, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, he thought it would be convenient to the House, and to those hon. Members who took an interest in this Bill, that he should shortly state the course which, on behalf of the Metropolitan Board of Works, he pro- posed to take in regard to it. A great number of hon. Members took an interest in it, and a few local Bodies were opposed to it. He therefore wished to state that if the House agreed to read the Bill a second time, he proposed in Committee to withdraw all the clauses except Clauses 11, 12, 13, and 14. Clause 11 related to the better regulation of theatres; Clauses 12, 13, and 14 dealt with the prevention of floods. Clause 18, which dealt with timber stacks, and Clause 19, which related to the cubical contents of buildings, had been much objected to, and it was not intended to proceed with them at all. He wished the House to understand that that step was only taken because the officers of the House had said that it was not proper for a Private Bill to deal with matters which had previously been dealt with by Public Bills. Therefore, these clauses would be withdrawn; but should the House accord him that which he now asked—the second reading of the Bill—he proposed, at a convenient opportunity, to bring in a Public Bill, embodying, with the exception of Clauses 18 and 19, the clauses now withdrawn. Under these circumstances, he begged to move the second reading of the Bill.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the police are authorised (in proclaimed districts or otherwise) to search the persons of individuals for copies of the "No Rent" manifesto; upon what authority they so searched Mr. Michael Toman, of Hilltown, county Down, as he was going from his own house on the night of the 1st ultimo; and, whether, as this gentleman has now been committed for trial, without bail, for Laving been found possessed of copies of the manifesto, it is the fact that he is kept in solitary confinement in Down Gaol for eighteen hours out of the twenty-four?

, in reply, said, that it was true that Mr. Michael Toman had been committed for trial; but while legal proceedings were pending in the case it was impossible for him to make any reply on the subject.

asked, whether the right hon. Gentleman could not give any information as the solitary confinement of the accused, and as to the authority on which the persons of individuals were searched for copies of the "no rent" manifesto?

said, that with regard to confinement the accused was in exactly the same position as persons generally were who were in prison awaiting their trial.

asked the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, Whether any decision has as yet been come to by Government as to the claim of Mr. Jas. C. Young, for compensation from the Spanish Government in respect of his having been imprisoned in Fernando Po, for two years and and nine months, while awaiting the confirmation of a sentence pronounced in a local court condemning him to a fine (which was at once paid) or a few months imprisonment?

Her Majesty's Government have represented this case to the Spanish Government, with a view to some compensation being awarded to Mr. Young for the sufferings he has endured owing to the defects of the administration of justice in Fernando Po. The reply of the Spanish Government to these representations has not yet been received; and Her Majesty's Minister at Madrid has been instructed to again call their attention to the hardship of the case, and strongly to commend the application of Mr. Young to their favourable consideration.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he is now prepared to inform the House what steps he intends to take, in accordance with his statement of 12th August 1881, to place the owners of small tenements in the same position as regards highway rates as they now are as regards poor rates, and in which they were as regards highway rates before the repeal of the Act 13 and 14 Vic. c. 99, by the Act 38 and 39 Vic. c. 66?

I had hoped to be able to deal with the question of the making and the collection of rates generally during the present Session; but, looking at the state of the Business before the House, I doubt whether I shall be able to do so. But if I should find later on that I cannot carry the larger object into effect, I shall not object to introduce a shorter Bill for the purpose mentioned in the Question.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, now that all regiments are double battalion, it might not be arranged that boys in training for musicians and tailors should be taught in the battalion at home, till they are of mature age, instead of being sent prematurely to India?

In reply to my hon. Friend, I have to state that the Duke of Cambridge consulted the Medical Director General on this subject some months ago, and that he advised, and I decided, that boys might safely go to India, if of proper age and medically fit. The objection to sending men under 20 to perform, in the climate of India, the ordinary duty of privates does not apply to boys employed as musicians or tailors, whose duties are much lighter, and it would be most inconvenient to dispense with them in India. The subject is, however, one of which I will not lose sight.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has observed in the public Press a report of a speech delivered on Monday last, by Mr. W. B. Smith, one of the Vice Presidents of the Birmingham Reform League, in which that gentleman charged the Government with endeavouring to prevent the nomi- nation of Mr. John Dillon for the Parliamentary representation of Birmingham at the next General Election, and in which Mr. Smith stated that he had written to Mr. Dillon, and had received no reply; and, further, that he had written to the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, inquiring if such letters as that which he had addressed to Mr. Dillon were prohibited, and, also, whether he would be permitted to visit Mr. Dillon, and had received no answer to either question; and, whether he has any statement to make in reference to the charges of Mr. Smith?

, in reply, said, he had not seen any report on the matter in the public Press; but he was informed that there had been one letter, and one only, addressed to Mr. Dillon, and also one addressed to Mr. Parnell; that the letters referred to a proposed demonstration at Birmingham on their release; and that the Governor of the Prison did stop the delivery of those letters. Mr. Smith wrote to the Governor requesting to be informed if the letter had been received. The Governor did not reply, as he considered he was not bound to do more than inform the prisoners that letters addressed to them had been detained. With regard to Mr. Smith visiting either Mr. Dillon or Mr. Parnell, of course he could do so in accordance with the rules of the prison. He must say, in explanation of the course taken by the Governor, that a rule had to be laid down that there should be no political correspondence and no political conversation with the prisoners at Kilmainham.

asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether he has seen a paragraph in the "Times" of Wednesday, stating that

"A young man named Carroll, servant to a Roman Catholic clergyman at Coachford, has been committed for trial on the charge of posting up a notice, calling on the farmers to attend at the farm of a suspect named O'Leary and till his land;"

, in reply, said he had not seen the paragraph in The Times; but in consequence of the Question he had made inquiries, and found that Carroll had been arrested under the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it was a fact that Mr. W. F. Moloney has been imprisoned under the Coercion Act, in Dundalk Gaol, since last November; whether application was made for his removal to Kilmainham, so that he might have reasonable facilities for carrying on his business, and was refused; and, whether his detention in Dundalk is essential for his safe custody, or is simply intended as punishment?

, in reply, said, that Mr. Moloney was arrested on the 25th of November, and since his confinement in Dundalk Gaol application had been made for his transfer to Kilmainham; but it had been refused, the Irish Government feeling that it could not be acceded to consistently with the public interest.

said, the right hon. Gentleman had not answered the last part of his Question.

said, it had been found necessary to select the prison to which "suspects" were sent. That had become necessary from the fact that, with all the precautions which could be taken, correspondence to some extent had been kept up by some of the prisoners in some directions on the very matters for which they had been arrested. The Government must use their discretion with a view to prevent that; and it was in order to prevent it that Mr. Moloney was sent to Dundalk Gaol.

asked, whether the right hon. Gentleman meant that communications of the kind which he said came out of prison came from Kilmainham only, and from no other prison?

I did not say that. I only said I believed they did come out of Kilmainham.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, in view of the prevalence of smallpox of a very virulent type in the district of Armagh, he will order the removal of the suspects from Armagh Gaol?

, in reply, said, that a medical officer had been sent to inquire whether the prevalence of smallpox rendered the removal of prisoners under the Protection of Person and Property Act from Armagh Gaol necessary. Following upon that medical officer's Report, an order had been issued to the effect that no person from the county of Armagh be admitted into the prison until further orders, this precaution being all that was deemed necessary.

asked Mr. Attorney General, Whether he has now come to a decision as to the way in which he will deal with the present waste of judicial power, and the great inconvenience caused to jurors and others by the present system of holding four Assizes?

, in reply, said, the Question, strictly speaking, referred to a matter which was not under his jurisdiction; but he might say that there was no prospect whatever of any alteration being made in the system introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) for holding four Assizes in the year, in order that no person should be left untried for more than three months. But it was under the careful consideration of the Government how far arrangements could be made that would relieve the Judicial Bench and others from some of the burdens consequent on attending at these four Assizes.

asked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether his attention has been called to the complaints as to the condition of Richmond Park; whether it is the fact that the Park is in many parts covered with ant-hills and mole-heaps, and, in consequence of its being insufficiently drained, the turf has in many places become full of small bogs, especially in those parts frequented by riders; and, if so, whether he will take steps to have the Park put into a proper state; and, whether it is the fact that the proprietors of the private road in the Clarence Lane leading to Roehampton Gate has erected a barrier close outside that gate, and has fastened this barrier with a lock, to which only the proprietor's tenants are allowed to have a key; and whether, in that case, he will consider the propriety of closing altogether Roehampton Gate until such time as the public in general are allowed to use it?

With respect to the last part of my hon. Friend's Question, he has correctly stated the facts of the case. The owner of the private road leading to Roehampton Gate has for many years past barred the access of horses and vehicles to it by a gate. So long as this is the case Roehampton Gate cannot be used by the general public. The Gate is not under my jurisdiction; but I will consult with the Ranger as to the expediency of closing it entirely, so long as the owner of the laud prevents access to it. With respect to the first part of his Question. I have received no complaints of the condition of Richmond Park. The Park is, I am informed, thoroughly drained. Owing to the exceptionally open weather, there have been more mole hills than usual, and the ground is much cut by riders; but in the drier weather this is being now remedied.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government has recognised the Kingdom of Servia; and, if not, whether it proposes to do so at an early date?

Her Majesty's Minister at Belgrade has been instructed to convey the congratulations of Her Majesty's Government to King Milan on his assumption of the Royal title.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Why the inquiry into losses suffered by British subjects on the occasion of the capture of Sfax was broken off?

The proceedings of the Sfax Commission were brought to a close by the French Chairman, on the ground that the British Commissioners had recalled a witness who had been already examined, and whose second deposition differed from that previously given. The Italian Government were also represented on the Commission.

Do I understand that the inquiry is terminated?

The inquiry in the form of a Commission is terminated; but there is correspondence going on with regard to the claims.

gave Notice that he would call attention to the matter on going into Committee of Supply.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether it is true that the Cape Government is authorised to pay its levies against the Basuto people on confiscated lands and cattle; and, whether, considering such licence has tended to prolong the war as long as land and cattle remained to confiscate, he will authorise such payments?

Basutoland is an integral part of the Cape Colony, which possesses responsible Government, and it is for the Cape Parliament to provide the means of paying Cape levies. The hon. Member, perhaps, means to ask whether Her Majesty will be advised to exercise her prerogative by vetoing any Bill that may be passed by the Cape Parliament confiscating in any degree, and under whatever circumstances it may be passed, any lands held by any Basutos. The hon. Member will see, by referring to the Blue Book issued this week, that the Government can give no such pledge.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the British Resident at Pretoria has brought under the notice of the Transvaal Government the circumstances of an outrage committed in August last, by a party of Boers, on the person and property of a Kaffir named Indabezimbi, who was at that time re- siding in Natal; and, whether any steps have been taken by the authorities of the Transvaal, either to institute a judicial inquiry into the matter, or to surrender the offenders to the Government of Natal?

On the 13th of October the British Resident reported that, according to promise, the Government had caused an investigation to be made at Utrecht, and informed him that the result was somewhat to invalidate the statement of Indabezimbi; but that the documents connected with the investigation at Utrecht would speedily be forwarded to him, with a view to correspondence through him with the Natal Government. No further communication has been received. It must be observed that, in the absence of any extradition Convention, a judicial inquiry in this case is practically impossible, the outrage, whatever it was, having been committed in Natal, and the offenders being in the Transvaal. Her Majesty's Government are taking active steps to re-establish a system of extradition in pursuance of Article 29 of the Convention. The despatches on this subject will be given to Parliament when the Correspondence is completed.

asked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether his attention has been called to the evidence of the secretary and the other officials of the Royal Zoological Gardens, in regard to the uncertain temper of the elephant "Jumbo," and also to the statement that this (alleged) fierce and dangerous animal is to be removed to the United States on the 19th instant upon one of a line of steamers which usually carries emigrants; and, whether he will take steps to secure emigrants taking berths upon the steamer, on which a passage for "Jumbo" has been secured, from the danger which it is stated by the secretary and other officials of the Royal Zoological Gardens they may incur; and whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a Copy of the Charter incorporating the Royal Zoological Gardens?

asked, whether the hon. Gentleman was aware that an elephant which had been brought over from India by the Prince of Wales, and which afterwards died in the Zoological Gardens, Dublin, had killed two or three men on his passage over?

Of course, the Board of Trade cannot possibly have any control over what my hon. Friend calls the "uncertain temper of the elephant Jumbo." But the Surveyors of the Board have been instructed to be present at the embarkation of the animal, and to take every care that no danger to the ship or passengers results from its presence on board. They are specially charged to see that the cage in which the animal is placed is sufficiently strong to prevent it getting adrift; and, above all, that the elephant shall not be able to step on to the light awning deck from his own cage. They have further been instructed to take care that the presence of the animal does not interfere with the ventilation of the ship, and the health, comfort, or safety of the passengers. As to the Question about the Zoological Society's Charter, I must ask for Notice of it.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. Mahoney, clerk of the Castlecomer Union, who was arrested under the Coercion Act, held his appointment under the same law as that under which Dr. Kenny held office in the North Dublin Union; whether upon Mr. Mahoney's arrest the Local Government Board immediately issued a sealed order dismissing him, as was done in Dr. Kenny's case; if not, will he state upon what principle the Local Government Board dismissed Dr. Kenny by sealed order; and, whether it is the fact that upon Mr. Mahoney's release he was at once allowed to resume his position by the Castlecomer Board, without any such application as the Dublin guardians are asked to make to the Local Government Board?

, in reply, said, that Mr. Mahoney held his appointment under the same law as Dr. Kenny; but the Local Government Board, on the application of Mr. Mahoney, forbore taking action in his case for some time. On quitting the prison he resumed his duties.

inquired whether the right hon. Gentleman would have any objection to lay on the Table the Correspondence which had taken place on the subject?

asked for Notice of the Question.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether Mr. N. J. Barrett, a regularly appointed postal official (July 1875), who has been arrested at Loughrea under the Coercion Act, will be allowed to resume his post upon release, or will receive an equivalent appointment?

, in reply, said, that the position held by Mr. Barrett in the Loughrea Post Office had been filled up; and, under the circumstances, he could not be restored to the service of the Post Office.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether police protection was withdrawn from John Lyne, Ardnatrush, Bantry, county Cork, and whether Mr. Lyne himself was arrested by the police; and, if he would state why police protection was withdrawn?

, in reply, said, that personal police protection was withdrawn from Mr. Lyne at his own request. There was no foundation for the statement that he had been arrested by the police. On one occasion last autumn the Constabulary thought it prudent to shelter him for the night in the barracks, for which he expressed his thanks.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether it is true that, at various times since December last, the "Irish World" newspaper has been stopped in the Dublin General Post Office; if so, by whose instructions, and upon what grounds, this was done; whether the Department will compen- sate subscribers for the copies seized; whether any advice was sent to the addressees as to how their property had been disposed of; whether, during the same period, the "Irish World" was allowed to be delivered as usual through English Post Offices; and, if so, why a distinction was made; if it is correct that, under Article 6 of the Postal Convention, signed at Paris in June 1878, Great Britain binds herself to pay an indemnity of 50 francs to the sender of certain registered articles, including newspapers, "sauf le cas de force majeure;" whether the senders of undelivered registered packets of the "Irish World" will be entitled to receive the indemnity; and, whether any representations have been made by the Government of the United States as to the seizure of American newspapers in Irish Post Offices?

, in reply, said, that as this was a political matter he might be allowed to answer the Question. It was true that The Irish World newspaper since December had been stopped in the Dublin General Post Office by the warrant of the Lord Lieutenant, who deemed it necessary for the good government of Ireland that that step should be taken. That was the only answer he could make to the first four Questions. If the action of the Irish Government were disputed in a Court of Law, it must be defended. With regard to the last Question, whether any representations had been made by the Government of the United States, he had to say that no representation, as far as he was aware, had been made by that Government. An inquiry had, in the course of business, been made of the Post Office; and the reply given by the Post Office was that the paper had been stopped by direction of the Lord Lieutenant.

said, that no answer had been given as to an engagement to pay 50 francs to the sender of certain registered articles, including newspapers, "sauf le cas de force majeure."

That is a legal Question, to which I am not able to give an answer.

Notice has been given for a week.

asked under what Act of Parliament the Lord Lieutenant had proceeded?

That is a legal Question, and Notice ought to be given of it in proper form.

asked whether the papers had been destroyed in the Post Office?

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that Mr. John Rorke of Dublin has been arrested under the Coercion Act, and of what crime he is suspected?

It is the case that Mr. Rorke has been arrested under the Protection of Person and Property Act; and I believe the ground is that he is reasonably suspected of intimidation to prevent the payment of rent.

said, that the answer of the right hon. Gentleman was so unsatisfactory that he felt it his duty to make a few remarks upon it, and with that view he would conclude with a Motion. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that Mr. Rorke had been arrested because he was reasonably suspected of intimidating persons not to pay rent; but the real reason he was arrested was because he was reasonably suspected of being the partner of Mr. Patrick Egan, the Treasurer of the Irish Land League. Mr. Rorke had never taken any part in politics—he had never made a speech in the whole course of his life—but he had business relations with Mr. Patrick Egan. Accordingly a heavy fine, in the shape of imprisonment, was to be imposed upon Mr. Rorke for his business connection with that unfortunate individual, the Treasurer of the Irish Land League. The right hon. Gentleman, in his recent speech at Tullamore, stated that the only people he had put into prison were broken-down men and reckless boys. Was Mr. Rorke either a broken-down man or a reckless boy? His commercial standing in the City of Dublin was superior to that of the right hon. Gentleman at Bradford. ["Oh!"] At all events, his name on the back of a bill would have much more potency than that of a certain official at Dublin Castle, whose signature was only valuable when attached to a warrant. Be- cause Mr. Rorke had the misfortune to be connected with Mr. Egan he was put in gaol. And to what gaol was he sent? Not to Kilmainham, where he would have an opportunity of conducting his business, according to the promises of the right hon. Gentleman; but he was sent down to Naas, 40 or 50 miles from the place where he could conduct his business. The Chief Secretary had stated that he would release the prisoners when outrages were discontinued. He would tell the right hon. Gentleman that the arrest of men like Mr. Rorke were only calculated to increase outrages. At the same time, such was the feeling of nationality that had been created in Ireland—such a feeling of solidity amongst the tenant farmers—that, were it not for the personal ruin the Chief Secretary wished to inflict, he would regard the Coercion Act in Ireland as a blessing rather than a curse. That would be his opinion, if he could merely view the matter apart from the personal destruction which he knew the right hon. Gentleman was desirous to bring upon individuals. The 800 men. who were now in prison must be released some day; and when they did regain their liberty it would be seen that the Government, by their coercive policy, had only created so many drill-sergeants and picquets in the army of agitation. He begged to move the adjournment of the House.

, in seconding the Motion, said, he believed the arrest of Mr. Rorke to be one of the meanest the Government had yet made. He had the pleasure of making the acquaintance of that gentleman. He never was a politician. He never concerned himself, to any extent, in public life; and he (Mr. Sexton) was personally aware of the fact that during last year, owing to the representations of his friends, he had rigorously abstained altogether from politics. Mr. Rorke knew well, from the moment the Coercion Act came into force, that he was placed in a position of danger. He knew that the fact of his partnership with Mr. Egan would expose him to the attentions of the right hon. Gentleman. His friends advised him not to give the right hon. Gentleman any pretext for arresting him; and he had scrupulously abstained from anything of the kind, because he knew that one day he would be made the victim of the right hon. Gentleman's spleen. What was the crime of Mr. Rorke? They were told by the right hon. Gentleman that it was endeavouring to intimidate persons from the payment of rent. That was an accusation which no man. who had the slightest knowledge of Rorke could credit for a moment. He was a man. of courage and honour, willing to extend to other men the rights he claimed for himself; and if there was one man on Irish soil to-day, in gaol or out of it, who would be ashamed to practice intimidation, it was John Rorke. The moral murder inflicted under this Act was illustrated by the impunity with which a charge like this could be made up. The real charge against Mr. Rorke was that he was a partner in the commercial firm of Egan and Rorke in Dublin. The Government knew that Mr. Patrick Egan was one of their most dangerous enemies. They knew that he was the enemy of social and political tyranny in Ireland; they knew that he had devoted very rare abilities to the service of the people; and they knew the energy and skill he had brought to bear on the interests of the people; but the warrant of the Chief Secretary did not run in Paris—and therefore, to enable them to withdraw Mr. Egan from the service of the cause of the people, they had had recourse to the mean expedient of seizing on his partner, an innocent man, not at all engaged in politics, and who had studiously avoided doing anything to commit himself. The Government had done this with no other hope, and for no other reason, than that of dislocating the commercial business of Mr. Egan. The arrest of Mr. Rorke was particularly mean at the present time, when Mr. Egan's name was mentioned in connection with the representation of Meath. They had been informed by lawyers in the House that Mr. Egan was legally entitled to sit as Member of Parliament for Meath. Whether that was so or not, they knew that the Bishop and people of Meath would be very glad tomorrow to elect Mr. Patrick Egan to represent their county. Yet the Government, which had resorted to extreme and extraordinary measures to allow one of the Members for Northampton to take his seat, now arrested an honest, decent Irishman, incapable of crime, incapable of criminal thought, for the purpose of embarrassing another patriotic Irishman who was beyond their reach, hoping, by the dislocation of his business, to prevent Mr. Patrick Egan from again presenting himself before the electors of Meath. Such were the means to which the Irish Coercion Act was turned; such were the intents with which it was being employed. The right hon. Gentleman, in his recent extraordinary tour through Ireland, which procured for him a round of cheers when he returned to that House, told the crowd of people, whom he took by surprise in the streets of Tullamore, that outrages were committed, not exactly as his hon. Friend the Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) had quoted, but by broken-down men and by violent and reckless boys. Did Mr. Rorke belong to either of these two categories? Was he a violent and reckless boy? He had long since reached the years of maturity, which had taught him prudence; and he was one of the last men in the world likely to lay himself open to the charge the right hon. Gentleman had made against him. Was he a "broken-down man?" The House had heard the comparison drawn by the hon. Member for Wexford between this "broken-down man" and the Chief Secretary, from the aspect of that commercial life to which they both belonged. He told the House that Mr. Rorke, so far from being a broken-down man, was one of the most substantial and respected traders in the City of Dublin. The right hon. Gentleman told the people of Tullomore that if outrages ceased or became fewer, the "suspects" would be let out; but he immediately followed up that speech in which he, for reasons of his own, gave hopes to the hearts of some poor people in Ireland, leading them to suppose that some of the "suspects" would be released by imprisoning a man who could not be supposed to have any connection with outrages. He should not comment now on the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, beyond remarking that it was exceedingly easy for a man who had thrown into gaol every person that could answer him, who had put his fingers upon the throat of the country and a gag into its mouth, to appear at a hotel window, surrounded by his bailiffs and detectives, and to deliver to a crowd of people assembled in the market place a speech beginning with a dull jest, proceeding with a mean threat, and finishing up, in true English fashion, with a good round text of Scripture. It was exceedingly easy for the right hon. Gentleman to do these things, because he well knew that any man in that crowd who dared to say a syllable while he was delivering his studied eloquence would find himself, after a day or two, in Kilmainham or some other gaol. It had come to a sad time with Irish politics when no respectability, no prudence, no self-respect, could save a man from arrest; and when the politics of the country, and the direction of its interests, were confided to the care of a man who was capable of such a contemptible piece of comic acting as that seen the other day in the streets of Tullamore.

remarked, that he had had a somewhat intimate acquaintance with Mr. Rorke, and he was perfectly convinced that Mr. Rorke had done nothing whatever to deserve arrest. Still, he could not say that the news of his arrest had caused him any great surprise. It was now two or three months since he had a conversation with Mr. Rorke, and on that occasion he (Mr. Gray) remarked to him—"The probability is the Chief Secretary will arrest you." Mr. Rorke said—"I have done nothing whatever. I have been exceedingly careful. I never attended any meeting; I have taken no part in any of the meetings of the Land League." "Well," he (Mr. Gray) said—"You are Mr. Egan's partner, and you will be arrested; they will try to punish Egan through you." He replied—"I know how serious it would be if both of us should be away from business, and on that account I have been careful to give the Chief Secretary no excuse for arresting me." It turned out, however, that his (Mr. Gray's) anticipations were correct. Messrs. Egan and Rorke carried on in Dublin a very large business, requiring personal attention and supervision. Mr. Egan, of course, had taken a very active part in political affairs; and, according to the manner in which the Coercion Act was being administered, his arrest, perhaps, would be a matter about which there could not be a great complaint. But to arrest Mr. Rorke simply because he was Mr. Egan's partner was a step which was not calculated, using the words of the Resolution passed last night, "to promote good government in Ireland." It was calculated to do the very reverse. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had taken care to counteract any good which his personal inspection of parts of Ireland might have been likely to produce by the coup which he accomplished when leaving the country. Really the present course of government in Ireland was calculated to drive into despair men of moderate opinions, and men who, like himself, had always been anxious to keep within the spirit of every moral and legal obligation, and to press as strongly as possible what he considered morally right upon the people. He would take the liberty of very humbly and respectfully repeating the warning to the right hon. Gentleman which was given some time ago in a leading article of The Times, to the effect that a Government that was feared might continue to exist; but that the Government which was at once hated and despised must soon come to an end.

I have only one remark to make. I doubt very much whether the hon. Members—even hon. Members opposite—really believe that Mr. Rorke was arrested simply because he was Mr. Egan's partner. [Mr. BIGGAR: Yes, we do.] Lest those in Ireland who may read the speeches that have been just now made should be led to believe that there is any truth in the assertion, I rise simply for the purpose of stating most distinctly that the fact that Mr. Rorke was Mr. Egan's partner had nothing to do with his arrest.

said, he had not the honour and pleasure of knowing Mr. Rorke; but he should say that, from what he had heard from his hon. Friends around him, he believed that he was arrested mainly, if not altogether, because he was Mr. Egan's partner. Mr. Rorke had lately taken no part in politics, and had done nothing to justify his arrest, which appeared to be in keeping with the rest of the Government policy in Ireland. The Ministry had introduced a system in Ireland of government by accusation, by calumny, by bringing vague charges against persons which could not be proved, but which they asserted justified them in looking them up in Kilmainham Gaol. In this case especially he should like to appeal from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Head of the Government himself. Did the Prime Minister, with all his honourable antecedents, with all his instincts in favour of liberty and fair government, approve of a transaction of this character; and was the arrest of men like Mr. Rorke consistent with the honourable and open government of the country? Up to the time of his arrest Mr. Rorke had not been much of a politician; but he should like to know whether he had not by this time been converted into a very strong politician indeed? Such treatment made not merely politicians, but conspirators.

agreed with those who believed Mr. Rorke to have been all his life a quiet politician—a most earnest Nationalist; no doubt, as strong in his opinion as any man in the House, but a quiet business man. Some time ago he had a conversation with Mr. Rorke of the same nature as that narrated by the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray). He (Mr. O'Donnell) expressed his fear that Mr. Rorke would be arrested because he was Mr. Egan's partner; but to this Mr. Rorke replied that, bad as the English were, they were not so bad as that. It seemed, however, that Mr. Rorke had been mistaken. [Mr. SEXTON: Hear, hear!] It was not, however, the work of the Englishmen; it was the work of these anti-Irish under-strappers in Ireland, who did the dirty work of the Government at Dublin. He was absolutely certain that Mr. Rorke had not taken any part in politics lately; because the argument would commend itself to the House, that if one partner in a large commercial firm like that of Egan and Rorke was avowedly playing a dangerous game, the other would be particularly careful to keep himself clear of politics for the sake of their business. He had it upon the best authority that Mr. Rorke had strictly confined himself to his business. He was a respectable Dublin merchant and trader, enjoying the respect of all classes of the community, a man who never said an injurious word of anyone, even though he might be opposed to him in politics, or any other matter of opinion. But Mr. Rorke had been arrested purely, and entirely, and conclusively because he was Mr. Egan's partner. This was a case which, went on all fours with the miserable way in which Dr. Kenny was arrested, with the additional punishment put upon him by depriving him of his office as medical officer. Mr. Rorke had been taken up for the purpose of disarranging and destroying the commercial business of the firm of Messrs. Egan and Rorke. The Chief Secretary had, no doubt, believed the information on which he had acted; but he asked the Chief Secretary to communicate that information, not to the House, not to the public, but to choose from the Front Opposition Bench three or four of the Leaders of the Conservative Party—men who had no sympathy with intimidation or Irish nationality—and to communicate to them the information upon which he had acted, and if those Leaders agreed that there was any reasonable ground whatever for the arrest of Mr. Rorke, he would apologize for having called into question the accuracy of the information of the right hon. Gentleman. But he assured the Chief Secretary such information was always at hand when wanted, especially at a time when Circulars were flying about the country. Then informers could always be found to give any kind of evidence. The Chief Secretary had doubtless received information. In connection with Dublin Castle there was always an abundant supply of auxiliaries, ready at a moment's notice to give Judas Iscariot evidence for the thirtieth part of the thirty pieces of silver. That was the system of government which reigned in Ireland at the present day; but he would not hold the Chief Secretary entirely responsible for this. The man who was responsible for the Chief Secretary himself was the right hon. Gentleman sitting on his left-hand side (Mr. Gladstone). It was the policy of the Premier that was the cause of everything that was taking place in Ireland. The Chief Secretary and the Premier, he was sure, would refuse that test; but they, knowing, as they did, Mr. Rorke, knowing, as they did, that the arrangement was that Mr. Rorke attended purely to the commercial business of the firm, while Mr. Egan devoted himself exclusively to attending to the policy of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government—knowing these circumstances, knowing the general repute in which Mr. Rorke stood, knowing the absolute worthlessness of the evidence upon which the Chief Secretary proceeded, they charged the Government to any kind of test they chose, and they were perfectly certain that they would prove to the satisfaction of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Stafford Northcote), and to the satisfaction of the two right hon. and learned Gentlemen the Members for the University of Dublin, that there was not one rag of evidence against Mr. Rorke—that the only object of punishing Mr. Rorke was to ruin the business of Mr. Egan, and that the arrest of Mr. Rorke was one of the most foul and cowardly outrages that had been perpetrated, and that had disgraced the whole administration of the right hon. Gentleman in Ireland. He (Mr. O'Donnell) was very sorry, for his part, to see that there was any apparent complaint made upon the Irish Benches of the action of the Chief Secretary in addressing the crowd gathered outside his hotel window in Tullamore. He sincerely wished that the Chief Secretary would do much more of that sort of thing. He wished that, instead of acting on the information of the Iscariots of Dublin Castle, he would go round and see the country for himself. He was sure there were hundreds of parish priests throughout the country, like Father M'Alroy, of Tullamore, prepared to guarantee the Chief Secretary a quiet hearing. If he went round to the parish priests and consulted them, and visited the convent schools, and said a few nice things to the children, and afterwards addressed a crowd outside his hotel window, he might have a few rough interruptions; but, on the whole, the people would decidedly like him in his new character of the friend of the fatherless and the lover of liberty. He sincerely hoped the Chief Secretary would pay a visit to Dungarvan next, and if he addressed a crowd from the window of his friend Mr. Flynn's hotel, he would get as good an audience, and go away after having done as little to procure support for the policy of the Liberal Government as he did in Tullamore.

said, he could hardly gather from the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite whether they really wished to accomplish the object they professed to have in view—to obtain the release of Mr. Rorke, or simply to vent their spleen on the Chief Secretary for Ireland. He felt deeply humiliated, as did the House and thousands of people in this country, at repeated arrests of this kind. He confessed he did not know where it was going to end; but he was sure the Chief Secretary intended to make himself thoroughly acquainted with, and responsible for, every arrest that was made under this Act. He was sure, also, that of the 500 persons who were now suffering in prisons in Ireland there were many perfectly innocent. It was impossible that it could be otherwise; but he wanted to ask hon. Gentlemen opposite did they really wish to have a better state of things brought about, and were their speeches likely to accomplish the objects they had in view? Take the speech of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy). What could be more coarse, more insulting, more absolutely without a shadow of foundation, than his insinuations against the commercial credit of his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland. There was not a name that stood higher in England in that respect. Why should the hon. Member make his insulting and stupid comparison between the Chief Secretary for Ireland, in his business capacity, and the names of those gentlemen who had been arrested? Was that likely to assist them? Then the hon. Member for Sligo turned into ridicule the well-intentioned efforts of the Chief Secretary to come in contact with the people of Ireland. He (Mr. Mitchell Henry) knew just as much about the people of Ireland as did the hon. Member for Sligo; and he knew very well that on receiving the observations of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, they returned to their native character of love of fair play and politeness. He believed the Chief Secretary could have gone, from the very first day of his visit, into any large town or amongst any community in Ireland in perfect safety; and if he had let it be known he wished to speak to the people, he would have been received, as he was where he made his recent address, with fair play and courtesy, and even with sympathy. Well, then, why did the hon. Member for Sligo turn this matter into a matter of ribald jest? Then the hon. Member for Dungarvon (Mr. O'Donnell)—he understood the first part of his remarks as expressive of sympathy with the object of the visit of the Chief Secretary to Ireland; but the latter part of his observations cut off all such hope. But he (Mr. Mitchell Henry) wanted to appeal to the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy), who was the Leader of the Party opposite. Why did he not exert his authority, and relieve the country from that terrible incubus—the "no rent" manifesto? Did he believe in it? [Cheers from the Irish Members.] He gathered from those cheers that he did.

Under the circumstances, most certainly I do.

Well, if the hon. Member approves of it, all I can say is that it explains something that has long been a mystery, and that is the difference between the man who wrote the historical works of which the hon. Gentleman is the author and the speeches and political actions which have lately distinguished him.

I rise to Order. Is the hon. Gentleman in Order in referring to every subject that crops up in his mind?

When a substantive Motion for the adjournment of the House is made, I am at a loss to state what subject cannot be discussed. What has happened this evening shows how necessary it is that the House should restrain the abuse of the right of moving the adjournment of the House.

could not help saying that when arbitrary arrests were made, no doubt with the best intentions on the part of the Government, there ought not to be a desire manifested by the House to prevent the question, being brought forward and discussed. Most undoubtedly the "no rent" manifesto, which was now being circulated in Ireland, was the cause of half the crime and wickedness that they had to deplore.

No, no!

said, there was hardly a Bishop or parish priest in Ireland who did not say the same thing.

They do not say so.

said, that some of the most important Bishops in Ireland, including Archbishop Croke, publicly denounced the manifesto.

What did Dr. Nulty say?

said, he did not say all the Bishops had spoken; and if the hon. Member (Mr. Healy) would not obey the voice of anything but the united Episcopate he must be rather a difficult son of the Church to deal with. He was convinced that the hon. Members did not desire to see this Coercion Act modified; but they wished to see it put into operation in its most loathsome and offensive forms. They wished to see it empowered to arrest a great many more persons than it did now. If it did their object was likely to be accomplished. But such conduct was traitorous to the Irish cause, and cruel to the Irish people. Hon. Members were safe enough in their places in the House, and they knew it. There was the hon. Member for Sligo, (Mr. Sexton) who was released on the grounds of ill-health. ["Order!"]

I must ask the hon. Member to address himself to the Chair, and not to hon. Members opposite.

The hon. Member for Sligo was released on the ground of ill-health, and he felt very much distressed on account of the hon. Member's condition; but he was happy to say that the hon. Member appeared to him to have improved. If the hon. Member were to go back to Ireland and address his constituents they would see whether he had the courage of his opinions sufficient to give the same advice there that he gave in that House. He could see no end to the discontent of the Irish people so long as hon. Members did not address themselves to the objects of the Act with the ordinary common sense, which should be dictated by a desire to achieve that which they asked for, and not merely to irritate those who had the administration of the Act.

remarked, that on all occasions of this kind insinuations which were most offensive, and statements which were most unfounded, against the Irish Members at that side of the House invariably came from hon. Members representing Irish constituencies on the other side of the House, Gentlemen who owed their position in Irish politics to the fact that they advocated extreme National and Home Rule views at one period of their political existence, and who now took a very different course in acting as the despised tail of one of the political Parties of this country. He should not be led by the offensive remarks of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) into anything in the shape of recrimination; but he could not help remarking that it was unworthy of any Member of that House to cast the imputations which he had attempted to cast upon his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton). He accused his hon. Friend of doing in that House what he dared not do in Ireland, when he knew that his hon. Friend had actually suffered the penalty in prison of the advice which he had the courage to give to the people of Ireland. The hon. Member challenged his hon. Friend to go back to Ireland now, and give the people the same advice which he gave in that House. He (Mr. Redmond) challenged the hon. Member to go back to Galway and to make to his constituents the same statement on Irish politics which he was willing to make to a hostile Assembly at this side of the Channel. The hon. Member had no more the courage of his convictions in meeting his constituents than those Members whom he wrongfully charged with not having the courage to ''Walk into the parlour of the spider," in the shape of the Chief Secretary. He protested against the insinuation which was continually in the mouth of Members of the Government to Members on that side of the House—that the Irish Members had not the courage of their convictions. He spoke on behalf of men whom he knew, who gave the same advice publicly in Ireland that they gave in that House; and he spoke on his own behalf, and asserted that in his own county every man, woman, and child knew what his views were. He might remark that he was not the candidate of a Caucus. He was not a Representative whose connection with Ireland began when he entered Parliament, or whose connection with Ireland would close when he ceased to represent an Irish constituency. He represented a county where his family had been known for generations, and where his words, young man though he was, were listened to with respect. In that constituency he had given the same advice to the people which he was not afraid or ashamed to give in the House, and that advice had been identical with the statement just now made by his hon. Friend and Leader the Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy)—namely, that when Ireland had been deprived of her Constitutional liberties, and when her leaders had been unjustly imprisoned, the "no rent" manifesto was not only a justifiable, but a necessary policy. He agreed with the hon. Member for Galway, by their action on this occasion, they would not succeed in obtaining the release of Mr. Rorke. That was not their object. They had too much respect for Mr. Rorke to come in formâ pauperis to the House, and beg his release, unjustly though he was suffering imprisonment; but their object was to expose the manner in which the Coercion Act was being administered. Their object was to show that it was carried out with direct malice and with a deliberate intention of striking, in the meanest way, at the private business and the private character of the men who had been imprisoned. They had the strongest evidence of that in the fact that Mr. Rorke, whose business was in Dublin, had not been sent to Kilmainham, where he would be able to manage his commercial affairs, to some extent, but had been sent to Naas, 50 miles off, where it would be impossible for him to take any part in the conduct of his business. He was glad that this Motion had been made for quite another reason. An answer had been given to a Question of his on a kindred subject that evening, which was of such a character that a few minutes after it had been given he felt a certain kind of remorse that he had not risen and at once taken the course which his hon. Friend had taken, with reference to Mr. Rorke. His Question had reference to a matter of the gravest importance, which involved the utmost hardship and injustice to one of the leading merchants of Dublin, Mr. Moloney, who was at present in Dundalk Prison, and who had been there since last November, was a partner in one of the largest wholesale business establishments in Dublin. After being arrested he was sent to Dundalk, where it would be impossible for him to take any part in the conduct of his business. His partners, one of whom was a brother of the hon. Member for Cavan and a magistrate of the City of Dublin (Mr. M'Cabe Fay)—a gentleman who had no sympathy with his political opinions, and had never been associated in any way with the Land League—went to Dublin Castle without Mr. Moloney's knowledge, and, he dared say, without his approval, and represented to the Chief Secretary, or to his represen- tative, that the removal of Mr. Moloney to Dundalk was entailing grave pecuniary loss upon his firm; and that in Kilmainham, where he would be able to take some part in the management of the business of the firm, his safe custody would be perfectly secured. The application for his removal was refused, and the firm in consequence has suffered seriously by his absence. Here, again, they had another instance of the contemptible petty feeling which ruled the Government in these matters. He could tell the reason why Mr. Moloney had been removed to Dundalk. His wife was a member of the Ladies' Land League. She resided in Dublin. The Government in this contemptible manner desired to punish her by keeping her husband in Dundalk, where he was almost out of the reach of his relatives, who might desire to see him frequently. As had already been pointed out, the Chief Secretary for Ireland suppressed freedom of discussion and freedom of speech in Ireland, and arrested every man who might be regarded as a leader of the people, and, having done so, he himself addressed a crowd of people from a hotel window at Tullamore; and on the subject he (Mr. Redmond) had been greatly inclined to put a question as to whether the right hon. Gentleman had any objection to say what proportion of policemen and detectives there were to every one of the inhabitants of Tullamore in the small crowd?

To the best of my belief, not one.

said, he should be exceedingly glad if that statement were correct; and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman was better informed on that point than he usually was on other matters in regard to which he derived his information from the detectives. He should like to point out that the right hon. Gentleman, in going to Tullamore, had taken a course which it would have been better for him to have taken long ago. Let the right hon. Gentleman go to other places in Ireland in the same manner—and he was sure the right hon. Gentleman would be safe from injury or insult in doing so—and he would find that he and his Colleagues in the Cabinet, by their conduct in regard to Irish affairs, had encouraged that condemnation towards the Government which existed in the hearts and minds of nine- tenths of the people. He was glad that that Motion had been brought before the Government for the purpose of exposing the manner in which these arrests had been made, and trusted that it would be pressed to a division; and he sincerely hoped that when matters of that kind came forward in future they would not have a repetition by the Chief Secretary of the insinuations against the Irish Members that they had not the courage of their convictions. He hoped the Motion would be pressed to a division.

said, he could not allow one remark made by the hon. Member who had just sat down to pass without a few words of comment. Tullamore was the capital of the county which he represented; and he believed that any crowd which could be assembled in that town would hold opposite views to those of the Chief Secretary, especially with reference to coercion in Ireland; but, at the same time, that they would express them in the most legitimate manner. In no part of Ireland were the people more actuated by that spirit of fairness which he wished to see manifested by men in high position in Ireland; and if the right hon. Gentleman came amongst them to express his own honest convictions, he believed they would be prepared to give him, as they had given him, a courteous and fair hearing. While differing from the course taken by the Government on the Coercion Act, he tendered his best thanks to the Chief Secretary for the bold and courageous manner in which he placed before the people of Tullamore the naked truth with respect to the gross and outrageous atrocities which had been committed in Clare and in other parts of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman won their sympathies by a recital of the acts of violence which had been committed in the County Clare; and he (Sir Patrick O'Brien) was also there to express his regret that hon. Members opposite, who came from Ireland, on the many occasions they had for addressing their constituents, entirely omitted to use similar strong language in repudiating and expressing their abhorence of the outrages committed in Ireland; deeds which, under whatever Government—Whig or Tory or Ultra-National—must result in disgrace to that country.

said, he would not have joined in this debate but for the closing statement of the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken. In reply to it, he would point out that during the Recess there were in Ireland only three or four public meetings which were attended by Members of Parliament. His hon. Friend the Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell), the hon. Member for New Ross (Mr. Redmond), and he himself on those occasions strongly condemned outrages, and a report of that condemnation was reported in the newspapers on only one occasion. He never stood upon a platform from which he did not hear outrage condemned. The fact was that the condemnation of outrages from Land League platforms became so much a part of every man's speech that the newspapers, in reporting those speeches, altogether omitted the part. [Laughter.] If hon. Members who laughed would wait, they would see there was nothing so very extraordinary in that statement. London papers, in reporting speeches delivered in that House, endeavoured only to give as much of a speech as could make pretence to some originality; they would not constantly report arguments which had been over and over again repeated. Perhaps hon. Members would now see that his explanation was not absurd. He repeated, that he never stood on a platform where he did not hear outrages condemned. In the County Tyrone he constantly, during the election, condemned outrages, and on the next day the paper did not contain any report of his speech. But hon. Members might like to know that a Government reporter was present; and any hon. Member who doubted his words could move for a Return of the shorthand-writer's report, and test the truth of his statement. The Land League meetings, furthermore, were generally attended by clergymen. Would anyone say that the Irish priest had not, over and over again, denounced outrages? If the Irish Members persistently denounced outrages, they would not be believed. [Mr. WAETON: Hear, hear!] It would be saying their denunciation was like "Don't nail his ears to the pump." So that, whatever course they adopted, a hostile construction was put upon their words and acts. With respect to Mr. Rorke, he only made his acquaintance a few months ago. He could not speak for anything Mr. Rorke did before the suppression of the Land League. But since that time he was aware Mr. Rorke had done nothing. The charge made against him in the warrant was absolutely false. Similar charges had been brought against other men. Though they might contest these charges, they could not deny the persons attended Land League meetings, and perhaps spoke at them. But with regard to Mr. Rorke, he knew of his own knowledge that that gentleman was not connected with the Land League since its suppression; and he could hardly suppose that the right hon. Gentleman was only now suspecting him of some intimidation committed four or five months ago. Was it fair that a man arrested on mere suspicion of a certain offence should be sent down to Naas Gaol, and thus prevented from affording any assistance in the carrying on of his business? He might have been kept as securely in Dublin. If it were not fair, had not the Chief Secretary broken the pledge he gave to Parliament that the Coercion Act would not be used for the purpose of punishment? He did not suppose there was any use appealing to hon. Gentlemen on the Liberal side of the House. [Mr. HEALY: Hear!] Nevertheless, it was their duty to point out how the Chief Secretary's pledges had been broken. Whether he was administering the Coercion Act as a means of punishment or not, its administration amounted to punishment which should not be meted.

considered that the insinuations thrown out against certain of the Irish Members were as entirely undeserved as they were unworthy of those who made them. He did not know that ever he attended a Land League meeting in the ordinary sense of the word; but during the Recess he had been present at meetings held in every part of the county he represented (Roscommon). Ever since this question of outrages came up he did not think he had ever stood on a platform without using the strongest language in denunciation of the outrages, and pointing out that those who committed outrages were the real friends of coercion and the Government policy, and were not the friends of the policy which would render the people contented and happy. But this advice given to the people was studiously left out of the reports in the newspapers which formed the usual source of infor- mation of the Chief Secretary, as it would not have been agreeable to English readers and to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, whose delight it was to level insinuations which were cowardly in the extreme against Members of that House. He appealed to the reports of his speeches by the Government shorthand writers, who, by the way, acted in the most insolent manner, elbowing their way on to the platforms by shoving others aside, and doing their best, by their conduct and language, to provoke occurrences which would suit the purposes of their reports. He appealed to their reports; and if they did their duty faithfully it would be found that he had done his best to prevent outrages occurring or recurring. But while he and his hon. Friends around him had done that, he missed any such address by the hon. Baronet the Member for King's County (Sir Patrick O'Brien) amongst his constituents, or by the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry). To whom did the reproaches levelled by those hon. Gentlemen against other Members most apply? Did they not most apply to themselves? Either those two hon. Gentlemen were utterly destitute of influence among their constituents, or, if they had influence, they were cowards, who dared not go among their constituents to deliver their speeches. ["Order!"]

The hon. Member is bound to withdraw that expression applied to a Member of this House.

I said "if."

I must distinctly call on the hon. Member to withdraw that expression, and apologize to the House for using it.

I withdraw the expression, Mr. Speaker.

Do I understand the hon. Gentleman, distinctly to withdraw the expression?

said, he had already withdrawn it. [An hon. MEMBER: Apologize.] He was afraid he had been misunderstood. What he said was that if they had the courage of their convictions they would have delivered among their constituents the speeches which they actually addressed to the House of Commons. In short, he put the case hypothetically. He did not wish, however, to soften the withdrawal of anything that had been deemed ob- jectionable. Nothing could have been found in the speeches of Mr. Rorke that would have justified his arrest. Why had Mr. O'Kelly, his Colleague in the representation of Roscommon, been arrested? He had never said anything objectionable in his speeches, except one pardonable slip, far less culpable than he (Dr. Commins) had just been reprimanded for. No one could have been more moderate in his tone or sensible in his remarks. He never attended a meeting but his voice was heard against outrage and in support of law and order—meaning by law and order not despotism and disorder. Undoubtedly, his hon. Friend was preparing test cases for the Land Court; but that, he believed, was not now considered a sufficient ground for arresting anybody. Why, then, was not his hon. Colleague released? Poor Law Guardians, traders, editors, and proprietors of newspapers had been arrested in the county of Roscommon, and, like the editor of The Roscommon Messenger, regarding whose offence he was completely in the dark, they were sent to distant prisons from which they could not manage their business. In this respect the cases of Mr. Rorke and Mr. Moloney were not peculiar; because he believed that it would be found in almost every case where such a proceeding must effect a man's commercial ruin, the course of sending them to distant prisons had been adopted. These were matters which the Irish Members would like to have explained; but no explanation was ever given. As one who desired to see the reign of disorder cease—and he believed disorder was not all on one side—desiring also to see the suspicion dissipated that the Coercion Act was being used, not so much for the suppression of crime as for the suppression, of political association and agitation, he asked some explanation from the Government of the subjects he had noticed. He was not sorry the Chief Secretary had gone to Tullamore. Wherever he had gone he would have experienced the same immunity from obstruction and insult. He (Dr. Commins) promised that every Member of the Government who visited Ireland would experience the same courtesy, even though they spoke to the people in a way calculated to rouse angry passions, as he must say the Chief Secretary did at Tullamore. He himself, in all his travelling through Ireland, had only been insulted twice—once by a soldier, and another time by a policeman. He was glad that this question had been introduced, and he hoped the Government would consider the expression of opinion from Members on that side of the House as the expression of opinion of people outside.

said, he would not have interfered, particularly in a case of this kind, but for the avowal of the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. M'Carthy) with reference to the "no rent" manifesto. No Member until that night, with the exception of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), had avowed his approval of that document in the House. [Mr. HEALY: They have.] Well, the hon. Member for Wexford might have done; but he much regretted that the hon. Member for Longford should have spoken in the way he had done. His hon. Friend below him (Mr. Mitchell Henry) had said that the Bishops in Ireland had denounced it, and the statement was received with incredulity. He (Colonel Colthurst) challenged them to mention any Bishop, or any but an infinitesimal number of priests, who had not denounced it. The Archbishop of Cashel (Dr. Croke), who went as far as anybody in his defence of the Land League, said it was immoral, wicked, and cowardly, and for that he had been denounced in The Irish World in much the same language as was used in that House towards the Chief Secretary. In an editorial letter in The Irish World on the 18th of December, the statement was made that "his name would be handed down to the execration of the Irish race for ever." That was simply because he had denounced the "no rent" manifesto. He challenged hon. Members opposite to give them the name of one Bishop who had even tolerated the "no rent" manifesto. He knew a mean and dishonest use had been made of an opinion expressed by Dr. Nulty, Bishop of Meath, and had been put in an abominable document issued from Paris, and signed by Patrick Egan, and retained there in spite of the reclamation of Dr. Nulty. He was sure his hon. Friend the Member for Longford would not have given the endorsement he did to the manifesto, if he had been fully acquainted with the facts of the case. In the County Kerry an unforunate man was visited by a party of "Moonlight" marauders a few nights ago. He was put on his knees, and when he said he had paid his rent, but had got 34 per cent reduction, the men rejoined that they "id not care a d—what reduction he got; he should pay no rent while Parnell and Dillon were in prison." They then shot him, so that he was badly wounded. He was sure his hon. Friend would not tolerate, even by connivance, such action as that. He said distinctly that the "no rent" policy could never have succeeded except by means of the terrorism of Captain Moonlight." He was glad to say that his constituents, the people of the County of Cork, were not responsible for these outrages; but that the signatories of the "no rent" manifesto were morally responsible. He would go further, and say that every member of the Executive of the Land League who had signed the "no rent" manifesto, or who, even not signing it, had not disowned it, was morally responsible for every outrage which had taken place. He had received the day before a letter from one of the most respected Bishops in the South of Ireland, and in regard to the Land Question he said—

"On the whole, the prospect is more cheering than it was a short time since. I have learned from my priests that in a large number of parishes in their diocese the farmers and the landlords are amicably arranging their differences; but these unfortunate outrages—thank God! we have but few of them—are terrifying well-disposed men from paying their rents."

said, he was one of those Members who, with entire personal respect for the Chief Secretary, were inclined to regard him as a Member of a Cabinet of divided counsels. They might respect the Chief Secretary personally; but they mistrusted his Government. He did not think he was the only Member who believed the Government had misused the Coercion Act. Their policy had been no better than a policy of imbecility. One day they were too lenient, and another too severe. No respect was due to them beyond that due to people who had good intentions, and they knew where good; intentions paved the way to. Why were the hon. Members for Cork City (Mr. Parnell) and Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) arrested? At the time of their arrest they were not more guilty than they were months before; but many people properly believed that the reason why they were arrested was because they had replied—and effectively replied—to the speech of the Prime Minister at Leeds. There were many people who believed—and he confessed he was one of them—that those Gentlemen, who truly represented a large portion of the population of Ireland, were arrested for the cause he had mentioned, and not for the reasons stated in the warrants. In regard to the particular case now before the House, he did not think the Chief Secretary for Ireland appreciated the gravity of the charge that was brought against the Government. If the right hon. Gentleman were to say that he personally knew about this case—that, of his own knowledge, he knew that Mr. Rorke had been doing that which justified his arrest—he (Mr. Mac Iver) should believe him; but he distinctly thought that if the right hon. Gentleman had a good case, he should now get up in his place and take the House into his confidence.

I have no right to speak again; but, after the speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down, I must say this—that in no case have I satisfied myself more completely that there existed such reasonable suspicion as rendered an arrest necessary. But the hon. Member is, of course, aware that, in accordance with the conclusion come to after a long debate last Session, it is impossible for the Government to publish the grounds for the arrest.

said, that at a meeting of his constituents, which he attended, he denounced outrages, and warned them that force was no remedy. At that meeting he also spoke in very contemptuous terms of the Chief Secretary, and reminded the farmers that, whether in power or out of power, he had never lost an opportunity of voting for coercion, and that when in power he had voted oftener for it. He need scarcely refer to the clinical lecture delivered by the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry), who appeared not to have forgotten his early habits. He believed that the last time he addressed his constituents, he was accompanied to the platform by Mr. Michael Davitt.

said, he did not go to a meeting with Mr. Davitt; but Mr. Davitt, unexpectedly to him, attended one meeting where he spoke.

said, he was not aware of the order of the procession, as to whether he followed Davitt or Davitt followed him. He remembered, however, when the hon. Member followed Mr. Butt and kicked out of the traces. He (Mr. Callan) happened to know both Mr. Egan and Mr. Rorke, and as far as he was personally concerned he could not believe that Mr. Rorke was guilty in any respect. The last time he knew Mr. Rorke to take part in politics was on behalf of a then supporter of the Government. The only occasion on which he knew of Mr. Rorke taking part in politics within the last three years was upon the occasion of the election for the City of Dublin, when he assisted in returning the two hon. Members who represented the City, and were supporters of Her Majesty's Government. Mr. Michael M'Donnell, of the County Louth, who, at the request of the Sub-Inspector, interfered with the tenantry of Mr. Tipping, a "Boycotted" landlord, with the view of getting them to pay their rent, wrote to Mr. Tipping that he would get his rent if he allowed a reduction of 15 per cent. Mr. Tipping sent the letter to the Chief Secretary, stating that he was "Boycotted," and within 24 hours Mr. M'Donnell was arrested under the Coercion Act. He was sent to Naas Prison, 100 miles away, and the result was that he and his family were ruined. In like manner the Chief Secretary was now doing all he could to ruin the firm of Rorke and Egan. Why was he sent to Naas, and not confined in Kilmainham? Was it not done deliberately and maliciously to destroy his business? If it was any comfort to the Chief Secretary, he had the satisfaction of knowing that he had ruined many young families in Ireland; but the time was coming when the Irish electors would teach the Government in English constituencies, and teach certain Irish Members in theirs, a lesson. There would be retribution for coercion.

pointed out that while fair play had been shown to the Chief Secretary in his recent visit to Ireland, the right hon. Gentleman himself had displayed no fair play whatever. He could not see any fair play in descanting upon the merits of the Land Act—and he did not deny that there were merits in the Land Act—when those who could criticize the Land Act, and whose view of the matter differed somewhat from that of Her Majesty's Ministers, were locked up in prison. If the right hon. Gentleman wished to show fair play, let him bring down with him to Tullamore, or anywhere else in Ireland, Mr. Parnell or Mr. Dillon, and tell the people to judge between their arguments on both sides. Let him take with him the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sexton), and they would also allow him to bring with him to argue his side of the question the two Irish Law Officers, and as many right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Ministerial Bench as he chose. As to Mr. Rorke, he was a man who avoided politics, and devoted himself to his business. He scrupulously tried to avoid bringing himself within the scope of the reasonable suspicion of the right hon. Gentleman and his friends in Dublin Castle. He called such an arrest as this a stab in the back. If a man committed a garotte robbery, he was punished with the lash, and the political garroting of which the Chief Secretary was guilty was deserving of the same kind of punishment. He hoped the political garroters would soon receive the punishment they deserved, and he could wish with Shakespeare that he could

"Put in every honest hand a whip

To lash the rascals naked through the world."

The hon. Member is not in Order in referring to a past debate of the present Session.

said, he would refrain from doing so; but he must say that when a Member stood up to make excuses for coercion, he libelled and outraged the feelings of the Irish people. When any man rose to fasten the chains and fast bolt the prison-door upon the high-minded John Dillon, the real and true Member for Tipperary, such action would not be forgotten by the people of Ireland, or, least of all, by the brave and patriotic people of Tipperary. The Government had been warned, again and again, that these arrests would do no service to the cause of good government in Ireland; that they would not prevent outrages in Ireland; and he declared that if the people now in prison were let out, they would have fewer outrages and fewer crimes, though they might have a more lively and pervading agitation in the country. If that were done, he was perfectly certain they should have a repudiation and condemnation from these gentlemen of everything in the way of crime and outrage, and anything that would bring shame upon a good cause. Instead of doing good, the Government were going deeper into this mistake. What was the result? Return after Return laid upon the Table of the House showed that, instead of producing the effects desired, the tendency was in the other direction, and he saw no hope for peace or prosperity until a different course was resolved upon by the Government—until they were prepared to open the prison-doors and prepared to fight their opponents openly upon Irish platforms and the benches of the House of Commons. Until the Government did that, he saw no chance of a restoration of peace and order in Ireland.

said, the hon. and gallant Member for the County of Cork (Colonel Colthurst) read them a lecture on the "no rent" manifesto with regard to the opinion of ecclesiastics upon the subject. He was not prepared himself to enter into the ecclesiastical part of the subject; but with regard to the question whether or not outrages arose from the "no rent" manifesto, or whether that manifesto was justified by the facts at the time of its issue, he clearly could not agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman. It was not issued until the Government had made it impossible for the Land League to assist the tenant farmers of Ireland of small means in having their cases properly laid before the Court. He was clearly of opinion that the manifesto had nothing to do with outrages, as the Government obtained the Coercion Act six months before the issue of the manifesto on a statement of alleged outrages. The senior Member for King's County (Sir Patrick O'Brien) said that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had acted boldly and courageously in addressing the people at Tullamore. He did not see what courage there was shown by a cock crowing on his own homestead, and the right hon. Gentleman took care to be surrounded by police spies, by bailiffs, and by people who were probably less reputable. Besides, he had the opportunity of putting in prison anyone who disagreed with him. He did not agree with the hon. Baronet as to the good effect of that portion of the right hon. Gentleman's conduct, for he believed it had entirely broken down. Some hon. Members on the other side of the House and the Irish people were exceedingly fond of fair play—he thought they were; but fair play was not exercised by the Government in Ireland. In one of his speeches the right hon. Gentleman denounced outrages, as he had a perfect right to do; but he blew his own trumpet loudly about his charity, and that sort of thing; whilst, at the same time, he was assisting those landlords who had been charging impossible rents to exterminate their unfortunate tenants. He had talked about what he had done in Ireland 30 years ago during the Famine. Some people like to see misery and suffering; and he strongly suspected that as to the motive that had actuated the right hon. Gentleman in going to Ireland at the time it was to gratify his love of personal suffering.

The hon. Member is attributing unworthy motives to the right hon. Gentleman. The motives attributed by the hon. Member are atrocious. I must distinctly call upon him to withdraw that observation.

said, he would at once withdraw it. He would be very sorry to say anything un-Parliamentary—it was not his wish to do. He denied the truth of the assertion made by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mitchell Henry) with regard to the state of health of his hon. Friend (Mr. Sexton) at the time of his arrest; and he thought the hon. Member for Galway should withdraw what he had said respecting that hon. Gentleman, as it was notorious that he was in a frightful state of debility, and perfectly incapable of moving from place to place when released from Kilmainham. He believed the Government ought to turn over a new leaf, and not put any more persons in prison under the Coercion Act unless there was some case made out against them; and he thought, also, they should redeem the pledges they made when that Act was passed, and when a person was arrested they should allow him to carry on his ordinary occupation, which was impossible in the case of Mr. Rorke, he having been taken to Naas instead of Kilmainham Gaol. In conclusion, he expressed his conviction of the futility of appealing to the sense of fair play of the Government, for he believed that, politically speaking, it was the most untrustworthy Government that it was his fortune to remember.

, in reply to the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), said, he did not deny that the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had been very ill—on the contrary, he firmly believed that at one time he was very ill, and he was very sorry for it—but what he said was that the hon. Member was now in excellent health, and he complained that the hon. Member was employing his health in giving atrocious advice to the Irish people. He challenged the hon. Member to go and give that advice in Ireland which would ensure what he thought would be a very great blessing—namely, his being prevented from continuing to give the "no rent" advice which was the cause of all the outrages.

corroborated what had been said by the hon. Member for Cavan respecting his hon. Friend's (Mr. Sexton's) state of health, and said, even though he looked strong now, he was not so, and it was very much against the advise of his friends and medical advisers that he was in that House at all. The right hon. Gentleman had said that he did not believe there was a Member, even amongst those on that side of the House, who realty thought that Mr. Rorke was arrested simply for being Mr. Egan's partner. Nearly all of them had said they did believe it, and he believed it too. That, no doubt, was the real ground of the arrest; but there were plenty of hirelings in Dublin Castle who would furnish the right hon. Gentleman with some more convenient reason. He should like know what had become of the pledge given by the Government when the Coercion Act was passed, that every case of arrest would be investigated, for he could not suppose, if that promise had been kept, that 700 or 800 of the most respectable men in Ireland would now be in prison? He denied that the Irish Members had neglected to condemn outrages, and expressed a wish to divide the House as a protest against the tyrannical conduct of the Government.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether any reply has been sent by Her Majesty's Government to the telegram on the subject of Basutoland, which was received on the 15th February, from the Cape Government; and, if so, whether he can state its terms; and, when any official information will be published as to the events that have occurred in the Transvaal and Natal since June last?

No reply was sent to the telegram received on the 15th of February, as none appeared necessary, the telegram of the 9th of February from the Secretary of State having sufficiently explained the views of Her Majesty's Government. Papers relating to Natal and Zululand and to the Transvaal will be distributed next week.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether, in introducing the new warehousing scheme for the Customs Establishment, the Government in- tend so to amalgamate the Clerical and Outdoor Departments as to prejudice the officers of the latter Department, by placing such Custom's clerks in a superior position to such officers, although younger and of shorter standing in service; and, if such scheme be carried out, if it will greatly reduce the present prospects of promotion of the class of examining officers and gaugers; whether it is intended to offer terms of retirement to the officers now composing the Outdoor Department; and, when the proposed scheme is to come into operation?

had given Notice of his intention to ask on Monday next, Whether it is the intention of the Treasury to appoint the clerks rendered unnecessary by the changes in the Customs warehousing system to the posts of examining and other superior officers in the new Outdoor Establishment of the Customs; and, if so, whether this is not contrary to the provisions of the Treasury Minute of the 25th April 1864, which conferred upon the subordinate officers of the Outdoor Department the sole right of appointment of all offices of the Outdoor Department not above the rank of examining officer; and, whether the Playfair scheme, in reference to duty, pay, &c. was intended to apply to members of the Outdoor Department as well as to the clerical staff?

I will answer the Question which the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets has put down for Monday at the same time as that of the hon. and gallant Member for South Essex. I can only repeat what I have already stated—namely, that, speaking generally, the prospects of present members of the Customs Outdoor Department will not suffer by the changes proposed in the warehousing system. There is, therefore, nothing in the circumstances of the case to justify the offer of special terms of retirement to the outdoor officers. The new scheme will be brought into operation as soon as possible; but I cannot at present name the precise date. The Minute of 1864, referred to by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, related to vacancies in the ordinary course, and cannot reasonably be held to apply to new appointments arising out of an organic change in the Department. The Play fair scheme does not apply to the Outdoor Department; and so far as the salaries of the transferred clerks are affected by it, it could only be as matter of personal allowance to prevent individuals from suffering by the change. I must now respectfully ask hon. Members not to press me further at present with Questions upon this subject. I have repeatedly stated that it is our desire to introduce these changes so as to prejudice as little as possible the interests of anyone concerned. It will be impossible for the Executive Government to discharge its duty whenever administrative changes have to be made in the public interests if, before its measures are completed, it is called upon to answer for the effect of those changes on every individual interest.

I promised yesterday, in reply to the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Alexander) whom I do not now see in his place, to state when the Inspector General's Report on Recruiting would be circulated. My first duty was to see that instructions should be given that it should be laid on the Table at the earliest possible moment. The Report has been revised and printed, but there were a good many mistakes in it; and I find that it would be impossible to have it circulated before Monday evening or Tuesday morning.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty a Question of which he had given him private Notice—namely, Whether he will state to the House the changes that are contemplated in the Board of Admiralty or in the Office of the Admiralty?

Sir, it is the case that, in view of the great and increasing bearing of mechanical science upon the construction and arming of our ships, Lord Northbrook and his Colleagues have determined to call into their council scientific assistance from both inside and outside the Navy. The Controller (Admiral Brandreth), who has done so well at Chatham, has been invited to join the Board; and a new office has been created, with a salary attached to it of £2,000 a-year, to be held by a practical man of science, who shall unite special mechanical and engineering knowledge to wide administrative experience. Such a man has been found in Mr. George Rendel, whose qualifications for the post cannot well be described within the limits of an answer to a Question, but I will venture to think are undisputed either in scientific or naval circles. In order to enable our Successors to have the advantage, if they choose, of Mr. Rendel's services, the new Lordship of the Admiralty cannot be held by anyone who has a seat in Parliament. On the retirement of Vice Admiral Hall, who has for 10 years held the post of Naval Secretary, it is proposed to revert to the old arrangement, which is, that besides the Parliamentary Secretary there should be one Permanent Secretary, who may be either a naval officer or a civilian. On Admiral Hall's retirement it is intended to appoint to the post of Secretary Mr. Hamilton, the present Accountant General, who is generally recognized as one of the most distinguished ornaments of the Civil Service.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies a Question of which he had given private Notice—namely, Whether, in regard to the battles now going on on the Western Frontier of the Transvaal, he was yet satisfied that the attacks on the Chief Montsioa were by the Boers, and not by the Natives; whether any communication had been received on the subject of the attacks from the Transvaal Government, or the British Resident in the Transvaal; and what steps the Government proposed to take to protect that Chief from the vengeance of the Boers?

We have no intelligence beyond what has been received from Reuter's agency, and we can, therefore, say nothing authoritatively as to the composition of the attacking or defending Forces. We still believe that it was a Native force with a Boer contingent, rather than a Boer force with a Native contingent, that attacked Montsioa. What has happened appears to be a sequel to the events of the 20th and 21st of January. On hearing of them a telegram was sent on the 11th of February to Mr. Hudson, through Sir Hercules Robinson, to urge the Transvaal Government to take effectual steps to maintain the neutrality of Transvaal territory, and to prevent their burghers from encroaching on Native territory beyond the Frontier; and we have learnt that before the receipt of this the Commandant General had been despatched to the Frontier with a small police force to enforce the proclamation of neutrality the Government had previously issued.

said, he should like to know whether there was any truth in the statement to the effect that a large commando was being raised in the Transvaal territory for the purpose of taking some revenge upon these Natives?

said, he had explained that the Government had no intelligence beyond what had appeared in the papers; and, therefore, they were not in a position to say whether there was any truth in it.

May I suggest that the Government should ask for information?

rose to call attention to the Dormant Funds in Chancery, and to the unsatisfactory form in which the list of causes, to the credit of which unclaimed money belonging to the suitors is standing, is issued; and to move—

"That future lists be strictly alphabetically arranged, with cross-references to the subtitles, together with the names and last-known addresses of the persons originally entitled, the date of the last decree or order, and the amount unclaimed."

, in seconding the Motion, urged that the index offered to the public to examine in regard to those funds ought to be framed in a much better manner than was the case at present. Since 1872 the publication of those lists, which were to have been triennial, had been made only twice; and he asked why had no further lists been published? He highly approved of the form of index in relation to those funds which was suggested by his hon. Friend who had made that Motion, and which, if adopted, would enable persons to ascertain whether they were interested in that fund or not. The present system tended to confuse searchers. The officials whose duty it was to prepare the lists might think they now were sufficient; but the public were not satisfied, and the interests of the public ought to be first considered in the matter. Grave scandals sometimes occurred in consequence of the non-publication of that information. His attention was called early last year to a report of the case of Williams v. White, tried before the present Master of the Rolls in Ireland, from which it appeared that a clerk in the Accountant General's Office in the Court of Chancery in Ireland had communicated, it was supposed innocently, to a solicitor in Dublin the fact that a derelict fund of £8,000 was remaining unclaimed in the Court. The consequence was that that solicitor, having looked at the file of the proceedings, communicated with the parties interested, and made a bargain with them that if he told them of that particular fund, he should get one-third of the £8,000. The Master of the Rolls strongly animadverted on the matter, expressing a hope that that would be the last occasion on which, either casually or by design, such a communication would be made, and also a hope that steps would be taken to compel publication of accounts of derelict funds in the Accountant General's Office. He said that this must be done by legislation, because the Judges had no power in the matter. In Ireland, as was usual in matters of that kind, no steps had been taken for the publication of any information with regard to these funds. He believed that considerable reforms had taken place in the Accountant General's Office, but none in this respect. When such scandals as that which he pointed out occurred, something should be done to prevent the injury which occurred to persons from the non-publication, of this information.

said, that the hon. Member who had brought forward that subject was not quite correct as to the amount of the funds dealt with by that Motion. He had spoken of very large funds in Chancery, standing to the credit of suits now in existence. That was correct; but the Dormant Fund was only about a hundredth part of the amount referred to by the hon. Member. Still, it was sufficiently substantial to deserve the consideration of the House. The fact was that these dormant funds were remanets of sums which were dealt with by the suits. There were nearly 3,000 very small amounts for the most part, and after a lapse of time they were not thought sufficiently important for persons to make out a claim to them because they were so small. By the regulations of the Office, information was granted to anyone if an application was made by a solicitor; and as soon as the solicitor communicated to the Paymaster that any person thought he had grounds for making a claim to the fund, every information was afforded. The names in the list were not alphabetical, except with respect to the initial letter; but this was a mere matter of directions to the printer, and it was well worthy of consideration whether an alteration should not be made. As to the periods of publication and the allegation that there had not been a publication for three years, that was a matter which ought to be attended to, and the attention of the Paymaster should be called to the necessity of a more regular publication. The hon. Member asked that the names and addresses of the last- known owners of the funds should be published; but that was an impossibility. It would involve a degree of labour and trouble as to small amounts which the Paymaster could not undertake; and, moreover, if done, it would produce but slight practical result. He was quite sure that in this country, however poor a man might be, he would find a solicitor to make application for him. In all the claims paid since 1852, one-half had been paid to three firms of solicitors, and, of course, everyone knew what that meant. As the list at present stood, it was impossible for the inquiring gentleman who traded on these funds to take up the list and ascertain the amount standing in the name of any person. The only desire on the part of the officials of the Paymaster's Office was to protect the property of the public; and they believed that, while the information given was sufficient for anyone who had a just claim on these funds, it prevented the reprehensible traffic to which he had referred. At present the Government saw no reason why the present system should not in the main be maintained.

said, it was desirable that these matters should be occasionally brought before public notice, as discussion would probably lead to some improvements in regard to them. It was not easy to hit off exactly the right point between giving too much and too little publicity and information. But he did not think the public had much to complain of if it was made perfectly clear that, upon the application of any respectable solicitor, all the information needful would be given. He thought it would be well if the lists were published annually instead of triennially, and also that the Rules and Orders made under the Chancery Funds Act of 1872 should be placed before the House. He thought that the thanks of the House were due to his hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire for bringing the subject forward; but he hoped that he would be content with the assurance and promises given by the Attorney General, and that he would not find it necessary to go to a division.

said, he hoped his hon. Friend would proceed to a division. The Attorney General had endeavoured to minimize the question by stating that the funds were about a hundredth part of what the hon. Member for North Shropshire supposed. But whether the funds were £100,000,000, £10,000,000, or £10,000, the public ought to have information about them. The funds did not always consist, as had been stated by the Attorney General, of mere remanets. He knew a case in which, owing to some difficulty in taking out probate, upwards of £10,000 had been paid into the Suitors' Fund, where it totally escaped notice for nearly 20 years, without earning any interest whatever for those entitled to the money. The interest, which amounted to a considerable sum, was applied to the building of the Law Courts. When a private person applied all information was refused, except when he applied through a solicitor. It was rather hard that those who had only small sums in the funds should be refused all information unless they employed a solicitor. The result was that some of those interested in the fund never received their money. The fund, instead of decreasing, as it ought to do, was increasing; and, therefore, steps should be taken to secure a quicker distribution than could take place under the present system.

regarded it as satisfactory that it was the intention of the authorities to reduce this list to alphabetical order; but there was another part of it not so satisfactory in which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General seemed to recognize the absolute necessity that the public required the intervention of a solicitor. That would be imposing a difficulty and adding an expense on the members of the public who might have, or supposed they had, claims to be satisfied on inquiry. He thought it would be quite possible, with due protection of the interests of the fund, to arrange a plan by which some officer should be specially told off, who, on payment of a moderate fee, should give information to all members of the public applying in regard to these funds. Many of the claimants were in very indigent circumstances, but bonâ fide claimants would be willing to pay a small fee by which the expenses of maintaining such an officer would be provided for. This small fee would have the effect of excluding curious inquirers. It would also be sufficient to pay for the services of one officer, who in time would be able to discriminate between the curious and the honest inquirer. This system existed in several Public Offices in England, and it existed with great advantage to the public in many Offices in Ireland. In the year 1850 the amount of this unclaimed fund was £562,039, and it now amounted to considerably more. There was another matter somewhat allied to this, which he desired to notice, and that was the unclaimed dividends and stocks in the Government Funds, concerning which no notice was ever given to the public. Some interest was felt on the subject in Ireland. It would be unfair to expect an answer from the Attorney General on the subject now; but he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would give the subject some consideration.

said, the speech of the Attorney General had convinced him of the necessity that really existed for the reforms advocated by the hon. Member for North Shropshire. No doubt, those connected with the present system, which was of very little advantage in assisting persons to discover derelict funds to which they might be entitled, were interested in its maintenance. That was only human nature, because their emoluments were derived from the obscurity that surrounded the present system. Publicity would interfere with the monopoly enjoyed by the three officials who at present endeavoured to trace out the persons entitled to those derelict funds. He supported the suggestion that the Government should cause the list to be published in dictionary form with a cross under. In the present form of the list no one could obtain any information who had not consulted it with a precise knowledge of the nature of his claim. The interest on the funds, which amounted to over £500,000, would pay the cost of indexing and of publication. He could not understand how it was that the hon. and learned Gentleman was not willing to agree with the Motion of the hon. Member. For his own part, believing that if carried it would be attended with beneficial results, he should support the hon. Member if he proceeded to a division.

said, it appeared to him to be no objection to the Motion that, by giving greater publicity, they would encourage a large number of applications. The effect would be that the persons interested would be able to decide at once whether it was worth their while to proceed with the inquiry or not. He hoped the hon. Member would proceed to a division; and, if he did so, he should certainly vote with him.

said, that the hon. and learned Attorney General stated that he (Mr. Leighton) had brought a charge of concealment against the Government. He had not done so; but he certainly did bring such a charge against the particular Office which was under the control of the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury.

The hon. Member is not in Order in again addressing the House.

asked if this was an Army or a Navy Vote, and if there was any item called "the charge for coal?" Perhaps the Secretary to the Admiralty could say whether the Government was aware what amount of coal there was in the different ports and Navy Yards of the country. Some years ago it was discovered that £6,000 worth of coals, at Portsmouth, had been overlooked for a very long time; and it was very possible that the taking of stock with regard to coal in England was not altogether complete yet. With regard to coal, again, he believed that sundry complaints had been made to the Admiralty as to some very questionable transactions in the shape of the issue of coals to private purchasers in Gibraltar, and some other places. Possibly the hon. Gentleman would tell them what the Government had done in the matter.

said, that the Services for which money was asked were entirely connected with the Army. There undoubtedly did exist an abuse at Gibraltar with regard to the sale of coals to private persons. He thought the system would not be found so objectionable if the sales had been made directly to the merchant ships; but they were conducted through a middleman. The matter was only brought to the knowledge of the Admiralty within the last few months, and very strict orders had been issued to stop the sales. He had a communication on the subject only two days ago, and he had not the least suspicion that the abuse was existing, nor did he think it was at all probable that there were any large stocks of coal overlooked in any of their establishments. The stock of coal for the year had been kept extremely low, and in those parts of the world where coal depreciated patent fuel was being used.

asked who the middleman was through whom the sales of coals were made at Gibraltar, and whether he was connected with any other Government contract?

said, he might observe that the question had nothing to do with the Vote. The coal which the Vote referred to was entirely used in two transports, which made a voyage from the Cape to Bombay. Perhaps the word "abuse" was too strong a word to use in respect to what had transpired at Gibraltar. He had no reason to believe there was anything surreptitious; it was only the system that was bad. The name of the middleman, or coal agent, he did not remember at present; but he would ascertain his name, and he would also inform the hon. Member whether there was anything which called for reprehension.

said, there were several points in which the Government promised explanation on Report. For instance, the Attorney General for Ireland promised to look into the matter of the advertisements of the Land Commission. He (Mr. Healy) and his hon. Friends had pointed out that those advertisements were published in The Scotsman, the Dublin General Advertiser, which was owned by the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), and in the London Times, so that if the people of Ireland wanted to know anything about the relation between landlord and tenant they must refer to those papers. The Attorney General for Ireland undertook to look into the matter and have things remedied. It was shown by the Irish Members that there were such papers as The Freeman's Journal, that were largely read by the people; and it was to such papers that the advertisements of the Land Commission should be given, and not to papers like The Scotsman and London Times. Furthermore, there was the question of Mr. Barrett, the chief evictor of Lord Kenmare, who had been appointed valuator under the Land Act. It had been denied that he had been so appointed; but on looking the matter up he found it distinctly stated in the Report of the proceedings of the Judicial Sub-Commissioners that in the case of Mr. Bence Jones, Mr. John Barrett was appointed by the Sub-Commissioners as valuator. It was said they had not got the interest of the Land Act at heart; but he would ask the Attorney General if it was desirable that evictors like John Barrett, who, from their well-known propensities, were odious in the eyes of the people, should be appointed valuators under the Land Act? He desired to know if Mr. Barrett had been permanently appointed, or had been simply appointed in the case of Mr. Bence Jones's tenantry. Then, again, in regard to the appointment of the Solicitor to the Land Commission, it was stated in the papers the other day that Mr. Fitzgerald had been appointed. It was a remarkable thing that Judge Fitzgerald was one of the chief instruments of the Government in Ireland, and, as first member of the Privy Council, he always took a prominent part whenever any measure of coercion was to be put in force. That learned Judge decided what cases were to be tried, and then went down to the Assizes to make a series of special Charges to the Grand Juries, in accordance with a pre-arranged line of action decided upon by the Privy Council. He had now received his reward in an appointment for his son—a briefless barrister, whom nobody had ever heard of and while the son had received an im- portant appointment on the one hand, Judge Fitzgerald's nephew, on the other hand, had been appointed to the solicitor-ship of the Land Commission. He (Mr. Healy) wished to know if that was true? If it was, it was a remarkable fact; and it was a matter upon which they ought to have some explanation. Then, again, there was the question of maps. He had pointed out the other day an absurd rule laid down in the originating notice, which was based upon the assumption that every Irish tenant had a copy of the Ordnance Survey map in his house or library. It was ridiculous to suppose that an Irish tenant with a 10 acre farm had a library of any kind in which to place the maps of the Ordnance Survey. The originating notice required the character of the holding to be stated in accordance with the definition on the Ordnance map. The tenant was to describe the name of the farm and the locality, and he was not to give the names by which the holding was known to the people of the locality, but the names which appeared on the Ordnance map. In many cases English - Irish names were employed, and in others Irish-English names, a splendid mess being made of the whole thing. It was an extraordinary requirement that a humble peasant should be called upon to obtain a copy of the Ordnance Survey map, and describe his holding in accordance with that map. There were many other points upon which he might ask for information; but he would content himself with these four at present—namely, what course had been taken in regard to the advertisements of voluntary agreements; next, as to the appointment of the Solicitor to the Land Court; next, as to the Ordnance Survey map; and, lastly, as to the appointment of John Barrett as a valuer?

said, it was not required that every tenant should possess an Ordnance map; but it was thought that he would have no difficulty in obtaining access to one. He (the Attorney General for Ireland) would now give a very short answer and explanation to all the points which had been raised by the hon. Member. In the first place, in regard to the newspapers, it was a fact that the advertisements of voluntary agreements were inserted in the three papers mentioned—the Dublin General Advertiser, the London Times, and the Edinburgh Scotsman. It was required under the Act that the agreements made out of Court, and which were of a very elaborate nature, should remain for two or three months—he forgot which—before they became binding. The House would easily see the nature of one of these advertisements from the document he held in his hand. Now, it happened that a very large amount of Scotch and English money was invested on mortgage in Ireland through the Insurance Companies; and as all these agreements related to the arrangements between landlord and tenant, it was necessary to inform the mortgagee who lent the money, and resided out of the country, what the nature of the agreements entered into was, so that they might be apprised of what was going on. Accordingly the Land Commissioners selected The Times in England, The Scotsman in Scotland, and The General Advertiser in Dublin. The reason why the last-named paper was selected was that it was generally employed by the public Courts as the medium for advertising. The Landed Estates Court advertised in The General Advertiser, the Public Works Department advertised all their loans and applications for loans in that paper. The General Advertiser circulated 36,000 copies all over Ireland; it was delivered gratuitously in Dublin and the suburbs, it was filed in the Public Offices, and it was posted free to almost every town in Ireland. By that means it possessed a very large circulation in Ireland. If one of these advertisements were inserted in all the Dublin newspapers, it would entail a very considerable expense. He was informed that the cost would have been £287 for the present month alone for a single insertion in the Dublin papers. The cost, therefore, was so great that the Land Commissioners thought it would be much more economical to insert the advertisements in the papers which had been mentioned. In reference to this matter, it had been stated that an hon. Member of that House—the Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron)—was the owner of The Scotsmanand the owner of The General Advertiser. [An hon. MEMBER: Not The Scotsman, but The Glasgow Mail.] The imputation conveyed was that it was a bribe to the hon. Member for Glasgow for his sup- port to the Government. He (the Attorney General for Ireland) entirely disclaimed any such object, and he was told that the interest of the hon. Member in the Dublin General Advertiser was very small indeed. As to the next question—the employment of Mr. Barrett as a Government valuer—what he had stated at the time the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) called attention to the matter was that Barrett was not one of the valuers appointed by the Court; that was, that he was certainly not a permanent valuer. The fact turned out to be as he had stated it. Barrett, however, had on one occasion been appointed, under the provisions of the Act, as an independent valuer; but that was a matter over which the Commissioners had no control. He was appointed under one of the sections of the Act to determine a question relating to a holding in regard to which the Sub-Commissioners were empowered to employ an independent valuer. As regarded this particular case, he was informed that the Sub-Commissioners appointed Barrett to make the valuation of some property at a considerable distance from his own residence. The appointment was made with the approbation both of the landlord and of the tenant. The result was satisfactory to the tenant, and was not complained of either by the Court or by the landlord. That was the only occasion on which Barrett was employed, and he had never been appointed a valuer by the Commissioners. Their valuers were Mr. Gray, Mr. Boll, and he believed there was a third gentleman named Russell. In regard to Mr. Fitzgerald, he happened to be personally acquainted with that gentleman. Mr. Fitzgerald was an intimate friend of his; he had known him from the time he was called to the Bar. He had received previous information from Mr. Fitzgerald that he was most unwilling to take the appointment, and that it required pressure to induce him to do so.

In the first instance he did refuse it.

said, his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary corroborated him, and bore testimony to the fact that, in the first instance, Mr. Fitzgerald refused the appointment. With regard to the appointment of Solicitor to the Land Court, he understood that the Commissioners were most anxious to complete the appointment; but it had not yet been decided who was to be the lucky man. The Government left all the responsibility to the Commissioners themselves, who were certainly the best judges. With reference to the Ordnance Survey maps, he had ascertained that it was necessary for the purposes of the Appeal Court to have the holdings described in accordance with the Ordnance maps. The valuers employed by the Commissioners were then able to go down and value the property. It was not correct that the originating notice required the maps of the Ordnance Survey to be used; but the Rules provided that the farms should, as near as possible, be described in accordance with those maps.

asked if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would object to read the notice?

said, he had not got the Rule with him; but the words he had taken down were these—" May be in the form." Those were words extracted from the Rule. It was not an imperative obligation; but the Rule provided that the description might be in the form of the description given in the Ordnance map. He thought these wore all the points the hon. Gentleman had mentioned. It was the Commissioners themselves, and not the Government, who selected the papers in which the advertisements were to be inserted, and he had already mentioned the reasons which actuated them. He had also given the names of the valuers immediately connected with the Commission. The only other point it was necessary he should answer was this:—On a previous occasion he undertook to lay before the House a statement in reference to the examination of the clerks who had been appointed in the office of the Land Commission. He found that he was correct in stating that the clerks, with nine exceptions, were required to satisfy the Civil Service Commissioners in regard to their qualifications. Among the officers who were excepted were the secretary, the accountant, the chief agent for land sales, the assistant agents for land sales, registrars of sales, the valuer, and the solicitor. Special certificates were required by the Land Commission from the Civil Service Com- missioners, in reference to some of the appointments. He had further undertaken to ascertain whether the forms supplied to the valuers were sufficient to enable them to make a proper valuation. He held one of them in his hand, and he found it was of a very exhaustive character. It specified, among other things, the county, the name of the landlord, whether the land was town land or not, the area, the name of the tenant, the rateable value, the actual rent, the situation of the holding, its elevation and aspect, the number of fences, the character of the soil, the nature of the improvements, and various other matters that affected the holding. In order to fill up that form it would be necessary for the valuer to make a very extensive examination of the property. The name of Mr. Murphy had been mentioned as a valuer. He believed that Mr. Murphy would have been appointed if he had chosen to put his name forward. He would not trouble the House further. He thought he had answered the material questions put to him, and he had taken the greatest pains to obtain all the information that was necessary.

said, he had listened with attention and interest to the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland in explanation of the course adopted by the Commission of advertising in The Times and The Scotsman the voluntary agreements which were entered into by the tenants in Ireland, and he had come to the conclusion that his statement would have been in every respect eminently satisfactory had Irish Members not been in a position to read between the lines.

said, he should have stated that the course which was at present adopted by the Commissioners was that of inserting a brief advertisement in the Dublin morning papers, announcing that a longer advertisement with regard to these voluntary agreements would be found in The General Advertiser. The same notice appeared with reference to the advertisements in The Scotsman and The Times.

said, he was quite unable to agree with the Attorney General for Ireland that it was necessary or desirable that English and Scotch mort- gagees should be informed of the voluntary agreements made in Ireland by means of advertisements in English and Scotch papers. That statement formed the sole excuse which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had offered for the course adopted by the Commission with regard to the advertisements in The Times and The Scotsman; and it was a very remarkable one, because the right hon. and learned Gentleman was a man of large experience, and would know perfectly well that not one penny of Scotch money was lent in Ireland, except through agents in Dublin. No Scotch mortgagee of land in Ireland would think of reading The Scotsman for the purpose of getting information with regard to these voluntary agreements. He would unquestionably refer to his Dublin agent, who read the Dublin morning papers; and, under these circumstances, he (Mr. Callan) contended there was no necessity whatever for advertising in The Scotsman. The objection taken by his hon. Friends was not against individual newspapers, but against the corruption of the Press. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had referred to the advertisements inserted in Irish papers by the Board of Works. He wished to ask the noble Lord the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, whether or not it was a fact that in this matter the Board of Works were controlled entirely by the Department which he represented? Was it not the case, that since the meeting of Parliament the Treasury had sent directions to the Irish Board of Works as to the papers in which their advertisements were to be inserted? The opinion in Ireland was that the Board of Works were not allowed to use" their own judgment in this matter, and that they simply sent advertisements as they were directed by the Treasury Department in London. If such instructions were sent to Ireland, surely the noble Lord would be aware of the fact, and would be able to make a statement to the House; but if it had been concealed from him, he (Mr. Callan) could do no more than characterize the proceeding as most improper, and he was quite certain that the noble Lord would investigate a system which allowed under - officials in his Department to direct the Board of Works to advertise only in certain newspapers. Would the noble Lord like to assume the responsi- bility of directing in what newspapers the advertisements were to appear? The long advertisements were inserted only in The General Advertiser, which was not read by the people of Ireland, and had a very limited circulation; and he repeated that the statement in Ireland was that they were published in that paper in consequence of peremptory instructions received from the Treasury in London, the Department which issued them having no discretion whatever in the matter. The question he had to put to the noble Lord was this—did he, or his Department in London, control the Board of Works in Ireland in the matter of advertisements?

said, he was obliged to point out to the hon. Member for Louth that his question with regard to the advertisements of the Board of Works in Ireland had nothing whatever to do with the Vote before the House.

regretted that the noble Lord had not felt himself in a position to reply to his question. He should not have alluded to the Board of Works in Ireland, had not the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland done so in the course of his reply to the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy).

said, he should like to know whether the system at present in operation with regard to those official advertisements in Ireland was to be persevered in? He had listened to the explanations offered to the House; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman had given no intimation as to whether the existing arrangement would be continued or altered. He (Mr. Sullivan) regarded the system as most objectionable, and contended that it should be changed. The Attorney General for Ireland had stated that The General Advertiser, in which the notices of voluntary agreements appeared in Dublin, had a most extensive circulation throughout Ireland. Without any reflection upon the right hon. and learned Gentleman, he was bound to say that he did not at all believe in the accuracy of that representation. The publication in question had, according to his information, a very limited circulation. It was gratuitously distributed to a few persons in the city of Dublin, and on the following Monday a messenger was sent round to their houses, and was supposed to get back the copies, which were then to be sent into the country. No doubt some of the copies were returned; but the idea that they were sufficient for the purpose of distribution throughout the length and breadth of Ireland was, in his opinion, altogether a mistake. For these reasons he found it impossible to accept as accurate the statement of the Attorney General with regard to the circulation of the paper. But it appeared from the statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman that a short advertisement referring to the longer announcement in The General Advertiser was inserted in The Freeman's Journal. Now, the latter newspaper had unquestionably the widest and most extensive circulation of any in Ireland; it was sent out from the office every morning in bales, containing thousands of copies, that were delivered in all parts of the country. Every man in Dublin read The Freeman's Journal, no matter whether or not he agreed with the political principles which it advocated. And it was in this paper that the Attorney General said that a brief advertisement was inserted, referring the people to the long advertisement in The General Advertiser. In his opinion the practice should be reversed. For his own part, he considered that the daily papers in Dublin, of every class of politics, were entitled fairly to share in the matter of these advertisements; and he was at a loss to understand why a publication of so limited a circulation as The General Advertiser should be made, as it were, the pet out of all the other newspapers published in the country. The present arrangement was artificial and. unsatisfactory, and he thought he had shown good reasons why it should not be allowed to continue. The placing of these advertisements was evidently a matter of favour, obtained in some way which Irish Members did not understand. But coming to the common sense and just view of the case, having regard to the question of what newspaper was most read, and which would consequently offer to the people the most full information, he said that The General Advertiser was not the paper, and that The Freeman's Journal was. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had said that English and Scotch mortgagees and Insurance Offices were largely interested in the matter of the voluntary agreements, and it was, therefore, desirable that notices with respect to them should appear in The Times and The Scotsman. The statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman went a long way to prove that landlordism in Ireland was a hollow sham, for they were now told that Irish landlords, who, it was said, spent their money in Ireland and did so much good there in other ways, really had to hand over most of their rents to English and Scotch mortgagees and Insurance Companies. That was one of the considerations which pressed on the minds of Irish Members when they contended that neither Ireland nor the tenantry of Ireland could be on any foundation of prosperity until this system of sham landlordism was broken up, and its place supplied by the reality of a peasant proprietory.

pointed out that in the case of Army advertisements the military authorities thought there was good reason for advertising in a large number of the Irish newspapers whenever they had any information to communicate with regard to military affairs in Ireland. He found by an Army Circular which he held in his hand that there were no less than 27 Irish newspapers which were recognized by the Department as proper channels for the dissemination of information in respect of contracts in connection with the Military Service in Ireland. He could not understand why the Irish Land Commission, having its head office in Dublin, should not make their announcements in these 27 Irish newspapers. He was quite certain that it would be better for them to advertise in all the papers which circulated amongst the agricultural population of Ireland than it would be to advertise in The Scotsman.

said, he could not see that it was any advantage to Scotch mortgagees to have information with regard to these voluntary agreements after they were executed. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, as he understood, gave as the reason for advertising in a Scotch paper that the announcements were made for the purpose of inviting the attention of Scotch mortgagees to the fact that agreements had been entered into for a reduction of rent. He (Mr. Leamy) thought it would be proper that mortgagees in England and Scotland should receive information with respect to such agreements, provided it was of any use to them to be so informed. He could quite understand that it would be of use to the mortgagee to discover by means of an advertisement that a voluntary agreement was about to be made between the landlord and tenant for the purpose of fixing the rent of a farm, if the mortgagee were entitled to go into Court, either personally or by his solicitor, and ask the Court not to allow the agreement to be carried into effect. But he was not aware that the Land Act contained any provision whatever for protecting the interest of mortgagees in this respect, although he thought it only reasonable that the mortgagee should be allowed to go into Court. What, then, became of the mortgagee's interest in the matter, seeing that it was settled on the application of the tenant? The right hon. and learned Gentleman stated that the arrangement with regard to advertisements was settled by one of the Rules which, however, had not yet been laid upon the Table of the House. He should certainly be glad to know what advantage the mortgagee derived from the advertisements in question. As they were not inserted for the purpose of enabling the mortgagee to contest the arrangement in any way, but only to give notice of the fact that the rent had been reduced, he hardly supposed that the mortgagee would derive much satisfaction from the announcement. Nor did he suppose that an advertisement in The General Advertiser was likely to serve even the purpose for which it was intended, because, according to the information received, that paper was first distributed in Dublin, and afterwards sent amongst the people in Ireland. How, then, was it to reach the mortgagees in Scotland?

I must call upon the hon. Member to address himself to the Chair, and not to a particular Member of the House-

said, he was about to point out that under the arrangement which had been condemned by his hon. Friends every mortgagee in Scotland had an opportunity of knowing at least something about the agreements entered into between the landlord and tenant; but there was no advantage whatever to the mortgagee in reading an adver- tisement in The Scotsman to the effect that the matter was set forth in The General Advertiser. The announcement was practically worthless to him.

said, he thought Irish Members were justified in asking for some further assurance in the matter of the advertisements. For his own part, he was not in favour of Scotch money lenders, who, he thought, were quite able to take care of themselves, and, therefore, stood in no need of special announcements with regard to agreements between Irish landlords and tenants. On the other hand, he considered that the Irish farmers, and the class financially connected with them, had the right to expect that the announcement of matters which so much concerned their interest should appear in those Irish journals which were generally read. He was very well acquainted with The General Advertiser. It was a paper that was circulated gratuitously amongst the official and legal classes; it was also sent to some of the principal merchants and a few of the gentry in Ireland. But the Irish farmers knew as much about it as they did of The Scotsman. But, even if they saw the short advertisement in The Freeman's Journal, it was not fair to ask these very often illiterate men to go or write to Dublin for the purpose of obtaining a particular paper. Irish Members, in a matter of this kind, relating to the administration of the Land Act, were justified in claiming that all information which it was necessary and desirable for the people of Ireland to possess should appear in the journals that were most accessible to them. It was surely not unreasonable to ask that the Commissioners should place that information before the people in the easiest possible way. The method now pursued was both unreasonable and objectionable; and in order to afford an opportunity to right hon. Gentlemen opposite to say what steps would be taken to alter it he begged to move the adjournment of the debate.

said, he was certain that the sole object of the Commissioners had been to give information to the parties interested in Ireland and elsewhere, and to give that information fully. They had come to the conclusion that the best way of carrying out the plan, so far as Ireland was concerned, was to insert the advertisements in The General Advertiser. It was quite true that The Freeman's Journal had a large circulation; but he thought that there would be a great deal of complaint, and perhaps justifiable complaint, from persons who read the other papers in Dublin if the advertisement appeared in The Freeman's Journal only. The Commissioners, after consideration, had decided to advertise in a thorough business paper, which had been used for Government announcements formerly. It had been said that the Commissioners first began by advertising in three newspapers—The Times, The Scotsman, and the Dublin General Advertiser; but the expense was found to be so great that they ceased to advertise in The Times and The Scotsman, putting these two papers in the position of the ordinary journals. Notice was given that on a certain day The General Advertiser alone would contain the advertisement. The amount saved by not advertising generally in the newspapers would be shown when it was said that the cost of advertising in The Times and The Scotsman amounted to £3,000 a-year. If the advertisements were put into 27 county newspapers the cost would necessarily be very great. The object of the Commissioners had been to give the necessary information, and to give it fully and economically. He did not think their discretion in the matter should be interfered with.

Do I understand the hon. Member for Sligo to move the adjournment of the debate?

I do move it.

I beg to second the Motion.

The hon. Member is not entitled to second the Motion, having exhausted his right to speak.

said he would second the Motion. He had had some experience of local towns in Ireland, and he could assure the House that The General Advertiser was not read in them at all. An hon. Gentleman who sat near him informed him that the ordinary custom was for the paper to be brought in at the hall door on Saturday, for it to lay on the table until Monday morning, and then be taken away without being read. So far as he was concerned, he never got a copy of the paper sent to him. He did not think the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland would intentionally misstate any fact; but the allegation that the paper was distributed freely was not correct. On the other hand, they knew that The Freeman's Journal was read by every class in every part of Ireland; there was not even a village in any section of the country that did not receive one or more copies. He did not suppose that anybody wished to make a fight on this occasion in the interest of The Freeman's Journal; but it was only proper that the House should be made aware of the medium through which information could be sent to the tenant farmers of Ireland. It was all nonsense to say that information could be conveyed to the farmers through The General Advertiser. The Sub - Commissioners might be able to get through the 70,000 cases entered for hearing in three or four years. Some people were sanguine enough to think that they would; but other people, on the other hand, said that it would take 15 years. But even if they did get through, all these cases it would still leave out five-sixths of all the tenant farmers; and if the Government really wished to make the Land Act worth anything at all they should bring it within the reach, of all these people—popularize it. It did not, however, seem to be the wish of the Government to do this, or they would give the tenant farmers all the information in their power. For the first year of the operation of their Act they should try to popularize it, and endeavour to make the benefits which were to be derived, or were supposed to be derived, from it as generally known as possible. They should have given these advertisements to the papers that were read by the farming class. The Government should not be so absurd as to publish important advertisements in papers that no one ever read, and which were, therefore, so much waste paper. There was another point to which he wished to draw the attention of the Chief Secretary—a matter to which he had directed his notice some time ago—namely, the appointment, as a Sub-Commissioner, of a Mr. Bomford in the County Cavan, He (Mr. Biggar) had never attacked this gentleman, who was really placed in a very invidious position. Mr. Bomford was placed in this position—ho was put in a county where he had near relatives, where he had been an agent, and where his decisions, even supposing they were perfectly honest, were liable to be misunderstood. It seemed to him (Mr. Biggar) that, under the circumstances of the case, Mr. Bomford's decisions would be suspected by some people of being partial. It was only fair to Mr. Bomford, to Mr. Bomford's relations, and to the tenant farmers of Cavan, that this gentleman should be moved to some other district. This was a reasonable suggestion, and he did not think the Government should throw any obstacle in the way of its being carried out.

said, he was afraid, whatever might be said to the contrary, that the general opinion was that in Ireland the operation with regard to the placing of these advertisements was a "Boycotting" operation. He did not, however, think it was worth the while of the Irish Party to make a fight on the matter. The Irish papers, even the least influential of them, could do extremely well without the support of Her Majesty's Government. Perhaps the conduct of the Government on this matter might be regarded as a trial of Land League principles; and it was not the first time Her Majesty's Government had borrowed from that organization. They had taken this piece of "Boycotting" out of the book of certain Land League Societies in the West of Ireland.

said, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) had misunderstood him with regard to Army advertisements. The Government did not advertise in the 27 papers on the list at one time; but when they had to advertise, say in the Cork district, they would put their advertisement in the Cork newspaper, and when they were advertising in the Enniskillen district they would patronize the Fermanagh journals. The Land Commissioners should do the same as to the property upon which they had to adjudicate. The long advertisements were expensive; but those that were inserted in The Scotsman, The Times, and The General Advertiser were precisely those that were most heavily charged for by newspaper proprietors. What he would suggest was that instead of having these long advertisements, which were practically a waste of money, a number of small advertisements should be inserted in the newspapers circulating in the districts interested. In this way economy would be secured, and information would be better disseminated than at present.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had merely repeated to the House words which had come to him from Dublin: therefore, he did not think the right hon. Gentleman was acquainted with the real merits of the case. He did not agree with the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) that it was immaterial whether the advertisements were inserted or not. He took great interest in the working of the Land Act, and should like to see what agreements were being made between the landlords and tenants. How was he to know these things? Was he to write to The General Advertiser in Dublin, and get a copy of that paper sent back by post, in order to see what arrangements were being made? He read three Dublin papers—The Freeman's Journal, The Irish Times, and The Express. He did not care a button which papers got the advertisements; but he could quite understand that if one were singled out for them the others would be jealous. He should think that the advertisements should be inserted in papers that were read, and not in journals like The General Advertiser, which was so uninteresting that the bulk of the people who received it never opened it. He would suggest that the Attorney General for Ireland should communicate with the Commissioners in Dublin, and ascertain the general feeling as to whether the general public could be best supplied with information through The General Advertiser or through any other newspapers. He hoped the Government would not let the matter rest where it was, but that they would communicate with the Commissioners to see whether some arrangement more satisfactory than the present could not be adopted.

said, that the question of advertising rested solely with the Commissioners; but he would take care that what had taken place in the House would be brought before them. They would be made ac- quainted with the strong feeling which had been expressed by hon. Members.

said, he hoped his hon. Friend would not persevere with his Motion to divide the House for the reason that it might make people believe that he was fighting in the interest of particular journals, and that, he (Mr. Gray) was sure, was not what the hon. Gentleman wished to do. The noble Lord (Lord Frederick Cavendish), who was in his place, was aware that, so far as the Treasury were concerned, Government advertisements were given for political reasons. There was a list of newspapers to which the advertisements were to be sent drawn up, and this list was altered without hesitation; in fact, the whole thing was a matter of political corruption. He trusted the noble Lord would give attention to the matter, for at present the system adopted seemed very much like the misappropriation of public money. He (Mr. Gray) wished to know whether the Government would take measures to get the statements made in the Courts at the first sittings by the Land Commissioners printed and circulated amongst hon. Members? The statements, or judgments, had been published—not officially; but semi-officially, because they had been sent out by the official reporters to the Court. A difficulty had been raised in the way of placing important judgments of the Land Commissioners on the Table of the House. It was said that there was no copy of them kept by the Commissioners; but that difficulty could be easily got over if the Government wished to get over it. Very nearly every Irish newspaper had given verbatim reports of the judgments; and if these judgments themselves could not be procured the Government might print and circulate the reports.

said, he could not see why the Government should cut a report from a newspaper, print, and circulate it. They could not pledge themselves to the accuracy of such things, because those hon. Members who were interested in the matter would probably have read the accounts of the judgments which appeared in the newspapers. It would be establishing an extraordinary precedent if they were to lay on the Table of the House an extract from a newspaper for the correctness of which they could not vouch.

asked, whether he understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that there was no way in which the judgments in question could be laid on the Table, printed, and circulated?

said, he understood the hon. Member to say he had seen the report of the judgments in the newspapers. No doubt, other hon. Members who were interested in the matter had done the same. With regard to Mr. Bomford, to whom the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) had referred, he thought the hon. Member was mistaken, and that Mr. Bomford really had no connection with the county named. He (Mr. Forster) was anxious, and the Commissioners were also anxious, that no Sub-Commissioner should be employed in a county in which he was in any way interested. He hoped this anxiety would operate in the minds of the Commissioners when they proceeded to re-cast the districts.

said, his sole desire in making the Motion was to secure that the public money spent in advertisements should not be thrown away. The fullness and cordiality of the explanation which had been given by the Government gave him the hope that their assurance was something more than formal; therefore, he begged to withdraw the Motion.