I rise, Sir, on a question of Privilege. I was standing in the Lobby just now, when I saw Mr. Bradlaugh, a duly elected Member of this House, come into the Lobby. He attempted to go into the House. He said he considered he had a right to do so, derived from his being an elected Member of this House. He was then hurried out of the Lobby by the officials of the House; and I am given to understand that he is not to be allowed to re-enter the Lobby. On the 10th of May the following Resolution was passed by this House:—

"That the Serjeant at Arms do remove Mr. Bradlaugh from the House until he shall engage not further to disturb the proceedings of the House."

"I, therefore, by my Motion, propose that Mr. Bradlaugh shall be excluded from the House—that is, that he shall not come within the door that is kept by the doorkeepers, until or unless he shall undertake to the Speaker that he will not disturb the proceedings of the House."—[3 Hansard, cclxi. 182.]

I presume the hon. Member will conclude with a Motion; otherwise he will not be in Order.

Yes, Sir, I will conclude with a Motion; but I want to keep to the Rules of the House, and I wish to know if I can conclude with the following Motion? If not, I will substitute another:—

"That, in the opinion of this House, the Resolution of the House passed 10th May last, 'that the Sergeant at Arms do remove Mr. Bradlaugh from the House until he shall engage not further to disturb the proceedings of the House,' meant that Mr. Bradlaugh should not come within the outer door of this Chamber, and did not give any power to the Sergeant at Arms to hinder him from entering and remaining in all or any other portions of this edifice; and that, therefore, the Serjeant at Arms and the officers of the House acting under him, in excluding Mr. Bradlaugh from such other portions of the edifice, acted without the authority of this House, and in so doing interfered with the privileges inherent in Membership of this House, and from which no Member can be deprived without a Resolution of this House to that effect."

The hon. Member will proceed.

Under these circumstances, I will move this Resolution. I am not entering into the question whether it would be the view of the House that Mr. Bradlaugh, having attempted to come within the door, should be forbidden to come within the precincts of the House; but I apprehend no statement has been made on behalf of the Serjeant-at-Arms to the House of what has transpired just now within the Lobby, or as to whether it is the intention of the Serjeant-at-Arms and the officers to exclude Mr. Bradlaugh henceforward from the Lobby. I venture respectfully to contend that the Serjeant-at-Arms cannot do that without a Resolution of the House. I, therefore, beg to propose the Resolution which I have just read.

Before putting the Resolution to the House, it is right that I should state that, by a Resolution passed by the House of Commons on the 10th of May, it was ordered—

"That the Serjeant at Arms do remove Mr. Bradlaugh. from the House until he shall engage not further to disturb the proceedings of the House."

Does any hon. Member second the Motion?

seconded the Motion.

This not being a question, Sir, of altering in principle the Resolution of the House which has been referred to either by extension or addition, I am not sure whether I should have risen at once on the Motion which has just been made. But the question appears to me to be one which the hon. Member for Northampton is perfectly justified in raising, from his point of view, as to your conduct, Sir, as the Chief Executive Officer of this House, in the interpretation you have put on the Resolution and in the performance of your duty. I pass no censure upon the hon. Member for Northampton for his challenge to each Member of the House, and to Members collectively, to declare whether they will support you in the interpretation you have put upon the recent Resolution of the House. And as I have myself objected to that Resolution, I wish to construe it impartially, in the same sense as if I had approved it, or had even been a party to it. Now, Sir, approaching the question in that spirit, I can entertain no doubt whatever, for myself, that you have acted judiciously, and wisely interpreted the Resolution of the House. It appears to me that, however the Mover of the Resolution may have immediately contemplated, if he did so contemplate, the limit to be established by the actual entrance to the House, the clear inten- tion of the House in passing the Resolution was that Mr. Bradlaugh should be debarred from access to the House by whatever means might be found necessary for that purpose. I cannot for a moment conceive it possible that it was the intention of the House to leave it open to the executive officers to debar Mr. Bradlaugh in such a manner and form and under such conditions as to cause disorder in the immediate neighbourhood of the House, and to bar the free and uninterrupted access of Members to the House. That is the point upon which the matter appears to me to turn. I must hold that, above all other regulations, one regulation in particular is necessary—namely, that which is asserted in the Sessional Orders of the House; and the direction given to the Commissioners of Police of the Metropolis speaks, not only of free access from the streets to the Houses of Parliament, but says that no obstruction should be permitted to hinder the passage of Members to and from these Houses, and that no disorder shall be allowed in Westminster Hall, or the passages leading to the House during the Sessions of Parliament. The grounds upon which the Motion of the hon. Member cannot be sustained are to me very plain; and I think, Sir, that you have properly exercised, as you always have done, the authority reposed in your hands. As to absolute freedom of access by Members to this House, that would have been seriously hindered if the condition in which you are placed by the Resolution were such that you could only contest the entrance of Mr. Bradlaugh at the doors of the House. I think that in the nature of the case, your conclusion is in accordance with the spirit of the Resolution, and that you would not have acted in accordance with the spirit of the Resolution if you had permitted such a contest at the doors of the House. I think, further, that the great care taken by the House to lay down the principle that no disorder should be allowed, in order to secure free access to the House, involves a proposition which applies to all descriptions of disorder, whether that disorder arises from the action of extraneous persons or from the action of any Member of this House who may have been placed by a Resolution of the House—so far as the authority of the House may establish such a Resolution —under a ban precluding him, in exceptional circumstances, from free access to the House, and rendering him, in effect, an extraneous person; and it becomes the duty of the Executive authority to treat him as an extraneous person. Therefore, on all these grounds, I think this Motion cannot be sustained. I think you, Sir, have acted wisely, and properly construed the Resolution of the 10th. of May. It is my duty to look at this matter quite irrespective of my opinion of the character of that Resolution, which, as I have said, remains unchanged; but the duty plainly attaches to us to support the Executive authority of the House in faithful and full compliance with that Resolution.

I shall say only a few words, Sir, in support of the observations of the Prime Minister, and especially I desire to say as little as possible, because I think it of great importance that we should keep altogether distinct questions of policy with regard to the position of Mr. Bradlaugh and questions of Order which have been raised by the proceedings to-day. I am anxious that these two questions should be kept entirely distinct, and that we should confine ourselves to the consideration of the course you, Sir, have felt it your duty to adopt, in pursuance of the Resolution adopted by the House on the 10th of May. I think with the Leader of the House that your conduct, Sir, has been entirely in accordance with that which the House expected you would pursue; and that it entirely merits and gains the support of this House. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) has referred to some words I used when I made that Motion, and he has correctly quoted them. Undoubtedly, the Motion which I made had reference simply to the exclusion of Mr. Bradlaugh from the doors of this House. The object of that Resolution was this. Mr. Bradlaugh had up to that time been in the habit of doing that which Members who have been elected and who have not been able to take their seats are usually in the habit of doing—namely, remaining below the Bar of the House. It was felt that if Mr. Bradlaugh remained in that position, and if he exercised his discretion, as he had done on several previous oceasions, to come from his seat below the Bar to the Table to claim to take his seat, the House would be subjected to continual interruption of its Business. I therefore moved, and the House adopted, the Resolution to exclude him from the body of the House, in order to prevent a disturbance of our proceedings. Mr. Bradlaugh could at any time after the 10th of May have recovered his right of coming within the doors of the House upon giving an undertaking not to disturb the order of the proceedings; but he did not make any such promise, and was therefore properly, by the Order of the House, excluded from coming within the doors. But I should say he has not only failed to make any undertaking not to disturb our proceedings, but he has attempted by force to override and set aside the Order that was made excluding him from the House. Therefore, the action has been entirely Mr. Bradlaugh's own, and I quite agree that, to give effect to the Resolution of the 10th of May, it was necessary that any attempt on the part of Mr. Bradlaugh to enter the House should be resisted, and resisted in an effectual manner. As I understand, Sir, your directions to the officers of the House and to the Serjeant-at-Arms have been that he should be excluded by force from the House, and that if necessary, in order to prevent further disturbance of that kind, he should be removed from the precincts—from the Lobby. In that course I think you have taken the proper steps for securing the dignity and the peace of the proceedings of this House. I hope the House will unanimously support you in the course which you have thought it proper to take.

I wish to ask, Sir, whether an Amendment can be moved to the Motion?

I cannot say until I know what the Amendment will be.

Then I will give my reasons for an Amendment which I think ought to be moved to the Motion of the hon. Member. I think this House is getting into a very awkward position; and I agree with the right hon. Baronet who has just spoken, that with regard to the dignity and peace of this House something must be done pretty soon.

The did not say that with regard to the hon. Member misapprehended me. I dignity and peace of the House something must be done; but I said that in reference to maintaining the dignity and peace of the House the Speaker had acted rightly.

I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon; but I agree with every step which the Speaker has taken in this matter for the maintenance of order. On a previous occasion you, Sir, decided that I should not be justified in saying that the Resolution which was passed by the House on the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Stafford Northcote) was illegal; but I still have a strong idea that the House did act illegally.

I rise to a point of Order. Ought not the Amendment of the hon. Baronet to be read to the House before any speech is made, as the Amendment may be of such a character that it cannot be entertained?

I conclude, Sir, that you are still the authority in this House, and that my hon. Friend is not. I was going to say that although, in my humble opinion, the Resolution which has caused all, this trouble, and which, if we adhere to it, will probably lead us into more trouble, was passed unwisely. I think, in endeavouring to exclude a duly elected Member from this House, we are taking one of the most high-handed steps which this House has indulged in for some generations; and it is the more invidious, and has the more excited the country, because you are excluding that hon. Member on account of his theological, or perhaps I ought to say his non-theological, views. I strongly object to such a course being taken, and I hope that nobody will presume to say that those of us who object to that proceeding are on that account allied with Atheists, and are sympathizers with atheistic views. That sort of warfare is striking a foul blow. No one has a right to charge us with being sympathizers with Atheists.

I rise to Order. I wish to know whether the hon. Baronet is in Order in going into the whole question?

It is unfair to charge us with being in. sympathy with Mr. Bradlaugh. It might just as well be said that those who desired the emancipation of the Jews believed in Jewish faith, or that those who were for Roman Catholic emancipation sympathized with the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. I will not give my opinion on the subject; but I will read what the Lord Chancellor says, and I think you could not have a higher authority. The Lord Chancellor says—

"It does not appear to me to be just to assert against one particular man, however bad he may be, a power in the House of Commons to test the sincerity of an oath which he appears to take in the manner prescribed by law, by an extrinsic evidence of his actual belief or disbelief. No such power has ever been asserted or used against any other man, though other professed and notorious unbelievers have sat, and perhaps may sit there still, and the House of Commons have now chosen, for the first time, to assert for itself and to exercise this power."

"My Lords, I thought the slavish doctrine of passive obedience had long been exploded, and, when our Kings were obliged to confess that their title to the Crown and the rule of their Government had no other foundation than the known law of the land, I never expected to hear a Divine right or a Divine infallibility attributed to any other branch of the Legislature. The Commons have betrayed their constituents and violated the Constitution; under the pretence of declaring the law they have made a law, and united in the same person the office of legislator and of judge."

I must point out to the hon. Baronet that he is going beside the Question before the House. The Question before the House is the conduct of the Speaker. The hon. Baronet is, I understand, going to place an Amendment before the House. If he will do so, I shall tell him whether it is in Order.

I, of course, Mr. Speaker, shall not pursue the subject further. I must explain that I hardly like to vote for the Motion of my hon. Friend as it stands, because, as the Prime Minister ably pointed out, it might look as though we were impugning your conduct in this matter, which is the very last thing I would wish to do. In conclusion, I venture to propose, as an Amendment to the words of my hon. Friend—

"That the Resolution of April 26th, 1881, forbidding Mr. Bradlaugh to take the Oath, and also the Resolution of May 10th, 1881, ordaining his exclusion from the House, be rescinded,"

Under cover of an Amendment calling in question the conduct of the Speaker, the hon. Baronet proposes to raise a question which, in my opinion, has no relevancy to the original Motion. If the hon. Baronet desires that the Resolution of the 10th May shall be rescinded, the proper course is to make the proposal to the House, and bring it forward in the ordinary way.

Sir, I have no wish to prolong the discussion; but I should be glad if the present occasion could be utilized for the purpose of hastening the settlement of a most unpleasant dispute. Into the merits of that dispute I have no intention to enter. I know that nothing I can say, or that anyone here can say, will alter hon. Members' opinions. The views they entertain are too firmly held to be shaken by a House of Commons' debate. Controversy may strengthen them, but will not shake them. But while I am aware of this, I am also aware that we are all anxious to have the unhappy wrangle terminated. It is damaging to the dignity of Parliament to have such scenes as we have witnessed this Session. The vulgar struggle that has just taken place in the Lobby can serve no good end, and will only help to bring our deliberations into disrepute. The questions at issue can be narrowed to a single point. Mr. Bradlaugh is a duly elected Member of Parliament, and is willing to take the Oath. The majority on this side of the House are willing that he should take it. Hon. Gentlemen opposite object to that, because the Oath has not the same binding effect upon Mr. Bradlaugh as it is understood to have upon them. In fact, in the judgment of the Opposition, the Oath Mr. Bradlaugh wants to take and the Oath they take are different. I recognize, respect, and appreciate that distinction. As long as such an opinion is entertained, the only way of settling the controversy is by altering the Oath. That is the simplest, the straightest, and most direct way of dealing with the matter. The Government admit this, and have introduced a Bill proposing the necessary change. While that Bill was under consideration Mr. Bradlaugh never troubled us. Whatever may be his opinions or his wishes, the House will, at least, do him the justice to say that as long as the measure was upon the Order Paper we heard nothing of his claims. When it was withdrawn, and only then, did he renew his personal protests. What I wish to ask the Prime Minister is, whether he will give an undertaking to introduce next Session the Bill that he has introduced this Session, but which, from pressure of Business, he has been driven to abandon? I have no authority to speak on Mr. Brad-laugh's behalf. I have never mentioned the subject to him. But I would almost undertake to say—if the Government would promise that the Bill which has been dropped this year should be re-introduced next—that until such time as the measure has either been passed or rejected, Mr. Bradlaugh would not disturb us. I know it is, perhaps, a good deal to ask the Prime Minister to make such a statement at this time, and without previous Notice; but if he will take an occasion before the Session terminates to give such an intimation, it will go far to allay the threatening agitation that is growing in the country. There is only one way out of the struggle. The House of Commons may prolong it as they like; but, however unpleasant it may be to them, in the end the constituencies will insist upon their right to elect whomsoever they please. It is now the case of Mr. Bradlaugh alone. It may soon be the case of others. At present the agitation is sustained by active partizans for and against the Member for Northampton; but if it is allowed to gather it will shortly embrace in its ranks a large section of the community. Mr. Bradlaugh will disappear from the controversy, and the question will become the right of the constituencies or the right of the House of Commons. In face of this threatening and irritating dispute, I hope the Prime Minister will make an announcement of the kind I have suggested, either to-day or at the earliest possible moment. That will do more to allay the agitation than anything I know of.

Sir, I hope I shall be permitted to express a very devout wish that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of Her Majesty's Government, to whom, in common with most of my countrymen, I feel I am much indebted for the untiring attention he has bestowed on the Irish Land Bill, will not fall into the trap which has been spread open before him by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-on-Tyne.

Mr. Speaker, I, too, Sir, have a Petition to present from my constituency in favour of Mr. Bradlaugh taking his seat.

The proper time for presenting Petitions has passed.

I was about, Sir, to make some remarks on the Motion before the House, and mentioned the Petition by way of introduction. I was a spectator of the exhibition outside the doors of this House this afternoon, and I witnessed it with very great pain for several reasons, and one of these is that I feel very strongly that it will tend to create an amount of sympathy with Mr. Bradlaugh out-of-doors that there has never been before. I saw that Gentleman, who has been duly elected by a large constituency, and is as properly a Member of this House as any of ourselves, taken by physical force by the police, and dragged out of the Lobby of this House. This is a proceeding which I am sure will have a most unfortunate effect; but, at the same time, I cannot vote for the Motion before the House, because I feel that you, Sir, being charged with the duty of keeping our proceedings orderly, were justified in giving the order. I rose before with the intention of seconding the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), and I regret exceedingly it was not possible to move it, as it might have led to a termination of this unfortunate battle which the House of Commons has entered into with one of the constituencies of the country—a battle which, I feel confident, will bring down nothing upon this House but defeat and discredit.

I was entirely unprepared for the scene which I found going on on my arrival in New Palace Yard this afternoon, because I understood that merely an application was to be made on Mr. Bradlaugh's behalf for permission for him to make an Affirmation and take his seat. For many weeks past the Business of this House has been conducted in perfect quietude, as far as this controversy is concerned; and I regret to see the multitude of misled and misguided people outside, who have been induced by Mr. Bradlaugh to accompany him down to this House on the ground that he has been ill-used, and has been illegally prevented from taking his seat. In order that the true facts of this case may be made known to the people of this country, I beg to give Notice that tomorrow I will ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider the expediency of disabusing the misled followers of Mr. Charles Bradlaugh by issuing a Proclamation to the following effect:—

"That the Prime Minister has declared that taking the Parliamentary Oath in connection with the declaration that the words were of no value was not taking the Oath at all, a declaration in which the Attorney General concurred; that Mr. C. Bradlaugh, having made such a declaration, is, by his own act, disqualified from taking the Oath; that Mr. C. Bradlaugh has been declared by the House of Commons and by Judges of the Law Courts to be incapable of making the Affirmation provided for Quakers, Moravians, and Separatists; that Mr. C. Bradlaugh being qualified to take neither the Oath nor the Affirmation, according to law, the House could not be acting illegally, by preventing his attaining his seat by violence and intimidation, and, finally, warning Her Majesty's loyal subjects to abstain from all tumultuous assemblages, and to lend their aid to the preservation of peace and order."

Sir, if I were to go on purely personal grounds, I could not vote for the Motion of the hon. Gentleman, for this reason particularly, because Mr. Bradlaugh, when he sat and voted in this House, did not seem to care very much for the rights and privileges of other Members of Parliament. Mr. Bradlaugh voted for a Motion, which, in my opinion, was the most tyrannical ever perpetrated in this House—

I must remind the hon. Member that the Question before the House is not the conduct of Mr. Bradlaugh, but the conduct of the Speaker of this House.

I will not, of course, pursue that subject further. My great objection to the course which has been pursued by the majority of this House, or is going to be pursued on this occasion of the expulsion of Mr. Bradlaugh from the Lobby, is that it gives precedent for what I believe to be a most tyrannical action on the part of the majority of this House. If we are to have from time to time every majority of this House saying that a Member shall not be heard in this House on account of his religious or political opinions, and shall not be permitted to take his seat, it will be fraught with great danger to the liberty of Members. The real point, in my opinion, is this—Mr. Bradlaugh has been elected by the electors of Northampton, and I am disposed to think that his electors have fair cause to complain. We know, with regard to Irish constituencies, that the will and wish of the electors has not been treated very tenderly on several similar occasions. At the same time, it would come with bad grace from an Irish Member representing an Irish constituency, as I do, if I did not say, as I do say, that the wish of the electors of Northampton should be paramount upon a question of this sort. This House is not a tribunal to try questions of religion or the political opinions of individuals. The functions in regard to the Oath are simply Ministerial. Political Oaths are an absurdity.

The question of political Oaths is not the Question before the House.

Sir, without expressing any opinion on the Motion of the hon. Member for Northampton, I think that this is an occasion on which a Member of this House, who feels as I do, may take up two or three minutes in stating a fact, and in making an appeal to the House. I have been outside the House within the last few minutes, and I have heard that Mr. Bradlaugh was refused admission by order of the House of Commons, and by the instructions of the Speaker; that he was taken from the door of the House, through the Lobby, down the steps outside, through Westminster Hall, and so put outside the door of Westminster Hall; that he was reduced to a condition if not of deathly fainting—["Oh!"]—I have it on undoubted authority that by the time he arrived at New Palace Yard he was in a fainting condition—those empowered thus to remove him stated that if he had had many more yards to go he must have fallen fainting to the ground. No such scene has heretofore been recorded in the annals of the British House of Commons. This thing has been done, not in a corner, because there are thousands of his countrymen standing outside this House who witnessed part of what took place, or who will soon know all that has taken place, and to-morrow morning more than 1,000,000 copies of the newspapers will narrate to the people of this country what has been done. I will not touch upon the original question raised in this case, I will not complain of the Resolution which the House passed on a former occasion, and, least of all, will I complain of the course which has been taken by you, Mr. Speaker; but I will put the question to hon. Members opposite, and also to some hon. Members on this side of the House—Where are they leading us? This is now a manageable affair; there were only a few thousand at the meeting last night in Trafalgar Square, and there are only a few thousands assembled outside this House to day; but this is exactly one of those things which grow, and the House, if it persists in its present course, will bring us into some most unfortunate and calamitous position. Let me remind the House that Mr. Bradlaugh is as fairly elected by the constituency of Northampton as any one of us has been by the constituencies which we represent, and that he has as much right to come to the Table of the House as any one of us has.

I must interpose, as I have already interposed. The Question before the House is the conduct of the Speaker, and not the case of Mr. Bradlaugh.

I admit, Mr. Speaker, that you are perfectly right, and I am technically wrong; but I asked the House when I rose whether I might be permitted to make that appeal. I will conclude my observations merely by asking hon. Gentlemen who have taken the courses that have led to these difficulties, whether they might not reconsider the question and extricate the House from a position injurious to its own character and wrongful to the constituency.

Mr. Speaker, the right hon. Gentleman opposite has asked Members on this side, and the whole body of the House, to what the course we are now pursuing is tending. I reply, the object we have in view, and which we believe we shall achieve, is to maintain the dignity and the order of this House, and if the right hon. Gentleman has that object in view, in common with the great body of the House, I would respectfully suggest to him that the speech he has delivered and the animus he has shown are not calculated to induce Mr. Bradlaugh to cease from that conduct on his part to which, and to which alone, we have to attribute the scene of this morning. I wish the House to take notice of what the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. John Bright) stated he had either seen himself or had heard on reliable authority. It was that Mr. Bradlaugh had been removed by force whilst standing in front of the doorway, and hurried by policemen down the steps of this House. I understood the same kind of statement to be made by the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson), and in a more guarded form by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). I witnessed what did occur. Was it the fact that Mr. Bradlaugh, standing peacefully outside, was, by order of Mr. Speaker, seized by policemen and hurried in a fainting condition down the steps? No, Sir; what occurred was this—that Mr. Bradlaugh endeavoured by force, against the decision of this House, and against the orders of Mr. Speaker, to compel an entrance into this House, and it was not until he had set himself in violent opposition to the appointed guardians of order, that that occurred which the right hon. Gentleman has described to this House with melo-dramatic effect. I regret the circumstances, and that Mr. Bradlaugh should have suffered any inconvenience; but Mr. Bradlaugh has no human being to thank but himself, unless it be in some slight degree those indiscreet and ill-advised friends of his who have made such appeals as we have just listened to. I have thought it right to say this much, because, unless someone said it, a totally erroneous impression might have been circulated to-morrow by that million or more of papers to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred—namely, that unnecessary and uncalled-for violence has been perpetrated under your orders by the officials of this House, on a harmless and unoffending Gentleman who was standing meekly outside the door of this House.

Sir, a large constituency has duly elected a proper and qualified person to represent them in Parliament; and we, as the Representatives of other English constituencies, are bound to do our duty, so far as we can, in obtaining permission for the hon. Gentleman to take his seat. It appears to me that to-morrow this House will appear in a most ridiculous position. You will raise up every constituency in this country. You will, by your action, bring support to Mr. Bradlaugh from every constituency in this country—support which would never have come only for the political martyrdom which he is looked upon as undergoing. Sir, it would be almost beneath one's dignity to stand here and disclaim sympathy with Mr. Bradlaugh's opinions on religious matters. We have no sympathy with any such opinions. We have a sympathy with this—the indisputable right of an English constituency to elect whomsoever they like—the right of the constituencies of the United Kingdom to elect whomsoever they think proper to represent them in this Parliament.

I must invite the hon. Member to keep to the Question before the House.

Mr. Speaker, I am sincerely thankful to you. It is easy on an occasion of this kind for so young a Member of Parliament as my- self to travel out of the narrow path of Order in a subject of this kind. I apologize to the House for that little indiscretion. But what I want to point out, Sir, is this—that you are renewing a battle against freedom of election, which is sure to be decided against you. I am willing to forego any further discussion on this subject if some instruction or promise could be made to the House in the direction indicated by the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen). At present we feel bound—almost bound—if the hon. Member for Northampton goes to a division, to support him, even at the risk of being thought to contest the authority of the Chair on this occasion.

My opinion, Sir, differs entirely from that of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I saw Mr. Bradlaugh removed by a very mild exhibition of physical force, to which he offered a great amount of theatrical resistance, almost as theatrical as the language in which the right hon. Gentleman described it. What is the position now? I wish to ask the Home Secretary, who, I suppose, is responsible for order being preserved outside the precincts of the House, what he proposes to do. Mr. Bradlaugh. is now standing in the yard of the House, and states that he will remain there and attempt to take his seat, and that if he has to retire he will return with a large accession of force and again attempt to take his seat. I wish to know, in case that should take place, what course the right hon. and learned Gentleman will take. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster says this matter will grow. I know no better means of making it grow than such a speech as the right hon. Gentleman has just delivered. It will be perfectly understood in the country who is behind Mr. Bradlaugh in his attempt to use force against the House of Commons.

Sir, I believe that a great many Members of this House, though they desire to express approval of the conduct of you, Sir, and of the officers of the House, feel some difficulty in dealing with the Resolution proposed by the hon. Member for Northampton; and I trust I may be able in some way to assist in shortening this debate, and allowing the House to get to the ordinary Business by proposing, if I am in Order in doing so, an Amendment to the Resolution proposed by the hon. Member for Northampton. Without any further speech I would propose—

"That this House approves the action of Mr. Speaker and of the Officers of this House acting under his orders."

Sir, although there is no doubt that a negative put upon the Motion which is before the House would have distinctly conveyed the judgment of the House in the sense of the present Amendment, yet, viewing the fact especially that the Motion is a Motion which sets out in some detail its own character and grounds, I think not only that the Amendment proposed by the hon. Baronet the Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland) is unobjectionable, but that, upon the whole, it enables the House to give expression more fully and satisfactorily than a mere negative would have done to the feeling which I think we all entertain. It has not been questioned by anyone, whatever view may have been taken, that the conduct of the Speaker has been eminently considerate and judicious. I have great satisfaction in supporting the Amendment, and I hope it may have the effect which the hon. Baronet is justified in anticipating. I wish also not to appear disrespectful to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-on-Tyne (Mr. J. Cowen), with regard to the question he has put to me. I am not disposed to think that I should be acting in the spirit of the decisions given by the Chair, were I to enter upon the subject of the general solution of the difficulty connected with Mr. Bradlaugh on the present occasion. It is strictly a question of the conduct of the Executive, and I think it is my duty to set an example of close adherence to the question, after the definition you, Sir, have given.

I will not detain the House for a minute. I will only say that I entirely support the Amendment of my hon. Friend behind me. It seems to me distinctly to mark what the question is that is submitted to the House, and to convey the approval which, I think, the great body of the House cordially wish to express towards you, Sir.

I rise, Sir, in the first place, to make a protest against the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has deemed it his duty to misconceive the Question before the House. The right hon. Gentleman drew a fancy picture, calculated to impress the imaginations of the classes to whom he appealed throughout the country. I am aware that historical accuracy is not a strong point with the right hon. Gentleman. I may observe that when the right hon. Gentleman, in drawing his picture, stated that the scene to-day was altogether unprecedented, he must have been unaware of the fact that even in the British Legislature no less a personage than the gallant Cochrane—the brave Dundonald—was dragged from this House, clinging desperately to the Benches of this House, and expelled and excluded by a Vote of this House; and that, if the sympathy of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was so extensive and so undiscerning as he would wish us to believe, it is strange that in the course of his rhetoric he did not contrive to drop a single regret upon the treatment of Captain Cochrane. I am also anxious to know on what principle the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster hesitates about supporting the authority of the Chair in the case of the excluded elect of Northampton, and the remarkable readiness which he showed to support the authority of the Chair when it was being exercised against Irish Members of the House. Sir, I think that as precedents are of such weight in this House, the precedent which the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster himself contributed to make ought not to have escaped his attention. It is true that Mr. Bradlaugh has been removed from proximity to the Chamber—where it appears he was contemplating some scene of disorder—by superior force. I want to remind the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that when Member after Member of the Irish Party was removed from this House by superior force, not a single rhetorical tear welled from the overflowing heart of the right hon. Gentleman. If Irish Members had used physical force to prevent their expulsion, I very much doubt whether the right hon. Gentleman would have made such a speech. I doubt whether he would feel a pang to see Mr. John Dillon dragged from the House. I think his speech eminently calculated to excite thoughtless and uninstructed persons against the dignity and authority of his own Legislature, and the reputation of the right hon. Gentleman will not be improved by the marked partiality he shows on behalf of offenders who are apparently of his own kidney.

I am quite unwilling, Sir, to enter into the subject; but I cannot refrain, on a question which seems to be unpopular, from saying a word on the unpopular side. I regret that the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) cannot move his Amendment, as I feel certain that, sooner or later, some such Resolution must be adopted by this House. I rose, however, chiefly to support the views of the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) in his appeal to the Prime Minister. I am not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman cannot, at this moment, make a definite statement; but I hope, before the Session terminates, he will be able to say that the subject will be dealt with very early next Session. When the hon. Member for Newcastle spoke of the popular feeling which is rising on behalf of Mr. Bradlaugh, the sentiment was met by an incredulous laugh from the other side of the House; but the hon. Gentleman is perfectly right. I have had to attend meetings recently in the North of England, convened without the slightest regard to this particular question, and at those meetings there was practical unanimity in support of Mr. Bradlaugh, although the persons attending the meetings had no sympathy whatever with his special views, and many of them were persons whese leisure was occupied with the advocacy of the principles of Christianity. What we have witnessed this morning goes to show that there is a rising feeling in the country. It is not Mr. Bradlaugh, it is the feeling that the constituencies have a right to elect the man they think proper. Sitting in this House, we might hear the cheers Mr. Bradlaugh received when he was taken out, and those cheers were ominous that the Gentlemen who now ranged themselves against the electors of Northampton are doomed to a speedy defeat.

Sir, the Question before the House is really whether the officers of the House, in the discharge of their duty, exceeded what was demanded by the necessity of the case. I, for one, do not hesitate a single moment in supporting the view of the case taken by you, Sir, that the action which has been taken was the necessary outcome of the Resolutions passed by the majority of the House, and that you, Sir, in the discharge of your duty, have not exceeded the necessities of the case in ordering the removal of Mr. Bradlaugh; but I feel some difficulty in supporting the Resolution which has been proposed on the other side of the House, because an obligation has been cast upon you, Sir, by the passing of these two Resolutions of the House, both of which, to say the least, I believe to have been great blunders. I am not going to say that these Resolutions are illegal. I believe that it is the opinion of the great mass of the people of this country that they are not legal; and it is impossible to prevent the great majority of the people of this country entertaining this opinion, and taking consequent action, from the belief that bigotry has shown itself.

I must remind the hon. Member that the question of the Parliamentary Oath is not the Question now before the House.

I can only say that I find it impossible to vote either for one Motion or the other. With all respect to you, Sir, I wish to say that I regret exceedingly what has taken place; but I regard it as the consequential outcome of Resolutions passed by the House at an earlier stage of the Session.

Sir, I feel I cannot vote on either side of the question; but I wish to say one word, as I have been an eye witness of the scene in the Lobby to-day. I stood within three feet of Mr. Bradlaugh, in front of him, between him and the door; and I heard him, in a perfectly quiet manner, claim what he maintained to be his legal right, to enter the House. He then endeavoured to make his way into the House, and was prevented by certain officials and police. I do not say whether they were right or wrong, but am merely giving a statement of what occurred. Mr. Bradlaugh was impeded in taking that action by a line of men who are not Members of this House, but who were drawn up across the portal of the House. That is to say, that to-day a Member who has been duly elected by a constituency, and whose return has not been impugned, has been prevented from entering the door of the House by those who are not Members of the House. Mr. Bradlaugh used no force except that he endeavoured to push his way into the House—not in a violent way at first. ["Oh!"] I pledge my honour that is so. I saw it all. Mr. Bradlaugh did not act in a disorderly manner. He tried to edge his way through those people who barred his progress; and was then seized, pushed forcibly, and hustled across the Lobby and expelled, expostulating the whole time with those who held him, and maintaining the course which they were taking to be illegal. It is not for me to say whether it is so or not. [Exclamations] Well, I am a Member of this House, and I have a right to express my opinions. There is a higher tribunal beyond the walls of this House which will probably decide that point. I say for myself I have no sympathy with Mr. Bradlaugh's opinions, social or political. I think he has been ill-advised in endeavouring to take the Oath after what he has said; but it is very doubtful whether the House is doing that which will conduce to its dignity in encouraging at the door of the House a scene of violence so unseemly as has just taken place. I am sure that when the people of England read the words of the right hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Birmingham they will thank him for his speech. ["Oh!"] They will thank him heartily for having had the manhood, in the difficult position in which he is placed, to stand up and give utterance to the opinions which he has expressed, which are in accordance with those which he has constantly expressed during the whole course of his political life. I cannot vote for the Resolution of my hon. Friend, be- cause I do not wish to do anything which seems even to impugn the authority of the Speaker when carrying out the mandate of the House. I cannot forget that Mr. Bradlaugh can at present enter the House if he refrains from attempting to take the Oath and imitates the example of Alderman Salomons and Baron Rothschild, who contented themselves with sitting below the Bar, and by their silent presence there ultimately brought Constitutional pressure to bear on the Houses of Parliament, and thus, in the end, succeeded in obtaining the repeal of the law which excluded Jews from the House of Commons. I am extremely sorry for what has taken place throughout with regard to Mr. Bradlaugh, and in saying what I have I believe I have expressed the wishes of my constituents, none of whom, however, have spoken a word to me of pressure on the subject, although they have said they believed it would be impossible permanently to exclude Mr. Bradlaugh from the House of Commons.

I wish, Sir, to ask you whether it is possible to move an Amendment to the Amendment proposed by the hon. Baronet the Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland)? If not, I will take the opportunity of moving it when the Amendment becomes a substantive Motion.

That cannot be done, as it would re-open the whole question.

Mr. Speaker, I just wish to ask, for the benefit of a large number of Members who do not wish to cast any blame on the action taken by the Chair, but who simply wish to register their protest against it, whether I should be in Order in moving an addition to the Amendment of the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Holland) of the following words:—

"But is of opinion that the regrettable proceedings attending the expulsion of Mr. Bradlaugh prove the necessity for legislation on the subject."

The Original Question before the House involves the conduct of the Speaker, and the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member is altogether irrelevant.

Before the Question is put, I should like to ask whether this is irrelevant? May I move to add the words—

"That this House regrets that Mr. Speaker has been placed in a position which rendered the course which has been taken unavoidable."

The Amendment of the hon. Baronet opens up the whole question of Parliamentary Oaths and the conduct of Mr. Bradlaugh on the one hand, and the House on the other; and, therefore, I could not consider it regular.

Sir, I do not wish to give a silent vote on the Motion now before the House. I wish to state why it is that, having seen so many of those scenes attending the expulsion of Members of this House, I shall, on the present occasion, support the authorities. I was present at the scene which has just taken place. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was not present, and the description he has given of the scene is wholly inaccurate. Having been present when the assault was committed upon the Serjeant-at-Arms by Mr. Brad-laugh, and at the closing scene outside, I wish to state simply that so far from Mr. Bradlaugh being in a fainting condition at the time he was left outside, in a far worse condition was the officer of this House, whose collar he had never let go through the struggle outside of the House; and, at the same time, he gave him as good a shake outside the House as ever a bull-dog gave a rat, thus showing that although he asked for a glass of water, he was in no fainting condition. But the scene was disgraceful in the extreme, and it was disgraceful to Her Majesty's Government, because of their want of moral courage to deal with the case. In a brutal manner Mr. Bradlaugh committed an assault for which he should be prosecuted; and if he does not, it is because this House lacks moral courage, because it lacks back-bone. It shows that it deals far differently with an English Member from the manner in which it deals with an Irish one. Although there have been many expressions of sympathy with Mr. Bradlaugh, yet it is a significant fact that there are none who come forward and offer to resign their seats in his favour. For the reasons I have given, I shall heartily support the authority of the Chair in this matter.

I beg to give Notice that on going into Committee of Supply I shall move—

"That every person returned as a Member of this House, who shall claim to be permitted to take the Oath, notwithstanding so much of the Resolution passed by this House on the 26th April last, as relates to the taking of the Oath, shall take and subscribe the Oath of Allegiance in the form and in the manner prescribed by law."

said, he wished to put one or two questions to the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury before this Vote was agreed to. First of all, he wanted to know what was the meaning of the item under the heading B—"Lyon King of Arms, £500;" and who was the personage who represented the Lyon King of Arms? He also desired to know what explanation could be given of the item "Secretary to the Bible Board, £600?" He should like to know what the Secretary to the Bible Board had to do, and also what was the particular duty of the Bible Board itself? He hoped the noble Lord would furnish some information as to the persons employed by the Bible Board. The Committee ought to understand what they were asked to vote the money for.

stated that the Lyon King of Arms was the Chief of the Herald's College in Scotland. With regard to the Bible Board, he believed its duties were to see that there were no inaccurate copies of the Bible published in Scotland. It was, of course, well known to hon. Members that in England the Bible could only be printed by the two Universities and by the Queen's Printers; but in Scotland Bibles might be printed by any printer, and, consequently, it was considered advisable that there should be a check upon the issue of copies of that Book, so as to make sure that inaccurate copies should not be published. The expense of this had been charged on the public for ages past, and it only amounted to a small sum.

asked the noble Lord if there was any plea for the advocate de diaboli of the index purgatorius in Scotland, because, if there was, something could be said for the keeping up of this charge.

asked if there were any means of preventing any person who wished to do so from publishing an inaccurate version of the Bible? Was there any law under which anyone who wanted to publish a Bible with a chapter or verse left out must send a copy to the Secretary to the Bible Board, who would have to certify as to what had been left out?

wished to be informed what was the duty of the Bible Board, with regard, for instance, to the newly revised edition of the New Testament?

said, he should like the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury to inform the Committee what were the duties and functions of "Her Majesty's Limner," whose salary was stated in the Vote at £97. What was it that he was required to draw or paint?

said, all he had to say in answer to the questions that had been put to him was that some of these charges were relies of the ancient Scottish Monarchy, and were the only ones that now survived in connection with the numerous appointments attached to the ancient Scottish Court. He was not very well acquainted with the details in connection with some of the matters referred to, and he thought the Solicitor General for Scotland would be better able to answer the question put with regard to the law on the subject of the publication of the Bible in Scotland. It was his belief, however, that it was requsite that a copy of every new edition should be sent to the Bible Board.

asked whether, supposing an incorrect copy of the Bible were printed in England, the Bible Board in Scotland would have power to stop its circulation in that country?

believed that the duties of the Bible Board were simply confined to Bibles printed in Scotland.

wished to ask what were the duties of the Law Agent to the Bible Board in Scotland? This appointment seemed to him to be the most curious appointment in connection with the Board. He thought the noble Lord ought to be able to give some information on this point. He should like to know what were the duties both of the Secretary and of the Legal Adviser to the Bible Board?

said, he should like to know whether if a Catholic printer were to publish the Douai version of the Bible, he would be bound to submit a copy of it to the Bible Board—whether, in fact, the Catholic version of the Bible could be printed in Scotland?

said, he should like to put a further question to the noble Lord, and that was, whether the office of Secretary to the Bible Board was a sinecure or not? If it were not a sinecure, he apprehended that that officer would have the very pleasant task of looking at every Bible that crossed the Scottish Border in order to see whether it was the correct version. Was it a part of his duty to do this? In fact, was the appointment a sinecure, or was it not? The Committee had already been satisfied about the office of Lyon King of Arms, because the office was one that brought in something; but with respect to the Secretary to the Bible Board, he could not see that the office was one that did any good to the inhabitants of Scotland, or to any other part of the world, the only advantage of the payment of £600 per annum being that the money went into the pocket of some gentleman who had nothing to do in return for it.

said, the Bible Board had no right to interfere with the publication of any edition of the Bible unless it professed to be the authorized version. Any person in Scotland might print and publish any other version as he pleased. He might publish a new and altered translation and no one could interfere with him. There was not less liberty in Scotland than in England as to printing the authorized version. In England it could be printed only by the Universities or the Queen's Printer. In Scotland it could be printed or published by any man if he received the attestation of the Board as to its accuracy. The office of Secretary to the Bible Board was not a sinecure; but, at the same time, he was of opinion that it was one that might be abolished with advantage.

said, no information had as yet been given in reply to his question as to the Law Agent of the Bible Board, and very little with regard to the Secretary, and for this reason he begged to move that the Vote be reduced by the amount payable to the Secretary and the Law Agent of the Bible Board.

Both the Secretary and the Law Agent?

said, he meant to include both in his Amendment.

said, he found that the Secretary had an officer under him who was a printer by profession, and who was employed as reader in the technical work of revision. The Secretary also had to provide office rooms and papers.

said, he had been about to ask the Solicitor General for Scotland for some information, because he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman might throw some light on the question. He believed he was right in saying that the office of Queen's Printer in Scotland was abolished some 30 years ago. That office used to entail a charge of £6,000 a-year on the public, and in its place the present arrangement had been made. Of course, whoever bought a Bible, like a person who bought butter, wanted to buy the real thing, and although any person in Scotland might, if he pleased, print copies of the Bible, he must not print an unauthorized version. If he did, the public would not have that which they desired to have; but if this Vote were abolished, every person who wanted the correct version would, in future, be obliged to go to the Oxford or Cambridge Press for it.

said, he would suggest that his hon. Friend should be content with the protest he had made; but he did not understand why they should spend £840 on the two offices that had been the subjects of discussion.

did not see why they should have in the office of Law Agent to the Bible Board a permanent official at a salary of £240 a-year, which was to be paid whether he had been engaged in any prosecutions or not; nor did he see why, in the case of the Secretary, it should not be incumbent on the Board to engage a lawyer who might institute prosecutions in case of any breach of the law.

said, he was not aware of any recent cases in which prosecutions had been instituted. He believed the practice was that proof sheets of every proposed edition of the Bible were sent to the Secretary of the Bible Board, and when these had been gone over by the reader, the Secretary also went over them, and they were then submitted to a meeting of the Board, the meetings being held periodically. If necessary, corrections were made, and these were sent back to the respective printers, who sometimes would incur a good deal of cost in making the alterations.

wished, before the Vote was put to the Committee, to ask a question which he regarded as a pertinent one. He wished to ask the Solicitor General for Scotland whether it was not a fact that the Secretary to the Bible Board got £600 a-year, and gave £100 a-year to a tradesman who did the work for him, he putting the remaining £500 a-year into his own pocket for doing nothing? This arrangement was merely because it was necessary to keep up a show of doing some work; but, practically, as far as the appointment of the Secretary was concerned, the office was a mere sinecure. With regard to the appointment of Law Agent, that was also a sinecure; and he believed he was justified in saying that if proceedings were taken at the instance of the Bible Board against a printer for infringing the law, the expenses of the prosecution came out of a totally different Vote. It was, therefore, by no means necessary that the allowance for Law Agent should be continuous, as it was now.

said, he could not state what the arrangement between the Secretary and the reader was, but no doubt there was some arrangement between them. The results of the duties performed were, as he had already stated, submitted to the Bible Board at their periodical meetings, with such observations as the Secretary had to offer. With regard to the appointment of Law Agent, he was afraid he could not add to what had already been said on that point. All he knew was that the office was one that was still retained.

said, he was afraid that the continuance of these offices kept the door open to a form of abuse. He sincerely hoped that such an expression of opinion as had already been given on this subject would lead to this result—that while the present holders of the offices referred to should be permitted to retain them for the rest of their lives, it would be impossible for any Government to continue the appointments. There was an evident abuse which, being perpetrated in the name of the Bible, rendered it all the more intolerable.

said, he was much pleased to hear what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Williamson) who had just sat down. He wished to put this question to the Representatives of Her Majesty's Government—Would they give a distinct pledge that they would not re-appoint men to these two sinecure offices? So far the Government had been exceedingly unwilling to let the Committee know what were the facts of the case; and it would have been far better had the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Scotland come forward at once, and stated what he knew about the matter under discussion.

said, he could assure the Committee that there would be no new appointments to these offices without the question being carefully investigated.

said, he thought the statement just made by the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Frederick Cavendish) was very satisfactory; but he would have saved a good deal of wasted time if he had made that statement before, and had said not only that no future appointment would be made to either of the two sinecure offices, but that no such appointment should be made without submitting the matter to that House. If, in the course of the coming winter, one of these officials should die, what course would the Government be likely to take? There ought to be some pledge that it should not be filled up without the sanction of the House.

It would not be filled up without the sanction of Parliament.

said, after what had just fallen from the Prime Minister, he would, with the permission of the Committee, withdraw his Amendment. He should like, however, to say, with regard to the Queen's Plates that were given for racing purposes in Scotland, that he was very sorry to see these items upon the Votes. He was well aware that in saying this he differed in opinion from some of his hon. Colleagues upon the subject of horse-racing; at the same time, he made it a rule which he did not like to break to oppose the Vote of money for such purposes, and if any other hon. Member would support him, he should certainly move to omit the sums put down for these Queen's Plates.

wished to say a few words on behalf of his constituents the fishermen on the coast of Ayrshire, between Ballantrae and Girvan. This was one of the most important herring fisheries in Scotland. The fishing took place in February and March. Outside the great spawning bed at Ballantrae there were considerable trawling grounds, where great quantities of cod and other fish used to be taken by lines; but the beam-trawlers had swept away the lines, and the fishery was destroyed. The fishermen had asked him (Colonel Alexander) to forward a Petition to the Fishery Board against beam-trawling. He had received a courteous answer from the Secretary that he could do nothing. In the year 1866 a Sea Fisheries Commission was appointed, consisting of the present First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) and Mr. James Caird, a distinguished agriculturist. This Commission arrived at the curious conclusion that beam-trawlers were Free Traders and ought to be encouraged, whereas those who opposed beam-trawling were Protectionists and ought to be discouraged in every possible way. In 1878 another Commission was appointed, consisting of the late Mr. Buckland, Mr. Walpole, and another gentleman, which arrived at a different conclusion. The Commission reported that the Ballantrae fishermen had made out a strong primâ facie case against beam-trawling inshore, and thought the Legislature should give the Secretary of State power to stop beam-trawling inshore should it be necessary to do so. He (Colonel Alexander) wished to know whether the Secretary of State (Sir William Harcourt) would carry out the recommendation of the Commission, and ask Parliament for power to stop beam- trawling inshore at any place where he might consider it necessary so to do?

said, he was able to confirm what had fallen from the hon. and gallant Member(Colonel Alexander). His (Sir John Hay's) constituents were largely interested in this question. There were numbers of these hardy and excellent fishermen who, when they went to sea, found their legitimate occupation seriously interfered with by trawling vessels coming from a distance. It seemed to him that the recommendation of the last Commission ought to be attended to by the Home Secretary; for although he had great esteem and respect for Mr. James Caird, he did not know that his knowledge of sea fisheries was very extensive. He (Sir John Hay) had paid great attention to the Reports of the Commissions, and he did not see why the advice of the later Commission should not be acted upon. There was no doubt that great mischief was done by the trawlers to the legitimate occupation of the fishermen on the coast. They were a set of men who were hardy and excellent fishermen, and well deserving of encouragement. There was plenty of room outside the line fisheries for the trawlers, and he trusted the Government would give effect to the recommendation of the last Commission.

said, the question now under discussion had been brought forward by him at an earlier period of the Session, and the Motion he had then submitted was negatived on a division. He was glad to find that hon. Gentlemen opposite were now inclined to concede the principle for which he had contended; and what they had said encouraged him to hope that when this question was brought forward in another Session he should be supported by those hon. Gentlemen. At present, however, the question had been decided by what had previously taken place.

wished to say that although the hon. Member (Mr. Webster) had his entire sympathy in the Motion he had formerly submitted, that Motion was brought on at an hour in the morning when he (Sir John Hay) did not happen to be present. It was, however, a matter with which he hoped the Lord Advocate might interfere in the sense suggested by the hon. Member for Ayrshire (Colonel Alexander) and himself.

said, he hoped the Home Secretary would give a reply to the point he had raised. It would only be necessary for him to interfere in those cases where he might think it necessary to do so.

said, it was unfortunate the Lord Advocate was not in his place when the question was opened, and he did not think that the Representatives of the Treasury were well qualified to decide this question. He could only say that the facts would be brought before the Lord Advocate.

said, he had received several letters from Kerry with reference to an item in this Vote, which was regarded with a good deal of jealousy by all the fishing interests in Ireland. They complained that the Irish Members gave their consent for the voting of public money for certain purposes in Scotland, when similar grants were persistently refused to the interests in which they were concerned in Ireland. He referred to the item "Cutter and Boat Service; Pay of Officers and Crew of Cutter; Victualling; Repairs and Service Stores—Fishery Station Votes amounting to £2,430." It was of great importance to the fisheries on the Coasts of Ireland that they should be protected; but they were not. As a matter of fact, they suffered a great deal from the trawlers, who also frequented the Coast of Scotland, as well as from the great misconduct of the number of foreign fishermen, principally French, who habitually broke their nets. He believed that the Scotch fishermen, in common with the English and Irish fishermen, had sustained much injury from the Belgian fishermen, who made use of instruments which were called "Belgian devils." The cutter mentioned in this Vote had proved of great service in protecting the Scotch fishermen from the depredations committed by these foreigners, and it had also been useful in maintaining the peace and preventing dangerous quarrels among the Scotch fishermen themselves. The Irish fishermen suffered from the same evils, and the Inspectors of Fisheries had repeatedly made urgent representations as to the advisability of establishing a good Cutter Service in the Irish waters, such as was voted by the House in favour of the Scotch fisheries year after year. But the Irish fishermen had hitherto found it impossible to secure due attention on the part of the Government to this very reasonable application, and it therefore became necessary that the Irish Members should make a distinct stand upon this point. He was sorry to appear to oppose the Scotch Vote, especially as he was inclined to think that the Scotchmen did not get so much from the Imperial Revenue as they had a fair right to in many instances, and he was, generally speaking, inclined to support the Scotch Members in the representations they made as to the inadequacy for the sums voted for the Scotch Service. But on this occasion he felt it necessary to exceed the representations that had been made to him from Kerry. Therefore, he should move the reduction of this Vote by the sum of £2,430, in the hope of being enabled to obtain some assurance from the Government that the claims of Ireland in this matter should receive the same treatment as those of Scotland.

was understood to say that much consideration had been given to the subject before it was decided to send a vessel to the Scotch Coast. A greater number of Scotch fishermen were employed there than the number of Irish fishermen on the Irish Coast; and it did not follow that because a gunboat had been placed off the Coast of Scotland to prevent the depredations of foreign vessels, that one should also be sent to the Irish Coast for police purposes. He was not aware that disturbances had occurred in connection with the Irish fisheries; but if, on examination, it was found to be necessary, a gunboat would be sent.

said, he thought the mind of the noble Lord was still insufficiently impressed with the importance of this question. In the Report of the Fishery Commission of 1879 he found an expression of opinion that there ought to be a properly equipped vessel on the Irish Coast, for the purposes of carrying out fishing experiments and discovering new fishing grounds. He did not think the noble Lord had any claim whatever to take further time for the consideration of this matter. As long as there has been a Report from the Fishery Commissioners, so long had there been a paragraph in it demanding that a vessel should be sent to the Coast of Ireland, and the Inspectors of Fisheries had declared, on their own responsibility, that a necessity existed for this gunboat. There had been a discussion a few days ago upon the subject of the Irish fisheries, and the Chief Secretary for Ireland had, upon that occasion, given an assurance which was satisfactory as far as it went.

pointed out to the hon. Member for Galway that, although it was allowable by way of illustration to show that there was no Vote for a gunboat off the Coast of Ireland, it was not competent to him to discuss the question of the Irish fisheries upon the Scotch Vote.

thanked the Chairman for his ruling. He had quoted the Report of 1879 by way of illustration,' and would conclude the few observations he had to make by a reference to the Report of 1880, which said that "the attendance of a gunboat or two was necessary during the mackerel season to protect the fishery." The Commissioners of Irish Fisheries were every year pressing this question upon the Government; the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Blake) had also, on more than one occasion, brought it before the House, and he had never heard him speak upon the subject without impressing the immense necessity which existed for placing a gunboat off the Irish Coast, for the purpose of protecting the fisheries. He therefore trusted that the Government would lose no more time in carrying out this recommendation.

said, that the Committee were not only asked to vote £2,430 for Cutter and Boat Services, but there was also a charge of £200 for salary of the commanding officer of the Vigilant cruiser, besides £100 for salary of the commanding officer of H.M.S. Jackal, and another sum of £50 in connection with the gunboat. It would really seem as if the whole Navy were concerned in the protection of the Scotch fisheries; but, leaving that point out of the question, he was quite at a loss to understand why the commander of the Jackal should receive £100 in addition to his naval pay.

said, the Scotch Members had quite recently shown their readiness to support measures for the development of the Irish fisheries; but what they were asked to do now, as a means of aiding Ireland, was to acquiesce in refusing the Vote for the fisheries of their own country. That might be an Irish way of securing the desired end, but it was certainly not a Scotch one. He hoped that the Irish Members would give up their opposition to this Vote.

said, he would remind the hon. Gentleman who had just addressed the Committee that the course adopted by hon. Members near him was the only means they had of calling attention to the necessity which they believed existed for placing a gunboat in Irish waters. He could assure the Committee that no better service was done than that performed by the Vigilant and Jackal; and he trusted hon. Members for Ireland would not wish to improve the Irish fisheries so far as to remove these vessels from the Coast of Scotland. He approved strongly the stationing of gunboats of the Navy at various places for the purpose of protecting the fisheries, because, amongst other reasons, it gave their officers and men excellent experience of waters which it required much skill to navigate. He was entirely opposed to stopping the Jackal and the Vigilant in their work off the Coast of Scotland; but he should be glad to hear that Her Majesty's Government were prepared to do what was requested by Irish Members, if necessary.

explained that the extra pay to the commanding officer of the Jackal was for work done in connection with the Scotch fisheries, which was much more difficult than that which was usually performed by naval officers. If upon further examination it was found that a gunboat was required off the Irish Coast for the purpose indicated by hon. Members opposite, he should be glad to do everything in his power to persuade the Board of Admiralty to station a vessel there. The question of disputes between English and foreign fishermen would be discussed at the International Congress, which was shortly to meet at the Hague. He must remind the Committee that the reason for sending a gunboat to the Scotch Coast was very different to that which might exist in the case of the Irish fisheries. It was purely a matter of police as regarded Ireland, and he could hardly believe that the same state of things existed off the Irish Coast as off the Scotch Coast.

said, he was perfectly sure there was no disposition on the part of his hon. Friends to reduce the Vote for the Scotch fisheries. The question of having a cutter in Irish waters had been discussed during the last few years by those interested in the Irish fisheries; and the Irish Fishery Commissioners had impressed upon the Government the desirability of sending a boat for the purposes they had indicated. But he would like to mention, for the information of his hon. Friends, that there was a great distinction to be drawn between the objects contemplated by the Irish Fishery Commissioners and matters of police. He also reminded them that a gunboat was sent to the Irish Coast, and occasionally a cruiser, which looked after the Irish fisheries. For these services no separate Vote was taken in the Estimates, but it formed a charge upon the Admiralty.

said, it was not his intention to proceed to a division; but he had felt it to be his duty to take formal notice upon this Vote of the different treatment accorded to Scotland and Ireland. In asking permission to withdraw his Amendment, he begged leave to say that his appeal to the Government for the stationing of a vessel in Irish waters was made as much in the interest of the Scotch as of the Irish fishermen. A Return showed that in one season there were 60 English, 115 Irish, and 187 Scotch vessels engaged on one Irish fishing ground, while further down the coast, at Ardglass, as many as 213 Scotch vessels were engaged. The placing of a vessel on the coast would, therefore, be for the advantage of the Three Countries. He might also mention that inasmuch as the Scotch boats were larger than the Irish, their interest in the matter was proportionately greater. It was not only for police purposes that this was required, but for the protection of fishermen and fishing pro- fishermen. The Report stated distinctly that it was necessary that a cruiser should be stationed off the coast of Kerry and Cork for the protection of the mackerel fishery from those depredations. When the question again presented itself he trusted that, for the reasons he had stated, they would receive the support of Scotch Members in aid of the claim for a boat to be stationed off the Coast of Ireland.

said, he had been requested to bring forward a question which was the subject of a Petition he had presented to the House from the Convention of Burghs. The question was as to whether it was not desirable that the Lunacy Board should be merged into the Board of Supervision for the Relief of the Poor in Scotland. The Committee would observe that the charge under this head was considerable—namely, £5,944, of which £3,200 was for the salaries of Senior Commissioner, Commissioner, Senior Deputy Commissioner, and Deputy Commissioner; and these gentlemen, in addition to the amount of their salaries, had an allowance for travelling expenses of £1,000. There were also a secretary and a staff of clerks, whose salaries brought the total amount under that head to the sum of £4,864. Now, it had been very clearly pointed out by the Convention that a great part of the business of the Lunacy Commissioners was devoted to the oversight of pauper lunatics, most of whom were kept in the parochial poor-houses, which were under the direct charge of the Board of Supervision of the Poor in Scotland. It, therefore, deserved grave consideration whether the business of the Lunacy Commission might not be superseded and merged, as he had before said, into the department of the Board of Supervision, whose business underlay and embodied the greater part of that of the Lunacy Commissioners. He confessed he had up to the present time not been able to get sufficient information to justify him, with due respect and regard to the Committee, in proposing on that occasion absolutely to do away with the Commis- sion; and he, therefore, confined himself to giving Notice that if, upon further consideration, it appeared to Scotch and other hon. Members that this Commission had seen its day, and that it should be merged into the department for the relief of the poor, the question would be deliberately raised again next year.

pointed out that the Lunacy Commissioners were appointed for the purpose of carrying out certain Acts of Parliament. They were medical men, and performed duties with respect to all public and private lunatics throughout Scotland; and, under the circumstances, he did not think that the staff was more than adequate for the requirements of the service. It might be that on some grounds the union of the department with the Board of Supervision of Relief to the Poor was desirable; but he could hold out no prospect that it would take place.

wished to elicit from the Government some explicit statement as to their intentions with regard to the sum of £10,000 which appeared as a grant in aid of medical relief under this Vote. It was a matter of just complaint in Scotland that this grant was limited to so small a sum as £10,000, having regard to the very lavish expenditure for the same purpose in England. He believed the Prime Minister had on the previous day expressed some intention of dealing with the matter in speaking on the Motion of the hon. Member for Ayrshire (Mr. Cochran-Patrick); but it had not been easy to gather exactly what it was that the Prime Minister was desirous to convey. He would, therefore, be glad to know whether the Government proposed to ask for any Supplementary Estimate this year for the purpose of rectifying the existing inequality?

said, it would not be possible for him to add anything to the explicit statement made by the Prime Minister, and which, he believed, was perfectly understood by all Scotch Members. He should regard perty against the depredations of foreign it as simply a waste of time to attempt any further explanation.

said, he believed that hon. Members below the Gangway on that side of the House were entitled to a civil reply from the noble Lord when a question affecting the expenditure of public money was addressed to him. He wished to elicit from the noble Lord whether the Government intended to make any immediate alteration in the arrangements which at present existed with respect to the Medical Board in Scotland, and whether, in order to do so, it was proposed to enlarge the Vote by a supplementary sum?

said, the Prime Minister had distinctly stated that no change would be made this year, but that the matter would be considered next year.

said, he objected to this Vote en bloc, and, in saying that, he wished to state that his objection was not to any individuals, but to the whole system of paying for the Household of the Lord Lieutenant in Ireland. He had heard, in that House and elsewhere, great speeches delivered on the tyranny of government in certain countries; but he would not now refer to any other system of government than that at Constantinople, which was, in his opinion, the only one which could be reasonably compared with the English system of government in Ireland, and he was quite aware that the Lord Lieutenant's Household in Dublin was kept up on a somewhat similar principle to that which regulated the household of a Pasha under the Turkish rule. He protested against, and was bound to oppose, any system, with all its surroundings, that supported a tyrannous rule in Ireland, and which kept up a permanent staff of effete officials such as that provided for in this Vote. He found that the salaries for the House- hold of the Lord Lieutenant amounted to £3,631. Now, he said that a household which took so large a sum of money must be of an extravagant kind, and it was very hard for Irish Members to be asked to vote £3,631 to maintain a household which directly supported a wretched system of government. For that reason he should vote against the charge. Then there was another item, under sub-head D, for the Ulster King-at-Arms, to which he had last year called the attention of the Committee. Happily, there were no Kings in Ireland; and there they did not want even an Irish King, and certainly not the anomaly called the Ulster King-at-Arms. For his own part, he thought that Kings and Ireland would do very well apart, and that the Irish people would be much better without either the realities or emblems of Royalty. Besides the amount of salary paid to the Ulster King-at-Arms, he saw, on referring to a foot-note, that he received £500 a-year as Keeper of State Papers. Now, this system of giving duplicate offices to one individual had been common in England, and much more common in Ireland, and such offices, as a general rule, were State rewards to persons who had rendered services, not to Ireland, but to those who misruled it. Therefore, he opposed the Vote, first, on account of the Ulster King-at-Arms holding duplicate offices, to which he objected on abstract grounds, and secondly, because he objected to the office itself. He further objected to the item of £25 for emblazoning arms. In moving that the Vote be reduced by two-thirds of the whole total, he expressed a hope that Irish Members would divide against this charge again and again, not in opposition to the individuals included under it, but in opposition to, and as a protest against, a system of government which, he thought, should be done away with as quickly as possible. He wished to see Ireland ruled, if it must be so ruled, in accordance with the so-called Act of Union, which had been violated in spirit and word, in equity and in law, and in every possible way. He begged to move that the Vote be reduced by two-thirds of the total amount.

asked whether he would be in Order in afterwards moving a reduction of the Vote by the sum of £1,800 for salaries of the Household of the Lord Lieutenant?

said, the hon. Member would be in Order in moving the reduction of the Vote by £1,800, but not the reduction of an item after a reduction had been moved on the total.

said, in that case he would ask his hon. Friend to withdraw the present Motion, to enable him to move the reduction of the household expenses.

said, he had given the hon. Member for Ennis (Mr. Finigan) an opportunity to do so; but he had decided to move the reduction of the total, and it would, therefore, not be competent to the hon. Member for Queen's County to move the reduction of an item.

said, he understood the hon. Member for Ennis to make his Motion upon two grounds. His first objection was to the Vote en bloc; but he (Mr. W. E. Forster) presumed that as long as the Lord Lieutenancy of Ireland was kept up the Committee would vote the sum necessary for maintaining the present form of government in Ireland. The hon. Member then especially objected to the charge for the Ulster King-at-Arms. This Vote was similar to that for the Lyon King-at-Arms, and he found that the present occupant came into office in 1853, when it was fixed that his salary was to be £200 a-year in addition to fees. But by a Treasury Minute of the 25th February, 1872, it was settled that the salary was to be £750 in lieu of fees. Since that time fees had been paid into the Exchequer to the amount of £6,015, by which it would be seen that the Treasury had been gainers of a considerable sum annually. He understood also that the office was not to be again filled up without the consent of the Treasury—that is to say that, on the office becoming vacant, there would be an opportunity of considering whether it should continue or not. With regard to the duties of the Keeper of State Papers, he wished to observe that they were performed by the Ulster King-at-Arms in the most efficient manner, and that the amount charged in the Estimate for the services rendered were no more than an adequate remuneration to that officer.

observed, that the right hon. Gentleman apparently had not thought it right to make any reply to the general observations of the hon. Member for Ennis. He joined with his hon. Friend in his strong objection to Royal Courts, under all circumstances; and if he objected to Royal Courts à fortiori, he objected to Vice-regal Courts which were very shams, and he contended that the effect of the Vice-regal Court on the people of Dublin was to bring to the surface all the snobbish elements of society. Such persons had for a long time uniformly opposed everything in the shape of the regeneration of the Irish nation and the advance of public opinion. If in London anyone desired to find a class of persons a little below the Corporation of the City, it would be necessary for him to go to those parts of the Metropolis where the Royal tradesmen "most do congregate," and then it would be found that every proposal emanating from the party which represented progress and improvement was met with uniform opposition on the part of these hangers-on of Royalty. It was precisely the same in Dublin. In that city there was no resident aristocracy, but in its place there was a number of officials, professional men, and tradesmen. The Vice-regal system in Dublin was kept up by various expedients, notably amongst others by the influence of the weaker sex. If you wanted a professional man to take any manly and straightforward action upon a question of policy in Ireland, he would be sure to be got at by the patronage which, in the shape of large salaries, the English Government had under its control in Ireland, and which were kept up to an extravagant figure simply because they were not the rewards of professional ability, but because they were bribes by which the talent of the country could be kept in the anti-national ranks. But he would be completely secured by the female belongings of the Lord Lieutenant, and an invitation to a ball was one means by which the Government in Ireland was propped up by the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary. With regard to the present holder of the office of Lord Lieutenant in Ireland he had nothing to say beyond that he worked in silence and secresy, and that he had probably blushed occasionally to find himself famous by allusions which Irish Members were compelled to make in that House to some of his operations. He had nothing to urge personally against the present holder of the office, whom he believed to be a high-minded nobleman; but he pointed out that they were dealing with a country the majority of whose inhabitants at the present moment were in such a state of destitution that the Government had been obliged to overthrow on their behalf the principles which related to the land. It was in such a state of things that there was a Lord Lieutenant in Ireland with a salary of £20,000 a-year and a household which was charged at the additional sum of £3,631. And, then, in order that his religious wants might be attended to, he was provided with a chaplain whose salary and allowances amounted to £780. Finally, there was the Ulster King-at-Arms with the salary of £750 a-year, who, although he had never had the pleasure of seeing him, he presumed belonged to something in the nature of the order of beadles. However that might be, to spend £750 in a wretchedly poor country, for the purpose of keeping up this miserable and ghastly remnant of feudal days, was rather too much to propose in a House composed of Liberals pledged to economy. This question had been brought before the Committee on previous occasions by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) and by the late Joseph Hume, who repeatedly asked that a change should be made; and whenever the opportunity should present itself of following in the footsteps of the latter, whom he regarded as a trustworthy guide in political questions, whether English or Irish, he should protest against this Vote in the belief that he would, by so doing, act in conformity with the wishes of the English and Irish people. When he contrasted the poverty of the people of Ireland with the enormous expenditure on State officials, he regarded the latter as the embodiment of the worst form of foreign customs which existed at the present day; and for that reason, and for the purpose of convincing the Government of their sincerity, he trusted his Colleagues would always meet this Vote with persistent hostility.

said, the remarks of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) rather conveyed the impression that the payment to the Ulster King-at-Arms was a loss to the country; but the fact was the reverse of this. The fees for the last five and a-half years which had been paid into the Treasury amounted to £6,015, as against five and a-half years' salary,. which amounted to £4,135.

said, he did not attach much importance to the item of Ulster King-at-Arms. After all, arms were but the hieroglyphics of nobility, and as such, perhaps, might be of interest to persons of an archaeological turn of mind. Although he was not opposed to the office in the hands of its present occupier, he hoped that when it became vacant, it would not be again filled up. If the Lord Lieutenant then chose to pay an officer of the kind out of his own pocket, no one could of course object to his doing so. But his objection to the Vote rested on larger grounds. He agreed with a Member of the present Government in saying that the whole system of administration by the Lord Lieutenant was a mockery and a sham. He had himself heard a Member of the present Government use these words, at a bye election, when he was endeavouring to obtain the Irish vote—

"We owe you," he said, "a debt; and as one who feels we have wronged you—not in his own person, but in those of his predecessors—I will endeavour, in connection with honest men, to wipe out the memory of those crimes and obliterate the last traces of English misrule in Ireland, and I hope the day is not distant when this farce of the Lord Lieutenant will be got rid of."

"I can understand what people talk about when they speak of the sunshine of Royalty, but the moonshine of Viceroyalty is utterly incomprehensible."

I would point out to the hon. Member that the right time to discuss this subject is on the next Vote for the Executive. This is simply a Vote for the Household.

said, quite so; but he would do away with the Lord Lieutenant, and he would include the household in the comdemna- tion. He would recommend a "bag and baggage policy" for Ireland as complete as was suggested for Bulgaria. He objected to this household of the Lord Lieutenant, and he objected to the Lord Lieutenant himself. He supposed if there were no Lord Lieutenant there would be no necessity for the household, and therefore he objected to the expenditure for the household of the Lord Lieutenant. He wished to say that he did not make his observations with regard to the arrests in Ireland without personal knowledge. He had good personal knowledge of years standing with many of the men now imprisoned.

I have pointed out to the hon. Member that the question of the arrests comes under the Vote for the Executive. This is simply a Vote for the Household, and his remarks are out of Order.

said, as, of course, he was not in a position to challenge the ruling of the Chair, there was absolutely nothing for him to do but to submit to it, which, under the circumstances, he did. But he would go on to the next head of the Vote—the salary and allowances to the chaplain. The chaplain of Dublin Castle received £184 12s. 8d., and an allowance, in lieu of a furnished house, of £150—that was, in a round sum, £335 a-year for a chaplain for Dublin Castle. He was under the impression that the Lord Lieutenant for the time being must necessarily be a Protestant and a member of the Church of England, and the chaplain presumably would be a member of the same Church. This was a charge, therefore, for the appointment, in a Catholic country, and where the Church of England had been disestablished, and which was maintained out of the taxes upon a Catholic population, of a chaplain—to which appointment a member of the same faith as the great majority of the people was not eligible. This appointment of a chaplain to the Lord Lieutenant, from which Roman Catholics were excluded, was a remnant from the days when the ecclesiastical supremacy of the majority of the people of this country was maintained in Ireland. He objected, therefore, to this pay to the chaplain to the Castle of Dublin; and the "reading clerk,'' of course, would come under the same condemnation, as did also the organist, the master of the chair, and the keeper of the chapel. He did not know whether it was necessary to refer to the item of £1,562 for Queen's Plates to be run for in Ireland. He fancied that those who derived any benefit from these Plates did not belong to the great bulk of the people of Ireland; but as objection was not raised to a similar item in the Scotch Vote, he would not oppose this particular item. He regretted that it would not be in Order, according to the ruling of the Chairman, to discuss the conduct of the Lord Lieutenant in connection with the household provided for him by the House. His official residence—the Castle—had over its gates the emblem of Justice, and it was remarkably well placed, for its back was turned to the people.

said, the Committee had heard a great deal about the Ulster King-at-Arms; could the Chief Secretary give any information about another official, the "Kettle Drummer," and could he also say what were the duties of the ''Serjeant of the Riding House?"

said, he should like to ask a question with regard to some enclosures in Phoenix Park, and he thought the inquiry would properly come under this Vote. Why was it that the "swells" of Dublin, and none but those connected with the Castle, were allowed intakes from the Park for cricket and other purposes?

This question would apply to a Vote which has been passed, Class I.

said, of course, if it was out of Order he would not put the question; but he thought that the Committee, being now upon the Vote for Household Expenditure, this matter would come under it.

No; it is not in the Vote at all.

said, as to the inquiry of the hon. Member for Water-ford, the office of "Serjeant of the Riding House" was instituted in 1843, with a salary of £30 a-year, in lieu of the appointment of a Master of the Riding House, with a salary of £200. The "Kettle Drummer" was the only remnant of a band of a drummer and six trumpeters appointed in the days of Charles II. He received £61, and when the present holder of the office died the question of renewing the appointment would be re-considered.

said, he should be glad to know if the Chief Secretary could inform him by whose instructions were the intakes from the Park in the neighbourhood of the Castle made, and whether they were permitted in favour of others besides those having connection with the Castle? He would also like to know if the state of friction still continued between the Veterinary authorities and the Lord Lieutenant with regard to the sale of milk? Formerly, the Lord Lieutenant sold his milk and his cabbages, and the result was that the Veterinary authorities of Dublin insisted that there should be the usual inspection, and the Vice-regal milk was for a time stopped. Did that state of things exist now, or had an Order in Council exempted Phœnix Park from that veterinary inspection, which was insisted upon in respect to other dealers in milk and keepers of cows?

said, as to the first question, it had been ruled by the Chairman as not being pertinent to the Vote. If the hon. Member would give Notice of a Question on the subject, he would endeavour to answer. As regarded the other point, he had heard of no state of friction, and he was not aware that the Lord Lieutenant sold milk and cabbages.

said, his Predecessor did.

said, he must protest against the idea that the people of Dublin had any wish for the abolition of the Lord Lieutenancy. He had been a citizen of Dublin for 40 years, and had every means of knowing that the views of the citizens were quite the reverse of those that had been put forward by hon. Members, who, after all, were not Dublin ratepayers.

said, he was not prepared to dispute the statement of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Find-later) that a large proportion of the population of Dublin were in favour of the maintenance of the Lord Lieutenant. This would be found to be the case in the neighbourhood of every centre of the aristocracy. The small shopkeeping class in every village set more value upon the small amount of their sales to landlords and land agents than on all their other business. The same was the case in Dublin. All those who obtained custom from the Castle, or who got invitations to State balls or ceremonies, or who were on terms with those who were sometimes invited, or who got employment directly or indirectly with regard to matters of this sort—all these were exceedingly anxious there should he no change. The vanity of women also showed itself in connection with the Castle ceremonies. But all this was what he objected to. Any political spirit that was displayed in other parts of Ireland never found moral support in the capital of the country; but, on the contrary, there were always objections and adverse criticisms from the parties in place, and those under their influence. Another objection to the present system was that the class of persons he had referred to—the genteel and semi-genteel people of Dublin—instilled into the ears of the Lord Lieutenant the most absurd and erroneous ideas as to the wants and wishes of the Irish people. Any good intentions he might have had no support. The Lord Lieutenant and the Government in Dublin were so ear-wigged by the shopocracy and the professional classes that they were misled as to what was desirable and what ought to be done for the good of the Irish people. Then he was justified as a taxpayer—as an Imperial taxpayer—in objecting to a Vote of this kind; and he did object to the Vote as a whole, and without reference to special items, though he did especially to the item for Ulster King at Arms, though the right hon. Gentleman very skilfully referred to the fees that some parties paid to this official. Why not leave him to the support he received from this source? Of course, if there was to be a Lord Lieutenant at all, he must have a household; but what was wanted was to get rid of the Lord Lieutenant and his household with him. It seemed to him that English and Scotch Members ought to assist Members from Ireland in getting rid of an unreasonable and anomalous expenditure, just as Irish Members would assist in putting an end to a useless expenditure in Edinburgh or elsewhere. He could not understand why English Members should insist on voting for expenditure for matters which were, in his opinion, at least, most unreasonable. Of the Lord Lieutenant himself he knew nothing, except that his name appeared as the signature to warrants for consigning prisoners to gaol. Nothing seemed to be known practically as to his abilities or capabilities; he seemed to be a mere blind tool in the hands of wirepullers, beyond which he did nothing. Surrounding him the Lord Lieutenant had secretaries and a staff of clerks; but it seemed an absurd thing that he should require this array of clerks, aides-de-camp, Steward of the Household, Gentlemen Ushers, and so on. All these were matters for which a Vote should not be asked, and he considered he was only doing his duty in refusing such a Vote. All these things had a tendency to demoralize and corrupt the genteel and semi-genteel population of Ireland, and the trading classes, who hoped to get occupation in connection with these offices. They lessened the influence of Members of Parliament and of public opinion, and encouraged a great amount of mischief, and, on the other side, not a word had been said in defence by the Chief Secretary.

said, he was not surprised that the Lord Lieutenant had not received any defence, because he believed that, if out of Office, the Chief Secretary would join with the political section to which he belonged in seeking to abolish the office, the Four Courts of Dublin, and every distinction that distinguished the capital of Ireland from the position of a provincial town such as Manchester or Liverpool. The hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) did not represent the mass of the educated opinion of Ireland, for that mass was in favour of retaining the Lord Lieutenancy of Ireland, and with an increased brilliancy, if possible. It was regarded as one of the land marks of Irish Nationality. ["No, no!"] He had his own opinion as a Nationalist, and had expressed it before many of those who interrupted him were known in the political world. He looked upon this Lord Lieutenancy as a golden link to the Crown, and he looked forward to the time when instead of being a mere appanage to the Crown, one of the Princes of the Blood Royal would assume the office of Lord Lieutenant, and a son of Her Majesty open a Parliament in Dublin composed of Representatives of the opinions of the country. Those who had a stake in the country and were anxious for their country's prosperity wished to see that day, and he hoped to see it yet, though he was not so sanguine as he was some half-a-dozen years ago. But as to what had been said of the opinion of Dublin, if that alone were favourable to the retention of the office of Lord Lieutenant, it would not merit much consideration, for Dublin was not the capital of Ireland so much as it was the capital of the flunkeyism of the country, and he would wish to remove the office of Lord Lieutenant from the dingy gilding that now surrounded it and to brighten it into a real Royal Court. He should vote for the retention of the Vote if the Amendment was intended as an expression of opinion against the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland.

said, he thought it was the duty of Irish Members to offer strenuous opposition to Votes which were asked for for the maintenance of institutions which they believed prejudicial to the true interests of the country. He believed that the institution of Lord Lieutenant was altogether bad. It formed in Ireland a centre for the demoralization of the whole country. Those who represented the feelings and aspirations of the people had too much reason to look with despair upon Dublin, because every national movement, every outcome of national sentiment from the Irish people met with opposition always directed from Dublin. What the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Findlater) said with respect to the opinion of Dublin was no doubt strictly correct, and no doubt that opinion was in favour of the retention of this institution. It was but natural that it should be so, and the institution itself had created such an amount of national demoralization and national degradation in Dublin as was quite sufficient to account for the opinion. What the state of Dublin society was could be gathered from the descriptions of Charles Lever and others, and it was known that Dublin society was made up of men who had no right whatever to pose as the gentry of the country. Public opinion in Dublin had grown corrupt under Castle influences, and that was why the opinion of Dublin was in favour of an institution which the rest of Ireland viewed with strong dislike; and those who desired to see this influence abolished were determined that the Vote should not be carried without a full expression of opinion upon it. The hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan) had gratified his wish to stand up as the only Member on those Benches to say a word in favour of the maintenance of this institution. He was within his right in expressing his opinion; but the distinction he had gained was not to be envied, for there was no question that throughout Ireland the vast majority of the people were bitterly hostile to this institution. Dublin was the rallying point of anti-national opinion; Dublin opinion was demoralized and corrupt, and there could be no thoroughly healthy national life there until the officialism of the Castle and its evil traditions were entirely swept away. There were many reasons that made him anxious to oppose this Vote, and he hoped that the opposition would be carried to a division. Amongst other reasons, because the Lord Lieutenant, whose existence as such was called in question upon this Vote, was the ostensible mode of carrying into effect the tyrannical coercive laws. The only reason why he seemed to have any existence in Ireland was because his name should appear at the foot of warrants issued in Ireland for the purpose of incarcerating men against whom no crime was alleged, men who ever commanded the respect and esteem of their fellows. But he would not infringe upon the Chairman's ruling; and he sincerely trusted that on a subsequent Vote there might be a more legitimate raising of the questions attaching to the office, as well as others in connection with the Gentleman who filled the ill-starred office of Chief Secretary. On this Vote he would say nothing further, and he hoped a division would be taken if only to show that the hon. Members for Monaghan and Louth did not share the opinions of the majority of Irish Representatives.

said, he had not heard one reasonable argument in support of the Vote, but many why the opposition should be continued. He disputed altogether that there was any justice in supporting a Vote of this large sum of money annually, to maintain a foreign Household in the capital of Ireland.