I beg to give Notice that, on Monday, when the Prime Minister brings forward the Resolutions of which he has given Notice on the subject of the Business of the House, I shall oppose the 1st Resolution.

gave Notice that, on the introduction of the Resolutions of the Prime Minister, he should move for a call of the House.

gave Notice that, on the New Rules of Procedure being proposed, he should move that the 1st Resolution be postponed until after the consideration of the remaining ones.

gave Notice that, on the introduction of the Resolutions, he should move, as an Amendment on the 1st Resolution, to leave out all the words alter the word "That," and insert the words—

"No Rules of Procedure will be satisfactory to this House which confer the power of closing a Debate upon a majority of Members."

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been directed to the blasphemous publication which has appeared as a weekly journal, published in Northampton, under the title of the "Freethinker;" and, whether he intends to take measures with a view to prevent the circulation of such pernicious matter?

I am sorry to say that my attention has been called to the paper bearing the title to which the hon. Member refers, and I agree that nothing can be more pernicious or more abhorrent to all right-thinking people than publications of this description. But it has, I think, for many years been the view of all responsible persons that more harm than good is done to the public morals by Government prosecutions in eases of this kind, and I think myself they are better left to the reprobation which they will surely meet in this country from all decent members of society.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say if he has power to suppress a paper of this kind?

asked the Vice President of the Council, Whether it is a fact that, on the 10th October last, a large cargo of cattle, some of which were infected with foot and mouth disease, arrived at Deptford in the General Steam Navigation Company's vessel "Redstart," from Oporto, in Portugal, that the vessel was afterwards scraped and cleansed in accordance with the Act, and the refuse, amounting to three tons, was left between decks, notwithstanding that fresh cattle were transhipped from Gravesend to Deptford on board the same vessel; and, whether it is a fact that no Order in Council was passed prohibiting the importation of cattle from Oporto into the United Kingdom until that of the 28th January 1882, which takes effect on 13th February?

It is true that diseased cattle were brought to Deptford from Oporto at the time named by the steamship Redstart, and that the same vessel was employed to bring cattle from Gravesend to Deptford for slaughter before the sweepings had been removed, although the vessel itself had been disinfected. For this offence the owners were prosecuted at the instance of the Privy Council, and were fined £10 and costs. The Privy Council having reason to believe that the ports of Corunna and Oporto, and the vessels engaged in the cattle trade trading to those ports, had become impregnated with disease, passed an Order suspending the importation of animals from both ports for one month from February 14, in order to give time for the thorough cleansing and disinfecting of the ports and of the vessels engaged in the cattle trade.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If he will state the nature of the explosion on board H.M.S. "Triumph," and say whether the accident there throws any further light on the loss of H.M.S. "Doterel? "

An inquiry has been held on board H.M.S. Triumph to investigate the circumstances of the explosion, and the Report of that inquiry is expected daily. The evidence of the survivors of the Doterel has been taken by the Naval authorities at Portsmouth, and the Admiralty have referred the question to the highly scientific Committee now inquiring into the effects of coal gas in bunkers—a Committee which was appointed expressly in consequence of the finding of the court martial on the loss of the Doterel. The whole Correspondence on the introduction of the substance of xerotine-siccative into the Navy has been collected, and is now before the Board for decision. In a matter involving the conduct and responsibility of a number of public servants, I should not be justified in making any partial statement. When the Board of Admiralty have formed their conclusions with regard to the explosion on the Triumph, which they cannot, of course, do until the Report arrives, and on the responsibility of officers at home, those conclusions will be promptly laid before Parliament, together with the Correspondence and Reports on which they are founded. It will then be seen that the personal safety of our seamen has obtained the large portion of the attention of the Board of Admiralty which that all-important question ought to obtain. One isolated fact I hope the House will allow me to state, which will correct a rumour and prejudge nothing. On the day and on the hour that the lamentable news arrived by telegraph from Coquimbo, orders were issued to acquaint the friends of the sufferers. I hope, after hearing this answer, the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) will not press his Question to-morrow. The part of it which refers to the value of the xerotine-siccative, I can answer at once. Since 1875, the date of its introduction for general use in the Service, about £1,000 has been expended on this compound.

said that he should still consider it to be his duty to put the Question of which he had given Notice.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether Her Majesty's Government have made or propose to make any improvement in the position of Warrant Officers in Her Majesty's Navy, especially with regard to the" "Other Ships" Clause? He also asked whether the Admiralty will consider the expediency of improving the position of the Petty Officers in Her Majesty's Navy, with the view of placing them on the same footing with regard to pay and pension as Non-Commissioned Officers in Her Majesty's Land Forces?

lean assure my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth that the Board of Admiralty has carefully considered the position of Warrant Officers with reference to the "Other Ships" Clause, and the arrangements we have made will be explained in the Estimates. With regard to Petty Officers of Her Majesty's Navy, the hon. Member would prove a very bad friend to the Petty Officers if we adopted his suggestion, for, so far from being in a worse, they are in a better position as regards pay and pension than the Non-Commissioned Officers of the Army. The chief Petty Officer does not rank with the Sergeant Major in the Army, who is a Warrant Officer, and who ranks with Warrant Officers in the Navy. Taking pay and victualling together the chief Petty Officer in the Navy gets, on an average, decidedly higher remuneration than the Colour Sergeant. The first-class Petty Officer is in an even better position, as compared with an ordinary Sergeant, and the second-class Petty Officer as compared with a Corporal. In respect of their pensions, they may roughly be said to be about as well off as the corresponding rank in the Army. But the bon. Member has omitted to refer to a consideration which is the most important of all, and that is that, to speak very moderately indeed, a seaman's chances of obtaining Petty Officer's rank are at least 100 per cent better than the chances of a marine or a soldier to obtain the rank of a Non-Commissioned Officer.

asked the Vice President of the Council, If any Correspondence has taken place between the Charity Commission, the Education Department, and the Governors of the United Westminster Schools, relative to the retention of Mr. Goffin as head master of those schools; and, if so, whether he has any objection to lay it upon the Table of the House?

Yes; there has been such a Correspondence as that to which the noble Lord refers, and if he will be so good as to move for it, there will be no objection to give it.

asked the Secretary of State for India, Whether he is aware that, by the Law of Natal, the sale of spirits to the native population is forbidden; and, whether, in view of the demoralization directly on the Coolies and indirectly on the Kaffirs, caused by the exemption of the former from this Law, and in view of the facilities possessed by an intermediate coloured race like the Coolies for contravening the Law and inducing habits of drinking amongst the Kaffirs, the Government of India will permit the Legislature of Natal to extend the prohibition to natives of India?

I am aware that by the Law of Natal (No. 22, 1878, section 2) the sale and disposal of spirits to any native is forbidden. It was proposed by the Secretary of State for the Colonies to the Go- vernment of Natal, in March, 1879, to extend this prohibition to the sale of spirits to Coolies. The Government of India having been consulted, obtained the opinion of the Governments of Bengal and Madras, and reported to the India Office in the following terms (Despatch, April 13, 1880):—

"We are of opinion that, if trafficking in liquor by Indian immigrants does great and manifest harm to other natives in the Colony, the Colonial Government is not debarred by contract or otherwise from enforcing the liquor laws against Indian immigrants. If, on the other hand, the proposed measure is one of expediency rather than necessity, it appears desirable that existing contracts should be saved, and that the law should be applied prospectively. It will be for the Colonial authorities and the right hon. the Secretary of State for the Colonies to say whether it is advisable, in that case, to take the risks of diminished immigration suggested by the Reports of the Madras and Bengal Governments."

This opinion was communicated to the Colonial Office; and I have recently learnt by a letter from the Colonial Office that the Natal Executive Council has resolved that no legislation in the direction of stopping the sale of liquor to Coolies be attempted. It will thus be seen that if the demoralization and the facilities for contravening the law be such as to do great and manifest harm to other natives in the Colony, there is nothing in the advice given by the Government of India that need prevent the Natal Council from extending the application of the law to Indian immigrants.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government will consent to lay upon the Table of the House without delay the whole of the Correspondence connected with the several applications which have been made for a Royal Charter to enable a Company or body of capitalists to exercise jurisdiction in North Borneo, together with the text of the Charter recently granted to the British North Borneo Company?

The Correspondence referred to will be found in the Papers relating to the affairs of Sulu and Borneo, and to the grant of a Charter of Incorporation to the British North Borneo Company, which are about to be laid upon the Table, and which, will contain a copy of the Charter.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is the fact that Russia has concluded a Treaty with Persia, which gives Russia entire control over the region bordering on the province of Khorassan up to a point within twelve miles of Sarakhs, and one hundred and thirty-three miles from Herat; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government have made, or intend to make, any representations to the Government of St. Petersburg on the subject?

Her Majesty's Government are not yet in possession of the Treaty respecting the boundary which has been signed between Russia and Persia; but they expect shortly to have a copy, and it will be at once communicated to Parliament. As far as they are at present informed, the furthest point to which the Frontier extends is a long way short of Sarakhs.

Will the hon. Baronet answer the last portion of the Question?

I do not think it would be convenient that I should state, in any detail, what the Government are doing on the subject; but I may say that it is engaging their attention, and is the subject of diplomatic correspondence.

asked the Under Secretary of state for Foreign. Affairs, Whether it is a fact that the representatives of four Great Powers, Germany, Austria, France, and Russia, have addressed an identical communication to the Porte, to the effect that the four Governments desired the status quo in Egypt to be maintained, in accordance with existing treaties, and with the firmans of the Sultan; and that any modification of the status quo would require the assent of all the Great Powers and of the Sultan; whether, in view of such a communication, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to withdraw the joint note of two which they, in conjunction with France, addressed to the Khedive; and, whether the Government will lay copies of all recent despatches upon Egyptian affairs upon the Table of the House? The hon. Member said he wished to add to the second portion of the Question the words "Without consulting the Sultan, and in breach of the concert of Europe."

I believe that the hon. Gentleman has correctly stated the purport of a verbal communication made by the Dragomans of the four Powers to the Porte. It is riot the intention of Her Majesty's Government to withdraw the communication made to the Khedive by the English Agent in conjunction with the French Agent; and Her Majesty's Government cannot accept the truth of the criticism contained in the words the hon. Member has just added to his Question. It would not be consistent with the usual practice to lay despatches on the Table relating to a question which is still under discussion.

Will that document be in the hands of Members?

Yes; immediately.

Did I understand the hon. Member to say the Sultan was consulted?

Sir, it was no breach of the concert of the Powers. We followed, in making this communication, the precedent set by the late Government.

I should like to ask the ton. Baronet whether any communication was made to the Porte? The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister yesterday laid great stress on the Sovereignty or the Suzerainty of the Sultan.

The precedent followed was that set by Lord Salisbury. He also addressed the Khedive, without informing the Porte, in exactly the same manner.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If, without detriment to the public service, he will be good enough to inform the House of the nature and object of the two Anglo-French Notes addressed to the Khedive of Egypt relative to the joint financial control of the country; if they were issued with or without the consent of the signatories to the Berlin Treaty; and, if it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to endeavour to arrive at an understanding with the whole of the European Powers that the navigation of the Suez Canal should be made International not only in times of peace, but also in the event of war?

There are no such Notes in existence. The identic communication recently made by the English and French Agents to the Khedive has already been presented to Parliament. The object of that communication was the maintenance of the rights of the Sultan as Sovereign, of the position of the Khedive, and of the liberties of the Egyptian people under the Firmans of the Porte, and the fulfilment of all international arrangements. As the matter was not one which came under the Treaty of Berlin, the consent of the signatories of that Treaty was not asked. It is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to make any proposal with regard to the Suez Canal.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If Her Majesty's Government has received any information confirmatory of that stated by the "Standard" newspaper of Monday last to have been

"officially reported to the French Government, both from Constantinople and Cairo, that Arabi Bey has the Sultan's warrant for turning out the Khedive and installing himself in his place, on condition of recognising the Sultan's Sovereignty and his dependence upon him;"

whether the Organic Law reported by the newspapers of this morning to have been voted yesterday by the new Egyptian Ministry, transferring the preparation of and control over the Budget, vested by the Decrees of November 1876 and November 1879 in the Council of Ministers and the Controllers-General, from these authorities to the Chamber of Delegates, in any way constitutes such a change in the status quo as was contemplated by and provided for in the recent Joint Note of the British and French Governments to the Khedive; and, if it do constitute such a change, whether Her Majesty's Government intends to take any and what action to re-establish and maintain the authority of the Control?

Her Majesty's Government have received no information confirmatory of the statement in The Standard referred to by my hon. Friend. The new Egyptian Government have expressed their willingness to exclude from the control of the Chamber the credits necessary to the service of the Debt, and their desire to give the Chamber the control only of the internal administrative expenditure, subject to the Imperial Firmans, and have declared that they consider the guarantee of the regular fulfilment of the obligations of the country towards its creditors as sacred. It would be premature for us to announce the views of Her Majesty's Government.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the Government of Jamaica has, in order to meet a deficit in the revenue, increased, or is about to increase, the import duties in that Island; whether this breach of our fiscal policy is approved by Her Majesty's Government, Jamaica being a Colony directly under the Crown; and, whether they will exercise their authority and instruct the Governor to meet the deficit by reducing the expenditure, which already bears heavily upon the people, who have no voice in raising it?

Yes, Sir; it is true that the Legislature of Jamaica has, in order to meet a deficit, made for one year, ending the 21st day of November next, an addition of 10 per cent to the import duties, and has also for the same period increased the Excise duty on rum from 5s. to 8s. a gallon. The Secretary of State has not advised Her Majesty to disallow this temporary measure. With regard to the third part of the hon. and learned Member's Question, I may say that there is a net reduction of about £ 13,000 on the estimate of expenditure for the current year, as compared with the grants for the year preceding.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been given to the charge delivered by the County Court Judge to the Grand Jury at Wicklow, on the 20th January of the present year, in which the following passages occur:—

"I beg to inform you that there are only three cases to go before you to-day, and these are only ordinary cases of larceny." "I am very glad to be able to congratulate you on the absence of serious crime in this part of the country." "Gentlemen, I have made inquiries as to the condition of this part of the country, and I am very glad to know, from the very best authority, that it is at present in a very satisfactory condition;"

adding—

"I have just come from Baltinglass. There were but two criminal cases there, which were referred back to the assizes, leaving not a single case to go before the grand jury, and there was no criminal business whatever in the town of Baltinglass;"

and, whether, looking to these reiterated assertions of the learned Judge as to the almost complete absence of crime and outrage, he can inform the House upon what grounds the entire county of Wicklow has been proscribed under the Coercion Act and proclaimed under the Arms Act?

The hon. Member sent me a newspaper containing a report of the charge, and I find the words he quotes are correct, although the Judge added some remarks as to the lamentable condition of the Western portion of the county. I may say that it was found necessary to proscribe the whole of the county of Wicklow under the Protection of Person and Property Act, as well as most other parts of Ireland, and it was done to prevent the intimidation which was very prevalent, especially about Baltinglass.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, in view of the great danger to which the public is exposed, owing to the inadequate means of exit and the insufficiency of proper precautions against fire in the various theatres and music halls and other places of entertainment and meeting throughout the Kingdom, he is prepared to introduce a Bill dealing specially with the subject; and, if not, what steps he proposes to take to ensure the safety of the public from fire?

Special legislation relating to this matter took place in 1878. The Metropolitan Board of Works have power to deal with London theatres, both old and new. About six weeks ago I called their attention to the subject, and I am informed by them that they are taking active measures under the powers they possess.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say in how many instances since 1378 the Board has enforced its powers?

I cannot answer that off-hand.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to propose an increased vote in the Estimates of this Session, for the purpose of extending the number of certified schools in Ireland?

It is proposed to refer the subject of industrial schools in England to the consideration of a Royal Commission. It is not thought desirable to make provision for a further extension of industrial schools in Ireland until that Commission has reported and opportunity has been given for considering the conditions under which the Parliamentary grant is made.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he will supplement his proposed Returns by the further information—in how many cases up till 28th January last have notices of appeal been given to the decisions of the Sub-Commissioners; in how many cases have loans been granted till same date to pay arrears and the total amount; how much money has been expended in the purchase and sale of land, pursuant to Part V. of the Land Act (Ireland) 1881; in how many cases have applications been made to set aside leases; how many cases have been heard; and, how many cases have been set aside?

in reply, said, he had no objection to give the Return which the hon. Member asked for in the first and fourth parts of his Question. He thought the other particulars referred to by the Question had been already given in a Return.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he will lay upon the Table, any Consular or other official Reports concerning the recent outrages on Jews in Russia, which Her Majesty's Government may have received?

Yes, Sir.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Her Majesty's Government has received any official accounts of the persecutions and the outrages which the Jews in Russia have suffered for several months past; whether the correspondence will be laid upon the Table of the House; and, whether it is possible for Her Majesty's Government in any manner to exercise its friendly influence with the Russian Government on behalf of the Jews?

My hon. and learned Friend by this Question has called my attention to a subject to which no man of ordinary feeling can refer without sentiments of the utmost pain and horror; and if I do not enter into detail on such a subject beyond what is necessary for a reply to the Question, I am sure my hon. and learned Friend will feel there is a duty of reserve incumbent on me in the Office I have the honour to hold, which is special in comparison with that which attaches to other individuals differently situated. Now, as to the first part of the Question of my hon. and learned Friend, it has been substantially answered in the reply to a previous Question which was made by my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. There is a verbal matter which I ought, perhaps, to mention. If I were to say that the Correspondence would be laid upon the Table of the House, it might possibly give rise to some misapprehension. This is a subject upon which—there being no official locus standi for Her Majesty's Government in regard to a matter purely internal and under the control of another Government—it would not, strictly speaking, be made the subject of an official inquiry. On the other hand, it is the duty of Her Majesty's Consuls in foreign countries to report, for the information of Her Majesty's Government, all matters which may come within the circle of their knowledge upon subjects of public interest, whether painful or otherwise. Reports have, therefore, been made to Her Majesty's Government, which have, a few minutes ago, been laid upon the Table of the House. My hon. and learned Friend asks me whether it would be possible for Her Majesty's Government in any manner to exercise its friendly influence with the Russian Government on behalf of the Jews. My hon. and learned Friend puts that Question in the belief that whatever opinion we may entertain, and whatever may be the causes of the deplorable outrages which naturally arouse his sympathies, the Government of the country in which they have occurred must, and does, regard them with the same feelings as ourselves. When a case of this kind occurs, deeply interesting to us, as well as to that country and humanity at large, it is often in the power of Ministers, situated as the Foreign Ministers of this country are, to effect something that may be useful by unofficial, friendly, and private communications, taking care that they strictly observe the due limits of the position which they hold, but able on that very account, perhaps, to exercise the most beneficial influence. But my hon. and learned Friend will at once perceive that to make either engagements to offer such communications, or still more to make them the subject of announcements in an official capacity to the House of Commons, would deprive any action of that kind of the hope of beneficial effects. My noble Friend (Earl Granville) entertains feelings of interest and sympathy on this subject as warmly and strongly as any man, and will endeavour, on any due and promising occasion, to give effect to those feelings; yet he certainly will abstain from anything that would arouse the jealousy either of foreign Governments or peoples, on this ground even beyond any other—that if he were to mistake his position, so far from being advantageous, it would be positively detrimental to the object he has in view.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, having regard to the fact that Parliament has from time to time passed votes of thanks to generals in the Army for triumphs in war, he will propose a similar vote, or make some other suitable recognition to General Sir Evelyn Wood for the distinguished services which he recently rendered to this Country, in South Africa?

I thank my hon. Friend for having postponed this Question from a former occasion. The fact is, that until quite recently—in fact, I may say until this very day—I have not been in a position to give a very full answer to it. My hon. Friend will remember that while the services, both political and military, of Sir Evelyn Wood naturally attracted in this country the greatest degree of attention, yet that there were associated with him in the political portion of those services—difficult and arduous as they were—other gentlemen whom it was the duty of Her Majesty's Government to take into view. As these services were rendered through the medium of a Commission appointed by the Crown, until we had received the Report of that Commission, and the matter had been wound up, the time had not arrived for considering what advice we should tender to the Throne. That Report was only received a short time back; but we lost no time in advising Her Majesty upon the subject. My hon. Friend will not be surprised if I include in my answer the other distinguished persons to whom I have referred. Her Majesty has been greatly pleased to authorize us to offer to Sir Hercules Robinson the honour of the office of Privy Councillor, and Sir Hercules Robinson has accepted the offer. His acceptance has only been received this evening, and I need not say that the actual admission must be postponed for a time. Sir Evelyn Wood received some time ago the offer of the Governorship of Natal; but it did not enter into the views of that gallant officer, whose services and abilities we so warmly acknowledge, to accept that office. He has, however, been made, with the sanction of Her Majesty, a Major General in the Army, and Her Majesty has likewise authorized the grant to him of the Grand Cross of St. Michael and St. George. The great services of Sir Henry de Villiers, Chief Justice of the Cape, have also been acknowledged; and Her Majesty has offered to him, and he has accepted, the order of Knight Commander of St. Michael and St. George. It was impossible also for us not to take into consideration the friendly actions, rendered in a spirit so manly and so intelligent, of President Brand, of the Orange Free State; and Her Majesty authorized the Government to propose to President Brand that he should receive the honorary distinction of the Grand Cross of St. Michael and St. George. We have to-day received President Brand's reply by telegraph. It is to this effect. He expresses his appreciation of the delicate and friendly offer, which he says it would be ungracious in him not to accept in the same spirit. There is, however, a temporary—I hope it can only be a temporary—impediment. On a former occasion, when President Brand, having in another instance made himself legitimately useful to a foreign Government, accepted an honour from the King of Portugal, the Representative Assembly of the Orange Free State passed a Resolution that the President was not, on a future occasion, to receive any foreign decoration without the sanction of the Volksraad. President Brand, therefore, tells us he is not able to give effect to the wish of the Government at once; but that a special Session of the Volksraad will be held next month to consider the matter. Subject to obtaining the leave of the Volksraad, we understand that President Brand desires to accept the offer we have made him.

May I ask if any honours have been conferred on those officers and men who so gallantly conducted the defence of the British garrisons in the Transvaal?

There are certain honours which will, or can be made known by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Childers); but I conceive the Question now put to me to refer to honours for those services which are combined only with political purposes.

As I did not expect the right hon. Baronet's Question would be put, I shall feel obliged if he will give Notice of it for to-morrow.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, What course Her Majesty's Government intend to pursue in consequence of the result of last Tuesday's Division? He always understood that the reply to such a Division as that on the part of the Government was either to resign or to dissolve Parliament.

When I first saw this Question on the Paper it appeared to me, in the first place, to be ambiguous, and, secondly, alarming. It was ambiguous, because I was not at first sight aware to which of the two Divisions which occurred on Tuesday the right hon. and gallant Member referred to. He has been good enough to explain that ambiguity, and I am now left open to the full force of the alarm. I am afraid that the right hon. and gallant Baronet will think me insensible to my Parliamentary duties. If he does think so, of course it is open to the right hon. and gallant Baronet to make any Motion in this House for the purpose of arousing my Colleagues and myself to a more just sense of the obligations of the positions we hold; but at present I have no announcement to make to him on this subject.

wished to ask a Question of the Speaker with respect to the Rules of the House. Yesterday he handed in blocking Notices with regard to 10 Bills intended to be introduced that evening. Not seeing them on the Paper, he inquired and found that they had been omitted by a mistake of the printer. He wished to ask whether, considering that the printer had not made the same mistake with regard to a Bill he had given Notice of, he would have a right of reciprocity?

It is perfectly true that through an inadvertence of the printer the mistake has been made to which the hon. Member refers. I am bound to say that the Notice given by the hon. Member was transmitted to the printer in a very incomplete form, and I am not much surprised at the printer not having understood it. No Notice of opposition appearing through this accident on the Paper, of course the Notice of opposition will have no vitality, and the Business will proceed in the usual way.

wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies a Question of which he had given him private Notice as to the affairs in Basutoland. The reference in Her Majesty's Speech might lead to some apprehension as to the present condition of affairs there. It was, however, impossible to discuss the position until they were in possession of information of a somewhat later date than that at present in the hands of hon. Members. The last Papers were dated in July last, and he should like to ask the hon. Gentleman when any further Papers would be in the possession of hon. Members, and up to what date they would refer?

The Papers presented last Tuesday include Papers with reference to Basutoland; but I am afraid that even those Papers will not give such information respecting Basutoland as will enable the right hon. Baronet to discuss the present position.

asked the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. P. J. Smyth), Whether, having regard to the interest of the subject which he had at heart, and to the interests of the principles of self-government in Ireland, it was his intention to press his Amendment to the Address to a division?

in reply, said, that, so far as he was concerned, the object he had in view was fully attained by the more than patient hearing afforded to him on the previous day. So far as the object which he had at heart was concerned, he failed to see what good would be done by going to a division. It was no part of his policy to obstruct in any way Public Business, and, therefore, he did not wish to go to a division. The matter did not, however, rest with him, but with the House, and more especially with the hon. Member for Mayo.

suggested that the Motion, if it was to be withdrawn, should be withdrawn at once, inasmuch as its presence on the Paper prevented reference being made to those that stood behind it.

asked, Whether the Government would still oppose the introduction of the Bill, of which he had given Notice, with regard to the Irish Vice Royalty?

I simply wanted the purport of the hon. Member's Bill. If he will tell me privately what its nature is, probably we shall not oppose its introduction; but it is rather a peculiar title, and I thought it desirable the House should know something of what the Bill is.

The object of the Bill is to abolish the Lord Lieutenancy as at present constituted.

asked the Chief Secretary, Whether he would still refuse him the usual courtesy of bringing in the Bill, of which he had given Notice, for the amendment of the Coercion Act?

said, that with regard to that Bill, the hon. Member should be candidly informed that the first reading of it would be opposed by the Government.

said, he desired that opportunity of stating, in reply to some comments in The Times leading article of that morning, that in his remarks the previous evening he had no inten- tion of making light of the attempt upon the person of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. It was of too serious a character, and no one could reprobate more strongly than he any attack of such a character upon the right hon. Gentleman, or any attempt calculated to show him disrespect. The remarks he made were solely drawn forth by the very widespread belief that it did not bear the diabolical construction placed upon it. That brought him to the question of outrages in Ireland; and in that connection he complained of the wanton and unnecessary hardships inflicted upon some of the persons arrested under the Coercion Act. That was contrary to the Bill of Eights, which provided that too heavy bail or unnecessary punishment should not be inflicted upon any subject. If Englishmen were to be treated in a similar way, a state of things would arise which Ireland had never equalled. While making those remarks, he favoured the firm and proper administration of the law in Ireland, That did not exist. Magistrates who were regarded as Saxons administered the law in a vindictive manner; and those who were selected from amongst the people did not, generally speaking, administer it with sufficient firmness. He knew instances of that where "popular magistrates," as they were called, were afraid to act with the necessary firmness lest their action might be misunderstood. The Government should be answerable to Ireland for the nomination of its magistrates. As Lord Mayor of Dublin, he wished to point out that he and his fellow members of the Municipal Corporation had no power or control whatever over the police of that city, the force being entirely in the hands of the Government. The case was very different in regard to the police of every city and municipal borough in England and Scotland. That state of affairs was owing to the Government under which the country was ruled. He complained that on the occasion of the street disturbances in Dublin the police were called out without the Executive having consulted the municipal authorities. He never felt so humbled in his life—[laughter]—and that loud laughter on the part of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) spoke a vacant mind. He repeated, he never felt so humbled in his life as when, some time ago, he accompanied the Lord Mayor of Dublin, the Sheriff, and about 40 members of the Corporation as a deputation to the Chief Secretary for Ireland to ask him why they had not been consulted respecting the measures that were adopted for quelling the riots in the city. The Lord Mayor of Dublin was a gentleman of gracious manner, and of a presence that would have commanded respect. Then, why was he not consulted? But they were told the Executive, and not the municipality, had power over the police. He asked, what would be the result of such a proceeding if a riot occurred in London, or any large town in this country? In the presence of two Englishmen, neither of whom had more than a very limited experience of Ireland—one of them the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Herbert Gladstone), and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster), who said the Corporation had no power to interfere, and that the Executive was altogether responsible—he asked dispassionately, would the people of Leeds, represented by the hon. Member opposite, permit themselves to be treated in that manner? Would the people of England bear it? He said Irish institutions had been reformed by English legislation; but they had been left devoid of all power, and the people were left hopelessly under a crushing and despotic rule of police, controlled by military officers, who rode on horseback through the streets like plumed warriors. The police of Dublin were employed in hunting "suspects" in other parts of the country, when they ought to be looking after breaches of the sanitary laws in that city. In Edinburgh every constable of the 500 composing the Police Force of that city was a sanitary officer; whereas in Dublin the police were diverted from their municipal duties to act as spies, and passed by offences which were detrimental to the health and the welfare of the inhabitants. They were a noble class of men, from whom he had on every occasion received courtesy and attention; it was the system under which they were placed that he condemned. He knew that they were persecuted and mulcted by a military rule that would scarcely be borne by Her Majesty's regiments; and, in the interests of the peace and prosperity of the country, he urged that they should be put under municipal control. The experience of centuries showed that the English House of Commons could not Legislate for Ireland with advantage; and why, he asked, should they persist in so hopeless and unsatisfactory an attempt? It was said that there was no practical proposition for giving Ireland the power of legislating for herself; but the example of the modus vivendi now happily working in Austria and Hungary showed how a separate Assembly for conducting the affairs of each country could be combined with a common authority dealing with the common affairs of both countries. It was a gross fallacy to treat Ireland in that argument as though it were as much a part of Great Britain as Yorkshire or Kent; and as long as they hugged that delusion to their bosoms, they would never reach a satisfactory solution of the relations between the two countries. There was another difficulty which arose out of the differences of race in Ireland. Many magistrates hesitated to give a just verdict, to call a robber a robber, or a drunkard a drunkard, for fear that it should be thought that Saxon prejudice made them severe to the Irish race. It could not be just that English gentlemen, able to deal with English affairs with ability, but incompetent and ignorant in the affairs of Ireland, should have the power to plunge into more than Oriental gloom the Irish subjects of Her Majesty the Queen.

said, he desired to make only a brief contribution to the debate, not because he thought it of any use to argue the Irish Question before that Assembly, but in order to keep alive the protest of the Irish people against the nefarious Act of Union. He thought they should take occasion not at great length, but, at all events, in an emphatic manner, to declare again and again in that House and elsewhere their belief and determination that under this so-called Union the Irish people would never rest contented. He believed that the claim which they put forward in that respect would be won, and that their cause would triumph; but it would not be won by speeches made in the House of Commons—it would be won by the force of a whole series of circumstances working together to that end. It would be won because it was the cause of right and justice—because they claimed what they were fairly entitled to. It would be won because there was no concession that was made in the direction of justice or right that did not strengthen their hands and weaken those of their enemies. From time to time, as reform after reform was effected for Ireland in that House, the British Government and the British people seemed to nurse the delusion that the whole question was settled between Ireland and England, and it seemed to him that they had not got rid of that delusion up to the present day. When any little instalment of justice was offered to Ireland they were always told that the last grievance of their country had been redressed, and that an era of peace, goodwill, and prosperity was opening before them; but that would never be the case until they went to the root of the difficulty between the two countries, which was the Irish National Question. He acknowledged that some useful measures had been passed—the Ballot Act was a good and useful Act, which had strengthened the Irish National Party, and enabled them to send true Members of Parliament to Westminster, instead of the shams who had represented them before. The Education Act was a good Act; but the more they educated the Irish people the more they struck against the legislative Union between the two countries. The education and intelligence of the people were working for them and their cause, and not against them. They had a very serious grievance in the matter of franchise, and they were bound to have a redress of that grievance; but when they got it their hands again would be strengthened, because every concession in the direction of justice would strengthen the just cause of the Irish people. Still, even then, they would not rest and be contented—the river of Irish disaffection would never dry up until their just national claim had been recognized. It seemed to him that the English Government and the English Members and Ministers and the English people were entirely misled by the use of this word "Union." There was no union between the countries—no union except a union of force. There was no union of hearts, there was no union of affection between the countries, and there never could be until the wrong that was done Ireland by that so-called Act of Union was undone. Now they had 80 years of the Act of Union; and he asked any man in that House or out of it, was Ireland more united to England to-day in the respects he had mentioned than she was 80 years ago? Those 80 years were one long-continued series of oppression and repressions. At the present day they had the National Leaders of the Irish people imprisoned, and yet they thought they had a Union between the two countries. The so-called Union of the two countries had been a hideous failure, and never could be anything else. The bare recital of the oppressive and atrocious Coercion Acts which had been passed for Ireland since the Act of Union was mournfully monotonous. He held in his hand a list of 25 Acts of a repressive character passed since 1831, and those were Acts passed by successive Liberal Governments. He admitted the existence of an extreme Party in Ireland, as in every other country where discontent prevailed. Every day that justice was deferred the hands of the Separatist Party in Ireland were strengthened. The refusal of English Ministers to do the act of justice required of them was all the more unaccountable that there were no difficulties in the way which could not be adjusted—which had not, in fact, been adjusted in the case of other countries. In every part of the world except in Ireland—even in Russia, as the correspondence of The Times the other day showed—Englishmen were ready to honour and commend such patriotic aspirations as were now expressed by the Irish Nationalist Party. Their eyes were blinded to all claims of right and justice when those claims came to their own doors. No doubt, on the present occasion, as on former occasions, the Government could produce two or three denationalized Irishmen to delare that all was right and well in Ireland; but it was time that the Government should be able to set the true value upon statements of that kind. All was not well in Ireland. It had no peace, no prosperity, and never would until the National Question was satisfactorily settled. Respect for law and order would never prevail until that time, because then the law would be made by Irishmen in the capital of their own country. People talked about dismemberment of the Empire; but was not Ireland a portion of the Empire before the Act of Union was passed? Geography, they were told, forbade the separation; but if that argument was pressed France might tomorrow claim to annex Germany, or vice versâ. The claim of the Irish people was not for total separation between the two countries. They claimed but the restoration of that Parliament which gave true peace and prosperity to their country, and which English jealousy and greed destroyed by the most foul and fraudulent means. The hands of England could never appear clean in that matter, and the Irish people would never condone the offence. It was vain for English Ministers to expect that the national feeling of Ireland would pass away. It was not passing away, it was growing stronger every day, and the rising generation of Ireland at present would enforce it as boldly and courageously as their fathers. The history of the connection between the two countries proved that the British Parliament was not a Parliament upon which the Irish people could rely or trust. The Representatives of Ireland were contending day after day for reforms, and day after day they were overwhelmed by British majorities. The Church Act and the Land Act might appear to be very good; but they might depend upon it that until the national feeling of Ireland was satisfied they would have no peace in that House or out of it from Ireland. He knew there was little use in pressing the matter upon the attention of Parliament now, they would be voted down by an obedient majority; but the resources of real civilization—not the resources of force and barbarism—were upon the side of the Irish people, and certain was he that they would yet prove triumphant.

wished to remind the House that the Prime Minister, another important Member of the Government, and many hon. Members on the Ministerial side of the House, had promised at various times to consider any practical proposals for Home Rule that might be brought forward, and he trusted that those hon. and right hon. Gentlemen would now keep their word. It was the common opinion that the cry of Home Rule was raised simply for purposes of obstruction, and that it was a vague demand which had never been formulated in precise terms. But that was not so. In listening to the speech of the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. P. J. Smyth) yesterday, he was surprised that he gave no definition of the question of Home Rule. Looking back through the records of the House, he was reminded that during the time of the late Mr. Butt a National Convention, representing every department and class of Irish life, was called together in Dublin, and at that assembly a definite shape was given to the demand for self-government for Ireland. To those who were constantly complaining that the Representatives of Ireland had never given any definition of Home Rule, he might reply that at that Convention the schemes prepared did not propose in any way to interfere with the Prerogatives of the Crown. Whatever Prerogatives the Crown had with respect to Ireland under the Constitution would remain identically the same were an Irish Parliament sitting in Dublin, except that in regard to all questions connected with the internal affairs of Ireland she would be guided by her Irish Ministers, and not by her English Ministers as at present. Secondly, as regarded the Imperial Parliament, that Parliament would retain supreme control in all Imperial affairs, the jurisdiction in all international transactions, questions of peace and war, the government of our Colonies and Dependencies, the Army, Navy, and commerce of the Empire. The Imperial Parliament would also levy Imperial as distinguished from local taxes. Ireland would be represented in the Imperial Parliament, not necessarily by Members of her own Parliament, and would have a voice on questions affecting the Empire, but would not take part in any questions connected with the internal affairs of England and Scotland. The Irish Parliament, under the Home Rule definition, would have supreme control of the internal affairs of Ireland, the jurisdiction, including education, agriculture, commerce, manufactures, and public works, Courts of Justice, the magistrature, the Post Office, and all other details of Irish business and Irish national life. As things were, Parliament was overwhelmed with work, and it was impossible to overtake the arrears of legislation. In every Session there was a striking contrast between the promises in the Queen's Speech and the achievements of the Session. In the meantime works of public utility in Ire- land had to be sacrificed because the necessary Bills could not be passed through the Parliament sitting in London. He could not understand why, considering the utter inability of Parliament to transact the Business that pressed upon it, every hon. Gentleman should not be prepared to say to Irishmen—"Yes, take all this, and leave us to carry out the work of this country." The question would be brought forward more formally during the Session; and he hoped his statement of what was claimed by Home Rulers would enable many English Gentlemen to deal with the subject not as one brought forward from improper motives, but as a question embodying a real demand of the Irish people, which must be conceded sooner or later, and which would increase in gravity every day that it was delayed. At present the matter was in the hands of men who might be said to be moderate and reasonable in their demand; delay would take it out of their hands and put it into the charge of men who were neither moderate nor reasonable.

said, he held that nothing would more quickly secure contentment, prosperity, and respect for law and order in Ireland than the granting to the Irish people of their just demand to administer their own internal affairs, which, he said, simply meant the making of their own local laws and the administration of their local taxes. As things were, if a small railway, which would cost £ 40,000 or £ 50,000, were projected, an enormous expense had to be incurred in bringing engineers, solicitors, and witnesses to London, and in paying London counsel, and then the matter was probably decided by half-a-dozen gentlemen totally ignorant of the wants of the district, and probably altogether unacquainted with Ireland. As an example of the way in which Ireland was taxed by the Imperial Parliament he instanced the fact that in 1854, when the duty on spirits in Ireland was 3s. 4d. a-gallon and the duty in England was 7s. 8d. a-gallon, they took one jump and raised it in Ireland to 10s., whilst in the rich and prosperous country of England they only advanced it to the same sum. This was a gross injustice, and a succession of such injustices had made the people of Ireland determined never to cease their efforts until that country had be- come a Nation instead of a Province. They had no objection to join England in an honourable federation, and to let all Imperial questions be settled by the House; but they did object to having Irish laws made by Englishmen, or, indeed, by any body of men in the world except Irishmen—by an Irish Parliament. With regard to the Land Act, even its strongest supporters would admit it had many drawbacks. He considered that the provision made for leaseholders was entirely insufficient, and that all leases which had contracted the tenant out of the benefits of the Act of 1870 ought to have been set aside. The Arrears Clause was likewise imperfect, because it left arrears which the tenants were wholly unable to pay to hang like a millstone round their necks. Greater facilities ought to have been given for the purchase of farms; and in regard to the poor labourers, it ought to have been made compulsory on the landlords or the tenants to build cottages for them. Notwithstanding all its drawbacks and all that had been said against it, he was still very thankful for the Bill. It had made many happy homes in Ireland. The days of the rack-renter and the exterminator were gone for ever. A man was secure now as long as he paid a fair rent. He was thankful for the Bill for more than its intrinsic value, because he believed that if it had not been for the passing of that Bill they would have had in one-half of his country rebellion as serious as that of 1798 against the acts of the landlords. The people would not have sat quietly by and allowed their countrymen to be banished from their homes, as they would have been but for the Bill. The Bill had prevented revolt and had brought peace to the country. A great deal had been said against the Bill. The country was passing through a great crisis, but he believed they were at the beginning of an era of prosperity; and if the Government could do something for the leaseholders—pass a Bill to provide the labourers with decent homes, and legislate liberally with regard to the tenants' arrears—contentment would be restored to the country.

said, that if it were convenient that that debate should close, he should be happy to withdraw the Amendment. [Cries of "No!" from the Irish Members.]

Sir, if there is an indisposition to allow the Amendment to be withdrawn, of course I can only express my regret at that indisposition. I do so not because I am adverse to the discussion my hon. Friend has raised, not because the subject introduced yesterday in so excellent a spirit, and with so much eloquence, is unworthy of our attention, but because I think that, recommended as it is by him, it is entitled to discussion and effectual discussion; but that effectual discussion cannot, as he has justly recognized, be had upon this occasion. There is no mode of preventing the progress of Business which can compare in efficacy with that of insisting that all possible subjects shall be discussed at one and the same time. My hon. Friend wishes to relieve us from that difficulty by at least withdrawing one most important subject which formed the topic of his speech yesterday. But, unfortunately, he is not to be permitted to do so; and, that being the state of affairs, I wish to say a very few words upon that subject itself, for the Government are not willing to be responsible for the indefinite prolongation of this debate, when it is so confounded with other matters that it can reach no definite issue; and, upon the other hand, they are unwilling to appear by silence insensible either to the claims of my hon. Friend or to the claims of the matter which he has introduced. With regard to the question of the extension of local government in Ireland, it was a matter of great pain to us to find that owing to the impediments thrown in our way last Session we were unable to persevere with a measure of local government for Ireland, of which we had given Notice of our intention and desire to introduce. We attach the greatest value to the extension, perhaps I ought to say to the establishment, of local government in that country. We believe that one of the great evils under which the country labours is the want of local administration and of centralization of authority. We believe that the state of Ireland never can be satisfactory until its people have acquired and learned by practice those powers of local government which have proved so beneficial in other quarters of this Kingdom. Moreover, we believe that where the Irish people have had the opportunity, within a limited range, of giving proof of their powers and qualities and capabilities for local government, as they have done under the Poor Law Act, and through some other channels, they have demonstrated, if, indeed, anyone has been disposed to doubt it, their perfect capacity for the discharge of such duties. But that is treating of the subject of purely local administration. The Motion of my hon. Friend embraces other matters of wider scope, and what I have to say upon that subject is that even the short discussion which we have had to-night indicates many of the difficulties which the House will find in its way when it comes to deal seriously with that matter. Seriously, I am afraid it cannot be dealt with on this occasion. But the difficulties which will surround it when it comes to be dealt with have come to the surface in even this brief debate. Two hon. Members, who belong to what is known in Ireland as the Popular Party, have spoken to-night, and both of them are entitled to the respect of this House—namely, the hon. Member for King's County (Mr. Molloy) and the hon. Member for the county of Limerick (Mr. O'Sullivan). Both recommend that arrangements should be made to enable an Irish Legislative Body to deal with Irish affairs, and both declare their adhesion to the principle of the preservation of the integrity of the Empire, and their desire that Imperial questions should continue to be treated in an Imperial Parliament in which Ireland should be represented. As far as their general declarations go, I do not think that any exception can justly be taken to them; but, at the same time, these hon. Members have shown how differently they construe the words which they themselves have used. I will not undertake to say to what decision this House might arrive, provided a plan were before it, under which the local affairs of Ireland could be, by some clear and definite line, separated from the Imperial affairs of Ireland; but I must remind those hon. Gentlemen that when they say that they object to having any laws made for Ireland excepting by a Parliament sitting in Ireland, they also say that laws affecting Imperial interests are to be made here, and that those laws affecting Imperial interests would be laws for Ireland, just as much as laws touching only the local affairs. I am afraid that even those two hon. Gen- tlemen are involved in almost hopeless contradiction—[Mr. O'SULLIVAN: Not at all.]—well, that is a matter of opinion, and I say it without any intention to give offence—in the construction they assign to language which they join in using. The hon. Member for King's County quoted, as an authority, the declarations made at a meeting held in Dublin, in which it was fully laid down that this House, as a branch of the Imperial Parliament, was still to make provision for the discharge of the claims and obligations to the public credit or for the defence of the country, and for the maintenance of every Imperial establishment. But the hon. Member for King's County having quoted those declarations, the hon. Member for Limerick, while appearing to second him, loudly complained that this Parliament, in fulfilling that very duty in making provision for the wants of the country, had legislated on the subject of the internal duty leviable upon Irish spirits on the principle of requiring the people of Ireland to pay the same rate of duty upon a given commodity as they called upon the people of England and Scotland to pay. [Mr. O'SULLIVAN: The poor country and the rich one.] The poor country and the rich one? The hon. Gentleman shows that down to a certain date the Parliament of this country had been content to give to the people of Ireland the privilege—if it be a privilege—of drinking spirits at a much less duty than had been levied on the people of England and Scotland. But the hon. Gentleman well knows that that principle of financial preference to the people of Ireland was associated with a system of civil and religious inequality, and with the denial of political privilege; and the hon. Gentleman, if he understands, as I hope he does, the principle of liberty, must know that equal responsibility for meeting the burdens of the State is essential to and inseparable from the establishment of equal political rights. But I am now referring, not to the merits of the question, but to the evident contradiction that arises as between two hon. Gentlemen—between the first, who admits the full authority of this Parliament to deal with the question of taxation necessary for the discharge of Imperial obligations, and to meet the wants of the Imperial Government; and the other Gentleman, who complains that these Imperial purposes are, under the laws of Parliament, required to be met by equal contributions upon the consumption of the same article in the different countries.

The Act of Union expressly declares that there shall be a difference in the scale of the taxation of the two countries.

The hon. Gentleman may remind me of the Act of Union. If I were to remind him of the Act of Union, and the various matters declared in the Act of Union with which subsequent Parliaments have dealt, with the assistance of the hon. Gentleman, I think he would not be disposed to urge that as a decision of binding authority. But I wish to point, not merely to a contradiction which illustrated the difficulty of the case, but I wish to point out this—that neither they, nor so far as I know Mr. Butt before them, nor so far as I know Mr. O'Connell before him, ever distinctly explained in an intelligible and practicable form the manner in which the real knot of this question was to be untied. The principle upon which the hon. Members propose to proceed is this—that purely Irish matters should be dealt with by a purely Irish Authority, and that purely Imperial matters should be dealt with by an Imperial Chamber in which Ireland is to be represented. But they have not told us by what authority it is to be determined what matters, when taken one by one, are Irish, and what matters are Imperial. Until, Sir, they lay before this House a plan in which they go to the very bottom of that subject, and give us to understand in what manner that division of jurisdiction is to be accomplished, the practical consideration of this subject cannot really be arrived at, and, for my own part, I know not how any effective judgment upon it can be pronounced. Whatever may be the outcome of the hon. Member's proposal, of this I am well convinced, that neither this House of Commons, nor any other that may succeed it, will at any time assent to any measure by which the one paramount Central Authority necessary for holding together in perfect union and compactness this great Empire can possibly be either in the greatest or slightest degree impaired. We are not to depart from that principle; and what I put to the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, and to the hon. Member who preceded him, is this—that their first duty to us and their first duty to themselves, their first obligation in the prosecution of the purpose which they have in view—namely, of securing the management of purely Irish affairs by Irish hands—is to point out to us by what authority and by what instrument affairs purely Irish are to be divided and distinguished, in order that they may be appropriately and separately dealt with, as to what they call internal from those Imperial affairs and interests which they have frankly admitted must remain in the hands of the Imperial Parliament. Well, Sir, I do not pretend myself to advance this discussion towards a practical issue, because it is upon those who are disposed to raise the discussion that I must make the call that I now make—not for the purposes of this present debate, for I believe there is no advantage, but considerable disadvantage, in its continuance; but in order to let them understand, though we give full credit to their loyalty of purpose, that they shall give us a clear explanation as to the mode in which that vital matter is to be determined. Who is to say what purposes are Imperial? Who is to determine the circumscription within which the Irish authority is to have final control? In the course of the arguments which they used, the hon. Members referred to the case of Finland in its relation to Russia. That case, however, affords no practical illustration of this matter. It would be just as rational for hon. Gentlemen to quote the case of the Channel Islands; and I must remind the hon. Members that though we have sometimes interfered with the Customs duties of the Isle of Man, we have never, certainly in my recollection, interfered with the legislation of the Channel Islands. There a wholesome development is given to the principles of local government, and no practical inconvenience is felt. I take it that the case as between Russia and Finland is not very different from that as between Great Britain and the Channel Islands. Another case which was laid before us was that of Austria and Hungary. I am not an authority with reference to the rather difficult and complex question relating to Austria and Hungary.. I fully grant that the magnitude of that case is such that if you can, by a deve- lopment and explanation of that case, show that it affords a precedent for us, you occupy, so far, a ground on which you can take your stand in the argument. I have heard it alleged that the great and paramount difficulty of the question to which I have just referred—namely, the defining of divided authority—is attained in the case of the Austro-Hungarian Empire by a reference of the matter to the personal authority of the Sovereign. Well, if that be so, am I to understand that it is the proposal of those Members of the House who have taken the views I am referring to that the personal authority of the Sovereign in this country is to decide the question as to what subjects are to be referred to the Parliament of Ireland, and what subjects are to be referred to the Imperial Parliament? If that is the doctrine held, you are immediately involved in a dilemma more hopeless than any that has yet presented itself. Either the Sovereign is to decide on the authority of responsible Ministers or upon personal will and opinion. If the decision is to be made on the authority of responsible Ministers, then on which responsible Ministers—those of Great Britain, or those of Ireland? Evidently you would not consent to giving the responsible Ministers of Great Britain the power of drawing a distinction which involves most vital, difficult, and delicate questions of the subject. If you say, "No, we shall have nothing to do with responsible Ministers for the one country or the other," then I say you are in a greater difficulty still, because if in. the highest and nicest matters of government you are going to set up the personal responsibility of the Sovereign, apart from the advice of responsible Ministers, you are at once proposing a revolution in this country more profound than you need bring about by the establishment of any form of government whatsoever. With regard to the remarks of the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Sullivan) on the Land Act, I am sorry it is impossible to pursue the discussion of all these subjects. It is desired to debate the conduct of the Government in the administration of Ireland. It is desired to debate—and, in a measure, I cannot wonder at it, though the circumstances are not favourable—the operation of the Land Act. Why do hon. Members insist upon mixing with the subject a very great and difficult matter—and from what I have even now said I think it will be admitted the question is difficult as well as great—why do they insist on having all these matters mixed up? I am inclined to hope that they will allow this matter to be reserved for future consideration. I would venture, however, to press this upon them—that while I express myself favourable to the introduction, rightly understood, of local government in Ireland, as to the purpose they have in view, they cannot take the first, the most preliminary step, until they have produced a plan and set forth the machinery by which they mean to decide between Imperial and local questions, and so to give satisfaction to Members of this House upon the first and most paramount duty—namely, to maintain the supremacy of the Imperial authority for every practical purpose relating to the interests of this great Empire.

said, that was probably the first time a responsible Minister of the Crown—certainly the Prime Minister—had really shown a desire to grapple with the difficulties of the question of self-government for Ireland. Without pretending that he was able to give a complete answer to all the right hon. Gentleman's contentions, he wished to indicate the mode in which the difficulties the right hon. Gentleman had suggested could be solved. The nearest analogy between what the late Mr. Butt had asked for and an existing Government was to be found in the case of America. There there was a Supreme Government, with a number of State Governments, each of which was supreme within the borders of its own State. Questions arose as to what matters were really matter for each State and what for the General Government alone, and those questions were determined by a decision of the Supreme Court. It was objected to Mr. Butt's proposal that in this country we had no written Constitution, and therefore it was impossible to decide all those questions that might arise as matters of law. But if Parliament gave the Irish people self-government in matters in which it was admitted they ought to have self-government that could be defined in a Bill, and they could easily define the majority of matters which would come before an Irish Parliament. It was said, that notwithstanding, a contest might arise between the two countries as to what was Imperial and what was local; but to seize upon such a contingency as an excuse for denying to the Irish people the most ordinary rights of self-government was not statesmanship—it was tyranny, and worse than tyranny. But what was the complete answer to these objections, and what were the debatable questions which were likely to arise if they once separated Imperial affairs from local affairs? The British Parliament would still control the Army and Navy, the whole of the Imperial taxation, her relations with foreign Powers, and everything of the greater kind of Business which was now discharged in the House. That being so, if any question between the two Parliaments must be decided, then in the last result it would be decided by the force of the majority. Establishing a local legislation in Ireland would in no way diminish the power of the Crown in that country. The Sovereign would have just as many soldiers in Ireland as she had now. ["No!" and "Less!"] She would still have as many ships round the coast, and have the same right of raising taxes for the support of the Empire; and in case there was a rebellion, the Government could put it down, as they said they had put down rebellion now. These were not real objections, that could be urged in a serious spirit and with the authority and under the responsibility of an Executive Government, but were objections which had been put forward to relieve an Executive Government of that which it was their duty to do—namely, to consider the condition of Ireland. If the right hon. Gentleman turned his mind to the solution of the difficulty—and surely the responsibility was his—he would find that it was very easy, in looking at this question, to magnify those difficulties, and raise up such a barrier against the solution of them that they would never make any progress in peace and harmony between the two countries. That was the reason of his deprecating any continuation of that discussion, and he would ask his hon. Friend to withdraw his Resolution without putting it to a division. It was a great subject, and should not be touched upon in a slipshod manner. The greatest difficulty of all was amongst Irishmen themselves. They did not sufficiently define what they wanted. There was, doubtless, a Party of complete separation, which had lately come to the front in a way disastrous to Ireland, and thrown back her progress for such a time as none of them would see regained. There were others who wished to see Ireland under the Constitution of the time of Grattan; but that was not a scheme which commended itself to the great Convention in Ireland, which formulated those principles which had been explained by the Member for the King's County (Mr. Molloy). Until the Irish came to some conclusion for themselves, how could they expect other people to come to a decision? He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept the responsibility put upon him by his Office, and make an effort to improve the government of Ireland in such a manner as would release her from that system of centralization which had been her curse ever since the Union. They would accept whatever was offered in a good spirit. If they were not at once to be allowed to manage the whole of their own affairs, let them have an opportunity of managing some of them. Giving the Irish people the opportunity of using their own governing powers and faculties at home would, as the late Mr. Butt predicted, do much to sustain the integrity of the Empire, and do that which the right hon. Gentleman himself most desired—not separate the two countries, but to unite them, not in hate, but in bonds of peace and love.

said, he could not but think that the Prime Minister, like the majority of English and Scotch speakers on this subject, was unconsciously led away by the fallacy which was known as the fallacy of objections—that was to say, that while they saw clearly all the possible objections to the granting of the Irish national demand, they closed their eyes to the immensely stronger objections to the maintenance of the present system. The right hon. Gentleman challenged the Irish Members to produce a precise Constitution showing that no possible danger could accrue to the Imperial authority in consequence of granting national self-government to Ireland. But the right hon. Gentleman must know that it was not only not in the power of the Irish Party to comply with the demand, but it was not in the power of any body of men to frame a Constitution containing within itself an unanswerable reply to every possible objection. It would not be difficult to prove that a greater jumble of inconsistencies was never put together since the time of the Roman Republic than the extraordinary, yet workable, Constitution under which the British Empire had managed to get along. The idea of a House of Lords empowered to throw out everything passed by the House of Commons, and a House of Commons empowered to disagree with everything passed by the House of Lords, and a Sovereign empowered to disagree with anything passed by both, was one which could not be supported by anyone who understood logic. If there were objections to the granting of national self-government for Ireland, there was an irresistible array of objections to the continuance of the existing relations between both countries. Until there was a complete grant of national self-government to Ireland, the Irish people within the British Empire and without it would think of nothing else but how to obtain it. There would not be a question raised in the House, there would not be a question submitted to the constituencies in which Irish influence was to be found, there would not be a question of foreign trade or commerce started which should not be made the occasion of pressing the Irish demand upon the knowledge and attention of the British Parliament. If instead of being at the end of seven centuries of British domination they were only at its threshold, they should continue the battle through the same period, aye, and if necessary, for 20 centuries, until they obtained national self-government for Ireland. To refuse all concessions in that direction, and to compel the people of Ireland to beg on their knees for every reform in their social condition, was a mode of proceeding which the indomitable pride of the Irish people would never tolerate. If the right hon. Gentleman governed Ireland by coercion during the duration of his Ministry, he would leave the Irish problem to his successors, and if his successors took up his mode of dealing with the question, they, in turn, would hand it over to their successors. Let them, on the other hand, grant a small instalment of self-government to Ireland, and they would see that the more they granted the better. He was not an advocate of separation. He was not such a fool to Irish inte- rests as to advocate any such thing. The brains and blood of Irishmen had been used to so large an extent in the building up of this Empire, that he would for ever be unwilling to hand over the total result of the successes of his countrymen to their English and Scotch Friends. They intended to have self-government for Ireland, and they intended to do all in their power to govern their English and Scotch Friends into the bargain. He advocated Union between the countries, but only on condition that the Irish people should get self-government. As the Irish Party in that House gradually came to understand the vast powers at their disposal—powers vastly more effective than mere stupid obstruction could ever be—their wishes would be listened to with greater respect than now. Of course, the Irish were all potential Separatists. Better separation ten thousand times than the present system. Therefore, they impressed upon the Imperial Government the absolute necessity of going some way to satisfy their demands. The right hon. Gentleman talked of local self-government in Ireland. Suppose he introduced local county government into Ireland. Let him introduce county government into Ireland within the broad limits he was about to introduce it in England. Thirty-two Irish County Boards taken together would be found to be nearly an Irish National Parliament. You could not give half-an-inch of local government in Ireland without having to go the whole way. He (Mr. O'Donnell) was opposing the Liberal Party bitterly, but he was not opposing Liberalism. Let no man take him for a Tory. Let no Conservative imagine that because they were working with them in defence of their national rights they were going into the Tory camp. They were, they trusted, perfectly free and fair in their political convictions. They believed in men, not in measures. If ever a Party threw away its powers and chances with a stupidity unparalleled, it was the Tory Party. During the six quiet years that preceded the return of the Liberal Party to Office, the Tories might have easily settled the Land Question; and they were now suffering, not only for their sloth, but for their contempt of Mr. Butt and his Friends. He believed the Prime Minister was not a Liberal in his action, neither did he believe he was a Tory. Yet he believed he belonged to the type of destructive statesmen. In conclusion, he believed their own efforts, and the efforts of their brethren in England and other lands, would make the practical objections to the present system of Irish government more and more clear every day.

said, that in common with all who heard or who read the speech of the hon. Member who moved the Amendment (Mr. P. J. Smyth), he admired and must bear his testimony to its eloquence. While differing in the main from the hon. Gentleman, he agreed with many of the observations that had been made as to the injustice with which Irish industry was dealt with 200 years ago, and when many laws were on the Statute Book which now appeared harsh and severe, but which had long been repealed. But Irishmen could do no good in moodily grieving over the past. If one side found fault with the means by which the Union was carried in 1800, the other side would remember the Rebellion of 1798, and many events which preceded it. It must be admitted on both sides that there was a good deal to be forgotten. In national matters, as in commercial matters, there should be a Statute of Limitations—["No!"]—and surely 80 years were sufficient for that purpose. Not only Ireland, but perhaps every country, had something to forget. Most assuredly the principles of the Amendment did not prevail over a large part of Ireland. He felt bold to assert that, if it were possible to put the question without terrorism to the people of Ireland, a majority would hold by the Union. He said that notwithstanding that the larger proportion of the Irish Members belonged to the Home Rule Party; but the issues were different. The question on which they were returned was not that of separation, but of the land; on which question he admitted they had the sympathy and support of many who disagreed with them on the Land Question. He confessed that he read with much regret two speeches lately delivered on the subject of Ireland; one by the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen), who much exaggerated the extent of the sympathy he had referred to; the other by the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), when both conceded the principle of Home Rule, which was another name for separation. As to the question of letting Ireland go, as the hon. Baronet put it, there would be two parties to consider; and he would ask, was the House prepared to abandon the loyal portion of Ireland, not only in the North, but in other parts of Ireland? He did not wish to impart any heat into the debate; but, after such utterances from English Members below the Gangway, he might tell the House that the loyalists of Ireland were prepared to defend the legislative Union with their lives. They regarded it as the charter of their liberty, the means by which they attained their present prosperity. It was his firm belief that if a poll were taken of the people of Ireland, without peril to them, it would be found that they would hold to the Union. Ireland had no special grievance. On the contrary, she had been petted and, he might say, spoiled for the last 50 years, until, at the present moment, she had Land Laws more favourable to the tenants than any other part of the Kingdom, or of any other country in the world, and more than her fair share of representation, and a larger share than she was entitled to, having regard to numbers, intelligence, and wealth, of the attention of the Legislature of the Empire. The loyalists of Ireland would never consent to give up their position as an integral part of that great Assembly to take their place in that of a tenth-rate one. He admitted that there was much wrong in the state of Ireland; but her position was much better than when the Union took place. He was sorry to say that, for want of industry, combined with sobriety, thrift, and contentment, her prosperity was not so great as it might be. She had been deluded by so-called patriots, who had given her no rest. What was the cause of the greater prosperity of Ulster than of other parts of Ireland? It was not that Ulster had a better soil or a better climate; on the contrary, Ulster was inferior in both those respects. It was because the people of Ulster were industrious, sober, thrifty, and contented. He hoped that the residents in other parts of Ireland would see the uselessness, he might say childishness, of the struggle in which they were engaged. They might as well ask for a restoration of the Heptarchy as for a repeal of the Union, or for Home Rule, which meant the same thing. He wished the Home Rule Party would see that, and join with the other Members from Ireland in endeavouring to find means to secure peace to Ireland, and in endeavouring to develop her resources, and then their efforts would be sure to to successful.

wished to say for himself, and as an Irish Representative, that he was devoted to the continuance of the Union between the two countries, and he was, therefore, opposed to any infraction or any revision whatever of the Act of Parliament upon which that Union rested. He also wished to say that he took down words which fell from the Prime Minister, and which he had heard with the greatest surprise and regret. He might have misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman; but he could only say he paid the greatest attention to the language used, and he could put no other construction upon it than this—that it was really an invitation to Irish Members, if they chose, to re-open the question of Home Rule. He would not now for one moment enter into any argument upon that subject. He agreed with much that had fallen from his hon. Friend the Member for Belfast (Mr. Ewart). The words he used expressed feelings shared by every loyal man in Ireland. ["No, no!"] He meant of every man who was loyal to the present system of the Imperial legislation controlling the affairs of Ireland as well as of the rest of the United Kingdom and the Empire. It was a most dangerous thing to hold up a signal for a renewal of that agitation which in the last Parliament—and, so far as he knew, in every preceding Parliament in the century—had been steadily resisted by both of the great Parties in the Imperial House of Commons. He said again that he did not wish to enter at all into this debate. He merely desired to call attention to the words of the Prime Minister, and to enter his protest against any re-opening of this subject. After the speech of the Prime Minister, he did not see how it would be easy for the present Government to resist pressure for a Committee of Inquiry into the Parliamentary relations between England and Ireland—a demand which had been steadily resisted by the Leaders of both Parties in the last Parliament.

said, that the hon. Member for Belfast (Mr. Ewart) was one of a small class of Irish Members in the House, and the main purpose of their presence there was to attack the great body of the Representatives of the Irish people and to deny them the mandate which was verified by every fact in the political history of their country. The hon. Member appeared to him to be a person of a parochial turn of mind, tempered, perhaps, by an attachment to commerce. So long as plenty of yarn was spun and linen produced he had no conception beyond that fact of the happiness or of the greatness of the country. So long as the few manufacturers in his district realized large fortunes, what did he care for the moral feelings of the people, or what did he think of those aspirations which formed the marrow of political life? In his opinion, the hon. Gentleman and those like him were incapable of approaching the consideration of questions affecting Ireland. He had invited them to join the other Irish Members. Where were they to find the other Irish Members of whom he spoke? They were almost a vanishing quantity. He said that he preferred to retain his seat in that Assembly—of which he was so brilliant an ornament—rather than to take his seat in a tenth-rate Body. But the plan for the regeneration of Ireland would enable the hon. Gentleman to find a full field for his intellect, because it would permit him to be a Member of the tenth-rate Body and of that greater Assembly. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket) was a person of a different intellectual type. He was one of the best products of that colony in Ireland, which had been well termed the English garrison. The most noticeable trait of that class was the unsleeping vigilance with which it was ready to assail the liberties of Ireland, and to assail any man, whether English or Irish, who spoke in favour of Ireland. He had heard with respect and admiration the speech delivered by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government. Previously he had noticed the close attention which he gave to the debate, and much as he had on former occasions admired his great intellectual power and its sudden and masterly exercise, he had never admired it more than when the right hon. Gentleman plunged at once into this question and drew from it facts and maxims of political life. It was not to be expected that he should regard the difficulties raised by the right hon. Gentleman as difficulties which actually existed; but he was bound to say that he showed the true spirit of a statesman in recognizing the reality, the gravity, the urgency, and, he might say, the inevitableness of the Irish National Question, and in pointing out to the Irish Representatives the doubts and fears which existed in the English mind, and which it was necessary to remove to carry conviction not only of the justice of their claim, but of its practical feasibility. It would be the duty of the Irish Representatives, not on that, but on future occasions, to satisfy the English mind on those difficulties which they deemed to exist, and to prove the non-existence of those which they did not consider existed. Whatever might be his duty henceforward in that House, he did most heartily thank the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government for the attention which he had given to this subject and for the care with which he had spoken upon it; and he might assure him—and his voice would be echoed by millions—that he might regard with indifference and contempt the warnings given him by that colony alien to the soil and to the people which had thriven upon the discontent and the misery of Ireland.

said, he rose to move the following Amendment to the Address:—

"Humbly to assure Your Majesty that this House regards with grave concern the action of the Executive in Ireland, whereby the liberties of Members of this House have been outraged, and the performance of their constitutional duties rendered impossible; whereby hundreds of Your Majesty's subjects in Ireland are detained in prison without trial or the right of Habeas Corpus, many of them on the alleged suspicion of offences for which, even if duly tried and found guilty, they could not have been subjected to punishment as severe as that which they have already undergone; whereby the lawful organisation of the Irish tenantry has been arbitrarily suppressed at a most critical moment, when its maintenance was essential to the due protection of their legal rights, while the organisation of the Irish landlords against those rights has been encouraged and supported; whereby ladies engaged in the work of public charity have been threatened, harassed, and imprisoned under obsolete statutes and on nominal pretexts; whereby the liberty of the Press has been illegally interfered with, the right of free speech, of public meeting, and of lawful constitutional agitation has been abrogated; whereby innocent persons have been killed and wounded by the armed forces of the Crown; whereby the verdicts of coroners' juries, incriminating the agents of the Executive, have been disregarded; whereby large districts of the Country have been placed under a system of quasi-martial Law; whereby rewards have been offered by the Government for secret information as to crimes to be committed, tending to the demoralisation of the people and the creation of perjured evidence against innocent persons; which action generally has caused in the minds of the people of Ireland a profound distrust of the execution of the Law; and humbly to assure Your Majesty that an immediate abandonment of all coercive measures, and the establishment of constitutional government in Ireland, with full recognition of the rights and liberties of the Irish people, are essentially necessary for the peace and prosperity of that realm and of the United Kingdom."

That, he observed, was a lengthened and comprehensive indictment. As an Amendment, he admitted that it was much longer than was usually the case with Amendments on occasions like the present; but it had seemed to his Friends and himself that it would be better not to divide the question into three or four or more successive Amendments, and at the same time that it was right and necessary to accentuate, in the clearest manner, the specific charges which they made against Her Majesty's Government in their administration of Ireland. At all events, the Chief Secretary for Ireland would hardly say that they confined themselves to the utterance of vague generalities. There was a precise indictment in every clause, distinctly setting forth what it was they complained of, and on what it was they appealed to the judgment of the House. It must be allowed, he thought, by any ordinary thinker, whatever his Party bonds or prejudices, that if they could make out against the Government the case, or anything like the case, set forth in that comprehensive indictment, they would show that Ireland had been brought into a condition which, if it were under the power of Russia or some other despotic State, they would regard with the greatest horror. He did not hope by his own argument to make out every count in that gigantic indictment; but he believed that there were in the House Colleagues and Friends of his acquainted with every portion of the case, who would be able to prove that there was no exaggeration, even in that somewhat appalling picture, and that the charge could be maintained not only in the general, but in every particular. For himself, he would rather ask the House to join with him in an appeal to the Government for some explanation of the reasons which had influenced them in the extraordinary change that they had made in the whole condition of Ireland. What had they done with Ireland in the last six months? What was the occasion and the excuse for the extraordinary revolution of policy under which Ireland had suffered since the House rose at the end of last Session? That country, which a few months ago was supposed to be under constitutional law and the regulations which appertain to a civilized land, was now under a species of despotic power which in our days civilization was not supposed to tolerate. Newspapers had been suppressed and editors sent to prison, lawful organizations had been broken up, and even women had been locked up in gaols because they endeavoured to carry on a legitimate and a charitable work. What he wanted to ask the Government was, what excuse they would offer to the House for that monstrous change in the whole governing system of the country? What was the excuse they could offer for the arbitrary arrest of several Members of the House of Commons? When the House separated at the end of last Session what was the condition of things? It was not, so far as he knew, the impression of hon. Members that the autumn was about to open with an arbitrary system of arrest. They were, on the contrary, under the impression that the Land Act was going to be put upon its trial for what it was worth, and that in the meantime something like constitutional law would be allowed to prevail in the country. He remembered a conversation he had with his hon. Friend the Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) a day or so before he left England. Mr. Dillon told him that he had been recommending one of the most active and leading members of the Land League to go over to Dublin and resume his business there, because he felt convinced that no further arrests would be made, and that nothing would be done to disturb the ordinary condition of the country. His hon. Friend told him that he believed the Government had set their hearts on having the Land Act fairly tried, that Mr. Parnell had determined to give it a fair trial, that he (Mr. Dillon) had made up his mind not to stand in the way of its fair trial, and, under these conditions, he was convinced that no rational Government would think of disturbing the country by making unnecessary arrests. He wished to direct the especial attention of the House to the arrest of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). The House was accustomed at different seasons to have its pet aversions. He could remember when a distinguished, and, he might even say, an illustrious Member of the Government now present (Mr. Bright) was a pet aversion of the House, and no words of reproach or even of calumny were too bitter to hurl against him. His hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork was now the pet aversion of the House. But, he would ask, what had Mr. Parnell said or done since the dissolution of Parliament which he had not said or done before that time, and in what manner had he departed from his line of firm, resolute, but still constitutional agitation? He called the attention of the House to one or two of the events of last autumn. He presumed the case against the hon. Member for the City of Cork would be the suggestion that he had raised an agitation which could not be appeased; that he had forced the people into a state of excitement which to the Government seemed most dangerous; and that, to save the country, it was necessary, in the interests of law and order, to consign the hon. Member to prison. He wished to examine that case by looking impartially at some of the speeches delivered by his hon. Friend. An important event during the last Recess was the assembling of the great Convention in Dublin to consider the merits of the Land Act. Never could there have been a more truly representative Convention than that great meeting. Probably even the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, if he had been present—and it was to be wished he had been—would have owned that that meeting was representative in the strictest sense, and composed, in great measure, of the very men whom this Land Act was specially intended to affect—the tenant farmers and the labourers of Ireland. Let it be noted, too, that there was an immense representation of the Catholic clergy there. At that Convention his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork said it was his intention to test the Land Act. That assembly, composed to a large extent of farmers who were especially supposed to be anxious that the Bill should succeed, was not only not forced on by Mr. Parnell, but was far beyond him in its objection to the Bill. It was only by his great influence and by his dexterity that the Bill was oven allowed a toleration as a settlement of the Land Question of the country. The hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) made one of the most eloquent and argumentative speeches he had ever heard to induce the Convention to refrain from passing a resolution for the wholesale condemnation of the Irish Land Act. The hon. Member for Sligo advocated a fair trial of the Land Act, and even went so far as to plead for a fair trial for the Liberal Ministry, on the ground that if the Ministers were displaced they might have a Tory Government still more coercive. For that speech the hon. Member was rewarded with a prison. Then there was another Member of Parliament who took an active part at the Convention in reconciling the people to the Land Act. He referred to the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. O'Kelly), who spoke strongly in favour of the Land Act, so much so, indeed, that some of his more extreme friends referred in terms of disapprobation to his speech. And yet he also had been consigned to a prison. He wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland what there was in the speeches and the acts of his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork differing from all that he said and done before, and which authorized his being arbitrarily sent to prison? He declared of his own knowledge that it was in a great measure owing to Mr. Parnell's influence in the Convention that there was not a complete repudiation of the Land Act. In the speeches Mr. Parnell made he pointed out certain advantages which the Act clearly conferred on the tenant farmers, notably that which gave them the power to borrow money to improve their farms. He said he trusted the farmers would take advantage of that provision during the coming winter, and by borrowing money in every direction for the purpose of improving their holdings and giving employment and improved wages to the labouring population, would show themselves worthy of holding the land of Ireland. On the second day of the Convention he explained his attitude towards the Bill more clearly. Everyone in the House knew that he was not an admirer of the Bill, that he thought it did not go far enough, and that it was founded on wrong principles. Speaking the second day, he said—

"We propose to test the Bill, not to use it. The resolution has been misinterpreted by the two different sets of speakers who have addressed you, one in favour of it and the other against it. The set of speakers in favour of the resolution looked upon it as a resolution binding the Executive to use the Bill. It is nothing of the sort. It pledges the Executive to test the Bill, and I for myself do not believe that the Act will stand the test. But we should be assuming an unreasonable and indefensible position in the eyes of the world, and I venture to think in our own eyes also, if we were to refuse to test this measure."

That did not look like advising the population of the country to resist the operation of the law, or like an attempt to turn the measure into a nullity. His hon. Friend said—

"It will be the duty of the local branches to select test cases of an average character where rents are neither very high nor very low."

There did not seem to be anything very unconstitutional, or very mysterious, or of the nature of a revolution in the suggestions contained in that speech. That was the tone adopted by his hon. Friend during the whole of the Convention. His efforts altogether tended more to restrain than force it on; and but for him the assembly would have flung the Act overboard altogether. Speaking in the Queen's County afterwards, Mr. Parnell said they proposed to select cases representative of the class of the tenants who might get large abatements if the Act was worked fairly, and cases representative of the class who would not get the reductions which the time required. In that speech there was nothing perilous to law and order, or opposed to the Constitution. At the weekly meeting of the Land League, on the 28th of September, Mr. Parnell said they proposed to test the Act by the selection of average cases, and he hoped to have those cases ready on the first day the Court sat, so that they might be filed at the earliest possible moment, and decisions taken upon them. Would any Member of the House say that that was not a reasonable course to suggest? Would it not have been better to test the Act in that way than to have the rush of applications into the Courts which his hon. Friend deprecated as likely to lead to confusion and dissatisfaction? For his own part, he would advise every man to keep out of every Court of Law if he could; but his hon. Friend did not go so far—he merely asked the farmers not to rush into the Courts until it was first ascertained whether the Act could bring about the results which they desired. That was the whole tenour of his speeches. In none of them did he find a single expression suggesting violence of any kind. Speaking at Dungarvan, his hon. Friend said—

"We propose to test the Act. We propose to give it a fair trial—a very much fairer trial than they are going to give your 200 friends, gallant and noble men, who are now within the common gaols of this country."

On the same occasion he said—

"The payment of no rent was a course which the Land League had refused from the commencement to recommend to the tenant farmers."

Mr. Parnell went on to say that some men of great influence and experience had recommended that they should raise the standard of "no rent;" but he had always been opposed to that. Instead of the payment of no rent the hon. Member recommended the payment of a fair rent upon the value of the land, exclusive of the tenants' improvements, and that was not a very extreme doctrine to propound. He ventured to say the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster would not disagree with it very much; and he wondered whether any of the seditious and violent language his hon. Friend was supposed to have used was based upon the following quotation:—

"If all that the tenants have done were swept away off the soil, and if all that the landlords only have done were left upon it, nine-tenths of the land of Ireland would he as hare of house, and garden, of fences, and of cultivation as if it was in pre-historic times. It would he as bare as the American prairie where the Indian now roams, and where the foot of the white man has never trod."

That was the language of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and from that sentence Mr. Parnell adopted the phrase "prairie value," which had since become famous, and for which the hon. Member had been so often denounced. The 8th of October was a memorable day in the history of this controversy. Mr. Parnell, addressing a land meeting, remarked that a portion of the Land League was in advance of him, and that with this he was considerably pleased. He endeavoured to moderate their opinions, and he (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) considered that the Government had made an extraordinary blunder in incarcerating the very men who would have been instrumental in maintaining order in Ireland. He mentioned these facts to show how completely the Prime Minister, who in his speech at Leeds on that very 8th of October, hinted at the necessity of employing the "resources of civilization" against the Land League movement, had mistaken the character of the men he had to deal with. The Government had treated as its arch enemy the man who really exercised a powerful restraining influence upon disorder in Ireland. When the right hon. Gentleman spoke of the "resources of civilization," who could have supposed that it was the resources of barbarism that were meant—the informer, the spy, the despotic arrest, and the prison? As the Prime Minister, on that occasion, described with such vigour what he conceived to be the character of the hon. Member for the City of Cork, his hon. Friend determined to reply, and where six hard words had been flung at him, to fling back half-a-dozen in return. The Prime Minister had endeavoured to depreciate Mr. Parnell's character in the eyes of his countrymen by holding up to admiration one of Mr. Parnell's Friends and Colleagues, the hon. Member for Tipperary, whom he praised, not, indeed, in a degree higher than he deserved, but because he said Mr. Dillon was determined to stand aloof from Mr. Parnell and to give the Land Act his support. Now the hon. Member for Tipperary had been from first to last totally opposed to the scheme of the Government; he had no faith in the Land Bill, and when he found himself praised by the Prime Minister, he flung back the compliments and repudiated the praise. He was not going to say whe- ther it was post hoc ergo propter hoc or not; but this was certain, that immediately after Mr. Parnell's speech attacking the Prime Minister, Mr. Parnell was arrested, and immediately after the speech of Mr. Dillon repudiating the Prime Minister's praise, Mr. Dillon was arrested. Mr. Dillon had been released before, on the ground that his health would not endure incarceration. He had not made any speech in the meantime; then he made the speech referred to, and he was sent to prison. If the Chief Secretary would not have the conviction sink deep all over Europe that the Prime Minister did punish two political opponents for having replied to him as they did, he must show special reasons why these men had been arrested and sent to prison—he must make it clear that they had said or done something specially dangerous, and quite different from what they had been previously saying or doing. The Chief Secretary would also have to show what excuse he had for the extraordinary systems recently enforced—the spy system, the informer system, the suppression of the Land League, which had been a body acting, not only for a legitimate, but a most honourable purpose, which had maintained and was maintaining order, and which, only for its suppression, would have prevented many of the outrages which they all deplored. The Chief Secretary would have to answer for the entire change in the condition of Ireland since the present Government came in Office. They came into Office in a great measure because of the cordial support of the Irish people, who believed that Statesmen who had said and done so much for Ireland would crown their career by such legislation as Ireland really required. When the present Government came into Office Ireland was in a pacific state. That was evident from the fact that they did not renew the stringent Acts before in operation for the preservation of peace in Ireland. It was true, indeed, that they brought in the Compensation for Disturbance Bill to supersede one introduced by the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power); but when that Bill was rejected by the House of Lords, there ceased their efforts for that Session. Then they went back to the old, evil policy of coercion. They sent back to prison a man who had done more to maintain order than any Member of Her Majesty's Government—Michael Davitt. They entered upon that ridiculous sham of a prosecution, in which Members of that House were made responsible for ejaculations at meetings which they had never heard, and made by men they had never seen. In such circumstances, the Irish people naturally began to lose faith in the Liberal Government; they thought nothing would be done for them; they became discontented, and discontent deepened into something like disaffection. When Parliament opened last Session the Government preferred coercion to remedial measures. They put the Coercion Bill first, and thus aroused an amount of exasperation in Ireland such as had not been felt for many years under the worst of Tory Governments. The Tories had never promised the Irish people anything, or uttered magnificent speeches in their favour. The Tories had no great traditions coming down from the days of Fox for the good government of Ireland. During some years of the late Administration Irish Members had a certain co-operation with English Liberals then sitting on the Opposition Benches. Times had changed very much since then. Irish Members who felt it their duty to have recourse to an exceptional policy on exceptional occasions had then the great advantage of the assistance of English Liberals now Members of Her Majesty's Government. He read with interest and something like wonder a speech made the other day by the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain), in which he expressed edifying and eloquent horror of obstruction. We read in Vanity Fair that Becky Sharp, after her marriage, was very angry with her husband because he ventured to smoke a cigar, and when he reminded her that before her marriage she not only did not object to his smoking, but used even to light his cigar for him, she bluntly replied—"You goose, that was before my promotion; now I am married, and I won't have it." There were Becky Sharps in politics as well as in literature, and it was no uncommon thing to find some political Becky Sharp expressing horror and indignation at the very thing by the practice and parade of which he had obtained his own promotion. He certainly was surprised to find that the employment of spies and informers was what was meant by Liberal government. The Liberal Government had given so much provocation to Ireland that it was not reasonable to expect any people in the world to endure it and remain orderly; and, moreover, they had imprisoned the very men whose influence would have been exerted on the side of peace and quietness. The result was that things had gone on from bad to worse. The Prime Minister had stated that in consequence of his beneficent legislation the number of outrages had diminished; but, in point of fact, there had been an increase of outrages, and the prediction, the constant prediction, of Irish Members had been fulfilled—that with the suppression of the peasants' organization a premium would be put on crime, revenge, and conspiracy. The Government, by their recent action, had worked evil, not only for the present, but for the distant future. It would be long indeed before any legislation, however beneficent and successful, could efface from the minds of the Irish people the bitter memory of the past year of injustice, harshness, and tyranny. His Friend the hon. Member for the City of Cork had been imprisoned; but the Government had not been able also to shut up in prison the hopes, the feelings, and the national passions which his cause and his career represented. He might fittingly address to his hon. Friend the words of one of their great English poets—Wordsworth—who said, addressing the leader of another cause then supposed to be lost, but which had since proved successful, a leader who, like Mr. Parnell, had been sent to prison—Be of good cheer, for, as the poet expresses it, "Thou hast left behind powers that will work for thee, earth, air, and skies; there's not a breathing of the common wind that will forget thee; thou hast great allies; thy friends are exultations, agonies, and love, and man's unconquerable mind." The momentary exultations of Mr. Par-Hell's enemies would in the end prove favourable to his cause; the agonies of thousands of suffering tenants, the love of a people ever grateful would be on his side; and so also would be "man's unconquerable mind, "for the unconquerable resolve of the Irish people was some day to obtain out of all the confusion, the turmoil, the sufferings, and the distress of the present the right to choose their own Leaders. For himself, he was not wholly ungrateful for coercion; it had, at any rate, the merit of having rendered the government of Ireland impossible, save through the medium of an Irish Parliament chosen by the Irish people.

The Amendment, Sir, which you have just read, as the hon. Member (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) has correctly stated, consists of a heavy indictment against the Government; but I have observed that, although there are many heads in that indictment, the hon. Member has scarcely dwelt upon more than one of them. I think, how- ever, it is my duty, as the Member of the Government most directly responsible for the Irish administration, to lose no time in giving that justification of the course they have pursued since the House separated which I quite admit the House has a right to demand. It is perfectly true, to our great regret and to our intense disappointment, that we have had to make use of all the powers which the Law and Parliament gave us last year for the preservation of order and the protection of life and property; and, in fulfilling that duty, we have certainly had to take such measures as I think do require justification and explanation. Even if this Amendment had not been brought forward I should have felt that the Debate on the Address, in reply to Her Majesty's Gracious Speech, ought not to be concluded without some account of the action of the Irish Government since the House separated. The hon. Member, although he has not attempted to prove the different counts of his indictment, with the exception of one of them, has ended with very strong remarks and has called upon us, in general terms, for a justification. Before I enter into details let me say this much, that we have been driven to take the course we have taken because we believed that without it the law would have been powerless, that industry would have been impossible, and that liberty would not have existed. ["Oh!" from the Home Rule Members.] Yes, I repeat that liberty would not have existed, for hardly a man in Ireland would have been free to earn his living as he pleased; that property would not have been protected; and that life would have been endangered. And, more than that, we believed that if we had not taken action, and strong action, we should have been guilty of what would have amounted to the crime of allowing men to be led into such a state of excitement that probably civil war would have had to be put down. If the House will kindly give me attention I think I can show them clearly the grounds upon which we acted, and I shall be surprised if they do not admit that we had real reason for the course we took. The hon. Member has stated that to his great surprise, and to the surprise of others, it was not until after the House separated last Session that there was any strong action on the part of the Government. The hon. Member has related an interesting conversation which he had with the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon). Now I do not wish to dwell on anything that passed in the last Session, but, perhaps, I may be allowed to refer for a moment to a debate which took place in which I had to defend the action of the Government up to that time. In looking forward fo the future I ventured to say there were two influences at work. The Land Act we hoped would have a beneficent influence on the agitation which had been carried on. Some of the more prominent members of the Land League appeared to have been conducting the agitation in a manner that tended to defeat the operation of the Land Act and cause disorder. The passing of the Land Act did not relieve us from but rather more strongly imposed on us the duty of preserving order. We separated for the Recess in the hope that good influences would prevail. We had a certain amount of fear and misgiving, but we were not without hope. That hope very soon disappeared. The hon. Member has quoted the speeches of Mr. Parnell, and I myself shall be compelled to detain the House by referring to two or three of them. Not long after the House separated we had the Tyrone Election. Mr. Parnell went down to that election, as he had a perfectly constitutional right to do, in order to address the electors in support of one of the candidates. Speaking at Enniskillen, on the 29th of August, Mr. Parnell said—

"What is the end and the object for which we struggle f We aim at abolishing rent and making the people the owners of the land of the country. The Government passed an Act in the Session just gone by for the purpose of establishing Courts to fix rents. We do not aim at fixing rent, because, as I have said, we aim at abolishing it altogether."

On September 9, at a Land League meeting in Sackville Street, Mr. Parnell used these words. After describing letters from designing persons, who were spreading panic among tenant farmers by telling them that if they allowed their interest to be sold they would lose everything, he added—

"I cannot see that they will lose anything at all where it is possible for the Land League to keep the farm vacant. This has been our principle from the very commencement."

Now, directly I read that speech, I confess I gave up all hopes of a quiet time. I knew very well what was the meaning of the statement by Mr. Parnell that a farm was to be kept vacant. I knew how the farm would be kept vacant, and what would be the penalty to be paid by a man who, in the pursuit of his own industry, or in his choice of his own mode of industry, dared to take a farm which had become vacant. Mr. Parnell goes on to say—

"This has been our principle from the very commencement. Without such a policy we could not have succeeded in this movement at all."

[Mr. LEAMY: He did not say that.] I give the passage as it is reported in The Freeman's Journal, and I have already said what, in my opinion, it meant. [Cries of "No!"] There is not a man in Ireland who did not know what it meant. Mr. Parnell continued—

"Without such a policy we could not have succeeded in this movement at all from the be-ginning; and if we are able to keep a tenant's farm vacant who has allowed his interest to be sold, there can be no shadow of doubt whatever that he will be able, if he desires, to make a satisfactory arrangement with his landlord hereafter—certainly as satisfactory an arrangement as he could possibly expect to make under the Land Act which has just been passed."

No doubt, if that policy had been allowed its full course, that prophecy would have been fulfilled. The hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), whom I see now in his place, was at the same meeting, and was even more clear in his statement than Mr. Parnell. He said—

"Some writer in some newspaper pretends to argue that tenants who allow their farms to be sold part with their legal rights over them; but I tell him that these tenant farmers of Ireland and the Land League have never depended upon the rights which the law gives them. They depend on the rights which they have already achieved by putting the law aside."

When I read those words I knew what we were likely to have last autumn. Well, the Tyrone Election passed over. The bribe to the constituents of Tyrone was not taken. The Ulster Members, forgetting that Ulster was not all Ireland, came to ask me in very fitting terms whether, on the part of the Government, I intended still further to pursue the policy we had been attempting to fulfil? We had diminished the number of prisoners, and they asked me whether we could not release those who remained altogether. I told them, having these declarations before me, that it was impossible; but that if the state of the country would only permit of their release I should be very glad. Few people can imagine what it is for a man in my position to have to deal with men in prison in this way, and I said that if the state of the country admitted, we should only be too glad to release the whole of the prisoners. We did try the release of prisoners for a time. We released Father Sheehy, and we released him on the assurance of a resident magistrate, than whom few men have deserved better of their country. I refer to Mr. Clifford Lloyd, who gave an assurance that he would be responsible for the peace of Kilmallock after Father Sheehy was released. [An Irish MEMBER: A ruffian.] I knew that Mr. Clifford Lloyd would be able to keep his word, and I thought it would be safe to release Father Sheehy. And so it was, so far as regards the district of Kilmallock; but the result has not been a great encouragement to release others. And no wonder that there was no encouragement; for then came that Convention to which the hon. Member for Longford has alluded. I suppose he has read the accounts in the newspapers. Indeed, I believe he was present at the meeting, and, therefore, he ought to know all about it. I say this because many of the other remarks he has made make me feel that he is completely innocent of any knowledge of what was really going on or what really happened. The explanation of that is the fact that the hon. Member was enjoying himself comfortably in Greece, and delighting himself with stories of antiquity rather than concerning himself with what was passing in his own country. That is the only explanation I can give of his extraordinary ignorance of what was happening. But I presume that he does know all about the Convention, because he was there. The Convention was ushered in with telegrams from the United States. I am obliged to bring in the United States, for a very good reason, because if it were not for some persons in the United States this agitation would not exist. But it is not supported by the general feeling of the people of the United States, and there is no warrant for saying that the people of the United States do not generally agree with the action of my right hon. Friend and of the Government. No Irishman, I believe, will doubt that the general feeling in America is that we have been obliged to take the course we have taken. Undoubtedly, there are many Irishmen and Irish women in the United States whose love of their country has been practised upon by false statements and by misleading accounts. They certainly do take a deep interest in what goes on in their old country; and if it were not for what happens in the United States, and for the money which comes from the Irish in the United States, this agitation would very quickly disappear. There never was a case yet in which there was a movement of anything like this in which the support so absolutely depended, so far as regards financial aid, upon the money sent by another country. [Mr. LEAMY: The Sustentation Fund.] No hon. Member can venture to dispute the fact of this dependence. The telegrams from the United States to the Convention were important, because they came from the paymasters. What were they? They were—"No rent;" "Pay no rent;" "Hold the harvest;" "If you pay rent no assistance from this country;" "One step backward, and no more money." At a large meeting of the Union League, representing 30,000 people at Worcester, in the State of Iowa, there came this telegram—"Ignore the Land Bill; pay no rent, and hold the harvest." On the second day of the Convention there came a telegram from Mr. Patrick Ford, a very important person indeed and proprietor of the New York Irish World. It was—

"We adjure the Convention to unfurl the banner of 'no rent;' hold the harvest. Do this, and American friends will redouble support. If this is not done, America will be disheartened."

The question, then, was, what was to be the policy of the Land League? To have declared "no rent at all" would cot have answered. The farmers were not brought to the point that they would refuse to have anything to do with the Land Act, nor were they brought to the point that by paying no rent they would deprive themselves of all the advantages of the Land Act. Mr. Parnell certainly made the statement, which the hon. Member for Longford has quoted, that he would not hoist the banner of "no rent," because such an act would take the clergy away from them. Still, the American money had to be kept. Hence came the test cases. The test cases were not rack-rents, but rents of an average character. In the meantime the tenants were not to go into Court. Mr. O'Kelly explained the matter more fully at Galway, on the 12th of October. The hon. Member said—

"With reference to the test cases, the plan they had in view was this—Not to put into Court cases of men who were heavily rack-rented, and thereby allowing the Court to cut a very good figure without doing any possible benefit to the people."

I do not deny that they had a right to say that. But also, in the meantime, the tenants were only to pay a fair rent, if any rent at all. And what was a fair rent? Mr. Parnell defined a fair rent in this way—

"If they carried out their principles of a fair rent, it would come to this—that for every pound their farm was worth the landlord ought to get 2s. as a fair rent. Rents were to be reduced from £16,000,000 or £17,000,000 to £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 a-year."

As my right hon. Friend said yesterday, it was a mockery to state that that was not the same thing practically as "no rent at all." We have had an explanation of the real meaning of Mr. Parnell's utterances from the Rev. Father Sheehy. It would be very ungrateful for hon. Members connected with the Land League to disown it, considering with what eloquence and effect he has been advocating their cause lately in the United States. He said that it was his purpose to show how much poison there was in the Land Act, and that Mr. Parnell wanted to analyze the poison in it in order to tell the Irish people all about it, and that Mr. Parnell warned them off, and told them to beware of the Land Law and of land lawyers. But there is a better explanation than that in Mr. Parnell's own reply to the American telegrams, in which he states why they did not hoist the banner of "no rent." I hope the authority will not be disputed; it is The Nation of October 8. The Nation of that date contains a telegram from Mr. Parnell, which was afterwards published in The Boston Herald, to the effect that the Convention, after three days' session, had adopted resolutions in favour of national self-government and the unconditional restoration of the land to the people; also that the tenants were not to use the rent-fixing clauses of the Land Act, but were to keep out of the Court, to follow the old Land League line, and to rely on the old methods. The House very well knows what these old methods were. The Executive of the League were also to find test cases, in order that the tenants in some districts might realize to themselves, by the result of such cases, the hollowness of the Act. The object of the League was to keep up a supply of money from America. They wished to make terms with the American agitation, and to continue the supply of money from the States. Therefore, they held out this impossible bribe to the farmers. But that did not bring them within the terms of the Protection of Person and Property Act. Although the agitation might in itself be unscrupulous and unjustifiable, it did not give any reasonable suspicion of intimidation or incitement thereto. What compelled us to arrest Mr. Parnell and his friends was the means resorted to to carry out their object. We were forced by experience—forced by tales of outrage from day to day—we were forced to learn by facts which could not be disputed, that the advice was an order—that threats and hints meant ruin to those who did not obey the threats. The keeping of a tenant's farm vacant—the advice that it should be kept vacant—meant the destruction of a man's property, or ruin to his trade, or outrage on his person, or, in the last resort, murder. Well, a curious confirmation of that came under my knowledge within the last day or two. The hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) is in America. I suppose he will soon be here. He does not find it necessary in America to make any concealment, and this is what he says there. I quote from a paper the authority of which also, I suppose, will not be disputed—United Ireland.

This is what, according to the last number of United Ireland, Mr. Healy said at New Orleans.

I rise to a point of Order. Is the right hon. Gentleman in Order in reading a newspaper in the House?

The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly in Order.

I do not wonder at the hon. Member not wishing me to read it. The hon. Member is not one of the registered shareholders. Mr. Healy said—

"The tenants of Ireland will not pay rent. They will be evicted; but no man will dare to take the land from which they have been ejected."

[Cheers from the Home Rule Members.] Hon. Members cheer that. What is the meaning that no man will dare take a farm from which a tenant has been evicted? We know well what it has meant; it has meant maiming, and outrage, and murder. In stating the number of outrages I will take the course I did last year, and will not include threatening letters. Threatening letters are merely the instruments, and not the acts. They are not the real injury, and I find, by the experience I am obliged to have of this kind of thing, that it is a good sign when threatening letters increase in proportion to the outrages, and a bad sign when they diminish. A good many people send threatening letters when they would like to do something else, if they dared and if they could. One of the good signs at this moment is that the threatening letters are very much larger in proportion to the outrages than they were. In July the number of outrages, excluding threatening letters, was 129; in August, 159; and in September, 198. Alongside of that we had an increase in the number of arrests. We had to try and see if we could diminish them, and if the state of the country would allow us to release some of the prisoners. As my right hon. Friend said yesterday, we hoped the promoters of the agitation would retreat instead of advance; and we thought we would encourage them to do so, if possible, by introducing more clemency into the administration of the law. We reduced the number of "suspects" in prison from 175 on the 1st of September to 133 on the 1st of October; but most reluctantly we were compelled to change our course. I must now make an allusion to that form of outrage which was the most powerful and the most prevalent at that time, as we were warned it would be. At the Tyrone Election Mr. Parnell went down to try and secure the return of one of the candidates—the Rev. Harold Rylett. At Omagh Mr. Rylett said frankly that the Land League proposed that no man should take another man's land; if he did so he was to be "Boycotted." [Mr. BIGGAR: Hear, hear!] I quite expected that the hon. Member for Cavan would say "Hear, hear!" I have no doubt that here in London he will recommend "Boycotting." But what has "Boycotting" become? It began by exclusive dealing, which I consider to be a wicked thing, but not necessarily a crime against the law; but when there was intimidation in it, it became a crime against the law. It had, indeed, become a most prevalent, a most injurious, and a most wicked crime against the law, destructive both to the peace and to the good order of large districts. It had become the strongest weapon of the Land League. I would rather describe how strong a weapon it had become in the terms of one of its advocates. I do not know-that it could be better described than in the following speech, delivered, I am sorry to say, by a Catholic curate at a Land League meeting in Queen's County on the 26th of September. The Rev. Mr. Rowan, C.C.

"Wished to remind them that to meet this array of mighty warriors, great generals, and English gold and influence they had but one weapon—that weapon the substitute of the old pike that did much good service in '98—and that was the all-powerful weapon of the Land League, the power of 'Boycotting'—the power of crushing by social ban, as by a Nasmyth steam hammer of 1,000 tons, every traitor to his country. Use that weapon with discretion, use it wisely; but, when needed, use it without mercy."

[Cheers from the Irish Members.] Is the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) here? I do not think he is; but I should like to know whether he would join in those cheers, and whether he approves of the use of such a weapon as this without mercy? Mr. Parnell followed Mr. Rowan, and characterized the previous speeches, including the utterances of the reverend gentleman, as "excellent and sensible addresses." No wonder, remembering his famous Ennis speech. In former debates I expressed my opinion on that, speech. I stated that I did not think it was a speech on which we ought to take action by imprisoning the speaker, and for this reason—that at that time it had not been clearly proved that the advice—the wicked advice, as I called it before in Mr. Parnell's presence, and as I call it again—the advice to taboo a man from all social intercourse, and to recommend people not to buy of or sell to him, meant anything more than advice. But we have found out what that speech really meant. We have been obliged to come to the conclusion that it had force and intimidation behind it, and we had to inquire what law there was against it—how far this was a crime punishable by law. We found out that this "Boycotting" might mean three or four things—personal violence; destruction of a man's property, such as maiming his cattle or burning his hay stacks; deprivation of the necessaries of life; absolute ruin to his trade; and of these threats the last was the most effective. Well, I consulted the legal Gentlemen whose business it is to advise me, and they informed me that it was a crime punishable by law. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: At what date?] About the time when I found "Boycotting" was becoming so prevalent, and we had reason to believe that it meant intimidation. I think an hon. Member has made a statement, which is confirmed by a passage in the Amendment, complaining that we took advantage of the Trades Union and Conspiracy Act, under which, for interfering with a man in the pursuit of his trade, three months' imprisonment could be inflicted, and that for this crime punishable by statute law we shut men up for much longer periods than three months. I think we have a perfect right to take advantage of the Act I have referred to. That argument was brought forward when the Protection Act was discussed, and it was understood that we should take advantage of it. But let me point out this. That was not the only Act of Parliament upon which we could act. There is that of William IV., known by the obnoxious name of the Whiteboy Act. That Act also makes this intimidation a crime punishable by law, and attaches to it a severe punishment—a punishment so severe that I suppose no Government now-a-days would make full use of it. It is hardly fair for hon. Members to say we are not to consider this offence a crime punishable by law when we have two Acts against it, because one inflicts a slight punishment and the other a severe one. I am afraid I must detain the House a little longer whilst I describe what this "Boycotting" really is. What is this "Constitutional action," as the hon. Member for Longford describes it, and wishes us to consider it; and how is it made use of by the Leaders of the Land League agitation? I will give a case in which a resident magistrate gives a history of one man—and this is by no means one of the worst cases. I believe there are many far worse. This resident magistrate says he knows the man of whom he speaks, as he lived very close to him, and had had every opportunity of knowing the man's circumstances. Well, this resident magistrate says that this man, before the Land League commenced operations, had a large share of the business of the town and neighbourhood as well as his mill. He had always stood out against all pressure to force him to join the Land League or subscribe to its funds, and, as a consequence, he had been "Boycotted;" all his custom had been driven away from him; the mill upon which he had spent a great deal of money had entirely stopped, and no one would supply him with corn. Even a large corn merchant who had entered into a considerable contract with him had been obliged to withdraw it, being afraid of having his men and horses injured in delivering grain to the man who had been brought to the verge of ruin. That is the weapon, that is the "Nasmyth steam hammer of 1,000 tons." Are we to leave that in the hands of Mr. Parnell and his friends? I will show you the effect of it. In The Leinster Leader of the 24th September there are two or three remarkable advertisements. Here is one—

Hear, hear!

Yes; I see the hon. Member for Cavan thinks that quite sufficient ground for "Boycotting" the man.

What is the date of that?

It was published about six weeks ago.

After the arrests?

Does the hon. Member by that mean to say that any attempt was made before that to prevent that kind of thing being done?

Yes; it was not taking place before.

The placard goes on to say—

I most distinctly deny it.

I deny it. I never heard of it before.

Here is another proclamation, signed by Patrick Ford—[A laugh]—of The Irish World. It is very ungrateful of hon. Members if they disown Mr. Patrick Ford. It is headed "No Rent," and then follow the names—

"Parnell, Davitt, Dillon, Sexton, Kettle, Brennan, Egan," and, "Fly the Land Court! 'Tis a Sham—a Fraud!! He who acts the traitor in the hour of Ireland's trial shall pay the penalty of his villainy."

You know what the penalty meant. I will tell you what it meant; and I should like to tell the hon. Member for Longford what was the penalty that ensued upon disobedience to the orders of the Land League, of which he was a prominent member. This is what happened in the county of Kerry on the 12th of November—

"Thomas Galvin, farmer, was fired at and wounded, at about half-past 8 o'clock, P.M. A party of men unknown, armed and disguised, and numbering about eight, visited his house at the hour stated. Five of them entered, one of them asking whether Galvin had paid his rent. He replied that he had, whereupon another man asked him whether 'he would have his ears cut off, or be shot?' Galvin replied, 'Shoot me; I can only be killed once.' One of the party then gave orders to 'Fire, and take him on the legs,' and Galvin immediately fell, five shots having been fired at him, two bullets taking effect in his left thigh. His mother, who was present, threw herself on his body, saying he was dead, and the offenders went away."

That was the penalty. In County Eos-common, on the 13th of December—

"James Brennan, farm labourer, aged 40 years, was murdered by some person unknown, at about 7 o'clock, P.M. He was sitting near the fire with his brother Michael, when suddenly the latter heard a shot outside the window, and the deceased dropped off his stool and, exclaiming 'Lord have mercy on me, I am done!' expired The charge had taken effect in his back under the right ribs. The motive for this out. rage appears to have sprung from the fact that Michael Brennan, who holds about five acres of land, at a yearly rent of £2 19s., had paid a year's rent, two and a-half years being due by him. He was the only man on the town-land known to have done so. On the 12th December a notice was found by the police on a yard gate, about half-a-mile from Brennan's residence. This notice declared Michael Brennan 'Boycotted' for having paid his rent, and warned the murdered man to have a clear acquittance with him. The murder was undoubtedly perpetrated to enforce compliance with the 'no rent' doctrine."

It is a very serious thing for me to say I consider that Members of this House are morally responsible for these outrages, but I do say so. I say these outrages have happened in consequence of the incitement and advice of, and at the instigation of, the Land League, to the effect that men should be visited with penalties because they paid rent. There was no attempt [on the part of the organization to prevent these outrages, and when these things were happening there was no stepping forward of the hon. Member for Longford to disown them. [An hon. MEMBER: He was in Athens.] Why did he not come back and say—"I will not have the reproach of such horrible deeds fall on me." [Mr. REDMOND: What did Davitt say?] I am not quite sure what Davitt said; but the placard signed by Patrick Ford was largely circulated in Ireland. I have no positive proof it was issued by him; but I believe it was, and I can give good grounds for my belief. There is no doubt about Mr. Patrick Ford being the editor of The Irish World. The Irish World speaks for itself, and I will read an extract from its columns. I consider hon. Members opposite in a great measure responsible for what appears in The Irish World, for if it was not for The Irish World and the money from America we should not have this agitation to deal with. The leading article of The Irish World of the 29th of October commenced—

"Glorious news from Ireland. The 'no rent' banner has been at length raised, and the Land League is pledged to rally round it. From the bottom of our heart we send up a prayer of thanksgiving for this. Long have we asked the Irish people to take the stand they have now taken. Again and again we have appealed to them to draw the 'no rent' sword, knowing that landlordism could not face that weapon. … The pressure of public opinion"—we know what that is—" must be brought to bear on anyone who shows symptoms of yielding. Ireland is at war with landlordism; and as in every war all who aid and abet the enemy are regarded and treated as enemies, so in their war begun in Ireland everyone who assists the land thieves by paying rent ought to be accounted as bad as the land thieves themselves."

Can we wonder at these men going about and committing outrages and murders when papers containing such articles were circulated amongst them with the assent of hon. Members opposite, or, at any rate, without any disownment on their part? It was because these articles and the like were circulated in America that the money was received; certainly without their publication the money would not have been received. The article went on—

"Irishmen, whilst lighting the common foe, cannot afford to allow him to receive the 'sinews of war' when it is in their power to prevent him from doing so. Let it, then, be well understood that he who from this time forth pays rent, by that act proclaims himself an enemy of Ireland. … Ireland must not tolerate traitors in the rear when the 'no rent' battle is going on. The readers of The Irish World are under peculiar obligations to assist the Irish people in keeping the Irish banner from going down in defeat, as it was by their advice it was first raised."

In the same paper and number we find this—

"Yet the time may come—the British Government seems determined to precipitate it—when forbearance shall cease to be a virtue, and in such an emergency the Land League must have the wherewith to strike. The money now given may prove to be its 'sinews of war' in more senses than one. Bend to the work then! Attend your regular meetings! Fill up the membership. Let every man consider himself a recruiting sergeant. Send out collectors in wards and parishes and gather in names, which names, whilst The Irish World will promptly and cheerfully forward on to Mr. Egan in Paris, will find a place with many of others on our Roll of Honour."

The names spoken of were those of subscribers to the fund for assisting evicted tenants, and "the 'sinews of war' in more senses than one" were to go to Mr. Egan, the Treasurer of the Land League, to which hon. Gentlemen opposite belonged, and with which I have never heard the hon. Member for Longford disavow his connection. On the 17th of December The Irish World said—

"They (the Irish people) hate the oppressor with a burning, deep, implacable, though silent hatred."

Then follows an allusion to myself, with which I need not trouble the House, and the writer proceeded—

"A land or water bailiff will be a social pariah, and the whole crowd of aliens who misgovern Ireland—the Goulates—will be hated, despised, and execrated for all time…. India and Africa will learn from Ireland the lesson of implacable hostility to their common oppressor. No; we shall never forgive until the last vestige of the yoke of alien rule has been removed from Ireland's neck, and until landlordism shall be no more."

Hear, hear!

The hon. Member for Cavan says "Hear hear!" in safety under the Privileges of the House. But does he suppose that we were going to allow men to say such things, and to make use of such incitement as this in Ireland, where it was likely to lead to actual results? And now I must refer to another paper—and here, again, I lament the absence of the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy)—I must allude to a newspaper which, I presume, is referred to in the Amendment—namely, United Ireland. The question of the action of the Government with respect to this paper, I suppose, will be decided in a Court of Law; therefore, I shall dwell but shortly on this part of the charge. I think, however, I ought to give my hon. Friends around me some ground for our interference with this publication. The hon. Member for Longford is one of the very few shareholders of this paper; he is one of the very few gentlemen who bought up a newspaper and called it by the name of United Ireland. He has never disavowed his connection with it, and, therefore, I think he ought to have shown me the courtesy of staying in the House to hear what I had to say on the subject. He should have been here to say, or should have commissioned one of his Friends to say for him, whether he will keep up his connection with the paper any longer. In an article published on October 28, the newspaper says—

"That which distinguished the taking of the Bastille from a common street riot is what distinguishes the struggle against landlordism from a struggle for its purse. One citadel was the throne of tyranny in France, the other is the barracks of the garrison of England. A bas les Bastilles! The men who level them will go further—to a Palace at Versailles or a Castle on Cork Hill. And the hired Swiss, be they primed with ball-cartridge or clad in plush, will not stand long in their way, depend upon it."

Was that not inciting to insurrection?

"Our nation stands fused like glowing iron—fused as it never was fused even in the golden dawn of its history. The race which was set clan against clan in fratricidal strife feels and strikes as one man, from the glens of Antrim to the laurelled streets of glorious Cork—down in the English mines—deep in the backwoods—far in the gold diggings. It can no more be got rid of than the North Pole. For every man that Carew butchered, whom Cromwell sold to slavery, whom Carhampton scorched with pitch-caps, there are 50,000 ready to take up the fight, where Tyrone, where Owen Roe, where Sarsfield, where Tone, where Emmett, where O'Connell, where Mitch el, where Allen, Larkin, and O'Brien left it off."

These words are written as if the man who wrote them believed them, and I verily believe he was ready to take the risk of having written them. I believe that if this person had persuaded the people of Ireland to follow the spirit of his words, he would have been ready to suffer the consequences. I have more respect for him than I have for the gen- tleman who set such a paper as this on foot, and who either neglects to read what is in it, or, having read what is in it, allows it to go forth under his name and at his instigation without disowning it. We have, again, in United Ireland these words—

"The 'no rent' manifesto—which, by the way, Baron Fitzgerald declines to pronounce illegal—is practically the law of the land. Scarcely any rent is being paid anywhere. The landlords are in despair."

Many people believed that the "no rent" manifesto was really the law of the land. For the last three or four months we have had a most severe contest; we have had an unscrupulous organization against us, and a large foreign fund supplying the means of agitation. We have had against us what the Duke of Wellington said was so difficult to oppose successfully—an attempted strike against rent. We have had every feeling of selfishness on the part of the tenant farmers appealed to against us. We have had, I am sorry to say, to discover one of the chief faults amongst the Irish people. Although there is no race more remarkable for physical courage in the world than the Irish, they certainly do not seem to be pre-eminent as regards moral courage. We have experienced a want of self-help on the part of the victims of the agitation, such as, in my opinion, would not have been experienced under similar circumstances in England or Scotland. I am not speaking of the landlords, many of whom have done their duty. I am speaking more of the tenant farmers, who have allowed themselves to be ill-treated, their property to be damaged, and their families to be insulted, who acknowledge this, and who yet have not the moral courage to stand up for themselves. I will tell the House what a friend of mine stated. He said he had seen a farmer from one of the worst districts in Ireland, who told him—"We are absolutely tired of the agitation; it is ruining us; we do not feel safe; we would do anything to get rid of it; and," he added, "those who agree with me are more in number than the hairs of my head." I must say that in England or Scotland the farmers would have rallied round one another. I am happy to say they are beginning to do so in Ireland. Hon. Members from that country will soon see them doing it more and more. Well, in the difficult position in which we found ourselves many suggestions were made to us. It was suggested that we should call Parliament together and ask for a fresh Coercion Act. It was suggested that non-payment of rent should be regarded as a crime. Another suggestion was that martial law should be enforced, and another that trial by jury should be abolished. These and many other suggestions, to which neither I nor my Colleagues could for a moment assent, were made to us. I felt, and my Colleagues agreed with me, that instead of calling Parliament together we should do the best we could with the powers we had, and we have done the best we could. We determined to bring into operation the Land Act, which the leaders of the agitation have so much decried—to bring it into operation in every disturbed county. We determined to use all the powers we had with all the vigour at our command, and we have done so. We were obliged to make many arrests under the Protection Act. I am sorry to say there is a Return of a large number of arrests on the Table of the House up to the 1st of this month, and we have had to make several arrests since. Several arrests have been made in County Clare, and I will tell the House the reason why. Here is an extract from a letter I have received from Mr. Clifford Lloyd from Milltown Malbay—

"And now as to Milltown. Terror reigns complete in the name of the Land League. It has here its paid agents, who commit all the crime and commit ever}' act of intimidation. I believe the murderer of Lenane was paid for his work. They have a staff of these blackguards in the village. Poor Mrs. Morony is in a sad way. Within the last 10 days all her servants driven from her on threat of similar death, completely' Boycotted,' not a loaf of bread even sold to her, and this is 24 miles from the nearest town—Ennis—a dreary, wild drive. Every conceivable act of intimidation has been perpetrated on her and her people; but she bears up with a brave heart, and says she will see it out. Her lands are let on lease, some for 999 years. She has offered large annual reductions, which are declined unless made permanent. This she has not got the power to do. Mrs. Morony is the victim of a gross, cowardly tyranny and persecution, literally 'even unto death.' It will require a strong blow, followed up, to right matters."

I think the state of things in this district will be better now, thanks to Mr. Clifford Lloyd. It may be thought that some of the cases of outrage reported are exaggerated; but, at any rate, there is no exaggeration here. This is a case of murder. Lenane, the man alluded to, was killed by a shot fired through the window, and the cause assigned for the outrage is that deceased remained in the service of Mrs. Morony. No doubt, it was also intended by those who perpetrated it, and who had had differences with Mrs. Morony, to bring her to terms. I am glad I have sent Mr. Clifford Lloyd down there, for that kind of murder is not likely to occur again. Mr. Clifford Lloyd will make order in Clare as he has made it elsewhere. We found that there were a large number of secret societies, that patrolling might be improved, and that there might be a better distribution of the police; and, in order to effect the necessary improvements, we have done that which is alluded to in the Amendment—namely, appointed five special magistrates to see that there is better distribution of the police and more efficient patrolling. Here, again, I may be asked—"Why was this not done before?" If any hon. Member who feels inclined to put the question will apply to those who have filled the Office of Chief Secretary before me, he will be told, I have no doubt, that it is not an easy thing to do. It requires a very strong case to justify such a stop, and you must exercise great care that you do not do more harm than good. I believe that no Government could have acted with greater promptitude than we did; in fact, I do not feel sure that any other Government would have taken the strong measures that we took as quickly as we did. We found that a very largo number of police was required for the protection, not merely of landlords, but of farmers and the industrious poor. It has been a curious feature of this agitation that there has been no respecting of persons in it, and that the poor have been visited quite as much as the rich. As my words may reach Ireland, I wish to say this—that, in order to enable the police to attend more thoroughly to the duty of patrolling and preserving the peace of their districts, we have, to some extent, replaced the constabulary in the protection of individuals by soldiers; but in this work we have not been assisted, by many of the landlords. Some of them have been sorry for the change; but I will not say more than this—that they are bound, as good citizens, and as relying upon us for the protection of their lives and property, to assist us in the measures we take for the good of the community. Then as to the subject of centralization. Everybody knows that the Government in Dublin is a centralized Government. We found it such, and we have been obliged to work with it. Do not let it be for a moment supposed that we find any fault with the officials in Dublin Castle. I believe it would be difficult for any Government to find more efficient and loyal servants than we have had; but under the great pressure that existed in this battle against lawlessness, I could not proceed by written Minutes and by letter from Dublin, and we had to pick out men we could thoroughly trust, who had proved themselves to be men of energy, vigour, and discretion, and send them down to the different districts to see that what we wished to be done was done, and also to make their own suggestions to us. I shall not trouble the House much longer. I will pass away from this array and catalogue of crime to which I was obliged to refer and allude to one portion of the Queen's Speech. We most thoroughly believe we were justified in begging Her Most Gracious Majesty to state that there are signs of improvement. If anyone had had the life that I have had to pass for the last three or four months, they would probably feel that I am not likely to say there are signs of improvement unless I am convinced there are such signs. In the first place—though I do not rely upon this—the figures in regard to outrages are better. Including threatening letters in December of last year the outrages were 229—that is, 156 less than in December of the previous year, and 28 less than in the preceding month of November. In January last they were 189—that is, 40 less than in December. You cannot, of course, judge by what has passed this month; but hitherto the figures show a considerable falling-off. Again, there is much less "Boycotting" intimidation than there was. I do not mean to say that we have stopped or prevented outrages; but we have, in all the districts of Ireland, diminished them. The facts, indeed, are better than the figures. In October of last year hon. Gentlemen opposite and their friends organized a strike against rent, and a most dangerous weapon they had in that organization. Last month and this month, landlords, being tired of waiting any longer, have tried to get their rents; and we, in the performance of our duty, are supporting them with all the power at our disposal. The natural result of that would have been an increase in the outrages. On the contrary, however, there has been a diminution. I am not attempting to put too favourable an appearance on it. I am only stating facts. To a great extent rents are being paid, and as rent becomes paid we are less likely to have outrages, for they are generally committed in the hope of preventing the payment of rents. Then we also find that the farmers are discovering how they have been misled—that the promise made by Mr. Parnell and his friends, early in the autumn, that if they allowed their farms to be sold they should not suffer loss, cannot be kept. You find farmers hanging about the doors of the Land League, with tears in their eyes and curses on their tongues, complaining of the manner in which they have been misled.

When? Who are they?

The doors of the League are shut.

It would be rather a heavy penalty on them if I were to say who they are. The patrolling is more effective, and one great cause for congratulation is that juries are, to a certain extent, doing their duty with far less fear. A jury of Cork lately did not show any of those symptoms of intimidation shown by the juries of Cork last year. I believe there is one reason for it. The shopkeepers of Cork are finding out that non-payment of rent means also non-payment of other debts, and that, upon the whole, they had better run the risk of the penalties of the Land League than allow this state of things to continue. I do earnestly hope that we shall find the same courage shown at the Spring Assizes; but everyone knows they are different to the Winter Assizes. I may add this, though I cannot enter fully into the subject—and I must ask hon. Gentlemen to give me credit for saying what I believe— that our last confidential Reports are, for the first time for a long time past, decidedly better. The fact is that the Land Act is now beginning to tell. When the farmers find that, on the one hand, they have the advantages of the Land Act—and no one will deny that there are advantages in it—

Hear, hear!

I do not suppose the noble Lord will deny it.

I do not deny it.

The Act was passed by an enormous majority of the House in the belief that there would be advantages in it. When these men find, on the one hand, the advantages of the Act, and, on the other, the great probability of losing their land if they obey the Land League, that fact begins to tell. But, although there are signs of improvement, they are not such as would warrant us for one moment in relaxing our measures. If there are any hon. Members who think the time has come when we can discharge the prisoners under the Protection Act, I would tell them that that is a mistake, and that the time has not come. We may find, as time goes on, that there is less intimidation, preventing witnesses from coming forward and causing juries to fail in their duties; and we may, therefore, be able to return to reliance on the ordinary law. When that will be I cannot say. Matters have so far improved that though a few weeks ago I could hardly have hoped that we could meet Parliament without asking for further powers, we at last found that we could do so. We have found that we can put off to a later period of the Session the consideration of the steps we should take. The Protection Act expires at the end of September; and it will be a serious matter for the Government to consider, and for the House to consider, before we come to that time, whether we should renew it, or replace it by some other Act, or allow it to expire. But, however that may be, of this I may assure the House—that the Government will not relax its efforts to maintain law in Ireland, and to protect life and property there; and that we shall not relax our efforts to suppress that organization which has now proved that its object is robbery, and that its means of action—without which it would be powerless—are intimidation, and outrages, and murders. I am perfectly sure of this—that if this Government were to fail—which it will not do—in its efforts, it would be very quickly visited with punishment. I had intended to make some remarks as to the Land Court. I must make these remarks as short as I can; but something fell from the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Tottenham) that requires some statement from me. But first let me refer to a subject upon which I rather hoped to have made a statement earlier in the Sitting—that is, an explanation in regard to the pamphlet alluded to by my right hon. Friend. It is headed—How to Become the Owner of Your Farm. Passages have been read from that pamphlet which certainly were of a character most improper to be issued by any Government Department, and still more by the Land Commission, with its responsible duties. As soon as. my attention was called to this publication, a few days ago, I communicated with the Secretary, and received from him the history of what had happened; but as I thought that I ought to ask the Commissioners for an explanation, I accordingly wrote to them, and I now have their reply, which, with my letter, I will lay on the Table of the House tonight, and they will be circulated tomorrow; and I must say their explanation absolutely and entirely frees the Commissioners from any blame in the matter. The history of what occurred is, shortly, this. The pamphlet was brought to the Secretary as containing suggestions as to the working of parts of the Land Act, particularly Part V.; and the Secretary, in the pressure of work, and relying on the information he had received, did not himself read it. If he had read it, it would never have been issued. It was after a certain number of copies had been ordered—[Mr. GIBSON: Did no one read it?] Well, the whole story will be brought out in this letter. As I have said, the Secretary did not read it; but after its issue Judge O'Hagan did read it, and when he had done so he at once called his Colleagues together, and a Minute was issued suppressing the publication and ordering all the copies that could be got hold of to be destroyed. But a full explanation will be found in these Papers. Remarks have been made on the subject of the Sub-Commissioners. I feel myself especially responsible for the appointment of these Sub-Commissioners; but I will not enter into a defence of these appointments at this time, nor should I feel able to do so if I had plenty of time, unless real and distinct charges required my reply. I will only say that I made the appointments after the most careful investigation, and from a very large number of applications, not necessarily limiting the number of applicants, but trying to get the best men I could, with the assistance of the Commissioners, of my right hon. and learned Friend beside me (the Attorney General for Ireland), and of his Predecessor, the present Lord Chancellor of Ireland. As to the legal Sub-Commissioners, of course I rested more on their judgment than on my own; but I believe we were fortunate in our appointments. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Leitrim last night made some reckless charges, and said that there were among the Sub-Commissioners solicitors with a small practice. There are two solicitors, but with a large practice; one has been a respected Member of this House, his appointment has received the approval of all parties; and the other had one of the largest practices in the North. As to the lay Members, I was more directly responsible; and my object was to appoint gentlemen upon whose integrity I could rely, upon whose knowledge of farming and of the value of land I could rely, who had gained the confidence of their neighbours; and, wherever I could, I have chosen those who showed that they were trusted in disputes of this kind between farmers and landlords. All I can say is, if any charges are to be made, I hope they will be made in a definite form; and I must further ask that sufficient notice of these definite charges shall be given, that I may have two or three days to provide a reply; and I must really ask that charges such as those made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leitrim may not be repeated. They were, in general description, as incorrect as possible.

I shall be perfectly prepared to substantiate what I said.

Very good. I think the hon. Member must allow me to make allusion to one of his charges. I think he spoke of a "chemist's assistant." Now, by such an expression he alludes, I suppose—for it can mean nobody else—to Mr. O'Keefe, Sub-Commissioner for County Cork. Mr. O'Keefe has been long known in practical agriculture; he holds a chemist's diploma from the Queen's University; he has been 30 years in his profession, and closely associated with agriculture, acquainted with value of land, and all kinds of farming and farm produce, and the reclamation of waste lands, in which he has been practically engaged. He is one of two scientific Sub-Commissioners I appointed. He is Fellow of the Chemical Society—that, I suppose, is the foundation for the charge of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leitrim. He has been public analyst to the City and County of Cork, and he holds first-class testimonials from various gentlemen of the highest standing, among others Colonel H. B. Bernard, an authority that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge. Before I leave the subject of the Sub-Commissioners, allow me to make another remark. I dare say fault will be found with some of their decisions. I have told them—"Your actions as Sub-Commissioners will be criticized, and it will be my duty to say what I can in your defence when charges are made against you. Keep, therefore, a record of all your cases, and let me know your reply; and though I cannot promise that I shall always agree with you, I will see that you have fair play." And this fair play I demand for them—that charges shall not be suddenly sprung, and that some notice, public or private, shall be given; for it will be absolutely impossible, seeing that there are more than 1,000 cases, to go into a case without notice. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Leitrim (Mr. Tottenham) has made complaints against the legal Chief Commissioner, and commented on a passage in his opening speech, in which he said the doctrine to the tenant is "live and thrive." The hon. Member for Leitrim calls this a "new" doctrine—that is the expression he used. I should be sorry, knowing how hard has been the lot of many of the landlords in Ireland, that the first speech in this debate, made by one of their able champions, should contain an expression such as that, and give colour for much of the unjustifiable attack made against them. "Live and thrive" a new doctrine! Well, it ought not to be a new doctrine, and it will not be a new doctrine under the Land Act. What is "live and thrive," after all? It is just what we were debating for days and weeks last year—what a solvent tenant can make a living out of. Does the hon. Member for Leitrim really suppose "live and thrive" is a new doctrine? Now, in regard to the reductions of rents, we must bear these facts in mind—first, as my right hon. Friend says, that the strongest eases were naturally those to come first; and, also, you must bear this in mind—that it will turn out, I believe, that the rents in Ireland are higher than the House expected. They are not higher than I expected to find them, for the information that I obtained years ago, and which I have tried to correct since, was that rents were very high. I make no complaint against the landlords; I think they were high for this reason—that the sellers and occupiers of land had had the advantage in the market for generations, and it is difficult to over-estimate the effect on the market value when the pull of the market has been all one way for 50, or 100 years, or more. It got to such a state of things that to check it this House had to break through the general rules of political economy, and declare we could not leave Ireland in that condition; and in order that we might have, as a general rule, tenants who could "live and thrive," it was necessary to declare what is a fair rent; and in declaring that fair rent there will be, I believe, larger reductions than were generally supposed necessary. But what does that mean? It means, after all, that there was greater ground for the Land Act than some of us who brought it forward could see, or those who accepted it with more or less reluctance were aware of. Now, I really am coming to a conclusion, and will detain the House but a few minutes more. I must just say this—We are constantly charged by right hon. Gentlemen that it is we who have placed Ireland in this state; that had it not been for our coming into power there would have been no Irish difficulty. I do not know whether the difficulty would have come this year or next; but this I do know—that the difficulty would have been far worse if we had not tackled it. The state of the relations between landlord and tenant and the system of land tenure in Ireland were such that quiet was impossible, and that no industry could be successful. Without a reform, therefore, we could not hope for contentment amongst the people. Sir, a great agitation was upon us, and it is alleged that we brought in our remedial measure as a concession to that agitation. But I affirm that we brought in our remedial measure as a concession to justice. For if the grievance had remained, agitation and distress would have become worse. That happened which has often happened before—namely, a bad state of things produced complaints, and the complaints of individuals led to agitation, which, in its turn, was seized upon by some men for selfish and illegal purposes. It was not in concession to them that we brought in the Irish Land Bill. When we came into Office, as has been frequently explained before, we met the House with the statement that in the following Session it was our intention to deal with the question of Irish land tenure. We appointed a Commission, and upon the Report of that Commission we acted. Therefore, I say, there is no foundation whatever for the statement that we acted in concession to agitation; and I repeat that what we did was done because it was just and right, and had we not so acted, we should have been responsible for the bad state of things in Ireland. Then, again, another thing happened, which has often occurred before—those who conducted the agitation became the greatest foes of those who brought in remedial measures. The men who seize upon agitation for illegal purposes have ever been the most disappointed when they find they run the chance of losing the lever by which that agitation is effected, and, to use a homely simile, agitators in the present case found that they were about to be "starved out" by the Land Act. I will only add that we shall persevere in our course; that we shall endeavour, to the utmost of our ability, to maintain lawless organization with which we have to law and order, and to put down this deal; that we shall do our best to insure fair play to the remedial legislation which we brought forward, and which Parliament enacted, and to secure the full benefit of that measure to the people of Ireland. It is not for us to be too sanguine of its result. I have had disappointments, and I feel that time is necessary to obliterate the bad effects of a bad system. But I am not altogether without hope and faith in the Irish people; and although, probably, few persons have less reason than myself to speak favourably of much that has occurred in Ireland, I have not been brought into such close contact with them without feeling that, with all their faults, they have great virtues. They have especially that great foundation of civic virtue—a strong love of family—and I believe that if we persevere in doing our duty regardless of fear or favour, not caring for reproach and not looking for immediate reward, we shall have the satisfaction of leaving Ireland in a better condition than we found it, and also of leaving the Three Kingdoms in a safer and more united condition.

rose for the purpose of moving the adjournment of the debate. He observed that no Member representing an English constituency rose to address the House after the lengthy speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant; and he trusted that hon. Members would see the justice of the course he was pursuing when he expressed his opinion that, before any reply to that most important statement came from his hon. Colleagues, it would be no more than right that they should have the opportunity of seeing it in print.

had not risen for the purpose of offering any objection to the Motion of the hon. Member who had just sat down, but to express a hope, which had connection with a portion of Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech, that the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies would shortly be in a position to afford the House all the information in his possession, consistently with his public duty, in regard to the important events which were taking place amongst the Basutos. Although the subject to which he alluded might not be thought by some hon. Members so important as that which the House was then considering, he believed neither the Prime Minister nor the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant would deny that it was one of great gravity. A telegram had just appeared in the evening papers which gave rise to much anxiety; and he felt sure the House and the public would wish to hear the opinion of the hon. Gentleman in charge of Colonial affairs with reference to the existing state of affairs, and to receive from him such information as he could supply, if not before the conclusion of the debate on the Address, at any rate on Report.

I may say one word in answer to the remarks of the hon. Member who has just alluded to events alleged to be taking place in Basutoland, and I wish to state my belief that my hon. Friend is not in possession of any information whatever upon the subject. I believe a telegram has appeared in an evening paper, which has given rise to the observations of the hon. Member opposite; but I would remind him that all possible efforts are used by the various newspaper proprietors, and great credit is due to them for using their private energies in securing and supplying telegraphic information for their own purposes. Information thus obtained, however, in passing from one source to another, sometimes acquires a magnitude far beyond its actual import. With regard to the Motion for the adjournment of the debate, it is certainly brought forward at an earlier time than usual (11.50); but, under the circumstances, we do not propose to offer any objection, for we can hardly expect Gentlemen who have material statements to make on a question of this large importance to do so at this hour; moreover, there are many Bills which hon. Members were prevented introducing yesterday, and we are not willing that their introduction should be farther postponed. For these reasons we shall offer no opposition to the Motion of the hon. Member.

said, he had been requested to bring before the House circumstances in connection with the alleged promotion of drunkenness in India. Reference being made to Indian affairs in the Speech from the Throne, he should be glad to be allowed to raise the question he had alluded to upon the Report of the Address.

pointed out that, although the question could be raised by the hon. Member for Dungarvan at the time referred to, it would be more convenient if it were brought forward later.

said, he hoped the House would not give its permission for the introduction of this Bill. Hon. Members would be aware that a great number of the Bills which were brought forward in that House were shrouded in mystery, and that designs of the most revolutionary character were sometimes concealed under a very innocent title. The measure, however, now sought to be introduced by the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor) was not open to this charge, for its design was perfectly clear upon the face of it. It was nothing else than a Bill for promoting the spread of small-pox. A distinguished official of the Government, the exact Office filled by whom he had forgotten, but whose name was associated with a measure for the Prevention of Floods, had stated some time ago that he was prepared to bring in a Bill very much of the same character as the present. It was a noticeable circumstance that the hon. Gentleman referred to was not in his place on the present occasion to support the hon. Member opposite in his attempt to bring in the Bill. He would remind hon. Members that the whole Medical Profession of the country, with a few unimportant exceptions, had long established the fact that vaccination was, to a very considerable extent, a protection against small-pox; and when the fearful nature of that disorder was regarded, he thought it the duty of hon. Members, as civilized Englishmen, to accept the conclusions of science, and oppose to the utmost the introduction of such a Bill as this. Under the present law the number of children who fell victims to small-pox having escaped vaccination varied from 1 to 4 percent; but the proposed measure would permit all parents to allow their children to remain unvaccinated, and would unquestionably lead to a considerable increase of the disease in question. ["Divide!"] Hon. Members opposite, he trusted, were sincere in their cries of "Divide!" and, remembering the motto sanitas sanitation, and that the health of the people throughout the country was of the greatest consequence, he asked them to divide with him in his endeavour to prevent the introduction of this Bill.

said, hon. Members would recollect that a Bill in connection with this subject was introduced and passed by the House at the end of last Session. It had been, however, rejected in "another place;" and, under the circumstances, he begged to ask the hon. Member who had charge of the present measure for some information with regard to it.

assured the hon. Member for the City of London that the Bill did not involve any matter of a controversial kind, its object being simply to place the constitution of the Universities Committee of the Privy Council on a more satisfactory footing.

said, the burdens upon the ratepayers were already sufficiently heavy, and he considered it wrong that further expenses should be imposed upon them. Besides, the latter part of the leave asked for covered a new imposition or condition which had not been explained—and which, if it was, as he anticipated, an importation of the French rule of an absolute majority of the entire constituency—would be a most objectionable innovation. He thought the House was entitled to more complete information as to the object of the Bill before it consented to its introduction.

pointed out that there were good reasons in support of the proposal to provide the payment of the necessary election expenses out of the rates. With regard to providing for a second election in some cases, that followed as a necessary corollary to the first proposition. He thought that no candidate ought to be elected unless he obtained a clear majority of votes at the first election.

said, he was not disposed to assent to the conclusions of the hon. Member, nor to the unconsidered introduction of Bills upon important subjects, especially such as sought to impose new and unprecedented conditions. The imposition of fresh burdens upon the ratepayers, and the requirement of an absolute majority by a candidate on his first election, were altogether proposals of so large a character, that he did not think the House should grant facilities for them, particularly as they emanated from a Gentleman of so adventurous a school of politics as the hon. Member belonged to who asked leave to introduce this Bill, and who was a leading Representative of what was known as the Caucus system. He confessed that he regarded with the greatest suspicion any proposal coming from that school, and purporting to deal with the question of Parliamentary Electoral Reform. He knew that in France this system of insisting upon an absolute majority, when backed up by a powerful organization, was partly made use of in opposition to the wishes of the majority at elections. There was, indeed, in France a very near approach to the Caucus system as introduced into this country by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain). He should wish to have, with regard to the Bill proposed to be introduced by the hon. Member opposite, a much more full and complete explanation than had been forthcoming; and as he regarded the Caucus simply as an importation of the New York Tammany Hall system, he should go upon the well-grounded principle of "reasonable suspicion"—which, he believed, was the only principle left to Her Majesty's Government—in opposing any facilities being given to this Bill, and, if necessary, in taking a division against it.

said, he could not assent to the position taken up by the hon. Member who sought leave to introduce this Bill, that no candidate ought to be elected unless he polled an absolute majority of votes at the first election. In the constituency which he had the honour to represent his Colleague polled 10,326 votes out of a total of 22,000 voters. By these figures the House would see that his hon. Friend, who was returned by a large majority, was, according to the view of the hon. Gentleman opposite, improperly elected. He, therefore, entirely demurred to the principle put forward in the Notice of Motion; and he begged to assure hon. Members that as long as he had the honour of a seat in that House he should feel it his duty to offer the strongest opposition to any Bill of that character. As a general rule, it was, no doubt, convenient to allow Bills to be introduced and read a first time, and then fully discussed on the second reading; but the present measure, after the explanation of the hon. Member in charge of it, appeared to him, and to those sitting on that side of the House, of so objectionable a character that, acting on the principle laid down by the First Minister of the Crown some 12 years ago—

"That when the principle of a Bill is obviously objectionable, it is not well to permit its introduction,"

he felt justified in opposing the Motion, and in supporting the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) in dividing against it.

said, that was a Bill which proposed to deal with a very important subject, and one which the Government had themselves taken in hand. It was clearly impossible to discuss it at that hour of the morning; and he, therefore, begged leave to move the adjournment of the House.

said, he wished the House to consider whether its work was to be entirely controlled by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), who had taken every possible opportunity of stopping, as far as he was able, every measure proposed by hon. Members sitting on that side of the House. The hon. Member, in pursuance of that practice, now sought to prevent the introduction of that measure by moving the adjournment of the House, a course which was scarcely fair, and one which it was to be hoped would receive no countenance on the part of the Government. He trusted that he and those hon. Members near him would have the support of right hon. Gentlemen opposite in opposing the Motion before the House.

said, he had no doubt his hon. Friend who had just spoken was justified in the remarks he had made; but he thought the present Motion of the hon. Member for Northampton was only made with the desire of impressing the House with a sense of what it might be in his power to do, if he were disposed to mete out to the present Bill the same treatment that had been accorded to another measure, and he could not believe that the hon. Gentleman would persist in his Motion after the length of time hon. Members had remained in their places, since the debate on the Address was adjourned, in order to bring in the Bills of which they had given Notice. Surely the hon. Gentleman did not wish to punish the innocent as well as the guilty, and prevent the rest of the Bills being brought in. If, however, that was the intention of the hon. Gentleman, he could not think that he would receive the support of Her Majesty's Government. He wished, also, to remark that the Rules of the House with regard to the first reading of Bills appeared to him to be undergoing a very lamentable and serious change. It was not his intention to cast any blame in that respect upon hon. Gentlemen opposite, because he would not assert that the practice of opposing Bills in the manner they were now being opposed began on the opposite side of the House; but he asserted that the practice was one which, if persevered in as it had been that evening, would tend to prevent all legislation. He, therefore, hoped the hon. Member fur Northampton would not press his Motion to a division; but, if so, he trusted it would not receive the support of Her Majesty's Government.

said, the noble Lord opposite had remarked that a new practice was being introduced into the House with regard to the first reading of Bills. He did not know whether the statement of the noble Lord was correct; but, upon the whole, he thought the House would consider that its old practice was one which was agreeable to common sense. The old practice was that when an hon. Member proposed to bring in a Bill upon a new subject, or one which treated an old subject in a novel manner, or when the Bill was of such a character that it could not be understood by the mere mention of it, the House would usually allow it to be brought in. But if the Bill were one concerning the nature of which there was no doubt, and the House was not disposed to accept it, then the House not unfrequently, in former days, refused leave to bring in the Bill. It appeared to him that the practice could not be regarded as unreasonable. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Dixon-Hartland) was asking leave of the House to introduce a Bill upon the difficult and complicated subject of Bankruptcy, respecting which it was impossible for hon. Members to form any adequate judgment upon the mere statement of the hon. Member. Therefore he thought it fair that the Bill should be allowed to be brought in, so as to give the hon. Member the op- portunity of submitting his scheme to the judgment of the House. When the Bill was brought in hon. Members would see what were its provisions, and form their conclusions as to whether they were worth discussion hereafter. Under the circumstances, he hoped the hon. Member for Northampton would not be disposed to press his Motion for the adjournment of the House to a division.

said, that, after the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman, he would ask leave to withdraw his Motion.

regretted that the hon. Member for Northampton had consented to withdraw his Motion for the adjournment of the House, which, under the circumstances, he regarded as a very proper one. The right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench (Mr. Dodson) had made a most sensible speech, and he agreed that the old practice was a good one—-that, as a matter of courtesy, a Member should be permitted to bring in his Bill. But the present Bill came under the category of those measures which no Member could understand. He should persist throughout the Session in dividing against measures of the kind, and regretted that the hon. Member for Northampton had not allowed him the opportunity of doing so on the present occasion. He wished to show the Government that the policy which had been adopted towards him was one which admitted of retaliation.

in opposing the Motion, said, he had been in the "Ayes" Lobby in the last Division, but he did not see the noble Lord there; and, therefore, he concluded that the noble Lord's enthusiasm only dated from two minutes ago. He would like to ask whether this Bill would propose the disfranchisement of the borough of Woodstock?

said, he thought this Bill came within the class of Bills to which the right hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Dodson) had alluded. It fairly stated on the face of it what it intended to do; and the House was, therefore, not left in the dark about it. He thought the time had come when the House should pronounce a decision upon it. The purpose of the Bill was—

"To enable the cities of Bristol and Dublin and the boroughs of Sheffield and Belfast to return each a third Member to Parliament, and to enable the municipal borough of Accrington, in the county of Lancaster, and the parish of Battersea, in the county of Surrey, to return each one Member to Parliament."

Thus, there were two things proposed—the extension of the franchise to four places, and the extension of the almost unconstitutional principle of a minority Member; and he should take the first, opportunity of dividing the House upon the Bill. It selected two fresh boroughs for representation, and he thought the House would agree with him that the counties had been forgotten. On a memorable occasion, when the Government was in a minority, and proposed to introduce a Bill dealing with vacant seats, the present Prime Minister laid down the doctrine that the filling-up of seats could only be dealt with by a Government possessing the confidence of a majority of the House, and the Bill proposed by Mr. Disraeli was thrown out. He did not think the noble Lord and his Friends possessed the confidence of the country; and as he thought this question was one with which the Government alone ought to deal, he should feel it to be his duty to divide the House.

said, he thought the hon. Member for Newcastle and the hon. Member for Wolverhampton had infused into this discussion a great deal of unnecessary acrimony. The right hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Dodson) found fault with him on account of an opinion he had expressed a short time ago as to the opposing of Bills on a first reading; but his position was this—that if a Member voted for such a Bill, he might be misunderstood, and if he voted against it, he might feel that he was acting in a manner not quite in accordance with the course he would like to take, and he could not be supposed to have voted for the principle of the Bill. Such a Bill was the Vaccination Acts Repeal Bill. He thought the right hon. Member would see that it was perfectly easy to vote against the first reading of a Bill, and at the same time approve of the general principle of the Bill. The hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Ashton Dilke) asked whether this Bill would include the disfranchisement of the borough of Woodstock. That appeared to be a question unnecessarily wasting the time of the House. With regard to the remarks of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), no doubt it looked, at first sight, as if there was nothing more to be said on the subject, and that the intention of the Bill was perfectly clear; but the hon. Member, he thought, was rather hasty in supposing that these five lines stated all that could be said in favour of the Bill. There were statistics as to population and the extent of towns which might be brought forward; but the hon. Member forgot that. If the hon. Member chose to press his opposition, he was at liberty to do so; and if he was supported by the Government the Bill would be defeated. But he (Lord Randolph Churchill) would accept his defeat with the greatest equanimity, for it would relieve him of a great deal of trouble.

said, he did not wish on the present occasion, and in view of approaching changes, to interfere unduly with the expiring efforts of individual liberty, and he would not be willing to interfere if there were any opposition; but this was a very important Bill merely brought in by a private Member. He would suggest to the hon. and learned Member to postpone the introduction of this matter until this and other important questions could be taken out of the care of the House and placed in the care of a Select Committee carefully packed by the Government.

said, he thought the hon. Member might explain the purpose for which he asked Mr. Speaker to leave the Chair, and whether the Bill he wished to bring in had any relation whatever to Burial Boards. He thought it was due to the House that the hon. Member should explain the object of the Bill. There were a large number of Roman Catholic cemeteries in England and Wales; and now that they had an aggressive Party in power, and seeing how the Radical Party valued liberty for themselves, but wished to tyrannize over others, he would like to have some explanation.

said, he thought the hon. Member (Mr. Richard) might give some outline of his intentions. They might be of a most formidable character. Was this a Bill for the desecration of cemeteries? An appeal for some explanation had been made with Mr. Speaker in the Chair and treated with the courtesy of silence; but he thought that on the present occasion, in order to avoid further opposition, the hon. Member might remember that this appeal was legitimate curiosity. The views of the hon. Member were wide; but there were some exertions of his liberality which were not regarded as liberal by his opponents.

said, the object of the Bill was to apply to cemetery arrangements generally the principle of the Burial Laws Amendment Act—namely, that the consecration or non-consecration of burial-grounds should not affect religious services, whether conducted by clergymen of the Church of England or Nonconformists.

asked the hon. and learned Member to furnish the House with a precise definition of the meaning of the words "Contumacious Clerks."

replied, that the words "Contumacious Clerks" was a term of art well understood in the Ecclesiastical Courts; but he feared he could give no better definition of them than the words themselves.

said, he begged to move for leave to bring in this Bill. The situation in Ireland was shifting and varying, not merely from month to month, but from day to day, and before the time came when, in the ordinary course the second reading of the measure would be taken, the Government might find themselves enabled to release the "suspects" in prison, and be able to report to the House that the condition of Ireland had become safe and quiet. He insisted upon his claim to his right—his unquestioned right—to introduce the Bill, and have it read a first time. The Government had a majority at their back, and might, and no doubt would, defeat it on the second reading; but he claimed his chance of having an opportunity at a later period of discussing the condition of Ireland on the second reading of the Bill. The figures quoted by the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. W. E. Forster) at an earlier period of the evening were a sufficient reason for the introduction of the measure. They showed that the class of offences known in Ireland as "agrarian outrages" had not diminished under the Coercion Act; but that, on the contrary, the more serious of this class of outrages and crimes had largely increased within the past few months. The presumption inevitably was that the wrong persons had been arrested, and that if the persons who committed the outrages had been imprisoned under the Warrants of the right hon. Gentleman, outrages would have diminished in Ireland. A skeleton of a case—and surely nothing more was wanted—had been made out for the introduction and first reading of this Repeal Bill. Every Government, at all times, had allowed private Members unquestionable facilities for at least introducing measures; and unless this courtesy was extended to him, he should be obliged to use the Forms of the House to assert his right against what he might call a rank, unwarrantable, aimless, and silly discourtesy of the Government.

I, Sir, must oppose the introduction of this Bill. The hon. Member is quite inaccurate in stating that the Government has ever encouraged the House to give up its right to refuse the introduction of a Bill. Generally speaking, the Government assents to a first reading especially for the sake of allowing the Bill to be printed and thoroughly understood by Members; but it cannot be argued in the present instance that it is necessary to have the Bill printed in order to understand its object. I do not wish to detain the House by going into the reasons why I cannot consent to the introduction of this Bill. I will not repeat what I have said already. I am anxious that coercion should come to an end as soon as possible; but to consent to the first reading of this Bill would cause the conduct of the Government to be open to a grave misconception in Ireland, and might produce effects for which we would not care to be responsible. Without detaining the House any further, I move that the Bill be not brought in.

said, he was sorry the Government opposed the introduction of the Bill. He almost always made a point of voting for the first reading of a measure quite irrespective of its purpose. If the practice that the Government now initiated were followed to any extent, they would have to make a new Rule, requiring Bills to be printed before the first reading; otherwise there might be no chance of understanding them. There had only been one Bill stopped at this stage by the late Government, and that was one for Triennial Parliaments, brought forward by Dr. Kenealy; and in their action on that occasion he believed the late Government had been mistaken. A great deal of trouble was occasioned by the stopping of that measure; and no doubt, if the Government stopped the present Bill, they would cause a block, and would bring about a continued obstruction of Bills in the House. They would be laying themselves open to a charge of Obstruction that would, no doubt, be used against them with force when the House came to discuss their New Rules for Parliamentary Procedure.

said, that if the Government were blocking this Bill out of friendship for him, because a Bill of his had been blocked, he could set their mind at ease, and, perhaps, induce them to abandon their opposition by informing them that his name was on the back of this Coercion Act Repeal Bill. If the Government were not actuated by the motive he had pointed out, then he would point out that nothing could be more monstrous than for a Government that was always complaining of the Obstruction of the Irish Members to deliberately obstruct a Bill brought forward by one of those Gentlemen. On all previous occasions when Coercion Bills had been passed they had been limited to within a few weeks of the next Session; but the present Protection Act was to continue until the end of the Session succeeding that upon which it was passed. All that the hon. Member (Mr. Sexton) now asked was that his Bill might be read a first time, so that the House might have an opportunity of hearing whether cause could be shown why the Coercion Act should still exist, or why it should be repealed. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) said he was anxious that coercion should come to an end—then what objection could he have to the first reading of this Bill? Passing the first reading of the Bill meant simply allowing it to be printed. The discussion on it would take place on the second reading. He could quite understand that the right hon. Gentlemen would oppose the second reading, and would be able to throw it out; but surely it was desirable that at some time during the Session there should be a specific discussion as to whether the Coercion Act should continue or cease.

said, he was afraid the hon. Member (Mr. Labouchere) would induce the Government to persevere in their opposition to the first reading, because he (Mr. Gorst) did not think the Government would be sorry if they could irritate the Irish Members and drive them into Obstruction, and so give them an argument in favour of their New Rules. It was impossible at that hour—1.20 A.M.—for the House to enter into the very long discussion which would be necessary for it to give a rational opinion as to whether the Bill could be proceeded with that night. He had voted in favour of every Bill on which a division had been taken, and he had done so because they were on subjects of such gravity that the House ought formally to pronounce an opinion on them. Well, could there be a subject of greater gravity than the question whether the Coercion Act should or should not remain in force? So far as he knew the facts of the ease, he thought that if he were called upon to give an opinion on the subject, he should feel it his duty to support Her Majesty's Government; but he did not think that he should be called upon to give that opinion in common with the rest of the House before Gentlemen who represented Irish constituencies had had the fullest and fairest opportunity of stating their views to the House. To ask them, however, to make out their case at this hour of the morning was really a denial to them of that fair opportunity which they ought to have. If the matter went to a divison he should vote for the introduction of the Bill, not because he wished in any way to interfere with the Executive Government, not because he should not have been prepared to support the Executive Government after a fair discussion, but because it must be apparent to every candid Member of the House that this was a subject of such gravity and importance that an opportunity for full and fair discussion should be given.

said, that as a supporter of the Government, and as one of those who, unfortunately, voted for the Coercion Act, he would also appeal to the Government to allow the first reading of the Bill. His impression was that many hon. Members sitting below the Gangway on that (the Ministerial) side of the House would be glad to hear how the Act worked. They had been told that the government of Ireland could not be carried on without the Act, and its repressive powers had, therefore, been conferred upon the Executive. It was said that its effect would be to lock up the mauvais sujets, the dissolute ruffians, and the village tyrants; but as they had had Members of Parliament and gentlemen of position locked up, they should have some chance of discussing the subject. Sitting there as a Liberal, he appealed to the Government in all earnestness to agree to the first reading of the Bill.

said, this was an extraordinary device on the part of the Chief Secretary for delaying the Business of the House. It used to be the custom for first readings to be allowed as a matter of course; but now they saw a first reading opposed by the Government. There was no necessity for this, as Her Majesty's Executive could show their antipathy to the measure easily enough on the second reading. He feared that by their present course the Government would breed an angry and hot controversy on almost every Bill.

said, he could not agree with the principle laid down by almost everyone who had spoken, that no Bill should be opposed on the first reading. For his own part, he acted on the principle of opposing at all times every measure that seemed to him radically bad. At the same time, he must point out that Her Majesty's Government had hitherto laid down the principle that opposition was not to be offered to the introduction of Bills.

said, that the Chief Secretary, after his magnificent oration of two hours and a-half that night, had failed to convince his Colleagues of the necessity of continuing the Coercion Act. This was surely the beginning of the end, the right hon. Gentleman's own Party being staggered by the fables he had offered them. He (Mr. Dawson) congratulated the Irish Members that the usual course in regard to this Bill had not been followed, for if it had they would not have heard these notes of welcome—they would not have seen that the English Liberals were beginning to appreciate the mistakes of the Government.

said, he hoped the Government would not allow the Bill to be read a first time. He spoke as a Conservative Member who had visited Ireland, and who had seen the disturbed districts, and was of opinion that the Protection of Person and Property Act should be continued in the most stringent form possible.

said, he should be exceedingly sorry if there were even the appearance of unfairness shown in connection with the stoppage of this Bill; and as the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant had stated that it was his intention to oppose the passage of the measure he appealed to Her Majesty's Government to allow its introduction as a mere formality.

said, he hoped that Her Majesty's Government would persist in their opposition to the introduction of this Bill, which would create a very bad impression in Ireland, inasmuch as it suggested a doubt whether the power of coercion should remain while the necessity for it continued.

said, he was glad to hear the remarks of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. E. Stanhope). The measure proposed to be introduced by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) was intended to repeal the Act passed last Session for the better Protection of Person and Property in Ireland, and which expired at the end of September of this year. That the introduction of such a Bill would have no effect upon the condition of affairs in Ireland could not be admitted by Her Majesty's Government. The Act sought to be repealed did not stand upon the same footing as measures of a permanent character, inasmuch as it now had only a few months to run; and the mere introduction of a Repealing Bill would raise expectations which could not possibly be satisfied, and could only end in disappointment and mischief. The Government could not sanction the introduction of the Bill.

said, that coercion was said to be only a hateful incident with the right hon. Gentlemen opposite in dealing with Irish affairs. But the real state of the case was clear from the conduct of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant that evening, which showed that the Act of last year was so darling a piece of business that he wished to cling to it as long as he could. The pretended reluctance of the Liberal Government to have recourse to coercion reminded one of the affected unwillingness with which a confirmed toper allowed himself to be prevailed upon to take a glass of whisky. He could not assent to the position taken up by the Chief Secretary, when he refused to consent to the introduction of this Bill, on the ground that it would create a bad effect in Ireland, inasmuch as he believed it would tend in a contrary direction. Why should the Bill not have a good effect? If the Government were willing that it should be discussed, the result, so far as the people of Ireland were concerned, would, he thought, be good; while there could be no doubt that a bad effect would be produced by their refusing to consider the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was not in very good odour in Ireland, and his position in the estimation of the people would certainly not be improved by the course he was adopting. The right hon. Gentleman had endeavoured to make out a good case from a volume of Papers—policemen's reports, reports to sub-inspectors coming from spies and informers, and from the un-examined and unverified tales which poured into the Castle in Dublin. He had brought forward his dish of horrors; but it was clear upon the face of them from what sources those stories were derived. Hundreds of such tales were thrown into the post daily to be sent to Dublin. How, he asked, could informers earn their pay unless day by day they sent forward some tales of what was about to happen, but which, from their great firmness and vigilance, as the right hon. Gentleman had told the House, had been happily avoided? He and his hon. Friends wanted only a fair opportunity of dealing with the question of coercion, in order to show whether the Act was, or was not, doing good in Ireland. They undertook to prove unmistakably that the effect of coercion there had not been to diminish outrage, nor to produce peace and contentment amongst the people, but that its result had been to exasperate and drive them to desperation. It was not creditable to the Government to shirk such a fair challenge as this. As had been justly stated in the course of the debate, the discussion upon the Bill was not likely to come on to-morrow—weeks and months would elapse before that took place. Why, then, not allow the first reading of the Bill to go on in the ordinary way? The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War objected to this Bill on the ground that the Act of last year would expire at the end of September next. That represented, according to him, a very brief period indeed, and the time would, no doubt, pass very lightly over the head of the right hon. Gentleman; but how, he asked, would it pass over the heads of those who were in gaol, and who were losing everything they possessed in this world except their honour? As a positive fact, every day of their confinement was ruining the health of those men, and incapacitating many for future work. To his own knowledge, the eyesight of one man had been destroyed by this imprisonment. If the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had to undergo such incarceration until the end of next September, he would probably think the time a good deal too long. For his own part, he did not hesitate to say to the occupants of the Treasury Bench that those who were responsible for this state of things deserved Kilmainham more than the men they had imprisoned. If the Government wanted to tranquillize Ireland, let them put the men now in prison into Dublin Castle, and let them send the men in command at the Castle to Kilmainham. The House had been told that nobody had been incarcerated under the provisions of the Coercion Act without the most solemn trial. The words of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister were "a most solemn trial before God and man;" but he (Mr. Sullivan) believed that as fair a trial was given by the Ribbon Lodges in Ireland as was given in these cases under the Coercion Act in Dublin Castle. The House had now a clear view of the Obstruction which was initiated by the Government in opposing the introduction of the Bill of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton). The Government having chosen that course, let not the Chief Secretary for Ireland complain if Irish Members hereafter paid them back in their own coin; which they would certainly do to the best of their ability.

trusted that the Government were not inexorable in their opposition to the introduction of the Bill of the hon. Member for Sligo. He could not, however, agree with everything—indeed, he agreed with hardly anything—which had been stated by the hon. Member who had just sat down, because he most heartily sympathized with the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland in the extreme difficulty in which he was placed. He asked hon. Members near him to support him in his appeal to the Government to allow the Bill to be read a first time. It was noticeable that those who supported the Government on the present occasion were three hon. Members sitting on the Conservative side of the House; whilst every speaker who had risen from the Liberal Benches had expressed a hope that the Government would assent to the first reading of the Bill. When it was read a second time he should certainly vote against it, because he did not believe that it was possible, under existing circumstances, to repeal the Act of last year; but the discussion of the question was of the deepest importance to Ireland, and to England also, inasmuch as it was of the greatest moment to the true interest of both countries. For those reasons, and in the most friendly sense, he expressed a hope that the right hon. Gentleman would consent to the Bill being read the first time.

said, he hoped the Government would remain firm in their opposition to the Bill. If at some future time it were necessary to go back upon the discussion of this question, that discussion would be raised if Her Majesty's Government were unfortunately obliged to bring in a Bill to continue the present Coercion Act.

said, he viewed with a great deal of suspicion the statement of the Chief Secretary for Ireland with regard to the ground of his opposition to the introduction of this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had, on the previous evening, availed himself of the half-past 12 o'clock Rule to oppose the introduction of another Bill, which recommended itself to many hon. Members, with reference to the Viceroy of Ireland. The Government had availed themselves of that almost defunct Rule. According to the opinion in Ireland, the police had been let loose in Dublin last October, under circumstances that constituted a provocation to slaughter; and the Chief Secretary had used that method for the purpose of irritating Irish Members into a course of Obstruction which would not be agreeable to the House, so as to give his Party some excuse for the introduction of the clôture. Would the right hon. Gentleman offer the same opposition to the Bill which immediately followed upon the Paper? From the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman, it would seem as if he did not wish Members on the Liberal side of the House to claim before their constituents the credit of allowing this Bill to be read the first time; and he sincerely hoped that he would not afford an opportunity to the sham Radicals in that House to whitewash themselves with their Irish constituents.

remarked, that in the three recent divisions he had voted in favour of giving Members the opportunity of explaining the provisions of their measures; but the measure sought to be repealed had occupied a large share of last Session, it would expire in the course of a few months, and at a future time there would be ample opportunity of considering whether it should be extended or not. If the Government thought it right to resist the proposal of the hon. Member for Sligo, he should certainly follow them into the Lobby; but, at the present stage, he thought it better to move the adjournment of the House.

I shall make no objection to the Motion of the hon. Member for Stoke; but I must inform him that I shall put on the Table of the House a Notice to oppose the Bill.

asked on what understanding the right hon. Gentleman agreed to the adjournment of the House?

On the understanding that my Motion would be left on, which would, in fact, be a blocking Motion after half-past 12.

said, the right hon. Gentleman unblushingly used an obstructive Rule to defeat this Bill. That was scarcely creditable to a Government who had put before the House a proposal that the half-past 12 o'clock Rule should not apply in such cases.

pointed out that it would be of no advantage to the Government to adjourn, if the block system was to be continued. He hoped the House would not agree to the adjournment, as several hon. Members had Notices of Bills upon the Paper which they wished to introduce.

said, the offer of the right hon. Gentleman had not reached his ear, and he inquired what he had said? He had not spoken on the question.

The hon. Member rose in his place and addressed the House.

said, he simply asked a question.

The hon. Member rose and addressed the House, and exhausted his right to speak.

said, he thought they had that night received indications of reviving conscience in English Radicals. When hon. Gentlemen opposite, who voted for coercion, were adversely criti- cizing the policy of the right hon. Gentleman in Ireland, he could not help having some sympathy for them. They must have felt, when the right hon. Gentleman unfolded his long and doleful explanation, that it was very inadequate, when they considered the policy of the Government in Ireland during the last few months. With reference to the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), was it to be supposed for one moment that Irish Members, who had dear and intimate friends in prison, would permit month after month to go by without making some effort to obtain the release of their friends? Did the right hon. Gentleman really think they would allow his system of government in Ireland to go on unchallenged? If he did he would be disappointed, for they meant to challenge it upon every occasion that presented itself. It was all very well for hon. Gentlemen to say the Act was passed and terminated in September, and, therefore, there ought to be nothing more said about it; but when he reminded hon. Gentlemen that there were gentlemen lying in prison to-night of as high character, of as blameless lives, and of as spotless reputation as any Member of the House, men against whom there could not be the slightest suspicion of crime advanced, they would agree with him that it was most unpardonable for the right hon. Gentleman who was responsible for the affairs of Ireland to have assumed his present attitude towards Irish Members. The right hon. Gentleman had been appealed to in forcible terms by Members of his own Party; but he had not deigned to listen to the appeals. If one thing more than another could establish the fact that the tone and temper of mind of the right hon. Gentleman was such as to unfit him to deal with the state of affairs prevailing in Ireland at the present moment, it was the little incident they were witnessing that night.

trusted the hon. Member (Mr. Woodall) would not persist in his Motion, because it was rather hard that some 60 hon. Members, who had stayed in the House until 2 o'clock in the morning in the hope of bringing in their Bills and having them read a first time, should be prevented from doing so in consequence of the adoption of such a Motion as that now before the House.

protested against the manner in which it was now attempted to defeat the object of his hon. Friend (Mr. Sexton). He perfectly remembered the passing of the measure which was now sought to be repealed, and during the progress of the Bill he heard, over and over again, from the Gentlemen below the Gangway on the Ministerial side of the House, regret that they should be compelled to consent to a measure which involved the liberties of a large number of the people of the United Kingdom. They, however, gave their support to the Bill on the ground that they could put trust in the administration of the Irish Executive under the care of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. This was a question which greatly involved the lives and liberties of his countrymen; and he held it was unworthy of the Chief of the Irish Executive to resist the possible chance of the measure of his hon. Friend being considered. It might be a matter of little importance to the Chief Secretary; but it was a matter of great moment to the men now languishing in prison—to these 500 subjects of Her Majesty who had an equal claim to Constitutional right as any person living in the United Kingdom. The chances of the Bill of the hon. Member for Sligo passing a second reading were very slight indeed. Since his entrance to Parliament he had never witnessed so systematic Obstruction as that which had been offered to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman by the Chief Secretary. In a spirit of fairness and justice to the inhabitants of the country to which he belonged, the Motion should be allowed to pass unquestioned. It was meaner than resistance for the Chief Secretary to consent to this adjournment. When the question came to be viewed in the fair light of day by the Radical and Liberal Members on the other side of the House, they would agree with him that the Motion of the Chief Secretary for Ireland was inopportune, and only calculated to damage the interests of the Liberal Party in England. He appreciated the difficulties of the English Government in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman had had a most arduous task, and he had always given him credit for good intentions. He was, however, one of those who believed in the right hon. Gentleman's utter inca- pacity to govern Ireland; he believed that if the Chief Secretary had a more decided will, coupled with the good intentions he gave him credit for, he would have done more good. Nothing had tended to decrease his estimation of the right hon. Gentleman than the position he had taken up that night. He appealed to the Chief Secretary to consider the matter fairly, and asked him not by a side wind or an indirect vote to oppose the Motion of the hon. Member for Sligo. The adjournment of the House would not decide the question one way or the other. The Chief Secretary had opposed the Motion on the ground that the consideration of the repeal of the Coercion Act of last Session would disturb Ireland. Now, he (Mr. Daly) claimed to have as great an anxiety to see Ireland pacified and prosperous as any man in that House; he was connected with trade, and trade was languishing owing to the present condition of Ireland. In his opinion, there would be no greater measure of defiance to Ireland than the last Motion to which the Chief Secretary had assented, because it was a method of shirking the question in which Ireland took the deepest interest. The hon. Member for Sligo desired to give the House an opportunity of calmly considering whether, under the circumstances, they were not misled, when they voted for the Coercion Act last Session, by the statements made by the Chief Secretary for Ireland in introducing the Bill.

said, he believed that the course the Government had now taken was entirely worthy of them, and of the right hon. Gentleman who had acted as their spokesman in this matter. The Chief Secretary's conduct since he took the reins of power in Ireland had been at once silly and inconsistent. Tonight he had posed as the Representative of Obstruction, although he was a Member of the Cabinet which was about to propose a fundamental alteration of the Rules of the House to put down Obstruction. The object of the hon. Member for Sligo, in asking leave to introduce his Bill, was not that a discussion should take place on the administration of the Coercion Act at an early date. Such a discussion would take place within the next few days, and for the present the matter would be threshed out and thoroughly investigated. If the Bill was introduced now, the second reading could not come on for two or three months, and it was absolutely essential that the whole question of coercion in Ireland should be re-considered before the end of the Session. Did not the coercion Act provide that every three months the case of each "suspect" was to be considered on its merits? Surely, if that were so, it was equally right that the whole subject of coercion should be discussed in the House of Commons at least every three months. This was a matter of great importance—it was a matter which touched him and every one of his hon. Friends, for there was not one of them who had not a dear friend—aye, and perhaps a relative—now deprived of his liberty under the Coercion Act. There was not one of them on these Benches at this moment, whilst they heard hon. Members talking glibly about a few months passing and then this Coercion Act would cease—there was not one of them who did not know that before the few months had passed some of those who were near and dear to them might have suffered materially in health. There was not one of them who did not believe the Coercion Act was administered in a cruel, imbecile, and brutal manner. There was not one of them who did not believe that its powers had been stretched unfairly; that they had been used to gratify private malice, and that the pledges which were given in the House of Commons by Ministers as safeguards——

If the hon. Member attributes private malice to the Members of the Government in the execution of the Coercion Act, he is strictly out of Order. I am quite sure he never intended to do that.

said, if he was out of Order in attributing private malice to the right hon. Gentleman, he would withdraw his words; but he would say that the Irish Executive were administering the Act in a spirit of private malice. The Chief Secretary for Ireland made pledges in the House upon the subject. He said, amongst other things, that the

"Choice of the prisons to which the men arrested under the Act would be sent would be guided by considerations for their convenience; that no unnecessary hardship or pain would be inflicted on the prisoners by the choice of prisons which were not absolutely essential for their safe custody."

What had the right hon. Gentleman done? He had taken men from the remotest South of Ireland and sent them up into the North; he had taken men from the North and had sent them to the extreme South. In every case of recent date he had sent men as far as he possibly could away from their homes, so that there would be no possibility of their receiving visits from their friends. Many of the men who were arrested were men of high position and character, as of high position and as of high character as the right hon. Gentleman himself; but there were many who sprang from a poor and humble class, men who were almost forgotten in the prisons in the remote parts of the country, far away from their friends and from the reach of consolation which they would receive from friendly visits. A few weeks ago he (Mr. Redmond) went to a prison in the North of Ireland and inquired whether there were any prisoner under the Coercion Act who was so far away from home that he had been unable to receive a visit, and he was told there were three men in the prison who had been there for months, and who had never received a visit. He saw the men, and asked why they had been left there without the consolation of the visit of a single friend; and he was told it was because they were removed hundreds of miles from their homes, and their relatives were too poor to travel so far to see them. Did that show nothing of private malice? Did it not display a spirit of revenge, of vindictiveness, which the right hon. Gentleman told them so repeatedly was not to be exhibited in the administration of the Act? They were told it was to be preventive, and not vindictive. He could quote—and he would do so before the matter was disposed of—hundreds of cases of the working of private malice and of petty, contemptible individual feeling. He spoke strongly on the matter because he felt strongly; and he was quite convinced there were many English Members of the House who would not think it unreasonable in him to say that every Irish Member would insist, as far as they could, that months should not pass away without the subject of coercion and its administration being discussed again. They were to have a discussion on it for the next few days. Were they, then, to hear nothing more of It until they were told whether the Act had to be renewed or not? They wanted to insure that in two or three months' time the whole subject should be re-considered. The Chief Secretary, in his speech a few hours ago, said he hoped that as the season advanced disturbance would be diminished, and that a possibility of going back to the ordinary state of the law might appear on the surface. But if there was any possibility of such a result, it was very necessary they should give the Chief Secretary an opportunity of carrying out his benevolent intentions, and of not allowing the Coercion Act to run its course. For all those reasons he thought they were justified in protesting against the Obstruction which the Government had offered to the introduction of this Bill. He never took part in the deliberations of the House without feeling how useless, how humiliating it was for Irishmen who had national aspirations to come to the House and to take part in its proceedings at all. He was one of those who believed that day by day the English Government were lessening the confidence the Irish people had in Parliamentary government, that day by day they were destroying the belief in Constitutional agitation which, up to the present, the Irish Party had endeavoured to keep alive. He believed that by his course of action to-night the Chief Secretary was simply following up what he had done in the past; and he believed that what the right hon. Gentleman had done in the past had materially lessened the confidence of the people in Constitutional action, and had prompted many a man who had moderate views to entertain extreme ones. He was convinced of this—that the man who was sent to prison a Constitutional political agitator would come out a rebel; and he was also certain that those who were left outside—perhaps without the means of obtaining bread to keep them alive, owing to the arrest of the head of the family—would have their feelings of disaffection intensified. He was not ashamed to say that he was one of those who were not sorry that the whole course and action of Her Majesty's Government had been what it had, because he was one of those who believed that as long as English rule existed in Ireland peace in Ireland would mean dishonour; and if the Irish people were unable to obtain equal laws and equal rights with England—if, instead of giving them conciliation, England gave them hate, they would be prepared to pay back that hate with hatred, and the feelings of hatred against alien rule now felt by the people of Ireland would only be intensified by the action of the right hon. Gentleman and the Government which he represented. In the future history of Ireland the name of the right hon. Gentleman would be classed with names which were never uttered without a curse in Ireland—the names of Cromwell and of Castlereagh.

said, it was impossible not to feel some sympathy with those hon. Gentlemen representing Irish constituencies who had spoken with so much warmth of feeling upon this question; but while he lamented, as everyone in that House must lament, the sad necessity for imprisonment of persons, some of whom were the near and dear relations of hon. Members, he could not accept the language which had been employed. It was with great reluctance that he rose to take part in the debate; but he felt it his duty to say one word in vindication of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant from the aspersions which had been so unjustly and so unfairly thrown upon him. He must say he thought the insinuation that the right hon. Gentleman had been guided in his action by private malice met with the very smallest response from the Members of that House generally; it would meet with no response at all from the people of the country, and it would simply recoil upon the heads of those who made it. Although they had had this great burst of indignation from hon. Members below the Gangway, he would ask them to consider what it had all been about. They had heard a great deal that night of novel precedents, and they were told that it was a course of procedure without example to refuse to allow a Bill to be introduced and read a first time. Now, on the contrary, he was disposed to say that the innovation consisted rather in the fact that within the last few years the practice had been introduced, as a general rule, of accepting the first reading of a Bill without opposition. In former days the rule was quite the contrary. No novel precedent had been established by the right hon. Gentleman, and it was an entire and complete fallacy on the part of hon. Members to suggest it. He would not detain the House longer; but he had felt that he could not refrain from asserting his entire disbelief in the aspersions which had been cast upon the Chief Secretary by the hon. Member for New Ross (Mr. Redmond). After the discussion which had taken place, and the great warmth which had been displayed, he hoped the House would proceed to dispose of the Motion before it.

remarked, that the discussion had shown the impossibility of treating the introduction of this Bill as a mere matter of form; but after the appeal which had been made to him by his hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) and other Members who desired to see their Bills introduced, he would withdraw the Motion he had made.

said, he thought that hon. Gentlemen were mistaken as to the practice of the House in regard to the introduction of Bills. In the last Parliament only one Bill was opposed on the Motion for Leave to introduce it. He thought, therefore, that for the Government to attempt now to revive the old practice was to invite future blocking and future Obstruction; and if hereafter the Irish Members were charged with obstructing the introduction of Government Bills, the Government themselves would have to confess that they had been the first to introduce the system. He hoped the Irish Members would be supported in the effort they were making to get the Bill printed.

asked if it was the pleasure of the House that the Motion should be withdrawn?

said, that as several hon. Members opposite had discussed at some length the provisions of a Bill which was supposed to be one they desired to introduce, there were probably other hon. Members who wished to take part in the discussion. As this was the only day in the Session in which independent Members could hope to introduce Bills, and seeing that a considerable amount of Business still remained to be transacted before the House adjourned, he begged to move that the debate be now adjourned.

There is already a Motion before the House that the House do now adjourn.

said, he understood that that Motion had been withdrawn.

The Question has not yet been put.

said, he supposed that the hon. Gentleman referred to Public Bills. He did not think it would be quite fair to the hon. Member in charge of the Bill under discussion either to adjourn the House or the debate, because he would then lose the place he had obtained in the ballot for precedence, and other hon. Members would have precedence over him. It would certainly be prejudicial to the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) if the present Bill were blocked by the Government, and the Bills of other hon. Members were permitted to be read a first time. Therefore, as there had already been considerable discussion, he thought the Government should take a division and show themselves before the public as the real Obstructives, who were availing themselves of a Rule which they proposed next week to sweep away. The Government ought to have the full responsibility of rejecting the Bill upon the Motion for introducing it.

wished to remind the House that the Bill could have no chance of coming on until June, or even later, as all the previous days were occupied. Therefore, the House would not lose much if they decided to reject the Bill altogether. He had risen to take part in the discussion in consequence of the remarks which had been made by the hon. Member for Mid Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) in regard to the conduct of the Government and of the Chief Secretary. He (Mr. R. N. Fowler) was as much opposed to the conduct of the Government as any man in that House. [Cries of "Agreed!"] He believed he was perfectly in Order in expressing that view. All he wished to add was that if ever there was a man who sat on the Treasury Bench with a single desire to do his duty to his country, that man was his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland. He had no wish to defend the views of his right hon. Friend; but he was certainly of opinion that his right hon. Friend had been actuated by a sincere desire to do the best he could for the country.

said, the object of the Motion to adjourn the debate was to burke this question, and to save the damaged reputation of the Chief Secretary for Ireland from further investigation. The object of the Motion to adjourn the debate was to further the policy of secret inquisition, of arbitrary government, or Cossackism and Bashi-Bazoukism, which was represented by the quondam liberators of Bulgaria. There was one thing which the proceedings that night had exhibited—namely, that the Chief Secretary for Ireland, nominally a Liberal, was the head of the most Obstructive Party in Ireland. English Liberals, if any such remained, could see that the view of their Liberal Chief Secretary was to say "Amen" to the Orange Lodges. Since the Chief Secretary went over to Ireland—and he knew the discussion of this Bill would reveal the fact—he had been in the hands of the old Orange clique of Dublin Castle. Every statement he made to that House was put into his hands by the established Orange clique in Dublin Castle. As to a knowledge of the state of Ireland from any independent source—even from his own observation as an original source of information with regard to Ireland—the Chief Secretary was of precisely the same value as a piece of paper. The right hon. Gentleman was the funnel through which the calumnies of the Orange clique in Ireland were poured into the ears of a docile majority.

The hon. Member is not speaking to the Question before the House.

said, he was opposing the adjournment, because a Motion for adjournment was calculated to prevent the exposure of the true relations between the Chief Secretary and the hereditary oppressors of the Irish people in Ireland. While the English people imagined that the Chief Secretary was the agent of a Liberal policy, if the Irish Members had an opportunity of investigating his conduct and showing how he had exercised his powers under the Coercion Acts, they could prove that he had not been the agent of a Liberal policy in Ireland, but the agent of the crow-bar brigade; that he had been the confederate of all who had sown ill-will in the past between England and Ireland, and were really responsible for the continuance of disaffection in Ireland. No one imagined that the Government, in giving their consent—their formal consent—to the introduction of this Bill, would at all pledge themselves to open the prison gates and set the captives free. All that would be understood from their action in consenting to the introduction of the Bill was that at the end of a considerable space of time—in two or three, or, perhaps, four months—they would have the courage to submit their conduct to investigation. That was all that would be understood. If this Bill was introduced for the repeal of the Coercion Acts passed last Session, the Irish Members would be able to prove that those Acts were wrung from the House by utterly false utterances. They were now in a position to investigate and test the statistics, which were not given to the House until the House had been pledged to the policy of coercion. They were now in a position to prove that those Acts were not wanted for one particular reason, for the Coercion Acts were not even used for months after they were passed. The conduct of the Government could, if an opportunity were given, be shown to prove that the Acts which they insisted upon forcing on the House were not wanted against intimidation or disaffection, but were put into operation in order to force the acceptance of the Land Act on the people. It could be proved that the Government used the Coercion Acts in order to interfere with the course of ordinary legislation, to interfere with the beneficial legislation of this House, to prevent the people of Ireland from making use of the Land Act according to the needs of the people of Ireland. When an Act was passed in this House it was the right of every subject of Her Majesty to make every possible use of that Act with or without legal advice. The Government found the people of Ireland advised by those who loved them well to make use of the Land Act in a certain way, and the Government made use of coercion in order to put down the popular agitation. The Irish Members only asked for an opportunity of proving that, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary made use of the obstructive power which undoubtedly he possessed in order to prevent their having that opportunity. It was believed that the Government intended very soon still further to limit opportunities of discussion in this House; and for that reason it was, in the highest degree, indecorous for them to prevent the use of the last few remaining opportunities there were for criticizing their conduct with fairness or freedom. He had one more observation to make, and that was that, from all he had been able to see, he was obliged conscientiously to confirm all that had been said by the hon. Member for New Ross (Mr. Redmond) as to the effect of the conduct of the Government in promoting disaffection, and in preventing the growth of confidence in the justice of Parliament, and in discouraging Constitutional agitation. He believed that all the efforts of all the Fenian conspirators, if given five years' free play to spread their agitation, would not do as much to dig an abyss between the affections of Ireland and the English Crown as had been effected by this sole officer of the English Crown, the Chief Secretary, in teaching, by every disregard of Irish feeling, the Irish people to detest the very name of Constitutional agitation.

also rose to oppose the Motion for adjourning the debate. The Chief Secretary, he said, had stated that, when the time came, he and the Government would re-consider the question whether the Coercion Act ought to be allowed to expire or be re-enacted. That was the old story of "Leave it to me." Some time ago there was in Ireland one of those very efficient officers who, when consulted in Dublin Castle about a probable difficulty with regard to certain juries in Ireland, said to the gentleman who consulted him—''Leave it to me, and I will settle all about it," and then went down to that part of the country which was concerned, and so managed the juries that he got what he wanted. "Leave it to me" was the cry of the Chief Secretary in this matter; but if they (the Irish Members) could help it, they would not leave it to the Chief Secretary. They had had sufficient experience of him to know what to expect from him. They knew that he was primed by other men, and that the word of his pet, Mr. Clifford Lloyd, would go far with him, and would outweigh the words of all the Representatives of Ireland, who knew something of the country, of which he could know nothing. Mr. Clifford Lloyd was the Chief Secretary's pet, and he boasted that Mr. Clifford Lloyd was likely to make peace in Clare. Mr. Clifford Lloyd had just made a raid on the people in one town in that neighbourhood, and had arrested a number of honest men. That was his way of making peace; it was the same system of making peace that had been carried out in Warsaw. No doubt, by arresting all the people, or shooting them down, Mr. Clifford Lloyd could make peace; but out of that so-called peace would come trouble yet. These men would give trouble, their friends would give trouble, their children would give trouble. They would not submit to be dragooned in that manner, to be arrested, without warrant, on the pretext of reasonable suspicion. There was not a police barracks in Ireland that day in connection with which there were not some corrupt wretches, paid by the Treasury, whose livelihood depended on bringing stories to the police and the Turkish Pashas who had been placed there by Dublin Castle; and upon such stories Irishmen had to endure prolonged imprisonment and the loss of their health. Mr. O'Brien, who was now in Kilmainham Gaol, was a most respectable and honourable gentleman, a man of talent and ability, although, no doubt, a foe to the rule of England in Ireland—as what Irishman was not? He (Mr. Sullivan) had small regard for the spirit of any man who was not opposed to British rule in Ireland. Mr. O'Brien was notoriously in delicate health, and not long ago he had to make a long journey to the East on the advice of his doctors. In addition to the lung disease with which he was afflicted, his eyes had always been weak, and he was now losing his sight in the dungeons of Kilmainham. He was arrested on reasonable suspicion. But no opportunity was given in that House to consider whether this atrocious Act was to be continued; it was to be left to the Chief Secretary and the nest of conspirators around him in Dublin Castle. But the voices of the Irish Members should reach the Irish people, and they should know that their Representatives were resisting this rule here to the best of their ability, as they had resisted it in their own country.

said, he was not very much surprised at the course taken by the Chief Secretary, nor was he much surprised at the course taken by his followers below the Gangway. Those were the Gentlemen who had been so much taken up with the Coercion Acts. The right hon. Gentleman had given another proof to the Irish people of the liberal spirit in which he had resolved to carry on the government in Ireland; and he (Mr. Leamy) had only to say that he joined in what the hon. Member for New Ross (Mr. Redmond) had said. He believed that the Chief Secretary had succeeded, in two years, in doing much to completely undo anything that the Prime Minister had succeeded in doing in Ireland.