asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the following report in the "Cork Herald:"—

"At the last Sneem (county Kerry) Petty Sessions (before Messrs. W. Monsell, R.M. and J. F. Bland), Constable Dwyer charged a man named Martin Noonan with having been drunk and disorderly on the night of the 5th instant:

"The Chairman said that the magistrates had come to the conclusion of fining the defendant 2s. 6d. and 3s. compensation, in addition to the costs;

"Noonan (leaving the Court)—I thank your worships and God.

"Chairman—Bring back that man. Now, Sir, if you don't thank the police too, I will change the ruling, and send you to gaol for a month.

"Mr. Bland—I don't think he understands what you mean.

"Mr. Monsell—He does very well, and he must return the police thanks or go to gaol.

"The defendant then thanked the police, and was discharged.'"

And, if he has communicated with Mr. Monsell, E.M. as to the language alleged, what notice he has taken of the matter; and, if it is desired, will he grant any inquiry?

Sir, I have received the following statement on this subject:—

"The prisoner was charged with being drunk and disorderly, assaulting the police, and tearing a policeman's tunic. The Bench were sending him to gaol for a month when the police begged him off. The Bench then fined him 10s. for assault, 3s. 6s. compensation for tunic, and 2s. 6d. for being drunk and disorderly. The prisoner, when leaving court, made use of such language respecting the police that he was recalled, and the magistrate said he would be sent to gaol as at first intended. Prisoner then apologized, thanked the police for interfering for him, and was fined only."

asked whether a Judge could alter a sentence after he had given it?

He cannot; but in this case the sentence was not recorded, and, therefore, had not been definitely pronounced.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, How many Managers of National Schools in Ireland have complained to the Commissioners of the injustice to their schools of the average of seventy; how many of those were prelates of the Catholic Church or dignitaries of any other Christian denomination; and, in view of this large consensus of opinion, will he annul or modify this Rule?

Sir, several individual remonstrances have been addressed by managers of schools to the Commissioners; but the precise number of such remonstrances could not be ascertained in time for reply to this Question. The Catholic Archbishop of Dublin has also remonstrated on behalf of the Catholic Prelates. Several Catholic clergy, on behalf of their brethren, and an Education Committee of the General Assembly, have also remonstrated. It is only the Board which can annul or modify the rule, and the Chief Secretary cannot do so of his own mere motion.

asked the Lord Advocate, Whether any communication was made to the Sheriff Clerk of Fife, in pursuance of the undertaking given in the House by the late Lord Advocate on the hearing of the Motion to reduce the Vote for salary of Sheriff Clerks in Scotland; and, if so, the nature of such communication, and the reply, if any, made by the Sheriff Clerk?

I know, Sir, from what the late Lord Advocate said to me at the time, that he intended to make to the Sheriff Clerk of Fife a communication of the nature referred to in this Question; but before that communication was despatched, the Sheriff Clerk, through a Member of this House, intimated to the Lord Advocate that, having regard to the opinion which the Lord Advocate had expressed, and to what had occurred in this House, he was willing to follow either of two courses—either to terminate his partnership, or to arrange that his partner should cease to carry on Sheriff Court business. The Lord Advocate replied that either of these courses would be satisfactory, and the Sheriff Clerk has now communicated to me that he proposes to take the former course—that is, to dissolve the partnership.

asked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, What was the total cost to the State of the State trial, the Queen v. Parnell and others; and upon what Class of Estimates it became a charge?

Sir, I have been furnished with the following statement in reply to this Question:—The total cost has been out of Law Charge Vote, £9,020 19s. 7d.; out of Vote for Stationery and Printing, £771 3s. 2d.; total, £9,792 2s. 9d.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has had any communication with Colonel King Harman in relation to the arrest of Mr. Bernard McHugh, now detained in Kilmainham, Dublin?

Sir, I am informed by the Chief Secretary for Ireland that, as a matter of fact, he has no recollection of any communications with Colonel King-Harman on the subject of this Question; but I must add that Colonel King-Harman is the Lieutenant of the county of Roscommon, and it would, therefore, be his duty to communicate with the authorities respecting any matter which came under his notice relating to the peace of the county.

asked if there had not been a newspaper correspondence going on on the subject?

said, he had not seen it, and one of the hon. Member's Colleagues yesterday set an example in respect to trusting to a mere statement in the Press, which he thought he should follow with advantage on the present occasion.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he has since been able to arrive at any basis of information respecting Town Parks in Ireland; and, whether he is aware that after the Land Act of 1870 alleged "Town Parks" sprung up in places where they had never before been heard of, and, if the Government will consider the advisability of granting a Select Committee, or small Commission, to inquire into the subject?

Sir, I have received a communication from the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who regrets that he has not been hitherto able to arrive at any basis of information respecting "town parks." The Land Act of 1870, in exempting town parks from the Compensation Clauses of that Act, defined them by specific conditions—namely, (1), a holding ordinarily called a town park, adjoining a city or town; (2), having an increased value as accommodation land above its ordinary letting occupation value as a farm; and (3), being occupied by a person living in such city or town or its suburbs. Accommodation land, of course, means what is held by the person so resident in the city or town as an accommodation to his residence. Thus the name "town park" has, since the Act of 1870, acquired greater prominence than before; but, the nature and quality of the holding which is a "town park" being thus defined, none other can be a "town park." I will confer with the Chief Secretary for Ireland during the Recess to see whether the subject can be effectually inquired into.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Government has received information that a Mr. Lloyd Apjohn, landlord in the district of Pallas Green, county Limerick, who recently evicted several of his tenants, and sold by auction the interest of several other of his tenants in their farms, is now engaging himself in midnight raids on the cattle of the latter tenants, seizing and carrying off their cattle and selling them by public auction; whether Mr. Lloyd Apjohn, in making such seizures and conducting such sales, does not illegally usurp the functions of the sheriff of the county of Limerick, and also render himself liable' to a prosecution for an offence against the Laws of Inland Revenue; whether Mr. Lloyd Apjohn, when acting a few days since as sheriff and auctioneer, at a public sale of cattle seized by him, insulted a clergyman and used language provocative of a breach of the peace; whether he is in the habit of brandishing firearms in public, threatening to shoot people, and making use of such exclamations as "To Hell with the Pope;" whether the Government will deal with the conduct of this person in acting as sheriff and auctioneer; and, whether they will still leave at his disposal the body of police?

Sir, immediately the Question appeared on the Paper inquiry was made; but up to this morning no information has reached the Irish Office. Therefore, it would be idle for me to offer any opinion upon the circumstances alleged as facts.

asked the Secretary of State for India, If, according to ordinary custom, he will grant further Papers in connection with the Nizam, the Berars, and Debt, in continuation of the Papers previously granted, viz., Return 418 of 1854, No. 234 of 1859, No. 338 of 1867, and No. 29 of 1867–8; and, if the very confi- dential Papers to which, reference has been made will be communicated to the Ministers of the Nizam, in order that any allegations contained therein may be met and dealt with in an open and fair manner?

Sir, in the year 1878 it was finally decided by the Government, after long consideration and various decisions upon the subject, to decline to re-open at present the question of Berar; and it was added that upon the Nizam attaining his majority and undertaking the government of his State, if he should desire to bring the whole of the Treaty arrangements between the two Governments under general revision, the British Government would take his request into consideration. This intimation was given on the understanding that it was not to prejudice the discretion of the Government of the day in dealing with any question that might be submitted by the Nizam. The Hyderabad Ministers accepted this decision in writing, expressing the bonâ fide intention of not authorizing or engaging in any future agitation of the question during the term specified. Under these circumstances, it would not be expedient or consistent with the public interest to publish the Papers asked for; and there is no intention on the part of the Government to make such a communication as is suggested in the latter part of the Question of my hon. and gallant Friend. With respect to a communication I have received from my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), who wishes to know whether the Government will lay on the Table Papers on the same subject, the answer that I have just given will suffice.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, in reference to the statement contained in the Report of the Conservators of the River Thames—

"That Kingston and Richmond, and other places below the intakes of the Water Companies, still pass their sewage into the River,"

Whether any, and, if any, what steps are being taken to remedy the evil?

Sir, the House is aware that in 1878 a joint Board was formed, known as the Lower Thames Valley Main Sewerage Board, for the purpose of providing for the disposal of the sewage of these, as well as other, places; and in 1879 they brought in a Bill for this purpose, which was, unfortunately, thrown out on second reading. Last year they proposed another scheme, which, after a long inquiry, the Local Government Board were unable to approve, and the joint Board have recently proposed another scheme for consideration.

asked Mr. Attorney General, Whether, according to International Law, British born and naturalized British subjects who have not criminally or in any other way transgressed against the Laws of any foreign Country in which they may be either travelling or domiciled, are entitled, in the event of any illegal attempt being made by the police or other authorities to expel them, or otherwise interfere with their right of sojourn, to claim asylum and protection from Her Majesty's Ambassador, Chargé d'Affaires, or Minister for the time being accredited to that Country; and, whether, if such be the Law, British born or naturalized British subjects of the Jewish faith are by reason of their religion excluded from the beneficial operation of such Law; and, if not, whether the Attorney General, to whom Her Majesty's Government have referred the case, will advise Her Majesty's Government to instruct Her Majesty's Ambassador at St. Petersburg to grant asylum and protection to Mr. Lewisohn, a naturalized British subject of the Jewish faith, in the event of the Russian authorities again taking steps to expel him from Russia, notwithstanding he has in no way violated the Laws of that Country, and that his expulsion is in direct contravention of Article XI. Sections 1, 2, and 3 of the Treaty of January 12th, 1859, between Great Britain and Russia, which Treaty is still in force?

Sir, my hon. Friend has asked me a Question, the greater portion of which I hope I may be permitted not to answer. It has reference to a subject, in relation to which communications are still taking place between Her Majesty's Government and that of Russia; and while it would be contrary to all practice and precedent for a Law Officer of the Crown to state to the House what advice has been given to any Department of the Government, it would be still more objectionable if he were to pledge himself as to what advice he will give if some possible events should occur in the future. Neither can I, in answer to a Question thus put, give a definition of the extent to which an Ambassadorial right of asylum may, in the present day, be justly exercised; but, speaking generally, and entirely apart from the subject of this particular matter, I will say that now, when communication is easy and diplomatic intercourse constant, it would be most inexpedient and unfortunate to have recourse to that which might possibly lead to a physical collision between the Representative of Her Majesty's Government and that of a Foreign State. It would be better in any case to rely on the sense of justice and good feeling of the Government; appealed to by means of diplomatic representation, than by having resort to the old and obsolete machinery of Ambassadorial asylum.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he can state to the House when it is probable that the Report of the Cathedrals Commission will be presented?

, in reply, said, he had not yet received any information on this point.

asked Mr. Attorney General, Whether, considering that two of Her Majesty's Judges have reported that they have reason to believe that corrupt practices extensively prevailed at the late election at Wigan, and, considering that this House last Saturday refused to issue a Commission to inquire into the existence of the said alleged practices, he is aware of any precedent to guide the House as to what course should be pursued in relation to the issue of a new Writ for the said borough; and, whether the Government are prepared to make any suggestion on the subject?

Sir, as far as I am aware, there is no precedent to guide the House as to the course that should be pursued in relation to the issue of a new Writ for the borough of Wigan. The facts are that the learned Judges have reported that they have reason to believe that extensive corrupt practices prevailed at the last election for the borough of Wigan, and Mr. Justice Grove in his Judgment stated—

"I see men, as we have seen here, who really not only do not think that they are doing a culpable thing in taking money for their Totes, selling their duties as citizens, of which we hear so much, for a small sum of money or for a pot of beer, but they literally seem to think that it is their duty to get money for their votes. They seem to think that they are deserting their comrades, and that they are spoiling the market if they do not get paid for their votes. That ought to be put a stop to by some legislative means or other; some mode should be devised by which that apparently widespread corruption, which has been shown to demonstration in the present case, and of which I have seen large symptoms in other cases, should be struck at and extirpated."

Under such circumstances, an inquiry by means of a Royal Commission has always followed such a Report. It is true that in one case, that of Stroud, where on the face of the Report it appeared that the Judges found that bribery did not exist, but only corrupt treating, the Writ was allowed to issue, because the Statute of 1852 clearly contemplates that the Commissioners should only report upon the particulars of bribery, and not of treating. But in all cases where corrupt practices generally have been reported, this House has joined in an Address to the Crown that a Royal Commission should issue. Under these circumstances, it appears to me that if the vote of Saturday last could be supported, either on precedent or on principle, a Writ for a new election for the borough of Wigan ought both logically and constitutionally to issue forthwith, for, in the absence of any necessity for further inquiry, and no Resolution for the suspension of the Writ having been passed by this House, it seems to me almost unconstitutional that a constituency should be deprived of its representation through the mere silence of those on whom, by practice, the responsibility falls of moving this Writ; but, of course, in the face of this Report and Judgment, the hon. Member for Lincolnshire, who would, according to the usage of this House, move for the Writ, makes no sign, thus showing that the rejection of the Motion of Saturday last cannot be followed by its legitimate consequences. I am unaware that the Government have come to any conclusion as to the course which should, under the circumstances, be pursued. The responsibility of the vote arrived at does not rest with them; but I wish to say for myself that, whenever this Writ is moved for, I shall call attention to the Evidence and Judgment on which the Report of the learned Judges is founded, and thus do all I can to counteract the effect of a vote which I say, with all due respect to this House, seems to be founded on no precedent, guided by no principle, and likely, if fully acted upon, to lead to most injurious consequences in the future.

asked why the Writ was to be moved for by the hon. Member for Lincolnshire?

It is the practice to leave the Motion for a new Writ in the hands of the hon. Member who has the political management of the Party to which the retiring Member belonged.

, who had put down a Question with regard to the case of Thomas Titley, said that, as the original form of the Question had been altered, he should put it as he had given Notice of it. The hon. Member was proceeding to read his Question, when—

The hon. Member is now reading the Question as it stood originally when it was brought to the Table of the House. The original form of the Question contained matter of argument, and the words were struck out by my order.

I beg to submit there is no argument in the Question.

In my opinion there was matter of argument in the Question, and it was struck out accordingly.

The words omitted merely refer to evidence given by the police on the trial. ["Order!"]

I am bound to inform the hon. Member that a Question in the form in which this particular Question was handed in at the Table was irregular and cannot be put.

How are we to understand that Questions are irregular if evidence given on the trial is held to be irregular? ["Order!"] I will conclude with a Motion. If I find it impossible to put a direct Question I shall raise the point.

If the hon. Member insists upon setting the Rules of the House aside I hardly know what course I shall feel bound to take.

I said I shall conclude with a Motion.

I have to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether the hon. Member having given Notice to call attention to this subject, he is now in Order in the course he proposes to take; and whether, having taken objection to your ruling, the proper course would not be for him to give Notice of the point on which he impugns it?

After what has fallen from you, Sir, and the noble Marquess, I shall put the Question in the form in which it now stands on the Paper; but I do so under protest. I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in reference to the ease of Thomas Titley, Chemist, now a prisoner under sentence of eighteen months' imprisonment, certain memorials have been presented to him, setting out further circumstances connected with the case, together with a memorial from a large number of respectable persons residing in the immediate neighbourhood of the prisoner's shop, giving an excellent character to the prisoner; and, whether, considering that the prisoner has been practically imprisoned since December last, he will diminish the remainder of the term for which the prisoner is sentenced?

Sir, it would be very improper on my part to give any explanation to the House with regard to the matter, dealing with a sentence in futuro All lean say is that I shall carefully consider the Memorials which have been laid before me, and I will consult with the Judge who tried the case.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether it is true that the Committee of Lloyd's have offered to establish and maintain at many points of the coast of Great Britain and Ireland signal stations, which will be of great service in saving life and property from shipwreck, provided that Her Majesty's Government will grant certain telegraphic facilities; and, whether they will be able to announce their decision in time to allow the necessary arrangements to be completed before the stormy season sets in?

Sir, in reply to my hon. Friend, I beg to say that the Committee of Lloyd's have applied to the Post Office with the object of ascertaining what would be the cost of extending the telegraph to five signal stations at various parts of the coast. I have just communicated to Lloyd's the terms on which the proposed extensions could be carried out. Should these terms be accepted, the extensions might be commenced at once, and on the opening of the stations the Committee of Lloyd's would be able to make their own arrangements as to the amount to be charged to vessels for signalling their messages; and the Department would transmit any message from these stations to Lloyd's at the Press rate of 1s. for 75 words in the day, and 100 at night.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can explain why the Irish Office have not furnished the Minutes of the Evidence taken before the Lurgan Riots Inquiry Commission, which were ordered by the House on 1st September 1880 to be printed; and, whether he will forthwith have this neglect rectified, so that the order of the House may be complied with?

asked if he was not correct in saying that until the neglect in question was rectified the order of the House could not be complied with?

said, he was not in a position to answer that Question; but he thought it exceedingly likely that what were supposed by the hon. Member to be facts would turn out not to be facts.

asked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether his attention has been called to the state of the Bathing Lake in Victoria Park; and, whether he will take measures for having it cleared out?

Sir, I have received several complaints as to the condition of the bathing lake in Victoria Park. It appears that the hot weather this year has developed an unusual growth of vegetable matter, and makes it expedient that the lake should be cleaned out after a shorter interval than has hitherto been the case. This will be done as soon as it can be effected without causing a nuisance. In the meantime, I have been assured on medical authority that there is nothing in the state of the lake injurious to the health of the bathers or other people.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Under what authority the collectors of Inland Revenue compel retailers of beer and wine in Ireland to take out the Beer Dealer's Licence, which does not authorise the sale of less than four-and-a-half gallons, at a duty of £3 6s. l¾d. in addition to the retail licence for which the sum of £3 has to be paid; and, whether, in cases where the dealer's licence is not required, he will take any course to remove the obligation of enforcing such payment?

Sir, as I explained on a former occasion, the collectors of Inland Revenue exercise no compulsion in the matter. An Irish trader, who wishes to retail wine and beer off the premises, is required by 27 & 28 Vict., c. 35, and 34 & 35 Vict, c. 111, to be furnished with a beer dealer's licence before he can take out the £3 combined licence.

said, he hoped the amount of compensation to be given to Edmund Galley would be, as in Habron's case, £1,000. He had applied to the First Lord of the Treasury on the subject.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has received any communication with reference to the removal of the convict station from Spike Island, in Cork Harbour, and the suggested transfer of the prisoners to England?

, in reply, said, that no such communication had come before him recently; but he would inquire into the matter.

said, he wished to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury a Question with reference to the stamp forgeries in Dublin—namely, Whether it was a fact that in 1877 information was received at the Stamp Office in Dublin that there were forged stamps on the files in the office of the Queen's Bench, and that two officials connected with the Stamp Office inspected those files on which were stamps purchased from Mr. Colclough, and were unable to detect any forgeries?

, in reply, said, as well as he could remember, some years ago an anonymous communication was received at the Stamp Office, to the effect that certain frauds were going on; but, though careful investigation was made at the time, no discovery of fraud was made.

asked the Vice President of the Council, If he has received official information in confirmation of a statement attributed to the Earl of Kimberley that foot-and-mouth disease had broken out in two counties in Ireland?

Sir, I have seen the report in The Times this morning of the statement made by the Earl of Kimberley in "another place," and from inquiries I have made I find that it is entirely inaccurate, the noble Earl having been misreported. What he said was that foot-and-mouth disease had broken out in two counties in England. I am glad to say that there really is no foot-and-mouth disease in Ireland; in fact, for months past Ireland has been entirely free. Perhaps I may be allowed, in order to remove some possible misapprehension, to give some details with reference to the outbreak in Lancashire. I stated the other day that there had been 35 outbreaks in that county this month, against 65 in the month of May, I have now in my possession a Report from the Veterinary Department showing the state of things in Lancashire at this moment, giving the number of outbreaks in each district, and the number of animals affected. In the Accrington district, there has been one outbreak, affecting three animals; 28 outbreaks in the lower Blackburn district, affecting 346 animals; 11 outbreaks in Clitheroe, affecting 44 animals; and one outbreak in Great Harwood, affecting one animal. The total outbreaks are 41, and the total number of animals affected 394. It will be seen that there does not exist the alarming state of things which has been represented.

asked if it would be possible, in the statements with respect to the outbreak of the disease, to show the number of cattle that were affected? He knew a case in the North of England where considerable alarm was caused by an outbreak in which only a single animal was affected.

Sir, an outbreak sometimes runs through the herd, and at other times affects only one, two, or three animals. The Department has to wait till the outbreak has passed before they can state the number of animals which are affected.

asked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, If he has seen a paragraph in the London papers that morning describing a distressing scene which occurred at the Ballylanders Petty Sessions, County Limerick, yes- terday, when, owing to the refusal of Mr. Clifford Lloyd to grant bail to five farmers convicted of assault, one of them, an old man, fainted, and nearly lost his life, and another was pronounced by a doctor to be so bad that imprisonment would endanger his life?

, in reply, said, he had no information on the subject. The hon. Member's faith in the Press appeared to be greater than that of some of the hon. Member's Colleagues.

gave Notice that he would call attention to the matter on the third reading of the Appropriation Bill.

said, it was quite impossible that the information could be obtained in time for the hon. Member's Motion; and he hoped he would abandon his intention of raising the question on the Appropriation Bill.

said, if the hon. and learned Gentleman would undertake that an inquiry should be held into the conduct of Mr. Clifford Lloyd on this and on various other occasions he should not proceed with his Motion.

said, it was impossible he could give that assurance. He would inquire into the circumstances of the special case referred to, and communicate the result to the hon. Member privately, if practicable.

asked whether he should be in Order in moving on Saturday for the issue of a new Writ for the borough of Wigan? He spoke in the interests of the Irish electors, who determined the election in that borough. ["No!" from the Ministerial Bench.]

Is it not in the power of the hon. Member to move for a new Writ without Notice?

No.

said, he heard an answer from the Treasury Bench; but he asked the question of the Chair, and not of the Treasury Bench.

In the case of a vacancy for a seat in this House it is a matter of Privilege. It is always taken as a matter of Privilege, unless otherwise ordered by the House; and it would be open even now for the hon. Member to move that a new Writ be issued for the borough of Wigan.

Under those circumstances, I beg to move for the issue of a Writ for the election of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the borough of Wigan in the room of Mr. F. S. Powell, whose election has been declared to be void. If a new Writ is not issued, a very grievous injustice is inflicted on a portion of the electoral body of Wigan who have been proud to be singularly free from a system of corruption, and who have done nothing to merit the punishment involved in the loss of their franchise. The Irish electors are a very considerable portion of the electors of Wigan, and I am not aware that the Attorney General would be able to say anything against them, whatever may be said of the supporters of the Conservative candidate.

Does anyone second the Motion?

seconded the Motion.

Sir, I believe I made a statement a few minutes ago that, whenever a Writ for the borough of Wigan was moved, I should call attention to the Report of the Judges who tried the Election Petition. I must ask for absolution on account of the non-fulfilment of that promise, because, if I were now to enter on that evidence, I feel the object I have in view would be entirely frustrated. I was under the impression that the Sessional Order passed in the last Session of Parliament that two days' Notice should be given whenever Election Judges had reported that a constituency had been guilty of corrupt practices before the Motion for the issue of a new Writ was made applied to this Session also; but I found that that Sessional Order has not been renewed this Session; and, therefore, the hon. Gentleman, in making this Motion, was quite within his right. But while, technically, he is within his right in making it, of course I should be doing no good now with the few Members present, and when many of those who voted last Saturday are absent, if I were to call the attention of the House to the view I entertain of the evil consequences likely to result from the vote arrived at on Saturday; and, therefore, I will content myself now with asking the House to postpone the consideration of this question until the House shall be more fully constituted. I do not think the House should say that the interests of a comparatively small section of the electors of Wigan—the Irish electors—ought to prevail over the general interests of the constituency and the general interests of the whole country. That the Irish electors were pure I am not prepared for one moment to assume. Nobody, in the face of that which is pointed out to be the truth, that great corruption did exist in that borough, can say that it is so. What I feel so strongly is, if I may use a colloquial expression, how can we look those eight constituencies in the face with whom we were obliged to deal last year, how can we in common justice deprive them temporarily or permanently of their representation, and give permanent immunity to the constituency of Wigan, which is in exactly the same position? How shall we be able to deal with constituencies in the future? How can we reflect upon our conduct in the past if we deal, at the present moment, in this manner with the constituency of Wigan? It is not for me to say what is the view of my Colleagues, some of whom are now around me. All I would do now is very respectfully to ask the House to postpone its judgment upon this Motion which has been made, and not to give practical effect to it until after further consideration of what course should be taken. I can only say, personally, I do not wish the House to be guided by my view. I only know it is very discouraging to those who try to deal with corrupt practices at elections, and endeavour to find a practical mode of stopping them, that we should be called upon to give perfect immunity to the borough of Wigan.

I do not think myself that the Government ought to oppose this Motion. The Attorney General, when the Motion was made in favour of the appointment of a Commission, did not go into the merits of the case, and the result was that a decision against the appointment of a Commission was given on very insufficient information; but after that the hon. and learned Gentleman comes and gives pretty full information. If that had been done in the first instance the decision might have been different from what it was; but, seeing that the decision was come to by the House, whether rightly or wrongly, it is the duty of the Government, as far as possible, to carry that decision into practical operation. Although I myself am not disposed to palliate in the most remote degree the conduct of persons who take bribes, yet I think the political system of England from top to bottom is such that it is hardly proper to bring these charges against the unfortunate people who take bribes, and who cannot hope at any time to receive any practical or personal acknowledgment from the advantages of the franchise; and when we know that Members of Parliament and others have situations and personal titles held out to them for the influence of their votes, I think we are beginning at the wrong end when we attempt to criticize too severely the conduct of the unfortunate electors of Wigan.

I think there is no doubt that if the Motion just made is negatived, it will be competent for any hon. Member next Session to move for a new Writ. It is quite impossible, at the present moment, that the House could give any adequate consideration to this question; and, therefore, I see no reason why the issuing of a Writ could not be postponed.

I quite concur with the view of the Attorney General that it is undesirable to make any terms with electoral corruption. It is a scandal and disgrace to our system that men should sell their votes, or, what is equivalent to it, that the cost of elections should be made so ruinously extravagant. Every step that the Government takes to reform the present system, and to punish those who indulge in electoral corruption, I will most cordially support. But, while saying this, I am bound to admit that my hon. Friend the Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) had some justification for the observations he made. In electoral purity Ireland is vastly ahead of England. Although a much poorer country, the people are in no sense amenable to the corrupting and demoralizing influence of wealthy counties in the way they are here. Nothing that Parliament can do will redound more to its credit than radically to reform our electoral system, and allow merit and capacity, and not wealth, to have an opportunity of asserting itself at the polling booth. Now, a rich man is able, by his extravagant expenditure, to practically swamp the opinion of the constituencies; and as, in Wigan, this has been done to a considerable extent, I think it will be well to withhold the Writ. But singling out special cases of this kind has very little general effect, and all the good that can come of it is to bring once more prominently to the attention of the English public the degrading and immoral influences that are brought to bear in electoral contests. Having done that, I hope the Motion will be withdrawn, as a division at this moment can be of little value.

I think the state of the House—empty, and not likely to fill to-day—is sufficient answer to this Motion; but there are other grave reasons why we should not carry into suspension any one of these Orders. The House generally anticipates that next Session we shall have the question of reform of election before us, and whether the Ballot is to be continued in its present form. I cannot feel that these eight constituencies are culpable in the sense that they would have been under the régime of open election. I only see in the Ballot the commencement of the evil system which I saw in operation in the United States 40 years ago. I am sorry that these constituencies should have so committed themselves, and I cannot exonerate Parliament from blame. I hold that the system of secret voting exposes the constituency to temptations—temptations of wholesale corruption, from which, under the former system of election, the country was free.

I should like to add my voice to the request which has been made to the hon. Gentleman opposite that he would consent to withdraw his Motion. I think it would be a rather satisfactory conclusion to the Session; but if we go and move a Writ for another election in the borough which the Attorney General has told us the Judge has reported to have been guilty of wide-spread corruption I do not think it will be very satisfactory. I would point out one other thing. I do not think the electors, and the Irish electors, which the hon. Gentleman very laudably excepted, will suffer any very substantial grievance if we do not move a Writ to-day, because we do not expect to meet here again for six months; and, therefore, we could consider what should be done with Wigan by that time. There is one point on which I am not quite clear. I do not know whether it is possible to renew the Motion the Attorney General made last week for the appointment of a Commission to inquire into the existence of corrupt practices in Wigan. At any rate, if that be possible, I think we should not deal with that question now. The Attorney General might have an opportunity of moving that Motion next Session, and the matter might be discussed. If the hon. Member for Queen's County insists an going to a division on his Motion I shall vote against it; and I hope my hon. and learned Friend, who, I think, had been somewhat misled last Saturday, may have an opportunity of obtaining the correct opinion of the House.

I regret very much that the hon. Member for Queen's County has made this Motion. The reason I am sorry is on account of the weakness of the Tory Party on the present occasion. At the same time, it is most unjust that the Writ should be withheld from Wigan. I must protest against the hon. and learned Attorney General, whose law always seems to be most convenient to the political Party with which he is connected, stating that Notice should be given of the intention to move a Writ. It turns out to be the case that Notice need not be given, I must protest against him in another way. He has no right to tell the House that there is no precedent, because, although there be no precedent, that is not the point. No precedent is required, because the Act of Parliament, which overrides all precedents, has left it in the discretion of this House. It is in the discretion of this House—let the Judges report as strongly as they choose—to say whether or not a new Writ should be issued. I would remind the Attorney General of the Knaresborough case, which ought to teach us caution. In that case the Judges reported against the constituency, and a Commission was issued; and it has turned out, after all, that there was no occasion for the Judges' Report, and that the constituency of Knaresborough has been unjustly saddled with 4s. in the pound. As far as precedents go, the absolute discretion of this House is quite as good as that of some of Her Majesty's Judges. The circumstances of the corruption in Wigan were that on the coldest day of winter (the 18th January), when the country was covered with snow, some poor wretches accepted a breakfast about half as good as that which the Radical and right hon. Members for Birmingham gave their constituents on every occasion.

It is not the intention of my hon. Friend to proceed to a division. His object is rather to make something of a reductio ad absurdum of the proposals that came from both sides of the House in reference to corrupt constituencies. The Attorney General put the case with perfect accuracy when he said that it was a question of "looking each other in the face;" and I challenge the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that in a single constituency in England or Scotland at the last General Election a contest was conducted on true purity principles. ["Oh, oh!"] I am not at all astonished to hear that protesting ejaculation, especially from Liberal Members, because every vote on an average at that election cost the Liberal Party 30s. Everybody knows that they spent between £1,000,000 and £2,000,000 sterling to get their candidates accepted by the various constituencies. There is no subject in the world on which so much cant is spoken as on this of bribery at elections. No doubt Wigan, if the case were proved against it, would be fully deserving of its fate; but I do not know any constituency which would not deserve whipping if it got its deserts. At Wigan a few starving people may have got breakfast on a cold morning; but what was that it comparison with the money given by the Liberal Party to the wire-pullers, the minders of the Caucus machine, the electioneering solicitors, and the various other agencies without which the Liberal Party would not have obtained its majority in this House? I do not believe that either side of the House is in earnest as yet about this question of bribery at elections. I voted the other day against a Commission of Inquiry at Wigan, my reason, if I had any, being that I wished to make this evil so intolerable that it must be noticed. I wish to know from the Treasury Bench whether the Government intend to signalize their tenure of Office by dealing with this evil of corruption in a stringent manner, and not by the rather paltry measure which the Attorney General brought in this Session.

I consider that this question of corrupt practices is in no way a matter of Party—and had I been in the House last week when the Motion was made to issue a Commission of Inquiry for Wigan I should have supported the Government. In the face of the Report of the Judges, I think that no other course was open to the House, and I regret that Members of my own Party took the course they did. If a division is taken on this Motion I shall vote against it.

I rise to complain of the enormous expense which many constituencies demand from candidates—notably North Durham, in which, during the past 10 years, something like £160,000 has been spent by one side and the other.

I must remind the hon. Member that the Question before the House is the issue of a Writ for Wigan.

I was simply referring to North Durham in this way—that Wigan is not so corrupt as other constituencies for which Writs have been issued or are pending, and that if a Judge were called upon to inquire into such constituencies as North Durham he would probably make his Report in much stronger terms than were used respecting Wigan. At the same time, it is desirable that the Writ should be suspended, so that it may be held in terrorem over such constituencies as North Durham and the other English constituencies, for they are almost all corrupt.

If I had voted the other day it would have been in favour of the Motion of the Government for the issue of a Commission of Inquiry; but that having been rejected, and Government having no further suggestion to make, it appears unreasonable to refuse to the electors of Wigan their right of representation in this House. I know very well that there may be a considerable difference in the vote of the constituency six months hence and the vote which would be given now. There can be no doubt the Irish electors of Wigan will follow the example of those in Knaresborough and Coventry, and record their votes against a Coercion Ministry; but whether that will be their action six months hence I do not know. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.

, in moving that the House at its rising should adjourn until Saturday, said, as it was possible that the remaining Business might be prolonged over 4 o'clock, he believed it would be for the general convenience if he moved that to-day the Standing Orders relating to Morning Sittings be suspended—that was to say, if the Business were not concluded at 4 o'clock, the House would continue sitting until it was disposed of.

asked at what time the House would meet on Saturday?

said, at half-past 1.

asked whether he could bring forward under the Appropriation Bill questions connected with India as a proper subject for discussion?

said, the Appropriation Bill did not contain any provision with regard to Supplies for the Government of India; and, therefore, the hon. and gallant Member would not be in Order in making any Motion on that matter. It was not relevant to the subject-matter of the Appropriation Bill.

said, he thought it would be admitted that he had shown no disposition to delay the passing of this Bill, because he had abandoned his intention of bringing forward several important questions in order not to delay its progress. It had been his intention, for example, to move that this House should refuse any further sums for the House of Lords—not in the hope of carrying his Motion, but for the purpose of showing the House of Commons a path along which it could tread in future in case it desired to make the House of Lords alive to the fact that they were not the supreme power in the State. He wished, however, to call the attention of the House to the conduct of Mr. Clifford Lloyd, resident magistrate at Kilmallock, in adjudicating on the cases that came before him. It appeared from a report in the newspapers that on a recent occasion 10 respectable farmers in the county of Limerick were brought before Mr. Lloyd, charged with riot and assault. Five were discharged, there being no evidence against them, and the remaining five were remanded, bail being refused, although the alleged offence was bailable, and the men were well-known and had an estate in the county. What, then, took place? One of the unfortunate men, who was advanced in years, fell in a fainting con- dition on the floor of the Court-house, and a clergyman had to administer the last sacraments of the Church to him. A doctor was sent for, who declared that the lives of two of the prisoners would be endangered if they were not admitted to bail, and upon that statement bail was accepted. If this man had not been, he might say, providentially seized with a fit, he would have been sent to prison, and perhaps might have been murdered in prison. What had been the action of the Government? They had never disposed of the charges brought against Mr. Clifford Lloyd. They had invariably refused to grant an investigation into the matter, and Mr. Clifford Lloyd was allowed to go on acting in an atrociously cruel and despotic manner. Irish Members, he knew, had gained an unenviable notoriety by the persistent manner in which they had drawn attention to the conduct of Irish magistrates. He contended that their action had been dictated by a grave sense of duty, and complained that their persistency should have availed so little. What, he asked, would be the position of Ireland during the Recess, when the slight control now exercised by Irish Members over the Irish Executive could be exercised no longer? Why, Ireland would be subjected to an uncontrolled despotism; and when Parliament met again the House would be fresh and eager for work, and would resent, and naturally, an attempt to call its attention back to proceedings which would have become by that time antiquated and obsolete. Meantime, Mr. Clifford Lloyd, freed from the control of Parliament, exercised by means of a question of this description, would be able to ride rough-shod over the county over which he was resident magistrate. The Government asked for a fair trial for themselves and their measures; but the action of their Executive was such as almost necessarily to make their remedial legislation futile and abortive. How could moderate counsels be expected to prevail with a population exasperated with the conduct of magistrates like Mr. Clifford Lloyd? No measure of amelioration could have a chance of proving efficacious if its application was accompanied by proceedings which outraged the feelings of the people. He sincerely hoped the Solicitor General for Ireland, after consultation with his Colleagues on the Treasury Bench, might find himself in a position to announce before the close of the Session that a full and impartial inquiry would be made into the magisterial conduct of Mr. Clifford Lloyd.

said, he wished to call attention to another matter now disturbing the peace of an important part of Ireland. He referred to the conduct of Mr. Lloyd Apjohn, of New Pallas, in the county of Limerick. In answer to a Question which he (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) put as to that gentleman's proceedings, he had been promised that some inquiries would be made; but although Mr. Apjohn's place of residence was easily accessible, and a line by telegram could easily have been answered, he had not been vouchsafed any information. He wished, however, to impress upon the Solicitor General for Ireland and his Colleagues again the urgent necessity of making some further inquiries into the facts of this extraordinary case. He had been informed on good authority that Mr. Lloyd Apjohn had adopted a new method of dealing with such of his tenants as failed to pay their rent. He had evicted several of his tenants from their farms; and in one of their houses he had installed himself with a number of his relatives and friends. He had, in fact, established a kind of amateur camp, whence, like one of the moss troopers described by Scott, he carried on what might be likened to border raids. It was his practice to decree that a certain tenant owed him a certain amount of rent, and having issued a kind of ukase to that effect, he visited the tenant's farm in the night time, and with the help of his armed followers drove off the tenant's cattle and sold it the next day. Ho, in fact, constituted himself his own bailiff and sheriff, and enforced his own decrees without taking the trouble to resort to any Court of Justice. He (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) had been informed on good authority that Mr. Apjohn and his band had made themselves a public nuisance in their little kraal. They were in the habit of shouting insults at the people as they went by, and were especially offensive to Catholic priests and to the Catholic religion. He was told that the resident magistrate had said that policemen ought to be stationed at the place for the mere protection of these men themselves, lest in their nocturnal excitement they might shoot one another if they had no one else to shoot. How long could the peace of the country be preserved if such outrageous conduct were allowed to be carried on? He therefore asked the Government, for the sake of public order, to inquire strictly into the doings of this man and his band, and to take measures to suppress their lawless proceedings.

said, if there was any ground at all for the statement which the hon. Member had just made to the House, he had hardly known anything which ought to be more quickly put down by the strong hand of the law. Personally, he (the Solicitor General for Ireland) had no duty in connection with these matters, and the Attorney General for Ireland, who was not then in his place, had not made any communication to him on the subject before he left town. He believed, however, that inquiries had been made. He asked yesterday at the Irish Office if any information had reached them on the subject, and he was informed there had not. It appeared to him that if these proceedings had taken place, it looked very much as if the gentleman in question had distrained for rent at illegal hours and under illegal circumstances; and if that was so, and he were himself in the position of any of the persons whose cattle was said by the hon. Member to have been driven off by Mr. Apjohn, he should certainly institute proceedings with a view to seeing what a jury would say as to the amount of damages which he ought to receive for having been subjected to an illegal distraint. With reference to the case brought forward by the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), he might observe in passing that recently the House had had Mr. Clifford Lloyd before it on nearly every occasion on which it had met. Assuming the report that had been published in the newspapers to be correct, and he saw no reason to doubt its accuracy, it appeared that 10 or 11 farmers of respectable position were charged with riot and assault. He had before stated it to be his opinion, and he would do so again, that the more respectable the position of people concerned in transactions of that kind the more severely ought they to be punished; their very respectability was an aggravation of their offence. However, five of the defendants were discharged, because there was no sufficient evidence against them. With regard to the remainder, the magistrate refused to exercise the discretion which he (the Solicitor General for Ireland) supposed was given him as to granting bail, and it was reasonable to conclude that he might have had good grounds for so refusing, though no such grounds were mentioned in the published accounts of the ease. The fainting of the aged man when he heard that he was committed for trial was a contingency that might have occurred on any other occasion, and under any other circumstances, and did not affect the magistrate's action in the matter. If the hon. Members carried out their promise to keep their eyes in matters of this kind on the conduct of the Irish Executive with the view of bringing it before the House next Session, he hoped they would take care to bring the matter forward in the presence of the Attorney General for Ireland, on whom the responsibility in such matters in a great measure devolved.

said, he felt bound to complain of the neglect of the Irish Office to comply with Orders of the House to furnish Returns relating to the Irish magistracy and the Report of the Dublin Riot Inquiry Commission.

These subjects cannot be discussed with regularity on the Appropriation Bill, particularly as the hon. Member has a Notice of Motion on the Order Book with reference to one of them.

said, that the Motion on the Orders was quite a different one from what he was discussing. This was with reference to an Order of the House made on the 1st of September, renewed on the 27th of January, and yet not furnished to the House.

That is precisely the substance of the hon. Member's Notice of Motion.

said, that what he rose to call attention to was the neglect of the Chief Secretary's Office to obey an Order of the House.

The hon. Member complains that a certain Order of this House has not been complied with. That is the substance of the Notice of Motion standing on the Orders of the House, and he is not entitled to bring it forward on the third reading of the Appropriation Bill.

said, he was not aware where he had any Motion on the Orders of the House, and he could not see how he was out of Order. He was raising the point that the Chief Secretary's Office up to the 20th of May neglected to comply with an Order of that House. Since the 20th of May they had considered it their duty to comply with it, and stated that they had to return for three counties. But what he was bringing under the notice of the House was the neglect up to the 20th of May.

The hon. Member is clearly out of Order, because the subject he is now bringing under the notice of the House is precisely the same as that embraced in his own Notice of Motion.

said, when he replied to the hon. Member's Question earlier in the afternoon, he promised at once to inquire into the matter, and to communicate privately with him. Most of the information desired he believed was in the Library of the House.

said, that was not so. Two Orders of the House for Returns with reference to the Irish magistracy had been utterly disregarded for 12 months.

The hon. Member is lodging a complaint against the Irish Office for not producing a Return within a reasonable time. I cannot see the relevance of that to the Appropriation Bill now before the House. I must call upon the hon. Member to abstain from discussing the subject any further.

said, he must strongly condemn the conduct of magistrates in refusing bail when persons of substance were ready to come forward and bind themselves in the manner required by law. That was exercising their power in an unjust and tyrannical manner, because they were imposing punishment upon persons whom they ought to discharge after being tendered substantial bail. Enough had been said with regard to Mr. Clifford Lloyd to show that if the Government were open to reason they would be convinced that that gentleman was exceedingly unpopular, and that great dissatisfaction always arose wherever he was sent. The only course which he (Mr. Biggar) thought the Government ought to pursue would be to grant an independent inquiry. That was all that had been asked for by the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor). In the present case it was quite clear that Mr. Clifford Lloyd had exceeded the bounds of what he was entitled to do with regard to those five men. It was the duty of the Government to remove Mr. Clifford Lloyd to some other part instead of keeping him in a district where he had become very unpopular. It was quite clear to him (Mr. Biggar) that the Chief Secretary for Ireland was determined that the administration of the law should be made as unpalatable as possible. The conduct of the Chief Secretary for Ireland might be very satisfactory to himself, and it would, of course, be screened by his Colleagues so long as he was a Member of the Government; but he (Mr. Biggar) would put it to the Government whether it was advisable to retain in Office a person who was using every effort to make the Administration of which he was a Member unpopular in Ireland? The Government would do well to reconsider the question as to whether there should not be a fresh shuffle of the cards, and whether the right hon. Gentleman should not be relegated to some other position where he would have less opportunity of doing such mischief as he had done in his present Office.

said, that the people of Ireland during the past six months had been ruled in such a manner that no one stood between them and the magistrates. It was true that the criticisms upon the conduct of the magistrates which had been heard in that House exercised some influence over them; but that criticism could not be made during the Recess. He thought if the man who had been sent to prison by Mr. Clifford Lloyd had died, the jury could have brought in no other verdict than that of wilful murder against the magistrate who had kept the unfortunate man in prison. Why should a magistrate refuse substantial bail? It was a principle of British law that until a man was tried he was supposed to be innocent. But the converse of that proposition was the rule in Ireland. The Government had it in their power to keep anyone in gaol for 18 months if they suspected him; and why was not that power exercised instead of keeping men in prison until they were tried at the Assizes? He would ask the Attorney General whether it was not the fact that there would be no gaol delivery until December next in Ireland? Those men would, therefore, be in Cork Gaol, in a filthy dungeon, until that time, and they would not even be treated with the ordinary decencies which the Coercion prisoners were allowed. It, therefore, amounted to this—that those who got the benefit of the ordinary law were better off than those who did not. Englishmen expected that Irishmen should kiss the beneficent feet of the present Government; but he would remind them that the Government thought so little of the good-will or the well-being of Ireland that they preferred to maintain their satraps over there than remove those injustices from which the people suffered. He (Mr. Healy) very much regretted the action of the Government, knowing, as he did, that the Clifford Lloyds, the Blakes, and the Monsons—the village tyrants and dissolute ruffians who formed the stipendiary magistracy of Ireland—would be aware that Parliament would not be appealed to while they carried on tyranny for the next six months.