moment suggest that there had been any breach of good faith on the part of the Gentleman who brought the document to him to sign; but it was one of those unfortunate misapprehensions which occasionally did occur.

remarked, that it was extremely unusual, as the House well knew, to oppose a Private Bill on the consideration of the Report, after the whole of the circumstances connected with it had been inquired into by a Committee upstairs. In regard to the present Bill, since it was discussed upon the second reading, it had undergone considerable modification in order to meet the objections of some of those who were opposed to it. It then went before the Select Committee, and that Select Committee had unanimously reported in favour of it. He did not think—unless it should be shown that some very special circumstances existed in this particular case which vitally affected the Bill—that the House, after what had fallen from his noble Friend behind him, the Member for North Wilts (Viscount Folkestone), ought to reject the measure. The only exceptional circumstance pointed out by the opponents of the Bill was that there was a Committee sitting upstairs which was engaged in inquiring into the whole question of railway rates and charges. It was impossible now to go, in any detail, into the merits of the Bill, and it was only on general principles that the House could be asked to depart from its usual practice. In this case, the general objection assigned was that the Committee on Railway Rates might, some day or other, report in a way that would be unfavourable to some of the provisions of the Bill. If the Committee did so report, nothing would be easier than to alter the powers of this Railway Company in conformity with such a Report of the Committee; and he found that for that very purpose a clause had been inserted in the Bill—Clause 21—which ran as follows:—

"Nothing in this Act contained shall exempt the Company or the Railway from the provisions of any general Act relating to Railways or the better and more impartial audit of the accounts of Railway Companies now in force, or which may hereafter pass during this or any future Session of Parliament or from any future revision or alteration under the authority of Parliament of the maximum rates of fares and charges or of the rates for small parcels."

As this clause met the only legitimate objection that could be raised, he thought it would not be wise to depart from the ordinary practice of the House.

said, the railway interest had been so ably represented by the right hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down, the Representative of the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket), and by others in the course of the present debate, that he hoped he might be permitted to say a word on the part of the agricultural interest. He certainly was not able to say that the hon. Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. J. Howard) had been put up to make this Motion by the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay), as his noble Friend (Viscount Folkestone) had said; but he was delighted to think that at last, upon an agricultural question, he was able to find himself in the same Lobby as the hon. Member for Bedfordshire. He tendered his thanks to the hon. Member for the course he had taken. He thought the hon. Member had done the agricultural interest good service upon this question; and after having heard all that had been said, and without wishing to prejudge the question, he did not think he should greatly err if he gave his vote in support of the Amendment. The ground on which he objected to the Bill was of the broadest and simplest character. He had received that morning a Paper purporting to be a statement in behalf of the consideration of the Bill. In that Paper he found the objects of the Bill enumerated, and the first was to raise the charges upon artificial manure to a higher rate than those charged upon farmyard manure. He thought that any Bill which proposed to increase the charges upon the farmers was quite sufficient to insure its own condemnation. It was the very thing which those connected with the agricultural interest did not want. They objected altogether to higher charges being placed upon agricultural produce, and on this ground alone he should go into the Lobby against the Bill.

thought the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) had not put the matter upon a proper ground when he said that it involved a contest between the railway interest and the agricultural interest. There was a question which concerned that House a great deal more, and that was the power of getting through the Business of the country if, by rejecting the unanimous decision of a Select Committee upon a Private Bill, the House, gave encouragement to the fighting out of these questions at half-past 4 o'clock in the afternoon. He entered a protest against the course now taken; the Committee upstairs had carefully gone through the whole of the evidence, and had now presented their Report; and if every interest which considered itself aggrieved by the decision of the Committee was to be encouraged to fight out the battle again on the floor of the House, there would be no end of such contests in future, involving a very great waste of time. Therefore, in the interests of the Public Business, he entreated the House to consider what would be the result of adopting the Motion of the hon. Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. J. Howard) and rejecting the Bill. Personally, he was quite satisfied with the statements which had been made by his hon. Friend behind (Mr. Portman) and by the noble Lord opposite (Viscount Folkestone). He did not believe that the increased charges which the Bill authorized the Great North of Scotland Railway to make would be detrimental to the agricultural interest; and he, for one, would vote, as he always intended to do—unless there were much stronger grounds than had been shown in this case—in support of the unanimous decision of the Select Committee upstairs.

thought he was entitled to make a remark, inasmuch as he was the first Member of the House to object to the provisions of the Bill on the second reading. The reason why he did not on that occasion press his objection, and go into the Lobby against the Bill, was that the measure at that time contained provisions for the construction of a new line, which, he thought, ought not to be jeopardized by an opposition to other provisions of the Bill. Since that time, the Bill had been before a Select Committee, and the provisions relating to the making of a new line had been struck out, so that the question the House had to deal with now was simply that which related to the increase of rates. He quite agreed with the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary that the House ought to respect the decision of a Select Committee on a Private Bill. He respected, he hoped, as much as the right hon. Gentleman did the decision of a Select Committee, and especially that of a Committee which had so carefully considered the details of a Private Bill as this Committee had done. But, at the same time, he thought the House ought to reserve to itself the power of Considering and reviewing any proposal which affected the general principles upon which Private Bill legislation was to be conducted; and in this case there was an attempt to raise the railway rates and charges against the agricultural interest. He strongly objected to any such increase at a period of agricultural depression; and he would venture to urge another ground—namely, that in making provision for an increase of rates in the manner proposed in the Bill they were establishing a very inconvenient precedent. Upon these grounds, he was prepared to support the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. J. Howard); and even if the general question were not at the present moment undergoing consideration by another Committee upstairs, he should be prepared to protest and vote against the provisions which had been included in the present Bill.

could not understand the support which the Secretary to the Board of Trade was giving to the Toll Clause of this Bill as being a usual one. For his own part, he might say that he had never before seen a Bill which sanctioned a charge of 3d. a-ton for coals and 2½d. for manures; and, on behalf of the Mining Association of Great Britain—the Coalowners'—of which he was President, he objected to the sanction of the House being given to such charges. It was important to bear in mind that the Bill not only affected manures, but that it affected coals also; and, on these grounds, he should support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. J. Howard).

regretted very much that he could not agree with the remarks which had been made by his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. It was quite impossible that hon. Members could sit there silently and see important precedents established, as they were established by this Bill, without raising their voices and exercising their power of voting against them. The statements made by his right hon. Friend, and by his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Board of Trade, were scarcely capable of being supported by the facts of the case. The Secretary to the Board of Trade told the House that the rates authorized to be charged by the Bill were the usual rates enjoyed by every other Railway Company in the United Kingdom. If that were so, for what purpose did the Great North of Scotland Company apply to Parliament at all? If they were entitled to make these charges already, there was no reason why they should come to Parliament at all. It was quite evident that the Railway Company had not got the power, and that hitherto Parliament had not given them the privileges they were asking for. His ground, therefore, for opposing the Bill was a very simple one. If the House passed the Bill, the precedent established by the Select Committee upstairs would be accepted; and he strongly protested against any fresh precedent being made, especially while there was a Committee upstairs engaged in considering the whole question.

did not wish to give a silent vote upon the question. He could assure the hon. Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. J. Howard) that the views he had enunciated were fully discussed and weighed when the Bill was under consideration by the Committee upstairs. At the very commencement of the Sittings of the Committee, the question was raised whether it was competent or desirable for the Committee to go into the question of rates at all, as the whole subject of Railway Rates had already been referred to another Committee which happened to be sitting at the same moment. But it was pointed out to the Committee that they were bound to go into all the questions that were raised by the Bill before them, and that they were bound to decide, upon the evidence submitted to them, what the course of legislation ought to be in regard to this particular Bill. The noble Lord (Viscount Folke- stone) said that the Committee were unanimous. Now, he (Mr. Carpenter-Gamier) confessed that he had entertained considerable doubts upon the question of the classification of guano and artificial manures; and if anyone had moved to leave out the clause dealing with that question, he should certainly have had great pleasure in voting for such a proposition. There were several other important questions raised—such as terminal charges, the rates for small parcels, and other matters contained in the Bill, which had not been alluded to at any length in the present discussion. There was also another, and a wholly different, subject dealt with—namely, the propriety of sanctioning an amalgamation with another railway. His own opinion was that the raising of the rates on artificial manures was a very strong measure, and that it was scarcely warranted by the circumstances of the case. With regard to the question of precedent, it was said by an hon. Member opposite that the Committee were creating an inconvenient precedent. That was hardly the case, seeing that the precedent of the North Staffordshire Railway was allowed to be on all-fours with the present case. It was, however, impossible, in a short discussion like this, to go into all the complicated and difficult questions which were raised before the Committee; and he hoped the House would have confidence in the decision of the Committee, who had sat for many day hearing evidence, and who gave the whole matter the fullest and meat careful consideration.

moved, after Clause 12, to insert the following new Clause:— (Terminal Station.)

"No station shall be considered a terminal station in regard to any goods conveyed on tie Railway of the Company, unless such goods have been received thereat from the consignor, or are directed to be delivered thereat to tie consignee."

The clause was proposed by the promoters of the Company, but in the in- terests of the traders; and he believed there would be no objection to it.

Is it a new clause?

Yes.

said, he had further to propose, in Clause 12, page 8, to leave out the word "covering." This was also an alteration in favour of the farmers, traders, and others, using the railway, and not in the interest of the promoters. He proposed it, however, with their consent.

asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to a report in the "Irish Times" of the 26th April 1881, of a motion, in three actions brought against Major Fraill, a resident magistrate, for having illegally sentenced three men to imprisonment and hard labour; whether, in the said report, it does not appear that Major Fraill had been a Major in the Army before receiving his appointment as a resident magistrate, and that Mr. Baron Dowse stated he had been once told by a stipendiary magistrate that, as he was not a lawyer he did not know the Law, and did not pretend to know it; whether, in the case of stipendiary magistrates whose duties are to guide and advise the other magistrates, it would not be desirable that members of the legal profession should be appointed stipendiary magistrates, rather than military men or private gentlemen without legal knowledge or training; and, whether all or any of the stipendiary magistrates who have been appointed in Ireland since the present Government came to office are barristers, or have received legal training?

I have seen the report in the newspaper referred to by my hon. and learned Friend, and find it is as stated in his Question. It is the case that of the few resident magistrates appointed by the present Government since their accession to Office none are barristers; but I believe they had all sufficient legal knowledge and experience to qualify them for the office. I must decline to express any opinion on the abstract question as to the desirability of appointing members of the Legal Profession in preference to others.

asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether Mr. G. A. H. Moore, of Moore Hall, county Mayo, has, since the rejection by the House of Lords of the Compensation for Disturbance Bill, evicted a number of tenants, and, amongst them, one named Stephen Loftus, of Ashbrook, Strard, Ballyvoy, Mayo, whose family numbers eleven, and the rent of whose holding was £8 15s., while the Poor Law Valuation is only £4 7s. 6d.; whether the holding has been in Loftus's possession and that of his forefathers for one hundred and ten years; whether he has been left by the eviction without any employment or means of living; and, whether he will consider the desirability of advising the insertion of such clauses in the Land Law (Ireland) Bill as will protect this class of tenants?

Stephen Loftus, the man referred to in this Question, was not originally recognized by Mr. Moore as a tenant. The farm was held by his brother, Thomas Loftus. It consisted of 38 acres; the annual rent was £28 2s. 6d.; tenement valuation, £17. Thomas Loftus sub-let a portion of the land to Stephen—about 12 acres, for which he received £8 15s. per annum; tenement valuation, £5 5s. I have received a letter from Mr. Moore's agent on the subject, which shows that Mr. Moore has acted with great considerateness and kindness to his tenants. The following is an extract from that letter:—

"Last November, instructed by Mr. Moore, I offered the Loftuses, if they paid one year's rent, £28 2s. 6d., that we would take it in full discharge of the £61 16s. 3d. due on the holding, and give them a clear rent receipt for same. This offer was refused, they holding out to get the land at the Government valuation; and in February last we consented to take a year's rent at the valuation. The tenants then turned round and asked us would we take half Griffith's valuation, and if we did not that they would pay nothing. This offer, I need not say, we declined; and Mr. Moore then sent them word that he had withdrawn his previous offer to them, and instructed me to take proceedings for the recovery of his rent. …. An ejectment decree had been obtained on the 14th April, 1880, and as same was running out of date on the 8th April last, I put the decree into force, but instantly reinstated them as caretakers pending a settlement, at the same time stating that if they paid £14 1s. 3d., a half-year's rent, out of the £75 17s. 6d., which they would owe on the 1st of May, I would take it and give them separate receipts for same, thereby creating a new tenancy. They paid this amount, and I even then remitted arrears to the amount of £19 12s. 6d. The holding had been a very long time in their possession, and I am sure Mr. Moore wished it to remain as long more should they continue to pay their rents."

Stephen Loftus was for four days a caretaker instead of a tenant on his holding, and now he is in undisturbed possession of his separate farm and recognized as a tenant. I must say I cannot see any hardship in this case.

asked the Secretary of State for War, If it is true that a force of about two hundred soldiers and as many police have been occupied for some days past in warlike operations around a ruin called "Quinlan's Castle," situate at New Pallas, in the county Limerick, in which some tenants threatened with eviction had taken refuge; if the forces, having first laid siege to the ruin, were, after a time, directed to retire, and did so, but if, subsequently, after a council had been held between the sheriff, the military officers, the stipendiary magistrate, and the officers of police, another advance was made, and the whole available force invested the ruin, with a view to reduce its occupants by starvation; if there is any later intelligence from the scene of these operations; and, if he will be able to lay before the House an estimate of their cost?

In reply to the hon. Member's Question, I have to inform the House that a detachment, consisting of about 200 men, accompanied the police and resident magistrate to a farmhouse, near Castletown, on the 21st instant, and returned to Limerick on the same day. I have no further informa- tion on the subject. The railway fares to and from Pallas Station were about £28.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is not the fact that in an estimate of current income and expenditure recently presented by the Chamberlain of London, there is shown a probable deficit in the accounts of the Corporation of the City of London of £38,500 on Dec. 31st, 1881; whether this deficit is not exclusive of extraordinary expenses for various purposes named in the Report; and, whether he is prepared to promote the wish of the people of London to have the accounts of the Corporation submitted to a skilled and independent audit?

I believe it is the fact that the Chamberlain's estimate for the current year shows a probable deficiency of £38,500. That estimate is so far exclusive of extraordinary expenses that it does not include certain works in abeyance, and it necessarily excludes extraordinary expenditure which may be authorized by the Corporation during the rest of the year; but it does include £41,500 expenditure upon the New City School buildings, against which hereafter will be set off the value of the present School site and buildings. The phrase "the people of London" appears to be ambiguous. As all the Common Councillors are elected annually on St. Thomas's Day, the people of the City could apparently insist upon a skilled and independent audit if they wished it. But the hon. Member probably denotes by the phrase the inhabitants of a much larger area, and he must invoke a stronger power than mine if he desires to promote their wishes.

asked the President of the Local Government Board. If it is intended to issue a preliminary Report of the Census, like that of June 20th 1871; and, if so, when such Report would be issued?

Yes; it is intended to issue such a Parliamentary Report. Pro- bably the population will be 3,000,000 more than it was in the year 1871. I have every reason to believe that the Parliamentary Report will be ready in the first week in July.

Is that increase an estimate or an ascertained fact?

I apprehend it is as yet only an estimate.

asked, whether the Report would show the increase of the population in Ireland?

I am not responsible for the Census of Ireland.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he is aware of the great decrease in the population of the parish of Stagsden, in Bedfordshire, as shown by the last Census; and, if so, whether he has any reason to believe that such decrease has been caused by any action of the Commissioners of Crown Lands, who hold a large estate in that parish?

In consequence of the Question of my hon. Friend I have made inquiries, and find that between the Censuses of 1871 and 1881 there has been a decrease of 132 in the population of Stagsden, which is at the rate of 19 per cent. I find also that five other parishes in the Bedford Union show decreases of from 18 to 24 per cent. It will thus be seen that Stagsden is not peculiar among its neighbours in showing a decrease, which has also, I fear, occurred in most of the agricultural districts of England. With regard to the action of the Crown. I find that at the time of the purchase by the Crown there were 103 cottages, of which 28 had to be pulled down as unfit for decent habitation. There are now 93 cottages, most of which are of a superior class both in size and arrangements. The Crown provides additional cottages for the farms when asked to do so by the tenants for the occupation of their labourers. I do not, therefore, think that the decrease in the population of Stagsden is to be attributed to the action of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests.

gave Notice that, on going into Committee of Supply, he would move that it was undesirable that the Commissioners of Crown Lands and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners respectively should make further purchases of real property so as to increase the extent of the land held by them in mortmain.

inquired, whether the 24 cottages which were pulled down at Stagsden had been reported upon by the rural sanitary authority?

said, he believed they were, and that notice was given that they ought to be pulled down.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether it is the fact that the matron and one or more nurses at the Hospital at Halifax have recently taken smallpox, a few days after re-vaccination; whether there is any reason to believe the vaccination was of variolous matter; and, whether it is the fact that there is in use in the country a large quantity of vaccine which is in fact variolous matter, or smallpox communicated from the human subject to cattle, and from them extracted and used in innoculation under the Vaccination Acts?

At the end of March last a small-pox patient was sent to the Halifax Fever Hospital, and thereupon the matron and staff were strongly urged to be vaccinated; but they all refused. Three weeks afterwards the matron showed symptoms of the disease, and on the day following four of the nurses were vaccinated. In one of them a slight attack of small-pox showed itself in two days, and in another a more severe attack in four days afterwards. It is evident, therefore, that they must have been under the influence of the disease when the vaccination took place, and at a stage when the latter could be of no avail. The other two nurses escaped altogether. There is no reason to believe that the vaccination was of variolous matter, and the medical man who vaccinated them distinctly states that it was good vaccine lymph. As to the last Question, if by variolous matter is intended the matter of small-pox, or matter capable of producing small-pox, there is no such matter used in vaccination under the Vaccination Acts; and, as a matter of fact, all attempts of late years to produce small-pox in cattle by innoculation with variolous matter would seem to have proved altogether abortive.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether his attention has been called to the fact that Railroad Companies are in the habit of making extra charges for the conveyance of passengers during Ascot, Goodwood, and Epsom Races; whether, in some cases, these charges do not exceed the maximum allowed by statute; and, whether they have any right to raise, on such occasions, their ordinary fares?

in reply, said, his attention had not been officially directed to the statements contained in the Question; but he had no reason to doubt their substantial accuracy. His hon. Friend asked him to give what would be a legal opinion on the subject. He was not qualified to offer such an opinion to the House. But according to some correspondence in The Times of July 8,1878, it appeared that a Mr. James Bussey commenced proceedings against one of the Railway Companies to try its right to make an extra charge during the Ascot week. The Company paid the sum claimed into Court, and so avoided a legal decision. He supposed the impression left on the mind of his hon. Friend would be that they had good reason to do so.

asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether Mr. Clifford Lloyd, R.M. did on Friday the 20th instant at the Kilfinane Sessions, in the county of Limerick, commit nine men (tradesmen and labourers) to the County Limerick Gaol (a distance of thirty miles) on remand until the next sessions without giving them the option of bail to appear at such sessions, and without specifying and calling any witnesses to prove the offence with which they were charged; and, whether the families of the men sent to prison are not left destitute in consequence?

Nine men (tradesmen or labourers) were committed to gaol on remand by Mr. Clifford Lloyd on a charge of riot, bail being refused. This was at Kilmallock Petty Sessions, not at Kilfinane. Witnesses were called and evidence of the commission of the offence taken in the presence of the accused. With the exception of two, the men are all single, and I am informed that the families of these two are not destitute.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether he has received Petitions from the Letter Carriers of the eight metropolitan districts, forwarded on the 26th of last month through the customary official channels, and concluding with the request that he would receive a deputation of the Petitioners' delegates, in the event of his requiring any further explanation on the subject of the said Petitions; and, if so, when the Petitioners may hope for an answer either to the prayer of their Petitions or to their application for an interview?

Before such Memorials as those referred to in the Question of the hon. Member are submitted. to me, it is considered expedient that they should be reported upon by the officials under whom the Memorialists immediately serve, and who are in a position to give valuable information on ninny of the points referred to. In consequence of the Memorials in question having thus to be examined, seven of them reached me as late as Saturday week, and one was received on Tuesday last. It is scarcely necessary for me to say that, in these circumstances, I am not now in a position to arrive at any decision on the subject.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether a British trading schooner with her colours flying was recently boarded from a French man-of-war in Tunisian waters, taken possession of, and overhauled, on the plea of searching for arms; whether arms formed any part of the cargo of the schooner; and, had such been the case, by what right the French authorities (their Government not being at war with the Government of Tunis or a bel- ligerent Power) impeded a British ship when pursuing her lawful commerce; and, whether, in consequence of this transaction, Her Majesty's Government contemplate taking any steps to secure for British seamen and their trade in Tunisian waters the protection to which they are entitled?

On the 23rd of May, Her Majesty's Agent at Tunis reported by telegram that the French ship of war Léopard had overhauled the British schooner Nova Stella, on the 19th instant, and, after searching her for gun powder, had escorted her to Sfax, to be more closely inspected by the local authorities in the presence of a dragoman of the British Consulate. Lord Lyons was instructed to inquire into the matter, and was informed by the French Minister for Foreign Affairs that it was in consequence of a regretable misunderstanding of his instructions that the Commander of the Léopard had visited one or two foreign vessels. He had been instructed to watch suspected vessels, and to support the Tunisian authorities in repressing smuggling; but he was by no means authorized to visit foreign vessels on the high seas, and fresh instructions had been sent to him to prevent any misunderstanding in future. Communications on the subject have taken place between Captain Tryon and the Commander of the Léopard. A Report of these has not yet been received from the former; but M. St. Hilaire informed Lord Lyons that the two officers had come to a perfect understanding as to their respective obligations. In view of the explanation given by the French Government of the affair, Her Majesty's Government do not, as at present informed, contemplate taking any further steps in the matter.

asked the Secretary of State for War, If arrangements have been made with the Indian Government for payment of the usual field officers' allowances to those captains who under the proposed Army Organisation Scheme will become majors when serving with their regiments in India; and, if he is prepared to make allowances to officers in other than Highland and Rifle regiments for changes in their uniform, necessitated by the intended re-arrangement of brigades?

In reply to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I have to state that about two mouths ago, we were in consultation with the India Office as to the scale of pay and allowances for the additional field officers proposed to be appointed as from the 1st of July. We have no official letter on the subject, but arrangements are being made. With respect to the second Question, I am not aware of any claim for such an allowance as the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggests which might not have been put forward by officers transferred from one to another linked regiment under the present organization, and I see, therefore, no reason to extend the rule.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would take into consideration the cases brought before him?

I am most anxious to do so.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the extra officers of Her Majesty's Customs are not deprived of their pay on Her Majesty's birthday and other public holidays, which is not the case with temporary employés in other branches of the Civil Service; and, whether, if this is the case, he will not reconsider this treatment of a poorly paid class of public servants?

I understand the hon. Member to allude to the class called extra men employed by the Board of Customs. These men are employed in such numbers and on such days as is found necessary. They are paid strictly by the day, and only for the day on which they are actually employed. I see no reason for altering this system in the manner suggested, the effect of which would be to give them pay for days on which they are not employed. There is no analogy between their position and that of other temporary employés of Government. I may say, however, that, as a matter of fact, a certain number of extra men are employed on all holidays, and are paid accordingly.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to a case tried before the Sheffield County Court on May 25th, and reported in the "Daily News" of May 26th, in the course of which it transpired that a man, whose name is not given in the report, sold his wife to a married man named Moore for the consideration of a quart of beer; and, whether, having regard to the fact that such sales are not uncommon in England, the Right honourable Gentleman will take such steps as may be in his power to remove the impression which appears to exist in some parts of England that the sale of wives is a legitimate transaction?

I do not know whether the hon. Member expects a serious answer to this Question. I find nothing in this affair, except the casual utterance of a drunken ruffian in search of an excuse for his own immorality. There was nothing like a sale that deserves the name at all; and I confess when I see such suggestions as are down in the latter part of this Question, I have only to say that to treat a brutal incident of this character as representing a practice not uncommon in England, and to say that an impression is prevailing that incidents of this kind are legitimate transactions is, in my opinion, at once a waste of time and an insult to the common sense of the House. Everyone knows that no such practice exists. ["Oh!"] Well, Sir, if hon. Gentlemen from Ireland know the case to be different with reference to that country, I have nothing to say; and, for my part, I entirely repudiate the slur that would be cast on the people of this country by seriously dwelling on the gross language of a degraded wretch as if it were representing a national practice and belief as to the law deserving the attention of Parliament.

asked, Whether, in making allusion to Ireland, the right hon. Gentleman meant anything serious?

Sir, I did not mean anything serious at all. I did not think it could be a serious subject. I make no more imputation upon Ireland than upon England and Scotland, I believe the practice to be equally unknown in every part of the United Kingdom.

asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, If the Colonel Hillier, who is the nominal author of the Circular recently issued to the Irish police, is the same Colonel Hillier who a few years ago was tried at Dublin before the late Chief Justice Whiteside for a gross assault on a Belfast solicitor, and was sentenced to pay a penalty of £100 for the offence; and, whether, if he be the same person, the Irish Executive consider it proper to retain that officer in command of the Irish constabulary at so critical a juncture in Irish affairs as the present?

before the right hon. and learned Gentleman answered this Question, wished to ask, Whether in the case referred to the conduct of Colonel Hillier had not been approved by the Government, and the fine paid by the Crown?

I presume the hon. Member alludes to the action brought by the late Mr. John Rea nearly 10 years ago against Colonel Hillier for illegal arrest. Mr. Rea was addressing a large and excited mob in inflammatory language, and, after being repeatedly cautioned by Colonel Hillier and requested to desist, continued his harangue, defying the officer to order his arrest. Colonel Hillier at last, fearing that a riot would be the result, thought it his duty to direct Mr. Rea's arrest, and for this the action was brought. I do not think the circumstances of that case afford any ground for supposing that Colonel Hillier—who is an excellent public officer—is in any way unfitted to continue Inspector-General of the Royal Irish Constabulary. Colonel Hillier's conduct was approved; and, I believe, his expenses were paid by the Government.

asked the Secretary of State for War, What has been the annual cost of the schools for the instruction of militiamen during preliminary drill and training; whether the instruction therein given has not proved of great advantage to men availing themselves of it; and, whether, if that is the case, he would reconsider the Clause in Army Circulars of February 1881, by which these schools have been abolished?

In reply to the hon. Baronet, I have to state that so far from schools for Militiamen during their training proving of great advantage, I am satisfied that they are entirely useless now that the Education Act is in fall operation. It is difficult to estimate exactly their expense, perhaps a few hundred pounds; but they were not discontinued for financial reasons.

asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, If it is true that the Governor of the County Limerick Prison refused to allow Mr. Hodnett (a prisoner confined therein) to see some friends on Thursday last; and if the said Governor refused to inform those friends of Mr. Hodnett why it was that he did not in this instance comply with the rules of the prison?

also asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether it is true that on Ascension Thursday (a Catholic holiday) Mr. Hodnett, a political prisoner in Limerick Gaol, was deprived of the privilege of associating with other prisoners as a punishment for hurrying from his cell into chapel, a distance of twenty yards?

I am informed by the General Prisons Board that Mr. Joyce, their district Inspector, has been directed to inquire into this matter, and the Prisons Board expect to have his Report on the entire case this morning. If the hon. Members will repeat their Questions in a day or two, I hope to be in a position to answer them.

asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the misapplication of the Census papers, reported in the "Freeman's Journal" of 26th May; whether the facts are as stated, viz. that on Wednesday a farmer named J. Moore was summoned at Termonfeckin for writing an alleged threatening letter; whether Constable Marmion stated on oath, that to procure evidence as to the handwriting of this letter, he examined 126 of the Census papers which he had collected in the townland; that, suspecting the handwriting of one of the forms to be the same as that of the alleged threatening letter, he went to J. Moore and said to him "You have not properly filled your Census paper," and, on Moore protesting that he had, used an artifice to induce him to fill up another; whether, on this second Census form being filled in the constable's presence, Moore was taken into custody; whether these forms are not regarded as secret documents to be applied to no use but that which Parliament has sanctioned; whether every Census paper does not contain the following pledge as to the confidential nature of its contents, &c.:—

"Strict care will be taken that the returns are not used for the gratification of curiosity or for any other object than that of rendering the Census as complete as possible;"

whether Constable Marmion admitted that it was against his positive instructions to put a Census form to an illegitimate use; whether, nevertheless, Moore was returned for trial on the single piece of evidence against him; whether the Government approve of the constable's ruse to obtain the filling up of the second Census paper; whether they approve of the breach of faith with Parliament and the public in its misapplication as criminal evidence; and, if not, whether they will at once give orders for Constable Marmion's dismissal and for the withdrawal of the charge against Moore?

asked, whether the constable referred to was not unpopular, and ought not for this conduct to be dismissed the force?

My attention has been called to the report of this case in The Freeman's Journal, and I believe the facts are substantially as stated. A serious mistake has, no doubt, been committed in making use of the Census paper; and I have therefore directed the withdrawal of the prosecution. The mistake, however is not one which, in my opinion, requires the dismissal of the constable. I have no information as to the man's unpopularity.

Although the prosecution is withdrawn, is the man safe from the Coercion Act?

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether he will lay upon the Table the Report of the Captain of H.M.S. "Emerald," relative to the operations which that officer lately undertook at the Solomon Islands in retaliation for the murder of Lieutenant Biron and other outrages; and, whether he will also publish any further Correspondence on the same subject which the Lords of the Admiralty may have received?

I shall be very glad to lay on the Table the Report of Captain Maxwell, as well as a Copy of the Instructions from Commodore Wilson under which he sailed. Those are the only Papers on the subject which would give any valuable information to the House of Commons.

asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, If it is the fact that two Annual. Licensing Sessions are held in each year for the county Antrim portion of the borough of Belfast—namely, the Recorder's Annual Licensing Sessions in September, and the County Court Judges' Annual Licensing Sessions in November; is he aware that such last-mentioned Sessions, at which county justices attend, is availed of by applicants who have been refused their certificates by the Recorder, very much as a court of appeal, although fresh notices are served, and that, in most cases, such second application is directed and encouraged by the said Recorder; is it desirable that the Recorder's adverse decisions should be reviewed and reversed by a bench of justices having almost no interest in the Borough; and, is it according to Law that there should be more than one Annual Licensing Sessions for a district in the year; or that the Board of Inland Revenue should accept certificates from two clerks of the peace for licences for the county Antrim portion of the borough of Belfast?

It is a fact, as stated, that two Licensing Sessions are held in the borough of Belfast—one being held by the Recorder as the sole Judge of the Borough Sessions, and the other by the County Justices in that portion of the county which lies within the borough of Belfast. I am not aware of any appeal; but it is no doubt the fact that persons refused licences by the Recorder have applied again to the County Justices sitting in the town of Belfast.

asked the Secretary of State for India, Whether any actuarial calculation was made of the value of the annuity of £1,000 given to Sir Donald Stewart at the same time as the calculation was made with respect to Sir Frederick Roberts; and, if not, why this formality was omitted; whether it is not the case that, if Sir Donald Stewart had been treated on the same footing as Sir Frederick Roberts, the sum granted for the surrender of his annuity would have been about £9,868, instead of £12,500, or that, if Sir Frederick Roberts had been treated on the same footing as Sir Donald Stewart, the sum granted to him would have been about £15,827, instead of £12,500; and, if he can state the reasons for which an advantage was given to Sir Donald Stewart over Sir Frederick Roberts in the sum granted to him, as in both cases the recipients had been equally adjudged, as a reward for their services, an annuity of £1,000 a-year for one life, a grant the value of which depends on the age of the annuitant? The actuarial calculation, he added, was based on 58 as the age of Sir Donald Stewart and 49 as the age of Sir Frederick Roberts.

The exact sum which Sir Donald Stewart would receive on his pension of £1,000 a-year, if commuted at the present time, would be £9,478 if calculated at 5 per cent, or £10,286 if calculated at 4 per cent. But, as I have already stated, the grants made by the Indian Council to Sir Donald Stewart and Sir Frederick Roberts were not precisely the actuarial value of the cumulation of the £1,000 a-year at the present time. When it was found that difficulties existed in the way of carrying out the original intention of the Indian Council of making a grant to each of these officers, it was considered desirable to substitute for that proposal a grant of a lump sum.

Has the noble Lord any objection to giving a Return of all special military grants made by the Indian Government to Indian officers for the last 40 years?

If the hon. Member will give Notice of that Question I shall answer it.

asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether, on Saturday 21st May, the sheriff of the county of Limerick took a force of two hundred soldiers and one hundred police to protect him in the execution of certain ejectments and legal decrees in the neighbourhood of New Pallas, county of Limerick; whether he neglected to provide a sufficient (or any) staff of civil assistants, and had, in consequence, to return without executing the ejectments; and, whether it is the duty of the sheriff to provide himself with such assistance; and, in the event of his neglecting to do so, whether he can be held liable for the cost incurred by the State in the collecting and sending out of so large a force, which failed in its object owing to such neglect of duty?

The facts appear to be correctly stated in the Question of the hon. Member. The attention of the Government has already been called to the matter; and on the 26th instant a communication was addressed to the sub-sheriff asking for an explanation; but as yet no answer has been received.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's, Government has any reason to suppose that the French Government has now retreated from its position in regard to the Enfida affair, viz.:—

"That it was impossible under the circumstances that the French Government could consent to leave the Enfida affair to the decision of the Tunisian local tribunals" [Tunis, No. 4, 1881, No. 40];

and, if not, whether Her Majesty's Government consider that they are fulfilling their duty to Mr. Levy in declining

"To interfere in the difference which has arisen between the contending purchasers of the Enfida estate;"

and, also how circumstances have thus altered to Mr. Levy's detriment since last February, when Her Majesty's Government checked the special action of the French Government in the Enfida affair by the movement of H.M.S. "Thunderer," which were admittedly made to depend upon those of a French ironclad sent to "weigh in favour of the French Company?"

As regards the first part of the Question, Her Majesty's Government are unable to say whether the French Government have retreated from the position referred to, since no reply has been returned to the communication addressed to them by Lord Lyons on the 4th instant, under instructions from the Foreign Office. As regards the second part of the Question, the Papers before the House show that while the Enfida Question was under discussion the French iron-clad Friedland was sent to Tunis, as Her Majesty's Government had reason to believe, in connection with this affair; whereupon they thought it desirable to despatch the Thunderer to the coast of Tunis. In the course of subsequent explanations between the two Governments, it was stated that the mission of the Friedland had no connection with the Enfida Question, and both vessels were withdrawn.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he will instruct Mr. Lascelles, Her Majesty's Representative in Bulgaria, to obtain from M. Zancoff and the friends of the late Bulgarian Constitution their case in regard to the arbitrary suppression of that Constitution by Prince Alexander, in order that this House may have the case of the Constitutionalists as well as that of the Potentate in regard to recent occurrences; and, whether Her Majesty's Government has any objection to express its sympathy with the Constitutionalists of Bulgaria, and its earnest hope that the country will not condone the violation of his Constitutional oath by the Prince?

Her Majesty's Government have received despatches from Mr. Lascelles containing the views expressed at Sofia with regard to the action recently taken by the Prince of Bulgaria; but they are unable to lay any of the Correspondence upon the Table without consultation with Mr. Lascelles. Her Majesty's Government are not prepared at present to express any opinion as to the course pursued by the Prince of Bulgaria.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the fixed period of five years allowed to lieutenant colonels will under the new rules refer to all lieutenant colonels from date of promotion to that rank; or, whether the five years' tenure of office will be counted only from date of attaining to command of a battalion?

The point raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman has been fully provided for, and the new Warrant will specify what term "in command of a battalion," and what term "in the two offices of lieutenant colonel commanding and lieutenant colonel second in command," will qualify.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, What steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to protect the native inhabitants of the Transvaal against wanton aggression on the part of the Boers during the sitting of the Commission?

asked the right hon. Gentleman, Whether his attention had been called to a telegram from Durban in The Standard of that day, stating that the entire Transvaal was to be given up to the Boers on their own terms; and, whether he could give any information on the subject?

I am afraid it I would be very far indeed from advantageous to the peace of the Transvaal if I were to state from day to day what the Royal Commission is doing, either in regard to the Native question or any other question. I had occasion the other day to show that the Commission heel dealt most promptly and successfully with the only Native question of any real difficulty that had arisen. I was further happy to be able to show that the Boer leaders had acted with great frankness and fairness in assisting our people in dealing with the question. I am sure that it will be the opinion of the House that the Commission may be safely left to deal with ordinary questions with regard to the Natives as they arise. Of course, if any question of real difficulty arises they will consult Her Majesty's Government. I should like to take this opportunity of giving answers to those Questions which were put to me on Friday by the right lion. Gentleman opposite (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach). We telegraphed as we promised, and we received replies. The first question was, whether British troops had started for the re-occupation of Potchefstroom, and we have received the following telegram from Sir Evelyn Wood:—

"May 28.—Escort and garrison for Potchefstroom leave here to-day. Cross border Monday. Buller accompanies. Will not leave Standert on until guns are received."

Our second question was—

"Is there any truth in report that Natives in Boer employment have been ordered by their Chiefs to return to their kraals, and that Natives in English employment have been warned to be ready to join tribes in case of war?"

To that we received the following reply from Sir Hercules Robinson:—

"Yours 27th.—Lieutenant Davidson, heliograph officer so reports from Heidelberg. Wood endeavouring to verify this and similar rumours before reporting to you."

In reply to the Question of the hon. Member for the City, all I can say is that the terms and conditions on which local freedom was to be granted to the Transvaal have already been made known in full to the House, and that negotiations are still proceeding within the limits and upon the alternatives then made known.

asked, if the English Commission in the Transvaal had power and authority delegated to them by Her Majesty's Government to take, if necessary, military measures for the protection of the Natives?

Most undoubtedly, Sir. The state of things in the Transvaal is this—that the garrisons of Her Majesty remain in the Transvaal, and that justice is administered in the name of Her Majesty precisely as it was before the outbreak.

asked what notice Her Majesty's Government had taken of Kronje having attacked a friendly Kaffir Chief and killed 70 of his men?

We know nothing whatever of 70 men of any Kaffirtribe having been killed; and if the hon. Member cares to have my opinion on the subject, it is that I do not believe a word of it.

The right hon. Gentleman says that justice will be administered as heretofore. When I asked him the other day a Question on the subject of the murderers of Captain Elliott, I understood that they were to be tried by a Court in the Transvaal, but not a Court according to the old-established rule. Now, I should be glad, indeed, to know what Court it is that these persons are to be tried before?

If I conveyed the impression which he has just stated to the mind of the noble Lord, I must have been, I fear, curiously infelicitous in my mode of expression. What I said was that the murderers of Captain Elliott would be tried by the existing High Court, according to the existing law, and I really do not know how to put what I have to say more clearly.

gave Notice that he would ask whether a letter had been received from Montsuni by Sir Evelyn Wood, stating that ho had been obliged to take up arms, owing to the Boers instigating his enemies to attack him because he was faithful to the English during the war, and what reply had been sent to it?

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he would consider the desirability of allowing the Irish farmers to grow tobacco on lands now uncultivated in Ireland, as an inducement to them to bring those lands into cultivation, and at the same time to supply themselves with an article which, in their climate and condition, is one of the necessaries of life; such tobacco to be retained for home use and not to be exported; it having been stated, on good authority, that the moisture of Ireland is peculiarly favourable to the growth of tobacco, and that it flourished formerly in that Country?

There has been no recent discussion on the subject of the growth of tobacco in Ireland, and if the question should be raised, it would undoubtedly have to be considered with reference to the Kingdom at large. The hon. Member is probably aware that for about 50 years the growth of tobacco has been permitted in Ireland, and that its growth was protected by high differential duties. We also know that the repeal of that permission was recommended by the Commission of 1830, inasmuch as the experiment was not successful. At the same time, I regret the prohibition of any agricultural product by law as very unsatisfactory. I am at all times open to the reception of any statement or suggestion tending to show that if that prohibition was removed we could satisfactorily levy the duty on the commodity if grown at home as we do when imported.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will take steps to inquire whether some of the Government officials of the Arsenal at Woolwich have been using their influence with the employés in the Arsenal to induce them to sign Petitions condemning the action of the House of Commons in regard to Mr. Bradlaugh, and urging his immediate admission to the House; and, whether such Petitions have been sent round for signature during working hours?

In reply to the hon. Member, I have to say that last week I ordered inquiries to be made into the subject of his Question, and I have learnt that it is the case that one of the Government officials in Woolwich Arsenal—a junior writer in the Carriage Department—did circulate a Petition in favour of the admission of Mr. Brad- laugh to this House. I am not aware what influence he brought to bear in order to obtain signatures, and ho states that the whole affair was a joke. I fail to see any humour in this joke; and I have directed the same censure to be conveyed to this gentleman as I did last week to the promoter of a Petition in the opposite sense.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether the inquiries which he promised to make relative to a letter in the "Pall Mall Gazette," signed "Charlotte G. O'Brien," respecting the state of things on board an emigrant ship, have proved the substance of that letter to be correct; and, if so, what steps he intends to take in the matter?

I stated to the House on a previous occasion that on seeing the letter from Miss O'Brien which appeared in The Pall Mall Gazette, I had direted Captain Wilson, one of the officers of the Board of Trade, to proceed to Queenstown to inquire into the facts of the case, and that Mr. Gray, the Assistant Secretary of the Marine Department, who was in Liverpool at the time, would also make an independent inquiry into the subject. I communicated at the same time with Miss O'Brien, and learnt from her that the vessel to which her description was intended to apply was the Germanic, of the British White Star Line. I have now received full Reports from Mr. Gray and Captain Wilson, and these show, first, that all the requirements of the law have been fulfilled, and even exceeded, by the owners of the White Star Line, in their provision for emigrants; secondly, that the general arrangements on this line are at least as good as those on any other of the 10 lines which take emigrants from Liverpool and Queenstown to America; and, thirdly, that these officers are totally unable to recognize the state of things described by Miss O'Brien in anything which has ever existed on board the Germanic. Captain Wilson was accompanied in his inquiries by Miss O'Brien herself, and visited with her 10 ships belonging to different lines. On the 20th of May Miss O'Brien and Captain Wilson visited the Germanic on her last outward voyage, and on the completion of their inspection Miss O'Brien wrote a letter to the Chief Secretary for Ireland, which she has desired me to read to the House. This letter is as follows:—

"My dear Mr. Forster,—I have just seen the Germanic with Captain Wilson. As it is present, nothing can exceed the beauty and perfection of the arrangements. I can in no way reconcile my former impressions with what was to-day shown us. I have, however, written to some of the emigrants who travelled on the Germanic on the 10th of March. If their testimony is against mine I shall certainly withdraw my accusations against this particular ship. though not against the whole system, which I look on as certain to lead to abuse, and as requiring legal alteration, Meanwhile, I am much puzzled.—Yours very truly, C. G. O'BRIEN."

I am informed by the owners of the Germanic that the arrangements on the 20th of May were precisely similar in character to those in use when Miss O'Brien first saw the vessel on the 10th of March, and this statement is confirmed by the emigration officer, who cleared the vessel on both occasions. I ought to add, with reference to a statement in Miss O'Brien's first letter, to the effect that the Germanic, which was supposed to carry 1,000 steerage passengers, carried on one voyage last year 1,775 emigrants, that, as a matter of fact, the largest number of steerage passengers carried by the Germanic in any one voyage during 1880 was 864, or less than one-half the number mentioned by Miss O'Brien. On the occasion of Miss O'Brien's visit the number carried was only 365. I should have been glad to leave the matter here, but I have since received a letter from Miss O'Brien which. I am totally unable to explain. In this letter, which is not dated, she says—

"My letter to Mr. Forster, which Captain Wilson and Mr. Graves saw, really means nothing. Mr. Forster has the letter, which states that the present arrangements, as shown on the 19th were excellent, that I was unable to reconcile them with what I had previously seen; but that I had written to some emigrants of the date in question to ascertain their testimony. I should wish my letter in its own words to be read in Parliament, as I distinctly do not withdraw my former letter; but I do not wish to press it against the Germanic, as I have now plenty of evidence against the system under Captain Wilson's testimony. I expect soon to be in possession of further evidence: but I must take no step that would weaken my present standpoint, as any appearance of going hack on my first letter would do."

This letter leaves me as puzzled as Miss O'Brien. It is difficult to deal with statements of a lady who writes a sensational letter one day, who writes a month later what appears to be a qualified withdrawal of the serious charges contained in the first, and then a day or two later another letter to say that her withdrawal means nothing because she must not weaken her standpoint—that is, a standpoint to bring further charges. Miss O'Brien incloses in this letter a list of questions conveying imputations of a serious character, which I understand to be directed against the ships of other lines; but the questions themselves contain no precise indication as to the particular vessel to which they refer. I am leaving these questions examined, in the hope of obtaining positive information with respect to them, and I am carefully considering the whole subject, with a view of seeing whether any improvement can be made in the existing practice or law; but, meanwhile, I have to say, in answer to the noble Lord, that, in my opinion, the letter in The Pall Mall Gazette professing to describe the state of things on board the Germanic on the 10th of March was not correct in substance.

The Grand Jury at New York have found indictments against British and other steamships which were overcrowded. Has the right hon. Gentleman received any information with regard to this statement from the British Consulate in New York, and will he make inquiries into the matter?

I will make inquiries into the matter with pleasure; but I have received no special information on the matter.

Within the next two or three days I will put a Question on the Paper with reference to the same subject. I have received a letter from Boston, from an ex-constituent of mine, who was not and could not be in communication with Miss O'Brien, and who gives a picture of female emigrants almost corresponding with hers.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he can assure the House that, in case any Theological Colleges in Ireland are empowered to grant degrees in divinity provision shall be made that such degrees shall only be given to persons who have already graduated in arts at some University, so as to ensure an adequate standard of literary proficiency on the part of persons graduating in divinity?

There is a plan before the Government for constituting a body in Ireland for granting degrees in Divinity in connection with the Presbyterian Communion. I am not able to say the precise security we shall take that the degrees shall be granted in connection with a proper standard of attainment in other matters; but the subject is well worthy of consideration, and will be duly weighed.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will be so good, in his new scheme, to consider the question of giving the rank of Warrant Officer to First Class Military Foremen and First Class Staff Clerks of the Royal Engineers, so as to place them on an equality in this respect with Master Gunners?

In reply to the Question just put to me, I can only say that, while reluctant to give driblets of information as to a scheme the full details of which will shortly be before the House, I believe that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will be quite satisfied as to the classes of non-commissioned officers in which he is interested.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been drawn to the continually increasing and apparently unlimited development of webs of wires stretched tightly over the thoroughfares of the Metropolis; to the periodical deterioration of strength in those wires from the action of the atmosphere; to the danger that would arise, with probable loss of life, from the fracture of any one of those wires; to the constantly augmenting risk consequently occasioned, especially in many of the principal thoroughfares; and, whether he will consider the question of providing against such danger?

in reply, said, that the Question raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman was deserving of attention, but did not lie in his Department. It really rested with the Postmaster General and the authorities having control over the streets. He would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the Telegraph Act of 1862 if he wished for information with regard to the control over telegraph wires.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether it is desirable to publish (for instance) in the Blue Book of this year, the Returns published by so many Life Assurance Companies the same time last year, and, to proceed on the same system, by which the Returns for the past year, and for the past quinquennial period, published this spring, would next spring appear in the Blue Book; and, whether it would not be possible to include in the Blue Book for each year those Returns printed and published by the Companies in the early portion of that year?

I think that the changes suggested by the hon. and gallant Member cannot be legally effected. The 24th section of the Life Assurance Companies' Act, 1870, requires the Board of Trade to lay before Parliament all Returns deposited with it during the preceding year.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether, in making his arrangements for the introduction of the Parcel Post, he will consider if it is practicable to connect with it the system, as followed in Germany, whereby the Post Office undertakes to collect, on account of the sender, the amount stated in an invoice accompanying the parcel, before giving delivery of the goods?

in reply, said, that, after giving the subject careful consideration, he regretted to find that there were serious difficulties in the way of such a scheme as was suggested in the Question of the hon. Member.

asked the Secretary of State for India, If he will state the reasons why the present Viceroy has for the first time prohibited public preaching by Protestant missionaries in Calcutta?

in reply, said, that he had asked the hon. Member on Friday to postpone his Question. He had, at the same time, asked the hon. Member whether he had any information on the subject beyond certain telegrams which had appeared in the newspapers. He understood the hon. Member had no further information. He had, on the former occasion, pointed out to the hon. Member that the statements in those telegrams did not correspond with what was contained in his Question. The statement that he himself had seen was to the effect that any action which had been taken in the matter had been taken by the police under the instructions of the law authorities, and not in any way by the direction of the Viceroy of India. He had no further information on the matter, and had no reason to believe that either the Viceroy or the Government of India had taken any steps in the matter.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the Royal Hibernian Military School is incorporated by Charter, or how otherwise; and, if by Charter, the date of same; whether there is any objection to lay Copy of the Charter of Incorporation upon the Table of the House; and, whether the office of Commandant, and other superior officers of the School, are Civil or Military appointments or not; and what are the rules regulating the status and rank of such officers?

In reply to my hon. and learned Friend, I have to state that the Royal Hibernian School is incorporated by a Charter dated September 8, 1871, and I presume that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland will have no objection to laying a copy on the Table. The duties of the Commandant, Adjutant, and medical officer are mainly civil, although technically for certain purposes these officers have a military character.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, If the new loan of two millions for the Cape Government, just announced by the Crown agents for the Colonies, is being issued under instructions of Her Majesty's Government; and, if he is yet in a position to say whether the Cape Government is a corporation that can be sued; and, if not, whether he is satisfied that the giving instructions would not of itself carry responsibility, failing other remedy?

To the first Question my reply must be in the negative. The loan is issued, as the prospectus shows, on behalf of the Cape Government under an Act of the Colonial Parliament. In reply to the second Question, I have to say that I am not yet in a position to add anything to what I said on the 2nd of this month. As to the third Question, I have to repeat that the Imperial Government undertakes no responsibility for this or any such loan, direct or indirect. I have further to remind my hon. Friend that I promised Papers on this subject as soon as possible.

asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, If it is true that on the 12th instant a body of police entered the workhouse at Dungarvan without assigning any reason for so doing; that they remained there while the board was sitting; and, if he can give any reason for so unusual a proceeding?

It is not a fact that the police entered the workhouse at Dungarvan on the 12th instant, and remained there while the board was sitting. What really occurred was this. On the occasion in question there was an election being held for the clerkship of the Dungarvan Union. One of the candidates was put forward by the Land League, and a good deal of excitement existed. It was thought that a demonstration might be attempted by the crowd outside the workhouse against some of the Guardians when proceeding to vote, and it was therefore deemed advisable to take the usual course of having a small police force in the vicinity to preserve order if required.

asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Is it the fact as stated in the "Daily News" of Saturday last, that in consequence of the restrictions inserted by the Government in the Relief of Distress Act passed last Session, there is but one alone of the various Irish Railways scheduled with the purpose of being benefitted under that Act which is capable of receiving a loan under its provisions; was it not declared at the time when the Bill was passing through the House, to have been the intention of Parliament to encourage employment by granting loans in all proper cases to these scheduled Railways; and, under the circumstances, is it his intention in the present Session to introduce a Bill to amend the Act?

The statement upon which this Question is founded is not quite correct. It is true that most of the Railway Companies mentioned in the Schedule to the Relief of Distress Act either have not come into existence at all, or are not in a position to borrow money legally, because their share capital is not subscribed, or not paid up. It is not my intention to introduce any Bill which would enable baronial guarantees to be given, or loans to be made to non-existing Companies, or to Companies which cannot legally borrow money.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether every yearly tenant in Ireland has, under the present Law, full power to sell his interest in his farm; whether he can convey to any person he pleases all his rights in his holdings by deed or writing; whether the only check on this right is the landlord's power of eviction or rent raising, which may be as freely exercised on the tenant himself as on any purchaser from him; whether, if the landlord wishes to exercise this power against the purchaser, he must not terminate the tenancy by notice to quit, as if he were dealing with the tenant himself; and, whether the purchaser, if evicted, has not equal rights with the tenant himself under the Land Act of 1870, save as restricted by section 13 thereof?

In answer to the hon. Gentleman, I am advised that unless a tenant holds under a written contract which prohibits assignment, he has the power. This is a question which could be better discussed when the hon. Gentleman proposes the repeal of the 13th section of the Land Act—a proposal which we are not indisposed to entertain.

I beg to ask the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India, Whether the telegram which has appeared in The Times, stating that the Government have given peremptory orders to the Government of India for the evacuation of the Pishin Valley as early as practicable, is true?

There is no foundation for the statement, and I cannot find out how it could have originated. In the only despatch sent on this subject since the discussion in this House, while we asked for an explanation as to the large force said to be kept in Pishin and Sibi, we repeated, and rather confirmed and extended than restricted, the discretion which had been given to the Government of India as to the time at which the evacuation of this district should be carried out.

asked, Whether the statement by the Correspondent of The Times was correct, that the Government had made terms of peace with the Bheel tribe, and that one of the terms was that in future the Bheels were to be allowed to levy black mail on travellers?

If the hon. Member wishes for full information on this subject, he had better give Notice of the Question. I cannot give particulars as to the terms of the arrangements made with the Bheels; but my impression is that the statement Has as little foundation as that mentioned in the previous Question.

I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is his intention to move to report Progress in Committee on the Land Law (Ireland) Bill at any particular hour?

Before 12 o'clock:

I regret to have to call the attention of the House to a Breach of Privilege of so serious a character that it is impossible not to take notice of it. I refer to a letter which has been published in a newspaper by Mr. Patrick Egan, treasurer of the Land League, reflecting in very gross and vulgar terms on the conduct and motives of hon. Members of this House as regards the votes they have given on a measure now under discussion. The writer of this letter, who, from his own account, appears to have had a good deal to do with the election of Members of Parliament who were returned to support the policy of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) and the Land League, seems to be of opinion that the time has come that was prophesied by Grattan at the time of the Union, when the Irish people would return to this House, in revenge, some of the greatest scoundrels that ever disgraced a Legislative Assembly.

I rise to a point of Order. [Cries of "Order!"]

Does the hon. and learned Member rise to Order?

Yes. I wish to ask whether these words should not be taken down? I understood the hon. Member to say that, in his opinion—["No, no!"]—If I am wrong I will be very glad to withdraw; but I understood him to say that, in his opinion, the time alluded to by Mr. Grattan had come, and I wish to know if he meant those words to apply in any sense to hon. Members on this side of the House?

If the hon. and learned Gentleman was a little more attentive to what was being said, and not so anxious to distinguish himself by rising to points of Order so frequently, probably he would conduce more than he now does to the order of our proceedings. I said it was the writer of the letter who seemed to be of that opinion; and I was going on to say, when I was interrupted, that I did not think, whatever the opinion of that official person of the League may be, the House of Commons would permit anyone to make such reflections upon the conduct of hon. Members in this House as are made in this letter without taking notice of it. The letter is dated from the Hotel Brighton, Paris, 22nd May, and the writer is in the habit of coming into the Lobby of this House, because it appears from an answer to his letter which has been made by an hon. Member that he actually shook his fist in the face of the hon. Gentleman, and threatened him for the action he had taken in this House. I therefore trust that some steps will be taken to protect Members from any possible assault of this kind in future. The letter is to Thomas Brennan, esquire, Dublin.

I rise to Order. I would like to have your ruling, Sir, whether a Question of Privilege can possibly arise on an act committed in a foreign country?

I understand the hon. Member to be reading, or to be about to read, from a newspaper published in this country.

I rise to Order, Sir. I understand that a matter of Privilege is one which must be brought at once under the cognizance of this House. I understand this letter was published last Wednesday; and I wish to ask whether, several days having intervened between the publication of the letter and the calling attention to Privilege, it is now in Order to raise the question?

In answer to the appeal of the hon. Member, I see no ground at present for intervening between the hon. Member for Galway and the House.

This letter was published in The Freeman's Journal on Thursday; it did not reach this House until Friday; and I do not see, therefore, how earlier attention could have been called to it. The letter is as follows:—

May I ask—["Order, order.!"]—whether—["Chair!"]

This is the ordinary course. The first step to be taken is that the statement complained of should be read by the Clerk of the House.

Then, Sir, I beg now to move—

"That the Letter published in the 'Freeman's Journal' of the 26th May, signed Patrick Egan, is a breach of the Privileges of this House."

It is with some reluctance that I rise to second the Motion that has just been made—a reluctance arising, in the first place, from my own opinion of the insignificance of the incident embodied in the letter; and, secondly, because I have given myself the personal satisfaction of replying in The Freeman's Journal. So far as Mr. Egan is concerned, I do not think he is much in my debt; but inasmuch as the letter of which complaint has now been made to the House is not an attack simply upon my personal position or character, but reflects upon the character, and is an insult to other Members of this House, I do not think I do more than discharge my duty in formally seconding the Motion.

I think the hon. Member who has brought forward this question has not exactly foreseen the consequences of the adoption of the Motion brought before the House. It appears to me that if the House adopts the Motion it would be tantamount to a declaration that the editor and persons connected with The Freeman's Journal have been guilty of a Breach of Privilege by the publication of the letter referred to as being signed by "Patrick Egan." I am speaking now without any communication with Mr. Egan, and entirely without an authority from him; but, of course, the House has no evidence before it—["Oh!"]—it has no legal evidence as to who the letter was written by; the only evidence in the possession of the House is that The Freeman's Journal of the date named contained such a letter. Of course, if the House considers it desirable to treat the publication of such a letter as a Breach of Privilege I shall not object for my own part; but I will only say that upon other occasions when Irish Members have brought forward much more libellous matter published by English newspapers against Irish Members the House has always refused to treat it as a Breach of Privilege, and has either passed on to the Order of Business or set the question aside in some indirect fashion. But, of course, if the hon. Member wishes to bring the editor of The Freeman to the Bar for publishing the letter, I am sure he will not evade the responsibility involved in such publication; and when my friend Mr. Egan is attacked by a direct Motion I am quite sure that he also will duly meet his responsibilities.

I am sorry the hon. Member for Galway has brought this matter forward, instead of giving private Notice to Irish Members. I may say that I am certainly most impartial upon this matter. I have no sympathy with either party. If the hon. Member for Galway had consulted with his hon. Friend the Member for Mayo, he would have been asked not to bring this matter forward, for the hon. Member for Mayo, I am sure, would not object to the use of what might be harsh language; but I remember in this House, not more than two years ago, when we assembled for a great national purpose—to vote Supplies for the Afghan War—the Leader of the Party to which I then belonged—yes, a Member respected by every part of this House, Mr. Isaac Butt—was termed "a traitor," because he would not—he could not—obstruct the Imperial Business. The hon. Member who so charged him was the hon. Member for Mayo, who should not have been a party to the bringing forward this matter by the hon. Member for Galway. As to the letter which has been read, it was an illustration of the saying that when friends fall out they become the bitterest enemies. I remember when Mr. Patrick Egan and the hon. Member for Mayo were fraternal brothers, and I must say they were Arcades ambo.

While I sincerely offer my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Galway, who has drawn the attention of the House to this subject, I sufficiently sympathize with the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down to enable me to say that I do not require any Resolution of this House in vindication either of my public or personal character. I regret as much as anyone that it should be necessary to call the attention of the House to a question of this kind; and I should be very reluctant to fetter, in the slightest degree, legitimate public criticism. If the letter of Mr. Patrick Egan were not an official document, stamped with the official sanction of an organization which is presided over by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), and of which many of my hon. Colleagues who are now sitting close to me are members of the Executive Body, I, too, should have considered that the reply which I have had an opportunity of sending to the denunciation of Mr. Egan would have been the most fitting answer that document should call for. But it is clear to everybody that a letter of that character could not have found its way into the office of The Freeman's Journal without some help from the Executive of the Land League; and I must express my disappointment that since the hon. Member for the City of Cork thought proper to interfere in this debate, he did not think proper to so far sympathize with the position of a Member of his own political Party in this House, and a Colleague of many years, to either reprobate, or, at least, disavow the sentiments contained in that letter of his official colleague. I have already shown, Sir, by my action with reference to the measure of Land Reform introduced by Her Majesty's Government, and to which this letter refers, that I am not to be terrified by the resolutions of the Land League. It was, therefore, quite unnecessary on the part of the hon. Member for Galway to make this Motion for my protection; but I am perfectly sure it was imperatively necessary that he should make it for the protection of some of my Colleagues. This is only a small part of the terrorism which has been practised, and which, as far as I can gather from the speech of the hon. Member for the City of Cork, it is intended shall be continued, towards Gentlemen who dare to differ from the decrees of the Irish National Land League. The word has gone round, Sir, from persons high in authority in that organization, that every man who dares to support any measure introduced by the Government shall be branded as a "place hunter;" and when anyone reflects upon the painful character of the relations which have subsisted for a long time between the English Government and the Irish nation—between the Irish nation and this House—I am sure he will readily recognize how artful and how dangerous an accusation of that sort is. I have been for a longer period a Member of this House than the hon. Member for the City of Cork, or many of his Colleagues who are members of the Executive of the Land League. I am speaking in the presence of Ministers of the Crown and of ex-Ministers of the Crown; I am speaking in the presence of a crowded House; and I say I challenge any Member of this Assembly to dare to assert that my vote or action has ever been compromised by mercenary considerations. Nay, more, I regret to be obliged to add that gentlemen who are engaged in bringing these accusations against their countrymen are themselves gentlemen who have within less than 12 months repeatedly applied to me to use my influence to obtain for them situations under Her jesty's Government. ["Name, name!"] The hon. Member for the City of Cork asks for name. I shall give it him. I shall give the name of a paid official of the Land League, who sends this telegram from the executive offices of the League in Dublin—

"T. P. Quinn, Land League Offices, Dublin, to John O'Connor Power, M.P., January 20. Mr. Monaghan"—who is, by the way, a Very prominent member of the Land League in Ballinrobe, County Mayo—"telegraphs you requesting influence on behalf of Mr. Daly"—Mr. P. J. B. Daly is a well-known solicitor in Mayo, who has been recently employed in defending the oppressed tenant farmers, and hired for that purpose by the Land League—"solicitor, Ballinrobe, who seeks Crown Prosecutorship for Mayo. Comply with Monaghan's request, by me reasked, and both shall remember, and doubtless one day will repay you. I will write you to-night."

Here are gentlemen, members of an organization—one of them at present a paid secretary in the office of the Land League in Dublin—who try to induce me to do what I have never done in reference to Government patronage in my constituency or anywhere else in Ireland—who endeavour to seduce me from my invariable rule not to interfere in Government patronage by the promise of political support on some future day. I have felt it necessary that I should, in a manner in which the whole country should be a witness of my acts, repudiate the insinuation that has been levelled against me. I do not appeal merely to the English Members of this House, but I appeal to the most intimate friends and associates of the hon. Member for the City of Cork, when I say to-day that they know very well I am not capable of being influenced by such considerations as the treasurer of the Land League has thought proper to attribute to me. Unfortunately, Irish politics are in this position—that it requires greater courage to support a Government when they are right than to oppose them when they are wrong. I have supported them by voting in favour of the second reading of the Land Law (Ireland) Bill, because I believed I was right, and because I had a mandate from my constituency, legally and legitimately conveyed to me at a public meeting in the country. I am very much embarrassed at being under the necessity of making this statement to the House; but when not only the courtesies of Party warfare, but the obligations of political comradeship—aye, and truth itself—have been sacrificed to gratify an insane ambition, I humbly think that the hour has come for a man who can be neither bribed nor terrified to record his protest in the light of day.

I am also one of the Members alluded to in the letter which has been brought before the House by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Galway. Perhaps I may likewise be allowed to say a few words. I was sorry when I heard such a letter had been written, and I was sorry when I read it, because I saw it must lead to dissension, and that it would impose upon me the necessity of protesting against the imputations cast upon me by that letter. From the moment I heard the speech of the Prime Minister I felt there was little doubt that I would support the second reading of the Land Law (Ireland) Bill. I read it many times over in conjunction with a gentleman of the highest ability, character, and patriotism, and I came to the conclusion that I was bound by every consideration of duty to support that measure. Sir, I believe that a more thorough measure was never introduced into Parliament. ["Question!"] Sir, it is the Question. I believe that a more thorough measure was never introduced into Parliament; and I have no doubt it will be carried through by the Government and the Liberal Party unflinchingly, and without allowing its main provisions to be impaired. Whatever differences I may have with the Government on matters of general Irish policy, I am resolved to co-operate with them loyally to carry this measure, as if those differences did not exist, or had never existed. I cannot claim to be more docile or tractable than other Members; but I believe that I am as willing to hear what has to be said on the other side of the question as any other Gentleman, and to yield when I find reason against me. Long as I have been in the House I have never allowed—and I never intend to allow—myself to be carried on one side whilst my convictions are on the other.

Sir, it appears to me that there are two matters which have come into our view on the present occasion. One is the Motion made by my hon. Friend, with respect to which, considering it nakedly in its terms, I apprehend there can be no doubt it is a proposition which must be affirmed—that is to say, that the letter which has been read is a breach of the Privileges of this House. I am not speaking now of the authorship of that letter; but the matter of the letter attaches to it that character. At the same time, I greatly doubt whether we ought not to endeavour to persuade my hon. Friend not to persist in the Motion that he has made. And for this reason. He himself has said that he thinks there is no advantage in enabling a person to aspire to the character of a martyr by calling him to the Bar of the House; and he suggests in lieu of that that you, Sir, in your official capacity, should order that this gentleman be debarred from entering the precincts of the House. I quite concur with my hon. Friend in thinking that we should not do well to invest this gentleman, whoever he may be, with any sort of glory by bringing him to the Bar; but, on the other hand, I think that to put in motion the machinery of this House, and the authority and dignity of the Chair, for the purpose of debarring from entering the precincts of the House a gentleman who has no title to be there—except such as is possessed by every one of the 4,000,000 people of this Metropolis and by the 34,000,000 people of this Realm—would be an operation too great, too serious, for the end at which it aims; and, consequently, I should hope that my hon. Friend will not put in movement such machinery for a purpose apparently so trivial. But, besides the Motion before us, there is the discussion which has arisen upon it, and to that I confess I attach no inconsiderable significance. In the first place, in the position I have the honour to hold in this House, I think it is only fair that I should render my testimony as to the Gentlemen whose characters have been impugned. One of them has sat here for a very short time; the others have sat here for a considerable time. One of them has, I think, sat here for a very considerable time; and I know of no title that any man possesses to say one word reflecting on the Parliamentary character or conduct of any of the three. I am quite sure, with respect especially to the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power), who has been particularly attacked, that it was needless for him to challenge any man to cast imputations upon him, as he did in the strength of conscious innocence; because, so far as I am acquainted with the sentiments of this House—and I think I know the sentiments of a very large, and, perhaps, preponderating number of Members—the very last thing they would think of doing, either at this moment or at previous periods, when the hon. Member may have been taking a political course different from ourselves—that one of them would dream of would be to raise the slightest question as to his motives, or to throw the slightest doubt upon his honour. Another personage has, however, appeared upon the scene—namely, the hon. Member for the City of Cork, and the case stands thus:—We have before us a letter of the matter of which—whatever its importance may be—of the matter of which I imagine that almost, if not quite, every man in this House is of opinion that it is in a high degree libellous, scurrilous, and discreditable to the person who wrote it. Under these circumstances, the hon. Member for the City of Cork rises, and he describes the gentleman whose name appears at the close of this letter as his friend. [Mr. PARNELL: Hear, hear!] What course does he take in respect to the matter of the letter? He does not avow it, and he does not condemn it. But the measure that he takes is a measure to endeavour to throw the House off the scent as to the person who is really in question. "Do not, I entreat you," he says, "bring into accusation the proprietors or the writers of The Freeman's Journal," and he sets them forth as the victims whom the hon. Member for Galway has in view. Now, although I have had no communication with the hon. Member for Galway, I venture to say that these are not the persons he has in view. The summoning of the editor, or proprietor, or printer of The Freeman's Journal to the Bar would, I apprehend, be, if this were a matter which ought properly to be pursued, only a formal step on the road of detection of the real offender, and the real offender in this case is the gentleman whom the hon. Member for Cork has described as his friend and has tried to screen from our view. What I mean is The hon. Member for Cork says that we have no evidence as to the authorship of this letter—no evidence at all. We know that it was published in Dublin on Thursday in last week; we know that Mr. Egan exists; we trust that he is well; we think it probable that he has read this letter as published in The Freeman's Journal. And if Mr. Egan, being in existence, and being in the possession of sound mind, and in possession of his health, and having read that letter, thinks that the appearance of that letter with his name at the foot of it does not call upon him for some disavowal, then, Sir—I am not speaking now of legal evidence, which I do not want, because I do not wish to proceed in the matter. [Mr. PARNELL: Proceed, proceed.] I think we have the strongest moral evidence that the letter was written by Mr. Egan. But Mr. Egan is not to be regarded as an individual, but as a powerful and prominent officer of an organization; and that organization is the organization of which the hon. Member for the City of Cork is the centre and the soul. And this House has a right to know from the hon. Member for Cork whether he thinks this is the manner in which it becomes him and his agent to describe the Parliamentary proceedings of his Colleagues. I think he will feel the force of this appeal. He will be aware that they, and aware that we, have a right to know whether it is by means like these—by terrorism like this, as it has been justly called—I might, perhaps, say by terrorism of a kind not unlikely in certain circumstances and in certain places to be followed up by other measures—whether it is thus that the hon. Member seeks to establish peace, order, and liberty in Ireland? Sir, the writer of that letter, be he who he may, is a man in whose mouth every profession of a regard for liberty is a mockery and a delusion. And there could be no greater misfortune for Ireland than that the cause of her people should be disgraced by having its support and its propagation confided to such men.

having referred to the avidity with which denunciations directed against Irish Members were listened to, said, it was exceedingly remarkable that though there was no collusion between the hon. Member for Galway and the hon. Member for Mayo, the hon. Member for Mayo should have so conveniently in his pocket the proofs of guilt of certain Members connected with the Land League. [Mr. O'CONNOR POWER, said, he had got more.] If the Motion of the hon. Member for Galway were carried, and Mr. Egan should be excluded from the precincts of that House, he could only say that Mr. Egan, on the very first opportunity, would be found coming into that House in a representative character; and he, for one, if only to prove how utterly such sentiments as those which had proceeded from the hon. Member for Galway were discredited in Ireland, he, for one, would be willing to give way for him. He felt sure, no matter with what satisfaction such an arrangement might be regarded in that House, that that satisfaction would be nothing to the satisfaction which the constituency which he had the honour to represent would feel in having as a Representative a man so upright, a man who had spent so much of his time and of his money in the cause of Ireland as Mr. Patrick Egan. He himself might have brought under the Speaker's notice a more gross and calumnious attack made on himself and other Trish Members, not in an Irish but in an English newspaper; but he had refrained from doing so, though he was called an Obstructive, because the Land Law (Ireland) Bill was before the House; and he regretted that the hon. Member for Galway, who professed to be more in favour of that measure, had not taken the same course. He would read to the House four lines from that newspaper.

asked whether, on a Motion that a certain article in a newspaper was a Breach of Privilege, it was in Order for a Member to rise in his place and read other newspaper articles which he thought were injurious to him, but with respect to which he proposed to make no Motion to the House?

said, that the hon. Member for Wexford had a right to speak on the Question before the House.

said, as the hon. Member for Frome had never been noted—

wished to make himself understood before the hon. Member for Wexford proceeded to castigate him. Was the hon. Member in Order in reading an extract that had nothing whatever to do with the Question before the House, and upon which he founded no Motion?

said, that the hon. Member for Wexford was about to quote from a newspaper when the hon. Member for Frome interrupted him.

after the reproof just addressed to the hon. Member for Frome, would let him severely alone. He would now read the extract to which he had alluded from a newspaper which he would not advertise by naming it. That paper said that of course Mr. Healy was put up by Mr. Parnell to oppose the Vote of Thanks to Sir Frederick Roberts and the troops engaged with him in the Afghan War; that if that young man was left to himself he would make a very good Member of Parliament; but, unfortunately, he was not only elected as a follower of Mr. Parnell, but also as an employé of that person, and if he did not obey orders the connection would terminate and the salary would cease. If he had brought that matter before the House he would not have received the sympathetic and cordial cheers which had been given to the hon. Member for Galway and the hon. Member below Lint, but he would have been rebuked for wasting the time of the House, and delaying an important measure. The statements made in the paper to which he had just referred were as untrue as many others which appeared in English newspapers about the Irish Members; and he would advise the hon. Member for Galway and those who acted with him to show some of the patience with which the Irish Members on his side bore the attacks directed against them.

I would ask the permission of the House to withdraw my Motion—["No, no!"]—after the noble vindication of the rights and privileges of Members of this House which that Motion has evoked from the Prime Minister, and which I trust will be a lesson to hon. Members, both as regards their conduct towards their fellow-Members and also as regards those with whom they associate themselves. I beg to withdraw my Motion.

said, he did not intend to interfere in a scene which to him was exceedingly painful, and one which he regretted should at all have occupied the attention of the House; but the Prime Minister alluded just now to the fact that the hon. Member for Cork City claimed Mr. Egan as a personal friend; and he (Mr. Sullivan) confessed at a moment when such obloquy and denunciation were hurled at the head of a gentleman whom he had long called a friend, it would ill become him to refrain from saying that he shared with the hon. Member for Cork the privilege of calling Mr. Patrick Egan his friend. One might honestly differ from a friend, and one's friend might often say and do things which one might regret. He read with sincere sorrow the letter of his friend Mr. Egan, for the sake of one passage contained in it. He had long known his hon. Friend behind him (Mr. O'Connor Power), and nothing within his knowledge or belief would ever induce him to sympathize with a charge reflecting upon his personal honour. He deplored that letter; but he complained of the Motion before the House, which must not be withdrawn. The hon. Member must not be allowed to make an empty parade. He knew that in attacking Mr. Egan amid screams of applause he was attacking Mr. Egan in a place where he could not be heard. [Mr. O'CONNOR POWER: Mr. Egan is well represented in this House.] Besides, Mr. Egan's letter had been replied to in Ireland in language which he could not trust himself to describe in that House. The hon. Member for Galway had raised a scene which he knew well the enemies of Ireland would gloat over, which he know was calculated to hold Ireland up to ridicule, and which he knew every honest Irishman would deplore. Mr. Egan, owing to the infamous system which prevailed in Ireland now, was driven from his home. There was neither justice nor law in Ireland at present, when men were dragged from their beds, and every protection which men should have in a free land was denied. Mr. Egan had a large mercantile business in the City of Dublin, and in that city he had borne for years a spotless reputation as a merchant and a man of business. He seized that opportunity to claim Mr. Egan as his friend, and he should hardly be deterred from that course because the hon. Member for Galway came there in his last Parliament to have it out with the people of Ireland by exhibiting their Representatives engaged in a discreditable quarrel of this kind. The hon. Member for the County of Galway had been no party to these charges whatever. He was in no way touched by the accusation. Let him go through with his discreditable work. Let him not fire his blank cartridge and then run away. Let him bring the publisher and Mr. Egan before the Bar; and the House would find that Mr. Egan was as honourable a man as the Member for Galway ever associated with inside or outside the House.

Sir, it has more than once been my lot to take part in proceedings when letters or articles in the newspapers have been challenged as Breaches of Privilege in this House; and the general inclination of my mind, and my general course, has been to dissuade the House, as far as possible, from taking notice in a serious manner of imputations such as those that are cast upon the House, or its Members, in public newspapers. If this had been an ordinary case of that sort, I should entirely have agreed with those who think that that course should be pursued on the present occasion. But, Sir, I think that it is utterly impossible to shut our eyes to the fact that this is not an isolated letter which, is written and can be regarded as an isolated transaction. We cannot ignore the fact that the letter must be taken in connection with the proceedings of the body from which it is asserted the letter emanated. It is impossible to close our eyes to the fact that there is a system of terrorism, which is applied in the most unscrupulous manner, and of which this letter may be, and appears to be, an example. And that being the case, I think this House has no option but this—that it is bound to protect, as far as it can, its Members from attacks of the kind which are aimed at hon. Members, and calculated to disparage, if possible, the honesty of their votes and proceedings. The hon. Members who have spoken in this debate may very safely leave their characters in the hands of those who have witnessed their conduct in this House. I can add nothing to what has been said by the Prime Minister on that subject. But I do think it is a case in which, the charge having been made, not by Mr. Egan as an individual, but as the representative—the treasurer—of the Land League, and his action having been taken of and not disavowed in this House, and the challenge, therefore, having been put with all that weight and authority, it seems to me that it is quite impossible for us to do otherwise than give a vote which, undoubtedly, is that which the House will be bound to give if the Motion of the hon. Member is put. I should myself, under other circumstances, have joined in the request to the hon. Member to do that which he says he is willing to do—to withdraw his Motion, and leave the matter upon what has been said; but we are told that that course will not be allowed. We shall be challenged to vote, and I think it would be well for the hon. Member not to attempt to withdraw, but to take a vote on his Motion.

No doubt, the declaration made by the hon. and learned Member for Meath (Mr. Sullivan) makes it impossible that the Motion should be withdrawn; and I think, under these circumstances, it will be advantageous that we should see who are the Members of this House who approve of this letter, and who declare it to be not an improper letter, and not a Breach of the Privileges of this House. Every man who votes against the Motion is a man who approves this letter. ["No!"] The hon. Member for Cork City (Mr. Parnell) shakes his head. Has he dared to say whether he approves this letter or disapproves? He is in a position in which he dare not say one or the other. He will not undertake in this House to say he approves it, and he dare not say out-of-doors that he disapproves it. That is the explanation of the position of the hon. Member for Cork City with reference to this disgraceful, this scandalous, this discreditable this scandalous, this discreditable document. How is this production headed? This letter is headed thus in The Freeman's. Journal—

"The following letter from Mr. Patrick Egan, Paris, treasurer of the Irish National Land League, was intended to be read at the meeting, of the Land League yesterday, but it arrived too late."

It is an official missive—an address to the Irish Land League. I challenge the hon. Member for Cork City to get up and deny that it was not sent as an official letter from the Irish Land League to The Freeman's Journal. Will he dare get up and justify this letter in the face of the House? If he does not, then I venture to say there is no man in England, Scotland, or Ireland, who will not say that the letter signed "P. Egan," and the spirit and sentiment it expresses, are the sentiments of the hon. Member for Cork City. It is his policy, his spirit, his actions, which are expressed in every line of that letter. The hon. Member for Cork City and those who follow him will vote their approbation of this letter, and they will say that it is not a Breach of the Privileges of this House; but I believe that a great and overwhelming majority of the Representatives of the people of the three countries—the Gentlemen who are Members of the House of Commons—will affirm the Motion which has been brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Galway, and declare that language of this description is scandalous, and a Breach of the Privileges of this House.

wished to point out that the debate was rather drifting away from the Question which was before the House. They were getting into a discussion upon the conduct and character of the hon. Member for Cork, and that was not the Question before them. No one in that House would be suspected of sympa- thizing with the astonishingly gross language used with regard to this question. He deprecated putting the whole machinery of the House in motion, because if they agreed to the Resolution they would have to take further steps in the matter. He asked the House to remember the conflict which they had last Session.

said, that he needed not to express his hearty concurrence in the remarks which had fallen from his noble Friend. He thought the best course to pursue was that the Motion should be negatived, and that they should proceed with the Land Law (Ireland) Bill. He would point out that if the Motion were carried, it would be absolutely necessary that the publishers and printers of The Freeman should be summoned to the Bar of the House, in order to get at the writer. That would come on after to-morrow or Thursday; then the discussion would follow. But another question might arise, as the letter was written from a foreign country, and hardly came within the jurisdiction of the House. There was no doubt that the hon. Member for Galway would have withdrawn his Motion if it had not been for the speech of the Home Secretary, who always came forward on these occasions as the Bombastes Furioso of debate denouncing everybody right and left. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman's Colleagues would regret that he had ever made that extraordinary speech. Whenever the right hon. Gentleman saw an opportunity of making an attack upon any Member of the House, he could not resist it. If the Land Bill of the Government was obstructed and did not make progress, they would have nobody to blame but themselves and the foolish and stupid advice of the Home Secretary.

I think, Sir—

I rise to Order, Sir. [Cries of "Order!"]

The right hon. Gentleman, having risen to a point of Order, is entitled to be heard.

not rising again,

said, he disapproved entirely of the letter of Mr. Egan, and thought it was quite unnecessary for the hon. Member for Mayo and his Friends to ask the House to say that the allegations contained in the letter complained of were unjustifiable. But they were asking that the House should declare that the letter was a Breach of Privilege. There was no doubt that, technically, the letter was a Breach of the Privileges of the House. But he could not help thinking that the suggestion of the Prime Minister was better than that of the Home Secretary. He did not suppose that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, or the hon. and learned Member for Meath (Mr. Sullivan), would desire to press the matter to a division. There was another reason why he thought that the Motion should be withdrawn, and that was that the hon. Member for Mayo himself had written a reply to Mr. Egan, and the reply was so strong that the hon. Member himself ought to be considered to have debarred himself from asking the House to interfere. He would read part of the letter to the House. The hon. Member said—

"In my opinion, the real blackleg is the cad who bolts with the stakes; the real coward is he who keeps out of the fight which he himself has provoked, and who, skulking either in London or in Paris, tries to hide his own poltroonery by impugning the courage of others."

He (Mr. Labouchere) was not concerned to defend Mr. Egan, but, unquestionably, those observations meant that Mr. Egan was a thief and a coward; and as the hon. Member for Mayo had answered in such very strong language the accusation which was made against him by Mr. Egan, he thought that the matter should now come to an end.

might be allowed to make one or two observations on this occasion, as he was joint treasurer of the Land League with his friend Mr. Egan. He did not say that he approved of what Mr. Egan said in his letter, because he was not present when it was written; but, at the same time, he might say that he thought Members of Parliament would do well not to be so exceedingly sensitive as they were. He had seen many attacks upon Members of Parliament, and he had seen very few Members of Parliament rush into print to defend themselves. He had seen still fewer who came to that House and asked to be protected from charges which were brought against them by writers in newspapers. He would, therefore, be disposed to say that the Motion was simply a very carefully rehearsed artifice got up between the hon. Member for Galway and the hon. Member for Mayo, to attack in a covert, he would not say underhand way, his hon. Friend the Member for Cork City. That was the real animus which was at the bottom of the simulated innocence of the hon. Member for Mayo. The hon. Member for Mayo insinuated in Isis speech that certain Members of the Irish Party had asked him to use his influence to get situations from the Government; but when called upon for names, he produced a telegram from an obscure paid clerk of the Land League, asking him to use his influence to get a situation for an attorney who was paid to defend a few members of the Land League in a local Court, and who, probably, was himself a member of the Land League, or a subscriber to its principles. The lion. Member for Galway had, in his opinion, made a mistake in defending the conduct of the hon. Member for Mayo, which he did not think was that of a man of high honour.

said, before the House proceeded to a division, he wished to ask a question for his own guidance as well as that of the House. He saw in the valuable book upon the practice of this House, by Sir Erskine May, that the Member making the complaint must be prepared to name the printer and publisher of the paper in which the statement appeared. There was no allegation here that either the printer or publisher of The Freeman had any malice in publishing the letter; and in case it was declared a Breach of Privilege of the House—as it undoubtedly was—he wanted to know what was the course of procedure to be adopted? He thought when hon. Members who objected to the withdrawal of the Motion of the hon. Member for Galway were made aware that the result of their action would be to cause great inconvenience to the printer and publisher of the paper, who were the innocent parties in the transaction, they would probably allow the Motion to be withdrawn. He, therefore, wished to know what would be the result if the letter was declared a Breach of Privilege?

In the event of the Motion before the House being carried, it would be for the House to say what steps, if any, should be taken with regard to that Motion. The matter is one entirely for the determination of the House. Is it your pleasure that the Motion be withdrawn?

No. [Cries of "Agreed!"] Am I entitled to address you upon this Question, Mr. Speaker?

The hon. Member has exhausted his right to speak.

I wish to ask a question. If this Motion be adopted by the House, will not the House be obliged to take further steps in the matter?

In answer to the noble Lord, I have to say that it is a matter entirely for the determination of the House.

The hon. Member for Cork City has already spoken on the Question of Privilege; but the Question now before the House is that the Motion be withdrawn, and, therefore, I apprehend, he is entitled to speak upon that Question.

The Motion before the House is the same, and the hon. Member for Cork City, having spoken once, is not entitled to speak again.

I now wish to ask the hon. Member for Galway County what steps he proposes to take, having brought a Motion before the House declaring that the letter published in The Freeman's Journal of the 26th May is a breach of the Privileges of the House, and the House having adopted that Motion?

This Motion having been carried unanimously by the House, I must take ample time to consider.

On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, I wish to know whether, in the event of the hon. Member not taking advantage of this opportunity to ask the House to take further action in this matter, he will not lose his right to do so at any future, time?

wished to know whether an opportunity was not going to be given to the hon. Member for the City of Cork to answer the questions which the Home secretary had called upon him, as a gentleman, to answer?

rose to speak.

I must point out to the House that there is no Question before the House at present. The hon. Member for the City of Cork asks me whether, in the event of the hon. Member for Galway not taking advantage of this opportunity to ask the House to take further action, he would not lose his right of precedence in the matter? I apprehend that if the matter is postponed now, and no action is taken upon it, he will lose his right to ask the House to do so at any future time.

I will, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, now ask the hon. Member whether he intends to take any further action?

did not reply.

To put myself in Order, Mr. Speaker, I shall conclude with a Motion. Nobody can say that we have desired to hinder or impede the hon. Member for Galway County in bringing this question under the notice of the House, although I regret exceedingly that the hon. Member should have been guilty of an action almost unprecedented in this House, by bringing forward a question which concerns a gentleman outside this House, and which concerns other Gentlemen inside this House, when he knew perfectly well that the gentleman whom he was attacking could not necessarily have appealed in his own defence. But having proceeded so far, it shows the want of bona fides of his whole proceedings when he refuses to ask the House to take the steps which his Motion naturally points to. Now, I think I am entitled to ask the hon. Member to proceed with this matter. If he does not, he will show that this Motion has been brought forward, not for the purpose so much of vindicating the reputation of two or three Members of this House, as for the purpose of attacking an absent individual under circumstances which would prevent that individual from having the right to reply. I think it is almost the first time that a person not a Member of this House has been attacked in the House, and has not been allowed the opportunity of reply, and yet that is precisely what the hon. Member for the County Galway thinks fit to do. It is evident, from the conduct of the Treasury Bench, that the importance they attach to the Motion of the hon. Mem- ber for Galway was not so much from his assumed desire to vindicate the character of Members of this House, but that they might, by a one-sided blow, attack the Irish Land League. They have shown the importance they attach to the organization and Mr. Egan, its treasurer, by endeavouring to connect his action in writing that letter with the Irish Land League, of which he is the acknowledged treasurer. I will only say for myself that Mr. Egan wrote that letter without any previous consultation with me, and, so far as I know, without any previous consultation with any of the members of the Executive of the Irish Land League. I do not say this in order to admit that the letter was so heinous in its terms, or to judge the letter in any way, but merely as a matter of fact, which I am entitled to state, as the Land League has been assailed, when we are told that this letter, being written by Mr. Egan from Paris, is necessarily the action of the Land League. The first intimation I received of this letter was in seeing it in The Freeman's Journal, and there is not the slightest foundation for connecting this letter with the Irish Land League. I do not propose to criticize the letter, nor express any opinion on it in the slightest degree. I say I may have wished that the letter had not been written, or I may not have wished that it had not been written. But I do not propose here to go into a question which is a question between Irishmen, and not a question between Englishmen. I believe we shall always be able to settle our own disputes amongst ourselves; and I regret to see the hon. Member for Mayo occupying, for the first time in this House, what I conceive to be a humiliating position when he is appealing to the protection of Englishmen against his brother Irishmen. The tone of the speech of the hon. Member delivered on that occasion gave me very great pain, because I cannot help feeling that in the action which he took—

I wish to point out to the hon. Member that the question lately debated has been concluded. He has now risen in his place, and said he will conclude with a Motion; but he is not entitled to allude to what has already taken place in the House on a former debate. I must call upon him to refrain from doing so.

I will not refer to the debate which has just concluded; but I will point out that by the course which the hon. Member for the County of Galway has taken in refusing to proceed with this matter to its legitimate conclusion, we are deprived of the only opportunity that could be afforded us to answer the untruthful and unfounded allegations of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. ["Order!"] The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the adjournment of the House.

I rise to make one observation.

If the hon. Member applied the term "untruthful" to any Member of this House, I must call upon him to withdraw it.

raised his hat.

I must call upon the hon. Member to withdraw, without hesitation, the expression which he has used.

I took off my hat to signify that I withdrew it.

I merely, Sir, rose to make one statement. I heard the hon. Member for Mayo during the whole of his long speech, and he did not in any sentence throw himself upon the protection of Englishmen.

The hon. Member for the City of Cork has committed the irregular act of addressing the House without concluding with a Motion. [Mr. PARNELL was understood to intimate that he had moved a Resolution.] I will now call upon the Clerk to read the Orders of the Day.

said, that he had distinctly heard the hon. Member for the City of Cork move the adjournment of the House.

said, he also distinctly heard the Motion made, and so did hon. Members near who were not of the Irish. Party.

asked Mr. Speaker whether, it having been signified to him that the Motion was made, it should not now be put?

I have called upon the Clerk to read the Orders of the Day.

was bound to say, though he had no sympathy with the hon. Member for the City of Cork, that he distinctly heard him move the adjournment of the House.

If that be so, with the indulgence of the House, I must recall the instructions I have given to the Clerk, and put the following Question:—"That this House do now adjourn."

said, he was of opinion that the House should look for guidance to its Leaders. The position which the House had taken up was, it seemed to him, a difficult one, for it left the person inculpated by the Motion no opportunity of explaining or vindicating his conduct.

I have already stated to the hon. Member for the City of Cork that he was not at liberty to debate a matter which had been already decided by the House, and I must make the same observation to the hon. Member for North Warwickshire.

said, the Irish Members had received some impressions from the debate which would not be lost upon them. They had often, full of a burning sense of the brutal and ruffianly arrests under the Coercion Act, come down to that House determined to have these things debated; but his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork had declined to be any party to the proceeding, on the ground that it would obstruct the Business of the Government. But what had they seen that night? When an hon. Member opposite rose to make an attack upon Irish Members, the Prime Minister not only had no word of censure for him, although the Land Law (Ireland) Bill was upon the Paper for discussion, but gave him a patient and sympathetic hearing. He hoped the hon. Member for the City of Cork, when next the Irish Members had grievances to ventilate, would remember how the Prime Minister countenanced attempts to bring Irish affairs into disrepute, and would avail himself of his right to move the adjournment whenever it suited him.

said, he should support the Motion fur Adjournment, because it seemed to him the House was placed in an unprecedented position, being asked to pass by without further notice a matter which it had expressly declared to be a Breach of Privilege.

Mr. Speaker, on former occasions attempts have been made to prosecute Breaches of Privilege, which attempts have subsequently been found likely to lead to inconvenience; and the House has, on the whole, thought it prudent to retrace its steps. I apprehend we are perfectly free—indeed, we have it on your authority—to act at this present moment according to prudence. We had to pass an opinion on a document. We have not entered on the question of the excuses the writer of that document may have to produce. The writer has the option, if he thinks fit, of vindicating himself before the public. We were entitled to pass an opinion on the document before us. It cannot be surprising that I, who urged upon the hon. Member for Galway County not to proceed with the Motion which he desired to withdraw, but was prevented from withdrawing, should respectfully recommend to the House that we should not proceed any further, as we distinctly understand that there is no technical and formal obligation, and certainly no moral obligation whatever to that effect. The hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) says that I, who am continually urging the necessity of proceeding with the Land Law (Ireland) Bill, gave, not only a patient and careful, sympathetic hearing to the Motion of the hon. Member for Galway. Now, I am bound to say I did not give it a sympathetic hearing at all. After I heard the discussion upon it, I thought matter of great importance was raised in that discussion which I was compelled to notice; but I must own that the feeling with which I heard my hon. Friend rise to make this Motion was the feeling which in my mind is invariable when I see that some of the few precious hours that we have at our disposal are about to be wasted, and that I regretted the subject was over introduced.