asked, Whether there have very recently been eleven governors of the County of Derry Lunatic Asylum appointed by the Lord Lieutenant; whether there were more than two vacancies in the existing number of governors when such appointments were made; whether all such, persons so appointed were of the same political party, and the large majority of them prominent supporters of the Irish Solicitor General in the recent contest for Derry County; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will explain to the House what was the necessity and object of such a large number of persons of one political complexion being appointed at this time?

, in reply, said, it was the fact that 11 Governors of the County of Derry Lunatic Asylum had been recently appointed by the Lord Lieutenant. There was no prescribed number of Governors; but owing to deaths, resignations, and non-attendance, it became necessary to make new appointments. The 11 gentlemen recently appointed were Liberals, and the majority of them supported him (the Solicitor General for Ireland) in the recent election, as they had supported Liberal candidates on former occasions. Their qualifications were unquestionable, and the Board at present consisted of 24 Conservatives and 16 Liberals. There was no emolument connected with the office.

asked, what was the necessity and object of such a large number of persons of one political complexion being appointed at this time?

thought he had already answered the Question. On account of resignations and non-attendance, it was found necessary to re-inforce the Board. There had previously been much dissatisfaction with the constitution of the Board, which, in a county mainly Liberal, had consisted of 24 Conservatives and 5 Liberals.

asked, Whether the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland has received a letter from Mr. Boylan, of Edenderry, King's County, respecting the assault alleged to have been committed upon him on the 16th of January last by Captain L'Estrange, E.M.; and, whether he intends to take any steps to afford protection to Mr. Boylan in the discharge of his important duties as schoolmaster, and to mark his sense of disapproval of the conduct of Captain L'Estrange, E.M., or to order an independent inquiry into the occurrence on the occasion in question?

Sir, the Chief Secretary for Ireland has received Mr. Boylan's letter, and the matter is under his consideration.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What steps have been taken towards obtaining compensation to the representatives of Dr. William Maclean, Physician to the British Minister, from the Government of Chili, for the murder of Dr. Maclean by Chilian troops at Chorilles, Peru, and within the Minister's residence, on 13th January 1881?

Sir, Her Majesty's Minister in Chili has been instructed to bring this case to the notice of the Chilian Government, who have promised that an inquiry shall be instituted. The relatives of Dr. Maclean have been informed that the case will be duly considered with the other British claims against the Chilian Government.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Foreign Office have any information of the reported intention of the Portuguese Government to occupy the district adjoining Lake Nyassa, in which the Blantyre Mission is situate; and, whether such occupation has the approval of Her Majesty's Government, as being a step likely to diminish the Slave Trade as now carried on by Portuguese subjects on the coast of Mozambique?

Sir, the report mentioned by the hon. Baronet reached Her Majesty's Government from Zanzibar; but they have been since positively assured by the Portuguese Government that it is without foundation.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government are in a position to give the House any information as to the negotiation of a commercial treaty between this Country and Spain?

Negotiations, Sir, are taking place between this country and Spain; but I cannot at present say more.

asked, Whether Michael Gibbons, Patrick Gibbons, and John L. Gannon, arrested in the county Roscommon, on the 7th of May 1881, as suspects of assembling for the purpose of disturbing the public peace, are still detained, although Thomas Gibbons, arrested at the same time and on the same charge, has been long since liberated; whether there is any, and what, difference, between his (Thomas Gibbons') case and theirs; and whether it is a fact that no agrarian crime or outrage of any kind has been, cither for many months before or since, committed in the district in which these men lived?

Sir, Michael and Patrick Gibbons and John L. Gannon are still detained. Thomas Gibbons was discharged principally on account of his age. With regard to the latter part of the Question, in this district agrarian and other outrages have been committed both before and since the arrests. On the 6th of January last a mob of 50 persons attacked a police patrol and succeeded in carrying off one of their rifles.

asked, Whether the alleged intimidating persons from paying rent, assigned as the cause of the arrest of John P. Hayden and George F. Fannon in Roscommon on the 8th ultimo, consisted in their canvassing the ratepayers in favour of the re-election as Poor Law Guardians of Roscommon Union, of two candidates, Messrs. Nond and Burke, at present imprisoned suspects; whether the arrest was made between twelve and one o'clock in the morning, although the warrants had been laying some time with the police authorities; whether the prisons of Monaghan and Omagh, to which they were removed, were the two prisons farthest removed from Roscommon and the most inconvenient of access; whether the authorities were aware, when removing Mr. Hayden to the latter, that the Governor had only a few days before died of fever, produced by its bad sanitary condition; and, whether the Government are aware that Mr. Hayden has been acting for his brother, Mr. Luke P. Hayden, the editor and proprietor of the "Roscommon Messenger," who has for nearly five months been imprisoned as a suspect in Gal way Prison, and that the detention of both brothers under the circumstances practically precludes them from. taking any part in the management of the paper?

Sir, in reply to the first inquiry in this Question, I must remind the hon. Member that it has been repeatedly announced in this House, and for very obvious reasons, that the circumstances causing arrest will not be stated; and I fear I am infringing on that principle in even saying that these persons were not arrested for the cause suggested in this inquiry. As to the other inquiries in the Question, the arrests were made at about midnight, in order to avoid excitement and as the train left in an hour afterwards. The warrants were not for some time lying with the police; they were dated the 7th of February, and the unfortunate death of the Governor of Omagh Prison did not occur until the following day. Monaghan and Omagh Prisons are not the most remote from Roscommon, nor the most inconvenient of access. I am informed that the Government were aware that Mr. John Hayden is brother of Mr. Luke Hayden and acting for him in reference to the paper referred to.

asked, If it is a fact that Mr. Francis Campbell, on making application in the ordinary way to visit some of the suspects in Armagh. Gaol, on the 16th February last, was refused admission and informed that no one living either in the county of Armagh or of Tyrone would be allowed in; and, if so, whether the authorities of the Gaol were acting in accordance with his instructions?

Sir, the facts are as stated in the Question. The reason was that small-pox of a very virulent character was prevalent in the district; and the medical officer, with the view of protecting the prisoners from the danger of infection, deemed it necessary, with the sanction of the prison authorities, to give directions that, until further order, no person residing in the district should be admitted into the prison.

inquired if the right lion, and learned Gentleman meant to say that small-pox existed in the entire of the two counties?

Unhappily, it exists both in the counties of Armagh and Tyrone; but I am unable to say in what portions.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether, in introducing the new warehousing scheme for the Customs, the Government intend to abolish the existing clerical establishments, and to offer the clerks situations as officers of the Outdoor Department; whether the acceptance of those situations will involve longer hours of attendance than those the clerks have hitherto been required to give; whether the pay and prospects of clerks placed on the new outdoor classification would not be inferior to their pay and prospects on the clerical classifications; and, what course the Government propose to take with respect to clerks who may be unable or unwilling to accept a transfer to the Outdoor Department?

also asked, Whether the Government propose to use the full powers, conferred by Clause 7 of the Superannuation Act of 1859, to grant two-thirds of their salary and emoluments to Customs clerks disestablished by the proposed changes in the warehousing system; also, what steps the Government have taken to find suitable employment in other branches of the Civil Service for the Customs clerks, whose situations are to be abolished by the new warehousing scheme?

also asked, Whether it is proposed by the Treasury to insist upon the clerks in the warehousing departments of the Customs either accepting employment in the Outdoor Department or retiring upon pensions; and, whether a sufficient number of Indoor situations could not be found for clerks unable to accept the Outdoor employment, if fair terms of retirement were offered to the whole of the Customs' service?

Sir, it may save the time of the House that I should answer the Questions of the two hon. Members for Mid Surrey at the same time as that of the noble Lord. The Treasury is endeavouring to effect the important object of the entire assimilation of the warehousing systems of the two Revenue Departments with as little injury as possible to any of the individuals concerned. With this object they have directed the Board of Customs, as a preliminary, to take steps for ascertaining which of the clerks in the Warehousing Departments of the Customs would desire to retire upon the ordinary abolition terms of Section 7 of the Superannuation Act of 1859, and which of them would desire to be transferred to the Outdoor Service. The offers of retirement will have to be considered, subject to the condition that they are reconcilable with the good of the service and with due regard to economy. I may here observe that although, under the new system, the duties of the Warehousing Department, now performed at the Custom House, will be performed at the warehouses, those duties will continue to be largely of a clerical character. Many of the present clerks will, therefore, be well fitted for the clerical work in the Outdoor Service which will be required under the new system. Personal allowances will be made to officers so transferred when the salaries of their new posts are less than those of which they are now in receipt. The Government has, moreover, not lost sight of the possibility of allowing room to be made in other departments of the Customs for warehousing clerks displaced by the change, provided that clerks of corresponding rank in those departments are willing to take the terms of retirement offered to the warehousing clerks. By these various means it is hoped to provide for the great majority of the clerks in question; and, until we have learned how far they are efficacious, it is not desirable to consider the question of finding employment in other Departments of the Civil Service. In reply to the second part of the Question of the noble Lord, I have to state that the hours of attendance will, in fact, begin somewhat earlier than is now required, but that the same attendance might, as far as terms of service go, be required now; and, as regards the third part, so far as relates to the prospects, it would be difficult to say whether the gain or the loss would, on the whole, be the greater.

asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether, considering the very unsatisfactory arrangements at present existing for the care, maintenance, and medical treatment of insane persons who are detained in private houses in Ireland, under the Acts 5 and 6 Vic. c. 123, and 38 and 39 Vic. c. 67, and the admitted evils connected therewith, he will advise Her Majesty's Government to bring in a Bill to abolish altogether the system of lunatic asylums kept by private individuals for personal gain in Ireland, and to substitute instead a system of self-supporting institutions under the management and control of paid officers, whose only pecuniary interest in them would be the salaries attached to their respective offices?

Sir, this is a question of policy which should be addressed to a Cabinet Minister, and not to the Attorney General for Ireland.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether any and what reply has been given by the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury to a Memorial from the merchants interested in the coffee trade, presented on the 6th February last, urging the withdrawal of a Treasury Minute, dated on the 20th January, which purported to sanction the importation, under a duty of 2d. per pound, of coffee or chicory, roasted and ground, and of any other vegetable matter, however worthless, mixed, without any restriction upon the proportion, with coffee or chicory; and, whether he will lay upon the Table of the House, to be printed, a Copy of the Memorial, with the signatures appended, and of the reply returned to the memorialists?

, in reply, said, that the Treasury Order simply permitted the importation of a mixture of chicory and coffee, while it was now allowable to import coffee by itself, and chicory by itself. No alteration whatever had been made with regard to the sale of the mixture which had of late been permissible by law. The question of the advisability of allowing the sale was one that related rather to the Adulteration Acts than to the Customs tariff. There was no objection to laying the Correspondence on the Table, if the hon. Gentleman moved for it.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether Militia officers are ineligible for the classes of instruction in field works and surveying at Chatham; and, if so, whether any exception has been made to this rule?

I find, Sir, that in 1877, my Predecessor, Viscount Cranbrook, stated, in reply to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Frome (Mr. H. Samuelson), that he-could not give leave to officers of Militia Infantry to study at Chatham. This rule has been observed, except in the case of one or two officers actually residing at Chatham. I see no reason to extend this permission further.

asked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether it is the intention of the Science and Art Department to take steps to carry out the promise to establish a Science and Art School in connection with the East London Museum at Bethnal Green, which was given by the Lords of the Committee of Council on Education, by a letter written at their direction, and dated December 12th, 1870, which appears among the Parliamentary Papers of the Session of 1872?

Sir, I have looked into the Correspondence to which the hon. Member refers, and I find that there was an understanding 12 years ago that part of the buildings of the Bethnal Green Museum should be devoted to a Science and Art School. But since then the whole of the premises have been required for the purposes of the Museum. The subject was considered by the late Government in 1874 and 1879, and they did not feel themselves justified in establishing such schools on other than the ordinary conditions. I cannot see how we can fairly be called upon to establish and maintain Science and Art Schools at the East End of London on any other conditions than those which are applied to the Provinces.

asked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he is able to inform the House when the Royal Courts of Justice will be fully opened?

, in reply, said, that the builders would complete their work by Easter; but after that there would still be a good deal of work to do. He thought the Courts would be fully opened about midsummer, before the Summer Circuit.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Commissioners of Inland Revenue claim the ordinary ad valorem lease duty on agreements, under the Irish Land Act, made out of Court between landlords and tenants, and known as originating notice "No. 33;" whether such claim has been disapproved of by the Land Commission; and, whether this penalizing of voluntary agreements, made between landlords and tenants under the Irish Land Act, has been sanctioned by the Treasury?

Sir, the Board of Inland Revenue did not raise this question of their own motion; but it is one upon which depends the legal validity of the agreements, which are not binding unless properly stamped. I understand that the point was, in fact, raised by the Land Commission. A case has been submitted to the Irish Law Officers, and an early opinion is expected. It is not a matter in which the Treasury has any discretion; but it must be decided according to the interpretation put upon the Stamp Acts.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Mr. Errington is still residing at Rome as the medium of information between Her Majesty's Go- vernment and the Papal See under Lord Granville's letter of confidence; if so, how long Mr. Errington is to remain at Rome in this capacity; and, whether Her Majesty's Government still persist in refusing to place on record in the Foreign Office, in accordance with constitutional practice, the communications on public affairs between Her Majesty's Secretary of State and Mr. Errington?

Sir, I have no further information to give to the House on this subject, having on four occasions fully stated the views of Her Majesty's Government. In regard to the latter part of the Question, as to whether Mr. Errington is still at Rome, Lord Granville has no information that he has left that city, neither has he any wish that he should. The length of Mr. Errington's stay depends entirely upon himself.

gave Notice that he would take an opportunity of calling attention to the subject.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true that several of the new six-inch guns, forming the first instalment of breech-loading guns for the Royal Navy, have been, on trial, found defective; and, whether it is possible to take effectual precautions against the recurrence of such failures?

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether there is any truth in the report that several of the heavy six-inch breech-loading guns supplied for the Royal Navy by contract have broken down under proof trial, whilst those supplied by the Royal Gun Factories at Woolwich have in no instance failed; and, if so, whether it is in contemplation to limit, as far as possible, the manufacture of guns by contract?

Sir, in reply to the two Questions put to me by the two noble Lords, I have to state that it is not the case that any of the Navy six-inch breech-loading guns supplied for the Navy by contract have broken down. The first instalment of these guns, 14 in number, have passed proof, and have been received into the service. In the second instalment, there were a few which exhibited external defects, but none of an unusual character, or likely to involve their rejection. These defects sometimes occur in guns made at Woolwich. The worst case of defect has been already remedied, and the gun has been re-proved satisfactorily. I see no reason to make any change in the policy of obtaining some of these guns by contract.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the Roman Catholic church at Gibraltar has been broken open by the Governor's orders, with the view of installing Dr. Canilla as vicar apostolic, against the wishes of the Roman Catholic population?

Sir, some months since Dr. Canilla was appointed by the Pope Vicar Apostolic of Gibraltar; but it soon appeared that the choice was not generally popular. Among the laity a claim was raised to resist the exercise by Dr. Canilla of his functions, especially in the church of Santa Maria Coronada, on the ground that they were entitled by immemorial right to administer, through their representatives, the temporalities of the Catholic communion in Gibraltar. Without pronouncing any opinion on that claim generally, it can in no case extend to the church of Santa Maria Coronada, the property of which, as we are advised, has always been, and remains, vested in the Crown, by which it has been simply assigned during pleasure for the purposes of Catholic worship. Dr. Canilla having, under these circumstances, applied to the civil authority to be protected from molestation in proceeding to the church of Santa Maria Coronada, and while performing Divine offices there, steps were taken which may, perhaps, best be given in the words of a telegram from the Governor—

"March 2.—Canilla fixed noon for entry into the church. Arrangements made accordingly. Great agitation this morning. Crowd assembled in the church at 6 a.m., when opened for early service, and barricaded it. Cordon of strong pickets closed ail the streets leading to the church, and cleared the intermediate space. Crowd expelled from the church in 40 minutes. Three arrests made. Route of Canilla guarded by picket, which kept the crowd at a distance. He came under escort to the church, and after service was escorted home. Protection to church and Canilla continues. Quiet restored."

asked the Junior Lord of the Treasury, If Government will lay the Papers relating to Arklow Harbour upon the Table before the proposed Bill is read a second time?

, in reply, said, that the Government had no objection to lay on the Table a selection of the Papers, which would fully show the circumstances under which they thought it necessary to carry out the original scheme for the improvement of the Harbour.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the Correspondence which has passed between himself and the Court of Quarter Sessions of the county of Flint, in reference to the payment of the extraordinary expenses incurred by them in providing additional constables to protect the First Lord of the Treasury; and, whether he will state the number of warnings, respecting the necessity of protecting public servants, which he has caused to be addressed to other local authorities?

Sir, I should be happy to give the hon. Member any Papers I possibly can. The communications from the Flint Court of Quarter Sessions will be given if the hon. Member moves for them; but the police communications cannot be given.

The number of men?

I could not do that; the subject is of a confidential nature.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, When the Report of the Registrar General of Friendly Societies for 1880 will be issued?

Sir, there has been unavoidable delay, mostly due to the printer, in bringing out the second part of the Report for 1879; and, according to the Rules of the House, the Report for 1880 cannot appear until the previous one is completed. As soon as this has been done, Part 1 for 1880, which is already prepared, will be presented.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, What steps have been taken to give effect to the provisions of "The Alkali Act, 1881?"

Sir, after the passing of the Act, the Local Government Board applied to the various sanitary authorities throughout the Kingdom for a return of the works in their respective districts and upon the receipt of these Returns the Board gave notice to the manufacturers to make the necessary application for registration. A considerable number of applications have been received, and certificates of registration issued; but the period for registration will not be completed before the end of the present month. In the meantime the Board have appointed four additional sub-inspectors, and arranged as to the districts for inspection, and the work of inspection will now be proceeded with as rapidly as possible.

asked the honourable Member for Liverpool, Whether, considering that the Partnerships Bill was read a second time in a previous Session without opposition, he is prepared to remove the opposing Notice which he has placed against the Second Reading of that measure?

, in reply, said, that the Bill which the hon. Member had introduced contained several exceptional provisions affecting the mercantile and commercial community, and his object in giving the Notice was to obtain for it full consideration. He could not see, because the Bill was read a second time at the fag-end of a Session, when it could not be fully considered, why he should withdraw his opposition to it.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether instructions have been given to Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, to proceed against any of the landowners of Ireland, whose rents have been withheld by their tenants, for the amount of Crown or quit rent due by them?

Sir, in cases where the persons liable have pleaded inability to pay, or have tendered a portion of the arrears due on account of quit rent to the Crown in Ireland, the time for payment has been extended. But where no satisfactory excuse has been given, or the Crown's claim is disputed, legal proceedings are being taken for recovery of the amount due.

asked the Junior Member for Leeds, Whether he purposes to meet the objections of the Irish Members to certain of the provisions of the Union Officers' Superannuation (Ireland) Bill, which takes away from the Poor Law Guardians the right of granting superannuation allowances in certain cases, and confers it on the Local Government Board, in order to re-introduce it in an amended form?

, in reply, said, the Government would not move to discharge the Order for the Second Reading of the Bill; but in Committee they would propose clauses with the object of leaving the power to grant retiring allowances in the hands of Boards of Guardians, and which would give to all Union officers the right of appeal to the Local Government Board.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he is in a position to state the result of his promised consideration of the "Town Parks" question under "The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881," with a view to legislation; and, if so, what steps may be taken there in; and, whether the Government is prepared to propose legislation during the present Session to encourage the planting of timber trees in Ireland by statutory termors under the same Act, in reference to which important subject provisions were frequently brought forward by Irish Members during the passage through the House of that measure?

, in reply, said, that some legislation might be desirable with regard to town parks; but he was obliged to say that, viewing the present condition of affairs, and the pressure on the time of the House of Commons, he did not think the period had arrived when the Government should ask Parliament to entertain that subject. As for the latter part of the Question, he was not aware that there were any grounds for proceeding as the hon. Member proposed.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Government would cause a Report to be made to this House, either by a Commission or a Committee of this House, as to the improvements that could be made in the passage by sea between England and France (particularly after the harbours at present in course of construction at Calais and Boulogne are completed), in order that, when this House has to consider the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed tunnel under the Channel, the comparison may be made, not between the passage by the proposed tunnel and the sea passage as it is at present, but as it would be after it was so improved?

Sir, what I would say is that it will be, perhaps, a very important matter for the House, as well as for the Government, to consider when the subject is ripe for determining by what form effectual inquiry shall be made into the whole of this subject. I doubt, however, very much whether it would be expedient, and certainly the Government are not prepared to recommend, that at the present moment, in anticipation of the regular and complete inquiry which must come, a partial inquiry should be instituted as to the proposal made by my hon. Friend.

gave Notice that next Thursday he would ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention had been drawn to the remarks of Mr. Justice Hawkins in the late trial for the manslaughter of an unfortunate young man on the Thames Embankment, without any provocation whatever? Mr. Justice Hawkins said that it was to him perfectly astounding that a brutal and sanguinary outrage of this kind—[Cries of "Order!" and cheers]—should have been committed on the Thames Embankment, and should have occupied so long a time in its committal without a single policeman being present. [Renewed cries of "Order! " and cheers.] Mr. Justice Hawkins, in passing sentence on the prisoner Galliers of 10 years' penal servitude, said that he could scarcely have believed that so much ruffianly lawlessness prevailed in the streets of the City, or that it could have been allowed to run its course unchecked. [Cries of "Order!" and "Hear, hear!"]

Sir, as there is a good deal of interest taken in this subject, I may as well answer the Question at once. I do not propose to go into the remarks of Mr. Justice Hawkins, and it would not be proper to make any remarks upon them. As there seems to have been a considerable amount of public alarm created in regard to the matter, and as I think it is always much better to take too much rather than too little precaution on such occasions, I have given instructions that the police shall be strengthened on the Thames Embankment. At the same time, I must be allowed to say that, in my opinion, I certainly ought to do nothing to encourage what I believe to be an unfounded apprehension. I must also be allowed to state, after making the most careful inquiry into the subject, that since this very atrocious outrage on the 18th of December, the Thames Embankment has been singularly free from any disquiet or disorder of the kind.

asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, When the Return of the number of cases that had come before the Land Courts under the Land Act would be laid before the House?

I believe the Return has been ordered to be printed.

It was referred to by the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland on Thursday.

Yes; it has been laid on the Table, and, I believe, ordered to be printed. I understand that the printing is going on at this moment.

said, that, with the indulgence of the House, he might be permitted to make a personal explanation in reference to a matter on which he had unwittingly hurt the feelings of a very worthy public servant, Mr. Godley, the Secretary of the Land Commission. He (the Attorney General for Ireland) was reported in The Irish Times to have stated on Friday in the House that Mr. Godley was sharply reprimanded by the Land Commission, who, at the same time, informed him they did not consider the circumstances were such as to justify his removal. He (the Attorney General for Ireland) was also reported in another paper to have said that Mr. Godley was reprimanded in strong terms. He believed he said simply—at all events he had intended to say—that he was reprimanded. Mr. Godley, writing to him (the Attorney General for Ireland) on the matter said—

"That if the Land Commissioners had adopted the tone in respect to him which he (the Attorney General for Ireland) had represented them to adopt, he (Mr. Godley) certainly should not and could not with any feeling of self-respect have retained for a single day his position as Secretary."

"I sincerely trust, in justice to Mr. Godley, and in compliance with the requisition of the Land Commissioners, you will see your way to set this right, for Mr. Godley naturally feels it very acutely."

asked, if the Government had any objection to the production of the Correspondence quoted by the right hon. and learned Gentleman?

This is not a Correspondence at all; it is a private letter addressed to myself, and not one in which the Government are at all concerned.

Are there any letters or papers or minutes of the Land Commissioners relating to the subject which the Government will produce?

I have no knowledge of any Correspondence besides the private letter, the substance of which, by the indulgence of the House, I have already put before them.

gave Notice that at the earliest possible moment he would draw the attention of the House to the subject, and to the statement which the Attorney General for Ireland had made for the purpose of exculpating himself and the Commissioners.

I am anxious, Sir, to put two Questions to you on a matter of Privilege. In the first place, I wish to know, whether the House has been made acquainted with the return made to the Writ issued for a new Member for the Borough of Northampton. In the second place, I wish to know, whether the Resolution at which this House arrived on the 7th of February, respecting Mr. Bradlaugh's not being permitted to go through the form of taking the Oath, is still binding upon Mr. Bradlaugh, in the event of his coming up to the Table and offering to take the Oath?

With respect to the first Question of the right hon. Gentleman, I have to say that the certificate of the return of Mr. Bradlaugh for the Borough of Northampton has been communicated to this House in the usual way, and is now on the Table of the House. With respect to the second Question of the right hon. Gentleman, I have to say that I have considered very carefully the operation of the Resolution of the 7th of February as it affects Mr. Bradlaugh, and that I have come to the conclusion that that Resolution applied to Mr. Bradlaugh personally as Member for Northampton. When Mr. Bradlaugh ceased to be Member for Northampton, that Resolution, in my opinion, ceased to be operative; and although he has now been again returned as Member for Northampton, I cannot consider that that Resolution has revived, or is now in force.

Then, Mr. Speaker, as the Resolution to which I have referred, and which you have alluded to in your answer, was a Resolution that was adopted by this House, after full consideration, and by a very large majority, I apprehend that if Mr. Bradlaugh should now present himself again to take the Oath, it would be thought right to raise again the question as to permitting him to take the Oath, and the House would have that again submitted to it. But, as we are all aware, Mr. Bradlaugh, or any other Member who is returned, may elect his own time for coming to take his seat. He may do so either at the beginning of the Business, or at the end of the Business. If he should elect to come forward at the end of the night's Business, which may be at 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning, it would be difficult to really take the sense of the House—which would then be thin and exhausted—upon what must be regarded as a question of great importance, I have, therefore, thought it would be right, as Mr. Bradlaugh has not presented himself to-night, that I should take the earliest opportunity of submitting to the House a Motion which will have the effect of reviving or reaffirming the Resolution that was adopted on the 7th of February.

I rise to Order. I wish to ask you, Sir, whether it is open to any hon. Gentleman, before an elected Member has come to the Table to take the Oath, to call for the Writ, and to base any Motion upon that Writ? I ask you this particularly in regard to the Motion which the right hon. Gentleman has shadowed out, because I believe that the only Motions which have yet been put in such cases are Motions for a new Writ, the elected Member being disqualified by Statute from taking his seat.

As I understand the Motion indicated by the right hon. Gentleman, it affects the right of a Member of this House to take his seat, and it, is intended by it to renew a Resolution which the House arrived at during the present Session; and as it is one which concerns the Privileges of this House, I consider that the right hon. Gentleman is within his right.

I rise to Order. I wish to ask, Sir, if any hon. Member is in Order in rising to propose a Resolution on a question of this sort, and thereby interposing and preventing the House passing to its ordinary Business?

I thought I had clearly stated, in reply to the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), that the right hon. Gentleman is within his rights.

I make the Motion as a matter of Privilege. What I propose to move is to this effect—

"That this House, having ascertained that Mr. Bradlaugh has been re-elected for the Borough of Northampton, doth re-affirm the Resolution made on the 7th of February last, and doth hereby direct that Mr. Bradlaugh be not permitted to go through the form of taking the Oath prescribed by the Statutes 29 Vic. c. 19, and 31 and 32 Vic. c. 72."

It is only, Sir, because I believe there is a very general consensus of opinion in the House that this matter of Mr. Bradlaugh's election can only be dealt with by legislation that I venture to submit to the House for its favourable consideration an Amendment to the Resolution moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. The Amendment is—

"That it is desirable that the provisions of the 29 Vic. c. 19, and 31 and 32 Vic. c. 72, should be so far modified as to permit every elected Member of this House to take the Oath or to make the Affirmation prescribed under those Statutes at his own option."

I rise to Order. I wish to ask whether the word "unworthy," applied to a Member of this House, is in Order?

I did not catch the context, and I am not prepared to give a positive statement in the matter.

The hon. Member (Mr. Marjoribanks) has described the conduct of Mr. Bradlaugh as unworthy. [Cries of "No!"] Well, he said that he had been guilty of an unworthy manŒuvre.

I am not, under the circumstances, prepared to interpose in the matter.

The result of Mr. Bradlaugh's action has been—first, that the opposition to his taking the Oath has been grounded more upon personal dislike of Mr. Bradlaugh—[Cries of "No, no!"]—I assert that most distinctly—dislike of Mr. Bradlaugh rather than on the consideration of any broad principle of what is right or expedient for the good of the country; and, secondly, it has resulted in the exclusion of Mr. Bradlaugh from a seat in the House by an un-English Resolution, and on the very uncommon grounds—first, because he did not comply with a religious test; and, secondly, because he was prevented from complying with that religious test. The arguments as to the legality or the illegality of the action of the House of Commons have been urged, I may almost say, ad nauseam, and I will not enter into these arguments; but the experience of the last two years must, I may say, have proved that the House is, either legally or illegally, perfectly competent to exclude, and can exclude, and. that it will go on excluding Mr. Bradlaugh, until some change is made in the regulations under which Members of the House take their seats. We may deplore the fact that Mr. Bradlaugh has been elected. We may deplore the fact that so many of a large constituency like Northampton so far identify themselves with Mr. Bradlaugh as to think he is the only proper Representative of them in this House; but surely, if that is the case, he ought to be allowed to take his seat, for it is far better that expression of these opinions should be given in this House, and find their natural outlet in this House. I find that a Paper was presented to the House a day or two ago in regard to the practice of foreign States in this matter. I see in that Paper that in Belgium and Italy there is an Oath required, but there is no invocation of the Deity. The Members swear that they will be faithful to the Constitution. Then in Prance and Germany neither Oath nor Affirmation is required, and in the United States and Holland Oath or Affirmation is optional. ["Agreed, agreed!"] I do not wish to enter into any long speech in moving this Amendment; and I do entreat this House, remembering that the honour of the House has so often and so greatly been compromised, to give favourable consideration to this Amendment.

I prefer the Amendment of my hon. Friend (Mr. Marjoribanks) to the reasons which he gave for it. I think he was carried away by his own eloquence when he asserted that Mr. Bradlaugh has been guilty of unworthy manœuvres. You have ruled, Sir, that the phrase is Parliamentary; and, therefore, I do not complain of it having been used; but, at the same time, I must say that Mr. Bradlaugh has not had recourse to any unworthy manœuvres. Mr. Bradlaugh's view of his position has been entirely supported by the Prime Minister and by the Law Officers of the Crown. Therefore, if the reflection of my hon. Friend can be made at Mr. Bradlaugh, it can also be made against the Prime Minister and the Law Officers of the Crown. I am sorry to have again to repeat what Mr. Bradlaugh's view of his position is; but either hon. Members will not understand, or will persist in shutting their ears on the subject. Mr. Bradlaugh's contention has always been this—that he derives his right to go up to the Table of this House and take the Oath from the fact of his election, that he has a statutory duty to perform in doing so, and that this House is violating the Law and the Constitution in preventing him from doing that duty. I say, therefore, with all respect for the House, that if there are brawlers in this matter, Mr. Bradlaugh is not the brawler. I am sorry I must trouble hon. Gentlemen opposite by reading some extracts from a few speeches. I know that is a form of eloquence to which they object, but I really stand here defending the Constitution of this country. And not only so, but I am also defending the rights both of the electors of Northampton and the right of every elector in the country to choose whom they will to represent them. Well, hon. Gentlemen will remember that a former House of Commons put itself in opposition to the people. I allude to the case of Mr. Wilkes. We all know how that ended; but when I am told that a Resolution of this House is superior to the Law of the land, I claim to read some observations made by men who are recognized as almost, I may say, the fathers of the Constitution. In the debate with regard to Mr. Wilkes—[Cries of"Reading!"] Well, yes; I am going to read some extracts. They are not very long. In that debate Edmund Burke said—

"The right to incapacitate is not to he trusted with this House. The Constitution has not given it to us, because it would end in the destruction of the House."

"Precedents there are none to support the proposal that the House has the power to declare the law with regard to the qualification of Members."

"No man who is by any right eligible can be rendered ineligible by any ordinance, by anything less than an Act of Parliament."

"If a Resolution of the House is in the teeth of an Act of Parliament, it is in the teeth of the law. Where is the Gentleman who will rise up, and tell me that it is law? "

"If a Resolution goes against the principle of the law, it is null and void."

"I lay it down as a principle that no Resolution of the House can make a minority a majority, and I do, from my soul, abhor, detest, and abjure as unconstitutional and illegal that damnable doctrine and proposition that a Resolution of the House of Commons can make, alter, suspend, abrogate, or annihilate the law of the land. If it can, Sir, of what use are your Statute books? They are useless, if a Resolution can supersede them."

Oh! no, no. I referred to waiting till the end of the Business.

Oh, very well; it is wearisome at the end of the Business. That is pretty much the same thing, and I trust it will be always wearisome to any hon. or right hon. Gentleman in this House who attempt to interfere with the rights of the people. The right hon. Gentleman could not point to any single precedent for the course he is pursuing. He adopts a new course, which many hon. Gentleman on this side of the House think unconstitutional, simply to save him the little trouble of remaining until the end of the Business. I apprehend I am perfectly right in saying that I am upon the firm basis of the Constitution in resisting this unconstitutional Resolution of the Leader of the Conservative Party. Let me ask what is the distinction between a Resolution like this and absolutely disqualifying a Gentleman from sitting in this House? It will be remembered that on the day Mr. Bradlaugh was expelled, the hon. Member for the City of Dublin (Dr. Lyons) brought forward a Resolution that Mr. Bradlaugh should be disqualified from again sitting in Parliament; the hon. and learned Member for Launceston (Sir Hardinge Giffard) got up, and, after paying a compliment to the Parliament which turned out Mr. Wilkes, asserted that he was not prepared to go so far and that, and that he would not accept the proposition that this House had got the right to disfranchise any individual from his right of sitting in the House, if he were a duly elected Member. But I ask if there is any distinction between the two? Would it not have been more fair to Mr. Bradlaugh and my constituents had hon. Gentlemen supported that Resolution, rather than allow Mr. Bradlaugh to be re-elected by the constituents of Northampton, and then, before he comes to the Table, declare that he is not a fit and proper person to go through the form that is necessary for him to do to take his seat in this House? I will only say this at the end—the House of Commons has before now come in conflict with the people, and the House of Commons always has had, I thank Heaven, to succumb to the people. Let not the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends suppose that Mr. Bradlaugh is supported only by the constituents of Northampton. Hon. Gentlemen are surprised at Mr. Bradlaugh's popularity in this country. They say how can it be that a man who advocates what, I agree, are objectionable opinions with regard to religion can become popular? But let right hon. and hon. Gentleman understand this, that he has become popular notwithstanding his advocacy of those objectionable opinions with regard to religion; and that he has become popular mainly by the course adopted by hon. Gentlemen opposite. They are doing their best to make Mr. Bradlaugh a martyr; and I say Mr. Bradlaugh was not only supported by the Radicals of Northampton, but I am strictly within the truth in stating that during the recent election, I suppose 200 or 300 telegrams were received from political clubs in all parts of the country, urging the electors of Northampton to stand to their man. Whether Mr. Bradlaugh is to be elected once again, or a dozen times again, lean only say he will be elected and re-elected as long as he maintains the principle which the people consider their right—that of sending the man they choose to represent them. I would only say this further in regard to the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend. It may be objected by hon. Gentlemen opposite that it would leave it open to Mr. Bradlaugh again to come to the Table. I will only say that I will engage on the part of Mr. Brad-laugh—[Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Well, I do not think hon. Gentlemen will say that Mr. Bradlaugh has ever violated his word to come into this House; and I will engage for him that, provided the Amendment passes, and provided a Bill is brought in, and proceeds with reasonable speed—["Oh, oh!"]—I mean two months—provided that Bill is prosecuted with fair and reasonable speed, Mr. Bradlaugh, until a decision has been come to by a majority, will not present himself at that Table.

Sir, the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote), in submitting this Motion, has set us, or at any rate me, an excellent example in avoiding a re-statement of the arguments he used on a former occasion—arguments with which we are perfectly familiar. On the same ground, I purpose taking the same course, and it shall only be in the briefest words, to explain the reasons which would govern me in supporting the Amendment which has just been moved. Sir, that Amendment expresses the judgment of the House, to the effect that there ought to be legislation upon this subject, and it proposes to place the expression of that judgment in lieu of the Motion which has been submitted by the right hon. Baronet to-day. I am bound to say that in supporting the Amendment, I do so in reliance upon Mr. Bradlaugh, without any knowledge of the matter, but in reliance upon his forbearance and respect for this House, at least to this extent, that were legislation adopted—I think I am justified in making it as an inference from the speech that has just been made—we should have nothing to fear from Mr. Bradlaugh in regard to a possible repetition of scenes which we all regret.

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will permit me to explain. I want to get this clear. What I said was, provided this be followed by legislation.

I am speaking within the limits of the assurance laid down in the statement made by the hon. Gentleman himself in his speech. I do not mean for ever, but I meant with reference to such language as he used. But with regard to the Motion before us, I observe, unfortunately, that it is a distinct step in advance. Previous Motions against Mr. Bradlaugh have been consequent upon attempts made by Mr. Bradlaugh to do certain acts, and they may in that sense be termed defensive. But it is obvious that this Motion has no reference to any express or apparent intention or act of Mr. Bradlaugh. It is founded upon expectation that he will do an act; it is not founded upon any act he has done, or attempted to do. In that sense, Sir, the Motion is a step in advance, and I cannot help saying, to me it appears a step less against Mr. Bradlaugh and more against the constituency than the steps which we have heretofore adopted. In truth, Sir, it comes perilously near to a Vote of Personal Disqualification; and I am bound to say, without in the slightest degree, Sir, contesting your decision as to the power to make a Motion of that kind, I really know not to what Motions, founded upon the appearance of actions in this House, it may not form a possible precedent. Therefore my objections, which I need not re-state, if they told against the previous Resolution, tell with much greater force against the Motion that is now made. On the other hand, I consider that from my point of view—be it what it may, whether it be the same as that which Mr. Bradlaugh and others are as competent to judge as myself—from my point of view I offer a concession not, perhaps, to be valued or acknowledged in voting for the Amendment now before us, because so far as I am able to understand the case, the law does not require to be changed for the purpose of relieving us from this difficulty. I approve of a change of the law, but I do not regard a change in the law as a necessity for disposing of the present case. Yet I am quite willing to vote for it, and I am quite willing to vote for it on two grounds—in the first place, that I am extremely glad—for I hold that we have no title whatever to dispose of the question, which is a question for the conscience of Mr. Bradlaugh as to the propriety of his conduct in taking the Oath—yet I am extremely glad that we are to be relieved from the position in which we are now placed, that he may be prevented taking the Oath. And, further, I am also glad to think that the proposal to legislate on this subject, while it affords authentic declaration of the intention of the House, may afford to many hon. Gentlemen who have heretofore voted for repressive measures against Mr. Bradlaugh, a means of escaping from—["No, no!"]—a means of escaping from what I think many of them, or some among them, at least, must feel to be an increasingly painful position. Those are the grounds, Sir, on which I shall give my vote in favour of the Amendment of my hon. Friend; and I do trust that the House may be disposed to adopt that Amendment rather than to prolong a struggle which it is in the power of the House to prolong, and which it may succeed in prolonging for a considerable time, but which can only have one end, and that end adverse to the views which are now prevailing in the House.

Sir, I desire to take notice of one expression of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, which I think is calculated to give a wrong impression as to the course of action which I have adopted. He says this is a distinct step in advance, and that we are not taking a defensive, but that we are assuming a sort of offensive attitude. Now, Sir, that I entirely deny. We have had Mr. Bradlaugh's statement, and that has always been perfectly consistent, made upon several occasions on which he has come to this House for the purpose of taking the Oath. He has always told us that he did not come of his own choice, but that he came in obedience to what he considered to be a duty imposed upon him by law. That has always been advocated by Mr. Bradlaugh, and has been repeated by the hon. Gentleman his Colleague tonight. We are therefore perfectly certain there is nothing that can have changed Mr. Bradlaugh's views in that matter, and we are perfectly certain, therefore, that it will be in Mr. Bradlaugh's view that he will come to the Table and propose to take the Oath. Well, then, Sir, the hon. Gentleman the other Member for Northampton says—"You propose to come and take this precautionary step, because you do not wish to have the trouble of a struggle occuring late at night." That is not the point, I must be excused for saying, which I pressed on the House. As a matter of fact, at the end of Business it almost invariably happens, and the whole House know it perfectly well, that you have a thin attendance of Members; and this being an important question, and one upon which the judgment of the House ought, I contend, to be pronounced when the House is full, and when Members attend to the Business, I proposed that it should be taken now, rather than wait. Sir, it seems to me that you might be placed in a very difficult position if Mr. Bradlaugh chose to make his appearance without your having any instructions on the subject, and if the view of the House is the same as it was previously at the beginning of the Session, which I think it is, it ought to be re-affirmed, so that you might have that to guide you which you would have had had it not been for this reelection. The Prime Minister says that my action is now much more directed against the constituency than against Mr. Bradlaugh himself. Sir, I deny that it is directed against the constituency. We do not dispute the right of the constituency to return Mr. Bradlaugh. If we did dispute that right, undoubtedly there would be a case for Mr. Corbett, who was the other candidate, to claim the seat. But no such question is raised. What we do object to is to a certain step being taken which is necessary to enable Mr. Bradlaugh to take his seat. Is that an unusual or unprecedented case? It is precisely the case of Baron Rothschild and Mr. Salomons. We never contested the right of the City of London to elect Baron Rothschild; nor did we contest the right of the constituency to elect Mr. Salomons. Baron Rothschild took the Oath, subject to a certain modification in its words, and the House refused to allow that taking of the Oath with that modification of words to be regarded as equivalent to a taking of the Oath as required by law. Our contention is that Mr. Bradlaugh cannot take the Oath without a modification of its spirit and meaning, and that is the contention, whether we are right or wrong, we have always made. We therefore say that as Baron Rothschild was re-elected, I believe, some five or six times before he ever obtained the right of sitting in this House, similarly Mr. Bradlaugh has been re-elected more than once, and we are still in a position in which we may refuse, and ought to refuse, to allow him to go through the form of taking the Oath, when, as we hold, he is incapable of doing so according to law. With regard to the Amendment, that is a question which is entirely apart from the personal question of Mr. Bradlaugh sitting. It is a question which ought to be argued independently of that consideration when it is brought forward. If a Bill is to be brought forward for the alteration of the law, let us see that Bill, and then discuss it. Otherwise, I decline to be a party to pledging the House to a Resolution in favour of such a Bill before we have received it, and also in connection with the particular case before us.

I approach this question from an entirely different point of view from that of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I should support the Resolution of the right hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) if it stood alone; but I also intend to support the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire (Mr. Marjoribanks). I disagree entirely with the arguments used by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), who said that the House was not within its rights in prohibiting and preventing the other Member for Northampton from coming to the Table and taking the Oath. We have done so because we believe he is incapable of fulfilling the conditions imposed by the Statute, and that is our justification for the course we have pursued. I have voted against Mr. Bradlaugh being permitted to take the Oath on previous occasions, because I could not be a party to sitting by and seeing that which, in my conscience, I believe to be profanation; and so often as this question comes before the House, if it unfortunately does come again, I shall vote in the same sense. But the Amendment is of an entirely different nature. I suppose there can be very few Members—probably none—on my side of the House who would disagree with the opinion that the time had long gone by when any religious test ought to be imposed on any Member who sought to take his seat in this House. On the other hand, I believe there are very few, if any, hon. Members on the opposite side of the House who would assert such an opinion broadly. The time for such tests has long since passed. Hon. Members opposite may feel, as I do, very reluctant to do anything which can in any way clash with the votes which they have given; and while they may taunt Liberal Members that this Amendment is really a Bradlaugh Relief Amendment, I shall not fear any such taunt, for the simple reason that I am asserting a broad, sound Liberal principle, that religious tests ought not to stand between Members who are elected, and who seek to take their seats, and it is upon that ground, and that alone, that I shall support the Amendment.

Sir, I think it must have escaped the attention of the hon. Member who has just sat down (Mr. Hussey Vivian), that there is one conclusive argument against the acceptance of the Amendment—namely, that in that case the Resolution of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) will be negatived this night. Then, supposing the proposal for legislation were entertained, and that legislation were introduced, and that the decision of the House was given hostilely, what would be the next thing that would happen? Mr. Bradlaugh, I presume, would walk up to the Table in the exercise of the right he claims, and demand to take the Oath. The Resolution of my right hon. Friend having been negatived, it would be contrary to the Rules to propose it again in the present Session. It is all very well. This is a very ingenious little trap; but I do not think the majority of the House of Commons are at all likely to walk into it. I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend the Loader of the Opposition that the two questions are entirely distinct. Let us pass this Resolution in the first place, forbidding Mr. Bradlaugh to take the Oath; then, if right hon. Gentlemen opposite should, think fit to introduce legislation after, let them bring in the Bill, submit it to the House, and I have very little doubt in my own mind what will be its conclusion upon the matter.

I confess I do not like the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Chaplin) has approached the question. We have not got to think of what the hon. Member calls "ingenious little traps," but how the House of Commons can be rescued from a great difficulty, which I hope everyone who is mindful of the dignity of the House of Commons would wish to solve. In what position does the Motion of the Leader of the Opposition, who is in this matter the Leader of the majority, as we have been told, leave this House? Does it relieve it? No; it leaves it precisely in the same position as it was left last year after his Motion was carried, with the possibility of the same scenes being re-enacted, and with the necessity of the House remaining, if I may use the term, in a kind of state of siege, defending itself against the entrance of Mr. Bradlaugh by such means as he may employ. Is that a position in which the House of Commons wishes to remain; and is it not the duty of everyone in this House to endeavour to settle and get rid of the question which was so difficult, and which has not, I may add, increased the credit of the House of Commons? Whatever view we may take of Mr. Bradlaugh taking the Oath, whether it has been legal, or whether it has not been legal, we may, at least, hope to find an issue from the difficulty; because I refuse to believe what has been repeatedly asserted—that it is convenient to the Conservative Party to keep this question open. I do not believe that for the sake of keeping up a kind of belief that on this side of the House there is a kind of protection of Mr. Bradlaugh's doctrines, that for the sake of keeping up that belief, they would seek to see continued scenes which have not increased the credit of the House. I think we may fairly appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition—who on this question has the majority—to come forward on this occasion and give us some hopes that he will assist in the settlement, and the final settlement, of this question. We expected that he and his Followers would, at least, speak warmly and hopefully of carrying out legislation which is to put an end to the scandal which exists. What course did the right hon. Gentleman take? He said he would judge when he should see the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman and those who support him do not pledge themselves to any Bill when they accept this Resolution. The principle is simple enough. We all know it, though we attempt to disguise it—it is that every Member elected may make an Affirmation or Oath at his option. Is not that simple? Is it difficult to conceive the clauses by which that plain and simple principle may be embodied in a Bill'? I think it would be worthier of the Party opposite if they would give up the attempt to embitter the opposition to Mr. Bradlaugh, and assist not only this side of the House, but the work the House has to do. If the Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman opposite is carried to-night we may be in the same position again. We rest the case mainly on this, that we must get rid of the scenes here, and in support of that I shall vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Berwickshire, and I hope there will be many, even on the Opposition side of the House, who will be ready to follow in that course.

said, he wished to remind the House that last year they occupied a very different position from that in which they would now be placed if the Amendment were carried. Last year the Speaker was armed by a Resolution of the House with power to prevent a scandal which would shock so much the religious feeling of the country. If, however, his right hon. Friend's Resolution were now rejected, and the Amendment agreed to, the House would be placed entirely at the mercy of Mr. Bradlaugh. As far as he could understand the matter, there would be nothing except an abstract Resolution between the House and that profanation which they all deprecated. He was willing to accept the pledge given by Mr. Bradlaugh through his brother Member for Northampton; but let hon. Members consider what it was. It amounted to this—that if the House would kindly adopt the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway, Mr. Bradlaugh would undertake not to come up and try to take the Oath for a certain time. [An hon. MEMBER: An uncertain time.] His brother Member for Northampton said be might wait two months; but he would not pledge himself to any particular time—it might be two months, it might be less.

, interposing, expressed a hope that he might be allowed to explain. He did not say that he assumed that the Amendment would be followed by legislation. Of course, that legislation could not take place in a day or in a week. The hon. Member, as well as everyone else in the House, knew perfectly well what he meant when he said that Mr. Bradlaugh would not come to that Table if a Bill were prosecuted. He said it might be two months or three months. He would also say that Mr. Bradlaugh would, under those circumstances, give the fullest notice to the House before he came up to the Table.

said, he quite accepted what the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) had just said. He understood that Mr. Bradlaugh was not to be bound as to time; but let hon. Members see in what position that placed the House. They had no promise of a Bill to follow this abstract Resolution. The Prime Minister, who had done a great deal undoubtedly to endeavour to get Mr. Bradlaugh into the House of Commons, had not said a word about bringing in a Bill. And supposing a private Member were to bring in a Bill, did anybody suppose he would have the slightest chance of passing it? They all knew perfectly well that he would not, and therefore the House would be put into this position. At any moment Mr. Bradlaugh might say—"You are not advancing with the Bill as fast as I like, and I will come down to the House of Commons and try to take the Oath; for you have barred yourselves from trying to stop me by passing the Amendment."

said, that in the early stages of this question more than one right hon. Member on the Front Opposition Bench took the view that legislation was the proper mode of deal- ing with the difficulty. He hoped they were in the same mind still. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire, in a speech on a former occasion, dwelt at considerable length on this point. He (Mr. Whit-bread) hoped the right hon. Baronet was of that opinion still; if not, his second thoughts would be much worse than his first thoughts. It was but reasonable to suppose that the majority which carried the Amendment, if it were carried, would be ready to carry on legislation on the question. From whom would opposition come to such legislation? It was not to be feared from that side of the House. If hon. Gentlemen opposite feared a profanation of the Oath, and the Amendment were to pass, all they had to do was to meet the other side fairly and to abstain from obstructing the Bill. He did not wish them to abstain from expressing their opinions, but only asked that there should be no undue obstruction. If they would meet them fairly and take a division on the Bill, at a reasonable time, on its merits, and be satisfied with the decision of the majority, whatever it might be, they need fear no profanation of the Oath. But was it really the profanation of the Oath that they did fear? They had admitted over and over again that should Mr. Bradlaugh be returned at the General Election, they could not prevent him going up amongst the first Members and taking the Oath at the Table. Was it, then, really the profanation of the Oath that they cared for; or was it that some astute Party managers thought they had got a good question, and that they would like to keep the question alive? They on his (Mr. Whitbread's) side of the House thought Mr. Bradlaugh had a right to go to the Table and take the Oath; but they offered a way out of the difficulty, a way recommended by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire—the only way which they saw of avoiding profanation, because if a General Election came, he (Mr. Whitbread) thought it was reasonable to expect that Mr. Bradlaugh would be again returned, and then he would come to the Table, and before the Members present would take the Oath in a manner very like a profanation of it. They offered them a way out of the difficulty—namely, by the introduction of a Bill to deal with it. If the Conservative Party would only not prevent legislation, a Bill could be passed without any undue waste of time, and the profanation of the Oath would not take place. He wished to remind the House of these facts, because hon. Members opposite had not treated them in so temperate a manner as they did on the first occasion, when they offered to assent to legislation on the subject.

said, he regretted very much that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon should have attempted to introduction to this debate any question of Party, either on one side or the other. ["Oh!"] It was, he thought, hardly worthy of the right hon. Gentleman to say that the Conservatives wished to keep this question open for Party purposes. This was a matter which most deeply affected not only every Member of that House, but the religious feelings of millions of people of all Parties and of all creeds. He declined to speak of the matter as a Party question, inasmuch as it was one which had moved the hearts and feelings of many religious people in the country. The hon. Member who had just spoken (Mr. Whitbread) had alluded to a speech of his made a long time ago on this subject, when it came before him for the first time as a Member of the Select Committee. That Committee almost unanimously decided that it was absolutely impossible by law for Mr. Bradlaugh to make the Affirmation which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster desired him to make. Upon the other question as to whether he should be permitted to take the Oath, the Committee upon that point also were unanimous in holding that such a taking of the Oath would not be a taking the Oath at all within the meaning of the Act, but would be an act of profanation. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster thought that there was only one thing to be done—namely, to allow Mr. Bradlaugh to take the Oath. For his own part, he had ventured to suggest that as Mr. Bradlaugh could not make an Affirmation, neither was he to be allowed, under the circumstances, to take the Oath, and that if the Government desired to get him into the House, their only method of getting rid of the difficulty was to introduce legislation on the subject. That opinion he had always held, and expressed; he said so now, and all the more strongly because he had never concealed the fact that he objected to such legislation all the more earnestly because it was introduced for the express purpose of letting in Mr. Bradlaugh. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen would remember perfectly well how great a difference there was in doing things for one particular purpose and in doing them for the advance of the general principle, and he did not see how the Amendment would have any real effect, because the moment the Bill was introduced, he was quite certain it would be so attacked and tied and bound up with the case of Mr. Bradlaugh, that it would have no chance of passing, and many Members who would be quite ready to support the general principle would vote against it. The hon. and learned Attorney General had made a speech on the subject and had promised to introduce a Bill—[The ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir Henry James): No, no.]—but they had never seen anything of it, and it appeared to him that they were in absolutely the same condition at that moment as they were at the beginning of the Session. The Amendment must be considered as a Motion for allowing Mr. Bradlaugh, whenever he chose, to go through the form of taking the Oath, and either the Government must help him in that, or they must come to the Resolution that they came to before. He should certainly vote for the original Motion proposed by his right hon. Friend (Sir Stafford Northcote), because it appeared to him that the Amendment was simply brought forward as a loophole by which certain scruples might be explained away, and hon. Members prevented from voting in accordance with conscience.

said, that when the question was first brought before the notice of the House, he ventured to express an opinion that the matter would never be settled until an Act was passed substituting a simple Affirmation for an Oath. Various opinions were expressed as to the advisability of adopting alternative systems enabling Members either to take the Oath, or to make Affirmation. For his own part, he thought considerable objection existed to such a course, which would tend to divide Members into two classes—into those who considered the Oath was the proper form to take, and those to whom the Affirmation was the proper form. Now, he objected to such a course. He had certainly said before that nothing would induce him to consent to Mr. Bradlaugh's taking the Oath; he had twice voted against it, and he should always continue to act in the same manner, because he held such an Oath to be no Oath at all, considering the known opinions of the hon. Member for Northampton. The proposal of the Leader of the Opposition was an operative proposal, and was necessary for the present crisis; but the Amendment had no operative effect at all, it was simply an abstract Resolution. He should be perfectly ready tomorrow to vote for a Resolution framed in the spirit of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Berwickshire (Mr. Marjoribanks), because it carried out his view; but he did not think the House could make a sort of bargain with Mr. Bradlaugh, of which his Colleague was to be the guarantee. Such a course was unbecoming the dignity of the House. He should like to know why the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, whose opinions on the subject they knew, had not bestirred himself sooner in the matter? He (Mr. Walter) was not insensible of the difficulties the right hon. Gentleman had to encounter; but he believed that there were many hon. Gentlemen opposite who, in their consciences, thought there was only one way out of the difficulty, which was to be found in the introduction of an optional test, or by simply substituting an Affirmation for the Oath. There was a great deal to be said against promissory oaths altogether. They were entirely different to those administered in Courts of Justice. A declaration of allegiance to the Sovereign required no Oath whatever to confirm it, for the penalty of breaking it would be not perjury, but treason. If it were necessary to impose a test of any kind whatever, tacking it on to a declaration of allegiance to the Crown was not the proper means of doing it. He should support the Leader of the Opposition; but, at the same time, he was perfectly prepared to vote for any well-considered proposal for the purpose of substituting a simple Affirmation for an Oath.

said, he would not detain the House for more than a very few minutes. No one would accuse him of being, or having been, guided by Party feeling on this subject. He wished to call attention to a letter, written by Mr. Bradlaugh, in order to show what was the position, with which the House had to deal, in Mr. Bradlaugh's estimation. This letter was addressed to the Editor of The Daily News on the 14th of February last, and was as follows:—

"With reference to your paragraph in today's issue, will you allow me to say that I have not this Session made, nor have I promised to make, nor do I intend to make, any communication to the Serjeant at Arms, with reference to my action in fulfilling the duty imposed on me by law as one of the Members for the Borough of Northampton. I reserve to myself the right at any moment, consistent with statute, and with the Standing Orders and Rules and Orders of the House, to claim to take my seat, though I shall probably select an occasion which seems to mo least injurious to Public Business."

said, he had voted from the very first against allowing Mr. Bradlaugh to take the Oath, and had done so, as had other hon. Members, simply in order that a profane and improper act might not be committed. He begged to say that in the course he had adopted he was not actuated by Party spirit, and he protested against any hon. Gentleman on the other side saying or insinuating that votes given by hon. Members on this side were given from any other motive than that which ought to be respected in the eyes of all. Further, he must remind the House that this matter was represented in another light out-of-doors. The constituencies out-of-doors were persistently told by the hon. Gentleman who dared to come to the Table to take the Oath, that his exclusion was designed to prevent his bringing forward his Motion for a reform of the Pension List. That he also branded as a calumny, and there could be no real credence of it in the heart of the man who made it. Mr. Bradlaugh himself did not believe it. He knew perfectly well that the only ground against him was the religious ground, and his (Mr. Mitchell Henry's) opinion had always gone in that direction. In the present difficulty it would be most inconvenient and undignified for the House to make a bargain with Mr. Bradlaugh. Personally he had always thought it a great hardship that only three classes of persons, Quakers, Moravians, and Separatists, should be allowed to affirm. An alteration of the law was the true solution of the question. Not only now, but for all future time, and he could not understand why it was that when this difficulty arose first a measure of that kind was not introduced. The question could then have been fought out as a matter of principle, and not have been brought into the condition it was in now. Nor did he understand why, if he voted for this Amendment, he should be stultifying the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. He had one more remark to make. The House had put no disability on Mr. Bradlaugh; it was Mr. Bradlaugh who had attempted to impose a disability upon the Members of the House. His conduct in pretending at the Table that he could not conscientiously take the Oath, and then, when he found inconvenience arise, coming and saying, "Oh, I will take it," was as repugnant to his fellow-Atheists, as to any hon. Member of the House. Mr. Holyoake was as good an Atheist as Mr. Bradlaugh, and he had expressed his disgust and disapprobation of the conduct of the hon. Member for Northampton. He said it showed most clearly that his objections were not really conscientious. They knew nothing officially about Mr. Bradlaugh until he had refused to take the Oath, giving as his reason that it was not binding on his conscience. But for that statement, Mr. Bradlaugh might have taken his seat unchallenged long ago; but it was impossible now to accede to the request that no judicial cognizance should be taken of a piece of information that had been forced upon the House. Mr. Bradlaugh's object was to exhibit to the people out-of-doors his own disbelief in the existence of God and the insincerity of the religious feeling of the House, which, rather than be inconvenienced and embarrassed, would, he imagined, at his approach save itself all trouble by permitting the Oath to be profaned. If the House of Commons allowed him to go to the Table and take the Oath, they would afford him the strongest argument that could be given to prove to his disciples that there was no reality in their belief in a Superior Being. For that reason he should never vote for any course that would result in the Oath being taken by Mr. Bradlaugh. He would not allow Mr. Bradlaugh, if he could help it, to take the Oath; but, at the same time, he would cheerfully, readily, and heartily promote such a reform of the law as would relieve the consciences of all men who did not desire to swear, and permit them to express their allegiance to the Crown by making an Affirmation, which would be equally binding upon them as the Oath itself.

said, he presumed that if the Resolution excluding Mr. Bradlaugh were rejected, it could not be moved again this Session, while the acceptance of the Amendment would be a mere Platonic method of changing the law as to Affirmations. Mr. Bradlaugh had offered, by the mouth of his Colleague and Ambassador, to give the House a reasonable time to pass an Act abolishing the Oath; but it must be remembered, in the first place, that that House could not alone pass an Act abolishing the Oath. Such an Act must be passed first by that House, then by the House of Lords, and must finally receive the sanction of the Sovereign. It was proposed by the Mover of the Amendment that unless not only that House, but the House of Lords and the Sovereign, removed all obstacles in the path of Mr. Bradlaugh's profanation of the Oath within what might seem a reasonable time to Mr. Bradlaugh, Mr. Bradlaugh would come up to the Table, would insist upon taking the Oath—taking the name of God in vain, and profaning a solemn religious declaration to the scandal of all religious men throughout this country. Was it to be left to Mr. Bradlaugh to decide whether a reasonable time had elapsed for the House of Lords and for the Sovereign to remove the obstacles to his doing that which would enable him to further his atheistic propaganda? The hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) had plainly stated that point of the case. Mr. Bradlaugh had never ceased to assert his intention of making that House a platform for the spread of Atheism; and he had received encouragement from the Premier himself, who had promised Mr. Bradlaugh that if he would but wait a reasonable time the Oath should be abolished. What stronger proof of the mockery of Christianity, of the falsehood and hollowness of Christian men's profession of their faith, could be laid before the ignorant masses of this country than the proof the Premier proposed to place in the hands of Mr. Bradlaugh? He was surprised to hear from the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread) such an argument as that which he had addressed to the House. He stated the question in all its nakedness and all its deformity, for he said that if they wanted to stop the profanation of the Oath, they must make haste to pass an Act for the relief of Mr. Bradlaugh. Such an argument was really a menace. An Act of such a nature would, in the opinion of many, be removing the last vestiges of the religious foundation of the Constitution, and ought not to be proposed without an appeal to the wishes of the country at large. The hon. Member said that if the House hesitated to pass such an Act, the very profanation they dreaded would be inflicted upon them. A more unworthy argument than that was never addressed to any Assembly, and he was surprised that the hon. Member had been so carried away by his allegiance to the Premier as to suggest that if the House desired to save the Oath from profanation they must abolish the Oath altogether. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) had been supposed to be somewhat independent of his Party; but he regretted to find that he also was wanting in principle, for he had insinuated again and again that Party motives were at the bottom of the resistance to Mr. Bradlaugh. He (Mr. O'Donnell) did not admire the intelligence of those hon. Members who believed that statement of the case. But, coming to the Premier's statement itself, it was summed up in his recommendation that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Berwickshire (Mr. Marjoribanks) should be accepted as "an escape." An escape from a difficulty entirely recommended itself to the mind of the Premier; it was so characteristic of the right hon. Gentleman. He was never satisfied with the two plain courses of either saying "Yes" or "No;" but he must find a third course out of a difficulty, and in the present instance he had tried to find an escape for his Followers. His proposal for abolishing the freedom of Parliament by his contemplated Rules of Procedure was not unworthy of his proposal to abolish the Oath. How long was the discussion on the Rules of Procedure to be continued? Suppose Mr. Bradlaugh thought they were taking an unreasonable time with the discussion of the Rules, then was the Premier to stand up and adjure them to make haste with the Rules of Procedure, in order to allow him to bring in a Bill to prevent the profanation of the Oath? If there were an honest purpose behind the policy which was sought to be pressed upon the House, the Amendment would not be proposed as a substitute, but as a rider and in addition to the Resolution. If that course were taken, both the dignity of the House of Commons and the sacredness of the Oath would be protected, for they would be asked to vote in the first place, pending legislation, that Mr. Bradlaugh was incapable of taking the Oath, which he declared to be an idle form. That would be an honest policy. It would prevent the profanation of the Oath, and give expression to the wish of those who thought that the Oath ought to be abolished and Affirmations substituted. But, instead of that honest policy, they were asked to disarm the House as against Mr. Bradlaugh. The Amendment was one with no practical object, except that of legitimatizing the contingent profanation of the Oath under the protection of the good offices and the benediction of the Premier of Great Britain.

said, that, as one of those who had voted consistently against Mr. Bradlaugh taking the Oath, he felt it his duty to give the reason which would induce him now to vote for the Amendment. His opinion was that it would be best that every Member returned to the House should be allowed to take the Oath or to affirm, at his discretion, and he should vote for the Amendment upon the understanding that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister gave his assurance that Her Majesty's Government would bring in a Bill to give this option. [Mr. GLADSTONE dissented.] At all events, it was right and proper that a Member should be able to do what the Amendment proposed, and if it were carried he understood that it would be the duty of the Government to give effect to it. They knew perfectly well that if any private Member attempted to bring in a measure of this kind, there would be little chance of his carrying it; but, on the other hand, if the Government took the course he proposed, he believed they should find a solution of the difficulty. If, therefore, the Government would give the assurance he wished for, he should be delighted to vote for the Amendment. If this course were not taken by the Government, Mr. Bradlaugh might come at any time and do what he had already done, thereby profaning the Oath.

said, he desired to take the ruling of the Chair on the Question whether the Amendment was in Order? The Resolution of his right hon. Friend (Sir Stafford North-cote) dealt with a Question of Privilege, and it would prevent Mr. Bradlaugh, under certain circumstances, which, of course, it was not necessary then to recapitulate, coming to the Table and taking the Oath. The Amendment, he submitted, had no relation to the Resolution, for it did not refer to Privilege at all, but it committed the House to an abstract Resolution as to the necessity for, and propriety of, legislation upon the subject. He was recently witness to a ruling of the Speaker which seemed exactly in point. There was a Motion to issue a Writ for the county of Meath upon the ground that the person elected was not qualified to sit. To that it was sought to move an Amendment for an Address to the Crown, the effect of which would have been that a free pardon should be given to the person elected, and so remove all disability arising from previous conviction. The Speaker held that, in the circumstances, the Amendment was out of Order, and could not be put. He submitted that this Amendment, in the form it had taken, that of giving the go-by to a Question of Privilege, was out of Order and ought not be put.

The Resolution of the right hon. Baronet is to the effect that Mr. Bradlaugh be not permitted to go through the form of taking the Oath prescribed by the Statutes 29 Vict. c. 19, and 31 & 32 Vict. c. 72; and the hon. Member for Berwickshire proposes an Amendment that those particular Statutes shall be amended in the direction indicated by this Amendment. I am bound to say that, in my judgment, the Amendment is consequently quite relevant to the Resolution. It is true, as stated by the hon. and learned Gentleman, that on a former occasion, when it was proposed to issue a new Writ for the county of Meath, an Amendment was offered to the effect that Michael Davitt should receive a free pardon, and I did not consider that that Amendment was relevant to the Motion before the House. In this case the relevancy seems to me clear and complete; but on that occasion it did not appear to me that the proposed Amendment was relevant. Therefore, I am bound to advise that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Berwickshire is in Order.

said, he rose merely for the purpose of obtaining a clear understanding from the Prime Minister upon the question raised by the hon. Member for Wareham (Mr. Montague Guest). The time when the House was in a difficulty was the time when it should take the greatest care what it did in its anxiety to get out of it. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) had made a proposal to the House which, clearly understood, meant that a Bill should be introduced by the Government to abolish the Oath, or that a Bill should be introduced for that purpose by a private Member, and every facility be given by the Government to that private Member to enable him to pass his Bill. It was notorious that a Bill of the kind referred to would meet with strong opposition in some quarters of the House, and that it would have very little chance of passing unless it was a Government Bill or secured Government time. The Prime Minister would be misleading the House if he were to induce the House to vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Berwickshire and did not intend to adopt one of those alternatives. He was surprised to hear the Attorney General say that the Opposition prevented the introduction of a Bill last Session, because the Opposition could not have done that if the Motion had been brought on before half-past 12 o'clock; but the fact that it was not threw considerable doubt on the bonâ fides of the Government, who brought on the Motion only when they knew the minority could stop it. He asked the Prime Minister whether they intended either to bring in a Bill or to give up Government time to a private Member's Bill?

I might, Sir, perhaps, refuse to answer a question such as that put by the noble Lord in connection with insinuations of want of bonâ fides. I do not feel myself bound to answer any question put in such a way. But as the question has been put in a very different manner by another hon. Member, it is right that I should explain what I stated. I gave no intimation either one way or the other upon the subject, but simply spoke in favour of the principle of such legislation. If the House should be pleased to adopt the Amendment of my hon. Friend, then, undoubtedly, it would be the duty of the Government to consider what would be the best course to take, and whether a measure brought in by the Government would be the best mode of facilitating legislation. It would be the duty of the Government, in good faith, to address itself to the question, and to arrive at such a decision as might, in its opinion, be most likely to attain the end desired by the majority.

said, the question before the House was one of such great importance that he did not wish to give a silent vote upon it. The House should clearly understand what its position would be if the Resolution of the right hon. Baronet opposite was negatived. He therefore wished to ask, whether, if the Resolution were negatived, there would be any power of preventing Mr. Bradlaugh presenting himself before a measure had been carried? As to the Amendment itself, there were only two arguments that he desired to address to the House. The first was that Members who had voted against the admission of Mr. Bradlaugh previously, and now voted for the Amendment, would be in a peculiar position. The misfortune was that a vote for the Amendment was ostentatiously a vote in favour of Mr. Bradlaugh, from which nothing could whitewash a Member in the eyes of the outside public; and yet there had been numerous occasions when such a Motion might have been brought forward and such a construction could not have been put upon it. There was another argument of much greater weight. If the Amendment was carried, it appeared to him that it would be a direct negative to the Resolution which the House had hitherto adopted. What was the legislation which the Amendment advocated? It was that Mr. Bradlaugh, or any other Member, had a right under present circumstances to go to the Table, and at his option either take the Oath or make a Declaration. Therefore, if Mr. Bradlaugh chose to come to the Table, and was willing to take the Oath, there would be no power in the House to prevent the profanation of the Oath. The proposed amendment of the law would, he conceived, in no sense make any difference. He, therefore, asked Mr. Speaker what would be the effect of negativing the Resolution, and whether, in the event of the Amendment being carried, the same Resolution could be moved again during the present Session?

said, that before that question was answered, he wished to ask whether, if the Amendment was carried, they should negative the Resolution?

In answer to the question of the hon. and learned Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon), I have to say that it is true that no Motion which is substantially the same as one which has been already negatived can again be made in the same Session. The House will know how to meet any situation that may arise without transgressing its own Rules.

(who rose amid loud cries of "Divide!") said, he would only stand in the way of a division for a few moments. He wished it to be distinctly understood that as far as the Speaker's ruling could be interpreted by the House—["Oh!"]—Gentlemen on his side of the House took the ruling from the Chair in the way in which it was given—namely, that the Speaker thought that some plan could be devised by that (the Opposition) side of the House if the occasion arose to repeat that Resolution in some other form. After all, the real question which remained to be decided was this—would the House practically permit Mr. Bradlaugh to take the Oath or would it not? It was perfectly plain that if Mr. Bradlaugh was not satisfied with the expedition of the proposed legislation, he might a month or two hence present himself to the House, and there would then be all sorts of objections made to any Resolution that might be made similar to that now proposed by the right hon. Baronet. Anyone who voted in favour of the Amendment must be understood by his constituents and the country as voting in favour of the admission of Mr. Bradlaugh, and upon no other question whatever.

said, he rose to a point of Order. He wished to put a question to the Speaker, in order to prevent any mistake on the part of hon. Members. If the Amendment were resolved in the affirmative—that was, if the House resolved that the words of the Motion of the Leader of the Opposition should not stand part of the Question, and the Amendment was then put as a substantive Motion and carried—he asked whether, if Mr. Bradlaugh came to the Table on any future occasion and a Motion similar in terms or similar substantially in intention to prevent Mr. Bradlaugh from taking the Oath were brought forward by an hon. Member, the Speaker would accept such Motion and rule it to be in Order?

I would assure the hon. Member most respectfully that I have quite enough to do to deal with points of Order as they arise; and I must decline to answer questions anticipating points of Order that may be hypothetically raised.

I beg to give Notice that to-morrow I shall ask leave to bring in a Bill to amend the law with regard to Parliamentary Oaths.

I beg to give Notice that I will oppose any Bill not brought in by the Government on that question.

inquired of the Prime Minister, When he believed the Return as to the business of the Land Court would be in the hands of Members? It was a matter of the most serious importance, now that the debate on the Land Act was about to be resumed. Would the right hon. Gentleman take steps to have these Returns in the hands of hon. Members before Thursday night?

, in reply, said, the Return was in the hands of the printers. It was not voluminous, and he was at a loss to understand why its appearance should have been so long delayed.

, said, that, in moving to postpone this Vote for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Irish Land Commission, he wished to explain that the chief valuator was appointed for seven years, and not for one year, as he had previously stated.

said, he wished to make some observations with reference to the debate which had just been adjourned.

The observations of the hon. Member must be relevant to the matter before the House.

said, he was about to refer to the Land Commission. A Return was presented to the House a week ago, which had been referred to in another debate, but which had not been circulated among Members. He could find no trace of its having been printed; and he submitted that it was a most irregular and improper proceeding for a Member of the Government to quote statistics, by which the House was bound and influenced, while the document containing those statistics had not been printed. He protested against that; and while hon. Members were reproached with obstructing Business, the conduct of the Government in this matter showed their haphazard way of doing Business, and the way in which they were prepared to dragoon the House.

thought the hon. Member was not justified in his remarks. These documents were presented to the House by the Government, and were then taken charge of by the House of Commons printer, who alone was responsible for their circulation. He must entirely repudiate any responsibility on the part of the Government.

inquired whether the Printing Committee were responsible in this matter?

said, the printing arrangements were conducted with the assistance of the Printing Committee.

said, that last year the Printing Committee never sat once, and when they did sit no record was kept of their proceedings.

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

wished to refer to the fact that the Printing Committee had not yet been appointed this year. That was a matter of which he must complain.

I must repeat that the hon. Member is not speaking to the matter before the House.

asked when it was proposed to take this Vote, as there might be some discussion upon it, and it would be desirable that it should be taken at a time when that discussion could take place?

said, that he would take the Vote as soon as he was able; but he thought it was the general wish that it should be taken when the Chief Secretary for Ire land was in his place.

inquired whether the Chief Secretary for Ireland would be in his place to-morrow; and, if so, would the Vote be taken before the adjourned debate on the Resolution now before the House?

said, he did not propose to put the Vote down for to-morrow.

asked for an explanation which had been promised on this Vote of an extraordinary item of £150, which was granted to Mr. Rogers in compensation for injuries received in 1868. It had been stated that this gentleman had been injured 14 years ago, and that in consequence of his injuries he had been obliged, a year or two ago, to leave the Public Service. He wished to know how it was that 14 years had elapsed since those injuries were received, and yet compensation was not given until now; while a great many innocent people who had been injured seriously, and almost fatally, by the police were not compensated? If it should be necessary, in order to afford the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury an opportunity of explaining this, he would move to omit the item.

said, that last year this gentleman had suffered severely from the injuries received in 1868, and had been under constant medical advice; and he had at last been obliged to retire. Medical certificates from eminent physicians accompanied his application to the Lord Lieutenant; and he could assure the House that this had been an exceedingly hard case, the injuries having been received during the discharge of duty.

Has he a pension?

His regular pension.

said, the noble Lord had promised to lay the Papers respecting this case upon the Table.

replied, that there would be no objection to presenting the Papers if moved for.

begged to give Notice that he would move for the Papers.

said, he thought one of the items in this Vote required some explanation. If the Vote was only for the Post Office, then he would not challenge it; but if it was also for the Telegraphs he must do so.

said, he understood this Vote was for the Post Office, and he did not wish to delay the Report for one moment, except to direct attention to one subject which was worthy of attention. The Vote dealt with Post Office Savings' Banks, and he wished to draw the attention of the Postmaster General to the fact that, under the present law, if any depositor deposited in two Savings Banks a total sum exceeding the amount named in the Act the whole sum might be forfeited. He thought this very hard, and that the Postmaster General might look into the matter, with a view to preventing the sacrifice of the whole savings of a man's life owing to what was, after all, a technical rule which anyone might violate without knowing he was doing so.

wished to receive some explanation on the subject of tampering with letters, and the extent to which that practice went on. He found that the practice had caused considerable inconvenience to persons who might not be reasonably suspected, but who held opinions somewhat different from those at present held by Her Majesty's Government. He said at present held by the Government, because one did not know what opinions they might hold next year. For instance, a lady had complained to him two days ago that letters from herself to a county in the North of Ireland appeared to have been tampered with, and the replies she received from her friends on ordinary business arrived in envelopes having every sign of having been ransacked by inquisitive persons. Sometimes the ends were left entirely open, and the only clue the lady could get to explain this was that one of her correspondents in the North of Ireland was a member of the Ladies' Land League, or Ladies' Aid Society, and a friend in London was a member of the English Land League. Was this to be allowed as a sufficient reason for ladies' letters to be opened and pried into by English gentlemen? He also wished to know what explanation could be given of the practice that circulars suspected of being sent, say, from branches of the Prisoners' Aid Society, or to members urging subscriptions for the charitable objects of those institutions, were, on the pretence that the handwriting of the addresses was recognized, and, on similar evidence, being destroyed wholesale in the Irish Post Office? A legal authority had informed him that that deliberate destruction of circulars and similar things given into the custody of the Post Office authorities, whether by small or big officials, amounted to felony; and he was not aware that the Coercion Act, or any recent Act with regard to Ireland, expressly exempted officials from the punishment of felony. And he was not aware, if that were the case, that special exemptions of that kind were calculated to promote respect for law and order in Ireland. He made this statement on the authority of several sources—that the Post Office burned and destroyed wholesale what it considered to be documents or circulars calculated to promote some object with which Her Majesty's Government did not at present agree. As the President of the Board of Trade had explained, if it was necessary still to pass a certain Bill through the House of Lords, these circulars would be all right; but it no longer being necessary to pass a measure through the House of Lords, these circulars had become of such a character that the officials of the Post Office were destroying them wholesale. He sincerely hoped that if this was taking place it had been kept from the knowledge of the Postmaster General, because it would be a grief to all the Irish Members, who had so often fought side by side with the right hon. Gentleman against the Government of the late Lord Beaconsfield, to discover that he had any part in transactions of this nature. He would ask, in the first place, within what safeguards, and under what warrants, and to what extent the tampering with private correspondence continued? He wished to know who were appointed to read the private correspondence of Irish Members and Irish ladies? For if the Home Secretary alone was intrusted with that function, that might explain his neglect of the Police arrangements in London which had recently been so notable; at the same time, it would be a certain consolation to the Irish Members that their correspondence was solely confided to a gentleman of his discretion. But they wanted to know whether Post Office officials of no particular standing, and with no particular guarantees, were authorized to open and ransack private correspondence? Last year he had stated that he should have no ojection to his letters being opened, on condition that the Post Office would supply sound envelopes in place of the torn envelopes. But that in itself was a matter of serious inconvenience. Members were continually receiving letters with damaged envelopes, and they did not know whom to blame if some of their contents were absent.

wished to know from the Postmaster General whether all the letters that were opened and read and copied were afterwards forwarded to their destination, or whether any of them were confiscated by the Post Office? That was a simple question, and he hoped it would receive a plain and direct answer. He had good reason for asking that question. Furthermore, he would like to know if due precautions were taken to insure that the contents of any of the envelopes which were opened were safely and duly put back into the envelopes from which they were taken? A few nights ago the hon. Member for Cork City (Mr. Daly) detailed the facts of a most extraordinary change or exchange of the contents of letters—it was a case in which the bank book of a gentleman was put into an envelope, posted by a little school-girl, and enclosing a number of religious pictures. He wanted to have some assurance that cheques and postage stamps and other valuables were not taken from envelopes, and that none of them were mislaid or lost in their transmission through the Post Office, under the process of letter- opening and confiscation which was going on at present under the warrant of the Chief Secretary.

said, he wished to make a suggestion with regard to the opening of letters delivered in England. It was that when letters were opened by the Government they should be delivered either opened or enclosed in a fresh envelope, and should be endorsed—"Opened by the authority of the Government." Since the opening of the present Session he had received several letters which had been opened in the most barefaced and clumsy manner, and in the fastening down very much torn and dirtied. It must be a very humiliating task to close up letters after having been opened; therefore, let the Government be straightforward in the matter—let them deliver the letters open, or, if they closed them again, let them affix some official stamp to show they had been tampered with.

said, his hon. Friends had put some questions which they had a good claim to have answered. He felt extremely anxious on one point. He wished to know what the Chief Secretary conceived to be his power under his warrant—Did the right hon. Gentleman believe he had power to open a letter, and, if he thought fit, to seize it and. keep it? Did the right hon. Gentleman or any of his subordinates believe that after having copied a letter they had the right to destroy it? He believed the Government did not open as many letters as formerly; perhaps they found the correspondence too dry and uninteresting. He was occasionally troubled with questions from his constituents as to whether he had received this or that letter, so he was inclined to think the system of opening letters still remained in force. The Government had now opened letters for a whole year. Surely they ought to have discovered whether the system repaid them. Surely, if anything improper had been carried on through the medium of the Post Office, they would have at the end of a year been able to institute some criminal prosecution or other. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, he was entitled to infer that a year's trial of this wholesale tampering with private correspondence had been of no avail. They had a right to ask the Government whether their search had been at all repaid —whether it had proved of the slightest good from a political point of view? He was aware that the officials in the Dublin Post Office had grown so wanton that they did not even take the trouble to open some envelopes; if they thought they recognized the handwriting they did not even take the trouble to copy the letters, but threw the unopened envelopes into the fire. It occurred to him that that was villainy. He could not believe the Postmaster General was entitled to destroy a post letter, although he knew it was contended that when a letter was posted it was public property. It was not known, and never would be known, what letters had been destroyed. He would conclude, as he began, by asking whether the Chief Secretary or the Postal officials considered that, under the warrant of the Chief Secretary, they were bound to send a letter on after having copied it, or whether they considered themselves entitled to destroy it?

said, that, perhaps, the Home Secretary would now tell them—he endeavoured to get the information last Session by questions put to the Government—whether the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General received a specific warrant from the Home Secretary with regard to each letter that he opened, or whether he received a general warrant and opened all the letters addressed to the gentlemen mentioned in the warrant? The question was a very important one; but he believed it was a very moot question with lawyers whether the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General was not exceeding his duty, and rendering himself liable to serious consequences, if he opened a letter without having a specific warrant to do so.

I have waited until I could answer all the questions which hon. Gentlemen were anxious to put to me. There was a question put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). I beg leave to say that in this matter the Postmaster General has no responsibility whatever. The responsibility is absolutely and entirely with the Secretary of State; it is upon him that the law has imposed the responsibility. Another question was asked as to whether, under the warrants issued in this matter, there is power to open and examine only, or whether there is also power to detain? Now, distinctly, there is power to detain, because that is mentioned in the Statute.

Does "detain" mean to keep altogether?

I imagine so.

To destroy?

About the legal power there is no doubt whatever.

Destroy?

I do not think the word "destroy" is mentioned, and I have not got the Statute with me. Well, then, there was another question put which was a very important one, and that was whether this power could be exercised by subordinate officials? I say most certainly not. The power is absolutely a power which rests upon the responsibility of the Secretary of State, and can only be exercised upon his direct authority. It is an authority which has been placed in the Secretary of State's hands solely for the public safety; and if any Secretary of State exercised such a power, except in cases in which he was satisfied in his own mind, and upon his own responsibility, that it was absolutely necessary for the safety of the State, he would be guilty of a gross breach of duty, and I would say of a gross breach of honour also. I conceive that is the position in which the law has placed this matter. I ought to say the power is with the Secretary of State in England only; in Ireland it belongs to the Irish Government. The Secretary of State has nothing whatever to do with the Post Office in Ireland. Several assertions have been made as to the mode of dealing with letters in Ireland. I must confess I know nothing of the method adopted in that country, but I cannot imagine such a thing as the burning of letters wholesale. Well, then, other questions' were asked as to how, and when, and to what extent this power is exercised? This matter was discussed last year, and I gave then the only answer that it is possible for me to give on the subject. This is a power which is given for purposes of State, and the very essence of the power is that no account can be rendered. To render an account would be to defeat the very object for which the power was granted. That was perfectly admitted, after all the discussions which took place on this subject, by the Committee of the House of Commons appointed a good many years ago, and both Houses of Parliament, having examined into the matter, determined to continue the power which then existed. It has continued ever since, and there is no security whatever in the exercise of that power except the responsibility of the Minister to whom the power is intrusted, and if he is not fit to exercise the power upon the responsibility which is cast upon him he is not fit to occupy the position of Secretary of State.

Does the Minister open the letters himself?

I have told the hon. Member that it is upon the personal authority of the Secretary of State that the thing is done. With every respect to hon. Members, I must say I can give no further information on the subject. In my opinion, I ought not to do so; it is out of no disrespect to hon. Members that I give this answer, but it is the essence of that power that the Minister responsible should not give information beyond what I have already given.

said, he must offer his sincere congratulations to the Postmaster General on the fact that upon him there did not rest any of the responsibility for all these transactions; he could hardly imagine a man of the right hon. Gentleman's high character having anything to do with business which involved such proceedings. He did not think the Home Secretary had precisely answered the questions put to him. They understood perfectly well that the whole thing was done upon the authority of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and that he alone was responsible to the House. What they wanted to know was—Did he delegate his warrant and power to any subordinate officials? Did he, in fact, open and read all the letters himself; or did he instruct his subordinate officials to do so and report to him about them? It did not seem to him that the safety of the State would be in any way imperilled if the right hon. and learned Gentleman were to give a plain answer to that question. The Home Secretary said something about what would be the duty of a statesman and a man of honour in such a matter. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was a statesman, and he (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) was sure he was a man of honour; but in such transactions as these they were now discussing one was led to remember the advice of Lady Teazle to Mr. Joseph Surface, when he, in a memorable conversation, made some allusion to his honour. She said—"Don't you think, Mr. Surface, we had better leave honour out of this business?" He (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman would do well to consider that advice and leave honour out of these discussions.

said, he really must protest against the statement made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the Postmaster General was not responsible at all; that he alone was responsible in the matter. He begged leave to refer the House to the section of the Act of Parliament which made it a misdemeanour

"For any person employed in the Post Office, contrary to his duty, to open, or to procure to be opened, a post letter, or wilfully to delay or detain, or procure or suffer to be delayed or detained, any post letter."

"Provided always that this did not extend to the opening, or detaining, or delaying of a post letter in obedience to the expressed warrant, in writing, under the hand of the Secretary of State."

said, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary had not given any answers at all to the questions put to him; he had not answered the question put to him by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), and he had not told them whether it was necessary to issue a specific warrant for the detention of a particular letter. Upon those points they were entitled to some information; and as the right hon. and learned Gentleman might not be able to speak again on the subject, perhaps the Attorney General for Ireland would tell them what was done by the Lord Lieutenant or the Chief Secretary for Ireland, or whoever it was who issued the warrants, to authorize the opening of letters in Ireland? His hon. Friends had stated that circulars and letters were torn in the Post Office in Dublin, and that some even were destroyed without being opened at all. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he knew nothing of such things, and that he did not believe them. He could well understand that the Home Secretary did not believe them; but they had a right to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the Postmaster General if they would take any steps to ascertain whether there was any truth whatever in the state-meats? A very grave charge had been brought against the Post Office officials, and it was due to them that some inquiry should be made. Before the debate closed, he hoped they would have some real information upon the different points now raised. The Home Secretary said that the opening and reading of letters was carried on solely under the authority of the Secretary of State; but they had a right to ask to what class of officials was the work intrusted? Was it intrusted, for instance, in the Post Office in Dublin, to the Postmaster or to some high official; or was any ordinary clerk, into whose hands a letter to or from a prominent Land Leaguer might fall, entitled to open it? It was proper, too, that they should hear something in reply to the suggestion thrown out by the hon. Member for New Ross (Mr. Redmond)—namely, that if the Government would insist upon opening letters, they ought to put an official stamp upon them, showing that they had been opened. Surely if the Government had the power to open letters, and if they exercised the power, as it was well known they did, why should they be ashamed to admit they had done so in any particular case? It was no uncommon tiling for hon. Gentlemen sitting around him to receive letters which had been opened; but they were in complete doubt as to whether they had been opened by the authority of the Secretary of State, or by some curious person in the Post Office who had no authority whatever to open them. Inasmuch as answers had not been vouchsafed to the questions put by different hon. Members, he should move that the Vote be postponed until such time as the Government would condescend to afford them the information required.

said, there was another point requiring elucidation. The Act provided that the opening of a letter, when done in Ireland, should be done under the warrant of the Lord Lieutenant, and he saw no person present who was capable of answering the questions which had been put, especially those concerning the secreting or destruction of letters in Ireland. The section of the Post Office Act which had not been referred to, and which section was the 26th, made it a felony for any person employed in the Post Office to embezzle, secrete, or destroy any post letter. One of the principal complaints made was that letters passing through the Post Office in Ireland were embezzled, secreted, or destroyed, and there was scarcely a person who received a large amount of correspondence in Ireland who did not constantly miss inclosures. He had had to complain that inclosures sent to him were taken out of letters; why or wherefore he could not understand. It was now said that circulars had been posted to different parts of Ireland, and that they had been destroyed in the Post Office by hundreds. Now, there was nothing in the Post Office Act, and there was no authority vested in the Lord Lieutenant, or anybody else, that could justify the destruction of any post letter or the contents of any post letter. To destroy a letter or its contents would be clearly illegal, and any warrant given to that effect would, in a Court of Law, be declared null and. void. It was only proper that inquiries should be made as to whether the complaints were or were not justified, and they ought to be told whether warrants were issued—as the Act clearly required—for each particular letter that was opened; or whether general warrants—which 100 years ago had been declared illegal—were issued, authorizing all letters to So-and-So, or all letters in the handwriting of such-and-such persons, to be opened. He thought, too, some information ought to be given as to the dissatisfaction which prevailed very largely in Ireland as to the management of the Post Office in that country. No one was present who could give the answers required. He and his hon. Friends had every reason to complain that the Person to whom they looked for answers and explanations—the Person upon whom the legal responsibility rested—was not in his place to give such answers as might satisfy the justifiable curiosity of hon. Members on that side of the House, and might allay, if it were possible, the feeling in Ireland that the tampering with private correspondence was carried on most dishonourably.

Do I understand the hon. Member to move the postponement of this Resolution?

Certainly, if I am in Order in doing so.

Does any hon. Member second that Motion?