said, that he had placed a Notice on the Paper of his intention to move the rejection of this Bill; and he wished to call the attention of the House to one of the provisions contained in it. It was a Bill brought in by the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway Company for the purpose of conferring additional powers upon that Company and upon the Cheshire Lines Railway Company, and for other purposes. Among those purposes he found a clause—No. 15 in the Bill— which altogether altered the law in regard to grouping. It allowed the Companies to group certain collieries or coal pits on their line, within a radius of 20 miles, and permitted them to charge exactly the same amount for the conveyance of coal from all the collieries, although some were 20 miles further away from the common destination than other pits. Now, the law with regard to grouping had been laid down in the Denaby Main Case by the decision of the Railway Commissioners. The Commissioners said—

"The reasons given in this case do not justify the exceptional way in which the rates are charged. The pits are grouped because they all work the same bed of coal; but the grouping seems to us to be carried too far when it is applied compulsorily to a coal field extending 20 miles, and covering an area in which the pits may be that distance apart."

He would only read from the decision of the Commissioners one more sentence, in which they said—

"We come, on the whole, to the conclusion that the grouping system, as it affects the applicant, does subject him to undue and unreasonable prejudice."

The Commissioners ruled accordingly. The Bill now before the House proposed to alter the law in regard to that case. When he discovered that it did so he gave Notice last Monday that he would move the rejection of the second reading of the Bill. Since that time he had seen the parties who were responsible for the Bill, and they had given an undertaking that Clause 15 should be withdrawn entirely. Under these circumstances, he should not have considered it necessary to do more than state the reasons which had induced him to place a Notice of Opposition against the Bill, if it were not for a circumstance which had since come to his knowledge—namely, that some colliery owners intended in Committee to move the re-insertion of the very clause which had been agreed to be struck out by the promoters of the Bill. He had only to add that if the clause was re-inserted by the Committee the Bill would have his most determined opposition when it came down for a third reading. As the matter now stood, he did not intend to move the rejection of the second reading.

said, that the promoters of the Bill would meet the objections of his hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) by striking out Clause 15 and altering the Preamble accordingly.

asked the Secretary of State for India, Whether he will cause Jadavrai Harishankar, an advocate at the Indian Bar, now undergoing imprisonment in gaol in the Bombay Presidency, to be furnished with copies of the Reports of Mr. Aston, C.S., recently Judicial Assistant to the Political Agent in Kattiawar, which Reports were forwarded to that Agency under date April 7th 1881; Report or Reply of Mr. E. T. Candy, C.S. on the above Reports, forwarded under date of May 4th 1881, together with a Memorandum by Mr. Aston, also a Report by Mr. Candy on Jadavrai's petition; and, whether, considering the statements contained in these Papers, the Bombay Government would consider whether they might liberate Jadavrai and remit the fine of Rs.24,000 imposed upon him by the Kattiawar Political Agency Courts?

I answered a Question on this subject put to me by the hon. Member for Haddington (Sir David Wedderburn), on the 4th August last, and have only to add that I have since ascertained privately from the Governor of Bombay that in March, 1881, the Governor visited the gaol where the prisoner was confined, and on his making a fresh appeal and presenting a Petition, the Governor sent for all the Papers and himself went through them carefully, with the result that he was convinced that the conviction was right; and, at the same time, Mr. Justice Kemball, one of the Judges of the Bombay High Court (who was then acting as member of the Council of the Governor), also read all the Papers at the request of the Governor, and arrived at the same conclusion—namely, that there was no doubt the conviction was right. It is clear that the case has received the fullest and repeated consideration; and, under the circumstances, there is no ground whatever for interfering in the matter. The documents asked for are confidential Papers to which the prisoner has no sort of right, and cannot be furnished to him.

asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, If it is a fact that Mr. James A. Ennis, of Wood-graigne, county Wexford, was arrested at 10 o'clock, p.m. on 8th November last, and driven about from one police station to another until 7.30 a.m. the next morning, when he was placed in a train and conveyed to Kilmainham Prison, which he reached at 12 o'clock, having been fourteen hours upon the journey; whether he was kept the entire time without food or refreshment of any kind; and, whether, if so, care will be taken for the future that no unnecessary hardships of this kind be inflicted upon persons arrested under the Coercion Acts?

Including a lengthened stoppage at Wellington Bridge Police Station, about 14 hours in all elapsed between the time of Mr. Ennis's arrest and his arrival in Dublin, although he was conveyed by the earliest train. He had refreshment on the journey. Of course, the Chief Secretary will repeat his directions that all unnecessary hardship shall be avoided in these cases.

The refreshments wore supplied by some friends, not by the authorities.

I have not stated that they were supplied by the authorities.

asked the Lord Advocate, Whether his attention has been called to the hardships inflicted upon domiciled Scotchmen by suing them in the High Court of Justice in London for small sums; and, whether he purposes to bring in a Bill to remedy the grievance?

My attention has been called to this matter. The service of the writs under which domiciled Scotchmen have been summoned to the English Courts has been allowed under rules framed by the English Judges with reference to the Judicature Act of 1875. Representations are now being made in the proper quarter on the subject.

asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, If it is a fact that the Minute Book of the Castle comer Branch of the Ladies Land League was seized and taken away by the police some weeks since; and, whether it contains any criminal or illegal matter to justify its confiscation; and, if not, whether he will at once direct the police to return it to its owners?

The Minute Book of this branch of the Ladies' Land League was taken possession of by the police some weeks since. Some of its contents are open to serious objection in point of law; but, upon the whole, I see no objection now to its being given up if it is asked for.

asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, If Mr. Michael James Kelly, of Newcastle-on-Tyne, was arrested whilst visiting at Warren Point on a warrant issued against a person named "J. J. Kelly, of Newry," Mr. Michael J. Kelly never having resided at Newry; whether he is still detained in Armagh prison; and, whether any steps are to be taken to have "J. J. Kelly, of Newry," arrested; and, if he be arrested, whether steps will be taken to have Mr. M. J. Kelly, of Newcastle-on-Tyne, released?

I am informed that the person intended to be arrested, and arrested, is known as Mr. J. J. Kelly, of Newry, and he is now detained in the prison at Armagh.

asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, If it is true that in November last Mr. Thompson Cooke, master of the Newry Union, along with two men, John Rodney and Bernard Rodney, was arrested on a charge of having conspired to utter a forged document purporting to be the will of Mr. Edward Graves Howard, of Damolly Park, Newry, then deceased; whether Mr. Cooke has been permitted by the Local Government Board to continue the discharge of his functions as master of the workhouse; and, if the Local Government Board will retain him in his position whilst such a grave criminal charge is pending?

Mr. Cooke was arrested on a charge of being concerned in an alleged will forgery, and was admitted to bail. The case has not yet been tried. The Board of Guardians, after full consideration of the circumstances, decided to retain Mr. Cooke in his position pending the trial, and the Local Government Board have not considered it necessary to interfere with the decision of the Guardians.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the cases of Robert Crawford and Francis Hill, boys aged 14, and repeatedly referred to as "children" by the Judge who sentenced them, condemned by Lord Deas, at the Glasgow December Circuit, to five years penal servitude for the thefts of letters; and, whether, taking into consideration the tender age of the prisoners, and the fact that Lord Deas stated, as his reason for pronouncing so heavy a sentence, that the Law did not permit him to award a lighter one, he will consider the propriety of mitigating the punishment?

In reply to my hon. Friend, I have to say that it was so obvious that penal servitude was altogether inappropriate punishment for children of those tender years, that I directed at once that they should be kept in ordinary imprisonment until I could communicate with the Judges. I have done so, and have arranged that they should be released after a period of six months of ordinary imprisonment.

asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, If he will inform the House on what principle certain lands are held to be town parks under the Land Law Act, thereby excluding the tenants of those lands from the benefits of that measure; whether it is possible, in defining a town park, to determine what is a town; whether lands adjacent to villages or small places having no town board or other local public authority, and with a population of less than 3,000 persons, ought to be included in the category of town parks; and, whether the Government intend to propose any amendment of the Land Law Act for the purpose of removing the uncertainty in which the Law in respect of this matter is involved?

In reply to the first inquiry in this Question, four conditions must be fulfilled in order that a holding should be a town park within the 2nd sub-section of the 58th section of the Land Act of 1881. (1.) It must be of that character which is ordinarily termed a town park. (2.) It must adjoin or be near a city or town. (3.) It must bear an increased value as accommodation land above its ordinary letting value if occupied as a farm. (4.) It must be occupied by a person residing in the city or town or its suburbs for the accommodation of his residence there. In reply to the second inquiry, what constitutes a town within the Act is a circumstance to be determined by the facts of each case; and I doubt whether a hard-and-fast definition would not be open to considerable difficulty. In reply to the third inquiry, if the town is under Commissioners or other municipal body, there is no difficulty in concluding that it is a town within the Act; but calling a place a town will not make it a town, and, as a general rule, I should say that holdings adjoining or near villages or small places are not town parks within the Act. As a matter of opinion merely, I should doubt the prudence of a statutory definition that no place is a town if its population does not exceed 2,999, which is, I take it, the gist of this inquiry. As to the last inquiry, it is a matter of policy, and should be addressed to the Prime Mi- nister; but, so far as I have seen, the Act is working smoothly in this respect. The small holdings adjoining the city of Limerick, some of which are within the borough boundary, were held not to be town parks, because they did not answer the whole four conditions I have mentioned; and in another place the attempt to turn a village into a town, by getting up a market or fair, so as to call the adjoining holdings town parks, and exclude them from the Act, was rejected by the Sub-Commissioners, who held that, by such contrivance, the place did not become a town, or the holdings town parks.

said, he was very much obliged to the Attorney General for Ireland for the answer he had given; and he would now give Notice that, if the opportunity presented itself on Monday, he would call attention to the subject.

asked if it was not a fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had been unable last year to give any Return of the exact amount of acreage in Ireland covered by town parks?

said, such was the case. They had tried to get the Return, but found it was impracticable to do so.

asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, If he has any objection to laying upon the Table copies of the warrants issued against the senior and junior Members for Queen's County, and the Member for Wexford Borough, under the Coercion Act?

Sir, I am informed that there is no warrant against the senior Member for the Queen's County. With reference to the rest of the Question, the copies asked for cannot be given.

I think, Sir, I have a right to ask, as a matter of Privilege, whether Her Majesty's Government have thought fit to issue a warrant for my apprehension? I think I can ask this as a matter of Privilege; because, as a Member of this House, it is necessary that both me and my constituents should know whether I am at liberty to proceed to the county which I represent in this House for the purpose of addressing them, and of obtaining from them an expression of their feelings on any subject before the House. I wish to ask you, Sir, whether I have not the right to put this Question as a matter of Privilege; and whether the refusal of the Government to answer it would not be a breach of the Privilege of this House?

I consider the Question proposed to be put by the hon. Member is governed by the same Rule as other Questions put to Ministers of the Crown.

I do not understand that, practically, any answer was given to the Question of my hon. Friend.

It must be obvious to the hon. Member that an answer cannot be forced from a Minister; and that if a Minister thinks that, in the interests of the Public Service, no answer should be given to a particular Question, he has a right to refuse to give one.

I consider it of very great moment to my constituents that I should endeavour to obtain an answer from the Government on this point, and to put myself in Order I will conclude with a Motion. I am sorry that this question has been, to a certain extent, sprung upon me, for I did not anticipate that the answer my hon. Friend had received would be given; but, under the circumstances, I think I am justified in interrupting the course of Business this afternoon until I have obtained some statement from the Government as to whether I am at liberty to go to my constituents as every Member of this House goes to his. I have reason to believe that there was a warrant issued against me in Ireland, and I received an intimation of it only a few nights ago.

Allow me to explain that the Question that the hon. Member put was one which involved what he wanted to know. ["Order, order!"] What is out of Order? The hon. Member asked whether he could have a copy of a particular warrant. I merely told him he could not have a copy. Of course, the warrant must have existed or there could not have been a copy.

Then, Sir, I would ask what that warrant is, and what is the charge which is brought by Her Majesty's Government against me? I care not what that charge may be—I am prepared to meet it anywhere—and if Her Majesty's Government say that any charge can be preferred against me only in Ireland, and can be tried by law in Ireland, I am perfectly prepared to abide by the verdict of an English jury if any such similar charge shall be brought against mo in England. On my return from Ireland some months ago there was, as I am informed on good authority, a warrant issued for my apprehension in England by the Home Secretary, or the Home Office; and I am assured that warrant was in the hands of the police in Scotland Yard for some time. I had an inkling of something of the sort at the time, and I accordingly returned from Paris to London, at great inconvenience to myself, to give the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary, or those who act with him, an opportunity, if they thought fit, of arresting me. I remained in London for some time, at great inconvenience to myself, in order to afford the Government an opportunity of arresting me. I was anxious that they should do so, and for this reason. I knew if they did so they would be obliged to do what they are not obliged to do in Ireland—substantiate that charge, if they could, before a jury of 12 men; and I was not only willing, but anxious, to go before a jury and abide by the decision of any 12 men with whom the Government might pack a jury-box. I knew a jury would be obliged to acquit me of any charge that might be brought against me; and I knew also that if I were acquitted the whole foundation of misrepresentation on which the Government had obtained the Coercion Act from this House would fall through. It would have been proved that there was not sufficient evidence of treasonable practice on the part of any of those who had been arrested under the Act, and there would then have been no justification for the further detention of the three Members of Parliament and the 500 other persons who are in prison. Now, the Government has been challenged to say what charge they have thought fit to bring against me in Ireland. They dare not state it. They know they have no ground whatever for charging me with treasonable practices; and, therefore, in the face of this House, I challenge them to proceed against me by any means in their power. I am perfectly willing to go over to Ireland to-night if they will guarantee that they will proceed against me in Ireland and bring me to trial. If they accept that challenge, well and good; we shall see what sort of case they are able to make against me or against anyone in Ireland. If they refuse the challenge, then I impeach them for double dealing. I say they are utterly unfit for the position they occupy; and I say the people of Ireland will be perfectly justified in maintaining their present opinion—namely, that every charge on which these 500 men and more are imprisoned in Ireland is a false charge, known to be false by those who have signed the warrants. I beg to move the adjournment of the House.

, in seconding the Motion, expressed his astonishment at the answer which the Government had given. He had asked for copies of the warrants issued against himself and his hon. Friends, and the Attorney General for Ireland had informed the House that he could not lay copies on the Table; but he (Mr. Healy) supposed they only contained the usual charges that A induced B to intimidate C not to pay his rent to D. What injury could be done to the Public Service by allowing those warrants to be produced? He was surprised at the want of candour shown by the Government in refusing to satisfy the legitimate curiosity of those against whom charges were brought. The Easter Recess would be upon them in a few weeks, and it was part of the Constitutional procedure of Members of the House to go down to their constituents and take the opportunity of addressing them on public affairs. He was desirous, as he had intended to do, to visit his constituency in Ireland, and to address it on various matters of public interest; and he was anxious to know what precise charge the Government had against him in the pigeon holes of Dublin Castle. He was in London when Mr. Parnell was arrested, and he took the train to Holy-head; but he was met as he was going to the steamer by a messenger from Mr. Parnell, who told him not to go to Ireland. He should be perfectly happy to be in Kilmainham; as far as he was personally concerned he did not care a row of pins whether he was in gaol or in the House of Commons. What he did conceive, in the interests of the public, was that it was an important matter that they, the Constitutional Representatives of the Irish people, should be deprived of the opportunity of going before their constituencies and consulting with them on the various important matters that came before the House. There was a Constitutional crisis before the House just now, and there were other important Constitutional matters which it was desirable that they should discuss with their constituents. In these circumstances, they were entitled to ask what was the precise nature of the charge against them. He could hardly think that the Attorney General for Ireland had conceived the importance of this question, and that he had asked the opinion of his Colleagues with regard to it. He had given the answer furnished him from Dublin Castle. He should, therefore, on a future date, renew the Question to the Attorney General for Ireland, in order that he might have the opportunity of consulting his Colleagues; and he (Mr. Healy) would ask him whether Members of that House, in the exercise of their Constitutional duty, who might desire to go before their constituents during the Recess, were to be subjected to the provisions of the Coercion Act by the right hon. and learned Gentleman?

I rise to take notice of what I understood the hon. Member for Queen's County to say. He was under the impression that there had been some warrant in existence in England affecting him of which the Home Office and the police had cognizance. [Mr. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: So I was informed.] The hon. Member has been misinformed on that subject. I have no cognizance of anything of the kind; it is the first time I have heard of anything of the sort; I have no cognizance of any proceeding in. England against the hon. Member.

said, he hoped a distinct answer would be given to the serious Constitutional question that had been raised, and in which he was personally greatly concerned. During the past Recess he was anxious to address his constituents. A Member of the House, an unflinching supporter of the Government, aware of his wish to go to Ireland, advised him not to go, and said—"If you go Forster is sure to arrest you." He replied that the arrest, if made, would be due to personal pique, and the answer was—" In the present state of the country the House of Commons could not enter into the question; it would be quite sufficient if we were told that you were arrested for reasons of State." Not exactly wishing to be incarcerated during the cold weather in Kilmainham, he abstained from visiting Ireland. He believed discretion to be the better part of valour, and thought that even a unit in the House might be of importance in administering blows against the coercive and unconstitutional Executive in Ireland. Were the Representatives of the Irish people to be prevented from addressing their constituents during the Easter Recess by a covert threat that if they did they would be arrested and put in Kilmainham Gaol, while the Chief Secretary went with armed escorts to the West of Ireland? He had a natural objection to detention under any circumstances, and more especially under "reasonable suspicion," for Dublin Castle had "reasonable suspicion" of every honest man, and of every man who had the courage of his opinions. He thought it behaved independent Members on both sides of the House, in addition to the Irish Members, to ask the Government and the Prime Minister whether he would, with the authority of his high station, tell them that they were safe to go to Ireland, and that if they went to Ireland now, they would not be arrested because of the "reasonable suspicion" of the Chief Secretary? He believed that every Irish Member who had not eternal hostility to the present Irish Administration was unfit to represent an Irish constituency; and he believed, further, that no Irish Member could go to Ireland at the present moment, except at the risk of the "reasonable suspicion" of Dublin Castle. He hoped the Prime Minister would avail himself of this opportunity and challenge to make some statements as to the position occupied by Irish Members in the view of the Government.

I accept the challenge of the hon. Member who has just sat down. I am sorry I can only accept it to the extent of stating on my responsibility that no further information on the subject of the Question can, or will, be given. The tendency of this conversation appears to me to lead towards the setting up of some description of privilege or immunity for Members of Parliament, as compared with the rest of Her Majesty's subjects—either an immunity—an absolute immunity—from being made the subject of a warrant under the Protection of Person and Property Act, or else having an immunity to this extent—that if a warrant should be issued against a Member of Parliament, and from any circumstance it should not take effect, that warrant may be called for, and produced, and made a matter of public and Parliamentary cognizance, although no such thing could take place in the case of any other less favoured individual, not being a Member of Parliament. Now, Sir, we are not prepared to accede to any proposition, or to give an answer to any Question in the direction of setting up such an immunity; and in so doing I apprehend we are giving effect to the clear intention of the House. I have not had time since I took my place on this Bench to refer to debates on that Act, when it was a Bill under discussion in this House; but, according to the clear recollection of myself and of my Friends near me, we did debate this very question, whether there was to be an immunity of any kind on the part of Members of Parliament, and the judgment of the House was—and the Bill was framed on that judgment—that they were to stand in the eye of that law, as in the eye of other laws, in precisely the same position as the remainder of the subjects of Her Majesty. I have never heard of any claim made upon the Government to state whether there is a warrant out against A B or C D, not being Members of Parliament, and whether such warrant can be produced, which is the challenge now made. [Mr. HEALY: I have raised the question.] Well, that has escaped my memory; I do not doubt the correctness of what the hon. Member says; but I think he will bear me out in my saying that not the slightest concession has been made to that claim. Consequently, the statement he has just now made is confirmatory of what I have been saying, and shows the consistency of the former proceedings and their conformity with the letter and spirit of the law, and obliges me to adhere to the declaration with which I commenced—that, whatever course natural courtesy may dictate to my right hon. and learned Friend, we are not able to enter further upon this matter, or to give any more information with regard to it.

said, he did not propose to discuss with the Prime Minister the question of the immunity of Members of Parliament, although he believed there were some immunities given by law which distinguished a Member of Parliament from any ordinary member of the community. As regarded this question of arrest, there ought not to be any distinction whatever in favour of any class. He would not claim for a Member of Parliament any immunity under the law which he could not also claim for the very humblest of his countrymen. He would suggest to his hon. Friend the Member for the Queen's County (Mr. A. O'Connor), although he had that day made to that House a most manly and straightforward statement, that it would be as well for him not to enter into any compact whatever with the Government. He would suggest to him, and, indeed, to all his hon. Friends near him, that if they had business to transact in Ireland they should go to Ireland, without making any suggestion or offering any compact to the Government. It was perfectly certain that no amount of consciousness on a man's own part of his innocence of all conspiracy, or of his want of sympathy with crime, could save him from the chance of a warrant issued under the Coercion Act; just as no clear consciousness in a man's own mind that he was not guilty of any conspiracy could save that man from being denounced in that House again and again by the Prime Minister as a conspirator. He would therefore advise his hon. Friends to take those two liabilities as part of the difficulties and responsibilities which were attached to an Irish Member of Parliament now, and to go across to Ireland and to return from it when business made that necessary, with, a manifestation of total indifference as to what Her Majesty's Government might do.

said, he was not in the least surprised that Her Majesty's Government had refused to lay those warrants on the Table of the House. The reason of their refusal was perfectly simple. It was this—that if those warrants were laid before the House the Members concerned would have an opportunity of defending themselves, which was the ordinary right of any accused person. It was much more convenient for the Government not to produce those warrants. It would be much more convenient that they should first arrest the person, and then, with his mouth closed so that he could not defend himself, they would be perfectly safe from having their statements challenged or refuted. The Irish. Law Officers of the Crown could then come into that House and try the person they had imprisoned, behind his back. They would make cowardly charges against him; they would make charges which were extravagant and absurd. They would tell the House, as he had heard them allege, that this prisoner and that prisoner, whose mouth they had shut, was steeped to his lips in treason. Gentlemen opposite were not ashamed to come before an assembly of English Gentlemen and make such, serious charges against absent men, having first taken care they should not have any opportunity of defence. Was that what was called "English fair play? "Would it not rather be English fair play to give a man an opportunity of saying what he could in his defence? But there was not to be any fair play shown to the Irish people. Throw a man into gaol, shut his mouth, prevent him communicating with his friends, and then charge him with being steeped to the lips in treason. And how were those charges made out? By a system of giving meanings to language which that language did not bear. By a system of "reading between the lines." By attempting to establish a connection between a perfectly harmless and legal speech delivered in one place, and some outrages committed in another. If they were to be treated by that system, he wondered how any one of Her Majesty's Ministers would stand a similar ordeal. They had the Solicitor General for Ireland defending himself last night against accusations based upon speeches which he made during his election campaign. He said—"I did not mean this, I did not mean that." He denied that he said some of the things imputed to him, or that what he did say bore the meaning put upon it. Suppose they tried him on the system which the Government had adopted towards the Irish. Members—of reading between the lines, and saying "meaning thereby"—how would he stand? They did not care, because they could defend themselves, and could not be put into Kilmainham. But the balance of power might vary some day, and then how would they like their successors to say to them "meaning thereby?" He protested against the unfairness, the unmanliness, the cowardice—if he was in Order in saying so—of this system of treatment which, was dealt out to Irishmen. That was justice! That was what the Irish people were expected to have regard for. That was what was dignified in Ireland by the name of the law of the land. If the law of the land was an outrage upon justice and reason little wonder was it that the Irish people had no respect for the so-called law of the land.

said, he rose for the purpose of suggesting to the hon. Member for Queen's County that he might now withdraw his Motion for the adjournment of the House. Hon. Members in all parts of the House, whatever their political opinions, would agree that his hon. Friend the Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) had acted perfectly within his right in putting his Question; and natural feeling and public right were on the side of his hon. Friend the Member for Queen's County when he endeavoured to obtain an answer to the Question which he put. Nothing could have been more natural than that Question, or more manly than the challenge which he laid before the Government. It was a strange and sad commentary on Liberal rule that they must listen in that House to talk from Ministers about immunity and special rights and privileges in connection with the Question put by an hon. Member—" Have you a charge against me? If you have, what is it? and will you put me on my trial before a jury? "The man who made that statement was to be taunted by the Prime Minister with having claimed special immunities! The Irish. Members in that House claimed no immunity, and asked for none. They were willing to take all the risks and perils of their situation. They were willing to stand upon perfectly equal ground with the rest of their countrymen. They would accept that situation, he believed, with a self-respectful silence, so far as they were individually concerned; and they would not, by any complaints, or by any opportunities for such speeches as that which they had just heard from the Prime Minister, endeavour in the eyes of ignorant English public opinion to diminish the heavy and crushing burden of shame which laid upon their shoulders. The Question asked was, would the warrants be placed upon the Table? The reason he asked his hon. Friend to withdraw his Motion was, that even if the warrants were laid upon the Table he would know very little more than he knew now. The hon. Member for Wexford wanted to see one warrant, the hon. Member for Queen's County wanted to see another. He was in a position to state that one of the subordinate officers of the right hon. Gentleman came into his bedroom and gave him two warrants; and he could also state, after studying the two, his stock of legal, or political, or personal knowledge was not very much increased. This he could certainly say—that they contained charges, one of which he knew to be preposterous. And when those charges came up for substantiation, even though they were supported by the lurid eloquence of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, they could not command the attention of the House. He could assure the House, from personal experience, that the warrants of the right hon. Gentleman told nothing. He wished his hon. Friend, therefore, would withdraw his Motion, and give up his chase after this "Will-o'-the-Wisp" in the shape of Government warrants, which explained nothing, which contained nothing clear or intelligible, which only threw into legal phraseology the hateful policy of suspicion and silence, under which the liberties of the Irish people had been abolished.

said, he concluded with a Motion for Adjournment simply to put himself in Order. He did not wish to press his Motion to a division; but he wished to say that he knew perfectly well there was a warrant issued for him, and that in that warrant he was charged as being reasonably suspected of treasonable practices. That was a false charge. He knew there was such a warrant, because those who held it made themselves known to the servant at the hotel where he was stopping, which hotel the police searched in order to find him. Their search was not complete, and he remained in blissful ignorance of what was going on until the search was over. As soon as he knew there was a warrant, he sent word to some friends who were in Dublin at the time. He made every arrangement for his removal to Kilmainham; and after he had settled in the hotel whatever Land League business he could on the spur of the moment, he went into Sackville Street with his hon. Friend the Member for Roscommon (Mr. O'Kelly), who was now in Kilmainham. Somehow, he did not know why, he was not arrested. He had at that time an appointment in Kilmainham, and he kept that appointment. In the meantime, between that and his return from Kilmainham, his friends had come to the decision it was much better for their purposes that he should remove himself from Ireland, and continue to do the work he had in hand, because, of course, it would have been impossible for him to carry of that work had he been put into Kilmainham. That was the whole explanation of his removal from Ireland at that time. The charge which the Government thought fit to make and to sign in that warrant was a false charge; and he was anxious, if it were possible, to have that charge brought against him in England. If it was brought against him in this country, and he was tried and found guilty, the result would be that he would be liable to imprisonment with hard labour for 15 years. The result of his being arrested in Ireland under the Coercion Act would be imprisonment, without hard labour, for some months. Therefore, in inviting the Government to take proceedings against him in this country—and he challenged them with every word and taunt which he could command to induce them to take such action—he was not endeavouring, the House would perceive, to escape the most unpleasant consequences of his action. But if the Government were not prepared to bring him to trial, or to state what the charge was which they had hanging over him, they were acting a cowardly part, and the charge against him must be a false charge. He believed those individuals who put it forward were conscious it was false; and if he knew any language sufficiently strong to drive the Government, either through exasperation or shame, into taking action against him, he would use that language. As it was, he wished the Government to understand that he thoroughly defied them. He begged to withdraw his Motion for Adjournment.

asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, If it is a fact that a girl named Bourke, twelve years of age, was assaulted recently in the village of Cappamore, county Limerick, by a sub-constable, who, because she was singing "Harvey Duff," drew his bayonet and inflicted a wound upon her, fracturing her skull and endangering her life; and, whether the child is still in a precarious state; and what steps he will take in the matter?

This constable was arrested, brought before a magistrate, and committed on remand; and as the facts must be investigated in the ordinary way, in the prosecution which is pending, I cannot anticipate them. I am glad to be able to say that the girl has considerably recovered, and is daily improving. During her illness her parents, who are poor, receive a weekly allowance from Government by the Chief Secretary's direction, and medical attendance has also been provided for the girl.

asked, whether the constable was in custody?

Yes.

asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, If it is true that nine persons in the neighbourhood of Hook, county Wexford, were arrested under the Lord Lieutenant's warrant yesterday; that several of the persons arrested are mere boys, under seventeen years of age; and upon what grounds were the arrests made?

Yes; these persons have been arrested in the district referred to, on the grounds of reasonable suspicion of intimidation. None of them are under 17 years of age. One is 22, two are 19, and the rest are upwards of 30 years of age.

asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, On what grounds Messrs. John King and Thomas Winterscale are still detained in Galway Prison as suspects, whereas three other prisoners, arrested at the same time and on the same charge, have long since been released from custody; and, whether it is true that these two prisoners have been detained for more than nine months; and, if so, whether they may not now be liberated without detriment to public peace and tranquillity?

These two persons have been in detention more than nine months. Their cases were considered, as the Act requires, and so recently as last month; but His Excellency felt himself unable, after careful investigation, to order their discharge.

asked the honourable Member for Truro, When the Metropolitan Board of Works propose to proceed with the Charing Cross and Tottenham Court Road Improvement; and what is the reason of the delay in proceeding with it during the past five years?

The Metropolitan Board of Works have been prevented from carrying out the improvement from Charing Cross to Tottenham Court Road by the extreme and unprecedented stringency of the 33rd section of the Metropolitan Street Improvements Act, 1877, which relates to the provision of accommodation for the labouring classes to be displaced; but, under special arrangements with the Secretary of State, the Board are now engaged, and are far advanced, in the purchase of property in Newport Market which will be required for the improvement, and in respect of which the Board some time since received an official intimation from the Secretary of State that, notwithstanding the terms of the 33rd section, the Board would be permitted to clear the ground with a view to letting it for the purpose of the erection of labourers' dwellings. Until, however, Parliament has taken into consideration how far the provisions of the 33rd section can be revised, I am unable to say whether it will be within the power of the Board to complete this and other improvements. I would add that the Act passed in 1877 authorized the Board to carry out no less than 11 improvements, some of them of an extensive character; and, with the exception of the Western improvements and the widening of Gray's Inn Lane, the Board have already given full effect to the powers conferred by that Act.

asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether the late appointments of Assistant Commissioners under "The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881," have been for the term of one year only; and, if so, under what rule such appointments have been made?

The appointments of Assistant Commissioners under the Land Act of 1881, since the Rule of the 9th of November, 1881, which has been presented to Parliament, are for one year.

asked whether the valuators had been appointed for one year or by the job?

said, he could not giver the hon. Member any information on that subject.

asked, Whether there is any objection to lay upon the Table Copies of the instruments of delegation to the Sub-Commissioners issued under Rule 18 of the Rules made in pursuance of "The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881."

No, Sir; there is no objection to lay the Copies asked for on the Table.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Trade, Whether he intends to introduce the Thames River Bill this Session?

, in reply, said, that it was intended to embody certain of the provisions of the Bill of last Session in a Bill to be brought in this Session, which would embrace those points in which the hon. Member was most interested—namely, those relating to steam launches.

asked the honourable Member for Forfarshire, Whether, in view of the strong feeling entertained in favour of the amendment of the Law of Distraint, he will remove the opposing Notice which he has placed against the Distress Amendment Bill.

said, the Distress Amendment Bill, referred to in the Question of the hon. Baronet, continued to the landlord the right to seize the property of third parties in satisfaction of his rent; and it did not, in his opinion, in any respect improve the position of the tenant. The changes or proposals did not seem to him any amendment of the law; and he was sorry he could not withdraw the Notice of Opposition given.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to a presentment made by the grand jury at the Central Criminal Court, having reference to the frequency of brutal outrages, which they attribute to the leniency of the sentences inflicted by magistrates for such offences; and what stops, if any, he proposes to take to give effect to the representations of the grand jury?

, in reply, said, the document to which the Question referred reached the Home Office that morning; but as he had been out of town all day he had not yet seen it. He might say, however, it would be most carefully examined and considered.

T wish to ask the Government, Whether they can afford the House any further information with regard to the late atrocious attempt upon Her Majesty's life, and also with regard to Her Majesty's health?

In answer to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's Question, I do not know that I can add any material facts to those which I stated last night. It is very desirable, of course, that anybody in a responsible position should not state anything that has not been distinctly proved in evidence as yet. The state of the case at present is this. By my desire the Solicitor to the Treasury attended this morning at Windsor in order to conduct the prosecution and the inquiry in this case; and Sir James Ingham, the senior magistrate at Bow Street, has also gone to Windsor in order to give his great experience and assistance to the local magistrates in conducting the case. The prisoner was remanded in order that further and fuller evidence should be obtained, and to give time for considering the charge which will be preferred against the prisoner. That is the actual legal situation with reference to the prisoner. The only other fact that I think I can properly mention now is, that this morning the bullet which had been discharged from the pistol was found near the railway station. That, of course, is a material circumstance; but that is all that can with prudence be stated with reference to the facts that have come to our knowledge. With reference to the second Question of the right hon. Gentleman, I have to state that, having had the honour of having an audience of Her Majesty this morning, I am able to state that Her Majesty has not suffered in health from the atrocious circumstance of yesterday. I may be allowed to say that Her Majesty expressed her extreme satisfaction at the messages which have reached her from all parts of this country, and I may say from all parts of Europe, of congratulation and satisfaction at Her Majesty's escape.

asked Mr. Attorney General, If, with reference to the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Bill issued that morning, he will cause a statement to be made showing the changes introduced into this year's measure?

, in reply, said, he would be very glad to give private information to any hon. Member as to the changes; but he did not think it desirable to publish a statement of them.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether it is true that the Governor of Gibraltar has broken into the Roman Catholic Church at that place with the view of forcibly installing Dr. Canilla as Vicar Apostolic?

, in reply, said, he had received no information on the subject; but he believed that some difficulty did exist in Gibraltar with regard to the installation of the Vicar Apostolic.

, in rising to move—

"That this House, deeply deploring the persecution and outrages to which the Jews have been subjected in portions of the Russian Empire, trusts that Her Majesty's Government will find means, either alone or in conjunction with other Great Powers, of using their good offices with the Government of His Majesty the Czar to prevent the recurrence of similar acts of violence,"

said: Sir, I feel the grave responsibility which attaches to me, inasmuch as I have taken upon myself to plead the cause of 3,500,000 of human beings, so persecuted and ill-used that their cries for help and sympathy could never reach the ears of generous Christian men and women, were they not re-echoed by those who, like myself, live under a free and enlightened rule. I should not have ventured to undertake this responsibility had I not been convinced that justice and right are on my side. In pleading their cause I am strengthened by a knowledge of the fact that I am following the precedent of the illustrious statesman at the head of the Government when he, some years ago, with that power, vigour, and eloquence for which he is so pre-eminently distinguished, pleaded, with no uncertain sound, the cause of the oppressed Bulgarians. I trust I shall be able to approach this subject without any tinge of Party feeling, for it is a question not of one Party or of the other, but one which affects the humanity which is common to all. If the House will allow me, I will read an extract from a speech of the Prime Minister at Blackheath in 1876. I do not, however, plead that as a justification of the course I am now taking. The right hon. Gentleman said—

"It is idle to deny or to depreciate the character of this movement. It is absurd to say that it emanates from a political Party. I rejoice that, with scarcely an exception, both Parties are animated by the same sentiments as those which animate this meeting. I rejoice to think that I have heard in the House of Commons, and out of the House of Commons, many a voice from those who profess Conservative opinions, as sincere, as zealous, as energetic as anyone can be; for they feel that this question has a breadth, and a height, and a depth which carry it far out of the lower region of Party differences, and establishes it on the grounds, not of a political Party, not of English nationality, not of Christian faith, but on the greatest and broadest grounds of all—the grounds of our common humanity."

Sir, I feel convinced that if I endeavour to tread in the footsteps of the illustrious statesman, and follow the lines he has laid down, I shall not be accused of using this question for Party purposes. In this great and charitable England, scarcely a month passes that we do not read of a fund initiated by the Chief Magistrate of London, and generously supported by rich and poor, in aid of suffering humanity in our own or distant climes—humanity, stricken down by illness, famine, or accident. We can, however, find but solitary examples of the appeal which now daily greets us in the Press—an appeal for the suffering and persecuted Jews of Russia—a cry for help from man stricken down by his fellow-man. The appeal which was made in England on behalf of the Bulgarians was made in the same spirit of generosity as that with which this appeal and this plea is made. I do not wish to draw any distinction between the two cases; but, if a comparison be made, I think that the persecution of the Russian Jews appeals still more to the sympathies of Europe than did that of the Bulgarians. It must be remembered that the Bulgarian atrocities—much as I deplore them—took place at a time when the whole country was in a semi-state of war—[Sir GEORGE CAMPBELL: No, no!]—and that they were committed by savage and undisciplined troops. But the atrocities on the Russian Jews were perpetrated in the midst of a nation claiming to be a Great Power and a civilized and Christian State. They took place, moreover, not in the fields, as did the Bulgarian outrages, but in the capital towns of that country. And they were not committed by savage troops; but the soldiery who ought to have defended the inoffensive citizens actually connived at what was taking place. I must say that it was with a feeling of deep regret that I heard the Prime Minister state the other night that he could not grant an evening for the discussion of this question. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has the same sympathies as we all have. His whole political career proves how deeply he sympathizes with oppressed nationalities. I am sorry that some Government night has not been given to me for this discussion; but by a lucky accident I have secured to-night. I have no hesitation as to the course I have adopted, for the Prime Minister himself some years ago approved of the action of the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight in bringing forward the question of the Bulgarians under precisely similar circumstances. The right hon. Gentleman, on that occasion, said—

"Five attempts had been made to penetrate the mystery of the official mind, and, after a sixth and a seventh had failed, the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight brought up the subject for discussion. I believe that the voices of Members on both sides of the House will be raised in support of humanity and justice."

I trust those words of the Prime Minister will be realized on this occasion-Certain statements have been put forward by the Russian Government in de- fence—if defence there can be—of the atrocities that have been committed. I think it will be well that the English public should know that those statements are mere subterfuges. The whole history of the question shows unmistakably that the worst element in that persecution was religious fanaticism. In 1817 the State Papers Nos. 1, 2, and 3 showed that the Emperor Alexander had promised perfect liberty to the Jews in Russia provided they became converted. There could not be a better proof than that that the persecutions to which the Jews have been subjected have originated in their desire to retain their ancient faith. In fact, that is their only crime. But General Ignatieff's Rescript of the 3rd September, 1881, under which Commissions have been appointed with a view to imposing further disabilities on the Jews, alleges, in justification of this course, that they are guilty of very serious crimes, and that they follow nefarious callings. I deny the truth of that. There probably are some out of 3,500,000 who may follow nefarious callings; but many of those who do, do so from necessity rather than from inclination. The truth is that the effect of the Ukase of 1827 has been to force the Jews into all sorts of callings they would not voluntarily have accepted. They are forbidden to traffic in the interior of Russia, they are not allowed to sell in shops or at their lodgings, nor to hawk about wares, to open workshops, nor to take apprentices in any department of trade whatever. The action of the Russian Government towards the Jews could not be better described than in the words used by Macaulay, when he made his speech in favour of removing the Jewish disabilities—

"Bigots never fail to plead in justification of persecution the vices which persecution has engendered."

With regard to the outrages, I will give the House the figures. I believe I am understating rather than overstating them. Two hundred and one women have been violated, 56 Jews killed, 70 wounded, 20,000 rendered homeless, and £16,000,000 worth of property wrecked. No words of mine can so clearly set before the world the infamous character of the outrages at which the Russian Government have connived. As regards the Consular Reports of these atrocities, I will venture to say that I have never seen any official documents so unsatisfactory as they are. The House will see the inaccuracy of the Consular Reports from this—that whereas the bulk of the outrages took place in various outlying districts, the information respecting them almost invariably came from St. Petersburg. I fully admit that Consuls, as a rule, are extremely worthy servants of the Crown; but they are surrounded by officials of the country in which they reside, and, to a great extent, are obliged to modify their real views. In fact, our Consuls in Russia could not exist for six months in the positions they now occupy were they to put in their Reports all they know. The House will remember the case of Mr. Mitchell at St. Petersburg, who had to leave that city because his Reports were unpleasant to the Russian Government. The Consular accounts, therefore, are absolutely and totally unreliable, being nothing more than hearsay reports of what took place, gathered many hundreds of miles from the seat of the outrages themselves. Such Reports ought not to weigh beside the statements of eye witnesses and actual sufferers which have appeared in the newspapers and elsewhere. The Jews cannot, indeed, pay a sufficient tribute to the Press, both Liberal and Conservative, for having brought before the eyes of England and the eyes of the whole world these atrocious outrages. It is probable that had the Press not taken the matter up in the way it has done many of the outrages would never have been heard of, and these Consular Reports would have been received without contradiction. I may refer particularly to the refutation of the Consular Reports which has appeared in The Times of this morning, and which shows them to be completely untrustworthy. The evidence there published completely refutes the statements which have been made by Consul General Stanley. In Kieff there were 22 women and three girls violated. The horrors, indeed, are so terrible that it is impossible for me to relate them in this House. Are they to be passed by without a word? We have been told that this is not a matter on which the House ought to express an opinion. But the country, from North to South, and from East to West, has expressed its abomination of these outrages; and are we not to be allowed to corroborate the opinion of our constituents? Should I shrink from asking the Representatives of the people in this House to express that which their constituents have already boldly and rightly expressed? Is the House of Commons to be muzzled? There is no man on this side or on the other side of the House who would not repudiate such a course. The Prime Minister cannot fear in this Motion any Party attack—[Mr. GLADSTONE: No, no!]—and I hope he will give me his support. I do not ask the Prime Minister to make a legal claim upon Russia—no such claim, of course, exists; but Russia has connived at what has happened; she is particeps criminis, and morally responsible for what has happened, because she might have interfered, but did not; and I ask the Prime Minister to make a representation—a representation in the true sense of the word—which will show the Russian Government, as far as possible, that these outrages have touched the hearts of the nations of Europe—and call upon it to use all the means it possesses to avert a recurrence of them. Such a representation cannot give offence. Surely greater offence would be given to a friendly Government if such things were known to another State, and nothing said by it. The highest authority on International Law, if any were wanted—Professor Bluntschli—in his work, Modern International Law of Civilized States, says—

"If the state of affairs in any country endangers the peace of Europe, or the action of such country threatens the security of the European States, or the sufferings of its population appear unbearable and unworthy of civilized Europe, such a condition is then no longer the exclusive affair of the particular country in question; but the collective European Powers are justified in urging remedial measures."

And the Prime Minister himself stated, in his pamphlet upon the Bulgarian atrocities—

"Now, there are states of affairs in which human sympathy refuses to he confined by the rules, necessarily limited and conventional, of International Law. If any Englishman doubts that such a case may really occur, let him remember the public excitement of this country nine months ago respecting the Slave Circular of the Government, and ask himself whether we model our Slave Circulars respecting runaways on the precise provisions of International Law."

The House has now to deal with something quite as terrible as the sufferings of fugitive slaves—to deal with horrors such as have rarely disgraced any country since the Middle Ages. It has to deal with outrages sufficient to make the blood run cold, outrages which showed no respect for the innocence of childhood, no respect for mothers, no respect for wives, no respect for old age, and which sacrificed everything to bestial lust and barbarism. If those do not come under the precedent laid down by the Prime Minister in his pamphlet, I do not know when we may expect a case to arise which will. A few months ago the right hon. Gentleman rose in his place, and, in the most telling words, appealed to the House to express its deep sympathy and condolence with the Imperial Family of Russia in the loss it had sustained. The right hon. Gentleman asked us not only to express this condolence, but to condemn the terrible outrage which resulted in the death of the Emperor. I know well enough the sincerity of those words; and I ask him now to rise in his place and express his sympathy with the injuries of those who, though not high born, are yet human beings; I ask him that that meed of sympathy should be accorded in no measured words. I do not believe he would extend sympathy to the murdered Emperor which he would not give to the murdered peasant. Such an expression as I desire from the Government would not bear any resemblance to Lord John Russell's remonstrances with the Russian Government for their treatment of the Poles. Those remonstrances were founded on Treaty rights and on Treaty guarantees, and a Government like Russia would clearly refuse to answer a remonstrance which resembled a threat. But if the Government have the will, they can easily find means of getting over the diplomatic difficulties which they say stand in their way, and might use their good offices with the Russian Government. Sir, if we are to be precluded from asserting sympathy with the oppressed and condemnation of the oppressor by a fear of offending the official susceptibilities of a friendly Power, or of stimulating the blind fanaticism of a brutal and ignorant mob, we should, by a parity of reasoning, observe a complacent silence if it pleased any nation to re-establish the Inquisition, and ourselves affect a virtuous indignation should some unborn Mary re-kindle the fires of Smithfield. It cannot be a mere question of degree, for some of these Russian outrages are as bad as any of the horrors of the Inquisition. It is our duty in regard to these Russian atrocities, which outrage all decency and humanity, not to shield ourselves behind the worthless Papers of Consuls, and say we cannot interfere with the internal affairs of other nations. I do not urge upon the Government any course that may involve the country in unpleasant relations with Russia; but the opponents of the Resolution will be offering the worst possible apology for Russia if they hold that she will not listen to the counsels of humanity. In this House frequent appeals have been made on behalf of suffering humanity in every part of the world; here the Slave Trade has been abolished; here the horrors of the Neapolitan dungeons have been exposed—[Mr. GLADSTONE: They were not brought before the House of Commons.]—here the Polish atrocities have been denounced; here religious liberty has ever been effectively asserted; and the spirit of the House will be sadly changed if the present appeal, made in all honesty and without a trace of Party feeling, be rejected. It will be sad if the few words which I have ventured to address to the Government should be useless. I beg the House, therefore, to adopt the more generous course, and I would remind them of the words with which one who was renowned alike for eloquence and for political virtue ended his address on the Slave Trade—

"Hear this, ye Senates, hear the truth sublime,

He who allows oppression shares the crime."

The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving his Resolution.

, in seconding the Resolution, said, that he was not at all desirous that the Government should suggest to the Russian Government the best method of managing their own internal affairs; but the subject, with all its sad and terrible incidents and painful characteristics, naturally excited deep feeling, and called forth the liveliest emotions of sympathy for a suffering and persecuted people. It must be borne in mind, however, that there was more than a slight distinction between the circumstances of these atrocities in Russia and the case of the Bulgarian atrocities which were denounced by the Prime Minister. In the case of Bulgaria this country was associated by Treaties and by strong ties of international policy with the Government of Turkey, and had largely spent the blood and treasure of the country in backing up Turkey, the author and perpetrator of those crimes. It behaved them, therefore, placed as they were in that position, to take some action; whereas, in the present case, no such relations existed between England and the Russian Government. The Empire of Russia was an independent Power in every sense, and any intervention or any representation which might be the outcome of the action taken in that House should be of the most delicate and cautious character. Certainly, he was not in favour of reckless interference with the affairs of foreign nations. The traditions and principles of the school in which he received his earliest political impressions were antagonistic to any policy of that description; and they would appeal in vain to the present Government to adopt any line so dangerous and fraught with so much possible mischief. But this debate would serve to elicit from those who had special information on the subject the whole truth in regard to these outrages; and it would add largely to the national sympathy which had found expression in almost every large town throughout the country. And why was it that that sympathy had been so strikingly manifested in relation to another nation? It was because the English people were bound up with the Jews in all the relations of life in the most intimate degree; and we all must admit that, as a race, they acquitted themselves in a manner which did them credit as citizens; and whether we regarded them as traders, or considered their accomplishments and high integrity, we could not help according to the Jews the highest position which it was possible for members of any community to occupy. He had the honour to represent a constituency in which a most important class of the community were composed of members of the Jewish race; and in their benevolence, their public spirit, their thorough equity of dealing, and in all their acts of citizenship, they were not excelled by the members of any other creed. It was clear, therefore, that when placed under just and fair conditions they behaved in the manner which gave strength and honour to a community; and it was only when subjected to shameful and unjust persecution that they developed those qualities of which their opponents made so much, but which were not characteristic of their race. Was it not fair to argue that if the Jews had been treated in Russia—as in other countries—such as England and France—they would have shown themselves an excellent people, as they had done in every other part of the globe? In Russia they were not allowed to dwell or travel in 24 out of the 80 Governments, and they were subject to various other vexatious disqualifications, the chief of which were that they might not hold landed property or leasehold estates, and might not employ any but Christian foremen in their businesses. It was alleged, in part extenuation of the treatment which they had received in Russia, that they occupied the position of usurers, and that they were of such grasping habits that they had produced a feeling of resentment which had culminated in these atrocious acts. It seemed to him that the accusation was a very feeble one indeed. If they were sober, thrifty, and industrious as compared with their neighbours, was it not hard that they should have to pay such a penalty for those qualities? It remained to be proved that the Jews in any part of Russia had done anything which contravened the law; and, if not, whatever their habits might be, they were clearly entitled to be protected by the law. His hon. Friend had borne testimony to the sufferings the Jewish race in Russia had undergone. It was sickening to reflect upon the crimes inflicted upon the women of a race whose women were renowned for their chastity. He did not think the purposes of the friends of the Russian Jews would be served by pushing the Government to any specific line of action, or that a division on the question would by any means promote the object they had in view. The Resolution, in fact, did not prescribe to the Government what they should do; and its supporters simply asked—and he thought it a very reasonable request—that if it should appear to the Government to be in any way possible for them to use their good offices with the Russian Government they would do so to the best of their ability. He trusted such an opportunity would soon occur, and that the Government would now give the House an assurance they would avail themselves of it. He hoped, at least, that the expression of opinion which he was sure would be elicited of deep sympathy with this suffering people would have the result of showing that the English heart still beat warmly for every oppressed nationality, without distinction of race or creed, and that they were specially concerned for a race so noble, and bound up with this country by so many ties of a strong and enduring character.

said, that he gave the hon. Gentleman opposite (Baron Henry de Worms) the credit for having acted with the best possible intentions, and for being actuated by the best motives; but he was bound to say that he considered the hon. Gentleman had assumed an enormous responsibility in separating himself from other Gentlemen in the House, professing the Jewish religion, who were as deeply interested and concerned in this question as he could be. The hon. Gentleman had stated that he felt the weight of the responsibility in taking up the cause of 3,500,000 of human beings; but he thought that the hon. Gentleman had, in the course he had taken, jeopardized rather than aided the cause he had at heart. He (Mr. Serjeant Simon) had spent all his life, not now a short one, in advocating the claims to justice of his brothers in religion. During the 14 years he had sat in the House—the hon. Gentleman opposite had sat there but two years—it would be in the knowledge of most hon. Members that he had again and again felt it his duty to bring forward the claims of his brethren in different parts of the world, and that on no occasion had he done so without the approval of both sides of the House. He regretted, however, to have to dissent entirely from the hon. Member on the present occasion. If he had thought that the House of Commons, by pronouncing an opinion, or that Her Majesty's Government, by taking action, could have done the slightest good to his suffering brethren in Russia, he would not have waited for the hon. Member opposite to bring forward this Motion, but would have taken up the matter himself, as he had taken up Jewish matters before. He knew something of the ways of the House, and he ventured to point out the danger of the course which the House was about to enter upon, and how very fraught with mischief it might be to the very persons whom it was proposed to assist. There was one point in the speech of the hon. Gentleman with which he entirely concurred. It was not possible, he thought, for language to exaggerate the evils and the outrages to which the Jews of Russia had been subjected. As a Member of the Committee appointed to collect and investigate the evidence, he was able to say that there was evidence sufficient to substantiate every charge that had been brought against the Russian mobs; and he could not hold the authorities in Russia free from blame in the matter. They had had notice of what was about to happen, and in Warsaw they allowed the atrocities to go on for three days without interruption. He asserted, further, that the repressive and exclusive laws of the country had tended to degrade a section of the Jews; and the only wonder was that, under such laws, so few of them were addicted to the practices complained of. He had seen the evidence of many of the refugees who had come over to this country, and he was able to state that there was not a single usurer or dram seller among them; they were all artizans, working men, and agriculturists; those were the victims, not people who had been earning their living by usurious transactions. In his opinion, the matter was one that could not properly be discussed in that House. He asked hon. Gentlemen to take the Motion in their hands, and to read for Russia and the Jews some particular place in this Kingdom, and to suppose that the German Government had passed a Resolution, and had called upon His Imperial Majesty the Emperor of Germany to use his influence with Her Britannic Majesty to put a stop to outrages complained of, and to prevent their recurrence. What would have been thought of such a proceeding here? What would the House of Commons have said? What would the people of England have said? Why, there would have been an outburst of indignation from one end of the country to the other. Yet that was what the House was asked to invite Her Majesty's Government to do, with regard to the internal administration of another country. The Motion was a most unwise one, and, as such, he protested against it. If such a Motion were carried, it would establish a precedent that would be most fatal, and would seriously disturb the relations between the two countries. What right had this country to pass a Vote of Censure upon a Foreign Power? No precedent could be found in favour of such a course. It had been suggested by the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Slagg) that there was a distinction between this case and that of Bulgaria, and the hon. Member had disclaimed against the introduction into the question of any tinge of Party politics; but he (Mr. Serjeant Simon) must express his regret that he had introduced the Bulgarian Question, which had been a Party question. He protested, as an Israelite, against the hon. Gentleman dragging the unfortunate Jews and their sufferings before the House of Commons——

rose to Order. He had never made a Party question of the matter, and had stated so distinctly. He regretted that the hon. and learned Gentleman should have taken the opportunity of his temporary absence to say that he had done so.

said, that the hon. Member had said he did not make this a Party question; but he contended that the hon. Gentleman's zeal carried him away when he quoted the Bulgarian atrocities, and the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) respecting them. It appeared to him very much like a defiance hurled at the head of the Prime Minister. They had no Constitutional right or warrant in International Law to pass a Resolution of this kind; and, if passed, its first effect would be to stir up the angriest and the bitterest feelings against the Jews in Russia, whose condition was bad enough now, as the atrocities had not yet ceased. We ought to rejoice at the idea that, instead of setting one Government against the other and one nation against the other, we had at this moment a Government which was in friendly relations with the Russian Government. He believed that in the friendly relations of the two Governments would be found the best security for the future of the Jews in Russia; but if we assumed a tone of remonstrance, or asserted a right to dictate to Russia how she should govern her Jewish subjects, he believed that the first people who would suffer would be the Jews themselves. Let the House consider the mischief that this Motion might even now do. Pass the Resolution, and they would see at once what would follow—angry feelings between the two countries; or let it be withdrawn or rejected, and how would the matter stand? It would go forth to Russia that an appeal had been made to the House of Commons to express sympathy with the Jews, and that the House of Commons had refused its sympathy. Everyone knew that the Russian Press was not like the English Press—that it was not a free Press. The decision of the House of Commons would go forth as a refusal of the expression of its abhorrence of the atrocities which had been committed. There was no chance of a report of this debate reaching a Russian paper, the reasons would not be made known in Russia, and the Russian people would simply have the fact that the House of Commons had rejected the Motion. On the first day of the Session he addressed a Question to the Prime Minister, not for the purpose of inviting diplomatic interference, but in order to enable the right hon. Gentleman to dispel many false ideas which wore afloat in the Jewish community. There wore people who believed that Parliament could do anything, and that the Prime Minister could dictate his own will to Russia. Deeming it desirable that such false ideas should be dispelled, he asked the right hon. Gentleman whether it was possible for Her Majesty's Government in any manner to exercise its friendly influence with the Russian Government on behalf of the Jews. The right hon. Gentleman, in reply, expressed as a man the pain and horror with which he re- garded the treatment of the Jews in Russia; and he explained how detrimental it would be to the Jews themselves if the Government were to assume anything like diplomatic action on their behalf. On the same evening Lord Granville, in "another place," made a similar statement, pointing out the difficulty of diplomatic interference, and saying that he could make no promise even of private interference. Lord Granville was followed by Lord Salisbury; and he should have thought that the hon. Member for Greenwich would have paid some deference to the opinion of that statesman, who was now at the head of his Party. What did Lord Salisbury say? ["Order!"] He was not speaking of the House of Lords, but of "another place."

The hon. and learned Member is citing a speech made in the House of Lords, and has named the Peer who delivered it. He is clearly out of Order.

said, he should be sorry to commit a breach of the Rules of the House. Lord Salisbury expressed—["Order!"] He would not name him. A distinguished nobleman, making a speech on the subject, said he quite concurred with the noble Earl.

rose to Order. The hon. and learned Member was now citing a passage verbatim from a speech delivered in the other House.

said, he was citing the statement of a distinguished nobleman, who said he quite concurred with the noble Earl that official, and even unofficial, representations in matters of this kind were of doubtful utility. That was said by the Head of the Party to which the hon. Member for Greenwich owed allegiance. He further said—

"If in the discussion of this subject or at any meetings those who represent in this country the political Party to which I belong have thought it, on the whole, better not to make a prominent appearance, it is because we have been actuated by much the same feelings as those which guide the noble Earl. We were afraid that the motive for our interference might be mistaken, and that this, which is a question of pure humanity, might be mixed up with others which are purely political questions; and we thought it better, on the whole, that the voice of the people of England should be heard in some less official form than it can receive within the walls of this building."—[3 Hansard, cclxvi. 229.]

The noble Peer to whom he was referring, then, not only endorsed the views of Lord Granville and the Prime Minister, but he went further—he thought that even unofficial representations were unadvisable, and he deprecated anything being said or done within the walls of Parliament, lest it might assume an official character. Therefore, he thought hon. Members opposite would not consider he was taking an extraordinary course if he deprecated such a discussion as they had to-night. It was, he should have thought, the very A, B, C of International Law that one independent country should not interfere with the internal affairs of another country; and, notwithstanding the precedents which had been cited, he ventured to say, without fear of contradiction, that there was not in political and international history a single precedent to justify this Motion. He hoped the House would consider that on a subject of this kind his opinion was entitled to some consideration. He did not think that the hon. Member was supported by any amount of Jewish opinion outside the House. On the contrary, persons of position in the Jewish community, to whose opinion weight ought to be attached, did not wish this subject to be brought forward. Numerous applications had been made to him as to the desirability of getting up a requisition, requesting the hon. Member not to proceed in the course he had adopted. He trusted that the House, having regard not only to the considerations to which he had alluded, but to what he believed was the real opinion of the Jewish community in this country, would not accede to the Motion.

I think, Sir, in the state of opinion which prevails, especially among the Members of the Jewish community in this House, and considering the very difficult circumstances in which they find themselves placed, it will be advantageous that I should take an early opportunity of saying something on the part of the Government. And, Sir, with regard to the hon. Gentleman opposite, I assure him that I entirely acquit him—indeed, he does not need any acquittal—of being actuated by that Party feeling which he has laboriously disclaimed. Every word of his speech was conceived in a manner which, whether I might regret its having been delivered or not, proved, I think, that it flowed direct from his heart. On the other hand, I must say that I think there is very great force in what has been said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dews-bury (Mr. Serjeant Simon). It is not, I think, possible for the House, wisely or usefully, to adopt a Motion of this kind. On the contrary, I go the whole length of my hon. and learned Friend, and I am firmly convinced that its adoption would be positively injurious to the interests of those in whose behalf it is brought forward. But, on the other hand, the negativing or the withdrawal of such a Motion does place us, as my hon. and learned Friend has said, in a position which may be misunderstood. When the result only is known without the discussion and the explanations that have taken place, it does place us in the position of being liable to what would certainly be gross misapprehension—namely, that we do not feel deeply on behalf of those whom the hon. Gentleman represents. The hon. Gentleman says that the Consular Reports are, in his view, no evidence. I am not surprised if, on an occasion of this kind, which appeals very directly to the feelings of all men, and most of all to those connected with the particular religion of the sufferers—I am not surprised if some exaggeration here and there should creep into the views that they take of some of those cases. I am not prepared, Sir—though I will not enter into details—I am not prepared to admit, and I have no reason to believe, that these Consular Reports, which are made by responsible men of character and ability, deserve the epithet which has been applied to them. At the same time, I enter into no details—it is not necessary to do so—as to the accuracy of this statement or of that. Again, I am bound to say, Sir, that I am not prepared to assert or to impute connivance to the Russian Government. On the contrary, I am bound to believe—and I know of no reason which would disincline me to believe—that the Emperor of Russia and his Government regard these outrages with the same feelings as we contemplate them ourselves. Whether or not, as stated by my hon. Friend, the zeal of the subordinate and intermediate agents between the Supreme Government at the seat of power and the sufferers, who ought to be the active agents of authority in preventing outrage, has slackened, or even in certain cases turned into connivance and satisfaction, that is a matter upon which I do not think it would be advantageous for me to enter. There can be no doubt that deeds which are terrible and atrocious have been committed on a scale which, whether it be the largest that is supposed by some—or the most contracted that is alleged by others—still constitutes a dreadful and terrible fact in the history of any country, and of the civilization of mankind. That is quite enough to say, so far as the statements of the hon. Gentleman are concerned; but I may be permitted to add, what I think we must all feel, that if we are in this place an Assembly almost uniformly professing Christianity, and if we as Christians believe, as we do believe, that it has been part of the office and effect of Christianity to establish a new and a far higher standard of civilization and humanity, then we must also feel that those deeds, so far as they have been done, being done by Christians, are more guilty, and not less guilty, than if they had been done by persons not professing that religion. Now, Sir, that is all that I intend to say, and all that my duty, I think, permits me to say, upon the nature of those dreadful occurrences to which this Motion refers. But I am bound to say that it is not from discussions of this kind that the full information can be obtained which my hon. Friend who seconded the Motion seemed to anticipate. Her Majesty's Government is not in possession of full information on the subject. Moreover, it is not possible that they could be in possession of such full information. They have not that international title which alone could warrant them in employing agents for the purpose of obtaining a competent knowledge and command of facts. I agree with the hon. Gentleman opposite, that there are cases for which the stipulations of International Law do not adequately provide. I can easily appreciate the views of those who think that when great outrages are committed under the impulse of popular fury, such a case has arisen as can hardly be regarded according to the strict views of International Law. I can agree with my hon. Friend again in the compliment he has paid to the Press on this occasion. The function of the Press is to awaken public opinion without official responsibility. It is quite evident that those by whom the Press is worked enjoy immense advantages on an occasion of this kind; because there is a chance, or at least a hope, that their representations may be judged according to their merits, and may escape the odious imputation of being due to national jealousy and a desire for unwarrantable interference. But the hon. Member must, I think, observe that there is no possible form in which this House could make an Address to the Crown upon a subject of this kind which would not lead to mischief. It is true that the words "good offices" are capable of a wide signification. It is quite true, also, that a judicious representative of the British Crown may have useful opportunities of touching upon subjects of this kind, and that it is his duty to make use of such opportunities; but, Sir, they must be wholly and entirely detached from all public, diplomatic, and Parliamentary action. The House cannot move in this matter without a serious risk of doing mischief. Those outrages which have occurred are due to popular fury and prejudice; and you must leave the responsible governors of the country to deal with it as they best can, without the intervention of a Government not based upon any international title. The fact of our being a party in the case would be certain to cause a strong reaction, not merely in the minds of those who have committed the outrages, but likewise on the part of a much larger number, who, while, perhaps, not sympathizing with the outrages themselves, yet are jealously averse to anything that may seem like an invasion of national independence. So you run the risk of bringing into the field against you those whose natural place is not to be among the approvers of these misdeeds. The hon. Gentleman has done me the honour to refer to conduct of mine in another contingency, which he thinks more or less resembles this. My conduct in the case of Bulgaria, I believe myself, was not based upon Party spirit, for at the time my proceedings commenced I really did not believe there was any difference of feeling between the two great Parties in the country on the subject. It may have been right, or it may have been wrong; but it was based upon a conviction of a most distinct character, which upon every occasion I was careful to state. It was this—that we had, by the Crimean War and the Peace of Paris, deprived the subject races in Turkey of the benefits which previously they were entitled to expect and to claim from the intervention of Russia on their behalf, that right of Russia to intervene being founded upon a previous Treaty between us and Turkey. We destroyed it for the sake of the general peace and security of Europe. I always contended, from the time of the Peace of Paris, and at the time of the Peace of Paris Lord Palmerston admitted, that we could not possibly divest ourselves of the responsibility which had previously been the responsibility of the Russian Government, and which, in consequence of the Crimean War, became a European responsibility and a European right. That was the ground upon which the whole of my argument and proceedings were founded. It may have been right, or it may have been wrong; but it is impossible for it to be alleged in the present case. The hon. Gentleman has referred to the case of Poland. There was a case in which there was something in the nature of a European title to intervene and remonstrate; but I am bound to say that our remonstrances, although joined in by the other Powers of Europe, were a total and absolute failure. What amount of harm they did I am not able to say; but good, unquestionably, they did not do in the smallest degree. The hon. Member, by a not unnatural error, following upon some statement which he may have read in a public journal, supposed that I appealed to this House with regard to the great mischiefs, the terrible mischiefs—though of a totally different character—that at one time prevailed in the Kingdom of Naples. Sir, I most carefully and studiously avoided any illusion to public authority, any appeal of a hostile kind on that subject. Lord Aberdeen, united as he was with me in friendship and affection, and being possessed of great influence over Continental Governments, did me the great favour to endeavour through the Austrian Government to give friendly effect to my remonstrances and statements; and when he entirely failed, as I think, in that purpose, my appeal was made, not to any Govern- ment, not to the House of Commons—never did I say one word in this House on the subject—but it was made entirely to the public opinion of Europe through the medium of the Press, to which the hon. Gentleman has, on this occasion, paid a just compliment. I apologize to the House for mixing so small a matter as the rules of my own previous conduct with an important matter of this kind. The matter is undoubtedly important; and I hope the impression will not go forth that this question is viewed in any portion of this House, or in any portion of this country, with indifference. I believe, however, we should be most unwise if we led the Russian Government to suppose that we looked upon that Government as sympathizing with the perpetrators of these outrages. On the contrary, I hope the Russian Government will believe that we give them credit for every desire to put down and to prevent conduct which is a disgrace to civilization and humanity; and that the Russian Government will rather be encouraged by the assurance of our sympathy to use more and more vigorous efforts for the purpose of securing that great end. Such is the course I believe it wise and necessary for us to pursue. I do not found myself on the question of strict right; I will not say how far the strict rights of human nature might warrant us in going, if you mean by those strict rights the right of remonstrating and of expressing indignation against terrible misdeeds. But I say we shall be mistaken if we place the question on the ground of strict right. That which I wish to look to is that to which my hon. and learned Friend has addressed himself. Can we, by a Motion of this kind, do good to the persons for whom we wish to procure benefit? Do we not, on the contrary, run the most serious risk—nay, almost incur the certainty—of doing mischief by creating a re-action unfavourable to their interests? That is the ground on which I entreat the hon. Gentleman and the House to believe we act when we decline to become parties to any action of the House of Commons for such a purpose. On the former occasions, to which reference has been made, both my noble Friend (Earl Granville) and myself have been careful to point out the only mode in which we believed, on favourable opportunity, friendly counsel might be given with regard to matters of this kind. Anything beyond that will tend to defeat its own purpose. It is not because we disapprove of the purpose, not because we do not sympathize with the purpose, not because we undervalue its importance, but because we believe that an injudicious step will tend absolutely to defeat it, that I hope that this Motion will not be pressed on the attention of the House.

I think the language of the Prime Minister is in conformity with that which we should expect from him. No one can doubt, after what he has said, that he and his Colleagues share completely in the feelings which all Englishmen must have as to the terrible stories which have come to us respecting the sufferings and the persecution of the Jews in Russia. I must say I regretted to hear such language as was used by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Serjeant Simon). When I reflect upon the many occasions on which the hon. and learned Gentleman, in the course of the last Parliament, pressed upon the late Government the claims of the Jewish population in Roumania, for instance, and used to urge upon us the duty and the necessity of taking strong measures for the purpose of procuring their protection, I own I did not expect to have heard the language which the hon. and learned Gentleman applied to my hon. Friend behind me (Baron Henry do Worms). Whether my hon. Friend is, or is not, taking the best course for the purpose of obtaining that which he desires, some interposition which may diminish the sufferings of his co-religionists, at least anybody would admit that it is with the purest feelings of humanity, and with the most natural feelings, which we must all respect, that he has brought forward this case, and that he has done so with absolute freedom from anything like Party spirit. The hon. and learned Gentleman comes up and tells us we must not compare this case with that of the Bulgarian outrages, because they were brought forward in a Party spirit. In saying this, it was, I think, an admission for which the right hon. Gentleman would not thank him——

rose to Order He had not, he remarked, said that the Bulgarian case was brought forward as a Party question. His statement was that the hon. Gentleman had referred to Bulgaria in a Party spirit.

My non. Friend referred to the Bulgarian case for the purpose of justifying himself in what he was doing by the authority of the Prime Minister, who, as he was willing to believe, and who, as he stated to the House, called attention to the outrages and atrocities in Bulgaria, not at all in a Party spirit, but because he believed it was a duty he owed to humanity. The Prime Minister now has endorsed that view, and has entirely justified my hon. Friend in the spirit in which he has referred to that case. The Prime Minister distinguishes between the two cases, and it may or may not be a just distinction which he draws; but certainly the spirit in which my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich has brought this subject forward is distinctly and entirely apart from anything in the nature of a Party move. I feel, and I think the House must feel, the very great delicacy of the position in which the House is placed. Everybody, I presume, shares in the feelings of horror and disgust at the stories which have reached us, and which, I am afraid, it is hardly possible to doubt are substantially correct. Everybody feels, and everybody desires, if it be possible, to relieve in some way the sufferings which are being endured. The question is—how can we best take steps to accomplish that object? I was sorry, and rather surprised, to hear something said in opposition to the properly-worded suggestion of the Prime Minister; we are assured by the Prime Minister—we all feel convinced it must be so—that the Russian Government could have no sympathy with, could have no toleration for, could have no other feeling than that of indignant anger and grief at the injuries which have been perpetrated in some portions of their dominions. But it is said that there are places in which the Government may be powerless to stop that which is going on, or places in which the agents of the Government are, perhaps, countenancing, or rather not restraining, or doing worse, without the knowledge of the Imperial Government itself. If that be the case, does it not seem reasonable that any information Her Majesty's Government might obtain from their Consuls, and which might refer to the conduct of subordinates that would otherwise be kept from the knowledge of the Imperial Government, might be communicated to the Russian Government, which, if thus made aware of what is going on, might take measures to restrain or control its agents? It seems to me that it might very possibly be of advantage to those who are sufferers that any communications which Her Majesty's Government may have received, and which they can rely upon, should be placed in such manner as would, at least in the most informal manner—my hon. Friend does not insist on any official interference—but should be placed in the most informal and most friendly manner before those who can make use of them. But it is said that any interference, any remarks, any expression of sympathy with these people may cause them increase of suffering by provoking reactionary feelings of national independence on the part of Russia. That I hope is a slander on the Russian Government; I can hardly believe that such an argument would be tolerated by it. What is the position in which we stand? Undoubtedly there have been many cases in which the Government of this country has more or less officially called attention to, or taken steps to endeavour to mitigate, the sufferings of the peoples of other countries. We are told it depends a good deal upon our actual relations—our claims to speak in consequence of Treaty rights. I scarcely know how that was possible in the case of Roumania; I am not aware that there was any Treaty right in that case. In the case of Naples, we are told that though nothing was done in the House, yet some kind of friendly influence was used to bring about a mitigation of the sufferings of the people. Now, let me ask the Prime Minister, is the thing worthy of consideration? You have in one of the latest of great international settlements of Europe, the Treaty of Berlin, an Article in reference to the protection of the Armenian subjects of Turkey. Russia is a party to the Treaty; and suppose you had occasion to call on the Turkish Government to take steps for the improvement of the condition of its Armenian subjects, what would be the position in which Russia would be placed if it could be retorted—"You are speaking for the benefit of the Arme- nians; but look what is being done to your Jewish subjects in your own dominions." It would weaken the effect of an European remonstrance on behalf of Armenia if one of the parties to the Treaty giving the right to remonstrate was open to such a retort as that. I cannot help thinking that without asking for anything in the nature of official interference, or anything in the way of remonstrances that would give offence, it might be possible—and if possible it would certainly be most desirable—for Her Majesty's Government to take some step which would serve to mitigate the condition of these unfortunate sufferers. The right hon. Gentleman says there is great inconvenience in any course which may be suggested with that object. There may be inconvenience—in fact, the situation is one so terrible that it is almost impossible to touch it without meeting something in the nature of inconvenience. But what I am quite sure of is this—that my hon. Friend has brought the matter forward with no kind of object of embarrassing Her Majesty's Government in the slightest degree, but with the sole and simple end of endeavouring to do good to those whose cause he was pleading; he has acted, as he told us in the beginning of his speech, under a very considerable sense of responsibility; but he entirely subordinated the mode of proceeding to the great object that he had in view; and if he receives from the Government any encouragement to believe that this matter is one on which they will be prepared to do whatever upon reflection seems to them to be possible, he would, I am sure, be the last man to desire to bring about the appearance of discord in this House by pressing such a Motion to a division. But it should be distinctly understood that the Government entirely recognize the spirit in which the Motion has been brought forward, and are prepared, as far as may be possible, and in such a way as they may find by their own experience to be the best, to do anything they can for the mitigation of such great sufferings. I know I have correctly described the spirit in which my hon. Friend brought forward his Motion; and I earnestly trust that it may be found possible, consistently with the object which he has in view, to prevent anything in the nature of a hostile vote.

said, seeing the nature of the question, he thought it better not to put contrary views on the accuracy of the parables which had been drawn between the conduct of the Government in Opposition and the conduct of the Government when not in Opposition. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had re-asserted his convictions with regard to the motives that actuated him upon the Bulgarian Question; and, although on his mind it was still vivid, or appeared to be vivid, that the right hon. Gentleman drew a broad distinction between atrocities practised upon Christians and atrocities practised upon Mussulmans, on principle he still thought that it was the nature of the right hon. Gentleman to devote himself with undivided zeal to one side of the question, and the earnestness with which he devoted himself to its contemplation had a tendency to prevent him from realizing all that was concerned on the other side. He (Mr. O'Donnell) need not say that he most warmly and earnestly sympathized with the hon. Member for Greenwich in bringing1 forward this subject. As a member of the Catholic community, he was perfectly certain that he expressed the feelings of the entire Catholic community in Great Britain and Ireland in assuring the hon. Member for Greenwich of the cordial sympathy of all his co-religionists. The Head of the Catholic Church in this Kingdom had already, in a manner far beyond his power to emulate, given expression to his deep and warm sympathy with the persecuted Jews. But while expressing his very deep sympathy with the object which the hon. Member for Greenwich had in view, he (Mr. O'Donnell) could not but see that this Resolution was divisible into two parts; that one part of this Resolution proposed that they should express their sympathy, and that the other suggested that the British Government should enter upon a course of remonstrance with the Russian Government for the protection of the Jews in Russia. With the first part of the Resolution he entirely agreed; but when the hon. Member for Greenwich asked them to initiate a movement of remonstrance with the Russian Government, he might say frankly that he did not think, in the first place, that there was much in the character of the British Government to entitle it to any special moral respect at the hands of the Russian Government when they had to deal with the ill-treatment of subject populations. This was not a subject with which he wished to deal at any length; but, if he were disposed, he could easily show that there was not a disability inflicted upon the Jews in Russia which was not at this moment inflicted upon vastly larger masses of Her Majesty's subjects in one part or another of the British Empire; and the times had been when infamies hardly inferior to those perpetrated on the Jews of Russia had been committed in Jamaica, in India, and in Ireland by persons who, if not actual agents, were suspiciously like agents of the British Government of the day. The first consideration, therefore, to be kept in view on an occasion like the present was whether any official remonstrance, such as that now suggested on behalf of the suffering Jews, would be calculated to benefit or to injure those whom it was intended to serve. It might elicit a retaliatory despatch intimating that the British Government was at times more addicted to preaching than to practising all the Commandments. When, moreover, it was borne in mind that popular feeling in Russia was directed almost as strongly against the English as against the Teutonic race, he thought Her Majesty's Government ought to hesitate, out of regard for the interests of the Russian Jews alone, to assume the part of their special protectors. Not only might they expose themselves to a sharp tu quoque despatch from the Russian Chancellerie with no practical alternative but quietly to pocket the affront, but it would increase the unpopularity of the Jewish race in Russia if it was supposed to be covered by the œgis of England. A moral remonstrance on behalf of the Russian Jews from the Liberal Government would have no backbone behind it; and he strongly suspected that even a Conservative Ministry would think twice before picking a quarrel with Russia in such a matter. That question having, however, been raised in the House, it would be worse than a lame and impotent conclusion if the House either abstained from expressing any opinion upon it or rejected the Motion of the hon. Member for Greenwich. He thought there was abundant power in the hands of the Jews to put down such outrages as these. He could not but remember that in the hands of the Jews themselves rested the control of the Money Markets of the world; and, so long as that was the fact, a Government like Russia must depend largely upon the favour of the rulers of the Money Market. Of course, there might be no objection on the part of the British Government to remonstrate with a weak Government; and he hoped those on the Government side of the House who saw the immense difficulties of Governmental remonstrances with a strong Government would recognize the advisability of recording some emphatic declaration of their sympathy with the persecuted Jews, and their abhorrence of the cruelty with which they had been treated.

said, that there were two questions which they had to consider. The principal question, perhaps, was, whether the course which his hon. Friend had invited the House to take was likely to conduce to the benefit of the Jews in Russia? But there was also another question—namely, whether that course was or was not consistent with precedents, with International Law, and with the usage and the dignity of the House? He need hardly say that he sympathized with the sufferings of his co-religionists in Russia. He had done his best to assist the efforts of the Russian Jewish Committee, presided over by his hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir Nathaniel de Rothschild). It ought to be observed that his hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich did not bring forward his Motion with the sanction of that Committee. His hon. Friend brought it forward in opposition to the wishes of every Member of the Jewish persuasion in the House, with the exception of himself. They believed that the adoption of this Motion would seriously endanger and prejudice the position of their coreligionists in Russia. Public meetings had been held all over the country, in which men of all classes, creeds, and Parties joined, and to which our two great Universities of Oxford and Cambridge had given the weight of their influence and co-operation. They had expressed their detestation of those outrages, and declared that if Russia wished to retain the respect of England she must perform the primary duty of a civilized country—she must afford protection to all her citizens alike, without distinction of race or creed. He be- lieved that nothing within the walls of Parliament could add to the effect produced by that remarkable manifestation of public feeling and opinion; and was afraid that much might take place here that would mar the good effect which had already been so produced, which might needlessly irritate the Russian Government, and still further excite the resentment and animosity of the Russian people against those 3,500,000 Jews dispersed over the Empire, who were now so completely at the mercy of the Russians. But he altogether declined to consider this question solely with reference to the interests of the Russian Jews. As an Englishman and as a Member of Parliament, he felt bound to take special care that his feelings and sympathies did not lead him to support any Motion which was inconsistent with precedent, with international usage, or with the dignity of Parliament. It appeared to him that there were only three cases in which it was proper for Parliament or the Government to protest against the conduct of a Foreign Government with reference to its own subjects. These cases were—first, where England became a party to a Treaty which guarded the interests of a people subject to a Foreign Government; secondly, where England was bound by the conditions of a Treaty, or by a regard to her own interests, to protect the independence of another foreign country; and, thirdly, where a Government instigated or actively encouraged atrocities of a very flagrant character. In this last case humanity and civilization might compel the Government to protest; but even in this case no protest ought to be made unless the Government were ready to follow it up by act or deed. Unless it could be followed up by act or deed, it was sure to impair the dignity and weaken the influence of the Government and of Parliament; and it was likely to injure, delude, and deceive the people on whose behalf it was made. As far as he could judge, there was no evidence proving that the Russian Government had instigated those persecutions. [Baron HENRY DE WORMS: Oh, oh!] If the Russian Government were, in fact, guilty of the political crime apparently now imputed to it by the hon. Member, then it seemed to him that the Motion he had brought forward was singularly feeble and inadequate. In such a case the House, if it took any action, could, in his opinion, do nothing less than call upon Her Majesty's Government to make use of the European Concert and formally protest against persecution and outrages which were a disgrace to civilization. There was, however, in his opinion, no sufficient proof justifying this House to prefer so grave a charge against the Russian Government. Under the se circumstances, the Motion before the House was inopportune and inexpedient. For his own part, he felt sure that the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister, who had both taken so active a part in the political emancipation of the Jews of this country, would exert all their influence with the Russian Government with a view of improving the position of the Jews in the Empire of Russia. For these reasons, he should feel it his duty to withhold his support from the Motion before the House.

said, he thought that this was a subject which it was desirable the House should approach with as much unanimity as possible. The more unanimous they were on that occasion the more powerful would be the result of the very interesting discussion they had had that evening. He was quite certain that when the remarks of his hon. Friend were published and known throughout this country and the world, they would carry with them universal sympathy. Practically, he thought that the House was unanimous upon the merits of this question. It would, therefore, be a most deplorable thing if for any reason the value of that unanimity should be lessoned. His right hon. Friend (Sir Stafford Northcote) had invited Her Majesty's Government to say a little more than had fallen from the Prime Minister; and it was hoped that before the debate closed the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs would be in a position to give that additional assurance, or at least clear up what was obscure in the words of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government. He was quite sure that his hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich would think that his object had been attained, and would be willing to withdraw his Motion, if the hon. Baronet could inform the House that this subject of the Jews would receive the attention of English diplomatists abroad, and that those who represented Eng- land in foreign countries would bring it to the notice of the Governments to which they were respectively accredited. He did not ask the Government to make any promise; all he asked them to do was to lay down the proposition that this was a subject which English diplomatists could bring before the notice of foreign Governments. If that were so, their diplomatists would, no doubt, take the opportunity, whenever a good one arose, of bringing the subject to the notice of Foreign Governments. He hoped the hon. Baronet would be able to give that assurance, that he would go that length, which was certainly not one much further than an influential Member of the Government in "another place "had gone. Under such circumstances he should advise his hon. Friend to withdraw his Motion.

said, nothing could be further from his wish than to introduce into this debate anything which had, in the slightest degree, a Party aspect. But he was glad the subject had been brought forward, for that great and free Parliament had ever been the chosen arena in which were debated questions which touched the cause of freedom, the interests of humanity, and the immunity of oppressed races from unjust persecution. In his opinion, the greatest object to be attained by the present discussion was the emphatic expression of the undoubtedly unanimous opinion of the people of this country on the subject. He hoped that Her Majesty's Government would be prepared, consistently with the limitations laid down by the Prime Minister, to put in motion that wise, judicious, and, it might be, quiet, unpretending action of her trusted agents to which the right hon. Gentleman had alluded. He j trusted that no result detrimental to the interests of the Jews would follow from the debate; and that the feeling attributed by the Prime Minister to the Emperor of Russia might insure a cordial reception of those delicate and prudent suggestions which he hoped would be made. He felt that, in one respect, the Jews occupied a position which gave them a special claim on their sympathy, and demanded the exercise of whatever influence they might rightly be able to use on their behalf. He would not speak of their great interest as Christian men in the Jewish race and religion, or of the debt of gratitude which the world owed to that remarkable people. The Jews had no localized nationality, no Government that could speak in their name, or appeal in the name of humanity to the various nations for better treatment and greater enjoyment of personal freedom; and on that account he thought they had a right to expect that England, who had! always been foremost in the promotion of freedom in every country, should especially speak on their behalf. He trusted that this debate would have the effect of placing before the public of Europe a j temperate expression of sympathy with the Jewish people in their affliction dissociated from all trace of Party feeling.

said, that he could no longer defer rising to answer the appeal that had been made to him by hon. Members opposite. It was quite impossible for Her Majesty's Government to go beyond the ground that they had taken up in reference to this subject on former occasions. As the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bourke) had referred to the words which had been used on behalf of the Government in "another place" in relation to this question, he now begged to repeat them for the information of the House. They were as follows:—

"If we apply this rule to ourselves, it is perfectly impossible to apply another rule to other countries; and, even putting aside the question of right, I believe that nothing would be more inexpedient than to do so. We should either irritate the foreign Governments or weaken them with regard to their own subjects in dealing with the question. It has been strongly suggested, by some who acknowledge that diplomatic interference would be a mistake, that we should privately and confidentially use our influence on this point. Now, I imagine that no person placed in the position which I happen to occupy would not avail himself of any proper opportunity, when it was likely to have effect, to refer in an unofficial manner to any subject that affects the good of humanity or the friendly relations between the two countries, although the question might not be properly one for diplomatic interference. But I beg to point out that if such a Minister were either to boast he had done so, or publicly promise he would do so, it would at once entirely change the character of unofficial and private communications, which sometimes, though not always, may be of the greatest value."—[3 Hansard, cclxvi. 227.]

Those were the views which were expressed on this subject on behalf of Her Majesty's Government in "another place" on a former occasion, and Her Majesty's Government saw no reason for departing from them now. He trusted that that language would commend itself to those who supported this Motion, because it had fully satisfied the Representatives of the same Party in "another place." Having made those remarks, he should not have further trespassed upon the attention of the House had it not been for the fact that in the course of the very able speech of the Mover of the Amendment there were some reflections made upon the character of the Consular Reports which might have been omitted. The hon. Member spoke of those Reports as being worthless Papers, that the information they contained was untrustworthy, having been founded upon hearsay evidence picked up at St. Petersburg. Those were very strong expressions for the hon. Member to have used with regard to those Reports; and he could assure the House that the charges they contained were not well founded. It was perfectly true that the outrages were only at first referred to in the very brief telegrams that had been received from their Consular Agents in Russia, and that the detailed Reports did not reach this country until several months afterwards. This delay in the forwarding of the Reports was inevitable, inasmuch as they had no Consular Representatives in those places where the worst outrages occurred. But when the hon. Member said that the information contained in those Reports was utterly untrustworthy, and was founded upon hearsay evidence picked up in St. Petersburg, he must say that he was mistaken. Thus Colonel Maude had been an eye-witness of the outrages at Warsaw, Consul General Stanley of those at Odessa, Vice Consul Lowe of those at Berdiansk, and Vice Consul Wagstaff of those at Nicolaieff, while Lieutenant Law, who had been their Vice Consul at St. Petersburg, had been sent all over Podolia, where the worst outrages had been committed. They had the evidence of four of their Consuls General or Vice Consuls who had been eye-witnesses of the outrages. The hon. Member was not justified in saying that those Reports were untrustworthy. Not only had Her Majesty's Government received Colonel Maude's Report, but its Members had also had the opportunity of speaking to him several times on the subject. With regard to the statement of the hon. Member that all persona in that House were of the same opinion as to the character of these outrages, he wished to point out that the Prime Minister, in reply to the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon), on February 9, had said—

"My hon. and learned Friend has called my attention to a subject to which no man of ordinary feeling can refer without sentiments of the utmost pain and horror;"

while that evening the right hon. Gentleman had referred to the outrages as "deeds which are terrible and atrocious," and as "deeds which are a disgrace to Christianity and humanity." He concurred with the hon. and learned Members for Southwark and Dewsbury (Mr. Cohen and Mr. Serjeant Simon), who spoke with great weight and authority as Representatives of the Jewish community, when they expressed the opinion that anything like serious representation by Her Majesty's Government to the Government of Russia on the subject would be more likely to do harm than good. He had certainly been rather surprised to hear the hon. Member opposite cite the instance of our interference in the cases of Roumania and of Bulgaria as being in point, because they were totally distinct from the present case. In the former case they were about to confer certain privileges upon the country; and in the latter they had Treaty rights which did not exist in the present case. But with regard to the general principles which should actuate a Government in making representations to a Foreign Power, he would merely refer to the view taken by Lord Derby when he held the Office of Conservative Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. He had then said—

"We must not suppose that in a day we can overcome the rooted prejudices of years. For my own part, I have great confidence, not so much in diplomatic representations, as in the pressure of general European opinion, which as nations come more and more into contact with each other is brought to bear on every community and people."

He need not endorse the eloquent words of the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Slagg) with regard to the position of the Jews in this country, and the opinion he had formed as to the beneficial effects of a policy of toleration in developing the full intellectual powers of the Jewish race. Her Majesty's Government had always expressed those views in the face of Europe; but there was a great difference between holding those views and interfering in the internal affairs of a foreign country. All the precedents of interference abroad had been precedents which it was not well to follow, for interference with Spain in 1848 had been severely attacked by the late Lord Beaconsfield; and it was now the general opinion of those who looked back to the time that their interference on that occasion somewhat justified the rebuff they received from the Government of Spain. It would also be remembered that their interference in Naples in 1858 was not productive of satisfactory results. It had been declared by the Representatives of the Jewish community of England—and in that declaration he himself agreed—that the acceptance of the Motion by Her Majesty's Government was not calculated, on the whole, to do any good to the suffering Jews in Russia; and he therefore hoped, after the assurance that had been given, that the hon. Gentleman would withdraw his Motion.

agreed to withdraw his Motion, on the assurance that the Government would do their utmost to make such representations as were possible within the lines laid down by a noble Lord in "another place;" and he ventured to hope that the expression of opinion they had heard that day, so far from doing harm, would, on the contrary, do good to the cause they all had at heart.

said, the tone of the Prime Minister's speech that night presented a remarkable contrast to that which he adopted four or five years ago in regard to outrages in another part of Europe. What were the facts? The State of Russia was one in which no expression of opinion, no Resolution, however forcible, that was passed by the House of Commons could be known to the Russian people except by the will and authorization of the Russian Government. A complete cloud of ignorance was spread over the whole of the Russian Empire; therefore the argument used by our Government, that a Resolution of this kind would do harm to the Jews, fell to the ground, unless they confessed that they were afraid that the Czar and his Ministers might be so wicked as deliberately to make use of such a Resolution in order to excite the population against the Jews. The Russian Government was a barbarous and unscrupulous one, just as the Russians were a barbarous and ignorant people. These atrocities were carried out with the connivance of high Russian officials, and with the Russian troops looking on. Indeed, in one case a Governor, who ought to have been held responsible and punished for them, was actually promoted. What was the position of the House with reference to this Resolution? He should be sorry if the hon. Member for Greenwich withdrew it, for if he did not mean to press it he ought not to have put it on the Paper. The hon. Member had ascertained the opinion of the Prime Minister on a previous occasion, and had been told that the Government considered that the Resolution would do harm to the Jews if it was brought forward. If the hon. Gentleman did divide, and hon. Gentlemen opposite voted against him, they would find hereafter that, so far as their constituencies were concerned, it was a most unfortunate step for them to take. He had already asked what was the position of the House of Commons with respect to this subject? They deplored these atrocities, and they saw that the Resolution did not propose to censure the Russian Government. It merely expressed horror at these outrages, which the Prime Minister stated the Russian Government itself deplored, although he (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) very much doubted it. The Resolution simply asked the Government to make representations to the Russian Government on the question at the time they thought proper and in the way they thought best. But let it be known that the House of Commons was not afraid to agree to a Resolution condemning atrocities which were a disgrace to humanity. What would the nation say? Why, it would be felt that the Government were afraid to make these official representations for fear if they made any representations to the Russian Government, the latter would reply to the Prime Minister—"Physician, healthy-self; how is it that you are pressing us to maintain order and peace, and to respect life and property, when in an integral portion of your own Empire you are unable to do the same within a distance of 400 or 500 miles of your Metropolis?" And, no doubt, the same retort might be made with reference to the action of the British Ministry as to the reforms in Armenia. So far as the argument of the Prime Mi- nister regarding the possible excitement amongst the Russian populace was concerned, the Russian populace were absolutely under the control of their Government—never more so than at the present moment—and they could not do anything without the permission of that Government; in short, the Russian Government could have prevented these outrages, could now prevent them, and could prevent them in the future were they so inclined. The fact was, however, that they rather wished these outrages to continue, in order to distract the attention of the people from considering the misdeeds of those who governed them. The Prime Minister evidently wished them to believe that the Czar of Russia was as desirous as they were that these outrages should be put an end to. But how was the Czar situated? He was virtually imprisoned; and he (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) doubted very much whether General Ignatieff allowed him to know very much of what was going on in his own Dominions. Even if he did, it is doubtful whether he would object, because he allowed atrocities of equal magnitude to be committed on vast numbers of his subjects. High Russian authorities had before now been cognizant of, and had looked on at, outrages as bad as those committed on these unfortunate Jews. The treatment of the Mussulmans by the Bulgarians and by the Russian troops was infamous yet these the Skobeleffs, the Todlebens, the Gourkas, and all their most famous Generals had witnessed, and in mid-winter Skobeleff had himself given the order to his destroying troops to fire upon and drive into the mountains a vast encampment of 80,000 men, women, and children, who perished there of cold and starvation. There were numerous similar cases in the late war between Russia and Turkey, and in Central Asia. In fact, it would be found that, for the last 100 years up to the present time, Russians, whether in high or low position, had never hesitated to exercise the most revolting cruelty on those who were unfortunate enough to fall under their power. It was vain, therefore, for the Prime Minister, in what might be termed his usual subterranean fashion, to throw in a word in favour of the Czar and the Russian Government, by declaring that this miserable persecution of the Jews was a fact which both the Czar and his Government deeply deplored, but were unable to put a stop to. He rather regretted the language that had been used by the hon. Member for Greenwich with respect to the Consular Reports from Russia. The position of an English Consul in that country was a very painful one. If he was a strictly conscientious man he could hardly remain there; if he was a needy and an easy-going man he might remain there, but he could not furnish full and true Reports. It was no secret that Lord Dufferin refused to remain at St. Petersburg because he would not consent to hoodwink Ms Government and the English people; for an English official in Russia must either remain with his eyes shut and return such Reports home as the Russian Government chose to give him, or he must leave his post. It was absolutely impossible for an English newspaper correspondent to stay in St. Petersburg, for after he had sent two or three letters to his paper his whereabouts was discovered, and he was either told to leave, or allowed to stay on condition that his letters should be viséd by the Russian authorities. As he had said before, the Russian people were kept in profound ignorance of everything that was going on; and until the English Government and the House of Commons recognized that fact, they would never succeed when they had any dealings with Russian Ministers. They could never persuade the Russian Government to do anything; but the influence of fear might be brought to bear upon them with advantage. General Skobeleff was recalled because they were afraid of the Germans and Austrians, although there was no doubt he went to France as the Russian Agent. The circumstances of the case changed, however, when M. Gambetta fell; the combination collapsed as soon as more moderate and abler men took the reins of power in France, and our Government had, from the same cause, found themselves in a great difficulty with regard to Egypt, Owing to the management of Prince Bismarck, Russia was for a time friendless in Europe.

The hon. Member is wandering very far from the Amendment before the House.

said, he thought that when the right hon. Gentleman saw his deduction he would consider his argument a fair one, as he was endeavouring to show that, at a moment when Russia was standing alone, England might, even single-handed, play upon her fears, and exercise a considerable amount of influence over her in favour of these suffering Jews. If this Motion was withdrawn, he was of opinion that the House would be placed in a very false position, as the country would think they were ready enough to bully Turkey in 1876, but were afraid to make an official representation to Russia, with reference to similar movements, in 1882. He did not believe that this Resolution, if passed, would do the Jews in Russia any harm; but if it did, it would show that the Russian Government were so barbarous that no Resolution passed by this or any other Parliament would have any effect upon them. It would have been far more creditable to the Prime Minister, after the savage language he had used towards the Turks, if he had taken some action in the matter; for the outrages that he had so bitterly complained of were not committed by the Turkish Government or by the Turkish authorities, but by the Bulgarian Christians upon the Bulgarian Mussulmans. He did not think that the attitude of the Prime Minister was consistent, or that it would redound to his credit or reputation in the country.

said, he was sorry the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett), with whom he generally sympathized, had not heard the last three speeches and the arrangement which had been come to. Had he been in the House he would hardly have made what might be called a general speech on the subject of Russia. He thought the hon. Member for Greenwich (Baron Henry de Worms) was perfectly entitled, from his position in reference to the Jewish community, to bring the question forward in the manner he had, and that it was most unhandsome on the part of some other Members of the same community in that House to object to his assuming the part he had taken in it. As Christians, they all owed the greatest debt to the Jews, who had, among other remarkable services, preserved the Sacred Scriptures; and he was glad to observe the kindly feeling shown by the hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who breathed the language of Lord Derby. He had no doubt the Government would take some opportunity of making unofficial remonstrances; and, if remonstrances failed, he believed there was yet in the country something of the spirit it displayed in the days of Cromwell, who, rebel as he was in England, and tyrant in Ireland, threatened that the thunder of England's cannon should be heard on the Tiber if the persecution of Protestants continued.

said, he felt that he should not be justified in allowing this debate to come to a conclusion without expressing condemnation of the language employed by the hon. Member for Eye towards a great and powerful State, between which and ourselves the most friendly relations continued to exist. During the years he had had a seat in the House, he could not call to mind utterances respecting any great friendly Power which pained him more than did these of the hon. Gentleman whose statements he had to complain of. He confessed that he listened with astonishment to his speech; and he asked himself how it was possible that any Member of this House in his representative capacity, how an educated Gentleman of any refinement, could so far forget himself as to have dared, he might say, to use such language? What had the hon. Member for Eye asserted? He told them in effect that the Czar of Russia, the great Ruler of 84,000,000 of people, was an assassin and a murderer, the slaughterer of his own subjects.

explained, that he had not said that the Czar was a murderer or an assassin. What he had said was that, considering the oppression which existed under the rule of the Czar, it would not create any surprise if he was more or less acquainted with the treatment of the Jews.

said, the hon. Member's explanation did not help him out of the difficulty, for he admitted having associated indirectly, if not directly, the Czar with the slaughter of his subjects, because an infuriated mob, blinded with drunken passion, had taken the lives of 56 poor, unoffending, and unprotected victims, as if such a miserable sacrifice were needed to sustain his authority; and he had also told them that the Government of Russia was a savage and a barbarous Government. [Mr. ASH- MEAD-BARTLETT: Hear, hear!] The hon. Member for Eye further said that the Government of Russia had lent themselves, if the Czar had not done it, to the incitement of outrages. [Mr. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Hear, hear!] It would be interesting to know whence the hon. Member for Eye had derived his information. He (Mr. Collins) had resided for many years in Russia, and had mixed in Russian society, from the highest almost to the lowest, and he would venture to say that the information of one who had resided in the country, and who knew its people, might be placed against that of the hon. Member, whose statements he confidently contraverted. In conclusion, he would venture to suggest to the hon. Member for Greenwich (Baron Henry de Worms) that it would be a graceful act on his part if, at the termination of the discussion he had initiated in so proper a spirit, he would withdraw the imputations he had placed upon the Government of Russia. One was to the effect that Russia had connived at these proceedings against the Jews. On another occasion he said that these infamous outrages were done with the connivance of the Russian Government. He thought the hon. Member would withdraw such imputations, and that such a withdrawal would be to the advantage of himself and his co-religionists in Russia.

reminded the House that if some Jews in Russia had fallen into the lowest occupations in life, as the hon. Member for Greenwich admitted, they had to contend with great persecution. He quoted the eloquent words of the late Sir Robert Peel on this point. Their degradation was the result of that persecution; and wherever, as in England, they were admitted to the privileges of the country in which they lived, they were always to be found among the best and most useful citizens in the State. The hon. Member had done very great service, not only to the community of which he was an honoured member, but to the cause of humanity at large, in bringing this matter before the House.

said, the Vote before the Committee was a very important one. It raised the question of the whole administration that up to this time had taken place in connection with the Land Act, and he need hardly say that a vast amount of criticism suggested itself upon almost every one of the items contained in the Vote. He had no desire whatever to raise anything like a prolonged debate upon any of these items; but he could not help noticing a fact, of which, however, they must all be aware, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, who must, from the nature of things, be most cognizant of the expenditure included in the Vote, was at present absent from the House. He (Mr. Gibson) was quite prepared to make his criticism in the absence of the right hon. Gentleman, and he was sure that the noble Lord the Financial Secretary, who was in charge of the Vote, and his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland, would give any explanations that were necessary; but if they were not able to enter into all the explanations that might be called for, he would suggest that some part of the Vote should be allowed to stand over until the return of the Chief Secretary. The first item in the Vote was a sum of £25,705 for Salaries and Allowances. He wished to know what estimate the Government had formed of the annual expense of administering the Irish Land Act, taking into account the salaries of the Commissioners, of the Assistant-Commissioners, and of the general staff? He was told that the figure which might be put down for that was not less than £100,000 a-year, or, at any rate, somewhere about that sum. He was not desirous of passing any carping criticism upon the expenditure for Salaries; but, at the same time, he thought it was not only desirable, but fair, that the Government should inform the Committee what amount of expense the whole of the Empire would be asked to bear for the administration of this Irish Act. He would put that question at once on the first item of the Vote; and then he should like to know what was the amount received in fees from the suitors who went into the Court? He believed, from the study he had been able to make of the Rules and Orders of the Court, that the figure required to be paid as a fee in the first instance was extremely low. Any person who was a suitor, on coming into the Court, was only called upon to pay a fee of 1s. for the originating notice, and for that he got everything he could require, and he was not asked to pay 1s. further, no matter what the result might be. He wished, therefore, to know what, taking one year with another, was expected to be the amount of the receipts by the Treasury from fees? Fees so low did not exist in any other part of the world. Perhaps this might be a convenient time for asking a question as to the office of the Head Commissioners. The Head Commissioners had charge of a very large staff. There was, in the first place, a Secretary, who had the substantial salary of £ 1,000, and then an Assistant Secretary, who had a salary of £ 500 a-year; and he wanted to know whether in the Office a letter-book was kept, and whether that letter-book would disclose any instructions which might have been given to the Assistant Commissioners in the discharge of their functions? On more occasions than one, taking the newspapers as his source of information, he found that the Assistant Commissioners had stated that they had received instructions from the Head Commissioners in Dublin in regard to what they ought to do. Now, he wanted to know, seeing that a statement of that kind had been made, whether any letter-book was kept containing in writing a copy of all the instructions sent to the Assistant Commissioners? While he was upon the question of salaries and expenses, he should like also to ask a question upon another subject to which his attention had been directed. He noticed on page 33 of the Estimates the words "Chief Valuer attached to Commissioners." He assumed that that was the gentleman who was known as Mr. Gray—a very capable gentleman, he believed. But the next item was one for "Valuers ditto, ditto," with a maximum salary of £ 750. He wished to know what that meant? Valuers, he supposed, meant the plural; but what did the "ditto" mean? How many valuers were there? He had been informed, and he asked for further information on the point, that the Land Commissioners in Dublin had been desirous of appointing to the very important and responsible office of advising them upon their duties some of the best surveyors who could be got in the Empire, but that the Treasury had refused to sanction the appointments they made because they objected to pay the salaries that would be necessary. If that assertion were challenged, he could give the name of one gentleman who, according to rumour, was applied to, but who declined to accept the salary offered to him. A long letter had been written upon the matter to The Times. He had commented upon it at one or two public meetings in the strongest language he could find, because he considered it a scandal in the administration of an Act of Parliament, that the Treasury should refuse to the Commissioners who were required to administer the Act the instruments they considered necessary for the proper working of it. In administering an important Act like this it was obvious that the Commissioners would require the best class of persons they could obtain—persons who would be above all impeachment, and of the highest professional capacity. The Commissioners, it was stated, had applied to certain gentlemen whom they considered suitable for the discharge of the duties, and those gentlemen were willing to act, but the Treasury refused to sanction the salaries proposed to be paid to them, and other gentlemen had to be appointed. He did not mean to say that these other gentlemen were not good men; but what he did say was that the Land Commissioners were unable to get the men whom they thought most competent, because the Treasury refused to sanction the salaries they demanded. He asked, then, who were the gentlemen who had been appointed, and whether the noble Lord the Financial Secretary of the Treasury could say whether higher salaries were asked for by the Land Commissioners in the first instance, and whether the gentlemen who were applied to originally did not refuse to accept the appointments in consequence of the refusal of the Treasury to pay the salaries asked for? There was another item upon which he would like to make an observation. There were 20 first-class clerks with a maximum salary of £ 400 each. He wished to know whether these gentlemen were new appointments, or were they gentlemen who held other appointments. According to his own knowledge of the matter, speaking roughly, he should say that the majority were new appointments, but that nevertheless they were put down as first-class clerks, and, he presumed, would become part of the normal staff employed in the service of the Commissioners. Was there any qualification or not? Was there any Civil Service examination or any particular test for ascertaining the qualifications of these gentlemen? There were other matters to which he wished to draw attention, and especially the appointment of the Assistant Commissioners; but he would leave that matter until he had obtained a reply from the noble Lord to the Question he had already put.

said, that, following up the questions put by the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson), he should like to ask the noble Lord the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, whether the Valuers had been appointed permanently or only for a fixed period, and whether they were specially charged with any specific duties? He also wished to know whether the legal officers already employed in the Land Court had been in any way utilized under the new Act? As he understood, since the Land Act came into operation the Encumbered Estates Court had scarcely had anything to do, and he wanted to know whether any steps had been taken towards utilizing the services of the unoccupied officers of that Court? He merely asked these questions so that the noble Lord might be able to make a reply to them in the answer he gave to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

said, he joined with the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gib- son) in regretting that the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was unavoidably absent from his place, but he would endeavour to give the best answer he could to the questions which had been put to him. In the first place, with respect to the specific inquiries made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, he could inform him that with regard to the amount of expense required in the coming financial year, adequate information would be supplied in the regular Estimates. He believed it would be found that the expense of administering the Act would amount to something over £90,000, and something under £100,000.

asked, if that was for 12 months?

replied, that it was the estimated expense for 12 months. He had not, however, got the figures before him at that moment, and he was unable to state the exact amount with perfect accuracy. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was quite right in stating that the originating fee paid by a suitor upon entering the Court was 1s. The amount derivable from that source would depend entirely upon the number of the applications, and he could not, therefore, state what the total amount was likely to be. At present there were something like 70,000 cases entered, and the fees would consequently amount to £ 3,500 this year. The right hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to imply that that was too small a sum to cover the expense of administering the Act; but he would remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that after the House had already determined that the Court should be established there would have been many complaints if the Treasury had persisted in placing pecuniary obstacles in the way of the suitors obtaining admission to the Court. The next question of the right hon. and learned Gentleman was—whether or not a letter-book was kept in the Office of the Land Commissioners? He had no absolute information on that point, but he could scarcely doubt that in an Office which had a great influx of correspondence there would be an elementary necessity for keeping a letter-book. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was quite right in his supposition that the chief valuer was Mr. Gray. The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked next if it was the case that the Treasury had refused to sanction the salaries recommended by the Commissioners for the valuers? Now, the Treasury did not object to the salaries proposed by the Commissioners; but there was an important question to be considered—namely, how far the work to be done by the Assistant Commissioners was to be shared by the valuers. It would be recollected that there was a debate in the House itself upon that question, when an Amendment was moved that valuers should be appointed. The understanding then came to by the House was that the work should be done mainly by the Commissioners and the Assistant Commissioners, and not by valuers. After full consideration the Government came to the conclusion that it was advisable, as the Chief Commissioners were unable personally to visit the different farms, that they should have the assistance of valuers, but that no such officer should be attached to the Sub-Commission. The question had not been settled by money considerations; and while, on the one hand, the Treasury were not desirous of launching into extravagance, they could not be charged with enforcing an ill-timed economy, for it would be seen that the amount of the salary proposed to be paid to these valuers was £750 each. At present he thought there had been only one person appointed.

said, he believed that power had been taken to appoint four.

said, he thought there was power to appoint four ultimately.

asked who the gentleman was who had been already appointed?

said, he was not able to answer that question. Indeed, he had not heard specifically that any appointment had been made, but only that power had been taken to make the appointments.

said, he was afraid that the work would not be satisfactorily performed if the Treasury refused to appoint the best men.

said, he could only repeat that the question had not been settled by money considerations, and that it was not one of salaries at all. It was not, however, considered advisable to have a large staff of valuers. With respect to the clerks, he was not able to say what proportion belonged to the staff of the Church Commissioners; but, originally, when the Office was first constituted, a large proportion of the officers was taken from the salaried officials of the Church Commission. But as the Sub-Commissioners were multiplied a number of new appointments had been made, and there was a larger number of first-class clerks now than was originally contemplated. With respect to the question of his hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) as to the term for which the appointments were made, he had not got the precise information before him at that moment; but, speaking from recollection, he believed Mr. Gray was appointed for one year. The hon. Member suggested that the staff of the Land Court should be utilized. That was an idea that was agreeable to the Commissioners, but he did not think that they had yet been able to make an arrangement of that kind; they would, however, do so as opportunity offered.

said, that, for his part, he should be very slow in falling in with the suggestion of the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) that the Land Commission should have anything to do with the officials now engaged in Judge Flanagan's Court. Judge Flanagan was not the person who, by any means, corresponded with the Prime Minister's definition of those who ought to be in-trusted with the working of the Land Act. With regard to the Church Commission, the noble Lord would remember that last year some Members raised considerable objections to the proposal to utilize the staff of the Irish Church Commission upon the new Land Commission; and in the closing days of the Session there was considerable friction between the Irish Members and the Treasury Bench as to the proposal then put forward by Her Majesty's Government. He himself understood that the Government gave the House a promise that there should be no sweeping of old officials into the Land Commission. The Irish Members were of opinion that it was not desirable to have any of the old officials imported into the Land Commission, as many of them would have imbibed prejudices in connection with their old offices, and the understanding was, so far as he was aware, that none of these officers should be planted upon the Land Commission. He believed, however, that, in spite of the pledge given last Session, they had a superintendent from the Irish Church property branch with a salary of £700 a-year. He did not complain of that, as there might be some necessity for having someone who had been connected with the Irish Church Court. There was a considerable fight as to the solicitorship last year, and he now found that, in addition to the ordinary solicitor, they were to have a solicitor from the Church Property and Collection Department, with a salary of £600 per annum. He did not complain of the item; but he wished to have some explanation of the matter as he knew nothing about it at present. He should like to know if the individual appointed was the old solicitor of the Church Commission. He presumed that he was not. He presumed that the old solicitor would scarcely be inclined to accept such a salary as that which had been put down in the Estimate. He should like to ask whether the amount of duty which fell upon the solicitor of the Church Commission pure and simple was so extraordinary that it was necessary, for the continually diminishing amount of work which would fall upon his shoulders, to appoint a second solicitor? People in Ireland had learned to be very suspicious in regard to all appointments of a legal character. At present, for every four barristers called to the Bar there was at least one prize either in the shape of a County Court Judgeship, or a position on the Bench, or one of the legal appointments in the hands of the Government; and the tendency was to corrupt Irish intelligence by offering those offices to the Irish Bar, if these legal gentlemen would at once come in and serve the Government. Therefore, the noble Lord would not be surprised to find that the Irish Members desired some explanation as to this multiplication of officials. There was another point which was purely a matter of detail. He remembered very well, although he was not a Member of the House at the time, that his hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen), when the Conservatives were in Office, inveighed very strongly against the mode in which the advertisements for Government stores were issued. [Mr. JOSEPH COWEN dissented.] He might be mistaken in attributing the action in the matter to the hon. Member for Newcastle; but it was a fact that strong objections were raised in regard to the mode in which the Government advertisements were issued. For instance, supposing iron was wanted, advertisements were inserted in some newspaper in Cornwall where, perhaps, there was no iron at all; if coal was wanted, instead of going to Durham, or Northumberland, or Lancashire, an advertisement was inserted in some other county where no coal existed at all. The same complaint was to be made with regard to the Land Commission. What was called the "Schedule of Voluntary Agreements between Landlord and Tenant in Ireland" was published, not in the Metropolitan daily papers in Dublin, or in the Irish newspapers generally, but in the London Times, The Dublin General Advertiser—a paper belonging to the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), which was never seen at all, or, at any rate, it circulated among a very limited portion of the people, having purely an advertising and an official connection—and in The Scotsman, published in Edinburgh. There was great sensitiveness among the Irish people upon this point; and he would ask the noble Lord if it was intended as a joke that the Land Commission, which affected the people of Ireland to such an extraordinary extent, could only find it worth while to insert the "Schedule of Voluntary Agreements between Landlord and Tenant in Ireland" in The Scotsman, the London Times, and The Dublin General Advertiser, owned by the hon. Member for Glasgow? He could assure the noble Lord that it was a matter in regard to which some people were very sore. Only within the last few weeks the Department had added insult to injury, and had inserted a two-line advertisement in some of the Dublin newspapers, referring the Irish people, if they wanted information, to the paper owned by the hon. Member for Glasgow. He presumed that they had got so thick-skinned that it was of no use going into these complaints; but the noble Lord would feel that this was a matter upon which a strong opinion was entertained. He would remind the noble Lord, if he was ignorant of the fact, that The Freeman's Journal was published in Dublin, and that it circulated 40,000 copies daily among the very people the Treasury desired that the Act should be made popular with. He understood that it was the wish of the Prime Minister that voluntary agreements between landlord and tenant should take place altogether irrespective of the operation of the Court; and to carry out this object the Government, instead of advertising in The Irish Times and The Freeman's Journal, simply advertised in the London Times, the Edinburgh Scotsman, and The Dublin General Advertiser. The right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) had referred to the question of valuers. That question of valuators, or valuers, was one of the utmost importance in connection with the working of the Act. The noble Lord had admitted—and he was somewhat surprised at the admission—that the Commissioners themselves were not able to visit the farms they had to deal with; and, therefore, they had to rely upon the valuers. Considering the multiplicity of the questions addressed to the noble Lord, it was only a matter of surprise that he was able, as he generally did, to grasp them and deal with them at all. It was a matter of astonishment that the noble Lord could carry all these details in his head, and that he should be able to deal with these Irish matters, which it might be supposed could only be dealt with by the Chief Secretary. The noble Lord was certainly entitled to the consideration of the Committee; but he should like to ask him if he was correct in stating that the valuers were appointed by the Commissioners only for a year?

I think the valuers are appointed for a year only.

said, the noble Lord had stated further that, in his opinion, the Sub-Commissioners would not be able to visit the farms, and, therefore, must rely upon the valuers.

No; I said the Commissioners.

said, that, of course, was an entirely different matter. It appeared, however, that the valuators were only appointed for one year, notwithstanding the fact that on the action of these valuers the entire administration of the Court, to a very large extent, depended. The Court of Commissioners, which was the final Court to decide upon the various matters connected with the working of the Act, could not go down to farms in remote districts, and the Commissioners were obliged to see through the eyes of the valuers. Therefore, to a large extent, their verdict and decision must be influenced by the reports of the valuers; and the question of valuers became a matter of even more importance than that of the Commissioners themselves. He submitted that it was not quite a fitting thing that Mr. Gray, if the noble Lord desired that the Act should work properly—that Mr. Gray, with an extremely accurate knowledge of English land, but no experience of land in Ireland, should have been imported into Ireland, and sent down to the miserable cottier plots in the County Cork and other places, and that upon his verdict the Chief Commissioners should fix the rents. For his own part, he (Mr. Healy) objected to the whole transaction. He objected to it, first, because Mr. Gray was an Englishman—and English agriculture and Irish agriculture were entirely different things. He also objected to it because Mr. Gray's appointment was an appointment of so partial a character. Mr. Gray was appointed, as the noble Lord had stated, only for one year. Then, was it to be supposed that any man whose interest in the matter was only of a temporary character, would be able to bring to the discharge of his duties the same amount of care and thought that would be devoted by a man who had lived all his life in the country? Mr. Gray would necessarily have to be guided, to a large extent, by the opinion of others who had had, from previous residence, an opportunity of knowing something of the real value of the land. He protested strongly against the appointment being for one year only. He thought it would tend to the scamping of the job, and would interfere with the proper working of the Act. He could assure the noble Lord that there was much sensitiveness upon this matter in the South of Ireland. He had referred last night to the appointment of Mr. John Barrett to the office of valuer, Mr. Barrett being known as a gentleman who was one of the most bitter enemies of the tenants. If the Prime Minister was desirous that the Act should become popular, he should take care that no appointments of that class were made. He would put the matter in this way. There was a strong agitation some years ago on the subject of Trades Unions, and certain Acts were passed directed against the "truck" system in England. What would have been said if, under those Acts, the Government had appointed as Inspector an individual who was the most hated and detested by the men connected both with Trades Unions and the "truck" system? What would have been done if, in dealing with the "truck" system, they had appointed as Inspector a man who had most heavily steeped himself in corruption and in the plunder of the workmen? Yet such a man would correspond to the character which John Barrett possessed in the South of Ireland. John Barrett—he would not go into his character again—was a man who, in the most peaceful times, never ventured to go out unarmed, and he had been guarded by the police for the last two years. Only very recently, acting under police protection, Barrett valued the farms of Lord Kenmare and the Gumbleton property without ever having walked over them or seen them. He, nevertheless, raised the value of the rents from 50 to 100 per cent. This was the man whom the Chief Commissioners had appointed to act as a Land Valuer. If the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister considered that the working of the Land Act was of very little consequence to the people of Ireland this might be the proper course to take; but he (Mr. Healy) desired that the people of Ireland should extract the utmost possible benefit they could get out of the Act. He had the keenest desire that the landlords should have their rents cut down to the utmost extent, and that the tenants of Ireland should benefit accordingly, and therefore he protested against the appointment of such a man as Barrett, who was a notorious rack-renter, employed to do the dirty work of Lord Kenmare. He protested against men like John Barrett being appointed as Valuers under the Act, and he had asked the Attorney General for Ireland that day whether Barrett, or men of his kidney, were appointed by the year or by the job? The answer he received from the right hon. and learned Gentleman was not at all definite.

I know nothing about the matter.

said, it was a very extraordinary thing that the Committee should be asked to vote money in order to pay Mr. Barrett a salary when they were not able to get from the Government any information whatever about him. He ventured to say that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) got up and asked whether it was true that some well-known Tenant-righter, such as Byrne, of Walls Town Castle, Mallow, or some other well-known Tenant-righter, had been appointed under the Act, the right hon. and learned Gentleman would have had an answer ready; but when they asked whether a notorious landlords' partizan had been appointed, the right hon. and learned Gentleman got up and told them he did not know. It was most desirable that the Committee should have information upon these matters either from the right hon. and learned Gentleman or from the noble Lord. Of course, they did not expect that the noble Lord would be able to answer these questions in detail. It was not his business, and they could not expect details of this kind from the noble Lord, immersed as he was in other business. But when they had two Law Officers of the Crown in the House, he really thought that, on a matter of this kind, the Committee was entitled to some little information upon the question, and he would, therefore, ask the Attorney General to re-consider the matter and to answer this plain question—Whether John Barrett had been employed for 12 months under the Land Act as valuer, or not?

said, the matter was one which was not in any way in his Department, or he would, of course, have made it his business to have ascertained all the details; but, as it was not in any way in his Department, he had not requested information upon it. He fully admitted that the hon. Member had the right to demand the information from some quarter, and, therefore, he would take care to make himself master of the details in order to satisfy the inquiries of the hon. Member. His impression was that Mr. Barrett had not been appointed at all by the Land Commission. The valuers were appointed, he understood, when the Land Commission went down to hear appeals from the Sub-Commissioners; and, so far, he believed there had only been two valuers appointed by the Land Commission—namely, Mr. Gray, and, he thought, a gentleman named Murphy. He had heard at the time Mr. Gray was appointed that he was a gentleman who, though of English extraction, had been for 30 years farming in the county of Wexford, and he was recommended to the Commission by a large number of persons as a gentleman thoroughly competent to deal with any questions arising in connection with the value of land. The general opinion in Ireland at the time Mr. Gray was appointed was that a more competent man could not be selected. He had been sent to Belfast to assist the Commissioners there, and, after examining the localities to which the decisions of the Sub-Commissioners applied, his report had given complete satisfaction. His impression was that only two valuers had actually been appointed, and that their appointment was only for one year. Mr. John Barrett, he believed, was the gentleman who valued some property of Mr. Bence Jones.

He was appointed by the Government.

said, he did not think that the employment of Mr. Barrett was a Government appointment. A Sub-Commission was empowered to call in an independent valuer, as the Sub-Commission in Limerick had done, before they gave their decision in reference to a holding on Lord Ashtown's estate, where the cost of that valuer was borne in equal parts by the landlord and tenant. Possibly that also was the case with reference to Mr. Barrett, as he believed he was merely subpoenaed as a witness employed by one of the parties. His own opinion was that the Estimates were not burdened with Mr. John Barrett at all; but he could only state his impression, and not give it as an absolute matter of fact. He would, however, make inquiries upon the subject before the Report of Supply was brought up. As he was now upon his legs, he might answer the remarks made by the hon. Member in reference to the officers of the Land Commission supposed to have been taken over from the Land Court. Now, nobody had been taken over from the Land Court; but the Church Temporalities Commis- sion, as the hon. Member would recollect, was terminated during last Session of Parliament, its remaining business transferred to the Land Commission, and some of the most competent officers connected with the Church Commission had been taken over. This was an advantageous arrangement for the public, seeing that the superannuation allowances of these gentlemen would be saved, and their services utilized. The solicitor had been taken over in that way, and as the Church Temporalities Commission required to be wound up, there was a large amount of this business to be transacted. The tithe rent-charge had to be collected, and there were other matters to be dealt with, such as the money which had been lent out upon mortgage, and was being paid by instalments; and there were questions still pending in regard to the purchase and sale of Church land. All the land had not yet been sold, and it was for the interest of the public to retain the services of the Solicitor to the Church Temporalities Commission. By that means the public retained the services of a man who had practical experience, and who was perfectly competent in a professional point of view, and at the same time they were saved the expense of superannuation allowance, which would necessarily have been incurred if the solicitor had been discharged and a new solicitor appointed, because it would have been absolutely necessary to appoint some one to discharge the duties which the solicitor to the Church Temporalities Commission had been retained to perform. Another gentleman, who had also been alluded to, Mr. O'Brien, had also been taken over from the Church Commission in August to discharge, under the Land Commissioners, the same duties which he had previously performed in connection with the Church Temporalities Commission. In that case, also, the public had the advantage of the services of a gentleman fully competent to discharge the duties, and experienced in the performance of them, and at the same time they were saved the expense of a superannuation allowance.

asked if these appointments were of a permanent character?

believed that the gentlemen in question had been placed in precisely the same position as that which they occupied under the Church Temporalities Commission. He had been asked if the services of these gentlemen were wanted or not? When the Act was being passed he had assured the House that they would be necessary for the discharge of the duties transferred to the new Land Commission. It was impossible to obtain gentlemen more fitted for the discharge of those duties, and the undertaking given when the Act was before the House last Session had been strictly adhered to—namely, that all the officers should be taken over who were competent to discharge the duties. He trusted that the hon. Member would be satisfied with the answer he had given him. He would only add that he would take care, before the Report was brought up, to obtain all the information that was requisite to explain those matters which had been referred to by the hon. Member, and which he was not at present informed upon.

complained that no explanation had been given by the Attorney General for Ireland of the extraordinary and scandalous job which had been perpetrated in the Office of the Chief Secretary, by which advertisements relating to voluntary agreements were published for the information of the Irish people, in order to induce other people to come in and make similar agreements. It appeared that these advertisements were excluded from every Irish paper, and published in the Edinburgh Scotsman and London Times. He had travelled a good deal through Ireland, and though he constantly met with the London Times, for The Times circulated everywhere, even in Ireland, he had never yet seen a Scotsman except in four places—the Belfast, Londonderry, Dublin, and Cork Chambers of Commerce. The only other place it could be met with was in the country house of some Scotch merchant, who, having settled in the North of Ireland, like the proverbial Scotchman, never attempted to return to his own country. With these exceptions, he would undertake to say that not a single copy of the Scotsman was to be found in Ireland. The whole transaction in regard to these advertisements was a deliberate and infamous job intended as a bribe to secure their support to the Irish Administration. He wished to ask whether anyone connected with the Irish Office was prepared to get up and say that the Government were not responsible for the transaction, but that it was a job perpetrated by some junior clerk, who probably received a discount upon the order?

said, the Committee had heard his hon. Friend the Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) address a number of very pertinent questions to the Treasury, and he thought they would agree that the answer which had been elicited from the right hon. and learned Attorney General was not a very satisfactory one. Indeed, the right hon. and learned Gentleman evidently believed himself that that was so, because he had intimated that he would obtain the desired information and communicate it to the House upon the Report, or, in the event of being unable to do so, that the Chief Secretary would answer the questions. But the House was informed early in the evening that the Chief Secretary would not be in his place until Tuesday, and he presumed that it was proposed to take the Report of the Supply voted to-night on Monday. At any rate, that was the usual course, and it would only be reasonable for the Government to agree not to take the Report of the Votes taken in Supply that night until the return of the Chief Secretary, in order that the information which had been promised might be duly afforded. In looking over the Vote, the first thing that struck him was that there was in in Ireland a very different system with regard to the appointment of Civil servants from that which obtained in this country. Over and over again had been pointed out the very great waste of public money which took place in this country in consequence of the system of pensioning a large number of Civil servants, in the prime of life, who were certain to draw their pensions for a considerable number of years. Some years ago there was a Bill passed through the House of Commons and assented to "elsewhere," which in due course became law, which dealt with certain officers in the War Office and Board of Admiralty. That Act abolished a large number of persons in the War Office and the Admiralty, and he must say that he knew nothing more indefensible than the provisions of the Act. It squandered an enormous sum of money in the shape of pensions, and cast out of the Civil Service a large number of persons who were perfectly capable of continuing the work in which they were engaged. These men were now entirely lost to the country, so far as their services were concerned, but they were likely to continue to draw their pensions for a considerable number of years. The ultimate reduction of public expenditure by the passing of the Act to which he referred would, he believed, prove in the end to be no reduction at all, but, on the contrary, he believed it would be found that the change had entailed a considerable increase. Whenever it was found necessary to incur an expense of this kind, when once the alteration of an establishment was decided upon, there seemed to be an insuperable objection on the part of the Treasury to utilize the services of the men whose services were got rid of in one Department, by employing them in some other Government Office. But, if these men had been employed in the public establishments in Ireland, they would have been provided with fresh bertha for the period during which they might still be able to render effective service, and in this way there would be a considerable reduction of expense to the public. In Ireland it was the practice, wherever it was possible to provide a fresh berth for a Civil servant whose period of employment was drawing to a close to do so. According to the first page of the present Vote, it appeared that a Secretary had been appointed at a salary of £1,000; but a foot-note stated that—

"The Secretary is at present in receipt of a salary at the rate of £200 a-year as Secretary to a Temporary Commission on Inland Navigation in Ireland."

That Commission was now drawing to an end, and accordingly another appointment was found for this gentleman. There was also a foot-note in regard to the Accountant, who also received a salary of £1,000 a-year. The note said—

"This officer is entitled under the Superannuation Act, 1859, and the Irish Church Act, 1869, Amendment Act, 1872, to a pension of £533 6s. 8d., £300 of which, in respect of services in the Office of Wood and Forests, is in abeyance as long as he holds his present employment."

Consequently, that gentleman was not left to the full enjoyment of his pension, as would be the case in this country, but he was provided with a fresh berth, so that some of the money was saved to the Exchequer. The same thing appeared to be carried out on the next page. The Agency Clerk (Land Sales) received a salary of £400 a-year, and this officer had been holding a temporary appointment at £250 a-year to the 1st of February, 1882. That gentleman, having left one appointment, was at once provided with another; and the same was to be said of one of the second-class clerks, who had since July, 1881, been in the receipt of a salary at the rate of £50 a-year, as clerk to a Temporary Commission on Inland Navigation in Ireland, but this payment would altogether cease before the 1st of April, 1882, He had no objection to this system, because it enabled the Government to save the public money by the utilization of the services of persons who had previously been employed in other offices, and he thought it was a system which might very well be extended to the Civil servants of this country. There was an opportunity of doing so at present, which he would respectfully press upon the attention of the Government—namely, in the matter of the Customs clerks who were about to be disestablished in large numbers, and who would only be too grateful if they were treated in the same way as the Civil servants in Ireland. There was another question which he desired to put to the noble Lord, a question peculiarly affecting the Treasury administration, and which he was entirely unable to reconcile with the ideas he had obtained from service in a similar Government Department. It was with reference to the officer he had mentioned before, the accountant, who, according to the foot-note he had quoted, appeared to be entitled to a superannuation allowance of £533 6s. 8d. per annum, £300 of which was in abeyance, in consequence of holding the position he did. But the other £233 a-year he still continued to draw, although it was a superannuation allowance in connection with the Irish Church Commission. They allowed the accountant to draw that £233 a-year; but he found upon the next page of the Estimates the case of an officer who was entitled to an annuity of £360 a-year under the Church Pro- perty Act, and which sum would remain in abeyance while he held his present appointment. He asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury why two opposite systems were pursued with regard to the officers to whom he had referred, one of whom was allowed to draw his pension during his appointment under the Land Act, and the other not allowed to do so? And, again, if the officer commuted his pension under the Church Property Act, would he be allowed to draw the full salary put down in the Vote?

said, the Treasury were always anxious to avoid the waste incurred by pensioning men in the prime of life; and, as far as possible, it was the practice to utilize the services of men on pension. He had been almost tempted to wish that the hon. Member who had just spoken had not been retired from the War Office at so early an age; and he could assure him that he entirely agreed in the opinion he had expressed that clerks should continue to be employed while their services were of use to the public. The hon. Member would observe that the Government had endeavoured to prevent claims for pensions arising in connection with this Commission. They wished it to be understood that no one by his appointment earned the right to a pension, and it was distinctly stated in the Estimates that the service was a temporary one. The accountant to whom the hon. Member had referred was an especially experienced officer, and they had been glad to be in a position to avail themselves of his services in establishing this very important office. The general rule was that officers should not draw pensions whilst they were in receipt of salaries; but if there were occasionally cases in which the rule was not followed, it was owing to special circumstances which gave a right to the pension.

said, he failed to see where the money paid by the tenants for notices, copies of rules, and other documents was taken credit for in the Accounts. The office of Solicitor to the Land Commission having been resigned, he asked how it was, if the office was of the importance attributed to it, that it had remained vacant for three or four weeks, and when it was probable that it would be filled up? He would suggest that the Estimate should be postponed until Irish Members had an opportunity of passing in review the qualifications of the gentleman who might be appointed. They had the greatest confidence in Mr. Fottrell; they regarded him as worthy of the confidence of the Irish tenantry, and were naturally anxious that his successor should be equally popular. He thought the noble Lord would see that it was only right that they should have some knowledge conveyed to them as to the gentleman who was to be appointed to the office. The Committee would have observed that the noble Lord the Member for North Northumberland (Earl Percy) had a Notice on the Paper, which he thought might be very well applied and carried out with respect to Ireland. The noble Lord proposed to call attention to the circumstances attending the issue of a treatise, entitled Free Trade versus Fair Trade, by T. H. Farrer, and to move—

"That this House is of opinion that it is undesirable that permanent officials in the Public Service should publish works of a political and controversial character in their official capacity, and under the authority of the Parliamentary head of their Department."

If officials in England were not precluded from publishing works of the kind indicated in the Notice of Motion given by the noble Lord, how was it, he asked, that Mr. Dennis Godley had issued a Circular, ordering, in the most decisive terms, every member of the Land Commission in Ireland not to write in any review, magazine, or public paper of any description whatsoever? An hon. Friend near him suggested coercion as the reason. They had, undoubtedly, had enough of that; but, whatever might be the reason, he ventured to say that, in his opinion, when a person received a salary for the performance of certain duties, his time should be fully occupied with those duties, and, therefore, he was inclined to support the Motion of the noble Lord when it came before the House. But why was Mr. Dennis Godley to lay down this law to the members of the Commission, while Mr. Farrer was allowed to give directions upon the question of Free Trade? If a gagging law was necessary at all, he contended that it should be applied equally to England and Ireland.

said, the hon. Member for Wexford was probably aware that, in order to exercise a strict control over the Accounts for the Public Service, receipts were chiefly paid by stamps, which was the case with regard to the originating notices paid for by the tenants in connection with the Land Commission. With reference to the office of Solicitor to the Land Commission, he agreed that it was important to fill up that appointment; but hon. Members would agree that it was still more so that the best possible selection should be made. He thought, therefore, the Committee would not be inclined to grudge the delay of a few weeks which was rendered necessary by the endeavour to obtain the best man available. As it was not competent to him to discuss questions upon the Notice Paper, he was not able to deal with the question raised by the hon. Member for Wexford in connection with the Motion of the noble Lord, to which the hon. Member had referred.

said, he desired to call attention to a communication addressed by the Chief Secretary to the Chief Commissioner, requiring a question to be put to Mr. Fottrell with reference to certain communications to the Press, which led to the retirement of that gentleman—a question which Mr. Fottrell would not have answered had it been put to him personally by the Chief Secretary for Ireland. He wished to understand whether the Commissioners were independent judicial officers, or if they were under the control of the Executive? Were they bound to put questions to their officers, which placed the latter in a position to state to the public that those questions were evidently put unwillingly, and in obedience to dictation? He appealed to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), who could not be expected to have any sympathy with the political views of Mr., Fottrell, to say whether it was not a fact that the appointment of that gentleman to the office of Solicitor to the Land Commission was regarded with great satisfaction in Ireland because of his well-known professional qualifications, his activity and zeal, as well as his anxiety for the promotion of land reform in a proper manner. It was quite possible, and he did not deny, that in doing that which had led to his retirement, Mr. Fottrell had been guilty of an excess of zeal, which in the case of Government officials was sometimes a serious offence. But Mr. Fottrell had been punished by the Commissioners, acting, as in all probability they did, under the direct orders of the Government. If not, it was something very near it; and he had been obliged to resign his position because of what, at the utmost, could be deemed an excess of zeal. He could not have been actuated by personal feeling of any kind, because, unlike most solicitors to Commissioners, he was paid a fixed salary, and if he took the ordinary view entertained by officials so placed, the less he had to do the better he would be pleased. There had been elicited from him by means of a question of a compulsory character, to which he did not feel at liberty to refuse to reply, an acknowledgment that he was the person responsible for certain articles, the publication of which led to his resignation. He (Mr. Gray) did not wish, because, as he thought, Mr. Fottrell had been punished with severity and even injustice, that other persons should be punished likewise; but there could be no doubt that, while the entire punishment in this case had fallen upon the shoulders of Mr. Fottrell, there were others equally responsible, the only difference in their case being that they held very different political opinions, and were, in fact, well known to be strong Conservatives. It was for Party purposes, and, as he believed, in order to discredit the Land Commission, that the Conservative Party, both in that House and in "another place," originated a very violent personal attack against Mr. Fottrell, while they allowed another responsible officer to escape; and he was very glad that he had done so, because had he not so escaped, there would have been a double injustice in dismissing him also. But from this it would be seen how the political opinions of individuals altered cases. In the face of the action of Mr. Farrer in publishing a treatise on Free Trade, he did not think that any act had been done by Mr. Fottrell which could be construed into a justification for his compulsory retirement or dismissal. He was undoubtedly the author of certain articles which were subsequently published in the form of a pamphlet by the proprietors of The Freeman's Journal, and the real and honest purpose of which was the promotion of what were known as the Bright Clauses of the Land Act. The intention was to circulate information in an easily accessible form. Mr. Fottrell did not propose that the articles should be re-published, and although they were published by the Land Commissioners, it was not at his instigation. Copies of the pamphlet were sent to him, and that was the way in which he became acquainted with the fact of their publication. Numbers of landlords and other persons having applied to him for information on the subject, and he having given them copies of the pamphlet, which, no doubt, contained suggestions that ought not to have been endorsed by the Land Commissioners, and satisfaction having been expressed at the technical information conveyed by the publication in clear and popular language, Mr. Fottrell suggested to the Secretary to the Commission that it would be a convenient thing, not to re-publish, but to procure a number of the pamphlets and circulate them. Now, if that had been done, he did not think the suggestion of Mr. Fottrell would have constituted so grievous an offence as would have justified the punishment which had been visited upon him. But a London Department, acting upon the red-tape system, entered into a calculation; without Mr. Fottrell's knowledge of the business in any way, the Stationery Department were requisitioned by Mr. Godley to procure a number of the pamphlets, not endorsed by the Land Commissioners, but those issued by an independent establishment, for which no one was responsible; that Department calculated that by appropriating the copyright, so to speak, they could save 2½d. a copy, and they proceeded to save it by re-publishing the pamphlets through the Queen's Printer. The mistake was that they were issued with the apparant sanction of the Government through the Queen's Printer's office in Dublin, and that really constituted the gravamen of the charge. The point was that they were, in fact, Government documents. For all this Mr. Fottrell had no kind of responsibility. If it was the business of any person to look to it, the entire responsibility must be divided between the Secretary to the Land Commissioners and the Stationery Office; the Solicitor to the Commissioners had nothing to do with it whatsoever. But because of his supposed connection with the Irish Land League; because of the assertion, which although frequently contradicted, had been still more frequently reiterated, that Mr. Fottrell had been at one time solicitor to the Land League, and had been acting generally for the Land League; because of the well-known fact that he entertained very advanced opinions on the Land Question, and was most anxious that the Bright Clauses should operate, the whole violence of the Conservative attack fell upon Mr. Fottrell. That attack was, however, not directed against him. It was directed against the Land Commission. The Conservatives concentrated their forces; the Government yielded to the attack, deserted the Land Commission, and pressed upon them the dismissal of Mr. Fottrell, while the Commissioners, showing even greater weakness, yielded in their turn, and made Mr. Fottrell the scapegoat. He believed that no hon. Member would rise in his place and say that the Commissioners had not experienced a serious loss in depriving themselves of the services of Mr. Fottrell, and they would doubless have to wait more than the few weeks indicated by the noble Lord the Financial Secretary to the Treasury before they met with another gentleman of equal zeal and ability to supply his place. Certainly, he did not think, now that the business was over, that they had any reason for congratulating themselves with reference to the course they had taken or the way they had treated Mr. Fottrell in this transaction.

pointed out that the Act provided that the Land Commission might from time to time, with the consent of the Lord Lieutenant, appoint or remove a solicitor. The appointment was sanctioned by the Lord Lieutenant; but the responsibility with regard to it rested entirely with the Land Commissioners, who were an independent and judicial body. As to Mr. Fottrell's competency for the office of Solicitor to the Commissioners, he was appointed by them after careful inquiry, and was furnished by no less a person than the Lord Chancellor under the late Administration with the highest testimonial. Therefore, having that agreement on all sides as to his competency, no one could doubt it. When the letters were re-published in pamphlet form, Mr. Fottrell found the pamphlets useful in the Office, because they gave practical information as to the working of the Bright Clauses, and they were given by him to a few persons who made inquiry on that subject. Mr. Fottrell's own account was, that assuming it would be useful, he suggested that the Secretary to the Commissioners should get the pamphlets purchased and issued under the authority of the Commission. Mr. Godley, the Secretary, not looking into the matter at once with the amount of care that he ought to have bestowed upon it, acted on impulse and sanctioned the issue of them under the authority of the Land Commissioners, and having done so he did not communicate the fact to the Land Commission, which was, he believed, at Belfast at the time. The question then arose which had been referred to by the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray), and it was found that it would be a matter of cheaper and easier printing if the pamphlet was re-printed and published through the Queen's Printer's office. It was always the fact that after an event everybody was very wise. The Secretary was reprimanded in strong terms by the Commissioners; but, at the same time, they did not think that the part he had taken in the matter required his removal, and, of course, the House must trust a judicial body in the exercise of its judicial functions. There was just one other matter to which he wished to refer. It had been suggested that Mr. Fottrell was a gentleman of Liberal opinions, and that the other official was not visited with dismissal because he was a Conservative. That was the first time he had ever heard that Mr. Godley's opinions were Conservative; his opinions were, as he (the Attorney General for Ireland) believed, pronounced Liberal. But, however this might be, political considerations had nothing what-ever to do with the matter.

said, that what he had meant to say was that the offence, if an offence had been committed, was not one which ought to have been dealt with in the way it had been dealt with. Was there any doubt in the mind of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attor- ney General for Ireland that the Land Commission, if left to themselves, would have been desirous to retain the services of Mr. Fottrell? The right hon. and learned Gentleman had not referred to one point that had been raised. The right hon. and learned Gentleman stated that the appointments rested solely with the Commissioners. Why, a fortnight before the appointment the applicants were over in London seeking the interest, not of the Commissioners, but of the Government. That was a notorious fact; and, indeed, had not the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary spoken of the appointment of Mr. Fottrell as if it was made by him? The Commissioners nominally had the appointment, but in reality it rested with the Government, as everybody knew. If the Commissioners were so totally independent and acted solely on their own responsibility, he wished to know why the Chief Secretary ordered that the question should be put to Mr. Fottrell so that he should criminate himself? Did the Attorney General for Ireland justify that action on the part of the Chief Secretary?

said, there was no or order, anything tantamount to an order. The matter became one of public notoriety and public investigation. The pamphlet was issued with the Royal Arms upon it and involved the Government; it contained distinctly objectionable matter. Accordingly, the Government had no alternative but through their recognized channel the Chief Secretary, who was practically at the head of the Irish Executive, to request the Judges to make an investigation in the matter, as he apprehended would have been done in a like case in England or elsewhere. If the Judges had declined to do so, he did not see what power the Chief Secretary would have had to compel them; but, at the same time, if he were a Judge himself—not that he was at all likely to be—[A laugh]—he would withdraw that remark, as the House appeared to wish it, and would say that he was sure if hon. Gentlemen could put themselves in the position of the Judges they would feel that, in a case of such public notoriety, inquiry was necessary. The hon. Member (Mr. Gray) said that the Judges had acted unwillingly. No doubt they had, and there was no wonder they should. He supposed there was no one who did an unpleasant thing willingly; but, still, sometimes he must do it. The Judges did make the inquiry, with the result already stated.

said, it would be very satisfactory, before they passed from the consideration of this Vote, if some precise and definite information could be given as to what steps were being taken in connection with the Purchase Clauses. After a good deal of trouble it had been elicited that the operation of the Purchase Clauses of the Act of 1870 had been for years practically stopped; and he would now like to know what steps were being taken in respect to the matter, and what support the Land Commission was giving for the purpose of carrying those clauses into effect? The powers given to the Land Commission were threefold—first, to advance money to tenants to purchase their holdings; secondly, to purchase whole estates with the object of re-selling them; and, thirdly, they were empowered to negotiate between landlord and tenant with the view of facilitating the transition of land from the hand of one class to the other. It was a matter of notoriety that at the present time there was an enormous amount of land passing into the Land Court; but Judge Flanagan, in the exercise of a wise discretion, was holding back a large amount of Irish land. Now, if a proper organization were set on foot it was quite possible the wishes of the Legislature might be carried out more rapidly than at present. He believed there was a large number of estates that Judge Flanagan was unwilling to sell, simply because he could not do justice to the owners, the mortgagees, or to any of the persons interested. The other day he noticed from a report of the proceedings of the Court that Judge Flanagan was compelled to sell property at 50 per cent under the price he had been offered for it 12 months previously, and that the Judge said—

"I have done my best to hold back this property for a certain time, but I suppose the 'massacre of the innocents' must at length begin."

["Hear!"] He did not see that the selling of a man's property for half its value, entailing, as it would do in some cases, a large amount of trouble and positive ruin upon those concerned, was a matter for rejoicing, It would be satisfactory to the Committee, considering that the real and true and highest hope of the country rested in the proper development of the Purchase Clauses, to know what steps were being taken by the Land Commission towards the development and working of those clauses.

said, the hon. Member seemed to consider the interference of the British Treasury in the matter unreasonable. He seemed to forget that it was provided by the Act that properties should be purchased from Irish landlords by the Commission only when it could be done without loss. The hon. Gentleman said that at the present time no one could be induced to give a reasonable price for the properties; and what he wanted was that the British Treasury should come forward and give a price which no one else would give for them. [Mr. A. MOORE: No, no.] The hon. Member might say "No, no;" but he certainly wished the Treasury to buy lands at a fair price at a time when he himself asserted properties were being sold for half their value. He (Sir George Campbell) had always considered that the Land Act contemplated the purchase of lands only where there was a reasonable prospect of its being done without loss. If the Treasury were to give prices for land that no one else would give, it was evident the taxpayers of Great Britain must be prepared to put their hands in their pockets.

I would remind the Committee that we are travelling away from the subject in discussing the general working of the Land Act. I understand the hon. Member for Colonel to ask what staff is included in these Estimates for carrying into effect the Purchase Clauses of the Land Act? That is quite within the scope of the Vote; but a general discussion of the Land Act is clearly beyond it.

said, he never suggested, even in the most distant manner, that the British Treasury should do anything of the kind supposed by the hon. Baronet. If the hon. Gentleman had made himself better acquainted with the clauses of the Act he did so much to assist to pass, he would have understood his (Mr. Moore's) remarks. There was a fixed sum placed at the disposal of the Commission, and the responsibility rested on them to invest that sum wisely. When land was at a depression of 50 per cent, he should not think the time at all inopportune for purchase.

said, that by the Land Act all powers with respect to the Purchase Clauses were transferred to the Land Commission from the Board of Works, and the first step taken by the Commission in the matter was to appoint a chief agent. They thought they could not do better than appoint the agent to whose exertions, according to universal admission, the success of the sales under the Bright Clauses was due. The duty of this agent was to promote, as far as possible, the successful working of the clauses.

said, at the commencement of the discussion he alluded to what he conceived the great importance of the appointment of valuators. Mr. Gray had been appointed valuator for one year. If Mr. Gray was to be head valuator to the Land Commission, if he was to advise them and had to make reports on which they would act, one year was no tenure for him to hold by. It was absurd to expect to get the services of highly-trained and competent valuators if they could be shunted at the end of a year. Valuators would prefer to go about from Commission to Commission giving evidence, sometimes for the landlords and sometimes for the tenant, than to act as a kind of Judge-valuator for one year only. It struck him that at present the arrangements in this respect were anything but satisfactory. The other matter to which he called attention, and on which his apprehensions had not been relieved by explanation, was the appointment of assistant valuators.

said, he thought two had been appointed.

said, he would like to know who they were. He had heard of the proposed appointment of Mr. Murphy—a gentleman he never saw, but whom he understood was a gentleman of great ability. He had heard it distinctly stated that the Land Commissioners were very desirous to obtain the services of Mr. Murphy, and that he was willing to serve if he should be paid at the rate at which Mr. Gray was paid, or at some other reasonable figure. It was said that the Treasury, however, refused to sanction the payment, and the consequence was the valuable services of Mr. Murphy were lost to the Land Commission. He had said on public platforms, and he would now say in the House itself, that if this was the fact it was a gross public scandal. It was of the greatest importance to know who were the assistant valuators, and it was legitimate to inquire what the Government intended to do in reference to the tenure of these gentlemen. There were 36 of such gentlemen, upon whom very great and important duties were imposed by the Act. Twelve of them had a tenure of seven years—that was, they had a tenure as long as two of the Chief Commissioners themselves. The other 24 gentlemen had only a tenure of 12 months, and he would like to know under what Rule this tenure was regulated? He understood that the tenure of the Assistant Commissioners should be for seven years, and that the salary of the legal one should be £1,000, and of the non-legal one £750. He should like to know, then, under which of the Rules it was that the tenure of the last 24 appointed had been cut down to 12 months? He would also like to know whether the Government, at the end of the 12 months, intended to give more stability to the tenure of the 24 assistant valuators, and free them from the great uncertainty which surrounded their appointment, and which, from every point of view, deprived them of the semblance of independence? He was anxious to give every independence that could be given to the Assistant Commissioners, so that they should feel free and independent when they were giving their decisions. He was entitled to ask if it was intended by the Government, at the end of the first 12 months' tenure, to re-appoint the Assistant Commissioners for another term of 12 months only? He would be glad to know when it was intended to lay the Rules of the Land Commission on the Table of the House? And he would like to know, bearing in mind the statements that were made by the First Lord of the Treasury and the Chief Secretary when the Land Act was passing through Parliament, when they were to have the statements laid on the Table of the House as to the tenure and qualification, and names, and other particulars of the Assistant Com- missioners? When the Land Bill was in Committee, they were distinctly told that they need not wait for the Annual Report for such information, for the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government stated, in answer to his (Mr. Gibson's) criticisms, that they would anticipate the Annual Report by a short statement, which would at once be laid before Parliament, indicating the names, qualifications, tenure, and other particulars of the Assistant Commissioners. That had not been done up to the present, and he did not think any further delay should be permitted. There was another matter to which he would invite the attention of the noble Lord. There was a large sum set down in the Estimate for travelling expenses—£9,400. He would like some explanation of that item. Were these travelling and personal expenses for the administration of the Act by the Assistant Commissioners; were the Assistant Commissioners paid lodging money and travelling expenses, and had they to make a Report of their travelling? These facts were important, with regard to the visits they paid the farms and other matters which were open to legitimate criticism. He did not wish to go into minute details and matters of small moment, but it was important that some explanation should be given as to how the amount given in the Estimate was made up. Hon. Members should be informed how much was for the lodging and how much for travelling, and what the travelling was? Was it travelling from town to town, or was it travelling to make the inspection, and, if so, how much was put down for inspection? He would say nothing about "incidental expenses," as he supposed, in connection with a matter of such, magnitude as this that they would have to be incurred; but there was another item he would like some explanation upon, and this would be the last he would refer to. In the matter of "Survey and Valuation," he was struck by the smallness of the figure—£200. He should like to know what valuation cost that very small sum; and he should like also to be informed whether the surveys and valuations were made by the chief valuer or other valuers, or by the surveyors; and whether the surveys and valuations were made for the purpose of fixing the rents by the Assistant Com- missioners? He should like, in connection with this, to know whether there were any canons of valuation laid down for the guidance of the valuators who were employed by the Assistant Commissioners? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) had drawn attention, in a Return he had asked for, to the fact that when the late Sir Richard Griffith made his great valuation of Ireland, he deemed it necessary—as it was obviously necessary—to give minute details indicating the general principles which should guide the valuators in making their valuations, and these documents were often appealed to. The Committee had a right now to ask what instructions were given to the valuators employed to make the surveys and valuations, both by the Assistant Commissioners and the Chief Commissioners. Did they merely turn the valuators loose on the farms, and tell them to make such valuations as they thought fit in their discretion, or did they give them some indications as to the general principles on which they were to proceed? It might be that the noble Lord was not in a position just now to answer this question; but he (Mr. Gibson) would be glad if at some time some explanation were given to the Committee on the point.

said, that with regard to the Valuators, as he had already stated, he could not speak with certainty as to the terms on which they were appointed. This, however, he could say, that the terms of the appointments were satisfactory to the gentlemen selected, and that these gentlemen were considered by the Chief Commissioners perfectly qualified to perform the functions of their offices. [Mr. GIBSON: What is their tenure?] The terms sanctioned by the Treasury were such as to secure the appointment of men well qualified for the work. The next Question put to him was with regard to the Rules of the Land Commission. They had been laid on the Table, and he had no doubt would be very shortly circulated. With respect to the tenure of the Assistant Commissioners, it was at first contemplated to make the appointments for seven years. These was a great number of cases entered for hearing; but it was not certain whether applications to the Court would continue to be made in large numbers for more than a limited period; therefore it was thought undesirable to appoint gentlemen for a number of years when, at the expiration of the first year, they might be absolutely unemployed. The right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) asked what would be the tenure of these gentlemen at the expiration of the first year? Well, as to that, the Government would be better able to judge when the 12 months expired. Therefore, he would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to repeat his Question at the end of the first year. With regard to travelling and expenses, speaking from recollection, he believed there was so much allowed for fares, and so much for day and night expenses—£1 or £1 1s.—and the actual travelling expenses. This amounted to a large sum; but when they remembered the number of Assistant Commissioners at work, they would not be surprised at its magnitude. As to the amount for surveys and valuations, the right hon. and learned Gentleman was surprised that it was so small; but one reason was that the Ordnance Survey did what was required free of charge. The Valuation Department also rendered great service to the Land Commission in supplying information as to the Government valuation. The charge made in the Estimate was for copying some of the valuations received from the Valuation Department. This Sub-head did not, he thought, include any expenses connected with the valuations.

The noble Lord has omitted to answer one or two questions put to him by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson). The right hon. and learned Gentleman insisted, first of all, upon the necessity of indicating some of the principles of valuation which are to guide the valuers. He referred to very important principles laid down by Sir Richard Griffith when the valuation of Ireland was undertaken by him many years ago. The Committee have not, however, heard what the principles are which are to guide the valuators in discharging the duties they have undertaken. It has not even been stated whether any principles have been indicated. I will not now enter into the question that stands for consideration by the House next Tuesday; but I assume, as a matter of fact, that it is quite impossible that the Government can have intrusted the duty of valuing property without having, in some degree, indicated to the officers who were to carry out the valuation the principles on which they were to proceed. [Mr. GLADSTONE: The Government have no authority.] The right hon. Gentleman says the Government have no authority. Well, it appears to me impossible to conceive that those who are intrusted by the Government with the carrying out of this important measure—this great Act, which is practically to revolutionize the principles on which the ownership of property rests in Ireland—can have trusted to the Sub-Commissioners to value the property of Ireland without having given some directions to them as to the principles on which they are to administer the Act and discharge their duty. I assume that some principles were laid down for their guidance, and that they were not, as my right hon. and learned Friend said, told to undertake the duty without any indication or suggestion whatever being made to them as to the principles to be followed. There was another point to which my right hon. and learned Friend referred. He said there was a distinct undertaking on the part of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, that the names and qualifications, and tenure, and salaries of the officers should be communicated to Parliament immediately on its re-assembling. That was an undertaking as explicit as it is possible for an undertaking to be; but, so far as I know, it has not been carried out. I remember myself rising in my place and putting to the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant the great importance, the absolute importance, of assuring not only Parliament, but the country, that the officers who were to administer the Act should be officers in whom the most complete confidence could be placed; and that in order to assure Parliament that confidence could be placed in them, it was absolutely essential that their qualification for the office to which they were appointed should be made known as soon as it was possible to make it known. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) said it was not necessary to introduce into the Act a clause to compel the Government to make known the qualifications of the Sub-Commissioners, for, of course, the Government would do it immediately Parliament assembled. We all thought it would be done; but I am afraid the information required has not been given. Then, I regard the matter of tenure to be a very great thing. My right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gibson) has alluded to the fact that the tenure is very short. I should be reluctant to place on the public funds any charge in the slightest degree in excess of that which they should bear; but in a matter of this kind, which concerns the peace, good order, and well-being of the country—and the well-being of the country for a much longer time than we can venture to think of at the present moment—it is of the highest importance that the tenure of office of the Sub-Commissioners should be one that will secure confidence in the administration of justice by those who have to administer it. It appears to me a matter of deep importance that the officers who have to decide the future of the country for many years to come should have a tenure of office other than one simply at pleasure.

I think the right hon. Gentleman hardly intends to complain that it was the duty of Her Majesty's Government, on a sudden emergency of this kind, to have appointed 36 gentlemen to administer the Act for a term of seven years. I do not suppose he intends to go that length; but, if he does, I entirely differ with him. It seems to me that would have been a most improper course. I can believe it is the duty of the Government to give the best assurances they can—according to the knowledge they have—as to tenure. The original appointments that were made may be termed experimental appointments; but I deny that they were appointments simply during pleasure. They were experimental, and necessarily so from the nature of the case, for it is one of the difficulties in an Act of this kind—under which there are judicial functions to be performed, novel in their character and uncertain—that you cannot secure the advantages of a suitable, regular, equal, and working system, but must endeavour to have a system and method which is elastic, and adapt your judicial means to the work to be done. We have had the disadvantage of working a short period and with out knowing exactly what was necessary to be done; but the arrangements that have been made were such as seemed necessary as matters stood, and I do not think there would be any advantage at the present moment in altering them. The best tiling we can do is to wait a few months, and we shall then know a great deal more than we know at present, both with regard to the amount of work to be done and the rate at which it has to be done. We shall be anxious to give all the information we can, and to take the best measures we can for meeting the various demands of the case in the course of the present Session. As to the question of the rate at which the work is to be done, the House probably was surprised last night to hear my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General for Ireland set forth the remarkable acceleration of the business in the Courts during the month of February, as compared with the rate of progress during the preceding months, although there had been no lack of diligence on the part of the Assistant Commissioners. At first operations were slow, owing to the difficulty attending initial stages with regard to machinery and rules. Another point raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) was the engagement of Her Majesty's Government to produce an account with respect to the Sub-Commissioners to be appointed. It is quite true it was stated that it would not be necessary to wait for the conclusion of the year's operations; but it is no part of my duty to look to the redemption of that engagement. I am quite sure the Chief Secretary, if he were here, would be able to give a better account than I can. If there should by an accident, in the midst of an immense amount of work and number of engagements, have been a remissness in this matter, we will look into it and endeavour to give the information desired at the earliest possible time.

I am glad to hear what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman as to an account of the Sub-Commissioners. The House expected, when this Act was passed last year, that the Chief Commissioners themselves would, at the commencement, have gone into the different localities in Ireland, and written the line at the head of the copy-book, so to speak—have laid down some sort of rule for the guidance of the Sub-Commissioners. I very much regret that they did not do so. We trusted these gentlemen. The Bill would never have been allowed to pass if the names of the Chief Commissioners had not met with the approval of the House and been put into it. These gentlemen, I contend, should themselves have visited the different Provinces and counties in order to show what their interpretation of the Act was. There was one part of the observations of my right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gibson) to which the Prime Minister has not accorded an answer, and that was whether, in the absence of personal visits to the localities by the Chief Commissioners, there were not some general principles laid down by them and communicated to the Sub-Commissioners? That is what we especially want to know. These gentlemen were trusted with the execution of this Act on the faith of their great name and standing in the country. If they had gone round themselves and given a sort of plea as to the meaning of the Act, and as to how different cases were to be dealt with, the state of the ease would have been very different; but they did not do that, and therefore one may say that the putting of this Act into operation was handed over to the Sub-Commissioners. What we want to know, therefore, is, when these Sub-Commissioners were appointed?—I will not say what instructions were given them, because they would not be instructions, but what general principles were laid down for their guidance? An hon. Member the other night said that, whether you take Ireland by Provinces or counties, you find pretty much the same line of policy followed by the Sub-Commissioners—whoever they are—whether they are those who were first appointed or those who were appointed last. He went further, and said something which struck me very much. He declared—

"It has not been denied, although it has been frequently pointed out, that whether the farms are highly rack-rented or not rack-rented, the reductions are pretty much the same. The Sub-Commissioners do not seem to he guided by the extent of rack-renting, but they have made a general reduction of something like 25 per cent."

I do not know whether that is so or not. ["No, no!"] Well, that is a point upon which I want information. All I say is that that was an accusation made by an hon. Member who spoke the other night, and it has never teen denied by any Member of the Government up to the present time.

There has been a Return on the subject.

No answer has been given to that speech since it was made. We want to hear something from the Government on this matter, which, however, is only incidental to the question I am putting, and which the Committee is entitled, I think, to have answered. Were any general principles laid down for the guidance of the Sub-Commissioners who were to be appointed; and if the Attorney General for Ireland will be good enough to state that to the Committee? I will ask him further, if that is so, what are the general principles so laid down, and were the instructions to the Assistant Commissioners communicated in writing or not? That is a very plain question, to which, I hope, we shall have a very plain answer from the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Before I sit down I would add a query which has fallen from my right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith), and which deserves great consideration—namely, what is the tenure of the last-appointed Commissioners? I quite agree with the Prime Minister that in an ordinary case it would not have been well to saddle the country for five or seven years with a charge for a flood of officers who would not be required after 12 or 18 months. But in a case of this kind, where you have 570,000 people who may have recourse to the Court, you must have known, if your Act was to succeed at all, you would have a great many applications, and that it was not at all improbable that for the first two or three years the Sub-Commissioners would have a great amount of labour to perform. The fact of paying a few thousands a year more out of the Exchequer was really an absolute trifle compared with what was really the main object we wanted to establish by this Act of Parliament. We wanted to establish this—that those who were to have the administration of the Act should be absolutely independent. It would have been better to have paid five or six or seven years' salary to these Sub-Commissioners, rather than have left them uncertain of a renewal of their appointment at the end of the first year.

said, the Government had no authority, and, therefore, could not possibly give any instructions or directions either to the Land Commission, or Assistant Commissioners, or valuers. The 43rd section of the Statute provided that the Land Commission might delegate to any Sub-Commission such of the powers by the Act conferred upon the Land Commission as they thought expedient, and might from time to time revoke, alter, or modify any of the powers so delegated to the Sub-Commission. That delegation, whatever it was, he apprehended was an instruction. In reply to the right hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bourke), today he had given an undertaking to lay on the Table a copy of the delegation; therefore, so far as that was concerned, the House would see what those instructions were. Beyond that Her Majesty's Government could not go. If the Committee wanted any other instructions given to the Sub-Commissioners by the Land Commission, application must be made to the Land Commission, because the Government knew nothing at all about it. ["Oh, oh!"] Probably there were hon. Members present who thought it was the duty of the Government to control and supervise the Land Commission. He confessed he was not of that opinion. It was the duty of the Land Commission to discharge their own functions independently, and it was not the duty of the Government to interfere with them in the discharge of those functions. The next point to which reference was made was the tenure of the Assistant Commissioners. The tenure of the first who were appointed was according to the Rules laid on the Table of the House, and dated 1st October last. The Statute directed that the persons appointed should have the prescribed qualifications and hold office for the prescribed times. The Rules of October accordingly prescribed for the Assistant Commissioners appointed under them the term of seven years. In reply also to the right hon. Member for King's Lynn, he had stated that the subsequent appointments made since the 9th of November, 1881, were made pursuant to a further Rule, which was also laid on the Table to be printed. He had asked for it whilst this discussion had been going on, but had been unable to obtain it. It had been laid on the Table, but had not yet been printed; he apprehended that it would necessarily be printed as a public document. But the Assistant Commissioners appointed under that Rule of November held office for one year certain. As to the reduction of rents, of course, to strike an average all round gave no conclusion of any value whatever; but anyone who looked at the Returns furnished would find that in some cases there had been no alteration in the rents, whilst in others some had been reduced and others had been only triflingly raised. He had not provided himself with the figures, because he had not anticipated that the point would crop up. There were some cases where the reductions were slight, in others where they were considerable; in fact, the reductions made varied from 2 or 3 per cent to 50 per cent. The rent was, and must be, fixed having regard to the circumstances of each case. The right hon. Gentleman had suggested that the large amount of business to be disposed of, the large number of persons who might be expected to go into Court, and the large number who, in point of fact, had already served originating notices, made it appear that some means to make the administration of the Act more rapid were required. He, however, did not think the facts already presented would of necessity justify that suggestion, for the Return which the Solicitor General for Ireland had quoted from last night showed that nearly half the amount had been arranged out of Court; and the longer the Act was in work the more smoothly it might be expected to work, and the more numerous, he apprehended, would be the cases amicably settled out of Court. As an illustration of this, he would mention that he had received a letter to-day from the South of Ireland, near Bandon, in which this statement was made—

"The valuator, who was culled on the part of the landlord, was employed on the part of the landlord to value the estate. He went over and valued it. The tenants appointed their valuator by agreement, and the tenants' valuator valued the estate also independently of the landlord's valuator."

The estate appeared to be a considerable one. Before the valuators entered upon their valuation they appointed an arbitrator, and the writer of the letter (Mr. Hooper) said—

"I and the tenants' valuator sat down, and in three hours we had arranged the entire estate, with 10 exceptions, which the umpire disposed of."

He did not see why that desirable course should not go on largely in Ireland. The longer the Act was in work the less friction there would be in its working, the nearer landlords and tenants would come together and settle the points by mutual arrangement, as was a common practice before the Act was passed.

said, he wished to know whether any principles had been laid down for the guidance of the Sub-Commissioners and valuators; and whether there would be any objection to a Return, containing such principles, being presented'?

replied, that he thought it would be better to inquire in the first instance. The Prime Minister had no information on that subject at present; but, of course, an inquiry could be made.

said, he hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman would make an inquiry and answer the question in a day or two.

inquired when the Return from which the Solicitor General for Ireland had quoted would be laid on the Table? He did not think it quite fair to those who had to make observations on these points that a Return should again be sprung upon them. He also wished to know whether it was not a matter of fact that in the Returns which had been published the vast majority of cases had shown reductions of between '20 and 30 percent, and that the next figure was between 30 and 40 per cent? Those were the results of such analysis as he had been able to make of the Returns presented. He further inquired whether it did not appear that on the date of those Returns the cases settled out of Court had been only 60?

said, he could only say in answer that the Return from which he had quoted had been previously laid on the Table. It had not then been printed, but he had a manuscript copy of it. With regard to the reductions— in the Province of Connaught, where they were largest, the average reduction was 28·60 per cent, and in the Province of Leinster, where they were the least, the average was 21·5 per cent.

explained, that what he had alluded to in his question was any instructions or principles that might have been laid down by the Chief Commissioners. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had stated that he would inquire upon that; but this very question had been down on the Paper in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) for more than a week. Surely the Chief Secretary for Ireland, or the Attorney General for Ireland, or the Solicitor General for Ireland, ought to have been able to answer a simple question, of which Notice had been given more than a week ago, by this time.

I can only plead guilty to not having done what, perhaps, I ought to have done, in consequence of the pressure of the proper business of my own Department.

again asked when the Return from which the Solicitor General for Ireland had quoted would be in the hands of Members? It was no answer to his question to say that it had been laid on the Table, or that copies of it were in the possession of the Government. It ought also to have been in the hands of Members, in order that they might be in a position to answer the figures it contained.

said, it was a difficult thing to say when the printer would have the Return printed; and, whatever the right hon. Gentleman might think, it was impossible for the Government to state that positively. All they could do was to lay the Return on the Table; the printer was not under their direction.

said, a good deal had been heard of the printer last Session, when it happened that he was not able to produce Papers in time for them to be made use of. He (Mr. Sexton) had carefully studied the Returns—as the right hon. Gentleman had invited Members to do—he did not say as to particular Provinces, or in particular districts, or well-off parts of the country, where the tenants were comparatively well able to live, or where the improvements were of slight value, or where they were several times the value of the fee-simple. But he had found that throughout the average reduction was about 25 per cent, and that the Sub-Commissioners had kept over Griffith's valuation. He was quite unable to understand how this universally identical result had been arrived at. The Prime Minister had dropped an observation with regard to a statement made by the Solicitor General for Ireland last night, and he appeared to desire to lead the Committee to the conclusion that the rate of speed shown by the Sub-Commissioners in arriving at their decisions had very much increased; and he conveyed the idea to the Committee that there had been considerable improvement in that respect. Now, the cases decided up to the end of January numbered 1,300; the number in February 1,000. But how did the Solicitor General for Ireland proceed? By taking credit to the Sub-Commissioners for the cases settled out of Court. Why had these cases been settled out of Court? The fact that they had been settled out of Court was the most damning and fatal fact against the Sub-Commissioners. The tenants, seeing the hopelessness of seeking to obtain judicial decisions for months and, perhaps, years, were in many parts accepting any terms the landlords chose to offer. The Sub-Commissioners had shown fatal facility in too many cases in making vexatious and needless decisions. The Attorney General for Ireland said these cases would become more numerous. No doubt they would. The more the conviction was forced home on the minds of the tenants that they need not hope for an early settlement, the more completely would they be at the mercy of the landlords. And why did the right hon. and learned Gentleman leave out of view the fact that most of these tenants were two or three years in arrear? If, in such a case, there was no chance of a decision for two or three years, would not the landlord, under throat of eviction to recover the arrears, impose any terms on the tenant? These settlements out of Court were direct testimony to the inefficiency of the Land Act. A thousand cases were heard in February; that was an increase, but, even so, it was only 12,000 cases a-year, and it would take six years to deal with the cases awaiting hearing. And, further, whatever had been gained in speed had been lost in public utility, for the discontent with the decisions had grown during February. The indication by the Prime Minister that the reductions would be lower in future had produced an immediate effect on the Sub-Commissioners; and although, of course, the Sub-Commissioners were independent judicial officers, there were many ways—by a postscript to a letter or a speech in the House of Commons—by which judicial independence might be at least sapped, if not overthrown. The Government were so in love with their Act——

The hon. Member cannot, under a Vote for the Officers of the Land Commission, discuss the general principles of the Act.

, continuing, said, the Sub-Commissioners in Armagh, which was in Ulster, had recently valued an estate belonging to Mr. Francis William Pope, and their decision had given such grave dissatisfaction that the hon. Member for the county (Mr. Richardson) had felt it his duty to send a valuator over the estate after the decision had been given, and that valuator had arrived at the same conclusion as the tenant's valuator. And a most remarkable scene was witnessed a few weeks ago in that locality. During the popularity of the Act which they thought was to be their one salvation and hope, the tenants gave a singular proof of that popularity by publicly burning two of the Armagh Sub-Commissioners in effigy; and the newspaper report stated that the burning of the effigies was carried out with the utmost enthusiasm by the farmers of that district, and also that they adopted a resolution asking for the dismissal of the Sub-Commissioners. These were proofs of popularity to which he (Mr. Sexton) would have a very strong objection if he had been concerned in the production of the Land Act. The Attorney General for Ireland had quoted an Irish proverb—that "the best goaler is always on the ditch." There was at this moment a curious official illustration of that proverb. The Chief Secretary was supposed to know more about the work before the Commissioners than anyone else; but where was he? It was his business to be in the House to answer important Questions rather than to be away on the ditches in Clare, making speeches to a small army of police and soldiers.

said, it was perfectly true that he had from time received letters, finding fault with the decisions of the Sub-Commissioners, from tenants who had considered the reductions made in their cases too low. He had also been asked from time to time to take part in meetings to find fault with the Sub-Commissioners' decisions; but he had uniformly declined to do so, believing that, as a Member of that House, it was not his business to sit in judgment upon the Sub-Commissioners. He had not thought any the less of the Land Act because of these complaints; his belief was that, so long as the Sub-Commissioners satisfied neither party, they could not be very far from right. With regard to the burning of the Sub-Commissioners in effigy, he had heard nothing of it. [Mr. SEXTON: It was reported in the newspapers.] He had not seen the report. It might have happened, for in some parts of Ireland effigies were sometimes burned. He believed that the late Lord Beaconsfield had been burned in effigy; and he knew the present Prime Minister had been; and he himself had been burned in effigy on the back of the Prime Minister. They were not, however, burned in effigy by supporters of the Liberal Party, or of the Party whom the hon. Members opposite (the Home Rule Members) wished to represent, but by the supporters of the Opposition.

said, he thought it extraordinary that hon. Members should rise at this moment to complain of the slowness of the Sub-Commissioners. What amazed him was the forgetfulness into which hon. Members fell from time to time. Was the Committee aware that the whole of Tipperary was at this moment covered with placards, signed by Mr. Egan, telling the tenants not to pay rent and not to go into Court? Yet the Sub-Commissioners were to bear the blame of delay, while the whole force of the Land League organization was being directed against not only paying rent, but going into Court. When the Commissioners went to his town (Clonmel), not a tenant ventured to go into Court, for the word had gone forth that it would not be safe to do so. A number of tenants were most anxious to accept the most generous offer of their land- lords to pay 75 per cent of rent down, and leave 25 per cent unpaid. Nothing could have been fairer; but when the tenants were prepared with their cases to go before the Court, shots were fired into their houses. In the case of one man, a bullet was fired into his house, and struck his daughter on the back, though happily without inflicting any serious wound. And in the yard the man found a notice on the wall to this effect—"No rent; no Court. Moonlight will call again." That was the reason why the tenants did not go into Court, and the Act had not worked more rapidly; and, until these outrages were put down, the Act could not possibly work well.

said, it was evident that the abstention of tenants, either because of intimidation or for other reasons, from going into Court had nothing to do with the rate at which the Court could deal with the cases submitted to it. The two matters were totally distinct. He wished to ask the Attorney General for Ireland for an explanation on one or two points. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had stated that it was not the duty of the Government to interfere with the functions conferred on the Chief Commissioners by Parliament in reference to the appointment of the Sub-Commissioners, and had pointed to a section of the Act vesting the appointment of the Sub-Commissioners in the Chief Commissioners, and not in the Government. He wished to know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman adhered to that statement?

said, he had already promised to further inquire into that matter, and to lay the copy of the delegation to the Sub-Commissioners on the Table.

observed, that the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench (Sir R. Assheton Cross) had tried to get from the Government a statement as to whether they would be in a position to lay on the Table a Return of the grounds or principles upon which any instructions they had given to the Sub-Commissioners had been based, and of the principles upon which valuations were to be conducted. He was rather inclined to fear that, even if the Government were disposed to grant such a statement, they would probably be told by the Commissioners that they had not a copy of such instructions. It was a very remarkable fact that while important statements were usually made with care and deliberation, and copies were kept, yet in the case of the Land Commissioners copies of statements were not accessible at all. The right hon. Gentleman probably knew to what he was alluding, as he had placed a Motion on the Paper in reference to the matter. The noble Lord (Lord Frederick Cavendish) had explained the small amount in the Estimate on account of valuations by the fact that the Government Valuation Office had placed at the disposal of the Commissioners copies of their maps. It appeared to him that the business would have been simplified if the Sub-Commissioners had availed themselves of the valuations as well as the maps. All the travelling expenses would have been saved, and the same results arrived at. In regard to the case of Mr. Fottrell, the Attorney General had said that when any action had been committed for which the Government were more or less responsible, they were entitled to ask the Department concerned to make an investigation. No one contested that assertion for a moment, and no one could question the propriety of the letter of the Chief Secretary on that matter, which had been laid on the Table. But the letter to which he (Mr. Gray) had alluded was not the printed letter, but a private letter. Was the right hon. and learned Gentleman not aware that there was a private letter from the Chief Secretary to the Chief Commissioner, Judge O'Hagan, requesting him to ask Mr. Fottrell whether he was the author of certain articles which appeared in the newspapers? He could inform the right hon. and learned Gentleman that there was such a letter, and the Chief Secretary had acknowledged that in a postscript to that letter he suggested that that question should be put to Mr. Fottrell. And Mr. Fottrell, in the published letter, had stated that the Commissioners, in accordance with the suggestion of the Chief Secretary, but with reluctance, had put a question which it was evident they would not have asked unless compelled. Did the Government justify that action, and would they lay the letter containing that postcript on the Table? That was the letter he had referred to, and not the ordinary published letter requiring an investigation which was perfectly natural.

complained that although the Solicitor General for Ireland had spoken twice, and the Attorney General for Ireland several times, neither of them had given any information respecting what he called a scandalous job—the advertisement of certain material facts which were to be brought to the knowledge of the Irish tenantry. That advertisement was inserted in The Scotsman newspaper, a paper which had for the last twelve months vilified the character of the Irish people, and in which, day after day, the Irish Members were attacked in its London letter in a manner only worthy of contempt. He contended that it was a gross act of bribery to a Scotch newspaper which did not circulate in Ireland, and he should like to know for what reason the bribe was given. It could not be for giving information to the Irish people, and it could only be given in the shape of a pecuniary bribe to a Scotch newspaper. He wished to know if the advertisements were sent out to the newspapers from the office of the Land Commissioners or from the Office of the Irish Government? If no answer were vouchsafed to the question he would move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £750.

said, he had already stated that he would inquire into the matter and undertake to furnish the House with particulars.

said the answer quite satisfied him. He saw that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was so thoroughly ashamed of the transaction that he would not admit for a moment that the advertisements had been sent out from the Office of the Irish Government.

said, he was not surprised to find that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had not been able to reply to the queries put to him. The moment the name of Mr. Fottrell was mentioned the right hon. Gentleman the Premier gave a groan; but if he wished to see the Estimates passed quickly, that was not the way to succeed in his object. They were quite able to understand what these groans meant; but although the clôture was under discussion, the Government had not yet succeeded in passing it. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that as long as the Irish Members considered any question worth debating they would debate it in spite of the groaning of the Prime Minister and of the whole Treasury Bench in chorus. He wished to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General whether it was true that the tenants were obliged to describe the position and name of their farm according to the way in which they appeared upon the maps of the Ordnance Survey? He was not quite sure whether this requirement appeared on the face of the originating notice itself, but he believed that it did. They had heard a good deal that night as to the Ordnance Survey maps, and he was sure that a good many people in Ireland were prejudiced against them, and he would tell the Committee why. He understood that the nomenclature, as it appeared on these maps, was one for which a well-known Irish scholar—the late John O'Donovan—was, to a great extent, responsible; but, nevertheless, it was a fact that many of the names which appeared on the maps of the Ordnance Survey were names which were not known to the Irish people at all. The result was that they compelled the persons who paid 1s. for an originating notice to go 15 or 20 miles in order to obtain an Ordnance Survey map, or else to incur the expense of purchasing one, in order to satisfy the Commissioners, when it did not signify a button what they called the farm so long as it was capable of being identified. He wanted to know what reason or necessity there was for these vexatious requirements, and whether the Commissioners themselves would be supplied with the maps of the Ordnance Survey? As soon as an opportunity was afforded it was his intention to call the attention of the House to these extra requirements. He should like to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether, as he was so delicate about interfering with the judicial action of the Commissioners, he considered it part of his functions, or that of any other right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench, to ask the Chief Commissioners or the Sub-Commissioners whether, instead of enforcing this extra requirement, it would not be sufficient for the tenant to describe his farm, the number of acres upon it, the name of the landlord, and the name by which the the farm was ordinarily known? He could not understand why this extra requirement was attached to the originating notice, because, some 40 years ago, some person connected with the valuation thought fit to lay down a name for a particular farm, which might as well have been given in Arabic or Hindostanee, as it was not recognized generally.

said, he thought it was hardly necessary to answer the question. This was certainly the first time he had ever heard any complaint upon the subject. He had not seen any complaint in any of the Irish newspapers, nor had he heard of any from any professional man. As to the accuracy of the maps of the Ordnance Survey, he entirely differed from the hon. Member. It was a matter in which Ireland was far in advance of England. England was only beginning to follow in her wake. The whole of the proceedings of the Landed Estates Court in Ireland, ever since the institution of that tribunal, had been based upon the Ordnance Survey. All the sales were verified by the Ordnance map, and there was not a person in Ireland interested in the sale of land who did not possess an Ordnance map of the locality with which he was connected. There were copies of it to be obtained in any library or public institution.

remarked, that a tenant farmer with 10 acres of land did not often possess a library.

said, there was no difficulty whatever in obtaining a copy of the Ordnance Survey, and this was the first time he had ever heard any objection raised to the accuracy of the Ordnance maps.

said, he had never heard anything, either good, bad, or indifferent, in regard to letter in the Fottrell correspondence, which the hon. Member had referred. ad not seen the letter it was le that he could answer the

remarked, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman represented the Chief Secretary in the absence of that right hon. Gentleman, and he was, therefore, the only person the Irish Members could appeal to for information.

wished to put a Question to the right hon. and learned Attorney General in reference to this Vote in regard to the appointment of clerks. He was told that the Commissioners had represented that they would appoint clerks by competitive examination, and, accordingly, a number of persons made application to pass an examination, so that they might have a chance of securing some of the appointments. But before the time expired at which the examination was to take place, the greater part, if not the whole, of the appointments had been filled up by clerks who had passed no examination whatever. He only knew one clerk who had been appointed to a post under the Land Commission after undergoing an examination. He did happen to know one, and he was given to believe that the individual in question was the only one. It seemed to him that the course taken by the Commissioners in this respect was most objectionable, and he should be glad to learn if the right hon. and learned Gentleman was in a position to give any information upon the subject?

said, he believed that some of the clerks had been taken over from the Church Temporalities Office, and it was not necessary that they should be required to undergo an examination. All the other clerks who were selected in order to start the Office were nominated and subjected to examination. Since the first appointments were made, all the clerks appointed in future would be placed on the same footing as the clerks in other Public Departments, and would only be appointed after competitive examination. It was possible that some of the clerks appointed in the first instance were brought up in batches; but they were all subjected to the same kind of examination, and all those appointed would in future be subjected to competition.

said, he wished to make a remark in reference to the Fottrell Correspondence. He desired to inform the right hon. and learned Gentleman that when the Chief Secretary read the celebrated postscript to the Correspondence, he challenged the right hon. Gentleman to lay a copy of the entire Correspondence upon the Table. Indeed, he had moved for it on Tuesday last, and accordingly the House would soon be placed in possession of this historical postscript.

said, he thought that the explanation which had been given with regard to Mr. Fottrell was highly unsatisfactory. [A laugh.] It might be very amusing to some hon. Members; but the Irish Members considered it a very serious matter for the Government to appoint a decent man to a position and then to get rid of him. If they appointed him at all they should keep him. The explanation given on behalf of the Government was so unsatisfactory that he felt it his duty to move, by way of protest, the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £1,000. Up to the present moment he had not said a word on the subject of Mr. Fottrell; but if Mr. Fottrell had had the slightest connection with the Land League he (Mr. Sexton) would have known it. The League had one or two solicitors, and so far as the Irish Bar were concerned the Land League were the best employers that Bar had during last summer. He had been personally concerned in employing 10 or 12 barristers every week, but with Mr. Fottrell he had had no connection at all. Mr. Fottrell was simply employed in connection with the purchase of The United Ireland newspaper; and, although he (Mr. Sexton) had the direction of the affairs of the Land League for some time, he never knew anything of that gentleman. It appeared that the only fault Mr. Fottrell had committed was a fault of excessive zeal in endeavouring to bring into operation the only part of the Land Act from which the least good could be expected. It was an evil lesson when honourable, high-minded men were driven out of the service of the Government, and when, upon the other hand, the son of Judge Fitzgerald, who had made himself a most useful agent of the Government in the pursuit of their policy of coercion, was singled out for favour and advancement. He intended to protest in every way he could against the cowardly and unfair treatment to which this high- minded gentleman—Mr. Fottrell—had been subjected, and he would therefore move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £1,000.

only desired to say one word at this advanced stage of the discussion. He regretted the course which the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had taken in delaying the passing of the Vote. At the same time, he hoped he might be permitted to say that no one had ever imputed to Mr. Fottrell anything beyond the exercise of over zeal in the discharge of his duty. He had had frequent opportunities of seeing Mr. Fottrell since his appointment as Solicitor to the Land Commission, and he had never known a gentleman who was more devoted to the discharge of his duties, or had been more anxious to carry out the intentions of the Act of Parliament, and especially of the Bright Clauses, to which he was much attached. He did not think the Motion of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) was necessary as a protest against the removal of Mr. Fottrell. He did not think it necessary at all that the course which the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down proposed should be taken, because, in every circumstance in which reference had been made to the matter, the universal opinion had been—and it was the opinion he entertained himself in the strongest degree—that Mr. Fottrell had discharged his duties with efficiency. He was a gentleman of the very highest character, and the only fault he had been guilty of in connection with the whole matter was simply over zeal in the discharge of his duties.

said, was one on which they to receive a considerable amount of information. Nothing could be more unsatisfactory than the position of University education in Ireland, and he thought Irish Members should be afforded the earliest possible opportunity of exhibiting the very serious deficiencies which existed in the system which had, in fact, been in many respects rendered more hurtful by recent legislation. The manner in which the Queen's University had been wound up had not tended in any degree towards removing the grievances of Irish Catholics, or introducing religious equality into Ireland; while from the point of view of pure education the interest of the country in that Department had not been consulted by the change which had taken place. The noble Lord had stated that it was not his intention to take the next Vote, and he (Mr. O'Donnell) could not but think it would be well to defer this Vote also.

said, he would remind the hon. Member that they had, up to that time, only taken the Vote for the Office of the Irish Land Commission, and he could not assent to the suggestion of the hon. Member that it would be well to postpone the consideration of the Estimate before the Committee. The present Vote did not involve any question of principle, but was simply for the purpose of providing for certain charges which in the ordinary course would have come in course of payment in the next financial year, but which became a Supplementary Charge upon last year, owing to the dissolution of the Queen's University.

pointed out that if the Queen's University had not been dissolved they would have had an opportunity of discussing the question of Irish University education on the Estimates, and they could have asked to have the Vote taken at a proper time in the day. The circumstances under which the Queen's University had been dissolved, and the unreal character of that dissolution, all came up on this question. The dissolution had only taken place in a specious and unreal sense, inasmuch as all the objectionable features of the University had been retained, and the change which had taken place had been carried out in such a manner as to constitute an additional ingredient of unfairness and dissatisfaction in the educational system of Ireland. He could, of course, sympathize with the desire of the noble Lord the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to make progress with the Supplementary Estimates, and begged to assure him that it was the wish of Irish Members to retard no Votes which, in their opinion, did not urgently call for delay. If the noble Lord would mention what were the other Estimates he desired to get through, he was sure that his hon. Friends would be willing to pass them unchallenged if they possibly could do so; but he thought the present Vote, together with that for the Royal University, might very well stand over with the County Court Officers' Vote. If that course were adopted the noble Lord would make more progress than by taking the University Votes separately.

said, he could not conceive that the present small Supplementary Vote offered a convenient opportunity for discussing the general question of University education in Ireland.

said, he thought it would be hardly worth while to insist upon passing this Vote while the Vote for the Royal University was left over. As that would involve a considerable amount of discussion, he would suggest that it would be better to take the two Votes together on a future occasion. However, if the noble Lord said that the fullness of discussion would not be interfered with on the next occasion by the passing of the present Vote, he was willing to withdraw his objection.

said, he should move that this Vote be reduced by the sum of £670, being the amount charged on account of salary, staff, and office expenses of the Resident in Zululand. He thought it had been conclusively proved that the position of the Resident in Zululand was worse than a sinecure. The present occupant of the office did no good whatever to the Native population, and his presence seemed only calculated to support the mischievous action of such unworthy characters as John Dunn. The so-called "settlement" in Zululand was simply a system of internecine war and mutual extermination carried on by the miserable nominees whom they had set up in that country. He had not seen the slightest trace of any beneficent action on the part of the Resident there; but he by no means wished to bring any charge of inefficiency or ineffectiveness against the Gentleman who happened to occupy the post. It was quite possible that the circumstances in which he was placed, and the very nature of the position, rendered him absolutely incapable of doing any good. His objection was taken to the office of Resident itself, which, in his opinion, was not calculated to promote in any way the well-being of the Native races, and was, on the contrary, a mere badge of irritating interference—a mere continuation of the wicked policy introduced into Zululand by Sir Bartle Frere, which had been condemned by the Liberal Party, and which it was astonishing that they should now support, seeing that they had it in their power to change the state of affairs. The Residents in Zululand had not prevented any of the struggles that had taken place between the Native Tribes, although he (Mr. O'Donnell) believed that on one occasion he had tried to do so; the reward of his interference being that he was obliged to fly from the wrath he had provoked on both sides. His presence in Zululand was only a sort of pledge that they would continue to support the evil system they had introduced there; and he expected it would hereafter be proved that a much larger number of murders and outrages of every kind had been perpetrated under the nominal supervision of the British Resident, than had occurred during the whole period of Cetewayo's much-abused reign. He hoped the hon. Gentleman who represented the Colonial Department would offer some explanations on this subject. He recollected that the hon. Gentleman had on former occasions given the Irish Party some assistance in defending the cause of the Natives of South Africa, whose rights he was, doubtless, still interested in preserving.

reminded the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) that the question relating to Zululand would be raised on the Motion which stood on the Paper in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst). He should strongly support that Motion when it came before the House; but he thought the hon. Member for Dungarvan would do well to consider that, whatever might be thought of the position of affairs in Zululand, it was very important that Her Majesty's Government should have reliable information as to what was passing in that country. That being the case, he did not see how the Vote could, with propriety, be reduced; and he would suggest that it would be better to discuss the question of the Resident on the Motion to which he had alluded, rather than that the Committee should divide at so late an hour of the morning, on the question of an amount which, after all, must be given to the Government; because it was clear that, under any circumstances, the representation of this country in Zululand would involve a certain amount of expense.

said, he hoped the Motion of the hon. Member for Dungarvan would not be pressed. With respect to the position of the Resident in Zulu-land, he was willing to agree with the hon. Member that it was certainly one open to serious consideration. The Resident was without any authority, his office being simply to act as adviser, and, being in that position, he was not quite so useless as the hon. Member seemed to think. He was engaged in giving advice to the Natives, which was intended to prevent struggles taking place between the different Tribes; and upon some occasions he had been successful, although upon others he had failed. It was part of the instructions given to Sir Henry Bulwer, who had gone out to Natal, that he should ascertain and report to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in the fullest and most accurate manner, what were the sentiments and wishes of the people of Zululand themselves; and the future settlement of that country must greatly depend upon the answers received from the Native Chiefs.

said, he was satisfied with the explanations of the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, so far as they went, and was willing, with the permission of the Committee, to withdraw his Motion for the reduction of the Vote.

asked if the instructions referred to by the hon. Gentleman opposite were, that inquiry should be made of the Zulu Chiefs as to whether they wanted their King back again?

It is not put exactly in that way.

said, he was about to move the reduction of this Vote by the sum of £3,195. The first item of the Vote, under the heading of Orders of Knighthood and Medals, was a portion of the sum of £3,645, for the purchase of Insignia and Robes, &c, on the creation of the Emperor of Russia, and Kings of Sweden, Spain, and Saxony, as Knights of the Garter. He was not a member of any of these Orders; but he presumed this referred to some kind of mediæval millinery connected with them, because he believed that the jewel was only lent to the Knight to be returned on his death. He would allow for each of the Monarchs named the sum of £ 100, which he considered as amply sufficient. The next item was for the purchase of Insignia and Robes, &c, on creation of the Duke of Cambridge as Knight of the Thistle. The Committee were entitled to some explanation of that charge. These Orders of the Garter and Thistle called to mind the remark of Lord Melbourne, that there was no nonsense of merit about them; they were merely adjuncts of the toilet. He believed that when a Knight of the Thistle was appointed he had to buy his own Insignia and Robes; and he failed to see why any exception should be made in favour of the Duke of Cambridge. Then came the charge for the purchase of Insignia of the Order of St. Michael and St. George to be placed in stock, &c, &c. He supposed that meant the medal itself, and he believed he was making a handsome allowance in putting down £50 for this item. The next item was £564 for Fees to Heralds and others in respect of patents of creation issued from the Crown Office in Chancery, and now taken in stamps. He did not understand why this amount was paid. When these Orders were given by Her Majesty there was certainly no reason why payment should be made to these absurd Heralds.

said, he could not agree with what had fallen from the hon. Member for Northampton, because he had more respect for the dignities specified in the Vote than had been observable in the speech to which they had just listened. He hoped the noble Lord would see if anything could be done to make the College of Heraldry of use.

said, he thought that the names of persons who had received the fees and payments for the Insignia should be furnished, so that hon. Members might have some better idea of the way the money was disposed of.

said, he had already referred to the Return with these details; and if the hon. Member who had just spoken desired it he would be happy to show it to him. The hon. Member for Northampton had stated that the jewels were all returned at the death of the Knights. That was the case with the ordinary Knights of the Garter; but it was never the case when the Order was conferred on Foreign Monarchs. He did not think the hon. Member would wish to make an innovation in that respect. [Mr. LABOUCHERE: Oh, yes.] The reason for the purchase of the Insignia of the Order of St. Michael and St. George was that the Order had a short time since been largely increased; and it was found to be much more economical to buy in the manner indicated in the Vote, by which, he believed, there had been a saving effected of about 10 per cent. The fees to Heralds were fully covered by the stamps issued to the Herald's College.

admired the dashing style in which the hon. Member for Northampton had knocked over, so to speak, the mediaeval relics provided for in the Vote; still he thought that even on democratic principles the Committee ought not to vote against the granting of such distinctions. Objections might be brought against them; but he believed that all history showed that those bits of silk and pieces of gold and silver had always been regarded as stimulants to heroic action, and as their most coveted reward. Whether they were English, French, or the Orders of other Foreign States, the desire to possess such distinctions was deeply rooted in human nature; and he strongly suspected that if some hon. Members who objected to them had gone through terrible scenes of battle and storm, and were acquainted with the value placed upon them by the bravest of the brave, their objections to them would not be so strong, at least, in principle. Whenever any abuse could be detected in the conferring of these Orders he should be quite at one with the hon. Member for Northampton. But if there were a distinction which ought not to be objected to by Radical Members, he thought it was the distinction of Knighthood. It was not hereditary, and he was surprised that Radicals should object to a class of honours which must, by theory at least, be the reward of personal merit, and which could not be handed down to future generations.

said, he thought the hon. Member for Dungarvan had not looked into the Vote. Had this charge related to the Victoria Cross, or distinctions won on the field of battle, he should have offered no objection. As he had said, he was not a member of the Order in question; but he was not under the impression that it was very frequently conferred upon democrats, or that it was a very democratic Order, and so on several grounds he moved the reduction of the Vote.

said, he did not agree with the hon. Member for Dungarvan, who appeared to have entirely misunderstood the nature of these Votes, into which the question of merit did not enter at all. His hon. Friend had stated that the desire to possess distinctions of this kind was deeply rooted; but he (Mr. T. D. Sullivan) did not think it was desirable to pander to human weakness of that kind. He could understand the conferring of these Orders where battle had been done to maintain a just cause. But that consideration did not arise here. These Orders were in many cases given for bad purposes; he knew they were often used as a means of bribing persons to take a course which they really ought not to take. The only argument of weight that he had listened to in the course of the discussion on the Motion of the hon. Member for Northampton was that advanced by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who said that with regard to these Insignia a considerable saving of expense had been effected by purchasing a quantity.

suggested that if the country had to pay for the Robes of the new Knights, a considerable saving might also be effected by buying up a large quantity of them, second-hand, from the Lyceum Theatre, for example.

asked the meaning of the mysterious paragraph relating to the fees to Heralds?

said, he had already pointed out that the cost of the fees in question were entirely covered by the stamps issued.

said, the Insignia and the Order of St. Michael and St. George were distinctly rewards for merit, and even rewards for very distinguished merit. If they were not usually won on the battle-field, they were won on the not less noble field of successful administration. He listened with great surprise to the protestations of the hon. Member for Westmeath (Mr. T. D. Sullivan) against chivalric distinctions. On many occasions that hon. Gentleman had won the cheers of Irish audiences by appeals, in his own touching and eloquent style, to the glorious days—

"When Kings, with their banners of gold unfurled,

Led the Red Branch Knights to danger;"

and it did seem strange that now the hon. Member should turn his back upon the poetic traditions of Erin.

said, he did not intend to divide the Committee upon this Vote, because these items were very much the same as those upon which they had already divided; but really there ought to be some sort of explanation afforded them. The first item was—

"Fees paid on the Installation of the Emperor of Russia, and of the Kings of Sweden and Spain"—he did not know why the King of Saxony was left out—" as Knights of the Garter, £1,358."

These were bonâ fide payments, and he believed that the recipients of the Garters had fees to pay besides.

It is not the case with Foreign Potentates.

said, that again they had—

"Fees paid on the admission of His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge into the Order of the Thistle, £245."

They did not begrudge the Thistle to the Duke of Cambridge; but when they had to pay £245 it was really too bad. He had no doubt the Duke of Cambridge efficiently performed his duty; but he had not done any signal service which rendered it necessary for the country to not only give him the Order of the Thistle, but to pay fees amounting to £245. When the Order was given it was only natural it should be given without any obligation, either on the part of the Government or recipient, to pay large fees into the Herald's Office. He had known cases in which gentlemen had refused to accept the Orders because, although they really had distinguished themselves abroad, they had not been prepared to pay the large fees exacted. They ought to receive some explanation of what the Herald's Office was, and what was its relation to the Government. Again, they had—

"Fees paid to the College of Arms, &c, for recording the Pedigrees, &c., of Sir F. S. Roberts and Sir D. M. Stewart, on their creation as Baronets, £78 11s. 4d."

Now, these gentlemen might be very estimable, and they might have pedigrees; but why £78 11s. 4d. should be paid for recording these pedigrees did appear a little too absurd. It was no use to walk through the Lobby again, because they would only get about the same number of hon. Gentlemen to follow them as in the last division. But if they did not divide, they ought to have some explanation from the noble Lord, and an assurance that he would look into the matter.

said, he would like some explanation of the item of £900 "for the conveyance of Distinguished Persons." He would like some information as to who those distinguished persons were, and as to where they were conveyed to, and where from. He decidedly objected to the item of £245 for fees paid on the admission of His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge into the Order of the Thistle, and would move its omission from the Vote.

asked for some explanation of the item of £923 1s. 6d., as "Equipage Money to the Eight Hon. H. Law, on his appointment as Lord Chancellor of Ireland." He did not rise to object to the sum, because he had the greatest respect for the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

said, he had the greatest respect for the traditions of the College of Arms; but he wished to call the attention of the noble Lord to the fact that, although a good deal of money was paid to the College of Arms, it was, practically, useless. He believed it might be made of use, if it set about making the titles possessed by gentlemen more respected. At the present time there was at the end of Forster's Peerage what was called "The Chaos," being a list of 67 names of gentlemen who used the title of Baronet without being entitled to do so. When these fees were paid to the College of Arms, the least the College could do would be to do its best to see that distinguished titles, such as that of Baronet, were only held and used by the persons entitled to them. While there was no law in the country to prevent a misuse of titles, he thought the noble Lord might do something to make the College of Arms more useful.

said, that when the noble Lord rose to explain the points already raised, perhaps he would to good enough to explain also one of the last items of the Vote—namely, £150 to

"J. H. L. Rogers, compensation for injury sustained at an Election riot at Portarlington in 1868."

He did not remember having heard of any claim on the part of his constituents in Queen's County, or on the part of the constituents of the hon. Member for Portarlington (Mr. Fitzpatrick), who, unfortunately, was not in his place; and they would be interested to know what were the grounds for the claim, and what were the reasons for the delay in meeting it.

said, that, in respect to the last question addressed to him, he had to state that Mr. Rogers, a resident magistrate, was wounded in an election riot at Portarlington in 1868. His eyesight was so affected that he was ultimately obliged to retire from his post. His expenses for medical advice and attendance were heavy, and he was considered entitled to a grant from the public funds when he was obliged to leave the service. [Mr. SEXTON: When did he leave the service?] He believed Mr. Rogers retired about a year or two ago; but he was not certain of the date. As to the observations made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), he thought the remarks he made concerning the last Vote would apply to this also. If, in accordance with universal custom, they considered it a matter of policy to give distinctions to eminent Potentates they thought it necessary to pay for them; it was not considered proper to ask the Sovereign, to whom the Orders were given, to pay the customary fees. He himself considered the system of paying large fees a bad one; but he could assure hon. Members that it was much easier to find fault with it than to abolish it. The Treasury had never lost an opportunity of putting an end to them, and he would not be backward in his duty in that respect, though he was afraid he could not promise any great success. With respect to the fees paid on the admission of the Duke of Cambridge to the Order of the Thistle, he had to make the same remark, that, according to universal custom, when a Member of the Royal Family received such honours the fees had always been paid by the State; and he did not think an invidious distinction would be made in the case of the Duke of Cambridge, who had rendered such long and active service to the country. As to the "special packets for the conveyance of Distinguished Persons," the payments were made for Members of the Royal Family chiefly when crossing to the Continent. Formerly a man-of-war was placed at the disposal of the Members of the Royal Family on such occasions; but it had been found much more economical, and otherwise more satisfactory, to arrange with the Mail Packet Company for the use of one of their special packets. He did not know whether any hon. Member would wish him to give the names of those who had had the special packets; but if so, he might refer them to the Return, which had already been moved for by the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. W. H. James). As to the equipage money to the Eight Hon. Mr. Law, it had always been made to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland on his appointment. A similar grant was made in respect to the Lord Chancellor of England.

said, the explanation given in regard to the item of £150 was the most extraordinary he had ever heard. Fourteen years ago, a resident magistrate was wounded at Portarlington, and the noble Lord told them that his sight was injured and he left the service a year or two ago. He could not think that Mr. Rogers' state of health two years ago could be influenced by injury he sustained 12 years before. He was inclined to regard the business as a job, and he objected to the payment the more emphatically, because within the last year or two the police in Ireland had wounded many people, and even killed some, yet he did not find any proposal to compensate the wounded, or the relatives of the killed. The relatives of the woman killed by the police at Belmullet had not received a single shilling. The item was a scandal, it was evidently a job, and he should move its omission.

asked for an explanation of the item of £2,182 11s. paid to—

"The representatives of John Tate, deceased, on account of share in the Uruguayan Award, the amount of which had been paid into the Exchequer."

said, the award arose out of circumstances of a long time past. The Government paid considerable sums on account of claims made by British subjects. The item referred to was not claimed, and it was consequently paid into the Exchequer. The representatives of Mr. Tate, however, had since proved their claim to the deceased's share, and it was felt proper to pay it to them.

asked if the noble Lord could refer the Committee to any Parliamentary Paper or Return with respect to Mr. Rogers?

said, he was not aware that any Return had been presented.

inquired if the noble Lord would have any objection to lay on the Table of the House the Correspondence relating to the grant to Mr. Rogers?

said, if the hon. Member would defer the matter until Report, he would tell him then whether there was any Correspondence in the matter.