said, he begged to present a Petition from George Henry Lewis, gentleman, of Ely Place, Holborn, praying that leave be given to the proper Officer of this House to attend the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice, in the action now pending, wherein Joseph Gurney is Plaintiff and Charles Bradlaugh, esquire, one of the Members for the Borough of Northampton, is Defendant, in order to produce the paper writing subscribed by him at the Table of the House on the 21st of February last, and the copy of the New Testament named in the Journals of the House on the same date. He begged also to move—

"That leave be given to the proper Officer to attend the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice with the said paper writing and copy of the New Testament."

said, he opposed the Motion, and should feel it his duty to move the adjournment of the debate. He had not himself been informed that the Motion would come on to-day, and he believed other hon. Members had been equally taken by surprise.

I must point out to the House that the House allows unopposed Motions for Returns to be taken before the commencement of Public Business; and if this were an unopposed Motion for a Return, I should say that the Motion might be made, and dealt with by the House at this period; but as the matter appears to be opposed, it will have to come on for debate when the Orders of the Day and Notices of Motion have been disposed of.

asked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he will use his influence with the Council of the Royal Botanic Society to induce them to make arrangements whereby the public can have access to the Botanical Gardens and ground of that society situated in Regent's Park?

Sir, my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works has no relations with the Royal Botanic Society in his official capacity. That Society occupies its grounds in the Regent's Park under a lease from the Commissioner of Woods, which does not expire until 1901. It is under covenant to use the premises as a botanic garden; but Government has no power during the present lease to compel the Society to admit the public to the grounds.

asked the Lord Advocate, Whether his attention has been called to two cases of eviction on the estate of Mr. Dugald Stuart, of Lochcarron, in the county of Ross, wherein it is stated that Farquhar Maclean, aged eighty, and John Mackenzie, aged fifty-seven, crofters, have, though not owing any arrears, been evicted, the alleged grounds being that their sons, over whom parental authority has ceased, had, in vindication of character, recovered pecuniary damages for slander from the ground officer on the Lochcarron Estate; whether proceedings thus originating were legal; and, if so, will he take steps to amend the Law; whether he is aware that the public prosecutor for the county acted as agent in the evictions which have ended in public disturbance; and, whether he will issue a caution to procurators fiscal as to conducting civil processes which may end in criminal proceedings?

Sir, I have made inquiry into the circumstances of these cases, and I have ascertained that it is the fact that Mr. Dugald Stuart obtained unopposed decrees of removing against the two crofters named, who are both advanced in years, and are not in arrear with their rent. There had been a dispute between Mr. Dugald Stuart, or his ground officer, and two sons of the crofters named, in regard to the execution of some building work, in the course of which the ground officer used language which the Sheriff Substitute held to be actionable, and in respect of which he awarded £5 of damages to each of the sons. Mr. Stuart then instituted actions of removing against the crofters, with whom their sons were living in family. No attempt was made to remove Maclean, as he was unwell, but the decree was executed against Mackenzie. I understand, however, that a settlement has been, or is in course of being, arrived at between Mr. Stuart and the crofters. I see no reason to doubt that the proceedings were legal, the tenancies having been yearly, and they do not suggest any defect in the law which appears to me to require amendment. In answer to the third and fourth heads of the Question, I have to say that the Procurator Fiscal of the county was employed as a solicitor to obtain the decrees of removing in the Sheriff Court at Dingwall. There was no reason to expect that the execution of the decrees would result in disturbance; and the Procurator Fiscal, who is an able and judicious official, has never, to my knowledge, done anything calling for a caution of the kind indicated in the Question.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is true that Mr. Comyn, one of the Sub-Commissioners appointed under the Land Act, has been recently engaged in carrying out the Act in respect of the fixing of rents in cases where relatives or family connections of his own were interested; and, if so, whether Mr. Comyn will be removed to a district where cases of this description may not come before him?

Sir, the question was started in the public Press, and received the public denial of Mr. Comyn himself.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that Mr. Wyllie, Chairman of the Sub-Commissioners for Tyrone, still has his name on the North-West Circuit List; that he only holds his appointment for one year, and intends resuming practice as a bar- rister, in nine months' time, in that district in which he now sits as judge; and, whether Mr. Wyllie will, in consequence, have to receive briefs from those solicitors who are now pleading before him in his capacity as judge; whether he is aware that Mr. Cuninghame, another Sub-Commissioner in the same district, is a partner in a seed and manure firm, having large business relations with the tenantry in this district, and that his traveller, Mr. Tatton, was soliciting orders in Castlederg, on behalf of the firm, on the same day that he was sitting in that town in his capacity of Sub-Commissioner; and, whether he will consider how far it is fair to those gentlemen to place them in the invidious position of judges in a district in which they have present and prospective business relations? The noble Lord said that, since he had put his Question on the Paper, he had ascertained that Mr. Cuninghame was a partner, not in a seed and manure firm, but in a corn merchant's or meal and flour firm.

Sir, Mr. Wylie informs me that he still has his name on the North-West Circuit List, and that on his ceasing to be an Assistant Commissioner, he intends to resume practice as a barrister on that Circuit. As to Mr. Cuninghame, the alteration in the noble Lord's Question is one of some importance. He has no business relations whatever with any of the tenantry of the district. He is not aware of any traveller of his firm having been in any town while he was sitting in it. Under these circumstances, I think the final paragraph of the Question does not require further answer.

asked the Vice President of the Privy Council, Whether his attention has been called to the recent prosecutions under the Animal Contagious Diseases Acts at Sleaford; and, whether the Department agree with the magistrates that foot and mouth disease and foot rot can be so easily mistaken that several hundred sheep affected with the former could be allowed to spread the disease through several counties, without anyone being made responsible; and, if that is the opinion of the Privy Council, whether they will issue such further information as would protect small farmers of no great veterinary experience from being convicted from no fault of their own; and prevent persons who knowingly allow the removal of animals suffering from contagious diseases to the public injury from escaping the penalty?

Sir, I have seen a Report of the proceedings under the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act at Sleaford, which were instituted by the local authorities, and in which the Privy Council were in no way concerned. The Veterinary Department is satisfied that foot-and-mouth disease and foot rot are perfectly distinct diseases, and that no competent veterinary inspector ought to mistake the one for the other. It is not necessary to issue any detailed information to the public on the subject of the symptoms of this or any other disease, because the owner of an animal suffering from any kind of illness, whether a contagious disease under the Act or not, can relieve himself of all further responsibility by giving notice of the fact to the local inspector, who is bound to attend immediately and report to the local authority. Article 122 of the Animals Order is as follows:—

"Optional Notice of Disease or Illness.—Any person having in his possession, or under his charge, an animal affected with disease, or with any illness, or suspected of being so affected, besides giving such notice to a constable, as ho is required by Section 31 of the Act of 1878 to give, may, if he thinks fit, give notice of the fact of the animal being so affected, or suspected, to the inspector of the local authority."

No person, therefore, is justified in pleading ignorance as an excuse for spreading disease.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, with reference to the official statistics recently published, which show that the number of dead bodies found in the Thames during the last five years was 68 in the City of London district, and 1818 in the Metropolitan Police districts, 599 of which were discovered in the river without there being any evidence to show how they came there, any steps will be taken by Her Majesty's Government for securing better protection to human lives on the Thames Embankment and other roadways on the banks of the river?

in reply, said, this was, no doubt, a very important matter. Some time ago he ordered a large extra force of police to be put upon the Embankment. With reference to the general question, it would not be correct to regard these figures as giving an average at all, inasmuch as they included the Princess Alice year. Three years ago the number amounted to one-half. The matter was one that required further investigation, and he had directed communications to be made to all the Coroners, in order that he might see what suggestions they had to make on the subject.

asked whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman would consider the question of erecting a central public Morgue?

was understood to say that he would.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he is aware that there is practically no barrack accommodation for British troops in Natal, the barracks at Pietermaritzburg being sufficient to contain four companies only; and, whether it is intended, in the event of an Imperial garrison being retained in Natal, to quarter the troops in properly constructed barracks, such as may be proof against the heavy rainfall of that country?

Yes, Sir; I am well aware of the insufficiency of the present barrack accommodation in Natal; but when the strength of the permanent garrison, if any, which is to be kept there is decided, the necessary accommodation will be proposed to Parliament. In the meanwhile, the expenditure on barracks is limited to repairs and maintenance.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that the Irish Government have at present four policemen guarding two emergency men who are taking care of lands on the estate of Mr. Cusack, at Rynmount, county Longford, from which two families have been evicted; whether it is true that both the evicted tenants, the Widow Clyne and Mr. Gregory Yorke, are able and anxious to pay the rent for the homes in which they were born, and which their fathers had built; whether they have offered to pay what they deemed to be a rack-rent; and, whether any charge of any breach of Law was ever made against either of these two evicted tenants?

Sir, it is true that four members of the Constabulary are protecting two caretakers from the Property Defence Association who are minding the evicted farms referred to by the hon. Member. It is true that the evicted tenants were anxious to continue in their holdings, and were willing to pay a considerably increased rent to be allowed to do so. The Constabulary inform me that no charge for a breach of the law was ever made against either of them, but that, on the contrary, they are most respectable, law-abiding people. I am asking some questions about this case, which has some points of importance about it.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been called to the case of Mr. John Gannon, of Kilgefin, county Roscommon, who was arrested, with six others, thirteen months ago, and is still detained in custody, though his comrades have been released; and, whether the fact that he is a native born American has any influence on his continued detention?

Sir, His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant had Mr. Gannon's case quite recently before him; and, having regard to the fact that he was an American by birth, His Excellency ordered his release on condition of leaving Ireland for America. Mr. Gannon has refused to accept his discharge on these terms, and His Excellency cannot at present allow him to be at large in the district.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether any of the sum of £180,000, recently voted by Parliament as a reward to the Irish police, will be paid to the officers and men in Clare, Mayo, and Kilkenny, against whom verdicts of "wilful murder" were returned by coroners' juries; whether a great amount of extra duty was also thrown upon the warders and others connected with the Irish prisons during the period since the Protection of Person and Property (Ireland) Act has been in force, as well as upon the police; and, whether prison officials will be entitled to participate in the reward granted to the Constabulary, or if the Government intend in any way to recognise their services?

Sir, the sum in question has not yet been voted by Parliament, and it is not intended that any portion of it is to be given to officers in the Constabulary. In the County Mayo alone were these verdicts of "wilful murder," within the past two years, brought by Coroners' Juries against any members of the Force who will be entitled to share in the proposed grant. There were two cases in that county. In one case the Attorney General obtained a conditional order on technical grounds to quash the inquisition; but instead of proceeding with it, he directed a magisterial investigation, with the result that informations were refused, and the ease, therefore, was not sent for trial. In the other case, the Grand Jury at the Assizes ignored the bill. With regard to the case of the prison warders, the extra labour was met by employing extra hands. The duties of some of the superior officials in the prison service were, perhaps, somewhat more heavy than usual. Their case, however, is quite different from that of the Constabulary, and does not call for any special recognition.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the case of Dr. O'Brien, of Miltown Malbay, has been reconsidered; and also that of Mr. Doyle, of Kerry; and, whether these gentlemen have been, removed recently from Limerick to Kil-mainham Gaol, much further away from their native place?

Sir, His Excellency has reconsidered both these cases. In the case of Dr. O'Brien, he has decided that he may now safely be released, and the order for his release will be issued to-day. In the other case, that of Cornelius Doyle, he has decided that he cannot at present order his release. Both these persons were removed from Limerick to Kilmainham, as the former prison ceased to be a place for the detention of persons arrested under the Protection Act.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What are the conditions upon which the Commissioners of National Education, Ireland, give grants of money to Irish National Schools; whether the grants of land must be perpetual, or quasi perpetual, and the schools vested in trustees for the Board; whether the grant of £75 to the late Lord Monteagle to build a boys' school in Shanagolden, on a thirty-one years' lease, was a violation of the conditions; whether the site of the school was a plot of ground used as a commonage by the villagers; whether the Commissioners intend to continue the grant for salaries, &c. to a school in which there are only sixteen scholars, and the majority of them the children of the teachers; and, whether the Government intend to suggest to the Commissioners the propriety of giving a grant to a school to which the parents will send their children?

The first two Questions of the hon. Member are matters of great detail, and would take a very long time to answer. I have got a reply from the Commissioners of National Education, which I will show him privately. The grant of £75 was made to the late Lord Monteagle at a time when it was quite consistent with the Regulations then in force. When Lord Monteagle proposed to build the school, the law adviser of the Board inquired into the case, and was satisfied as to his title. I am informed that the Commissioners have resolved for the present to continue grants of salary to the teachers. As to the last Question, under the circumstances of the case, which I stated in answer to the Question of the hon. Member on the 19th of May, the Government do not propose to interfere with the discretion of the Commissioners.

said, he would take the earliest opportunity of bringing that matter before the House.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he can see his way to the release of Mr. Bernhard M'Hugh, who has now been kept in prison, on suspicion, for fifteen months, as the district of Castlerue, county Roscommon, to which he belongs, is orderly and peaceful, and in view of the fact that Mr. M'Hugh's father, a very old man, is dangerously ill, and that Mr. M'Hugh is the only support of a very large family?

Sir, the Lord Lieutenant has had Mr. Bernard M'Hugh's case under reconsideration within the past day or two, and has decided that he cannot at present be released.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the vacancies in the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice in Ireland have yet been filled; and, if not, when it is intended to make the appointments?

Her Majesty's Government is at present in communication with Her Majesty upon this subject, and until Her pleasure has been taken, the right hon. and learned Member will see that it would be manifestly premature for me to make any statement in the House. I wish to say, in reference to an answer I have already given the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that when I said the North-West Circuit was a large one in comparison with the County Tyrone, in which the Commissioner was serving, I meant that it included five counties, of which Tyrone was only one.

asked whether, in considering the propriety of filling up the vacancies on the Irish Bench, the Government would take into account the fact that two of the Courts had nothing to do, and that the Court of Queen's Bench would have very little to do but for the coercive policy of the Government?

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, "Whether Mr. Michael James Lyons, of Aughamore, county Mayo, who has been imprisoned as a suspect since December last, may now be liberated without detriment to public interests?

Sir, His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant ordered Mr. Lyons's release on the 8th instant.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If the men serving on board H.M.S. "Swiftsure" had been trained, before leaving Plymouth, in the use of the new 25-pound breechloading gun; what trials had taken place with the 25-pound gun prior to the gun being appropriated for service afloat; and, whether precautionary mechanical arrangements are not adopted in that gun, as for some other breechloading guns, by which it is impossible for the gun to be fired before the breech is securely locked?

No, Sir. The men serving on board Her Majesty's Ship Swiftsure had not been trained before leaving Plymouth in the use of the new 25-pounder breechloading gun; but they had been trained with the old breech-loading gun, which is not so simple as the new one. As the Swiftsure was going to the Pacific for some years, the Admiralty was desirous of fitting her with these new guns, and this was done on the eve of her departure. It was considered that, as the mode of working them is extremely simple, the well-trained and intelligent seamen-gunners would have no difficulty in at once learning the drill, which was supplied to them. The guns have been tried at Woolwich and Shoeburyness, the trials extending over several months; and two are also mounted in a gunboat, from which 75 rounds have been fired. Those guns being radial-vented, no mechanical arrangement is fitted which prevents the gun being fired before the breech is securely closed; but there is an arrangement which shows at a glance when the breech is properly closed, and the gun ought not to be primed until this is done.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been called to the difficulties that now exist in the collection of Highway Rates from small and indigent occupiers, the auditors in some districts having called upon the surveyors to pay out of their own pockets, in cases where the rent cannot be collected; owners of small tenements not being able to compound for the Highway Rate in same way as for Poor Rate under the "Small Tenements Act?"

Sir, my attention has been called to the difficulties in the collection of highway rates from small occupiers, in consequence of the repeal of the Small Tenements Eating Act; but I am not aware of any cases in which the auditors have surcharged the surveyors with the rates in cases where the rent of the property cannot be collected. I may add that a Bill for restoring the power of compounding for the highway rates on small tenements is in a forward state of preparation, and I hope to introduce it shortly.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been called to a Report from Dr. Saunders, Medical Officer of Health to the City Commissioners of Sewers, in which he called their attention

"To the frightful state of certain houses in Rohin Hood Court, Shoe Lane, adjacent to the back entrance to the casual wards of the City of London Union;"

and, whether he will impress upon the authorities the necessity of taking immediate steps to remove a cause of so much danger to the community?

Sir, I have seen in a newspaper the Report of Dr. Saunders referred to in the Question as to the state of the houses in Robin Hood Court, and I observe that the medical officer recommends that they should be dealt with under the local Acts in force in. London. These Acts, however, confer upon the Local Government Board no power to interfere. At the same time, I hope that, as the attention of the local authority has been directed to the subject, they will proceed to take the necessary steps to remedy the evil complained of. As regards the accumulation of casuals near the spot, I will call the attention of the Guardians to the subject, with a view of seeing how far the evil can be prevented; but I may add that the casual wards adjoining the court were carefully inspected on Saturday last, and were found to be clean and in good order throughout, and there has been no case of infection there for many years.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, "Whether it is true that a number of policemen have been placed with caretakers of several vacant farms from which the tenants were evicted in the parishes of Blackditches and Hollywood, county Wicklow, on the property of the Marquess of Waterford; whether it is the fact that no outrage of any kind has occurred in those districts, or in the whole county, during the land agitation; and whether, under the circumstances, the local police are not sufficient to afford protection if any is required; how many extra police are engaged in the duty, and who pays for them; and, whether, looking to the peaceful state of the county, he will order the extra police to be withdrawn?

Sir, there are four protection posts on Lord Water-ford's property in the County Wicklow. There have been 45 outrages in that district since the 1st of January, 1880, attributable to the land agitation, and over 100 such outrages in the county, which is very peaceable in other respects than in agrarian crime. Twelve men of the constabulary are engaged in this protection duty. They are paid for in part by the Government, and in part by the county. Owing to the prevalence of intimidation and "Boycotting," the local authorities—magistrates and constabu- lary—are of opinion that isolated caretakers on evicted farms would not be safe; and I cannot, therefore, order the withdrawal of the extra police.

Sir, I have to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the Question which stands on the Paper in my name—namely, when the further Papers on Egypt will be produced; and perhaps the hon. Baronet will take this opportunity of answering two or three other Questions of which I have given him private Notice. I wish to know whether he is able to inform the House as to the state of Alexandria at the present moment; whether any of the occurrences which are reported in the newspapers as having taken place there yesterday have really taken place; whether a British officer has been killed, and the British Consul has been wounded; also, whether the British Consulate is in the possession of the captain of a man-of-war? I should like also to ask upon whom does the responsibility rest now for the peace of Alexandria; further, what are the instructions issued by the Porte to Dervish Pasha; whether they have been communicated to England, France, or the other Powers; and, whether the condition into which Egypt has lapsed is to be allowed to continue?

Before the Under Secretary answers the Questions of my right hon. Friend, I should like to repeat the Question which I put on Friday last—namely,Whether, since the occurrences that have taken place, Her Majesty's Government have come to the conclusion that there is any apprehension as to the personal security of the Khedive; and whether, should there be the slightest doubt in the mind of the Government on the subject, any effective measures are likely to be taken to prevent any personal discourtesy being shown towards His Highness?

Sir, I hope that the further Papers with regard to the affairs of Egypt will be ready for distribution before the close of next week.

Next week?

Yes. The Papers have been referred by telegraph to Sir Edward Malet, and pro- bably his first answer will not be conclusive.

Up to what date will the Papers be delivered?

I do not know that we shall be able to issue the whole to the end of May at once; but if not they will be divided into two sections, the first section coming down to the 17th of May, and the other to the end of May. The most important Papers are those about the middle of May, which will be included in the first section. With regard to the further Questions put to me by my right hon. Friend, Her Majesty's Government have received a telegram from Vice Consul Calvert, at Alexandria, dated 10.40 last night, which states that a serious riot had taken place in the afternoon between Europeans and Arabs, and that Mr. Pibworth, an engineer of Her Majesty's ship Superb, had been killed and many wounded, among whom were, I regret to state, Mr. Cookson, Her Majesty's Consul, and three constables of the Consulate. A further telegram from Mr. Calvert of this morning states that the women and children who sought refuge in the Consulate have been transferred to the ships, and that the military are maintaining order. Mr. Calvert adds that Mr. Cookson's injuries are not serious, and that he is convalescent. The latest telegram received this morning from Mr. Calvert is of a re-assuring nature. Sir Edward Malet has telegraphed that the Khedive has sent an aide-de-camp to Alexandria. The Native and the English authorities concur in advising that sailors or marines should not be landed. Sir Beauchamp Seymour has power to land them should he think it necessary; but he has telegraphed that the disturbance, though serious, was of a non-political character, and was suppressed by the Egyptian troops. Telegraphing at 2 o'clock, Mr. Calvert states that the town was then very quiet, and that everybody in the streets was being searched and disarmed. The person in the first instance responsible for order is the Governor of Alexandria, who appears to be a man of some capacity and energy. He is receiving in this curious and anomalous state of things instructions both from the Khedive directly, and also from Dervish Pasha; but as these concur completely, he has been under no practical inconve- nience from that cause. It is also asked me whether anarchy will be allowed to continue? I think I must answer simply that it is, of course, impossible that such a state of things could be allowed to continue. The noble Lord (Lord Eustace Cecil) repeats a Question he put a day or two ago with regard to the personal safety of the Khedive. We have no reason to modify the answer which was then given. The telegrams from Constantinople and from Sir Edward Malet with reference to the safety of the Khedive are of a re-assuring nature.

The Consulate?

The Consulate is in the hands of Mr. Calvert, the Vice Consul.

What are the instructions of the Porte to Dervish Pasha?

The instructions of the Porte to Dervish Pasha were communicated to us in general terms, and in general terms they may be said to resemble very closely indeed the bases proposed to the Conference. They are almost the same.

I wish to ask whether, after what has happened in Alexandria, any precautions have been taken by the Government to preserve the lives and property of Her Majesty's subjects in Cairo; and, also, whether any precautions have been taken to provide against any molestation taking place with regard to the Peninsular and Oriental steamships and other ships in their passage through the Suez Canal?

I beg to ask whether Her Majesty's Government have any information, with reference to this unfortunate collision between the Europeans and the Arabs, as to who were the aggressors in the first instance; and whether, as one of the daily papers says, the disturbance commenced by a Maltese attacking an Arab?

I have seen the statement; but we have no information on the subject. With reference to the question regarding the safety of the Europeans in Cairo, I have already read some words of Sir Edward Malet, to the effect that Dervish Pasha and the Khedive concur in advising that the sailors and marines should not be landed. That applies to the safety of the people in Cairo as well as in Alex- andria. Dervish. Pasha states he is perfectly able to maintain order in Cairo. With reference to the Suez Canal, I may tell the hon. Member that we have gunboats at each end of the Canal, we are in telegraphic communication with Sir Beauchamp Seymour, and no reports of an alarming nature about the Canal have reached us.

I should like to ask the Government if they would make inquiry as to whether it is the case that the mob of Arabs assembled in the streets of Alexandria were only armed with clubs and sticks, while the Europeans fired upon them from their windows, and that there is a large party among the Europeans resident in Alexandria desirous of provoking intervention; whether a very large portion of European residents in Egypt, or a considerable portion, is composed of the most desperate elements in the Levant; and whether Her Majesty's Government will use their influence to supervise the action of the European residents and prevent them from provoking the Arab population, as well as in protecting British subjects against the possibility of outbreak on the part of the Arabs?

I may point out to the hon. Member that the majority of wounds inflicted were caused by clubs and knives, and, in addition to this, the number of Arabs reported killed is only three; I gather, also, that there were more Europeans hurt, including Greeks and Maltese subjects, than Arabs. The British Consul was wounded by a pistol shot; and, therefore, under the circumstances, I cannot draw the inference suggested by the hon. Member.

I wish to ask whether the Porte had been invited by the Government to send troops to Alexandria to quell the disturbances; and, also, whether the hon. Baronet can state how many British subjects have been wounded?

We have not received any news of the nationality of the persons wounded. The telegrams speak of Europeans in general terms, without specifying nationalities. In regard to sending Turkish troops to maintain order, I must ask the hon. Member to wait until the Papers come, and he will see.

Does the Government propose to adopt the advice of Dervish Pasha and leave the Europeans to their fate?

I can add nothing to what I have already stated. Sir Beauchamp Seymour has power to land seamen and marines if he thinks it advisable to do so.

I wish to ask whether the substance of the conversation with Musurus Pasha and the conversation of Lord Dufferin will be included in the Papers to be presented to the House?

I see no objection to include the conversation between Musurus Pasha and Lord Granville in the Papers, or Lord Dufferin's conversation with the Turkish Minister at Constantinople on the same subject, though as to the latter I am not so sure.

Events march so rapidly now that it is extremely desirable that the Papers should be brought down to a later date than the 1st of June.

The Papers are being printed as they come in, in the usual way, and nothing more can be done in the way of hurrying the later Papers, because the whole staff is at work on the earlier ones. Still, there is no sort of objection to getting them out as rapidly as possible.

Do I understand that the consent of the French Government has been obtained to the publication of the later Papers?

Yes, Sir; the French Government has given its consent, not indeed to the publication of everything, but to enough to enable us to put our case before the House.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to recent cases of the treatment of the sick, by unqualified medical practitioners, at dispensaries at the East end of London, to the death of two children so treated, and to the observations of the coroner at the inquest upon them, on June 5th, to the effect that it appeared that a certain qualified doctor (who keeps several dispensaries) saw one of the children a few minutes before its death, and was thereby enabled to "cover the delinquencies of the other person," i.e. the unqualified person who had treated the case in the dispensary, and that "it was no doubt an unsatisfactory state of things to think that the lives of the poor were in the hands of such persons;" whether he has observed that the above-mentioned unqualified practitioner (who calls himself a colonel and a barrister, as well as practising as a medical man) admitted that, under an authorisation from the qualified doctor who keeps the dispensary, he had signed certificates in that person's name; whether he can take any steps to prevent such illegalities; and, whether he can obtain power, either by the appointment of Government Inspectors, the issue of Government licences, or some other efficacious means to prevent the sick poor from being attended by unqualified medical practitioners at the Metropolitan dispensaries?

Of course, Sir, there is no legal authority which could deal with the matters referred to by the hon. Member. The proper course would be for him to call the attention of the Medical Council, which has power to act by the 21 & 22 Vict. to these cases, and ask them to put the Act in force against them.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether the petition of the Metropolitan auxiliary letter carriers that their remuneration be assimilated to that of the established Staff by certain changes, comprising, inter alia, a slight addition to their pay for each duty, an extra pay for extra work, and a week's holiday in each year, may be reasonably conceded without detriment to the public Service?

Sir, the question of the position and pay of the auxiliary letter carriers in the Metropolitan district, to which my right hon. Friend refers, forms part of the larger question of the position and pay of letter carriers generally, which is' now the subject of correspondence between myself and the Treasury. A final decision may be expected very shortly.

asked the Secretary of State for War, To state how many, and in what ranks, soldiers are taken away in Ireland for duties as caretakers, and for other duties usually confided to police, and to explain under what Article of the Military Regulations, or by what powers, are enlisted soldiers withdrawn from Military duties to perform duties destructive of discipline; and to say when will such employment cease?

Sir, in reply to my hon. and gallant Friend, I have to remind him that it is one of the first duties of a soldier to act in aid of the Civil power, and that the exact manner of rendering this aid must depend on the circumstances of each case, provided that the requirements of the Army Acts are always observed. In Ireland about 500 officers and men are so employed, and we have acted in the matter strictly under the advice of the Law Officers of the Crown, and on the urgent requisition of the Civil Government. Of course, I regret the necessity of this employment as much as my hon. and gallant Friend; but I cannot concur with him that it is destructive of discipline, although I shall be extremely glad when it ceases.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he is able to explain a statement made by Mr. W. E. Bok, State Secretary to the Transvaal, in a letter addressed to the British Resident in Pretoria, on January 16, 1882, that, as his Government desired to see a better state of things established in Zululand, and also to prevent bloodshed, "a call was made upon Her Majesty's Government to release the Zulu King Cetewayo;" and, if this statement be correct, whether ho will inform the House what answer has been made to this message?

My hon. Friend will find a full explanation in the Papers which I have laid on the Table of the House relating to Cetewayo's detention. It is perfectly true that within the last year the Transvaal Government made representations to us urging the restoration of Cetewayo, and the answer then given was that those representations would receive due consideration from Her Majesty's Government.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he will grant a release on parole for a few days to Mr. James Monaghan of Glanidon, Westmeath, who has undergone seven months' imprisonment as a suspect, and whose mother is now believed to be very near her death, both mother and son being very desirous to meet once again before she dies?

Sir, His Excellency has decided that he cannot at present allow Mr. Monaghan's release, on parole or otherwise. The lady mentioned by the hon. Member is believed to be the prisoner's mother-in-law, and not his mother.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is a fact that, on Sunday the 28th of May, a notice which was posted on the chapel of Raheen-more, county Westmeath, requesting the people of that locality to assemble to cut the turf of Mr. William Maloney, a suspect now detained in Enniskillen Prison, was torn down by the police, by which act many persons were intimidated from rendering to Mr. Maloney such assistance; and, whether the Government sanction that action on the part of the police?

I find that the sub-constable at Raheenmore did take down such a notice. There would appear to have been no necessity for his tearing down the notice, and he has been called on for an explanation.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, What are the distances respectively of Famagousta, Marmorice, and Suda Bay from Alexandria, and what are the reasons which led to a preference for Suda Bay as a rendezvous for operations at Alexandria?

Sir, in answer to the geographical inquiry addressed to me by my right hon. and gallant Friend, I have to say that I believe the three places named are distant from Alexandria 325 miles, 345 miles, and 417 miles respectively. My right hon. and gallant Friend further asks me why Suda Bay was selected as a rendezvous? The reason was that it is the natural place in which to assemble squadrons moving from Corfu and the Piraeus.

asked what the Squadron had to do at Corfu?

in reply, said, that the Squadron had been moved from Corfu. The British Squadron had been moved from Corfu and the French from the Piraeus. Suda Bay was directly in the way from those places.

asked whether there were any stores at Corfu for the supply of the British Squadron?

asked the President of the Board of Trade, If his attention has been called to the manufacture, in the United States of America, of an article called cheese, compounded of a mixture of the bluest skim-milk and lard; and, if he will endeavour to ascertain if any of this spurious cheese is imported into this Country; and, if so, if he will take steps to insure that this compound, when exposed for sale, shall be sold only as "lard cheese," or be distinguished in such a manner as to prevent imposition to purchasers in this Country?

asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he has read the report of Dr. Voelcker to the Royal Agricultural Society on the composition of lard and oleomargarine cheese lately imported from America; and, whether he would cause inquiries to be made at the ports of entry relative to the importation of such cheeses, so that they may be entered and sold under their proper designation, and not as "whole milk" cheses?

Sir, my attention has been directed to the manu- facture of an article called "cheese," compounded of skim-milk and lard, or oleomargarine, and I am aware that this article is being imported into this country. I have made inquiries of the Custom House, but at present the import and export statistics do not make any distinction between this cheese and ordinary cheese, and I am consequently unable to give any information as to the extent of the importation; but the question of statisticsis at the present time being considered by a small Departmental Committee, and I will refer the question of providing for a distinct classification in future to the Committee. As regards the sale in this country, the Adulteration Acts impose a penalty of £20 on any person selling any article of food not of the nature, substance, or quality demanded by the purchaser, without disclosing the fact, and this enactment would, I presume, serve to prevent imposition. I have also read the Report of Dr. Voelcker, alluded to by the hon. Member for Mid Cheshire (Mr. Wilbraham Egerton), and find that he states that as far as he can judge at present—

"The lard and oleomargarine cheeses are wholesome and nutritious articles of food, which cannot be distinguished by their appearance and general properties from ordinary cheese."

I am, moreover, doubtful whether in any case it is desirable to interfere further with the production or sale of this article, even in the interests of agriculturists, as I find that Lord Vernon, who took the chair at a recent meeting of the Agricultural Society, expressed his opinion that the Society should be very careful before requesting the interference of the Board of Trade, as one of the great obstacles to butter-making was the difficulty in getting rid of the skim-milk; whereas, by the introduction of lard or oleomargarine, the dairy companies would be able to work up their refuse produce into a wholesome article of food. It appears, therefore, that the British farmer may possibly desire to enter into this manufacture.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieu- tenant of Ireland, Whether, in view of the terrible occurrences again reported from Ireland, Her Majesty's Government are prepared to give any assurance that they will not proceed further with the release of persons who have been imprisoned on suspicion of inciting to murder?

Sir, I cannot give an absolute assurance on this point to the hon. Baronet. In cases of arrest on suspicion made previously to his own tenure of Office His Excellency is obliged to pay great attention to the recommendations and advice of the magistrates and special magistrates in charge of districts. But in cases of suspicion of inciting to murder, His Excellency will undoubtedly take into consideration the state of things which has been disclosed by the terrible occurrences of Thursday.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is the case that the following notice has been extensively posted in the neighbourhood of Tulla-more: —

"All true Irishmen are hereby called upon to Boycott the renegades—and—who have lately apostasized themselves by paying their rents against the wishes of their fellow tenants, and without obtaining abatement. The former has also purchased a cabin and patch of bog over the head of a defenceless orphan, and his labourers are now called upon to quit his employment;"

and, whether police have obtained any clue to the authors of this notice?

Sir, only one copy of the notice, which is correctly quoted in the Question, was found posted in the district, and it was immediately taken down by the police. The police have no evidence on which they could proceed against any party in connection with this outrage.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary if he has received any information that these "Boycotting" notices are frequently posted by penny-a-liners for the purpose of furnishing them paragraphs for forwarding to the English newspapers?

asked the Secretary of State for India, Whether, having regard to the fact that we are still maintaining a gold standard in England and a silver standard in India, and that France and the United States of America desire to restore silver everywhere to its former monetary functions, and so remove the confusion created by variations in the relative value of gold and silver, which variations have been and are seriously detrimental to our commerce, especially with India, it is the intention of the Government to promote an early re-assembling of the Monetary Conference to deal with this subject; and, whether he can inform the House when that Conference is likely to re- assemble?

Sir, on the 12th of April last I was informed, through Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, that the Governments of France and the United States had proposed an adjournment of the Monetary Conference, the next meeting of which had been fixed for that day, until further progress had been made in arriving at a definite basis of future discussion, subject to an understanding as to the date of its re-assembling during the present year. On the part of the Government of India I concurred in the propriety of this proposal, and stated my readiness to give the necessary instructions to its representatives to attend the Conference, whenever it was found practicable to fix the date of its meeting. As the Governments of France and the United States have throughout taken the initiative in this matter, it would appear to be rather for them than for Her Majesty's Government to take the necessary steps to promote the early re-assembling of the Conference. I cannot state when it is likely to re-assemble.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether he will at once take steps to acquire a site in the centre of the town of Uxbridge now available for a separate post office, in which the work can be properly performed, with adequate accommodation for the public, and distinct from any private business?

Sir, it has already been pressed upon my notice that certain premises in Uxbridge, which happen to be vacant, would be very suitable for a new Post Office. I have given the subject careful consideration, and I have come to the conclusion that the circumstances do not necessitate the taking of these particular premises. The postmaster has instructions to make certain alterations and improvements in the present office, the situation of which is convenient; and his private business will not be allowed to interfere with that part of the premises devoted to the Post Office.

asked the Secretary of State for India, Whether it is a fact that the hon. Ashley Eden, on his promotion from the post of Lieutenant Governor of Bengal to be Member of the India Council, appointed his private secretary, Mr. Henry, to be one of the first grade joint magistrates over the heads of some twenty or more on the assistant list, and also over the heads of ten of the second grade, thus raising his salary from £500 to £900, and gave him also charge of a district, to which in ordinary circumstances he had no claim, thus further securing him another £250 a-year; and, whether Sir Richard Temple appointed his private secretary, Mr. Buckland, then being of the standing in the service of an assistant magistrate, to be superintendent of stamps and stationery, with a salary increased from £500 to £1,500?

Sir, I have investigated the cases of the promotion of Mr. Henry and Mr. Buck-land, and I have no reason to think that there was anything unusual or exceptional in them. The details of these promotions and the rules of the Service regulating them are extremely technical, and I do not think it is necessary to enter into them, though I shall be prepared to defend them if they are challenged. I may, however, state that the officers immediately above and below Mr. Henry were appointed to the officiating first grade of joint magistrates and deputy collectors at the same time as himself. On the recent retirement of the Lieutenant Governor, Mr. Henry was confirmed in that grade before some of his seniors, in accordance with the well-recognized practice of the Service, that officers who have held the position of private secretary shall be transferred to a position of equal value where that is possible. For this practice there is very good reason, inasmuch as an officer holding the appointment of private secretary gives up all claim to the right to other acting appointments of whatever value. He was entitled, by his position in the Service, to the charge of the district to which ho was appointed, and his actual predecessor in that district for many months before his appointment to it was a man who entered the Service on the same day as himself. Mr. Buckland was not appointed by Sir Richard Temple to be Superintendent of Stamps and Stationery. Whoa Sir Richard Temple was Lieutenant Governor of Bengal Mr. Buckland was his private secretary. When Sir Richard Temple became Governor of Bombay, Mr. Buck-land went with him as private secretary. Some time after that he was appointed Press Commissioner by the Government of India on a salary of Rs. 1,500 a-month, and subsequently, on the abolition of that appointment, Superintendent of Stamps and Stationery by the Government of Bengal. He did not take up the duties of that office, but was appointed to officiate as a magistrate of the third grade.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether his attention has been directed to the great possibility of exceptional damages from summer floods during the present year, in the Valley of the Shannon, below Meclick and above Killaloe, by reason of the flood waters from above Meelick being unable to pass Killaloe, owing to the works at the latter place being in a more backward state than the works at the former; and, whether the Board of Works contemplate taking any steps, and, if so, what steps to obviate the danger?

Sir, the contingency anticipated by the hon. Member has been fully provided against. It is probable that the works at Killaloe will be completed as soon as those at Meelick; but should they not be so, the sluices can be so managed as to guard against an accumulation of flood water. I am assured that no sluices will be opened at the risk of injury to lands below.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is not a fact that, by the regulations of the Service, the officers in the Pay Department are, in the performance of their duties, and in all matters of discipline, subject to the immediate authority and directions of the Military officers under whom they may be serving; if he will explain, therefore, how the officers of the Pay Department can be, in matters relating to discipline, subject likewise to the orders of the Accountant General; and, whether it is contemplated to have the Pay Department represented at the War Office, and placed on an equality in this respect with the Chaplains, Commissariat, Transport Staff, Medical Ordnance Store, and Veterinary Departments?

Sir, I am really at a loss to understand why my hon. and gallant Friend asks this Question. In reply to his former Question on the 22nd, I told him that there was underlying it the very Question which ho puts now, and I said that it was one of those affecting this Department which I was going to consider. I can really add nothing to this at present, except that, as a matter of fact, these officers are already for military discipline under the Commander-in-Chief.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Why the Returns of Agrarian Outrages (Ireland), issued in March, April, and May, have all been given under different headings; and, whether, considering the extreme gravity of the subject, it would not be possible that in future these Returns may be given from month to month in precisely the same form?

I am obliged to the hon. Member for calling my attention to this matter, and I have now given instructions for having these Returns prepared for the future in precisely the same form.

asked the Secretary of State for India, If he is aware that forced labour is exacted from the people: of Assam by the British authorities; and, if he has approved of such exaction of forced labour?

Sir, I am not aware that forced labour is exacted from the people of Assam by the British authorities. Some complaints appear to have been made that the village head men, who are responsible for the maintenance of the local roads, &c, sometimes improperly exact labour from the villagers for that purpose. These complaints appear to have been brought to the notice of the Chief Commissioner and of the Government of India. In the wild tracts known as the Naga and Garo Hills, which have lately been the scene of military operations, one of the conditions made with the people on the pacification of the country is that they shall give a certain amount of labour annually at a low rate to construct roads, &c.

asked if the attention of the noble Lord had been directed to the letter of a newspaper correspondent, in which it was stated that advances were made in money to these labourers, and that if they refused to receive them or to work they were dragged from their homes and subjected to ill-treatment and imprisonment, and that it was notorious that the only way to avoid this treatment was to propitiate the officers by bribes; and, whether Her Majesty's Government were aware that the forced labour had been characterized by The Hindoo Patriot as a slave-grinding system?

said, that he was unable to accept the statement referred to by the hon. Member. His attention had been called to it, and he would cause inquiries to be made.

asked the Secretary of State for India, If he is aware of the practice of appointing relatives of high-placed British officials in India to lucrative situations in the management of large native estates; and, if he has received any complaints on the subject?

No, Sir, I am not aware of such a practice, nor have I received any complaints on the subject.

asked if the noble Marquess would lay on the Table the letter of resignation of a gentleman in Bengal, who had held one of these appointments?

If the hon. Member will put the Question on the Paper, I will make inquiries.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether any further delay is desirable before the Channel Tunnel Bills are submitted to the consideration of the House for their Second Beading; and, if so, whether he can state when the Government will be prepared to express an opinion upon them?

Sir, my right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this Question. It has already been stated by Earl Granville in the House of Lords that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government, so far as lies in their power, that the Channel Tunnel Bills shall not be proceeded with at all until the Government are in a position to express an opinion on the subject. I have been informed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War that the Committee which was appointed to consider whether the Tunnel could be made useless to any enemy in time of war have reported, and that their Report has been referred to the military authorities for a strategical opinion on the whole question, which he hopes to receive in the course of a few days. As soon as this opinion is in our hands we shall further consider the subject, and hope shortly to be in a position to offer advice to the House.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in view of the facility with which the Suez Canal could at any moment be destroyed from its banks, thereby blocking the communication of England with India by that route, and inflicting disas- trous losses upon British commerce, which represents eighty per cent. of the whole European trade passing through the Canal; and also in view of the recent cession of Assab Bay to Italy, and the consequent probability of that harbour becoming an Italian naval arsenal, Her Majesty's Government will take steps for insuring, at the proposed Conference, the recognition of the preponderance of British interests in Egypt, so as to pro-vent the free communication of England with India from being suddenly stopped in the event of any European complication? The hon. Member wished also to ask whether with reference to the statements of Lord Granville in a despatch to Lord Dufferin of the 9th of January last, to the effect that the policy of this country as regards Egypt must be to maintain the absence of any preponderating influence on the part of any single Power, the Government were prepared to carry out that policy; and, whether they did not consider it necessary for the security of the maintenance of communications with India that the influence of England should preponderate in Egypt?

Sir, with regard to the preliminary portion of the hon. Member's Question as to the facility with which the Suez Canal could at any moment be destroyed from its banks, I have to say that the report of the authorities is quite different from that. It is to the effect that to destroy or even permanently to injure the Canal would be extremely difficult, from the nature of its construction, if, indeed, it would not be quite impossible. With regard to the cession of Assab Bay, the Government are not aware of any such cession. There is an establishment of the Italian Government there, with respect to which we have received an assurance from that Government that that establishment will be of a purely commercial nature, and that it will not be fortified or turned into a military post. With regard to the instructions to be given at the proposed Conference, we are precluded on general grounds from stating what instructions will be given to the British Representatives there, particularly in a ease where it may be considered necessary that England, in conjunction with Franco, should be specially responsible in regard to the initiative. Finally, as to the citation of the hon. Member from the despatch of Lord Granville, I really have no interpretation to offer, because I think it is quite plain in itself, and we shall abide by it as it stands.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, if the proposed Conference meets, Her Majesty's representative will be directed to call the attention of the Plenipotentiaries to the state of things recently created in Tunis by the action of the French Government?

Sir, it is the opinion of Her Majesty's Government that it would not be expedient to make any attempt to enlarge the scope of the Conference, and that such an attempt would be unfavourable to the object for which the Conference was to meet.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, inasmuch as the Conference proposed to be held at Constantinople is to be composed of representatives of the Powers signatories of the Treaty of Berlin, Her Majesty's Government will instruct the British Plenipotentiary to call the attention of the Conference to the non-fulfilment of certain stipulations of that Treaty, viz. those providing for the introduction of reforms into Asiatic and European Turkey, the demolition of the Bulgarian fortresses, and the assumption of a portion of the Ottoman debt by States now in possession of territory which, before the late war, formed part of the Ottoman Empire?

In regard to this Question I must make substantially the same answer. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drum-mond Wolff) is not himself in his place, because I should have been glad to acknowledge his title to put the Question on account of the laborious and useful part which ho took in the improvement of one of the provinces of Turkey; but, again, I think the introduction of this subject would not promote the purpose for which the Conference would meet.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If ho will lay upon the Table an estimate of the gross amount of arrears of rent in Ireland proposed to be dealt with under the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Bill, and the amount proposed to be contributed from public funds; together with any Return or other information in the possession of the Government on which these estimates were framed?

Sir, in reply-to the Question of the right hon. Gentleman, I have to say that I think an estimate of the amount charged in the Arrears Bill, in the sense in which the term is commonly used, can hardly be given from the nature of the case; but we are doing our best to gather together the most useful and authentic illustrative information we can get in order to place hon. Members in possession of some facts as regards this subject. That information will be made known to the House before it goes into Committee on the Bill. The heads upon which we would either have information, or, at all events, do our best to form an opinion, are, in the first place, the total amount of valuation in Ireland of holdings under £30 per annum. Then there is the total amount of those holdings up to £30 valuation. A third point is the number of holdings, which are returned in the Poor Law Report at 585,000. As regards that, a large reduction will, I believe, have to be made, and we shall not have to deal with more than 350,000 possible subjects of the Arrears Clauses—possible, that is to say, if the rents have not been paid. Then as to a question of more difficulty, which we are endeavouring to examine into as well as we can—namely, as to the deduction to be made from the total valuation and the total rent corresponding with it on account of the difference in the number of holdings, that is a very difficult matter, and one on which I am afraid we can get nothing except the opinions of the best-informed persons. Besides this, we have got accounts from a considerable number of counties in Ireland, especially in Leinster and Connaught, showing, as a matter of fact, what proportion of estates have arrears upon them and what have not. Then, finally, we have such information as the Board of Inland Revenue can supply with regard to the amount of claim by the landlords in respect of unpaid rents. These are the heads of the matters which we are desirous of laying before the House before it goes into Committee on the Arrears Bill.

asked if care would be taken in the estimate to make allowance for the effect of Sub-section 3 of Clause 1 of the Bill?

Oh, certainly, Sir; that is an important point, about which we shall endeavour to arrive at a sound judgment.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he has now received the protest of the Irish Judges against the abolition of trial by jury in Ireland, and what reply it is intended to make thereto, or if any has been sent?

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, since his statement to the House that no communication or memorial from the Irish Judges had reached him or any of his colleagues in the Cabinet, he has received a letter from the Lord Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench, Ireland, stating that the resolution come to by the Judges had been forwarded, when passed, to the Lord Lieutenant by the Lord Chancellor; whether such letter and resolution had not, in fact, at the time been received by the Lord Lieutenant; can he state what answer has been returned to the letter and resolution of the Judges so forwarded; and, is it still his intention to persist in imposing distasteful duties on the Irish Bench; whether, as stated in the "Freeman's Journal" of Friday last, the Judges had on the preceding day again met and passed a resolution reiterating in language of increased emphasis the former declaration; and, whether he will have any objection to place upon the Table a Copy of these resolutions of the Irish Judges?

I think the answer I gave on a former occasion was not quite accurately understood. Immediately after making it, I learnt that the resolution of the Judges had been communicated to the Viceroy of Ireland, but in a manner which did not appear either to him or to us to require a formal answer. Of course, in view of the Bill now before the House, it is for Parliament to say whether these duties shall be imposed on the Irish Judges or not.

asked whether there would be any objection to lay a Copy of the resolution on the Table of the House?

said, there would be no objection.

asked what answer was to be returned?

said, that, in their opinion, the resolution did not call for any reply.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, If, in the Return of the estimated receipts of the Irish Church Fund for the next fifty years, which has just been issued, he is satisfied that a sufficient deduction or allowance has been made for the reduction or postponement of rent, interest, and other income receivable by the Commissioners, and that the estimated assets of the Fund can be relied on as accurate and capable of realisation?

Sir, my estimate was a minimum of £1,500,000. I will lay on the Table a further Paper, which will, in effect, contain a better answer than could be given across the Table of the House. It will show the ground on which we have proceeded in our estimate, and I have every reason to believe that our calculations will prove

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the thirty - seventh section of "The Irish Church Act, 1869," requires that the accounts of receipts and expenditure of the Irish Church Fund for each year shall be presented to Parliament within five months after the expiration of such year; and, if so, why the accounts for the year 1881 have not been so presented; and, whether he could inform the House on what day they will be laid upon the Table?

Sir, the hon. Member correctly states the directions of the 37 the section of the Irish Church Act. The Irish Land Commission, who have now charge of the Church property, asked the Treasury to change the end of the year of account from the 31st of December to the 31st of March, so that the Church Fund account might run to the same date as the other accounts made up by the Land Commission; and the Treasury assented to the change. The Church account is, therefore, under this arrangement, not yet due.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he is able to inform the House whether the Government intend to take any steps with a view of improving the condition of the river between London Bridge and Gravesend?

in reply, said, that, in concert with his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board, he had been considering the constitution of a small professional Royal Commission to inquire into this subject. The preliminaries were on the point of completion, and ho hoped the Commission would institute the inquiry very shortly.

wished to ask the Prime Minister a Question of which he had not given him Notice. He wished to ask whether, considering the large amount of innocent blood now being shed day after day in Ireland, he was prepared to ask the House to vote Urgency with respect to the Prevention of Crime (Ireland) Bill?

said, that before the right hon. Gentleman answered that Question, he should like to ask him if his attention had been called to the following declaration with regard to outrages in Ireland. It was in the form of a Pastoral from the Archbishops and Bishops of the Catholic Hierarchy in Ireland. It was as follows:—

"We should fail in our duty, without in any sense excusing the crimes and offences which we have condemned, if we did not declare that in our belief they would never have occurred had not the people been driven to despair by evictions and the prospect of evictions for the non-payment of exorbitant rents. Furthermore, the continuance of such evictions, justly described by the Prime Minister as a sentence of death, is a permanent incentive to crime."

He would ask whether Her Majesty's Government would postpone all other legislation until some measure for the immediate stoppage of evictions on the Non-payment of exorbitant rent was passed?

wished to ask whether it was the intention of the Government during the passage of the Prevention of Crime Bill, and before it could be completed, to take any further measures for the prevention of murder, outrage, and crime in Ireland?

My attention has been called generally to the document to which the hon. Member for Dungar-van (Mr. O'Donnell) refers, and I am not sorry that he has quoted certain words of mine in it, because I wish to say that it is entirely under a misapprehension that the opinion is said to have been expressed by me that a sentence of eviction is a sentence of death. What I said was, in my own judgment, whether rightly or wrongly, altogether different from that—namely, that, taking into account all the circumstances of the time and the condition of all but famine in which a number of people were, it could be no great matter of surprise if, from their point of view, a sentence of eviction appeared to be a sentence of death. It was not a statement made by me; I said it would be no great wonder that the people should think so. With respect to the other matters in the letter referred to, they do not call for any expression of my opinion, but rather belong to a discussion on the general state of Ireland. Speaking from memory, I think I am quite correct in the substance of what I have said as to the words attributed to me. With regard to the Question of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk), it is a subject of constant anxiety with us how we can promote and expedite, to the best of our ability, the passage of this Bill. The time spent upon it has been considerably longer than we should have desired, and, perhaps, than we may have considered altogether reasonable. But then I am bound to say that it is an opinion which the Government has had to form many times during the present Session in regard to particular debates; and we are also bound to bear in mind that we have been discussing some of the nicest and most difficult questions, involving Civil rights, that this House can be called upon to consider. The modification of trial by jury, and the giving of a new application to the law respecting intimidation, are certainly matters on which we should not think ourselves warranted in attempting to draw the line between liberty and excess. We shall endeavour to consider, if necessary, what measures we ought to take to expedite the proceedings of the Committee; for while I do not hesitate to say now that we have got through all those difficult subjects, I hope I am not too sanguine in anticipating some more speedy progress. My hon. Friend inquires whether we will not ask for Urgency; but to ask for Urgency is one thing, and to obtain it is another. I think the circumstances under which we shall ask for Urgency will be such that, so far as we can judge, the House will be willing to grant it. We are not desirous of complicating the matter if we can possibly avoid it. I do not understand the Question that has been put to me by the hon. Member for Harwich (Sir Henry Tyler). We are now legislating on the subject of the prevention of crime in Ireland; and I do not understand what the Executive can do more, while that legislation is under the discussion of the House, than what we have been doing, and are doing, to the best of our ability— namely, to use to the utmost extent the forces that Parliament has placed in our hands for the maintenance of peace and order.

inquired whether the Government intended to take any steps to prevent the execution of evictions in cases pending before the Land Commission?

wished to know whether, on the second reading of the Compensation for Disturbance (Ireland) Bill in 1880, the Prime Minister did not use these words—

"It is no exaggeration to say, in a country where the agricultural pursuit is the only pursuit, and where the means of the payment of rent are entirely destroyed for the time by the visitation of Providence, that the poor occupier may in these circumstances regard the sentence of eviction as coming for him very near to a sentence of starvation.…In the failure of the crops, crowned by the year 1879, the act of God had replaced the Irish occupier in the condition in which he stood before the Land Act. Because what had he to contemplate? He had to contemplate eviction for non-payment of rent, and, as a consequence of eviction, starvation."—[3 Barnard, ccliii. 1663.]

He wished to know whether the Prime Minister did not declare that a sentence of eviction was equivalent to a sentence of starvation?

I have used many words since that speech was delivered; but, speaking from memory—though, I am sorry to say, my memory is not as good as it once was—I do not hesitate to say that the second passage expresses with great exactitude what I said; and with reference to the first passage, it entirely corresponds with the account which I gave just now.

ashed the Lord Advocate whether the Return latel presented to Parliament was intended to give an accurate and complete statement of the local taxation and expenditure of Scotland?

The Parliamentary Paper referred to by my hon. Friend contains only the Returns of Local Taxation in Scotland, now made for the first time under the Local Taxation Returns Act of last year. Returns applicable to the three subjects mentioned in the Question were previously required to be made by law, and such cases were exempted from the operation of the new Act. These Returns are consequently not included in the Paper referred to; but they will be presented separately, as they have hitherto been.

May I ask whether the learned Lord could arrange that these Returns should be given in one Report, so that it may be possible to see at once the total amount of local taxation in Scotland?

I shall see whether that can be done. It would plainly be very desirable.

asked if the Prime Minister would inform the House whether he proposed to take a Morning Sitting to-morrow?

said, that the experiment of Tuesday last, and the use to which the hours between 7 and 9 were put, were not encouraging, and he should, therefore, propose that the House should meet at 2 to-morrow.

said, he had proposed that Amendment on Friday, and he thought that it was a very reasonable one. He did not see why they should wish to import into the law a principle which had never yet been applied to the law of any country. His object was to provide that no act should be treated as intimidation unless it was of a specific and real character; and he wished to get from the Government a declaration that they did not propose themselves to use the Bill for purposes of intimidation. There were two kinds of intimidation— the intimidation alleged to be struck at by the Bill, and the ordinary intimidation which had so long been practised by the Irish police. The Irish Members desired to induce the Government to insert certain specific words in the Bill, in order to prevent the police from harassing shopkeepers and others in the exercise of their trade and business. The Amendment proposed that if a man in the way of trade, business, or employment refused to deal with another, that such refusal should not be hold to be penal, and that a declaration of the intention of one man not to buy from or sell to another should not be construed to mean "intimidation" under the provisions of the Bill. He proposed the Amendment for the purpose of obtaining from the Government a satisfactory statement as to their intentions. If the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for India (the Marquess of Hartington) were in his place, he would have asked him if it was not a fact that a system of "Boycotting" prevailed in India under the protection of the English Government and the English police? If a man connected with a particular caste desired to enter a place of worship belonging to a caste from which he might have been expelled, or to associate with the members of the same caste, the Indian police, so far from protecting him, would aid in "Boycotting" him, and in doing so they would be sustained by the Government of India. In all matters affecting caste one man was prevented from buying from or selling to another, and the "Boycotters" were protected by the Government. It was said that in India there was no Constitutional government. In Ireland Constitutional government did exist; but in Ireland the Government proposed to attack a system which was not only permitted, but actually maintained and protected in India. He wished to know why this disparity should exist in the case of Ireland; why the people there should be placed in a worse position than the Natives of India, with regard to whom the Government were ready to carry out caste prejudices and caste observances? He wished to point out to the Government that it was quite impossible to deal with "Boycotting" tinder this Bill, and, therefore, any attempt they made to do so must be ineffectual. As he understood the matter, the Government proposed to make it penal for a man to refuse to sell goods or trade with another man. That was all very well; but who, as a rule, were the objects of this "Boycotting" system? They were persons who had taken evicted land; and in order to take evicted land—to take a farm from which another person had been unjustly evicted—and to make that farm profitable, they must obtain for them the means of selling as well as the means of buying. It would be of very little use for a land-grabber to say that he should have facilities to buy provisions at a shop, if they did not obtain for him facilities for selling his own stock. Twenty policemen might drive a man's pigs to market, but 200,000 policemen could not make a man buy them when they reached there. He asked, then, how could the Government, by this provision, hope to cope with "Boycotting?" They could secure that the men who were the objects of "Boycotting" should obtain bread, by giving the shopkeeper six months' imprisonment if he refused to sell; but if a man wanted to sell his own stock, or butter, or anything else he possessed, they could not oblige a man to buy from him. That being so, what was the object of this clause? A man could obtain the necessaries of life by placing shopkeepers under a penalty of six months' imprisonment if they refused to supply him; but one of the necessaries of life was selling as well as buying, and how could they obtain for a man a purchaser for his goods if the people declined to buy them? That was the position taken by the Irish Representatives upon this clause, and they held that this provision would simply be used for the purpose of police persecution. It had often been said that the police of Ireland was a purely military organization, and, therefore, they were not so well able to detect crime as the ordinary police. Now, that was only one reason, and a very partial and incomplete reason. The reason why the police were unable to detect crime in Ireland was, that nine-tenths of the population detested the police. They never gave them any help or aid or comfort, because the Constabulary Force of Ireland was a detestable and obnoxious institution in the eyes of the masses of the people. And why? Because the police in Ireland only discharged three functions. If they found a donkey straying on the roadside they took it to the pound; if they saw a man driving a cart to market, they looked to see if he had his name on it, and if he had not, they brought him up and had him fined five shillings and costs; and if they saw a man the worse for liquor, although he might not be molesting anybody, they took him into custody. Those were the three things which the police did, and nothing more. They were very good for oppressing the people of Ireland, but beyond that they were of no use at all. They were occupied from Sunday to Sunday in doing nothing beyond what he had described, and that was the reason why they had not succeeded in obtaining the sympathy of the people, and why they were unable to detect crime. This Act proposed to put an additional weapon in the hands of the police. A man would be able to go into a shop, and say to the shopkeeper, "Have you got any butter?" If the man answered, "No, I have not," the police might be called in, and would say, "You are intimidating this man; and if you don't supply him with what he wants, we will take you before the magistrate, who will give you six months' imprisonment." The proposition of the Government amounted to this—that if a man asked for an article, and the shopkeeper refused to give it to him, by saying "I am out of that article," he was liable to fine and imprisonment. If the Government did not mean that, what did they mean? That was his view of their meaning; and all he asked was that the Government should provide in the Bill some safeguard that the measure would not be used in the manner alleged. There was nothing in the Bill to prevent the most malignant abuse of its provisions; and he contended that it would be malignantly and perversely abused. Could the Government show, by reference to any previous Acts of Parliament, either in this or any other country, that such a provision had ever been enacted? He challenged the Home Secretary, who was so well-known for his historical research, to find, even in Anglo-Saxon times, such a provision enacting that people were not to buy from and sell to whom they liked. What he proposed by the Amendment was that exclusive dealing should not be touched by the Government. Now, the phrase "exclusive dealing" was not a phrase of his own, but it was sanctified by having been made use of last year by the Prime Minister. "Was exclusive dealing the exclusive property of the Irish tenants? The right hon. Gentleman told them then it was frequently used against Railway Companies and Steamboat Companies and others; and the Prime Minister asked the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote), if that was what he meant in asking the Government to deal with "Boycotting." Why had the view of the Government changed now? What reason could they allege for the change on their part; and why had not the Prime Minister, who last year made excuses for "Boycotting," explained why he proposed to introduce a provision of this kind now? He hoped the Home Secretary would be able to show the Committee something that ran parallel with the provision they were now enacting in the enactments of other countries. Could he show from the copious sources of his information any reference to any previous Act passed by England, or by any other country under the sun, which proposed to make buying or selling under these conditions a crime? He challenged the Home Secretary to do so; and he said further, that so far as the right hon. Gentleman attempted in Ireland to cope with "Boycotting," his Acts of Parliament and all his efforts would be fruitless. Although they might compel a man, under a threat of imprisonment, to sell to another man, they could not compel a man to buy of him. Therefore, as far as the provision was directed in favour of land-grabbing, the clause would be quite useless. The Prime Minister said that, in the view of the people of Ireland, a sentence of eviction came very near to a sentence of starvation. The Prime Minister had called the Irish Members to task for not employing the phrase "unjust eviction." In the language which the right hon. Gentleman himself employed that qualifying adjective was absent. The words he used himself were "eviction comes near to starvation." A man went in and seized a holding, and made himself a co-partner in the sentence of eviction carried out by the landlord; and could anyone fail to feel that the land-grabber in doing so had committed an immoral act? It might be said he had not done an act which he had not a legal right to do; but there were higher rights than legal rights—there were moral laws—and he (Mr. Healy) contended that it was an unjust act, and an offence against decency, and an offence against the Law of God, that a man should take a farm from which another man had been unjustly evicted, and which practically amounted, in the words of the Prime Minister, to bringing down a sentence of starvation upon the head of some unoffending tenant. The Committee should take into consideration local colour and local prejudice. Why should they propose to legislate in this manner for the Irish people? All the Acts they might pass—if they went on passing them until Doomsday—would not get it out of the minds of the Irish people that, in the words of the Prime Minister, a sentence of eviction was a sentence of starvation; and anybody who lent himself to carrying out a sentence of starvation would commit a heinous and detestable act, and the natural corollary of that act was that he should be punished by every means the people had of punishing him, and the law ought to give him no protection. To quote the words of Shakespere—

"The world is not thy friend, nor the world's law;

The world affords no law to make thee rich.

Then he not poor hut break it."

That sentence was used by Lord John Russell in a former debate on Ireland in 1852. The Prime Minister quoted it and reinforced it when he introduced the Land Act in 1870; and the Government, in carrying out a vindictive Statute like this, were simply depriving the Irish people of the only weapon they possessed for their own protection. The law gave these people no protection. Parliament had passed a Land Act which enabled a man to go into Court and get a fair rent fixed; but he might be four years before he had that fair rent fixed, and in the meantime the landlord might come down upon him and evict him for non-payment of a rent which might afterwards be declared to be unjust. Nobody but a malefactor would take an evicted farm; and yet the Government came in and proposed to protect a man whom the common sense and sympathy of the people condemned as an unjust man, actually engaged in stealing things that belonged to his neighbour. And, more than that, the Government constituted themselves his defenders, for the purpose of defeating their own Act of Parliament. They had passed an Act of Parliament to enable a fair rent to be fixed. Owing to the cumbrousness of that Act it could not come into operation immediately; and the result was that evictions took place, and the people appealed to an unwritten law—as if unwritten law had never been heard of except in Ireland— whereupon the Government stepped in and defeated their own Act by enabling the man who had taken the land unjustly to retain it. This Bill would only exasperate the people further, and, in his opinion, it was merely calculated to lead to the commission of crime. It was called a Bill for the Prevention of Crime; he thought it would be more happily described as a Bill for the Promotion of Crime. It would inevitably lead to crime; and he implored the Government to leave to the people, whom the law, unfortunately, did not protect, the only weapon they had in their hands for protecting themselves. If the Government made it a crime to "Boycott" a man, they might rely upon it that the people would resort to other means. ["Order !"] He said it advisedly. If the Government made it illegal for the people to use the only means they had of protecting themselves — if they deprived them of all means of enforcing their own Statutes—they might rely upon it that the people would fall back upon some other means. ["Order!"] The hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) cried "Order!" but all the cries of the hon. Member and of the House would not alter human nature. He was speaking not of an Irish tendency simply, but of human nature. The people of Ireland had hitherto had a weapon by which they could protect themselves. That weapon the Government now proposed to take away from them, and they would fall back upon other means, and, to use the phrase of Louis Napoleon, "quitting legality enter on the lines of right." A very important statement from the Catholic Bishops, with a Cardinal Prince at their head, was published yesterday, and those right rev. Prelates, numbering some 30 or 40 ecclesiastics of the highest position and responsibility, declared upon their responsibility—a responsibility, in their minds, as grave and as serious as the responsibility attaching to the Government of the country—that evictions were the root and parent of crime in Ireland. That being so, what did the Government propose to do? They proposed to take away from the people the only means and the only protection the people of Ireland had against land - grabbing. They had been told by The Times, and other newspapers, over and over again, that over-competition for land was the curse of Ireland. The only means they had of checking that system was to organize themselves and prevent men from taking farms from which other men had been improperly evicted. It must be remembered that the people who resorted to these practices had not the same means of making their views felt as the English farmers. He had heard of a case in Scotland where the tenant of a noble Lord who had been paying £4 an acre for the land he held came to the conclusion that he would, in future, only pay £2, and the surrounding farmers agreed to support him. They discussed the question, and came to that decision upon it at their hunts, and at their farmers' ordinaries on the market day in the market town. Nothing of the sort could take place in Ireland. The Irish tenants had not the same means of intercourse. They were unable to communicate with each other. They did not hunt as the English farmers did; they did not meet in the market town and dine together. They were too poor for that. And no institutions of that kind were to be found in Ireland where the members of the farming class could meet together. Now that the Land League was struck down they had no means of protection whatever; and it was against this miserable set of serfs the Government now proposed to legislate and to take away from them the only weapon they could use. When this Bill passed they would be absolutely defenceless. The law would give them no protection whatever. The Act of last year, according to the admission of the Prime Minister, was passed for their protection; but a majority of them would be unable to obtain the benefit of this protection for the next three or four or, perhaps, five years; and while the Government declared that these people wore entitled to protection, and to have a fair rent fixed for them, they were snatching from them every other means of protection they possessed. In legislating for the English trade unions certain kinds of combinations were rendered legal. Why did not the Government allow to the Irish farmers exactly the same right? Why should the Government, by insisting upon the insertion of these harsh and tyrannical clauses in their Bill, ox-asperate every man in Ireland? In his view, they were doing nothing else. He deplored and lamented the position which the tenant farmers would occupy after the passing of this Bill. But it was indelibly implanted in his mind that the more of these Bills they had the more they would be likely to have. That being so, he could see nothing in the future of Ireland, if the Bill was put in force—as he expected it would be—in that spirit of vindictiveness and ferocity which distinguished the Executive of Ireland in the past, but an increase of crime. The Irish Representatives deplored more deeply than anybody else, the great increase of crime which had occurred in Ireland. And why? Because it encouraged the Government, with the approval of the majority of the English people, in insisting upon these stupid laws of coercion. When once they had introduced a Coercion Bill they could never touch bottom. They went on from bad to worse—the way to an unmentionable place being "of easy descent"— and in the end he could see nothing but Martial Law in front of the people of Ireland. Why, he asked, would not the Government take the advice of those who had the situation as seriously at heart as they had themselves—namely, the Irish Bishops and Archbishops? Surely the responsibility of the men who had the care of souls in that country was much greater than that of those who possessed temporal power. The mere offices which these right rev. Prelates held ought, in the eyes of the Government, to attach great weight to their representations. Therefore, he trusted that the Home Secretary would accede to this very reasonable proviso, and give the Committee some assurance that this clause dealing with intimidation would not be used in the manner the Irish Members apprehended.

I should like to remind the hon. Member of the statement which he made last week. He said then that the Government ought to be content with the progress they were making with the Bill, seeing that they had passed the first four clauses of the Bill. But that statement was not technically true, and I am afraid it is not going to be substantially true, if we are to go on discussing this clause in the manner the hon. Member is discussing it. The hon. Member has made a speech which is a very able defence of the system of "Boycotting;" but we have discussed the system of "Boycotting" at great length already, and the Committee have made up their minds to suppress "Boycotting." What might have been considered by the indulgence of the House a tolerably fair speech upon the whole clause is not so upon the Amendment. There have not been two minutes out of the half-hour's speech of the hon. Member devoted to the bearing of the Amendment. Now, I do not think that is a fair way of dealing with the question or with the Committee. The question of "Boycotting" is, no doubt, a very important question, and the hon. Member has pronounced for the third or fourth time a panegyric upon "Boycotting." The Government do not agree with him, nor do the House. The Government have made up their minds, and they are not likely to change it. They will do all in their power and everything they consider necessary to put down "Boycotting." The hon. Member has referred to the opinion of the Irish Catholic Bishops, and the document which they have put forth. I have read that document; but I see in it no justification or praise of "Boycotting," as pronounced by the hon. Member. The hon. Member says that the police of Ireland harass the people. There are other persons who harass the people of Ireland as well as the police— namely, those who shoot them in the legs and fire bullets into their dwellings. Therefore, I cannot accept the views of the hon. Member as to the manner in which we should proceed. The hon. Member's ingenuity is inexhaustible. He recommends us to introduce the system of caste into Ireland, and to protect it by the police as in India. I do not think that argument is likely to aid the hon. Member very materially. He says this clause will not put down "Boycotting." Well, if it will not put down "Boycotting," why is the hon. Member so anxious and so afraid of it? If that is his view of it, let the clause go, and let us get on with some other part of the Bill; but if he is opposing the clause because it will put down "Boycotting," then I am afraid we must take the sense of the Committee as between the views of the Government and the views of the hon. Member. The Amendment is still open to all the objections that were stated on Friday by my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General. Then my hon. Friend said that this is confessedly a difficult and complicated subject, and we must endeavour to express ourselves as clearly as we can upon it, and put into the clause nothing that would be superfluous, because that which is superfluous is naturally dangerous, and confuses those who have to administer the law. We have said, over and over again, that exclusive dealing is not what we wish to cope with, and we have agreed to put in the words "in order to." We say that when these things are done in a manner intended to put a person in bodily fear, or in any fear of losing his business, or of being injured in it, it is an offence. That is our intention in this clause, and it is a perfectly fair question to raise. Either the Amendment of the hon. Member means that, or it means something different. If it means that, there is no occasion to put the Amendment into the Bill, because it is there now. If it means more than that, we do not mean more than that, and, therefore, we cannot accept the Amendment. That is the position of the Government with regard to the Amendment, and on these grounds we cannot accept it.

said, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary was a Liberal statesman and also a member of the Bar, and he was astonished that a right hon. and learned Gentleman occupying those positions should have expressed the views the right hon. and learned Gentleman had just expressed. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said he objected to have superfluities put into an Act of Parliament. It was the first time he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) ever heard of a member of the Bar being opposed to superfluities in an Act of Parliament. But still worse was the position of the right hon. and learned Gentleman as a Liberal statesman. What was the object of the clause? The object of the clause was to take away from certain portions of Her Majesty's subjects the liberty they had enjoyed up to the present moment. It might be a good or a bad liberty, but it was a liberty they had enjoyed up to the present moment. His hon. Friend the Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) proposed an Amendment for the purpose of safeguarding as much as possible the liberty the clause proposed to leave to the Irish people; and the right hon. and learned Gentleman, as a Liberal statesman, objected to words the object of which was to protect a portion of the liberty of the subject. That was an utterly inconsistent and intolerable position for a Liberal statesman to take up. The right hon. and learned Gentleman endeavoured to put the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) on the horns of a dilemma, and, interpreting the clause his own way, ho said the hon. Member wished to defeat the object of it. Now, the objection of the hon. and learned Attorney General to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Christchurch (Mr. Horace Davey) was that the Amendment attributed an intention to the clause which the clause had not; and if the clause had not the intention of interfering with exclusive dealing which was not for the purpose of intimidation and coercion, why not put in words to say that it had not that meaning? Why not give the Irish people such protection for their liberties as the Amendment of his hon. Friend would give them? Let the right hon. and learned Gentleman take the Amendment of his hon. Friend. Let him point out that the Amendment in any way defeated the intention and purpose of the clause. If it did not, then let him put it in the Bill. A superfluity in the defence of the liberties of the people was a superfluity that was good, and ought to be welcome to any Liberal statesman brought up under Constitutional principles. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) did not mean at all to enter into the argument which had been raised by his hon. Friend as to the general principle of "Boycotting." He said that that had nothing to do with the Amendment. [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT: Hear, hear!] The right hon. and learned Gentleman applauded that observation. Then, if the Amendment had nothing to do with "Boycotting," why object to put it in the clause, the purpose of the clause being to put down "Boycotting?" He invited an answer to that question. The clause was for the purpose of putting down "Boycotting." This Amendment was not for the purpose of interfering with that object. Then why not accept it, seeing that it would afford protection to a portion of the liberty of the subject, which was proposed to be taken away by the Bill?

said, that, leaving entirely out of consideration the question whether "Boycotting" was an immoral practice or not, or whether it was desirable to put it down, he thought it was highly necessary that the clause should be safeguarded as much as possible, or otherwise great injustice might be done. His chief objection to the Bill was that it would create injustice and inconvenience to persons who might be perfectly innocent, while, at the same time, it would not affect those with whom it proposed to deal. He would give a case to illustrate what he meant. Suppose a shopkeeper in a country town was in the habit of giving credit. Suppose he were applied to by a farmer who had had a large amount of goods already, and the shopkeeper said—"I will supply you if you pay me ready money, but I do not intend to give you the credit I have been in the habit of doing heretofore." If the farmer were malicious, and possessed, as he probably might, the ear of the local magistrate and the police, he would say at once—"If you do not give me credit I will go to the police and tell them that you are trying to intimidate me by doing something which is injurious to my interests, and I will have you put into prison for six months." What guarantee would that shopkeeper have that he would not be sent to prison for six months, simply because, with no intention of intimidating a buyer, he wanted to protect himself against giving credit for an amount that would never be paid? A state of circumstances might arise in which direct injustice might be done to an individual by the provisions of this particular clause, and he thought the Amendment proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) was calculated to secure more or less of safety to the person against whom the charge of intimidation was made. The shopkeeper, if he knew what he had done was perfectly legal and legitimate, of course would not be in fear of punishment. The whole evil would be guarded against, and it could not be stated that in such a case as this any actual intimidation could be intended. In the absence of an Amendment of this kind, unless very substantial evidence could be brought forward, the magistrate who adjudicated upon the case would have power to decide simply upon an assumption in his own mind, without reference to any specific evidence as to the facts of the case. He trusted that the Government would not further object to the Amendment, and if they did, he hoped his hon. Friend would divide the Committee.

said, that it seemed to him that the present Amendment was merely a generalization of one put on the Paper on Friday by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). The object of this Amendment was to generalize instead of particularize the Amendment of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). He would ask the Home Secretary whether he would accept the principle of the Amendment of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell); not, perhaps, its precise words, but its principle, because the Attorney General might be able to bring up better words? If the right hon. and learned Gentleman would do that, he thought the Irish Representatives would have no objection to accept it, instead of the Amendment moved by his hon. Friend the Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy). He asked the Home Secretary to be good enough to inform the Committee whether the Government would consent to take that course; because it seemed to him that the matter was not one of very paramount importance, and it would greatly tend to make the Bill proceed smoothly, which was an object they all desired.

said, he could not support the Amendment on account of the words contained in it referring to the practice "of what was commonly known as exclusive dealing." These words appeared to him to be very objectionable. He rose, however, to put a question to the Home Secretary in regard to the Amendment in connection with the 4th clause. Would the 4th clause in any way affect the working of the Trades Union Acts of 1871 and 1876?

said, he had already answered that question in the negative two or three times. It was intended to insert an Amendment at the end of the Bill to save the Act of 1875, but that was a totally different thing from introducing these matters into the clause. If they introduced limitations of this kind it would lead to all sorts of misapprehension. The Government were perfectly aware that this clause and other clauses of the Bill dealt with very difficult matters, and they had it under consideration to give the Resident Magistrate legal assistance. They had it in their mind to give him the assistance of a lawyer. He could not state definitely the precise form in which that could be done; but their desire was that the Resident Magistrates, in the administration of the law, should have legal assistance. All the Government had to do on this and other clauses was to make the statement of their intentions as clear as possible, and it was desirable not to complicate the matter by introducing unnecessary provisions. To give any sort of approbation to exclusive dealing in the clause would be very mischievous indeed; and for that reason the Government could not accept the Amendment, which was in the same position as another Amendment still on the Paper, and which was, on the face of it, suggested, in the interests of the "no rent" agitation. He trusted that the discussion would now close, and that the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) would allow a decision to be taken upon his Amendment.

said, he wished to put a question to the Home Secretary, because upon the answer he received to it his vote upon the Amendment would depend. He was informed by a gentleman who had recently come into an estate in Yorkshire, that the feeling in that part of the country against Irishmen was very strong indeed, and it was stated that a number of farmers there had combined to agree that under no circumstances whatever would they employ Irish labourers. He wished to know if that sort of action would be regarded as "Boycotting" under this Bill?

said, he could not understand what the action of the farmers in Yorkshire could have to do with this Bill at all. What might be done in the West Riding could have no bearing upon the operation of the Act in Ireland.

wished to ask the Law Officers of the Government what the clause really meant?

I must remind the hon. Member that the question is not the adoption of the clause, but the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy).

said, he had not quite accurately expressed what he intended to say. He thought the hon. Baronet who had just spoken (Sir David Wedderburn) had put the matter in a nutshell. This clause took away all right of combination in Ireland, while combination was safeguarded in every shape and form for every class of Englishmen. The hon. Baronet had mentioned the case of the Yorkshire farmers and the Irish labourers; but hon. Members would not be ignorant that in every class of life in this country, owing to the hostility maintained towards Irishmen, the same sort of prejudice was employed for the purpose of interfering with the calling, business, and livelihood of Irishmen. [Mr. JOHN BRIGHT: No, no!] The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said "No, no!" Was the right hon. Gentleman acquainted with the affairs of every Irishman in this country? Was he acquainted with the details of the business of the Irish people in this country? He would tell the right hon. Gentleman that, much as the right hon. Gentleman did know, there were some things which were not fully brought to his knowledge; and he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) would reiterate the fact that, owing to the prevalent opinion against Irishmen in this country, Irishmen were interfered with even in the means of earning their bread in England by Englishmen. Consequently, this kind of combination was allowed in England, and the public opinion of the country sanctioned it; whereas the Government proposed to take it away from Irishmen in Ireland who were endeavouring to protect their lives, their property, and their homes. The Amendment had no connection with "Boycotting," and he would advise his hon. Friend the Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) to omit from it the words which applied to exclusive dealing. He did not think that they ought even indirectly to justify exclusive dealing by Act of Parliament; but the first words of the Amendment of his hon. Friend simply asked that the magistrates, in interpreting the clause, should not interpret it so widely as to interfere with all right of combination among the Irish tenants. He did not see why the Government should object to a proposal of that kind. It did not interfere with their clause; but it might interfere with the power of the landlords to pursue a course of relentless persecution against the tenant.

said, that, in using the words "exclusive dealing," he had humbly copied the phraseology of the Prime Minister. He did not claim any copyright in the phrase; but it belonged entirely to the Prime Minister. No one could take it from the right hon. Gentleman, and the phrase must have the sanction and approval of the Prime Minister, because he had invented it himself. He (Mr. Healy) had simply desired to recommend the Amendment to the Treasury Bench by employing a phrase which had been coined by their Head and Chief. He had noticed the vigour with which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright) shook his head a moment ago. Had the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster never heard of the famous catchword, "No Irish need apply?" It was a phrase which he (Mr. Healy) had heard in one or two places he had visited, and especially in Liverpool, Manchester, and some of the Northern towns, and he believed that it was frequently put in force. Ho did not complain of men who enforced their natural prejudices in a heated time; but he was only calling attention to the existence in England of a practice analogous to the one which they desired to carry out in Ireland. The Home Secretary objected that he (Mr. Healy) had gone into the question of "Boycotting" once more. The observation of the right hon. and learned Gentleman would have been legitimate, if, in the course of the four days' discussion, they had ever succeeded in extracting one word from him to assure them that the clause would not be used in the way they apprehended it would be. But not one word had fallen from the Government in reply to the attacks and charges of the Irish Representatives; and on the fourth day he was to be complained of, according to the Home Secretary, because he felt it his duty to return to the charge. The Government flattered themselves that they would not hear any more of this matter. He (Mr. Healy) believed they were likely to hear a great deal more of it. He charged the Government of Ireland with maintaining the "Boycotting" system themselves in some of the counties, and with having used their police to "Boycott" one class of the people in the interests of religious fanaticism. The Home Secretary said he (Mr. Healy) desired to introduce the caste system of India into Ireland. Now, he would not stoop even to deny that allegation; but he really thought that when a Gentleman of the high character and ability of the right hon. and learned Gentleman made a reckless charge of that kind, he ought to ascertain what foundation there was for it.

wished to ask the Home Secretary one question. He understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say that he intended, at the end of the Bill, to introduce a clause to provide that the Acts of 1871 and 1875, with regard to the practice of combination, should be read as part of the present Bill. He asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether it would not be well to state specifically the general purpose of his Amendment— whether it would allow the Irish farmers to combine in certain matters for which combination was legal in England? Of course, it could not be expected that the farmers and labourers in Ireland would be permitted to combine for illegal purposes; but would the right hon. and learned Gentleman sanction their combination for objects which were in themselves perfectly legal?

said, there were various objects in regard to which combination was not forbidden by the Bill; but if the act done was done in order to put another man in fear, then under this Bill it would not be allowed.

This Amendment, in the name of the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon), is obviously intended as a joke upon the Committee, and cannot be seriously proposed. It would be impossible for me to put such an Amendment from the Chair.

wished to say a word on the point of Order. The Amendment was not in the least degree intended as a joke, but had been placed on the Paper with the object of having the question seriously discussed by the Committee. He had not understood the Chairman to rule that it was out of Order.

I have ruled that it is out of Order, and that it cannot be put.

said, he had understood the Chairman to rule that it was out of Order, because he regarded is as a joke; but the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) asserted that he did not intend it to be a joke.

Then if the hon. Member did not intend it as a joke, it is trifling with the Committee, and it is out of Order.

in proposing, in page 3, line 29, after "living," to insert—

"Provided, That nothing heroin contained shall be deemed to oblige any person to do any act which such person has a legal right to abstain from doing, or to abstain from doing any act which such person has a legal right to do,"

said, the Government had declared, a few minutes ago, that they would object to any Amendment which interfered with the intention of the clause. They had also expressed their opinion that the word "intimidation" was made so clear, and so fully conveyed the meaning of the Government, that no stipendiary magistrate in Ireland would have any difficulty in construing it. His (Mr. Healy's) contention was that the clause did nothing of the kind; and he therefore proposed this proviso in order to enable a person to do any act he had a legal right to do, and to abstain from doing any act which he had a legal right to abstain from doing. Her Majesty's Government could not say that this Amendment would import into the clause any novel or new doctrine. It did nothing of the sort; it simply recited a dry matter of fact for the purpose of laying down distinctly that a man was not to be the victim of a vindictive or malicious act on the part of the police. He might remind the Government that, notwithstanding their declaration, they had not accepted a single Amendment from an Irish Member except upon a mere point of detail. It was true that they had accepted a few Amendments, but they had generally come from the Front Opposition Bench; and, so far as he knew, the only Amendment they had accepted from an Irish Member was the insertion of the words "in order to," proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). No other Amendment proposed by an Irish Member had been adopted by the Government; and the arguments addressed from those Benches to the Government had been completely thrown away. The majority of hon. Members sitting behind the Government had remained altogether silent, probably on the reasonable ground that they thought the Government knew their own minds, and they were content to give the Government the full and complete powers they asked for. But, on the other hand, he thought the Government should recognize, in some way, the feelings of the Irish Representatives on that side of the House; and it was to be regretted that, as a matter of fact, the Irish Members had not succeeded in getting one word inserted into the clause. Not a single proposition would the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary accept from them, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman might go away from the House and boast that he had succeeded in sitting there a monument of Parliamentary stolidity, as far as his action in regard to the Bill was concerned. But he would point out to the Government that that was not the spirit in which Her Majesty's Ministers ought to deal with the Irish Members, nor was it the manner in which the Irish Members had been dealt with on previous occasions. He had no desire to draw a parallel between the Home Secretary and the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster); but, as a matter of fact, when the Coer- cion Bill of last year was introduced, the Irish Members did obtain some concessions from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster)—notably in regard to the treatment of prisoners. But this year, in dealing with the Home Secretary, they had not got a single syllable, and not even a word, put into the clause. The right hon. and learned Gentleman allowed himself to be guided solely by the views of the Opposition. He had no wish to disparage the arguments of the right hon. and learned Gentleman; but the Irish Members were certainly unconvinced by them, although, undoubtedly, the right hon. and learned Gentleman could go away from that House and boast to his Colleagues in the Cabinet, or to anybody else, that he had passed this most obnoxious Bill without making a single concession upon it.

said, he did not rise for the purpose of answering the personal attack which the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) had made upon him. He did not think the abuse of the hon. Member would make the House think any better of the hon. Member or any worse of himself, nor would it in any way affect the progress of the Bill. But he demurred to the statements of fact which had been made by the hon. Member. The hon. Member said that the Government had accepted no Amendments submitted by the Irish Members, but that they had been guided entirely by the views of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson). Now, first of all, the Government had been guided by their own views as expressed in the Bill. The words of the clause were not the words of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson). They simply expressed the result of the careful and deliberate determination of Her Majesty's Government. They had not, however, been obstinate about the clause. There had been two Amendments already inserted into the clause, neither of which had been introduced at the suggestion of any of his right hon. Friends who sat with him on the Treasury Bench. The first Amendment was introduced at the suggestion of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), and so far the hon. Member was correct in the statement he had made; but the second Amendment, and the most material Amendment, with the object of making the clause more clear, was accepted from the hon. Member who sat behind him, the hon. and learned Member for Southwark (Mr. Cohen). Those were the facts of the case, and they were not consistent with the statement the hon. Gentleman had just made. He did not think that either of these alterations had met with the strong approval of hon. Members opposite, so that there was an additional inaccuracy in the statement of the hon. Member. He (Sir William Harcourt) would now deal with the Amendment itself. It was an Amendment by way of Proviso to repeal the clause, and the hon. Member could hardly suppose that the Government would be prepared to accept such an Amendment. The Amendment said—

"Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be deemed to oblige any person to do any act which such person has a legal right to abstain from doing, or to abstain from doing any act which such person has a legal right to do."

Now, the whole object of the clause was to make it an offence for a man to do that which, before the passing of the clause, he had a legal right to do, if he did it with the intention stated in the clause, of ruining another man. He could scarcely see the use of treating as a serious proposition an Amendment in the shape of a Proviso which would have the effect of repealing all they had hitherto done in reference to the clause.

said, the Government had repeatedly stated that their object regarding this clause was to put down "Boycotting," and that that was their object in inserting the clause in the Bill. Now, Irish Members had pointed out from time to time that, in addition to giving powers to put down "Boycotting," the clause would give the Resident Magistrates in Ireland the power of putting down combination, which, under similar circumstances, legally existed in England. They had called the attention of the Government to the necessity of introducing such limitations or Provisoes in this clause as would deprive the Resident Magistrates of that power, giving them, at the same time, power to put down "Boycotting." He could not think the course which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had followed in this matter was a fair one towards Irish Members. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had taken advantage of the prejudice which existed against "Boycotting" to endeavour to obtain a clause which would leave it in the power of the Executive Government—even in the power of those who were distrusted in Ireland, the stipendiary magistrates, over whom, according to law, the Executive Government had no control with regard to the administration of the law—to put down any kind of combination in Ireland, and to control the actions, words, and thoughts of the people in the most unheard of way. Now, during the four days on which this clause had been under discussion, the Government had had placed before them the wishes of the Irish Members, that some definition or limitation should be introduced into the clause in order to carry out what both Parties said was their object—namely, the maintenance of the right of combination, and to secure that this should not be left to the discretion of any magistrate. The right of workmen to combine to leave their employers for the purpose of carrying out any lawful object, and the right of farmers to combine for the purpose of obtaining a reduction of their rents—these were two objects which Irish Members could not give up, and upon them they must endeavour to turn the minds of the Government if possible. At present those rights were not left under this clause of the Bill, inasmuch as they could be taken away by the action of any stipendiary magistrate. For his own part, he was not disposed to allow the Government to walk off under cover of the prejudice created against "Boycotting," and obtain the passage of the clause, which practically abolished the right of combination.

said, that there was clearly a difficulty with re- gard to the wording of the clause, when taken in connection with the statement of the Home Secretary. The words were capable of being made much more extensive than the Legislature intended. He need not point out to the Committee that it was necessary, in framing an Act of Parliament, to be perfectly clear with regard to the language employed. These words, understood with reference to the context of the debate, might have a very different meaning applied to them in other circumstances. In criminal legislation the utmost care must be taken not to use words capable of any interpretation beyond the meaning strictly intended.

wished to ask the Home Secretary a question which he had put to him previously, and which an hon. Member had also asked in the course of this discussion. Did the Bill deprive Irish labourers of the right of giving up employment, and did it deprive the tenants of the right to refuse to pay rent? Again, did the fact of the tenant refusing to pay his rent bring him under the provisions of the Bill? The Home Secretary said he would put in words taken from the Act of 1875 to meet this case, or, at any rate, he understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he would do so. If the right hon. Gentleman intended to insert words of this sort, he thought the progress of the Bill would be facilitated if he would be good enough to say whether those words covered the cases he (Mr. Labouchere) had just referred to. Would the right hon. Gentleman say that after the words wore inserted in the Bill a labourer might claim the right to leave his employment if he liked, and a farmer refuse to pay his rent without becoming liable under the Act?

said, as he desired to make this clause as clear as possible, he replied once more, that a man leaving his employment, as he was perfectly free to do now, would also be free to do so under this Bill. A man not able to pay his rent was subject to civil action for breach of contract; but if a man refused to pay, or did any other act with an intent forbidden in the Bill, then he would have committed an offence under the Bill. Fears had been expressed that in some way or other the principles guaranteed under the Act of 1875 would be inter- fered with; but he had said, over and over again, that except in cases of the kind just referred to, the Act of 1875 would apply as before—that was to say, Her Majesty's Government proposed that it should not be interfered with by the present Bill. He had heard also expressions of doubt and apprehension lest the Bill should interfere with the legitimate political association of Irishmen for lawful purposes. Well, that was not the intention of the Bill, and Her Majesty's Government would be perfectly ready to declare also in a Saving Clause that it was not so intended, or to have that effect; and it would be believed by every man who was a lawyer, and by every man of common sense, he might add, that this was not the intention of the Bill. If it were necessary to declare that these associations for legitimate political purposes were not intended to be interfered with, he should have no objection to declare it; but ho should not care to introduce any limitation of that kind into this clause, because any such limitation introduced might become a cause of great confusion and difficulty. He trusted hon. Members would accept the statement he had made in reply to the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), and the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell).

said, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had answered the question of the hon. Member for Northampton, but in a very unsatisfactory way. He was sorry to see that he had practically answered that question in a way which showed that this Act was intended to prevent the combinations suggested by the hon. Member for Northampton. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that a tenant farmer could refuse to pay his rent, or a labourer might leave his employment, provided they did not do so with the forbidden intent in this Bill. Well, then, what was the forbidden intent in the Bill? It was that a person was to be charged with intending to put some other person in fear of injury, or loss to himself or his property, or means of living; but he would like to know how any labourer could leave his employment, either alone or in combination with others, or how any farmer could refuse to pay anything but a fair rent, either alone or in combination, except by put- ting his landlord in fear of loss to his property? If a landlord were told that he would not get his rent, it followed that he must be placed in fear of loss to his property; if a farmer was told by his workmen that they were about to leave him—perhaps at a critical time when he wanted their services—it would necessarily follow that the employer was placed in fear of injury to his business or property. In fact, every action of workmen in England in the case of strikes placed employers in fear of injury to their property and means of living; and, therefore, when any combination or strike was undertaken by bodies of men belonging to particular classes, it must be with fear that loss to property would result from the action of such combination. As a matter of fact, that was the only way, practically speaking, in which the workmen could enforce the strike. If an employer remained in precisely the same position after a strike, and found there would be no loss to his business or property, he would disregard the strike, and the workmen would not be able to hope that the result of the strike would be to obtain the increase of wages or whatever other object they might have struck for. So it was with regard to Ireland, and now the Home Secretary had admitted that what the Bill proposed to do was to take away from Irish workmen this very important right—a right which existed in England—and to allow the stipendiary magistrates to say that that which was perfectly lawful for English workmen might be intimidation for Irish workmen to do. He thought they had now a better understanding of the position, and were able to get a better view of the prospect of ameliorating the condition of the Irish people.

said, he was afraid he could do no more than repeat what his right hon. and learned Friend had stated. As he understood, the hon. Member for the City of Cork desired that the labourer or workman who, for the purpose of obtaining an advance of wages, said to his employer that he wished to leave his service, should not come within this section. His right hon. and learned Friend had said, over and over again, that this would not be an offence within the clause, for the reason that before you could create an offence within this clause, the act must be done in order to effect a wrong. The workmen, in the case put by the hon. Member, proposed to leave the service of his employer not for the purpose of intimidating him, but to benefit himself, and that was not an offence contemplated by the Bill. With respect to the combination which the hon. Member suggested would become illegal under this Act, his right hon. and learned Friend had stated that he would strictly declare in the Bill that the protection created by the Act of 1875 should be preserved. His right hon. and learned Friend in this respect was willing to meet the views of the hon. Member for the City of Cork. What the Act of 1875 did was to declare that nothing in relation to the action between employers and employed should be an offence, in consequence of the mere act of combination; and the distinction between legal and illegal combinations, drawn in the Act of 1875, would be preserved, and with it the right of persons, individually or in combination, to strike or leave employment for the purpose of obtaining better wages, or otherwise benefiting themselves.

said, he must confess he was unable to follow the hon. and learned Gentleman. He was afraid that what he was doing, although very clever in itself, was really hair-splitting. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had drawn a distinction between the intent to strike in the one case, and the intent to strike in the other, and that distinction he (Mr. Parnell) was unable to see. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said that where the labourer, either alone or in combination, struck to obtain better wages for himself, it was not an illegal thing, because he struck to obtain an advantage for himself; it was only when he struck to effect a wrong that the action amounted to intimidation. He repeated that he was unable to see how the distinction between the results was to be preserved. When workmen struck with the intention of obtaining an advantage to themselves, such as the increase in the rate of wages or otherwise, how was this proposal to be effected? It was, in effect, by putting a wrong upon the employer, because such a strike would not be entered into at all were it not for the purpose of bringing pressure to bear upon an em- ployer to show him that injury would result to him by his labourers leaving him if he did not give in to their fair and legitimate demands. What earthly effect could a strike of labourers have if an employer could turn round, without any loss to himself whatever, with equal advantage to himself, perhaps with greater advantage to himself, and obtain another set of workmen as cheaply as those who left his service? Under such circumstances, a strike would never be entered into at all, because it could never be effectual. Therefore, he submitted that the distinction of the hon. and learned Gentleman, as between the labourer obtaining an advantage for himself and effecting a wrong against his employer, had no existence. These were two separate and distinct actions which must go side by side, otherwise the strike could never have a successful issue. The words of this Bill absolutely precluded any strike of workmen from taking place which would inflict the slightest injury upon employers. Not only according to the wording of the clause, but according to the explanation put upon it by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, the magistrates, in deciding whether a strike would inflict injury on employers, must necessarily consider whether injury had been inflicted; and if they found that it had been, or that it was likely that it would result, then clearly the magistrates would feel themselves justified, according to the interpretation given by the Attorney General for England, in finding the men guilty of intimidation, and sentencing them to gaol for six months.

said, ho had listened to the speech of the hon. Member for the City of Cork with considerable attention, and he was compelled to ask himself by what hallucination the hon. Member had imported into the discussion on this clause such a mass of what appeared to be arbitrary and visionary interpretation? The proposition of the hon. Member was that he wished to take care that the Government should not, under the pretext of putting down "Boycotting," also put down that species of combination which workmen were permitted to use in England. Now, those combinations which workmen were permitted to use in England were usually directed to some object of benefit to themselves; but the combination of labourers in Ireland was generally attended with the opposite result— namely, of injury to the persons who used them. It was, in fact, a complete inversion of the strike as understood in England. It resulted, it was true, in loss to the employers; but it resulted also in loss to the labourers. In the case mentioned by the hon. Member for the City of Cork, the labourers did not strike for the purpose of obtaining an increase of their wages, and probably no inducement which the landlord might offer would be likely to satisfy them. The strike in this case was done for a purpose extraneous to that of obtaining a benefit such as had been described. He was surprised that the hon. Member for the City of Cork, who, it seemed to him, usually kept as close to his point in arguing upon the interpretation of other parts of the Bill as any Member of that House, legal or non-legal, should be arguing on that occasion that the insertion of the words adopted to meet the views of hon. Members on a former night would have no effect on the clause. The hon. Member said that the magistrate would look simply to the effect upon the employer, and not to the intent with which the act was done. But it was precisely because the words of the clause appeared to be colourably open to that interpretation that his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department proposed to bring in the words "in order to." It was true that the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) proposed to substitute for those words, at one time, "with intent to do;" but the hon. and learned Member for Southwark (Mr. A. Cohen) declared that he had carefully compared the two phrases together, and that the words "in order to" constituted a more effective and stronger phrase—that this phrase meant something, and that it meant that the effect on the employer was not to be a test of the character of the act done, but that the intent must be looked back to; and if the act was done for the purpose of injuring the employer it would be intimidation, whereas, if it were done for the benefit of the workmen, then, as in England, it could not be intimidation, and could not be an offence under the law. With great respect for the hon. Member for the City of Cork, he was bound to say that his argument appeared to him to be an argument directly in the face of the wording of the clause. The hon. Member asserted that nothing but the effect on the employer was to be looked to; but it must be remembered that the Committee had unanimously—with the exception of the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), who had made a reservation—introduced into the clause words for the very purpose of preventing that evil. If the hon. Member were still able to say that the words of the clause were directed simply to the effect upon the employer, and that that was the only criterion to determine the character of an act of intimidation, no doubt that would constitute a strong criticism. But that was not the effect of the clause now, because words were introduced to carry back the Judge to the examination of the purpose and intent. He appealed to the hon. Member to take this view of the case, although he could not hope to produce an effect upon his mind if he still declined to accept the declarations of his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the hon. and learned Attorney General.

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had given a fairer definition and a much fairer interpretation of the effect of the clause than the hon. and learned Attorney General (Sir Henry James). The right hon. Gentleman had explained that where labourers were withdrawn from their employment, not for the purpose of gaining a benefit for themselves, but for the purpose of punishing the landlord as regarded his conduct towards his tenants —that this would be held to be intimidation. He (Mr. Parnell) would be perfectly satisfied with that definition if it were added to the clause, and if it were not left to be constructed out of the clause by the stipendiary magistrates. He did not see any difficulty in accepting that position—namely, that persons should be at liberty in Ireland to take combined action for their own benefit; but not for the purpose of punishing their employers or their landlords in order to obtain benefits for some other people. He believed he had stated, however roughly, the idea of the Prime Minister with regard to intimidation. For instance, he understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that if a landlord had labourers in his employment, and these labourers were withdrawn from his employment in order to compel him to give a reduction of rent to his tenants, that that would be intimidation; but that it would not be intimidation if these labourers were withdrawn from their employment in order to obtain an increase of wages for themselves. Now, he thought that if they could get that put into the Bill, and also extended to breach of contract, which was also not a criminal offence in England, it would be fair enough—that was to say, that persons might take action of this kind for their own benefit, and not for any ulterior or other object outside it. It was not for him to suggest how these things should be done. The Government had a great deal of legal skill at their command, and he thought it would be fair for the Prime Minister, after the statement he had made, to consider in what way the view he had expressed could be carried out, which seemed to give to the Irish tenants and labourers the same right of legal and harmless combination which existed in England.

said, he would not suppose that the Committee required to be told that the hon. Member for the City of Cork was a man of ingenuity and resource. The Prime Minister had just made a short speech, pointing out his view with regard to the clause before the Committee, and the hon. Member for the City of Cork suggested that the Prime Minister had in that speech made some concession. He ventured to say that the Prime Minister had done nothing of the kind. What was the statement put into plain English? The hon. Member for the City of Cork had endeavoured to discuss this question as if there were an analogy between the case of strikes in England, and that of the withdrawal of labourers from employment in Ireland. But he maintained that no such analogy existed. If workmen in England struck, it was avowedly in order to obtain an increase of wages or an improvement of their condition. But what was the condition of the Irish labourers? When undoubtedly they were coerced, as they had been during the last 12 months, they had withdrawn in some cases from their employment most unwillingly; they had withdrawn not only to the detriment of their employers, but in many cases to their own absolute ruin. Everyone knew that there was not a single case in Ireland of labourers having withdrawn for their own benefit; they had withdrawn because they were compelled and forced to do so for the benefit of others. It was a fact which could not be gainsaid that these labourers who had withdrawn had not done so with the object of getting more lucrative employment; on the contrary, they had been maintained by the Land League at the same wages, or at similar wages, or else they had been allowed to go into the workhouse and starve. It was now adroitly suggested by the hon. Member for the City of Cork, himself a master of adroitness—if he might be allowed to say so—that it would be satisfactory to put into this Bill a statement that labourers should be allowed to withdraw from their employment for the purpose of raising their wages. Now, anyone acquainted with the question knew that every labourer would avow that he had withdrawn from his employment for the purpose of obtaining an increase of wages, under the circumstances described. That would be the allegation in every case, and therefore he said that if the suggestion of the hon. Member for the City of Cork were adopted, that moment an opportunity would be afforded of evading the clause. Let hon. Members ask themselves this question. Did they think that the hon. Member for the City of Cork was seriously anxious by his suggestion to have the clause made efficient for putting down "Boycotting?" Would the hon. Member himself assent to that proposition? The hon. Member said "Yes," and he (Mr. Gibson) never liked to dissent from an opinion which an hon. Member of that House expressed with regard to his own action; but he must confess that he should feel a considerable desire, at all events, to apply all his powers of criticism to a clause constructed by the hon. Member for the City of Cork for the purpose of putting down "Boycotting." He was much disposed to think that the clause in its present form—for he assumed they had heard the last word with regard to it—would do a great deal of good to the labourers in Ireland. One of the great difficulties those unfortunate people had to contend with was that they had no excuse for not obeying the behests of those who told them to leave their employment; but under this clause they would now have some opportunity of reconsidering their position and trying to obey the law. The clause had been under discussion for several days; and he must say, with regard to the present Amendment, that it had been, in his opinion, sufficiently considered. There was one observation which fell from the hon. Member in relation to the Irish vote. The subject was alluded to several times; but he desired to point out that there was a vast section of popular opinion in Ireland, not confined to any particular class, that desired to be freed from the terrorism of "Boycotting." He repudiated the suggestion that Irish opinion was in its favour; and he desired, in supporting that statement, to draw the attention of the Committee to this fact—namely, that in no division which had taken place upon the Amendments put forward with the intention of riddling this clause had more than one-third of the whole body of Irish Members gone in the Lobby to support them.

said, that the distinction to be drawn in the case of Irish labourers was this. When labourers in Ireland struck for the purpose of obtaining a benefit for themselves they did that which might not be very judicious, but which was perfectly lawful. But when they struck not with the object of benefiting themselves, but avowedly with the object of injuring their employers, they were doing that which the common sense of mankind declared ought to be put down. The Committee would not have been discussing the present question if the power of combination and striking had not been carried to an unlawful extent in Ireland. If it had been carried to such an extent in England, the Government would have been compelled long ago to put it down. In a liberty-loving country the combination of persons to effect a benefit for themselves was obliged to be tolerated, even if its effect were to cause some injury to other classes of persons, so long as it was not carried to an extreme extent. But the object preached to the labourer in Ireland was that he should strike, not for his own benefit, but for the purpose of inflicting injury on his employer. He trusted that the Government would not yield in the slightest degree on this clause, which, in his opinion, was more calculated to restore peace to Ireland than any other measure which had been proposed. To suppose that the ordinary-strikes of labourers to obtain higher wages—at harvest time, for instance— would come within the scope of the Bill was absurd. But if hon. Members went about the country telling people to strike against their employers, and these people, having the fear of "Boycotting" before their eyes, did strike, to the injury of their employers—then, he said, it was a matter for the magistrate to judge; and it was only reasonable to give him credit for the possession of common sense in a matter the facts relating to which were before him. He was glad to hear from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary that the Government intended to give legal assistance to the magistrates in the interpretation of this Bill when it passed into law; and he believed that by so doing the liberties of the people of Ireland would be completely preserved, and that that practice which might be said absolutely to have ruined the country would be put a stop to. He asserted positively that the feeling in Ireland with regard to this clause was very strong in its favour. ["No !"] Hon. Members opposite said "No !"but this was not a time for chopping logic upon a matter of this importance. It was a time for the exercise of that common sense which everyone possessed, or was supposed to possess. What they wanted to do was to put down "Boycotting," and unless that was done it was clear that the benefit of English law would be denied to persons in Ireland, The number of shopkeepers, labourers, and others, with their families, who had been ruined in consequence of this practice was almost incredible, and no one could deny that it ought to be put down.

said, there appeared to be very little difference in principle between the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister and the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) as to what should be retained in this clause. But it seemed to him that the Prime Minister had a somewhat higher opinion of the Resident Magistrates, aided by barristers in the discharge of their duties, than that entertained by the hon. Member. It seemed to him that the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent (Mr. Broadhurst) had taken a very practical view of the situation, inasmuch as a very little alteration in the Amendment of that hon. Member might be made to meet the views of both the hon. Member for the City of Cork and the Prime Minister. If the right hon. Gentleman considered this proposal a fair one, he thought there was no necessity for any further discussion of the clause. He suggested that the words of the Acts of 1871 and 1876 with regard to trades unions should be adopted. This, he thought, would cover what was suggested by the hon. Member for the City of Cork; and he did not think it went beyond what the Prime Minister was prepared to regard as the intentions of the Act. He thought that the discussion would be brought to an end very speedily if they could obtain some assurance that the words he had indicated would be inserted in the Bill.

said, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) had, in his opinion, advanced a stronger argument in favour of the contention of the hon. Member for the City of Cork than any argument which he had listened to in the course of that discussion. The question they were considering was the intention with which any word or act was spoken or done. If the intent was to injure a person against whom an act was done, then no one would have any objection that this should come within the clause. But what did the right hon. and learned Gentleman say? He said that in Ireland the only intent with which workmen would withdraw from the service of their employers was for the sake of inflicting injury upon the landlords or upon the employers. He said that the labourers, when they withdrew from employment, would always avow that it was done for the purpose of raising their wages; but he did not believe one word of that. It would be done solely for the purpose of injuring the employer; and, therefore, the right hon. and learned Gentleman wanted that only one construction should be put upon this clause. They had arrived at the question—Was the act done with a double intent, or with an unmixed intent? The magistrate might either put it on the intent to raise wages, or he might put it on the intent of injuring the employer or landlord. It was not a single intent or motive—it was a double intent; and unless this could be made clear under the construction of the clause —that it was done for the purpose of raising wages or reducing rent—the magistrates in Ireland would follow the lead of the right hon, and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin, and would put it on the stronger intent of injuring the employer.

said, he did not think the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gibson) knew as much about strikes as he did about the law, or he would not have said that strikes in England took place for the sole purpose of raising wages. They had recently had a strike in the North of England of a very extensive character, in which a very large number of persons took part. In this case some employers were willing to give way and concede an increase of wages to a portion of the men on strike; but these refused the terms offered. The remainder of the employers would not yield. He put it to the Government, how would such a state of things as that agree with the construction of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, who said that when men in Ireland struck in order to get an advance of wages, they would be striking for the purpose of improving their condition, and would not be liable, but if they struck for the purpose of injuring the landlord, that that would be an offence for which they could be punished? Now, in the case he had referred to, the men to whom the employer offered an increase of wages were no longer striking for any benefit to themselves, but they continued to strike for the benefit of their brethren, to whom their employers did not offer an increase of wages. Now, he asked, would those men, who struck when the employers offered to give them an increase of wages, and who continued the strike for the sake of those whose employers would not give an increase of wages, be held by the magistrates in Ireland to be striking for their own benefit, or for the purpose of injuring their employers?

was understood to say that in this case the intention was not the injury of the employer, but the benefit of their fellow-workmen.

said, that was just his point. Would the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General guarantee that that should be the construction of the Act? Look at the wording of the clause. The hon. and learned Attorney General said that the men who continued on strike did not do so with the intention of injuring their employers; but he (Mr. Storey) asked whether they did not do this within the meaning of the words at the beginning of the clause "wrongfully, and without legal authority, uses intimidation," to cause their employers to pay more wages to somebody else than they wanted to pay? Did they not wrongfully, or might they not be held by the Resident Magistrate wrongfully, and without legal authority, to have used intimidation in order to put the landlord in fear of loss to his property, so that he might give them an increase of their wages? If the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would convince him on that point, he would waive his objection to that portion of the clause; but he must toll him frankly that they in the North of England were perfectly well acquainted with the nature of strikes, and it was upon that knowledge that his objection to the clause rested. He did not want to oppose the Government; but he could not disguise from himself that as the magistrates in Ireland, who constituted a not impartial Court, would have to construe this clause, it was much more necessary to have an accurate definition than it would be if the matter had to be decided by the magistrates in England. If this accurate definition were not given, the result would be that legitimate combination among workmen, as well as the offence of "Boycotting," would be put down. He, therefore, impressed upon the Government that there should be some security for legitimate combination. In order to illustrate the difference between strikes in this country and in Ireland, he would mention that in the course of a strike which took place Sunderland among the shipwrights certain of the men were brought before the magistrates. Now, there were shipbuilders on the Bench, and these gentlemen did not take part in the proceedings, but left the Court, and the ease was adjudicated upon and satisfaction given to the men. But he wished to point out that in Ireland the Government were not, so to speak, going to remove the shipbuilders from the Bench; they were going to leave the landlords on the Bench to deal with matters in which their interests were largely involved; and, therefore, he repeated that the Government ought to be doubly careful to have an extremely accurate and safe definition.

said, if the Act were to be interpreted by the Prime Minister he was sure there would not be the slightest chance of any injustice being done, because, according to the view stated by the right hon. Gentleman, the offence could only be committed when the act was done solely in order to prejudice the interests of a third party, or to injure his property. But, unfortunately, the word "solely" was not in the Bill, and, consequently, it would not be read in the Act by the magistrates; and those persons, when they found even a tendency to injure, would consider that quite enough for the purpose of conviction. He would like to remind the right hon. and learned Gentlemen the Home Secretary and the Attorney General of a legal principle which they appeared to have forgotten, and that was that in the interpretation of the Criminal Statutes every man was presumed to intend the natural and ordinary consequences of his acts. That principle had been laid down by every Judge upon the Bench, and the justice of it was obvious, because no one could dive into the recesses of the human mind. To say what was the intention of a man in any other sense was nothing else than the wildest speculation, and because this could not be ascertained the law established the canon of interpretation that everyone must be presumed to intend the natural consequences of his acts. Therefore, he said that the Judges and magistrates in Ireland were bound to interpret this Bill when it became law on the principle that whatever were the natural consequences of an act, these were to be taken as the intention of the person who did it; and, therefore, it would happen under this Act that whenever an injury might arise to a landlord, for instance, or a third party, by the act of a labourer or tenant, they would be held to have intended to produce that effect. He wished to refer to another remarkable oversight on the part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), who told them that during the last year or two Irish labourers had left their employment against their will, and not for the purpose of benefiting themselves. [The right hon. and learned Gentleman said it was notorious that—

"In Ireland during the last two years the great majority of labourers had left their employment against their will, and were ruined in consequence."

It appeared to him that a sentence of six months' imprisonment with hard labour was a very extraordinary remedy to apply to the case of men who were so situated, because, according to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's own argument, the position of those labourers was already sufficiently unfortunate. Now, Irish Members were willing that when an act was done solely for the purpose of injuring another—an act of intimidation, as they had it described in the Bill—it should be punished by all means. But they contended that this Act should not be left so loosely worded as to allow a magistrate to inflict the penalties which it contained on a person who acted for his own benefit, and not for the purpose of injuring another.

said, the right hon. and learned Gentlemen the Home Secretary and the Attorney General knew perfectly well what they meant by this clause, if the Prime Minister did not; and he asserted, without fear of contradiction, that the Prime Minister wished to remove the larger interpretation which they desired to place upon it. The hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) had put the case of a strike which occurred in his district. The question of a strike was a very pertinent one. Would the strikers who remained out when the majority of their own body had returned to work come under the provisions of this clause? "No," said the Attorney General, "because they remained out for the benefit of the workmen, and not for the injury of their employers." Now, he wanted the Attorney General to stick by that principle as laid down by himself. He said that a combination of that kind did not come under the clause, because the persons who took part in it wished to benefit their fellow - workmen. Was that the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman? If it was, he wished to know whether the strikers, by remaining out, did not injure their employer? If they injured their employer they would be supposed, according to a legal maxim, to intend to injure their employer; and, therefore, they would injure him intentionally. If the Prime Minister would put into the clause words giving the interpretation he had himself attached to it, it would be perfectly satisfactory. The Irish Representatives would be quite willing to stop the discussion at once if the right hon. Gentleman would give them an undertaking that he would insert in the clause words to carry out the interpretation he himself had given. Would the right hon. Gentleman give them that undertaking or not; or would he allow himself to be dodged out of the concession he was supposed to have given? That was what the offer came to. The interpretation of the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) and the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labou-chere), and of everybody in the House except the Home Secretary, the Attorney General, and the Prime Minister, was that if words of that kind were not inserted in the clause the right of combination was taken away. The Prime Minister said it must be proved that the object of the combination was not the benefit of those who combined; but the injury of the employer for the purpose of benefiting a third person. Was that so? The Irish Members wished to deal with the Government, and especially with the Prime Minister, in a perfect spirit of candour in respect to this clause. If the clause had in its intentional, legal, and honest common-sense interpretation only the meaning which the Prime Minister gave to it, they were willing to stop the discussion at once and accept that assurance. He would put the matter in this way. Would the right hon. Gentleman tell the Committee that if a number of labourers combined together to form a strike—supposing the object of the strike was to obtain for themselves higher wages—then it would not come under this clause according to the interpretation which the Prime Minister had himself put upon it; and in order to enable it to come under the clause the labourers must combine together, not for the purpose of increasing their own wages, but for the purpose of decreasing the rent of the landlords. He gathered that such a combination would come under the operation of the clause. In that case, who was to be the judge of the real object in view? The labourers said they struck for the purpose of getting higher wages; but the landlords, who were of the same kidney as the magistrates who had to decide the case, said the object was a very different one; and the magistrate, siding with his friends, said—"I don't believe the story of these men. Although you are in rags, and evidently badly fed, you did not strike for the purpose of getting better houses or clothes, but for the purpose of reducing the landlord's rent." If people on strike in that way were brought before a magistrate, how could they help coming under the operation of the clause? Would they not have injured their employer by refusing to go back when the employer had offered concessions? Would they not have completely placed themselves under the operation of the Act? He would renew his offer of not opposing the clause if words were inserted giving effect to what the Prime Minister had stated to be the intention of the Government. Let the interpretation of the Prime Minister be given effect to in the clause so as to provide a safeguard, and at once the opposition to the clause would cease.

I do not know what value is to be attributed to an offer made in such a tone, and couched in such terms, as that which has just been made by the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor). The hon. Member has charged other hon. Members with "dodges." He charged the Attorney General and myself with deliberately having a different object from that which we have avowed. He says that the Prime Minister does not understand the clause, and that he does not understand the "dodges" played off by his Colleagues upon him. I say that that is language which it is not worth my while to review. Further than that, I venture to say that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister fully understands the clause. He understands it as we understand it, and both he and we, whatever the opinion of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) may be—and for that opinion I care very little, because I believe that the House of Commons will give us credit for acting in good faith—both he and we honestly mean what we say. And let me tell the hon. Member that the Government is not to be distinguished as between my right hon. Friend at the head of the Government and my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General and myself, on each, of whom has devolved some responsibility in regard to this Bill. Language of this kind will not profit the hon. Member, unworthy as it is of himself and of those whom he addresses. I have nothing more to say, except that the Bill, as it has been explained by my right hon. Friend at the head of the Government, is perfectly clear and intelligible. We have said exactly what we mean, and it is utterly unnecessary to add anything to it.

said, the right hon. and learned Gentleman stated a few nights ago, in answer to the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon), that it did not matter what statements might be made by any Minister in that House when the time came for judicially interpreting the words of an Act of Parliament. No matter what the statements might have been, the interpretation of the tribunals which had to administer the Act would be quite irrespective of any statement of a Minister. He did not for a moment question the assurance which had been given by the Prime Minister, or the interpretation which he had put upon the clause; but it was because the Irish Members felt and believed that when the Bill came to be administered by the magistrates an entirely different view of the offences which came within the Act would be taken from that which was taken by the Prime Minister, that they asked for words to be inserted in the clause which should convey to the mind of every magistrate that such words meant what they were asserted to mean by the Prime Minister. Of course, it was a matter of great importance that they should know whether or not a combination, the objects of which had been publicly avowed, such as a combination on the part of agricultural labourers to secure better wages, was legal or not. There was at the present moment in Ireland an Agricultural Labourers' League. He had seen the resolutions passed at a meeting of that League the other day, and one of those resolutions pointed out that the farmers of the country had not availed themselves of the power given to them by the Land Act of 1881 to erect decent cottages for their labourers. They contended that, owing to the wretched condition in which the labourers found themselves, they had a right to combine and a right to refuse to work for farmers who had not availed themselves of the provisions of the Act. He understood from the statement made by the Prime Minister that such a combination would be perfectly lawful; and he considered that such an admission from such a quarter was of the utmost value. No one could deny that labourers had a perfect right to combine to compel the tenants to comply with the provisions of the Land Act, in giving them better houses than they now had, and their half-acre of ground. What they wished to know was, that if there was a combination for that purpose, they and the Irish labourers should understand that, by the declaration of the Prime Minister, such a combination, carried on in a legal manner, would not come within the operation of the Act. He was glad that such a declaration had been made, and he hoped that it would have its full effect upon the Irish magistrates who were to administer the law. At the same time, he thought the right hon. Gentleman ought to give a promise that, on the Report stage of the Bill, he would put into the clause words which would convey, beyond all question, the intentions of the House.

said, he was sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary had imparted so much warmth into his observations. They had been discussing this clause for four or five days, and they had arrived nearly at a settlement of it. What the Prime Minister had said was of the utmost value, and it was agreed to in spirit by the Irish Members. If they could have the spirit of it put into words, all opposition to the clause would terminate; if not, there would still be a prolonged fight, and the conclusion of this business, which they all desired to see terminated, would be delayed. The only matter between them was simply a difference of words; and, having got so near to an agreement, he thought they might easily go a step further and settle their differences. He hoped the Government would accept the suggestion of his hon. Friend the Member for Waterford (Mr. Leamy); and if the Home Secretary would not, or could not, see his way to the adoption of specific words now, he hoped he would give an assurance that upon the Report stage of the Bill words would be brought up to convey the meaning. If such a course were taken, he believed the discussion would be very much shortened. As the matter stood, they had a general agreement as to the object to be obtained, and only a difference of opinion as to the way in which that object was to be gained. The fear and dread which hon. Members from Ireland had in their minds was that the Bill would be interpreted by the magistrates to the prejudice of the persons who were combining. That was a feeling which might be a false one; but, nevertheless, it existed, and there ought to be words inserted in the clause to prevent its being realized, As the object they all wished to gain was the same, he thought the Government would do well, in the general interests of the progress of Public Business, to give an assurance of this hind.

said, he had no wish to waste the time of the Committee in discussing the matter; but he desired to join in the request made to the Government that they would adopt some such method as had been suggested. If that were done it would tend considerably to remove the opposition to the clause, and would make the matter perfectly clear. He had given Notice of an Amendment, which appeared on the last page of the Paper, to except trade associations from the operation of the Act, because he considered he was bound to do his best to secure to the trade associations of Ireland the same liberty of action in regard to their own interests, and to secure it beyond doubt, as that which was now enjoyed by the trade associations of Great Britain. He had been somewhat surprised to hear the statement which had been made by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey). He understood the hon. Member to say that a number of employers in the district with which he was connected had conceded all that was asked, and, because a number of other persons did not give way, many of the men who had agreed to give way refused to return to work. Now, that was the most extraordinary proceeding that had ever come under his notice with regard to strikes. In all similar cases with which he had been connected the custom had been, where concessions had been made and the men had agreed to return to work, that they should go to work and contribute a day's wages towards the support of those who were still holding out. There were many obvious advan- tages in that course; one of which was that contracts, which would otherwise go in other directions, would be enjoyed by the firm which had agreed to work. He only mentioned this because the hon. Member's authority upon these matters was undoubted in the North of England, and ho wished to say that no such circumstance had ever come under his notice. He would only add that no language, however annoying or improper that language might be, should for a moment prevent the Government from considering the desirability of inserting words such as had been suggested, either at this stage of the Bill, or at a future stage. If the Government would agree to do it, it would afford much satisfaction to a very large number of Members, and would greatly facilitate the progress of the Bill, and would do away with a great deal of the opposition now made to it.

said, he understood the demand of the Irish Members to be, not for a definition of the offences which might come under the clause, but for a clear declaration as to the offences the clause was intended to meet, so as to exclude a certain class of acts from the operation of the Bill. The Irish Members had come down very much in their demands, and, instead of asking what were to be offences, all they asked of the Government now was that certain things should be guarded against being offences. What really gave strength to the opposition which the Irish Members had raised to the clause was the nature of the tribunal which was to administer the law. Of course, that was to be a matter for subsequent discussion; but it was their distrust of the tribunal which animated them now. It was a conflict between the classes the Act was brought in to put down, and those who were to put them down; because the Judges who would sit to decide these cases belonged to a class which was eminently one of the conflicting parties, and which had no sympathy, either by education or tradition, with the other classes they would have to deal with. Under these circumstances, it was not unreasonable to ask that the Government should take this question into their serious consideration, and give some assurance, or hold out some hope, that by the introduction of words into the clause, or otherwise, they would ex- clude a particular set of circumstances from the jurisdiction of the local magistrates who would have to administer the law.

said, he thought he had already stated more than once, and, if necessary, he was prepared to state it again, that the Government were perfectly willing, not only on the Report, but even before the Report upon the clause of the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst), or upon any other question, to do what ought to be done in this matter by providing a saving clause. He thought that was the proper way of dealing with the matter, and he had already stated so on Friday night, and again that afternoon.

said, that in the first place, in order to constitute an offence under the Act, there were certain things which must have been done. Secondly, they must have been done wilfully, and without legal authority; and, thirdly, they must have been of an intimidating character; and, fourthly, they must have been done with one of the intents mentioned in the clause. Those four elements were necessary to constitute a crime. Hon. Members in that House all knew that; hut the unfortunate people of Ireland would not know it. If any one of these elements was absent, the three other elements would not constitute an offence. In this state of circumstances, what had been asked by the Irish Representatives? They proposed to insert a qualification, that any one particular element standing alone—such as a refusal to work—should not constitute an offence. That had been the great question agitating the minds of hon. Members on that side of the House, and all they desired was that the Government should incorporate in the Act something that would satisfy the public mind that all the four elements were necessary, and that the absence of one solitary element of the four would be sufficient to vitiate the whole proceeding. He hoped the Government would see their way to put some expression in the Bill that would make that perfectly clear. It would have a reassuring effect, and would accomplish what he understood the Prime Minister intended to convoy.

said, the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) had stated, in the course of the few observa- tions he had made, that there was a strong feeling in Ireland in favour of this clause. He (Mr. Callan) was not aware, although he was a regular reader of the Irish newspapers, that such a statement had ever appeared in any of them. Nor could the hon. Member have heard it from any of his constituents, and, in all likelihood, the opinion had been evolved from the hon. Member's own inner consciousness. The hon. Member had also taken occasion to state that he was not in favour of coercion; but, by the course he had taken that night, the hon. Member had shown that he was carrying out, in the year 1882, the principles which guided and directed him 10 years ago, when the first speech he made and the first vote he gave in that House was in favour of coercion for Ireland. It was said that the labourers might strike for their own benefit. He thanked the Government for that admission; but it was coupled with the statement that a strike would be an offence if it did an injury to the landlord. Therefore, although the labourers might strike for the legal object of benefiting themselves, it was contended that they would render themselves amenable to the penal provisions of this clause, if, by their strike, they committed an injury to their landlord. Now, he (Mr. Callan) had taken some interest in the Labour Question in Ireland, and he had lately been in communication with the leaders of that movement in the county he had the honour to represent. Although the Land Act had been some eight or 10 months in existence, he found that the Sub-Commissioners acting under it had not yet, in a single instance, in the county of Louth, made a rule that labourers' cottages should he erected, and that proper allotments of land should be set apart for them. Although there had been numerous agreements for the fixing of a fair judicial rent, yet in no single instance had provision been made for carrying out the clause of the Land Act in regard to the erection of labourers' dwellings. Under these circumstances, he had advised the labourers to take a course which was at present perfectly legal. It was the custom of the country for the labourers to bind themselves for a term of 12 months, and they were bound, during that term, except in the case of illness, to work for the farmer with whom they had en- gaged, and for him only. But during the harvest time the farmers required double the number of labourers than at ordinary times, and he had advised the labourers that they should enter into a combination not merely to benefit themselves, but to injure the farmers, who had not provided proper accommodation for the benefit of their labourers. He had remonstrated with the farmers themselves without effect, and he had now advised the labourers to enter into a combination not to work for any farmer who had not built proper dwellings for his regular labourers. He wished to know from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, who was about, he believed, to ascend the Judicial Bench, whether such a combination would be legal? Hitherto the Home Secretary, in taking charge and control of the Bill, seemed to have ignored altogether the views of the Attorney and Solicitor General for Ireland, and to have taken into his counsel the Attorney General (Sir Henry James) only. Ho was most anxious to learn whether the "term labourer," who combined to refuse to work for the farmers under these circumstances, would come within this clause? If they were brought before the magistrates charged with "intimidation" within the meaning of the Act, it would be in vain for them to plead that they had combined for the benefit of themselves, if the magistrates held that by so doing they injured the business of the farmers, and prevented them from properly cultivating their farms. It was not deemed illegal in England for workmen to subscribe a day's wages to provide for the families of other workmen who refused to work for masters who would not concede their demands. If this clause passed without some words of limitation or explanation, the result would be to prevent any combination of a class for the advancement of its own interests.

said, he rose to support the proposition that any Amendment which the Government were prepared to accept on this subject ought to be accepted on this clause, and inserted in this clause, or as an addition to this clause. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) seemed, on the face of it, to be justice and moderation itself. It provided—

"That nothing heroin contained shall be deemed to oblige any person to do any act which such person has a legal right to abstain from doing, or to abstain from doing any act which such person has a legal right to do."

However the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary might try to turn and distort the Amendment, it followed most accurately the language of the clause; and if it was unjust, the clause itself was unjust. The Prime Minister had said he would be pleased to insert, in some other part of the Bill, words which would allow a class to combine against their employers for its own benefit, but which would treat as intimidation a combination of a class for any other objects than those peculiar to itself and directly benefiting itself. Now, of course, that was an advantage to a certain extent. Even such a concession as that allowed some small area of combination to be free and open to the Irish people. The words of the Prime Minister, however, ought to be introduced in this clause; they ought to be introduced while the Committee were engaged in the discussion of this clause, because both the strength and weakness of the clause were present to the minds of hon. Gentlemen. They were all perfectly conversant with the subject; every point in relation to the subject was fresh in their minds; but if they allowed the clause to pass unamended, in the expectation of a new clause being introduced somewhere later on to deal with the particular question now before them, they would, to a large extent, have to do all their work over again; they would have to reconsider the whole question; they would have to raise again all the points which they had been trying for the last three or four days to settle. Merely on the point of economy of time and fitness, they ought to finish the clause while they were upon it, and not have to take the question up in the form of a new clause at a time when a good deal had faded from the minds of the Committee. There was another objection to the sort of postponement pleaded for by the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary. They were asked to let go of the present clause without exactly knowing what for. They had not the words of the intended concession of the Government before them. He maintained that, even if the concession was to be introduced in a future clause, they ought, before they left this clause, to know, at any rate, what would be the exact form of the concession. They would then know what they were to get by consenting to the despatch of this clause as the Government desired. It seemed to him that, however clear, generally speaking, the purport of a speech might be, when they tried to put that general purport into a set form of words, they found that the difficulty arose because the form of words might be such as to necessitate some action on the part of the magistrates who were to administer the clause, which would be very objectionable. The Committee ought to have the words of the proposed concession before them, so that they might satisfy themselves as to the manner in which the magistrates, who were distrusted by the Irish people, were to act. To say that a combination of a class in Ireland for its own interests should be lawful, but that a combination of a class to promote the interests of any other class should be unlawful, was, he confessed, a singularly unsatisfactory form of expression. When labourers struck in England there was no such nice examination of the pros, and cons, of the question. When the agricultural labourers struck some time ago — and strikes of these labourers were not always in consequence of local grievances, but sometimes in consequence of a desire of the labourers of one county to support those of another county—the right of English labourers to combine was so strictly guarded that, when a rumour arose that the War Office was lending the services of the soldiers to the embarrassed farmers for the purpose of doing the work of the labourers on strike, questions were asked in this House; and at once the then War Minister—he believed it was the Secretary for War in the late Government—replied that great care would be taken that the soldiers should not be employed by any farmers in the place of the labourers on strike. The case he had referred to illustrated the sanctity with which the right of English labourers to strike was surrounded. Let them test the Prime Minister's definition of what was legal and what was illegal by an example. The Prime Minister said—and he (Mr. O'Donnell) was happy to have the matter explained satisfactorily by any Member of the Government—the right hon. Gentleman said that the combination of a class in its own behalf would be a legal combination, even if this Bill was passed into law; but that a combination of a class on behalf of another class would be an illegal combination, and would be punishable under the summary powers of the Act by six months' imprisonment with hard labour. Let them take, for example, a combination of tenants upon an estate, or upon a number of estates, for the purpose of obtaining a reduction of rents. The Prime Minister admitted that, under this Bill, just as before the Bill, such a combination would be legal, because it was a combination of tenants for their own benefit. But let them go a step further. Suppose the landlords of the estates on which the tenants had combined in their own interests also combined to hold out against the tenants, converted all the tillage farms into pasture land, and then applied to a number of labourers or herdsmen to work on the pasture lands. All this was done, let the Committee suppose, for the purpose of effectually thwarting the determination of the tenants; and let them suppose, further, that the agricultural labourers or herdsmen refused to work upon the new pasture lands, which had been converted by the landlords into such lands from tillage farms, in order to defeat the combination of the tenants. Was he to understand that the refusal of the labourers to help the landlords to break down the combination of the farmers would be treated as a criminal offence on the part of the labourers? If so, human sympathy itself would be made penal, and the feeling of man for man would be made a crime. Let them suppose that this clause was passed without any amendment, which would prevent such a monstrous exercise of tyrannical power as that, and then let them test the working of this unamended clause in another way. Let them imagine that (he magistrates empowered to carry out this law did, when labourers refusing in any way to co-operate with the landlords in breaking down the combination of the tenants, were brought before them, throw them into prison, was there any idea on the part of any sensible man in that House that such an exercise of the powers of this Act would produce anything but semi-insurrection in the district? Let them take the example of a large district in which the tenants had been on strike. The landlords used their powers to evict those tenants, and then, as he had before premised, applied to the agricultural labourers or herdsmen of the district to assist them, by turning the land into pasture land, in defeating all hope of the tenants coming back on the land; let them suppose that the labourers and herdsmen refused to ally themselves with the landlords, and that, in consequence of their refusal, a large number of them were seized by the magistrates, and thrown into prison for six months with hard labour. He defied any Government exercising the powers of this Act in that manner to hold Ireland with less than 200,000 men. If the magistrates were to throw into prison labourers who combined in refusing, in such a case, to assist the landowners who were the common oppressors of tenants and labourers alike, the people of the district would infallibly be driven to semi-insurrection. If the object of the Government was to introduce in Ireland law and order, instead of an extended area of illegality and disorder, it was absolutely necessary for them to clearly define what kinds of combination they would allow, to take care to define legal combination in such a manner as to allow of its use for every real and legitimate purpose. If the Government did not do this, the result of the operation of the Bill would be widespread illegality and crime; and the crime, in that case, would assume, in the eyes of nine-tenths of the population, the appearance of legitimate defence. If half the population was to be bullied and restricted in its actions in consequence of its sympathy with the other half, a state of things would be created which no ingenuity could distinguish from the legitimate resistance of the people to unlawful tyranny.

moved, in page 3, line 29, after "living," insert—

"Provided, That membership of any association or organization for political or social purposes, the rules, objects and constitution of which are legal, shall not render any member of such association or organization liable to a charge of intimidation, or for any acts done by any other person to which such member has not been a consenting party."

The object of the Amendment must be clear to the Committee. It was that no organization of a political or social character should be rendered illegal by the clause. He and his hon. Friends feared that the Government would say there were certain organizations of this character the mere membership of which was illegal; they wished to have it distinctly stated by the Government that the system of constructive intimidation which was pursued by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster') should not be carried out under the new regime. The late Chief Secretary held that if a man was a member of a local Land League, he was responsible for everything done by the organization. If a number of tenants on an estate agreed that they would refuse to pay rent except at a reduction of 25 per cent, the right hon. Gentleman held that the whole of them had been guilty of intimidation. This Amendment was to relieve a member of any particular association from the responsibility of any acts to which he had not been a consenting party. The Committee had heard a great deal from the Government as to what they were willing to do to conserve the rights of association. It was surprising to him that they did not put clearly on the Paper what they were going to do. Promises had been given by the Home Secretary and the Attorney General. Promises as to what was to be done had been repeated for the 20th time; and yet, for the 20th time, the Irish Members were to get up and ask what it was the Government were going to give them? It was high time an understanding was arrived at on the point. It seemed to him that when dealing with the Irish Members the Government did not think it necessary to adhere to the common usages of the House—that was, that where a promise was given, and where reasonable time had been allowed, the Government should put their views upon paper. It was all very well for the Home Secretary to say he would propose an Amendment to preserve the rights granted in the Act of 1875. Why did not the right hon. and learned Gentleman put his intentions into words, and let those words appear on the Paper? There were two Irish Law Officers who, as far as could be judged, had not very much to do with the Bill. Why did not the Government employ those Gentlemen to draw up the Amendment, so that the Committee could have the intentions of the Government in black and white? The Irish Members had proposed Amendment after Amendment; but they had been resisted by the very Gentlemen who admitted there was a vacuum, but who did not supply it. There seemed to be a wish to lure the Irish Representatives on, so that they might get to the end of the Bill before they knew exactly what the Government were going to do. Why should the Government treat himself and his hon. Friends in any different manner than they treated the Tories on the Land Bill? On that occasion the Tories had simply to ask that the Government Amendments should be put on the Paper, and the request was immediately conrplied with. His Amendment was a most moderate one, and he trusted the Government would see their way to accept it. It was most unsatisfactory to Irish Members to be met with the statement that the Government would consider their proposals, and see what could be done at a later stage of the Committee or on Report. In respect to this particular Amendment, he hoped they would hear a distinct statement as to the intentions of the Government.

said, the Amendment was about as relevant to the clause as it would be if it related to sheep stealing. He had no objection whatever to there being a saving clause making the declaration that the Bill was not intended to interfere with organizations for mere political purposes. There was nothing in the clause which had the slightest tendency to make the membership of an association for purely political purposes unlawful. He presumed what the hon. Member wanted was a declaration that the Bill was not intended to interfere with a legitimate political organization. When they came to Clause 6, which had relation to unlawful associations, they would consider the advisability of such an Amendment as was now proposed; but, at this stage of the Bill, the Amendment was, undoubtedly, out of place.

said, it was all very well for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say this Amendment had no more relation to the clause than if it had dealt with sheep stealing. The Irish Members knew a great deal more about Ireland than the Home Secretary did, and they knew exactly how the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), who invented the intimidation business, had worked the business. The Homo Secretary would excuse him for saying there was a great deal more relevancy in the Amendment than there would have been if it had referred to sheep stealing. The present argument of the Government was only a specimen of the sort of argument to which they had been treated all through by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary. The right hon. and learned "Gentleman appeared to think it was quite sufficient to satisfy the Irish Members for him to get up and deliver a sacramental utterance from the Treasury Bench. Irish Members, however, refused to recognize the right hon. and learned Gentleman's high priestly oratory. He challenged any hon. Gentleman to find sense or logic in what the right hon. and learned Gentleman had said in reply to his Amendment. What could be done with a Government, when its Representative, in a particular instance, instead of meeting arguments by counter arguments, said—"We cannot accept this Amendment; it would be just as relevant if it related to sheep stealing?" Such was the way, indeed, in which the Committee had been treated all along by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He (Mr. Healy) ventured to say, that if anybody else had been in charge of the Bill it would have got through in three days. They wore now, however, for the fourth day, on Clause 4; they proposed Amendment after Amendment; but they were told that the Government could not accept them, for some reasons or other which were wrapped up in such an amount of mystery that no one could understand them. This Committee was supposed to be conducted in a reasonable spirit; they were supposed to debate Amendments; but it was impossible to do so when there was nothing tangible to lay hold of in the replies of the Home Secretary.

said, it was painful, considering how anxious they were that this Bill should pass, that they should meet so much obstruction at the hands of the Home Secretary. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman had throughout taken a fair and reasonable view of the Amendments, and had, if he could urge nothing substantial against them, agreed to them, he (Mr. Labouchere) was perfectly certain the Bill would have already passed through the Committee stage. In meeting the present Amendment the right hon. and learned Gentleman said it was just as relevant as if it applied to sheep stealing. If it would do no harm, why should not the Home Secretary admit it in the Bill? If hon. Gentlemen from Ireland were of opinion that the Amendment would do good, and if the Homo Secretary was of opinion it would do no harm, it did seem to amount to obstruction on the part of the Home Secretary if he would engage in two or three nights' wrangle rather than assent to it. He and certain Members of the Committee might be fools—perhaps they were. Anyhow, let the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognize the fact, and treat them according to their folly. He considered the Amendment was exceedingly pertinent to the Bill. What did it say? It said—

"That membership of any association or organization for political or social purposes, the rules, objects, and constitution of which are legal, shall not render any member of such association or organization liable to a charge of intimidation, or for any acts done by any other persons to which such member has not been a consenting party."

Now, let them suppose that it was intended to carry on a Tenant League Association in Ireland. A Tenant League Association was perfectly legal; it existed in England. What he understood hon. Gentlemen opposite were anxious to know was this—whether, if they were members of such an association, they would be liable for any loose word which was used in Tipperary by some person who was also a member of the association? He was perfectly certain that was not the intention of the Bill; but hon. Gentlemen believed that the Bill might be so twisted by the Resident Magistrates who had to administer the law. What earthly objection could there be on the part of the Home Secretary to allow the insertion in the Bill of some Amendment to guard against such an interpretation as hon. Gentlemen feared? Hon. Gentlemen did not ask that it should be inserted in this particular part of the Bill. If the Home Secretary thought it should not be inserted here, they were perfectly willing to have it inserted in another part of the Bill. All they asked was that words which conveyed the same meaning as the Amendment should be somewhere inserted.

said, that if he rightly understood what had fallen from his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), there was no difference in substance between hon. Members opposite and the Government, because the Home Secretary had declared his intention and his desire to make adequate security in the Bill for the freedom of political association and organization; so that, in regard to that description of liberty in Ireland, there could be no fear. His right hon. and learned Friend had said—and he quite agreed—that it would be much more convenient to insert a provision to that effect in a distinct and separate clause than to attach it to this particular clause, because, if it were attached to this particular clause, to which he thought it had no special or proper relevancy, it might be interpreted to apply to this particular clause alone; whereas, if it were put in as a separate clause it would override the whole Bill, it would affect all the clauses equally, and it would be more efficacious for its purpose. He hoped, therefore, there would be no inclination to press the matter further.

said, he would be happy to meet the wishes of the Government by withdrawing the Amendment. It was a pleasure to deal with the Prime Minister, because from him they always received satisfaction. He would, however, ask the Government to put their words on the Paper. Surely, that was not too much to ask. He trusted he and his hon. Friends would find, on the part of the Government, the same desire to meet their wishes as they had always displayed to meet the wishes of the Tory Party. Whenever the Tory Party asked to have Amendments put on the Paper, the Government immediately consented to produce them. The Irish Members ought to be treated according to the relevancy and scope of their arguments, and not as though they were a handful of 20 men. He would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment; but he hoped that when they met to-morrow they would find the Government Amendments on the Paper.

said, the Government sincerely wished to carry out the general views of hon. Gentlemen opposite. The hon. Member (Mr. Healy) asked why the Government treated a small Party in a manner different from that in which they would treat the Conservative Opposition? It was because hon. Members below the Gangway opposite had shown a little less confidence in the willingness of the Government to carry out its promises than the Government thought ought to be shown. He assured hon. Members in that quarter of the House that the Government were sincerely anxious to put the clauses on the Paper as soon as possible. He would engage, that as soon as the matter had been matured to the satisfaction of the right hon. and learned Gentlemen in charge of the Bill, the clauses should be placed on the Paper.

moved, in page 3, line 29, after "living," insert—

"Provided, That any agreement, or any lawful act in pursuance thereof, by or among tenants, to support each other in demanding a reduction of rents, or any act to persuade others by argument to do the same, or any agreement or lawful act of labourers to support each other in demanding an increase of wages or more convenient conditions of labour, or to persuade others by argument to do the same, or any combination for political or social purposes and legitimate objects by constitutional means, shall not be considered as illegal within the meaning of this Act."

He could not see what objection there could be to the first two branches of his Amendment, but he presumed the latter part would be open to the same objection as the Amendment which had just been withdrawn. After a long discussion they had come to the conclusion that the definition of intimidation could not be exhausted by illustration; and, therefore, in his opinion, the only way to define the offence was by a negative process—namely, by telling the people of Ireland what should not be within the meaning of the clause. The people ought to know whether combination for a legal purpose, with legal motives and legal intentions, would come within the meaning of the clause or not. They had a good illustration before the Committee a few moments ago, in which it was in the power of the magistrate either to say that an act was done with the intent of intimidating, or it was not done with the intent of intimidating. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) made the extraordinary statement that if a labourer in Ireland stated that he did a certain act for the purpose of increasing his wages no one would believe him, but the magistrate would believe he did it for the purpose of intimidating his employer. So they had it upon the authority of the right hon. and learned Gentleman that even if a labourer said he had done a certain act or spoken a certain word for the purpose of obtaining a rise of wages, the Court before whom he was brought would not believe it. If the Home Secretary objected to the latter part of his Amendment, he would gladly withdraw it and bring it up subsequently. The two first portions of the Amendment, he maintained, were absolutely necessary to protect innocent people from the punishment provided in the clause. Let them look at the clause, and see whether it was requisite for the protection of the tenants and labourers that this qualification or saving clause should be inserted. The clause said that—

"Any word spoken or act done calculated to put any person in fear of any injury or danger to himself, or to any member of his family, or to any person in his employment, or in fear of any injury to or loss of his property, business, or means of living."

Suppose the tenants combined and applied to the landlord for a reduction of rent, it would be for the magistrate to decide whether they so combined with the intent to injure the landlord in his person, or property, or business, or means of living. In the same way, if any labourers combined for the purpose of obtaining an increase of wages, it would be, under the clause as it now stood, in the power of the magistrate to say whether or not they so acted to injure their employer. The tenants might say they had combined to get a reduction of rents, and the labourers might say they had combined to get an increase of wages; but, in the opinion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin, that would be all sham and pretence, and no man in Ireland would believe a word the men said. Because he believed the Amendment he had proposed would afford some protection to men who combined with a lawful intention, he commended it to the Committee.

said, he rose to support the Amendment, and in doing so he would like to put a few questions to the right hon. and learned Gentleman in charge of the Bill. It had been stated from the Treasury Bench, to his intense surprise, that it was notorious that in England strikes only took place for the purpose of obtaining an increase of wages. He did not know very much about English strikes, and that was news to him. He wished to ask men who did know England better than he did whether it did not often happen, if an employer dismissed the ringleaders of the union, the men of the union did not strike work with the object of compelling the employer to take back their leaders? If that be true, and if this Act applied to England, would not the workmen be clearly and distinctly and undeniably guilty of intimidation? And if that were done in Ireland, would not the men be liable, under this clause, to six months' imprisonment with hard labour? The Attorney General said it was realty the intent that made the crime. Did the men who in England struck work in order to compel their employers to take back certain other men do it for their own benefit? He had only mentioned one case, but it was a case so strongly in favour of the contention of the Irish Members that there was no necessity to go further in the way of illustration. If the Government were not able to declare that what he had stated now was not permissible under the law in England, he did not see how they could continue to assert that the rights of labourers in Ireland would be as safe as they were at present under the law of England. The Committee had been told that they might rest perfectly certain that in case labourers in Ireland struck work, or left their employment for their own benefit, this Act would not be put in force against them; but they had the declaration of a right hon. and learned Gentleman, who represented more accurately than any other hon. Member the magistrates who would have to interpret this Act—they had his declaration that it was notorious that, no matter whether a labourer in Ireland said ho had left his employment for his own benefit or not, he was not to be believed.

said, what he had endeavoured to convey to the Committee was, that if one particular intent was alleged, the ingenuity of the race was such that he had very little doubt they would make out another intent.