asked the honourable and learned Member for Bridport, If he will remove his block to the Motion for leave to bring in the Bill for a suspension of ejectments in Ireland pending the discussion on the Government Arrears Bill?

in reply, said, with every desire to be courteous to the hon. and gallant Member, he must, on broad and general grounds, decline to answer the Question, as he observed that a practice was growing up of asking Questions of that kind which ought not to be put.

in rising to give Notice that to-morrow he would ask the Government, Whether they had made any demand for reparation for the losses and injuries sustained by British subjects in the late disturbances in Egypt; or, whether they intended to make such a demand? also said, that, having received a telegram from Alexandria, which led him to believe that apprehensions were entertained there regarding the interruption of the Mail Service, he wished now to ask the hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Government had received any intelligence confirmatory of such a report. He would also ask another Question now, and if the hon. Baronet could not answer it at once, he would give Notice of it for tomorrow. It was, Whether, considering that the Papers which had been promised to be delivered to the House next week, or the week after, would give very little information respecting the existing state of things in Egypt, the Government would not be prepared, either to-day or to-morrow, to make a general statement with regard to the condition of affairs in Egypt upon which hon. Members would be able, with the permission of the House, of course, to make observations.

Sir, with regard to the Question about the Mail Service, we have not heard anything ourselves; but, through the kindness of the manager of the Peninsular and Oriental Company, I have seen a copy of the telegram to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. It is couched in very vague and general terms, and does not specially refer to the Mail Service, but speaks of probable danger to the Europeans in perfectly general terms, and there is no special reference to the Mail Service. [Mr. BOURKE: Yes; the telegram does refer to the Mail Service.] Then it is not the same telegram as that which has been sent to me; and, in that case, I should like to see it, and, if necessary, I will make further inquiries about it. With respect to the request of the right hon. Gentleman for a general statement on the part of the Government as to Egyptian affairs, I fear that any statement in the absence of the Papers would be one on which it would be impossible for hon. Members to comment, because the whole case depends on a very considerable number of Papers, which we are trying to get out as soon as possible.

Are the Papers not ready? It is now some six or seven months since the Papers have been in progress. If the hon. Baronet had said that to produce the Papers would not be in the interest of the Publice Service, I could understand that that might be a perfectly valid reason; but when the Government have promised that they would produce them, I can hardly understand why they are not more advanced, seeing that they have been in progress for the last six or seven months.

I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman means by talking about the Papers having been six or seven months in hand. It is not six or seven months. Those which were presented last week come up to the 5th of February. The Papers now being brought out are in three sections, the first section coming down to the 17th of April, the second to the 15th of May, and the third to the end of May. We are trying to get them all out together; but if there be any delay in that course, the sections down to the 15th of May will be brought out first. They are now in the stage of second revise; they have been to Paris and have been returned by Lord Lyons; and we have the observations of the French Government upon them. Sir Edward Malet's telegram with regard to them has not yet been received.

We can understand, Sir, that, of course, there must be some delay in the production of Papers of this character; but what the public and the House are interested in is to know something more than we shall know, even when the promised Papers are presented. Therefore, we do not so very much care for the Papers at this moment. Of course, whenever the time comes for reviewing the whole conduct of the Government in regard to Egypt, it will be important that we should have the whole of the Papers; but what we really desire now earnestly to know is what the present state of affairs in Egypt is; and, as far as it can be done, to know also, or have some idea given us of the policy which the Government are pursuing. What we wish, and what my right hon. Friend wishes, to ask tomorrow is, Whether the Government will not be prepared to make some general statement that will give us some knowledge and some satisfaction on these points?

The Papers up to the 15th of May are absolutely essential to an understanding of the present situation, and no short statement that could possibly be laid before the House, without those Papers themselves, will be satisfactory. I can promise them in the course of next week; but the exact day cannot be named until we get a telegram from Sir Edward Malet as to what Papers he objects to and what he consents to appearing.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention had been called to the alarming telegrams in that morning's papers as to the condition of the Army in Egypt. One of those telegrams, appearing in The Times, was dated Alexandria, June 13, 11.25 a.m., and it said—

"Quiet continues, but the situation is extremely grave, as all depends on the goodwill of the Army, which begins to show signs of insubordination and of disliking the task of protecting the Christians. If the Army refuses to perform this duty there will then be terrible danger to all."

Another, dated Alexandria, midnight, said that while the soldiery at Cairo appeared to be perfectly orderly, at Alexandria—

"On the contrary, it seems that the soldiers are insolent and triumphant. Europeans are jostled and treated with the greatest rudeness…The general opinion here is that there are fears of disorder arising before any possible arrival of Turkish troops; and the Europeans would prefer all the risks of landing the allied Marines to the present insecurity. There is no doubt that the soldiers assisted largely in the scenes of disorder, and that the atrocities go far beyond all former ideas conveyed to you."

He wished to ask, Whether the Government were in possession of any information which led them to the belief that there was a good foundation for the statements in those telegrams; and, if so, he wanted to know whether the Government had taken any measures which, in their opinion, were adequate for the protection of British subjects?

Sir, the statement that the soldiers assisted largely in the late riot at Alexandria is, according to all the information we possess, the opposite of the truth. The soldiers were perfectly orderly, and, according to all accounts we have received, helped to put the riot down and restore order. As to the apprehensions of future disorder at Alexandria, Dervish Pasha is certainly of opinion that, he can maintain order in Alexandria. The same thing has been stated by him to the Sultan at Constantinople. He has also stated to the Consuls that he is perfectly convinced he can maintain order. The whole of the European Consuls have seen Dervish Pasha on the subject of the safety of the European residents, and he has made a very strong statement on the subject. He stated, indeed that in the urgent circumstances of the case, he assumes a joint responsibility with the Egyptian Government in the preservation of order.

What Egyptian Government? Who is the Government of Egypt?

Sir Edward Malet, who arrived at Alexandria to-day, is not going on board ship, but will stay at an hotel in the town. Therefore, from all these facts, with the report of Dervish Pasha, and from the report of the Consuls, and from the fact that Sir Edward Malet is to stay at an hotel in Alexandria, instead of going on board an iron-clad, I do not understand that there is reason to apprehend further disturbance.

I wish to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If his attention has been called to the following telegrams:—The correspondent of The Daily News at Alexandria says—

"All the merchant ships in the harbour are besieged with refugees, and the steamers sailing are crowded with ladies, the men gladly taking deck passages. The position is a terrible one. We are entirely at the mercy of a few thousand soldiers. The fleet is no protection. Its presence here in the first instance, without troops to follow up the ultimatum, was the cause of the present disastrous situation. Unable to receive one-fourth of the families aboard the ships of war, and unable to act, their coming has been a delusion and a snare."

The very well informed correspondent of The Times says—

"Ten days ago I quoted an authority I thought worthy of confidence, who said the only blunder left for the Powers to make, and that, perhaps, the greatest, is sending a Commissioner without troops. The warning was disregarded, and the blunder, having been committed, has proved the worst. On the same authority, I say, unless an overwhelming Turkish Wee be at Alexandria and Ismailia before Sunday, worse has yet to come."

rose to Order. He wished to know whether the hon. Member was in Order in reading a number of long telegrams from newspapers, and founding Questions upon them?

Before the hon. Baronet rose, I was about to rise, in order to point out to the House and the hon. Member the extreme inconvenience of founding Questions on every telegram in every newspaper. I am bound to say that it does appear to me that, before Questions of such gravity are put, an hon. Member should take some measures to ascertain the truth of the telegrams.

said, that the evident reluctance of Her Majesty's Government to give the House information of any kind as to what was going on in Egypt compelled him to take a course which he adopted with very great regret—namely, to move that the House do now adjourn. The hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir Charles W. Dilke) appeared to him to have abused the marvellous powers he possessed of compressing within the narrowest compass the least possible amount of information. He seemed also to have pushed to the extreme the theory that no Papers were to be laid upon the Table without the consent of another Government. No doubt, the difficulties they were now involved in were principally derived from their association with the French Government, which they allowed to seize Tunis without protest of any kind. At the time when the Control was established in Egypt, England and France were on good terms with the Caliph, the head of the Mussulman religion, and later on they received his assistance in deposing Ismail Pasha. Subsequently to that act of friendship on the part of the Caliph, Her Majesty's Government opened their career by what was now called the Naval Demonstration, which was to most Mussulmans taking territory from Turkey and handing it over to their enemies in Montenegro. They wound up that act by one which appeared to him (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) to partake of a filibustering character—namely, the proposal to seize the Custom House of Smyrna. Beyond that, they took no active steps to prevent the French Government from seizing hold of Tunis, and these two acts gave a colour to the Control of Egypt, which did not exist when the Sultan assisted them; and they were now debarred from commenting upon the conduct of their own Government, because the Government put everything upon the back of France—the action of that country being what had disturbed our relations with the Porte as regarded Egypt. On the 11th of May he asked the hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, what steps the Government were taking to protect European life in Egypt, and he absolutely refused to answer; and from that time, down to the date when the House had been told that some ships were to be sent to Alexandria, the Government had refused to give them any information whatever. He had then asked for Papers, and the hon. Baronet said that the House could only have them with the consent of the French Government. But now that the French Government had given their consent, hon. Members were told that they could not have them without the consent of Sir Edward Malet. In other words, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, having no policy of his own, was bound to ask and to accept the advice of one of his own subordinates. The excuse was most preposterous, and he (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) had never heard of such a case. They were, at that moment, in a very dangerous position in Egypt—dangerous to their own interests in the East, and dangerous, he believed, to the safety of their Empire in India. They were told that there was a gunboat at each end of the Suez Canal. Why was not a gunboat sent up to Ismailia? Why were they not told what steps were being taken to secure life and property at Alexandria? Over and over again he had asked what steps were being taken, and over and over again he had been refused any information. He laid much stress upon an agreement with France; but he maintained that they ought not to subordinate their own interests to those of France. France had raised this question by her action in Tunis. She had excited the suspicions of the Mussulman races throughout the world, imperilling their interests in the East, and, he believed, the safety of their Empire in India. It was monstrous that the Government did not give them any more information. They knew nothing later than the 5th of February. They could not get the Papers. One day they were told that the French Government would not agree to their production; and another day they were told that Sir Edward Malet had not agreed. In consequence of the great reticence of the hon. Baronet, a reticence unprecedented, and which had never been known in that House before, for they had never been tied to the skirts of a Government which had damaged and disturbed their relations with every other Power in the world—in consequence of that reticence, concealment, and vacillation, he might say imbecility, of the Government—he felt bound to take the course he had done, and to move the adjournment of the House.

seconded the Motion.

said, that the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) had spoken of the evident reluctance of the Government to give information to the House. He (Sir Charles W. Dilke) ventured to assert that more late information had been given to the House in regard to Egypt on recent occasions than had ever been given before on any question involving dangerous points of foreign affairs. ["Oh, oh!"] He would appeal to the pages of Hansard to confirm that statement. The hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), who spoke a little while previously, had read things which were deserving of notice, and which seemed to him (Sir Charles W. Dilke) to be almost the exact opposite of what had been read by the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett). That showed what confusion arose from reading telegrams from different newspapers, and immediately founding Questions upon them. The hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire had said that the Europeans at Alexandria would prefer a landing of troops from the Fleet, with all the risks that might attend it, to their present position of insecurity. He (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had only to inform the hon. Member that the Government had the most perfect confidence in the tact, discretion, and courage of Sir Beauchamp Seymour, and that Sir Beauchamp Seymour had power to land seamen and Marines, to any extent he pleased, from the Fleet under his command. There were four ships cruising off the coast, three of which were able to go into the harbour of Alexandria whenever they pleased. Sir Beauchamp Seymour was in possession now of a very large force. There was also a large French force, and a considerable force belonging to the other Powers, who would be sure to land troops and Marines, if we did so, for the protection of their subjects. The Government were content to leave the question whether a force should be landed or not to the discretion of Sir Beauchamp Seymour. The hon. Member for Portsmouth had spoken of our relations with the Porte as though we were in quarrel with the Porte at the present moment. All he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) could say was, that our relations with the Porte were friendly in the extreme; and the language which had been used by the Sultan himself personally to Lord Dufferin showed an absolute agreement with this country in regard to the steps to be taken in Egypt. The hon. Member for Portsmouth had given the House his views with regard to the French alliance. It was with great regret that he said so, because he had a high opinion of the judgment of the hon. Member; but he could not but think that his language on that occasion had been mischievous in the extreme. It was absolutely impossible that he should follow him through the speech ho had made; a Motion for the adjournment of the House at that time was always irregular, and it was extremely dangerous when made for the purpose of introducing discussions on foreign affairs. The only way of limiting that danger was for the Government steadily to refuse to be parties to any such discussion. With regard to the publication of the Papers, the hon. Member said he had never known a case where Papers had been delayed in order to obtain the consent of a subordinate to their publication. He (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would venture to say that there never was a case where that was not done. It would be impossible to obtain agents of repute to serve the country abroad if their despatches and the conversations between themselves and foreign Ministers were to be published without their consent. They could not get any man of character to serve the country abroad if that were done; and he would venture to say that on no occasion had despatches been published without their previous consent. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote) was going to give any countenance to the Motion; but, speaking with a full sense of his responsibility, he must repeat the statement he had made just now—naniely, that the language by which this Motion had been supported on that occasion was language of the most mischievous character, and was calculated to do great injury.

said, he trusted that he should not be accused of any wish to embarrass Her Majesty's Government.

rose to Order. He wished to ask, whether the hon. Member for Greenwich (Baron Henry De Worms) was in Order in addressing the House now, having previously seconded the Motion for Adjournment?

said, that several hon. Members rose at the same time; and he was not aware that the hon. Member for Greenwich seconded the Motion.

But as to the point of Order?

could not say that the hon. Member was out of Order, because several hon. Members seconded the Motion, and he did not accept the hon. Member as having done so, therefore he was entitled to be heard.

resuming, said, that if any embarrassment had been caused to the Government in regard to Egvpt by the present discussion, that embarrassment was more directly due to the Government themselves than to the Opposition. He thought the very peculiar relations which existed, or which had existed, between this country and France, with regard to the Egyptian Question, would gain rather than lose by being thoroughly ventilated in the House. The hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) had pointed out that the policy of France and the policy of England were very distinct, or should, at all events, be kept quite distinct, in this Eastern crisis. France had adopted a line of policy of her own with regard to Tunis; and it would be dangerous in the extreme if this country were in any degree to follow the lead so given by France. He could well believe that Her Majesty's Government was peculiarly embarrassed at the present moment, inasmuch as it must be extremely difficult for the Prime Minister—if he might use the expression—to eat the words which he used some years since with regard to the policy of the "unspeakable Turk." He quite conceived that Her Majesty's Government was very much embarrassed in having to go hat in hand, and to ask the "unspeakable Turk" not only to protect the Khedive, but to extend his gracious protection to Her Majesty's subjects who were now in Egypt. Then, on the other hand, the Opposition would not be doing their duty if they did not elicit, by the best means at their disposal, some statement of policy—if policy there was—from Her Majesty's Government. He was ready to accept the assurance of the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that it was very difficult indeed for the Government to give an outline of their policy, not, indeed, because it would be embarrassing to the relations of the Government with other countries, but because they had no policy at all. Some days ago he had inquired of the Prime Minister whether any steps would be taken to protect the Khedive, and the Prime Minister replied that the Khedive was in no danger whatever. If that was so, what was the reason of the sudden departure of the Khedive from the capital? They were told also by the Prime Minister that there was not the slightest apprehension of any danger to the Suez Canal, and that it could not be destroyed from the banks; but he was not aware of any scientific opinion corroborating that statement; and he ventured to think, from personal knowledge, that the Canal could thus be easily destroyed, and yet no steps were taken by Her Majesty's Government to prevent that catastrophe. But then he knew the Prime Minister held views peculiarly his own respecting the Suez Canal; he did not admit the paramount value of the Canal for our communication with India, and declared that the communication could be kept up with equal facility by way of the Cape. [Mr. GLADSTONE: Never.] He had been under the impression that such a statement had been made; but, of course, he accepted the denial of the right hon. Gentleman, and would withdraw the remark. Upon the occasion, however, of the purchase of the Suez Canal Shares, the right hon. Gentleman undoubtedly said that both financially and politically there never was a greater blunder made, notwithstanding the fact that 80 per cent of the total tonnage passing through the Canal was British. Politically, however, he (Baron Henry de Worms) considered that the late Government never took a more judicious step. For many years it had been considered that England was the arbiter of the Eastern Question, no country in the world having so great a stake in the East; but at present—to their shame be it said—that position, to which they were entitled, had passed entirely out of their hands. Germany was at the present moment the arbiter of the Eastern Question. In consequence of the policy of alternate conciliation and bullying adopted by the Government, they had alienated most of the Powers in Europe, without conciliating the remainder, and they now found themselves in the present extraordinary position they stood in with regard to Egypt. They had handed over to the Turk the power of interfering with their communication with their Indian Empire. At that very moment they were obliged to appeal to Turkey to support their influence in Egypt. and to take part in a Conference; and if the Conference was held, instead of British interests preponderating, they would be the last in the race. Their interests, instead of being paramount, would be set aside by other Powers whose interests were less than their own. They knew that Austria had considerable influence in the Eastern Question, but they had alienated Austria, and it was very likely that she would throw her influence in the scale against them. Again, no one could say that some day Russia might not once again hold out her hand to Turkey, and then the English people would be justified in throwing the whole blame upon Her Majesty's Government. Turkey was our old Ally, and if she had sinned against civilization, other Powers had sinned also. He did not wish to speak at any great length upon the subject now; but the present humiliating position of the country was due to the peace-at-any-price policy adopted by the Government, a policy which generally resulted in war, and against which he desired to enter his most earnest protest. That Government not only did not protect the lives and property of British subjects in Egypt, but imperilled the best interests of our great Indian Empire.

said, he certainly should not attempt to follow the hon. Member opposite (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) in the whole of the various questions which ho had raised, and which were very much out of place at that moment; but he wished to express the very great regret with which he had heard the expressions of hon. Gentlemen opposite with regard to Franco. He was also specially surprised that they should raise the question of Tunis. We might think that France, for her own interest, and in the interest of Europe, was ill-advised in regard to Tunis; but this they knew—that it was an English Foreign Secretary—a Member of the late Cabinet—who invited France to go to Tunis. ["No, no!"] It was distinctly so. With reference to what fell from the hon. Member opposite (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) in connection with his repeated expression referring to the Sultan as head of the Mussulman religion, he should be very glad if he might be allowed, in Parliamentary language, to say that the hon. Member was talking nonsense. He would not go into the very debateable questions that had been raised; but he must express a strong hope and belief that if a peaceful French Government might see a reasonably peaceful solution of the question, we should not be dragged into war by the Liberal Government of this country. It must be admitted that the question had been greatly aggravated by the dreadful event at Alexandria. There was no minimizing that event. It had been a most serious disturbance, attended with great loss of life. But the Government were bound to take care that they did not listen to one side of the case merely. He had been about to ask the hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir Charles W. Dilke) a Question with regard to a telegram—not a vague and unsupported telegram, but one of apparent authen-city—which appeared in The Times, regarding a statement made by no less a person than the Prime Minister of France, M. de Freycinet, who stated that he had received a detailed account of the origin of this disturbance. This was the statement attributed to him— Baron Henry Do Worms

"The origin of the unfortunate events was a quarrel between an Arab and a Maltese. The Arab's companions came to his aid, and Maltese and Greeks to the aid of the Maltese, and both Maltese and Greeks fired from the windows of the adjoining houses. Several Arabs were hit. The houses were then pillaged, and inoffensive Europeans were attacked."

If this statement was in any degree authentic, they must admit that the aggression was not wholly one-sided, and he had no doubt that the Government would take these things into consideration. The French Government had great interests in Egypt; and he must say as strongly as he could that if the French Government saw its way to a peaceful solution, he was confident that Her Majesty's Government would not drag us into violence and war.

said, that, in his opinion, the country would view with approbation the step taken by the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff). There was, undoubtedly, a general feeling of alarm throughout the country, and that alarm was justified by the facts. The European residents were in the greatest danger, and many of them were flying for their lives. In view of these circumstances, the Government had been asked to give some reasons for the belief that they were taking steps to protect British subjects in Egypt; but the House had been unable to obtain the slightest assurance on that subject. They wished to know what was the policy of the Government; they wished to know what they were going to do to secure the great interests of England in Egypt, and what steps they would take to maintain order and the predominance of this country? He regretted that he had not been permitted to read some extracts; and, with regard to those he had read, he had always understood that it was perfectly in Order to read short quotations from the newspapers to the House; in fact, the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) had just previously read longer extracts than he (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) had, and without interruption. He should like to read one short sentence from The Times in support of his argument. The correspondent of that newspaper was well informed, and he said in his letter—

"Unless an overwhelming Turkish Force be in Alexandria before Sunday next, worse has yet to come."

He had often asked the hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs Questions on that subject, and he challenged him or anyone to say that those Questions were of a captious or Party character. His whole object had been to point to one fact—namely, that the Egyptian Question could only be settled by cordial co-operation between England and the Porte. It could only be settled now by a despatch of Turkish troops. He contended that in default of any guarantees from the Government they were entitled to press for some information. The assertion of the hon. Baronet that the Government had given the fullest information possible was most inaccurate. It was like many other statements of the hon. Baronet, which sounded very well, but which proved utterly groundless when closely examined. It was clear that the Government had no policy—that they were at the mercy of events. But the state of Egypt would not admit of delay; great alarm was being caused in this country; and they were, therefore, justified in demanding some statement as to the policy of the Government in the future. As to the joint intervention with France, he wished to refer to that in the most moderate terms. He did not blame France for acting in this matter as seemed best for her own interests. But he blamed Her Majesty's Government for not considering, first of all, the just interests of England. To say the least, that joint intervention was most unfortunate. Our interests were only coincident with those of France so far as the financial stability of Egypt was concerned. But if they went one step beyond that, the interests of the two countries were undeniably diverse. Considering that the security of our Indian Empire largely depended on Egypt, and that six-sevenths of the tonnage which passed through the Suez Canal were British, he thought it would not be incorrect to say that our interests in Egypt were to those of France as six or eight to one. Another grave reason against the joint intervention was the action of France lately in regard to Tunis. By that action she had drawn down upon herself the hatred and detestation of the whole Mussulman world, and justly so. [Ironical cheers from the Ministerial Benchet.] If those cheers were intended to emphasize a statement made by the hon. Gen- tleman the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) that the French annexation of Tunis had been brought about by the action of a Member of the late Government, he (Mr. AshmeadBartlett) denied the accuracy of that allegation. A suggestion might have been made, but it was merely in conversation. It was made as part of a general scheme; and it was quite certain that the late Government would never have consented to so flagrant a violation of International right and British interests. That statement, therefore, could only be accepted in the most general terms. It was well known that one reason why the Porte had not intervened hitherto more actively to put down the Egyptian revolution was that the Sultan was unable to do so, in view of the strong feeling in the Mussulman world against France. The British Government had tied themselves on to the policy of France; and the Ottoman Government, however disposed to unite with England, could not do so, because it was not English influence pressed upon them, but really French dictation under the cloak of a joint action. That was the position in which the Government found themselves, and he was surprised that statesmen should have allowed themselves to be drawn on as they had been. As far as could be gathered from the meagre Papers supplied to the House, it appeared that the Government had acted at the dictation of France. The Joint Note, which was the beginning of the difficulty, was actually drawn up by M. Gambetta. The action of that statesman was perfectly justifiable from a French point of view; but the Government ought not to have allowed themselves to be led by him. Another strong reason against joint intervention with France was the absolute instability of any French Government. Since the Republic had been established in France, there had been some 20 different changes of Ministry in a decade. It was a mistake, therefore, for the Government to ally themselves with that Power, instead of maintaining the invaluable understanding which had been come to between Germany and Austria and the late Government. It was well know that, as long ago as October last, the Sultan offered to put an end to the difficulty, and that he sent a Mission to Egypt to deal with that ambitious adventurer, Arabi Bey. That Mission was actually chased from Egypt by the Government, acting under the dictation of M. Gambetta. He felt sure that the present difficulty would be put an end to by the despatch of Turkish troops to Egypt. No Power disputed the International right of the Porte to control the affairs of Egypt. If Egypt were the only question involved, the Government might be allowed to drift on; but they must remember that the question of our Empire in Central Asia went along with it. [Ironical cheers.] Hon. Members who cheered ironically, perhaps, thought that Arabi Pasha had not heard of the surrender of the Transvaal, of the retreat from Candahar, of the anarchy in Ireland, and of the Kilmainham Treaty. He begged the Prime Minister's pardon. He had forgotten the pain which it caused him to have that interesting transaction described as "the Treaty" of Kilmainham. He would gladly substitute the phrase used by Earl Cowper, the late Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and describe it as "the surrender of Kilmainham." If Her Majesty's Government did not very soon reverse their unfortunate policy with regard to Turkey, the effect would be most disastrous to the power of England in the East. The effect of the action of the Government would be to alienate the Mussulman population in India, and to deprive us of the only assistance on which we could rely in the great struggle impending in Asia. He hoped the result of the discussion might be that they would obtain a declaration of policy from the Government.

Sir, the time of the House is valuable, and I would observe that the discussion, which has now been carried on for nearly an hour, is one in which the more responsible portion of the Party opposite has not thought it prudent up to this time to take any part, although they have had ample opportunities. I take notice of that circumstance by no means in the way of criticism, or of objection, but in the way of acknowledgment of the self-restraint and justice which have been shown by hon. Members opposite. Of course, Gentlemen like those who were connected with the Foreign Office, and who were generally responsible for conducting the affairs of the late Government in this particular in the late Parliament, are aware how difficult it is to do good by Party intervention in a singularly complex question at a critical moment, and how easy it is, by unrestrained indulgence of the expression of crude and irresponsible opinion, to do mischief in such questions. But, however, the House is in a happy position, because, although we have learned from the mouth of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) that the present Government allows everything to drift, and has no competency whatever to enforce right views, and no disposition to escape from wrong ones, and although the present Government is thus incompetent, the Opposition Bench is silent; yet the House and the country may have this consolation—that while all responsible persons, both those in Office and those out of Office, fall short of their duty, yet there are other Gentlemen in this House—and young Gentlemen, too, in this House—who are perfectly prepared to announce to us, without a doubt and without a difficulty, all that ought to be done, and all that ought not to be done, in what way, and by the most simple and summary process to solve the most difficult problems. I need not say that prominent in that band of distinguished and promising statesmen—in that band, and, indeed, more than prominent, I should say confessedly at its head—is the hon. Member who has just sat down. The main characteristic of that hon. Member is that the amount of information which he possesses in relation to foreign affairs is such that not only no Gentle-man out of Office, but no authorized and established Department of the Government can, for a moment, compete with him. Questions that are difficult to them are easy to him. What is a crisis for them is no crisis to him; but only requires the application of common sense such as his to cause every cloud to vanish, and to bring back to us a clear sky, instead of a storm. I hope, however, before I sit down, to convey some real information, some degree of consolation to the mind of the hon. Gentleman, because, undoubtedly, he never fails in telling us pretty plainly what he means, and to that I will address myself; but before I proceed further I must say one word with regard to the speech of the hon. Member for Greenwich (Baron Henry de Worms). I must own that in general his speeches, since he has entered this House, have been distinguished by moderation and forbearance, so far as I have had occasion to notice them; but I am sorry to have to say that the character of his speech of to-day was not quite conformable to that rule. I say so, not because I wish to assume the office of a censor, but because he made a multitude of assertions which I do not wish to detain the House by noticing one by one, but which, at the same time, unless I did refer to them, I might be supposed to have admitted. One assertion, however, I must notice, for of all the extraordinary accusations in the world which the hon. Member has thought fit to bring against me, the most extraordinary is the one in which he charges me with having depreciated the importance of the Suez Canal. Surely the hon. Member cannot be aware—though he might be legitimately unaware, if he had not chosen to refer to the subject gratuitously—that at the time when the Government of this country, formed by the Party opposite, was opposing the making of the Suez Canal, I, with many hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House, took an active part in the debate in this House on the position of the Government, in urging that the resistance of this country to that most valuable work should be withdrawn, and that instead of opposing we should support it. He comes forth, under these circumstances, and accuses me individually, and, by implication, those with whom I have the honour to sit, of indifference to the importance of the Suez Canal. If the hon. Member does undertake to speak on those questions, he ought to improve his stock of historical information. Turning to the main question, Sir, I am bound to say that I cannot wonder—considering its extreme complexity, and the great interest of England in the East, and the strong and legitimate personal interest that many persons, both in and out of this House, feel in the fate of our fellow-countrymen, possibly their friends and relations, in Egypt—I cannot be surprised at some strong ebullition of feeling existing with regard to this subject. I am not surprised at the existence of such feelings, and I do not complain that they have found utterance in this House; and I will endeavour, as far as I can, in what I have to say, to avoid a controversial tone, observing, however, in the first place, that as we hope that next week the Papers on this subject will be in the hands of hon. Members, they will not take it as an unkind remark if I say that they will then be able to approach the consideration of this question with far greater advantage, after having had the opportunity of tracing the conduct of the Government in all the manifold stages of this subject, on authentic information, than if they approached it at present, when, with regard to these important and really critical matters, they have almost no authentic information in their hands. The information they have is incomplete and fragmentary, such as has been elicited in answer to Questions, and not by way of continuous exposition, by my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Now, the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down complained of us, in the first instance, because he says we have not answered a number of questions which have been put to us by himself and others. He asks—Is there to be an Anglo-French intervention in Egypt? Is there to be a Turkish military intervention in Egypt? and many other questions, to which he thinks we ought to have given categorical answers. My reply is, that to no one of these questions was it our duty to have given a categorical answer; on the contrary, we should have departed from our duty if we had given categorical answers to any of them; for, had we done so, we should have been merely limiting and curtailing liberty of action, not only on our own part, but on the part of all other Governments, and especially on the part of the Government of Turkey. Our business is to preserve that liberty of action; our business is to indicate the ends we have in view, and not the means by which those ends are to be attained. Those ends have been most distinctly and repeatedly stated by my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. They are well known to consist in the general maintenance of all established rights in Egypt, whether they be those of the Sultan, those of the Khedive, those of the people of Egypt, or those of the foreign bondholders, or whatever they may be—that, in fact, the single phrase, that we seek the maintenance of all established rights, and the provision of due guarantees for those rights, is the description of the policy by which the Government is directed. With regard to the means to be adopted for carrying out those ends, I say that the specific measures ought not to be indicated, and that it would be a gross error and dereliction of duty on our part either to affirm what they are, or to exclude any specific measures that may be adopted. But in one important point I may make an approximation to the hon. Gentleman. I greatly lament what has been said here as to the Government of France. The Government of France has been struggling in the Legislative Assembly of that country with free, and possibly—I know not—very censorious comment; but certainly with a rather unrestrained comment and accusation, put forward in a manner to which some Members might find a parallel in some of the speeches and suggestions which have been made in some of the discussions in this House. But the Government of France, while feeling and labouring under the difficulties of this subject, has declared, in strong and unequivocal terms, its intention to labour loyally and heartily with the Government of England; and in these circumstances it is not for us to be behind the Government of Franco in declaring, on our part, an intention to reciprocate that feeling. But when I say that, and while I deeply deprecate all attacks upon the Government of a friendly Power so peculiarly associated with us in many portions of this matter, I do not intend to draw any distinction to the prejudice of other friendly Powers, least of all to the prejudice of either Germany or Turkey; and in these matters I have the satisfaction of telling the hon. Member that it is impossible for anyone to be more completely mistaken than he is in the assertion that he has made on this subject. I must say that his view with respect to the Government of France was most peculiar. He has laid down distinctly a portion of the outline of the policy which ho says we ought to pursue. What is that policy? It consists of a close co-operation with France in the East, as far as financial interests are concerned, and sharp opposition to France the moment we get beyond the limit of those financial interests.

Sir, the Prime Minister has, no doubt unintentionally, misrepresented me on two very serious and important points. In the first place, I made no violent attacks whatever on the Government of France. ["Oh, oh!"] I spoke with the best of motives; I simply said that French interests and our interests were divergent. In the second place, I did not advocate the joint intervention of France and England in financial matters. I merely said if we went one step beyond that our interests and those of France would become divergent.

I never said that the hon. Member had made any violent attacks upon the Government of France. [Cries of "Oh!"] I beg your pardon, but let any hon. Gentleman who chooses to interrupt me in that way prove that I did so by repeating what I said to that effect. [The right hon. Gentleman, who had resumed his seat, after a pause, rose again, and continued his speech.] I said that such attacks had been made. I did not refer to the speech of the hon. Member; but, if anything I have said appears to go beyond that, I beg the House will consider it to be withdrawn. What I said the hon. Gentleman did lay down was that the consideration for the cooperation with us of France in Egypt is a financial consideration, and that we should engage with her to that extent, but should offer opposition to her in all matters outside of that.

denied that he had made such a statement.

That is my understanding of the hon. Member's speech. I never used the word intervention. I said the financial co-operation of France as to financial interests; and if he disputes it, and says that I have misunderstood his meaning upon the point, I am exceedingly glad, because I think that a representation more vicious and more absurd than the possibility of our maintaining co-operation with France with regard to financial interests in Egypt, and then, at the point beyond that, commencing a recognized and systematic counter-working against France with regard to political interests undoubtedly could not be conceived, I am very glad to think that that is not the view of the hon. Member. The view of the hon. Member is this. He makes a charge against us. He appears, I think, to ridicule the idea of our endeavouring to work with the rest of the European Powers, and at the same time he complains, as the hon. Member for Green- wich had complained before him, that we had alienated almost all those Powers. Now, we accept the charge that we have endeavoured to work with the European Powers. That we accept, that we admit, that we profess, and, if it were a matter for boasting, we should be inclined to do so in reference to that point. But with regard to the alienation of those Powers, I say that there is not a shadow of foundation for the assertion that either the generality of those Powers, or any one of them, is at this moment otherwise than in hearty co-operation with this country. But I will go even further than that, and I will meet the hon. Gentleman on the point that he is most anxious about. He says—and I think justly says—that there ought to be, at this moment, a thoroughly good understanding and a spirit of co-operation between England and the Sultan. That is quite true; we recognize the fact that in dealing with this Mahomedan population the instrumentality—if influence were thought to be required—the instrumentality of Turkey is the best medium through which that influence can be exercised. And when the hon. Member sees the Papers, which will shortly be laid upon the Table, he will find that we have all along acted upon that principle. [Mr. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT dissented.] The hon. Gentleman naturally shakes his head without having seen the Papers. It is quite fair in the position of the hon. Gentleman that he should a little prejudge the matter. That I do not for a moment complain of; but I think when he reads these Papers he will see that my assertion is made good; and what I wish to say is this—that if there ever was a moment when that understanding and that spirit of co-operation was strong, clear, and unequivocal between the Government of Turkey and the Government of this country it is the moment at which I speak. I will not undertake to prophesy what is to happen to Egypt. My hon. Friend behind me, the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), has referred to the deplorable occurrence on Sunday last, and asked whether we are in a position to affirm that which is understood to have been said by the French Minister. I do not think, Sir, that information of so specific and pointed a character has come directly into the hands of Her Majesty's Government; but, undoubtedly, so far as our information goes, we are agreed with the French Minister in that which perhaps may be considered the most important point of the whole question connected with these deplorable disturbances—namely, that their origin was an origin which is properly to be considered as accidental, and as extraneous to the great Egyptian crisis of the present moment, although there is no doubt that when the quarrel had once broken out it found materials in a highly inflammable state of affairs, and therefore assumed dimensions which were of a dangerous and formidable character. But, without pretending to predict, I will venture to give the House this assurance—that while the great influences that can be brought to bear upon this question are many and various, I believe that, at the present moment, they are all firmly united and combined in the prosecution of a common course. There is the Khedive, as the Governor of Egypt, the whole of whose conduct during the last few critical weeks has entitled him in a marked degree to the confidence of all. Then the Sultan is, I believe, at this moment, acting in entire harmony with the Khedive—unquestionably he is acting in entire harmony with the Government of this country, and I firmly believe, and can, I think, confidently state, acting in entire harmony with the Government of every Power in Europe. As to the doubts which have been excited in the hon. Gentleman's mind with regard to Germany, I must say that no less than twice within the last 10 or 12 days Germany has distinctly supported the representations made to the Porte that it would be for the interest of all parties, for the interests of the Sultan as concerning his Sovereignty, for the interests of the Khedive, and of the people of Egypt, that the Conference should assemble in reference to affairs in Egypt, and has urged that those representations should be attended to.

Sir, I entirely recognize the justice of the view of the Prime Minister, that the present is not the moment at which we can properly or advantageously discuss the conduct of the Government with respect to the affairs of Egypt. At the same time, the right hon. Gentleman will, I think, see that it is not unnatural that the subject should be raised, and opportunities be taken of putting Questions to the Government, and of expressing opinions upon a matter which has a direct personal interest for the people of this country. We must bear in mind that, if this is rather an irregular occasion for bringing forward this question, the House has surrendered the whole of its time to the Government, and, therefore, we must have a little latitude in the matter. I must also take the liberty of saying that I think the Government have, on one or two occasions, and especially in some of the answers given by the hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir Charles W. Dilke) to-day, adopted a policy of undue reticence, and that they have pushed that policy rather too far. The hon. Baronet tells us that we have to wait until next week for the presentation of Papers which will only bring us down to the 17th of May, and that even those Papers cannot be produced until there has been an opportunity of obtaining Sir Edward Malet's opinion with regard to them, Nobody doubts that it is the right and duty, and the constant practice of a Government, to communicate with and consult their agents as to the Papers which ought to be produced; but the question is, as to Papers so long back as the 17th of May, has there not been ample opportunity of obtaining that opinion? I cannot, therefore, understand why there should be delay with regard to the presentation of those Papers. Then, nobody can help feeling this—you have, at the present moment, a very great state of uneasiness with regard to the safety of British life and property in Alexandria; you have had a very alarming riot on Sunday last, which may have been—I dare say it was—accidental in its immediate origin; but which certainly was characterized by circumstances which show that there is a great deal more behind than a mere accidental quarrel which we may expect not to occur again. Questions were put as to the position of affairs, and how far proper precautions were taken for the safety of British subjects and others in Alexandria; and what does the hon. Baronet tell us? He says that Dervish Pasha, in connection with the Egyptian Government, has guaranteed their safety, and when asked what he means by the Egyptian Government, he intimates that he really does not know.

If I may be allowed to make a correction, I said I was quoting from the words of Dervish Pasha, in which he says he was prepared to assume the joint responsibility.

Joint responsibility, with whom? [Sir CHAHLES W. DILKE dissented.] The hon. Baronet speaks of a joint responsibility, and when I ask with whom, he can only shake his head.

In order that there may be no mistake upon the subject, there is another telegram, I may state, from Sir Edward Malet on the same subject, in which he says that which is very obvious—namely, that Dervish Pasha, not as regards the objects of his mission, but as regards the one question of the security of life and property, was acting in concert with Arabi Pasha.

Oh! I am not now prepared to enter into any discussion upon what arises from that statement; but it is obviously a very important feature. Up to this moment we have no information as to what are the relations between Arabi Pasha and the Government of the Khedive, or the Turkish Commissioner, or anybody else. But it now appears that there are certain relations upon which I think it would be proper that this House and the country should have more detailed information. [Mr. BOURKE: Can the Government give us any Papers?] I do not know whether it would be right to ask the Government whether they can give us any information on this subject? I wish to say, on the part of those who sit near me, that we are not anxious to precipitate this matter; but we do think the time has come when it would be very desirable that we should be told by the Government, in general terms, what the real state of Egypt is at this moment, and what is the position of these personages of whom we hear so much, and about whom so very different reports reach us from other sources. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Bourke) reminds me that a short time ago a demand was made for the exile of Arabi Pasha; but that is going into a question which, perhaps, would be more properly discussed when we know a little more. What I think the country ought to have is a further and more complete statement to give more relief to its anxiety than merely to be told that we have every confidence in Sir Beauchamp Seymour's readiness to land marines when necessary. Everyone knows that Sir Beauchamp Seymour is an officer of the greatest gallantly, and we can rely on his taking such measures as may be necessary; but have the Government nothing else to tell us on that subject but the reference to Sir Beauchamp Seymour? I hope that we shall be favoured, in the course of a day or two, with some further information from the Government with regard to the real state of affairs, and I hope also that measures will be taken to press forward the production of the Papers which are necessary to throw a light upon the subject, so as to enable us to form an opinion upon it. I do not know that there is any object in continuing this conversation; but I think it is not at all unnatural, nor at all undesirable, that this conversation should have arisen. I should be extremely sorry if anything that was said could cause any kind of difficulty or embarrassment between us and our Allies abroad, and especially the French Government. We have not the least doubt that there has been perfectly loyal action between the French Government and Her Majesty's Government; but we are not at present informed as to what that has been. But we can suspend our comments on the whole matter until we are informed what the real state of things is, and what is the present information Her Majesty's Government have to go upon.

Sir, by the indulgence of the House, I may, perhaps, be permitted to make one word of reply to the speech of the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Stafford North-cote), and his request for further information as to the employment of Arabi Pasha's influence by Dervish Pasha for the protection of European life and property. The whole of the Consuls in Cairo, including the English and French Consuls, met Dervish Pasha on the subject of the steps to be taken for the protection of European life and property, and at the meeting they made no request to Dervish Pasha to appeal to Arabi Pasha, but merely insisted on measures being taken to secure European life and property. Dervish Pasha stated that he and the Khedive himself would take the necessary measures in connection with Arabi Pasha, without raising any question bearing on the general position of Dervish Pasha's mission, or the position of Arabi Pasha—but merely using an influence which de facto existed, and which Arabi Pasha possessed, for the immediate protection of European life and property. In reply to that, the Consuls expressed no opinion as to the position of Arabi Pasha, but stated that the measures which Dervish Pasha proposed to take were measures which they thought in themselves satisfactory as well as necessary.

asked the hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the document which had been referred to, and which he (Mr. Bourke) called an Ultimatum, but which the hon. Baronet said was not an Ultimatum, was withdrawn at the time Dervish Pasha proposed that Arabi Pasha should assume the government of the country?

We are not concerned, Sir, with the relations between Dervish Pasha and Arabi Pasha. We have nothing to do with those relations. We have merely stated what we thought it was necessary to do for the pacification of Egypt, and the protection of life and [property, and we have withdrawn nothing at all.

said, the Government seemed to have been utterly mistaken throughout all these proceedings. The hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister told the House, in answer to certain Questions, that they had no fear with respect with the safety of the Europeans in Egypt. No sooner, however, were those words uttered than there occurred the breaking-out at Alexandria. They were also told that the Government did not think that the Khedive's life was in danger, and the hon. Baronet had said that Arabi Bey intended to be perfectly honest in his dealings with the Khedive, and that he had no intention of deposing him.

When were those statements said to be made? Nothing of the kind has been said by me.

maintained that it had been said by the hon. Baronet that, in his belief, no molestation would be offered to the Khedive.

What I simply did, in connection with this matter, was to read a telegram from Dervish Pasha expressing that official's opinion to that effect.

continuing, explained that ho wished to show how mistaken the Government had been throughout the whole of the proceedings. No sooner was the statement about the safety of the Khedive made than he had to bolt off to Alexandria. On a recent occasion he (Mr. Onslow) had put a Question with reference to the safety of the British subjects in Cairo. The hon. Baronet replied that Dervish Pasha had guaranteed their safety. Immediately afterwards, however, Dervish Pasha departed for Alexandria with the Khedive, so that now the lives of our fellow-subjects were at the mercy of the rebel and traitor, Arabi Bey. It was monstrous that that should be so. Considering the inflammable state of affairs in Alexandria, the Government ought at once to take strong steps to preserve the lives and property of the Queen's subjects. He would admit that there were difficulties in the way; but the Government ought to rise superior to them—in fact, they ought to have foreseen them. The Government had all along shown the greatest light-heartedness and indifference in this matter. They had rather pooh-poohed the difficulties of the case; and now they were in a horrid mess, relying upon Turkey to get them out of it. Notwithstanding what had been said, he (Mr. Onslow) had reason to know that the greatest apprehension was entertained, not only at Cairo, but at Alexandria and the Suez Canal. That day they had learnt that the passengers on board the Peninsular and Oriental Company's steamer and in other ships in the Canal feared that they might be attacked. Had the Government, he asked, done anything further to protect the lives of those who were passing through the Suez Canal? They had been warned two or three times how serious was the state of affairs, and on the heads of its Members would lie the responsibility if an attack should at any time be made upon the English in Cairo or at Alexandria. The Government, it appeared to him, had ignored what ought to be the primary consideration in connection with the great Eastern Question—namely, that the power of England should be paramount in Egypt. It was the duty of this country to remain allied with. France; but, at the same time, it was equally her duty to put her foot down, and to show to the whole of Europe that England must have the master-hand over the affairs of Egypt. It seemed to him, however, as if France had bamboozled the Government of this country, for France appeared to be the paramount Power in Egypt, and all that we had done was to say "Ditto" to M. Gambetta. The Prime Minister had said that we were pledged to support the Khedive; but how were we going to support him should he be attacked—by moral force alone, or by physical force? Surely we ought to show him and the whole of Europe, by a physical demonstration, that we were prepared at all hazards to maintain his interests. He regretted that the Government should hitherto have treated the whole of this matter in an off-hand and somewhat shabby way. The hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had given the House evasive answers, and the House had but little knowledge of the intended policy of the Government. If the people of India should see us, in connection with Egyptian affairs, giving way to Austria, Germany, or any other Power, our reputation in that country would be greatly jeopardized.

said, that, in common with other hon. Members, he had no wish to press the Government unduly. He realized the difficulties of the situation, and was willing to make every allowance for them. The position of affairs in Egypt was critical, and it was not in the interest of the Public Service to press any Minister to make a statement that, in his judgment, could not be safely made. Upon that point there was no difference of opinion. What they complained of was, that the Government, in giving the information they were asked for, gave it reluctantly, and that what was got from them was got in a fragmentary, diffuse, and imperfect way. Language, it had been said, was invented for the purpose of enabling a man to conceal his thoughts. The language of his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in agreement with that saying, effectually concealed the policy of the Government; and it would pacify the natural impatience of the public, and the anxiety of hon. Members, if Ministers would make a clear, definite, and, as far as they were able, full statement of the position of affairs. They could state what had been done, and what, under certain conditions, they meant to do. If such a statement was made, this incessant system of interrogation would cease. He did not think that, up to the present, the Government had any reason to complain of the attitude taken by their opponents. Both the Opposition and the hon. Members on that (the Government) side of the House who were doubtful as to the policy they were pursuing, had exercised a reasonable reticence; but matters had now become so serious that something more than questioning had to be resorted to. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had made a speech which had interested and amused the House. He had bantered the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) pleasantly enough; but he had said nothing. Nobody was one whit the wiser when he sat down, He told the House that the Government wanted to maintain the status quo; but they knew that before. He had expatiated upon that indefinite entity called the European Concert, the merits of which the Prime Minister appreciated much more highly than he (Mr. Joseph Cowen) did. But beyond these two statements—both of which they were familiar with—no information had been vouchsafed. What did the Government mean to do? A few weeks ago, according to the statement of his hon. Friend, they issued an Ultimatum demanding that Arabi Pasha should be exiled; he was not arguing as to the wisdom or unwisdom of such a course of procedure, that was not the point under consideration. It was whether the retention of office by, and the remaining in Egypt of, Arabi Pasha was contrary or not to English interests and to the welfare of Egypt. His exile might or might not be desirable; but it was clearly the opinion of the Ministry that he should be sent away. But Arabi had not been banished. According to the statement of his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, the rebellious Arabi was really master of the situation. He was left in sole charge of Cairo, the capital of the country. The Khedive was not able to send him away; Der- vish Pasha did not seem to be willing; and the man whom the French and English Governments had determined should be banished had, in effect, well-nigh banished them. Now, they found that it was to this same man the authority of the State was committed, and on his word that peace and security at Cairo depended. The country would regard that as a very dubious proceeding, and would, he thought, look upon the Government as guilty of some inconsistency. Arabi either threatened our interests or he did not do so. If he did not, the Government ought not to have acted as they had done; but, if he did, then decided steps ought to be taken against him. They had heard something before of the Government depending for the restoration of peace in a country upon men whom they had declared to be guilty of treasonable practices. If Arabi Bey was not to be trusted we ought not to depend upon him. If he was to be trusted, and maintained in his position, what right had the Allied Fleets at Alexandria? They should be withdrawn and reliance placed upon the man who claimed to have authority in Egypt, and we ought to recognize his claim to act as the Representative of national feeling in Egypt. The Prime Minister had spoken in very cordial and complimentary terms of the Turkish Government. According to his statement, England was now on very friendly relations with the Porte. He (Mr. Joseph Cowen) was glad to hear it. It indicated a change in the policy of the country. The statement of the Prime Minister on the subject that day, and the statement he had previously made in the hearing of the House, contrasted in a very marked manner. The right hon. Gentleman used to talk about driving the Turks, "bag and baggage," into the Bosphorus or into Asia. [Mr. GLADSTONE: I never said so.] Well, he would not squabble about words. He would accept the right hon. Gentleman's denial; but the right hon. Gentleman could not deny that he and the majority of the Liberal Party had for years past advocated a strongly anti-Turkish policy. They despised and derided the Turk, and now they had to go and ask his help. Their line of action in the past and their line of action now certainly did not harmonize; and he could not help thinking that if some of the harsh things that were said of the Turk had not been said, the course of the English Government in the East would have been a little smoother than it was at present. One other remark he wished to make. The Prime Minister objected to a statement made by the hon. Member for Greenwich (Baron Henry de Worms) about the Suez Canal. But the right hon. Gentleman had misapprehended what the hon. Gentleman had said. It was quite true that the right hon. Gentleman from the first had been a supporter of the Canal project. Those who were familiar with the history of that undertaking, knew that when Mr. Roebuck-submitted his Motion in Parliament respecting it, one of the ablest speeches made in support of the scheme was that of the Prime Minister. It was quite true, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman was in favour of constructing the Canal, when many people were opposed to it. But what the hon. Member for Greenwich said was, that recently the Prime Minister had declared that even if the Canal was closed, our old way to India might be resumed without much disadvantage. During the Eastern discussions, he had repeatedly referred to the way round the Cape as an alternative passage to the East, which might be resorted to without much inconvenience. An occasion would soon arise when the whole policy of the Government in Egypt might be reviewed, and reviewed with more ample material at command than they now possessed; and in that event, what he (Mr. Joseph Cowen) and others wished the Ministers to do, was to permit full information about events as they proceeded, at least as far as the interests of the country would permit. There was no desire to be awkward with them, or to take advantage of them. So far as he was concerned, he had no wish to revive old discussions, or to twit them too hard with their inconsistencies. He was only too glad that they had come back to the national faith with respect to our foreign policy in the East. But still it was not reasonable to suppose that Parliament would be quiescent when such important events were transpiring, and there was such a paucity of intelligence concerning them from official sources.

said, he would not have risen again; but he thought the information supplied by the hon. Baro- net the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs threw considerable light upon the alarming statements to which he (Mr. Chaplin) had drawn attention earlier in the day. The difficulty with which that information was extracted suggested to him (Mr. Chaplin) a resemblance between the present occasion and certain other transactions which occurred not long ago. He was, in fact, reminded of the suppressed paragraph about which so much had been said. There was a resemblance also between the policy now pursued by the Government in Egypt and their policy in connection with the circumstances to which that paragraph had reference. Were they to understand that it was to the agent of disorder in Egypt that they now looked for the suppression of disorder? That he understood to be the effect of the answer which was extracted with great difficulty from the hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

I most distinctly stated that the Consuls had nothing whatever to do with Arabi Pasha; but their dealings were entirely with Dervish Pasha, and stated their reasons why they accepted the proposal of Dervish Pasha.

said, he understood that to be the effect of the answer given by the hon. Baronet to his (Mr. Chaplin's) right hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote). The hon. Baronet said he had assurances from Dervish Pasha that order would be preserved; but that was to be done through the agency of Arabi, and it might, therefore, be fairly said that it was to the very agents of disorder in Egypt that the Government looked for the suppression of lawlessness in the future. Meanwhile, no other measures had been taken for the security of the lives of British subjects at Alexandria. That was nothing but the Kilmainham compact over again. He was not surprised at the intense alarm felt just now by British residents at Alexandria, though the hon. Baronet said that from all the information he had received there was no legitimate ground for the apprehensions that had been expressed. But could it be that there was no ground for apprehension in such circumstances as these, when there had been already 115 murders of Europeans, to say nothing of others that might have occurred, but of which nothing was known?

That is not our information.

No; you never give us any information.

That may be an amusing Party retort; but I stated that I had given the whole of the information the Government possessed in regard to the murders.

said, their precise complaint was that the Government did not communicate their information, and that, though the hon. Baronet said that never had more information been given in similar circumstances, those who were not in the confidence of the Government knew nothing beyond what they could gather from newspapers and telegrams from abroad. A few minutes ago the House did not know what steps had been taken by the Government for the protection of the British residents in Alexandria; but it now appeared that they were to be protected through Arabi Pasha, and, that being the case, he should not rest or be satisfied until they had extracted from the Government distinct information as to what steps they bad taken, and would take in the future, to protect European life and property.

I do not rise to prolong the debate, but only to make clear what has been stated by my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. The hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) charges the Government with having entered into relations with Arabi Pasha. [Mr. CHAPLIN: No, no!] Then I do not know what he means by talking about the Kilmainham compact—

I asked this question of the Government—Is it to the agent of disorder that they look for the suppression of the outrages in Egypt? And, by saying that, I am speaking of what I was told, that it was the action of Dervish Pasha acting through Arabi Pasha.

The answer to that is perfectly plain and distinct. We look to Dervish Pasha, who is the Representative of the Porte, to whom hon. Gentlemen opposite have hitherto been willing to refer everything, as the Representative of the Sovereign of Egypt. [Mr. CHAPLIN: But what are his instructions?] What business have Her Majesty's Government to ask for a communication of the instructions of the Sultan to his own agent, except so far as the Porte chooses to communicate it to us? Can there be anything more extraordinarily inconsistent than the language of hon. Gentlemen opposite? They say, "You are not giving influence enough to the Porte;" and then they turn round and attack Dervish Pasha for his conduct. We look to him as the Representative of the Sovereign of Egypt, the Porto, in Egypt. That is why Her Majesty's Government look to Dervish Pasha. He gives us assurances with reference to the protection of life and property, and the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Chaplin) attaches to those assurances the epithet of a Kilmainham compact. That is no affair of the Porte and its Representative. ["Oh, oh!"] That is the hon. Gentleman's opinion of the conduct of Dervish Pasha, the Representative of the Porte. Her Majesty's Government are not responsible for what relations Dervish Pasha may establish with Arabi Pasha or anybody else. The relations he chooses to have with Arabi Bey is rather the affair of Dervish Pasha and the Government he represents. ["Oh, oh!"] I am stating a proposition which cannot be disputed. What Her Majesty's Government have done is, through the mouths of the Consuls, to ask Dervish Pasha to undertake the responsibility of protecting life and property in Egypt. What methods he has at his disposal, or chooses to take, he is responsible for to his own Government.

said, that as the Government had stated that they looked to Dervish Pasha for the protection of life and property in Egypt, it was important that Dervish's position should be understood. It appeared, from what the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had said, that he was the Commissioner and, therefore, Representative of the Porte, the Sovereign of Egypt; though, on the other hand, a suggestion had been made that his position somewhat resembled that lately occupied by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Clare (Mr. O'Shea) in other well-known proceedings. As, therefore, some doubt had been thrown upon this matter, he (Mr. J. Lowther) thought, having regard to the fact that the lives and property of Her Majesty's subjects in Egypt were, in the opinion of the Government, dependent on Dervish Pasha for their protection, that the Commissioner's precise position should be clearly stated to the House. The hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had made no reference whatever during the discussion to a person who had occupied a very prominent position throughout the whole of these troubles—namely, Arabi Pasha. The Government had stated that they had in no shape or form recognized him, but looked to Dervish Pasha for the maintenance of order. It transpired, however, at the last moment, that Dervish relied upon Arabi for the fulfilment of this duty. Thus, the Government relied upon Dervish, and Dervish relied upon Arabi; but he would not pursue any further the schoolboy's calculation of the consequent relations between the Government and Arabi. There was, however, one question he would like to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs—WasArabi Pasha present at the conference held between Dervish Pasha and the Consuls?

If the right hon. Gentleman will give Notice of that Question, I will answer it.

presumed that, in that case, he might take it that the Government did not at present know whether Arabi was present or not. He would give Notice of the Question; and he would also give Notice of the further Question, Whether the Consul in Egypt had informed the Government of the details of the Conference with Dervish Pasha, but had omitted to mention the not unimportant fact whether Arabi had been present? Without wishing to prolong the discussion unduly, he would like to make one comment on the severe tone that had been adopted towards his hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff). The hon. Baronet opposite had charged his hon. Friend with being guilty of a considerable offence in his reference to the Government of France; but the hon. Baronet should have noticed the emphasis laid by his hon. Friend on the necessity of cordial co-operation with that Government. The general observations of the hon. Baronet as to the great danger and impropriety of speeches made by Members of this House, in or out of it, which endangered our relations with Foreign Powers, were most sound; and it was a matter for regret that during the hon. Baronet's speech the Treasury Bench was not so well, or, at any rate, not so influentially, filled as it had since become, for his remarks upon that point were deserving of attention in that quarter, especially, of the House. The Prime Minister, who had since entered, had also justly deprecated unrestrained indulgence in the expression of crude and irresponsible opinion. The House was thoroughly with the right hon. Gentleman in deprecating observations which might eventually lead to a demand for inconvenient explanations from Powers at peace with Her Majesty. The right hon. Gentleman, while the hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle (Mr. Joseph Cowen) was speaking, had denied that he had said it would be an advantage to the human race if the Turks were driven, "bag and baggage," across the Bosphorus.

I never said a word about it.

About what?

About going over the Bosphorus.

said, he was under the impression that the Bosphorus separated Europe from Asia. Of course, he at once accepted the right hon. Gentleman's statement.

I do not want the right hon. Gentleman's acceptance of anything. The thing is in print, and if the right hon. Gentleman takes the trouble, before he occupies the time of this House with such statements, to read the print it would be an advantage. I never said one word about the removal of the Turks from Europe to Asia.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman had kindly called his attention to a work in which this was printed. He (Mr. J. Lowther) regretted if his recollection was not accurate; but ho thought he had not unfairly epitomized the statements therein expressed by the right hon. Gentleman when he indicated that Asia should henceforth become the exclusive residence of the official Turkish Power.

Never.

said, he should have great satisfaction in renewing his acquaintance with the work to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred; but, in succeeding in eliciting a general disclaimer of sentiments of that kind, he thought he had done a good service in drawing attention to the matter. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the co-operation of the Turkish Government with Her Majesty's Government on the present occasion.

I have not spoken of that at all.

said, he certainly must have greatly misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman. The hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs at least intimated that all the Powers, including Turkey, were thoroughly in harmony on this subject; and he (Mr. J. Lowther) understood that the Prime Minister offered this consolation to the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ash-mead-Bartlett), that Germany and Turkey were co-operating most cordially with England, which amounted precisely to what he (Mr. J. Lowther) had just stated, and which had elicited the direct contradiction of the right hon. Gentleman, though he now qualified that contradiction with the further interlocutory interjection of "Now you've got it." He would only add a hope that the discussion would not terminate without some reply to the Question—Who was, and who was not, responsible for the maintenance of order in Egypt?

said, there was only one observation which he wished most respectfully to submit to the House, and that was, whether some of the speeches to which they had been listening, more particularly those of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) and the right hon. Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. J. Lowther), were calculated to promote the object they all said they had in view—that of protecting the lives and property of Europeans in Egypt. It seemed to him a most serious subject, and he confessed he was surprised that, on the occasion of discussing a matter so serious to this country, and touching so deeply the feelings of many who had relatives in Egypt, they should have heard allusions to "Kilmainham treaties," and other matters totally unconnected with the subject, and giving rise to roars of laughter from hon. Members opposite. He did not conceive that this was a laughing matter, and he was sure that the tone of the right hon. Baronet the Leader of the Opposition, being in such marked contrast to these speeches, represented the feeling of the great majority of hon. Members on the Conservative side of the House, and this would be apparent to the country. But the point he wished to submit most respectfully was, whether the Government could, consistently with its duty, reveal to the House what measures it was likely to take, and could take, for the protection of life and property in Egypt; whether a premature statement of the course which the Government thought it right to adopt might imperil the objects at which they were aiming, were questions of the deepest importance. Many questions had been put to the Government with regard to the protection of Tewfik Pasha and the Europeans at Cairo; but how could the Government answer such questions without revealing their policy to the disorderly and anarchical powers which now existed in Egypt? It was perfectly natural that this country should take the deepest interest in what was occurring, and desire to be made acquainted with the measures contemplated by the Government; but it appeared to him that if the Government were to say in advance what measures, military or naval, they were going to take, it might frustrate the particular designs which they entertained, and not only frustrate those designs, but in the interval imperil the lives of Europeans. He had himself no knowledge whatever of the particular course which the Government was likely to take; but suppose a military expedition had been resolved upon, could any course be more foolish than to press that a statement should be made revealing to the House the measures proposed to be taken? Whether the English or the Turkish Government intended to act, whatever might be the measures which would be adopted, he submitted that those measures should not be revealed to the House or to the public. The Government, it must be remembered, could not speak to that House without speaking at the same time to Egypt, and allowing all the intriguers who might wish evil to the Christian population to know precisely what they intended to do. Therefore, he submitted that, notwithstanding the natural desire of everyone in that House to be re-assured by having told to them the condition of affairs, it was scarcely fair to choose a moment like that when the hands of the Government were tied, and they could not state what they were going to do—it was not the best moment to choose for interrogating the Government with regard to the state of Egypt. He trusted that, notwithstanding the pressure that might he put upon the Government, they would feel that the great majority of the House felt the danger and risk there would be in any premature revelation of the measures it might be necessary to take for the advantage of Egypt, and the protection of the lives and property of Her Majesty's subjects, and the Christian population generally.

said, he wished, notwithstanding what had just fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen), to know what naval preparations had been made for saving the lives and property of the English population at Alexandria? The hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had spoken of the squadron of iron-clads under the command of Sir Beauchamp Seymour, and had said that one of those vessels, the Invincible, was in the Harbour at Alexandria. He had also correctly informed the House that the draught of water in the entrance to Alexandria Harbour was 24 feet 8 inches. The Invincible was in the harbour, and drew 22 feet 1 inch. The other five ships all drew more than 24 feet 8 inches, and the reason why they were not in the harbour was because they could not go into it. He would give the draughts of the ships, both when loaded and when lightened. The Alexandra drew 26 feet 6 inches, and could be brought on an even keel to 26 feet 3 inches. The Inflexible drew 25 feet 5 inches, and could be lightened to 24 feet 5 inches; but there were then only three inches of bar to go over, and the ship would have to go up a very tortuous channel, which would be very dangerous to attempt, because a coal barge sunk in the channel could prevent the ship coming out. The Monarch drew 26 feet, and could be lightened to 24 feet 2 inches; the Superb drew 26 feet, and could be lightened to 25 feet; and the Temeraire drew 26 feet 6 inches, and could be lightened to 25 feet 9inches. So that out of these six vessels only three could, when lightened, enter the harbour. He asked why they did not strengthen the squadron by vessels of lighter draught, from which they could readily land men? He did not believe 500 men could be landed from the ships now in harbour, and no admiral would be justified in keeping his ships outside the harbour under present circumstances if they could get in. He, therefore, thought the House was entitled to know what naval preparations were being made, what transports had been sent to take away the refugees, and what ships were being sent that could go into harbour, so as to be of use in the protection of life and property at Alexandria. As he had said, two only of the ships besides the Invincible now on the coast could enter the harbour, and that with risk, while three were wholly unavailable for the purpose. He did not think that sufficient preparations had been made for the protection of the lives and property of persons now in Alexandria.

said, there was great fear for the security of life and property in Egypt at the present time, and ho had a telegram from a Manchester merchant, Mr. Robert Dobson, informing him of the death of his son and another young man who was with his son. Of course, with regard to his son he knew the worst; but he was somewhat anxious to know about the property. There were goods amounting to £4,000 belonging to those two young men who were killed; and Mr. Dobson telegraphed to him (Mr. Jacob Bright), asking him to question the Government as to the responsibility of the Egyptian Government with regard to property left in that defenceless position.

With regard to the first part of the Question, if I may be allowed to answer the appeal, having once spoken, I have telegraphed to Sir Edward Malet to ascertain the names, and have lists, as far as possible, prepared of the people killed in the recent riots. With regard to the second part, as to the property, I have referred the letter, which was sent to me by the gentleman who sent the telegram, to those who will give an opinion on the legal point raised.

thought that his hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) would gain nothing by pressing the question any further. The Government had fairly stated that it would be contrary to the public interest to make any explanation whatever. He (Mr. Labouchere) did not commit himself to any opinion on the matter; but he would ask his hon. Friend, having regard to the importance of the Prevention of Crime Bill, which was coming on, to withdraw his Motion, so that they might fall hack upon that most interesting, if somewhat exhaustive, discussion.

said, he came into the House just as his right hon. and gallant Friend (Sir John Hay) was finishing his observations, and he, therefore, could only understand their general tenor. He understood that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was making observations as to the draught of water required for the vessels of the Mediterranean Squadron entering Alexandria Harbour. His right hon. and gallant Friend had put on the Paper a Question to be addressed to him (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) tomorrow on that subject. He was not prepared to-day with the precise figures relative to each ship; but even if the Question had been given Notice of for to-day, he thought he should have been obliged to appeal to his right hon. and gallant Friend, whether it was really consistent with the public interest that these details should go forth to the world, thereby informing the people in Egypt as well as hon. Members in that House as to the precise vessels which could enter Alexandria Harbour, and the particulars connected with their draught.

said, that his figures were extracted from the excellent book of Sir Thomas Brassey, one of the Lords of the Admiralty.

I have not the slightest doubt it is before the public in one form or another; but the question is, whether it should be publicly repeated in this House in regard to the existing state of affairs in Egypt. No one knows better than my right hon. and gallant Friend that a ship, though its draught of water may be a certain figure, may be considerably altered so as to enter a place where it could not otherwise enter. Besides, the depth of water at the entrance to the harbour varies according to the state of the weather, and according to other circumstances, so that while one day a vessel may be able to enter, it could not get in the next.

Or get out again.

Certainly, or get out again. At any rate, I must appeal to the House, whether I or my right hon. and gallant Friend (Sir John Hay) should state the precise draught of water of every ship there, and the precise requirements of the harbour. I really do not think that it is wise, or that any good purpose would be gained by it, and I appeal to my right hon. and gallant Friend not to address to me the Question he has on the Paper for to-morrow, for the reasons I have just stated.

Allow me to explain that I think I am entitled to give the facts I have stated to the House, since the hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has stated to the House what the ships are capable of doing.

Yes, in answer to a Question, but not voluntarily.

Quite so.

And if I may be allowed to say so, I maintain the perfect accuracy of the information which I then gave.

I may, perhaps, be' allowed to add that the information which has been given in general terms by my hon. Friend (Sir Charles W. Dilke) is quite accurate; but what I object to is that a catalogue raisonne should be given of the ships, with the draught of each of them. That is quite another matter.

With reference to the appeal of my hon. Friend (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) regarding the Question of which I have given Notice for to-morrow, as I have already given the information to the House, I am quite satisfied—without putting my Question—I am quite satisfied my information is accurate, because, as I have said, it is taken from the book published by my hon. Friend (Sir Thomas Brassey).

said, he wished, before the discussion closed, to make a strong appeal to the hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. The fate of the two young men who had been mentioned had naturally spread a thrill of intense horror throughout the community in which their relatives resided, and the business circles with which they had been connected; and he, therefore, appealed to the hon. Baronet to obtain all the information he could from Egypt, as promptly as possible, in regard to the position and circumstances of the English residents connected with commercial affairs in that country, and make it public in whatever way he might deem most suitable, with the least possible delay. The agony of suspense which had already been endured by many could not be described.

I have already stated that we have telegraphed for a list of the names of those Englishmen who have been killed, and that we shall be glad to make it public; but I do not think it would be desirable to make public our opinion as to what might be the danger at one place more than at another. I think that would only tend to increase the danger.

said, that the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) had been good enough to describe something which he (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) had said as "nonsense." That was not a very courteous statement to make in that House in regard to what an hon. Member had said. He (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) would not argue with him as to what was nonsense or what was not; but the hon. Member had endeavoured to bring in the old story about Lord Salisbury and Tunis. He (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) did not say whether the taking of Tunis was right or not, and he had no responsibility in the matter. But he would observe that it was to be borne in mind that the taking of Tunis took place after the Control had been established, and, therefore, threw some doubt on the good faith of France in the matter. The hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and others had expressed themselves satisfied with the position of Admiral Seymour at Alexandria, and the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) had complained of Questions being put on the subject, and had said that such Questions should not be answered. But there would be no danger in the Questions being answered if the Government Would send serviceable ships. The danger existed in their sending ships which were not serviceable. It had been shown that, when lightened, only two of them could go into the harbour. The Government, therefore, had sent ships to Alexandria which could not assist the Euro- peans. [Sir CHARLES W. DILKE: Oh, no!] The hon. Baronet said "Oh, no!" and they were asked to trust to the presence of Sir Beauchamp Seymour. On the 11th of May the hon. Baronet told the House that the Government had taken all the steps that were necessary; but the presence of Sir Beauchamp Seymour had not prevented the massacre that took place on Sunday last—and there had been a massacre, for it did not matter whether 50 or 150 had been massacred—although one of the ships was in the harbour and two outside. Therefore, if the Opposition had no confidence in the adequacy of the preparations of the Government, it must be acknowledged that they had some ground for that want of confidence. The Prime Minister had said that the Government had all along been acting in conjunction with Turkey and in harmony with the Turkish Government in this matter, and that we should see that when the Correspondence was published.

said, that his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government had already contradicted that statement.

said, that was not so. What the Prime Minister had positively stated was that all along we had looked upon Turkey as an instrument for acting upon Egypt.

Hear, hear!

Was that the case, or was it not? If it were so, what was the meaning of the despatch dated 31st January 1882, and communicated to Lord Granville by Musurus Pasha? That despatch was to the effect that there was nothing to justify the Collective Note to Tewfik Pasha, that the opinion of the Sultan ought to have been obtained, and that the Government of the Porte felt bound to inquire what were the reasons for such a course. The Turkish Ambassador to this country had been requested to bring the subject before the Minister of Foreign Affairs. If the Government looked upon Turkey as the proper instrument to exercise pressure upon Egypt, it was remarkable that the Porte took so very different a view of the case. It was scarcely credible that Her Majesty's Government, after having offended Turkey as they had done, should go down on their knees to her, and ask her to get them out of the extraordinary hobble in which they were now placed. He was perfectly willing to withdraw his Motion for the adjournment of the House.

said, that as a Motion for the adjournment of the House had been made, he could not, in justice to part of his constituency, before it was withdrawn, refrain from taking advantage of that opportunity to bring before the House a matter of very serious importance. He received a letter from a parish priest in Connemara a few days ago, requesting him to call attention to several evictions which were likely to take place in the district upon a property which he could not name, and pointing out that with respect to those evictions, and one batch of them in particular, it would be a matter of enormous importance if the agent would wait until the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Bill was passed. The parish priest pointed out to him that it was of the utmost importance that the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Bill should be passed, as it would save those tenants from eviction who were liable to be turned out on the roadside. He (Colonel Nolan) was in some hopes he might be able to prevent that, and for that purpose he had brought in a Bill suspending evictions till 1st September, or it might be for a shorter time than that—it might be for only three or four weeks—until the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Bill came into operation. During that interval these unfortunate tenants might be evicted and made liable for heavy costs. The Bill he had brought in received the support of every section of Irish Members in the House, except the Irish Conservative Members. An hon. and learned Member (Mr. Warton), on the Conservative side of the House, took the responsibility upon himself of blocking the Bill and preventing its being read a first time, and printed and circulated. That was a great responsibility for an hon. and learned Gentleman who had no natural connection with the country to undertake, because it was tantamount to saying that evictions would continue for the next two months. He (Colonel Nolan), however, believed the hon. and learned Gentleman was only the instru- ment in this matter. This was the work of the Irish Conservative Members. He charged them with it; and, if he was mistaken, he challenged any of the occupants of the Front Opposition Bench to get up and deny it, and further to request the hon. and learned Member to take off the block and allow the Bill to be printed and circulated, as it was one which would bring relief to a great many suffering families in Ireland. No Irish Conservative Members dare take the responsibility on themselves of blocking the Bill.

said, the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Nolan) was not in Order in discussing a Bill not now before the House on a Motion for the adjournment of the House.

said, he would not discuss it further; but it was customary for the House to allow Bills to be read a first time, except for very strong reasons. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the late Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Lowther), or some other right hon. Member on the Front Opposition Bench, would get up and repudiate what had been done in reference to the Bill, and request the hon. and learned Member to remove the block.

As the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan) has spoken of the Irish Conservative Members of the House, I must say, for myself, that I knew nothing whatever of this Notice until I saw it on the Paper, and, as an Irish Conservative Member, I can state individually that I have had nothing whatever to say to it; and, so far as I am myself concerned, to show that I had nothing to do in the matter, I have given specific instructions to my agent in Ireland that no pressure whatever shall be put on my tenants until the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Bill has been passed, in order that they may have any advantage that may arise from the Bill when it passes into law.

said, it was not the case that the Irish Conservative Members were in any way responsible for the blocking of the Bill. He himself took an interest in Ireland, and had been studying the question for some time; and he had blocked the Bill entirely on his own responsibility. So far from asking him to put it on, the Irish Conservative Members had asked him to take off the block; and now, in obedience to their wishes and postponing his own judgment, he took it off. He hoped the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan), on other occasions, would not indulge in haphazard charges.

Sir, in reference to this question of evictions, which has been raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan), I wish, as I see the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Trevelyan) in his place, to point out to him that evictions in Ireland are increasing to an enormous extent; and I wish to ash him whether he will not consider the advisability of taking Saturday Sittings for the passage of the Arrears Bill? I am sure the Irish Members would give their support to such a course, and possibly a sufficient number of English Members could be got together for the discussion of the Bill on Saturdays, because the number of evictions in Ireland at present is very alarming. Owing to the fact that in a great number of the evictions now taking place, the tenants are not re-admitted as caretakers, they are, consequently, turned out of their homes, and their little store of food and money, that might be used for the purpose of redeeming their holdings, is consumed in supporting themselves, and in order to keep a roof over their heads and the heads of their families. I wish to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to this fact, that since the first quarter of this year evictions are increasing every month in a very alarming proportion. The evictions during the first quarter of this year amounted to over 7,000 persons—that was, at the rate of a little over 2,000 persons a-month. In the month of January I think there were over 1,000 persons, and evictions have been increasing since. During the month of May, the fifth month of the year, there were over 3,000 person evicted; and if that proportion is maintained, it will make a number of over 9,000 evictions for the next quarter; but as the number of evicted persons is increasing so largely, we must probably expect that during the next quarter, instead of 9,000 persons, there will be something like 12,000 persons evicted. Now, I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether, as the person responsible in this House for the maintenance of law and order in Ireland, he does not view with the greatest anxiety and alarm the enormous increase in the number of evictions in the West and South-West of that country; and, whether he does not fear that those evictions will make the task of maintaining law and, order in Ireland very much more difficult by Her Majesty's Government in Ireland? Unfortunately, as regards decrees which were granted at the last Quarter Sessions, there is no way of preventing them from being executed. I understand that at least half the tenantry in some counties in Ireland, who were in arrears of rent, were decreed at last Quarter Sessions, and, as a consequence, it is in the power of the landlords to execute these decrees at any time, and the execution of these decrees can only be stopped by the passing of the Arrears of Pent (Ireland) Bill. It is not possible, under the Act of 1881, to obtain from any Court in Ireland a stay of ejectment process once it is granted by the Court. It is possible, and I hope the teuants will exercise the right given them, under the Act of 1881, of applying at the next Quarter Sessions throughout Ireland to the Chairman to stay execution of the decrees which may be applied for by the landlords, in cases where they come under the operation of the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Bill, and in the terms provided by that Bill—namely, that there should be a year's rent paid within a reasonable time up to the 1st of last November. Even if a stay is put upon the proceedings in these cases, considerable costs will be incurred, which the tenants have to pay. But as regards the other class of cases, where ejectment decrees were already issued at last Quarter Sessions throughout Ireland, and which have not been yet executed, there is no possible way of putting a stop to the execution of the decrees except by passing this Bill. I would, therefore, put it to the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the fact that so many important questions still remain for discussion on the Prevention of Crime Bill, whether he himself is not impressed with the necessity of asking the House to give him facilities, by means of Saturday Sittings, for the Purpose of making some progress with the Arrears of Pent (Ireland) Bill? MR. REDMOND said, he wished to read a telegram which he had received, and to call attention to a practice of a serious character which was becoming very prevalent in Ireland. A clergyman in the County Wexford sent him a telegram with reference to some evictions of tenants who were in arrears which took place yesterday on the property of Mr. Batt. He says—

"Two tenants on Batt's property evicted by Sheriff to-day. Emergency men took possession, and set fire to houses and offices. People indignant."

These tenants had six months as a period of redemption; and he conceived there could be nothing more cruel, unjust, and criminal than for the agents of the Emergency Association, or of the landlords, to step in and destroy those houses, and with them the hope that, within six months, the evicted tenants would be able to recover their homes after settling with their landlords. He asked the Government to give their serious attention to the matter, and hoped that in the Prevention of Crime Bill now before Parliament, offences of this kind should be included. He joined in the appeal of his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) with regard to Saturday Sittings to proceed with the Arrears Bill.

said, that on a question of that description, he would speak with as few sentences as possible. He thought the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), though not quoting from papers, had described generally the state of evictions in Ireland, and he had described them, undoubtedly, with perfect correctness. The number of evictions in the first quarter of this year was serious. The number of evictions during the last month was most formidable. The number of evictions during the first week of this month was something very like appalling. He must say that he heard with great pleasure the generous and patriotic words that fell from the hon. Member for Carrickfergus (Mr. Greer). The Government of Ireland was extremely and deeply interested in the question; and in order to keep themselves fully informed on a matter in which, deep as their interest was, he was sorry to say their power was not very great, they ordered Returns of evictions, as well as Returns of outrages, to be sent in daily to Dublin Castle; and, at the same time, the opinions of the police on these evictions. The opinions of the police, and Resident and Special Magistrates, were sent in together with those Re- turns; and he was bound to say that while, in a great number of instances, these evictions occurred on account of the contumacious determination of tenants not to pay their rent, in a great many instances the police and the Special and Resident Magistrates described them as cases of great hardship. He deeply regretted that the landlords of Ireland generally would not take the attitude assumed by the hon. Member for Carrickfergus. He regretted exceedingly that the good example of the hon. Member for Carrickfergus was not more generally followed; that, at a time when the Government—he was not now speaking of the Liberal Government in particular, but the Executive Government of Ireland—were labouring in a position of extreme difficulty, and honestly endeavouring to do their duty, without fear or being influenced on either side, landlords should be found to use those rights of theirs as to evictions in such a cool and unpatriotic manner. This was most cruel to the country and the Executive Government. The practical suggestion which the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Parnell) had made was one which, ho was sorry to say, the Government could not see any chance of entertaining. If they took Saturday Sittings, they would be bound to take them to pass the Prevention of Crime Bill, which the Government of Ireland regarded as essential. They regarded it, too, as primarily essential that it should pass in substantially the same form as it was now presented to the House; and if it did, they hoped that, in the course of six or nine months, it would bring about a very different state of things to what existed in Ireland then. His experience was that, in Parliamentary matters, it was necessary that the Government should deal with one thing at a time; and he could not help venturing saying, he thought that hon. Gentlemen opposite (Home Rulers) would quite as well serve their cause if they would make such protests only as were sufficient to get a clear understanding from the Government as to the points upon which they were willing to modify the Bill, which should be declared at once; but, after making those concessions, it should be known to hon. Members that not one iota more would be wrung from the Government, either by obstruction or by unfair discussion. He did not appeal to hon. Members to curtail legitimate debate, because their views, and experience, and suggestions would very decidedly enter into the views which the Government would take of each clause; but the Government had their Bill fairly at their fingers' ends, and were very able to form an opinion as to whether proposed modifications were necessary or not. In order to get to the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Bill, which, after all, was a measure brought in for the purpose of preventing evictions, he could not help thinking that it was the duty of every patriotic Irishman to try and push the measure now before the Committee through as soon as possible, especially seeing that hon. Members could not hope, by further delay, to modify the clauses. That was the advice he ventured to give them. The present duty of the Government was to pass it as soon as possible; and when they got to the Arrears of Kent (Ireland) Bill, they would press it forward with the same eagerness as they were doing this measure. He could answer for the Irish Government in this respect, that they considered the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Bill every way as valuable for the maintenance of peace and order, and, what they regarded with equal anxiety, as being necessary for restoring prosperity to Ireland as the Prevention of Crime Bill; and they would feel themselves bound to carry it essentially as it was presented to the House, or in such a shape that it would confer the same amount of benefit on the people. He did not for a moment believe that they should gain anything at present by taking a Saturday Sitting and devoting it to the Arrears of Kent (Ireland) Bill.

Sir, this debate has arisen very suddenly and unexpectedly upon some observations by the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan), which, I think, were met with certainly great courtesy by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Trevelyan). I do not think I should have now risen to say anything at all, but to guard myself from being presumed to assent to the collocation of words and to the way in which the right hon. Gentleman has presented his ideas to the House. I do not desire to be at all hypercritical, or to use any words calculated to lengthen the debate or to provoke discussion; and I do not think it would be fair, having regard to the great difficulties with which he has to contend, that I should indulge in any personal criticism, bearing in mind that he was called on to speak with some suddenness and without a moment's notice. I desire, however, to guard myself against assenting to the position in which he appeared to place evictions as contrasted with other matters reported to the Government in Ireland; and, also, I desire to guard myself against being supposed, by any silence on my part, to tolerate the assertion that any appreciable number of landlords should be open to the deliberate charge of acting in an unpatriotic or unfair manner. [Ironical cheers.] Of course, I am well aware that in this House the landlords in Ireland have many enemies, who do not hesitate to make charges against them; but it is not unreasonable that those who take a standpoint of a somewhat wider character should guard themselves against appearing to support principles from which they dissent. There is one matter which must be borne in mind. The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) says that the Judges of the Irish County Courts who administer the vast ejectment jurisdiction up to £100 of rental, and have as wide a power as any Act of Parliament should confer upon them, should have jurisdiction to stay execution of decrees for eviction when cases require it. I may inform him, as to civil bill ejectments, that it is within the power of the Judges administering that jurisdiction to put a stay on evictions. That power is quite as wide as could be given on any Act.

Not after they have granted the decree.

No; but at the moment of granting the decree, when the whole of the matters are present to their minds.

No.

Well, when a case is before the Judge, and the landlord has proved his claim as to the amount that is due, and the tenant has been heard, then the County Court Judge can say—"I have heard the case, and am satisfied that the two or three years' rent may be due. I am bound to give that to the landlord; but, having regard to all that has appeared before me, what the tenant has said in the way of substantiating his case, I put a stay upon that decree to the landlord, and I will put that decree over six months, nine months, or, as has been in some cases, twelve months." That is the existing law in Ireland, and can be, and has been, applied in many cases. It must be remembered that in Ireland the landlords, speaking generally—although there are exceptions, just as there are exceptions with all classes—have shown themselves not disposed to push their powers to excess, and desirous to meet matters fairly and reasonably. This is shown by the fact that the arrears of rent on the property of many men are very large, and for several years—partly owing to their consideration in years of distress, but also during years of prosperity. The Land League has prevented these payments, and the landlords who previously showed consideration have not got a penny of their rents. It must be remembered, also, that evictions are of two classes, as might be expected. Tenants who could have paid their rents have spent their money, and have not got the means now. As regarded this, it was not reasonable that a landlord who has a family and many charges to meet should be left to starve, and be held up to obloquy for seeking to maintain his rights. Then, there are others who are entitled to every commiseration and sympathy—men who are really poor, and who would pay their obligations if they could. I would venture to hope, in reference to the Returns of the Government, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland will take care that they are complete, and that they indicate clearly, not only what ejectments have been pronounced, but what evictions have been actually carried out, and the number of instances in which the tenants have been restored to possession, whether as tenants or caretakers. One of the Returns issued last month stopped short of that vital matter of information. It simply showed in some cases that possession was taken from the tenant and handed over to the landlord; but in regard to the more numerous class it only said that a decree was pronounced, and not whether it was carried out. It was very kind of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) to speak as he had; but it should be understood that the Bill, having received that consideration, would get no further facilities.

said, that, no doubt, it was very important in any measure of relief to make a clear and unmistakable distinction between those tenants who were, and those who were not, able to pay; and certainly the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Trevelyan), in making his observations, had in view the class of tenants unable to pay. There undoubtedly were evictions going on where, if the tenants had been granted two or three months' delay, they would have been able to pay some part, at least, of their rent.

said, he wished to express the deep satisfaction with which he and those who sat with him had listened to the patriotic statement of the hon. Member for Carrickfergus (Mr. Greer)—that his tenants should not be evicted until the House had time to come to a decision upon the Arrears Bill. He had shown a very commendable spirit; and he (Mr. Sexton) only wished—he could not expect—that his good example might be generally followed by other Irish landlords. The difficulties of the position were well illustrated by the promptitude with which the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson), who was the most competent and able Representative of the landlord class, had risen to reply to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland as to the tenants. He desired to point out that the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), in quoting to the House, had adduced facts for the Returns of the Resident Magistrates; and he might remind hon. Members that eviction at this time in Ireland must be attended with very great hardship, for they amounted to a confiscation of the crops of the tenants, which too often had cost those tenants their last penny. The point which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had raised as to evictions had nothing whatever to do with executed ejectments. He would find the whole of the information he asked for in the Returns. It was with very great regret that he (Mr. Sexton) heard the Chief Secretary for Ireland state that if Saturday Sittings were held they would be used for the Prevention of Crime Bill, and not for furthering the Arrears of Kent (Ireland) Bill. The Prevention of Crime Bill attacked the primary and fundamental principles of liberty; and the Irish Members could not, even upon the consideration of the past position of the tenantry, and in order to expedite the {Arrears of Bent (Ireland) Bill, refrain from expressing their opinions as fully as they deemed necessary upon this attempt to take away the liberties of the people. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that the Government were prepared to announce, with a view to shortening the discussion on the Prevention of Crime Bill, that concessions would be granted. Did the right hon. Gentleman mean that the moment a Member of the Government rose after the proposal of an Amendment, and stated his opinions, that the discussion must practically come to an end? Surely that would amount to a neutralization of the whole process of debate.

What I said was, that as soon as the Government thoroughly understood the opinion of the House in debate, then they would, at a comparatively early stage—and I am bound to say that does not mean a very early one—announce what line they would take up, and that there would be no alteration in the decision in consequence of the debate being prolonged beyond what the Government considered legitimate discussion.

said, he would admit that the explanation was less objectionable than the right hon. Gentleman's previous statement; but he would ask him to reconsider even his explanation, and to give the Irish Members some hope that if additional arguments and new evidence were brought forward, even after the Government had spoken, they would be prepared to consider them favourably. There was another inconsistency in the right hon. Gentleman's speech. If, as he said, the Crime Bill and the Arrears Bill were regarded by the Government as equally important, why were they not being taken stage by stage? Or why was the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Bill not being taken first, seeing that last Session the Government gave repression the first place, and that events ought to have shown them the fatality of that sequence of policy? He (Mr. Sexton) most posi- tively asserted that the Arrears of Bent (Ireland) Bill was not only equally valuable, but infinitely more valuable, than the Prevention of Crime Bill, and that the former Bill would operate quicker and more effectually for the prevention of crime and the restoration of order in Ireland than any Coercion Act which the most ingenious Government could devise. Ho would state why he thought that. A Coercion Bill could not be effective in turning away from the course of violence and revenge a man whose mind was convulsed with passion and a seuse of wrong; and in the case of those people who were being evicted in thousands, with what the Resident Magistrates described as scenes of hardship, no Coercion Bill could take away their desire and intention to have revenge. On the other hand, if the House passed a good Arrears Bill first, see what a salutory influence it would bring to bear upon those tenants. Every tenant who was threatened with eviction would feel that the law was now on his side, and that Arrears Bill would be as a salve to his mind. He was hopeful even yet that, upon consideration of the Reports made by the Resident Magistrates, and of the urgency of this question of eviction, and on consideration, also, of the greater effectiveness of the Arrears of Bent (Ireland) Bill over the Prevention of Crime Bill as an engine for the restoration of order, the Government would reconsider the matter, and cease to give repression the first place in their policy.

said, he would suggest that, as there was no use in carrying the discussion further, the Motion for the adjournment of the House should now be withdrawn in order that they might at once proceed with the Prevention of Crime Bill. If Irish Members wished to reach the discussion upon the Arrears of Bent (Ireland) Bill, and to state their views upon that measure, surely the best way of attaining that object was to get on with the Business more immediately before them.

said, he had no doubt that if the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Trevelyan) was left to his own kindly and benevolent disposition, means would be devised for putting a stop to evictions; but he understood from the right hon. Gentleman's remarks that the hands of the Government were tied by the Resolution of the House pledging them to proceed from day to day with the Prevention of Crime Bill, and that they were not going to touch the Arrears Question until the Prevention of Crime Bill had been discussed and disposed of. Ho appealed to the Government to take the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Bill day by day and stage by stage with the one they were at present dealing with. There were in the month of May no less than 1, 188 evictions, and it was not too much to say that one-half of them would have been averted by the passage of that Bill. It was as if the Government had launched a lifeboat to rescue a drowning crew, and had then put back to settle some miserable quarrel upon the shore; while, one by one, the wretched sailors dropped from the rigging and were lost. They appealed to Her Majesty's Government to stop this wretched state of things, and thus bring back to Ireland that peace which would never be obtained by coercive measures. What caused increased bitterness in the minds of the Irish people was this—They had seen the Arrears of Pent (Ireland) Bill introduced and read a second time, and notwithstanding that they were being dragged from their homes and turned on the road-sides and into the workhouses in thousands week after week.

said, he was sorry the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland was not in his place, as he wished to extract from him a definite an wer to the question put to him by the hon. Member for New Ross (Mr. Redmond) with respect to the action the Government intended to take in cases in which bailiffs and Emergency men deliberately set fire to the houses of tenants whom they had evicted. The case put before the House by his hon. Friend was very strong; but he (Mr. Metge) knew a case in his own county which was of a still more aggravated character. He brought the case before Parliament on two or three occasions, and he received no answer, which satisfied him that the Government intended to take any action in the matter. The case he referred to was that of a large series of evictions on the estate of Lord Gor- manston, in Meath. The execution having failed on two or three occasions, by reason of a technical error on the part of the process-server, the Emergency men at last determined to make good the process of the law by deliberately setting fire to the houses of the tenants, and burning them over their heads. The parish priest of the district, who informed him of the occurrence, was first made aware of it by seeing the flames rising from the roofs of the whole village a couple of miles distant, and, upon coming into the town, he found the bailiffs and process-servers busily engaged in burning down the houses of the tenants in presence of their wives and children, the men themselves being away. When such a state of things as that was permitted in Ireland, it was absolutely certain that the present contention would go on increasing. They had in three months of the present year no less than 3,400 evictions in a single month, which was more than double the number on which the Prime Minister based the Compensation for Disturbance Bill of last year. These evictions were supported by bodies of police and military, and the state of things which they produced he (Mr. Metge) called nothing less than civil war, which every person who wished well to Ireland desired to see ended. He thought when the Government asked for strong measures of repression against the people, the Irish Members were entitled to ask that some limitation and punishment should be put upon the crimes which were now committed day after day by the landlords of Ireland.

said, he rose merely to enforce the appeal made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross), that they should now be allowed to go into Committee upon the Prevention of Crime Bill. As his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland had already stated, the Government were anxious to pass the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Bill; but they could entertain no measure until the former Bill had been disposed of. It was quite time to cease that fruitless discussion, seeing that four hours had been spent upon a subject which any reasonable person would think might very well have been disposed of in one hour.

said, the attention of the Government had been called, over and over again, to the burning by agents of landlords of the dwellings of tenants who had been evicted; and, as such crimes were punishable under Statute or Common Law, he wished to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, whether such acts as those described by the hon. Member for New Ross (Mr. Redmond) did not amount to arson under the Common and Statute Law, and whether he had ordered any prosecution in the numerous cases which had been brought before him?

in reply, said, he must, deny that the acts mentioned constituted the offence of arson, and he had, therefore, ordered no prosecution.

said, he believed the Arrears of Rent Bill would be a far better deterrent to crime than the Bill now before the House; but until the Prevention of Crime Bill was disposed of, no other Business could be taken, and it was their duty to get rid of it as soon as possible. If, therefore, the Irish Members curtailed their opposition to the latter Bill the House might more readily pass the former Bill. Evictions were undoubtedly taking place in Ireland to a very serious extent, notably the County Donegal, where for the past two months a great number of tenants had been evicted. He was also informed by a friend who had recently come from the North of Ireland that evictions would become more numerous. Under such circumstances, they were most anxious to get the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Bill through; and, with that object in view, he hoped hon. Members opposite would not continue their prolonged opposition to the Prevention of Crime Bill.

said, he perfectly agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Donegal (Mr. Lea), that it was highly desirable, in the interests of peace and tranquillity in Ireland, that the House should be allowed to approach the consideration of the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Bill as soon as possible; but he (Mr. O'Connor Power) thought his hon. Friend would see that in saying that he was asking for too much, for it was inviting them to accept a one-sided engagement. He was asking them to become parties to a contract in which all the obligation would rest on them, while no corresponding obligation would rest on the Government. Suppose they were now to desist from all further opposition to the Prevention of Crime Bill, could his hon. Friend guarantee that the Government would persist with their Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Bill, no matter what opposition might arise against it in this or the other House of Parliament? Would the Government act in reference to that Bill as they acted in reference to the Compensation for Disturbance Bill, the rejection of which, in his opinion, was the source and beginning of most of the trouble and annoyance which had since arisen in Ireland? That showed how impossible it was to carry out the proposal of his hon. Friend. They must take things as they came before them; and if the Government, having absolute discretion in their hands, had made the mistake of placing coercion before remedial legislation, on their head would rest the responsibility. To charge the Irish Members with any responsibility for the state of things which arose out of that choice would be to make them responsible for that over which they had absolutely no control. He wished to appeal to his hon. Friend the Member for Donegal, who was elected to support Her Majesty's Government, and who loyally supported Her Majesty's Government, and, therefore, might be supposed to have some influence over Her Majesty's Government—he asked him and other Members of the House to approach Her Majesty's Government on this subject. The Prime Minister stated, a few weeks ago, that he would avail himself of every lucid interval to push forward the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Bill. They had looked in vain for the appearance of that interval, and he wished to ask whether the time had not now come when something might be done with it? Why did not his hon. Friend appeal to the Conservative Party to abridge their long speeches on the Egyptian Question, allow Egyptian affairs to be managed by those who were responsible for the policy of the Government, and let them go on with their ordinary affairs? It would be scandalous and a disgrace to the Irish Representatives if they allowed the present Bill to go through without discussion, in that way consenting to see every principle of their liberties struck down, as was pro- posed by that Bill, on a bargain, as he said, in which all the obligations were on their side; while, on the other hand, the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Bill would still remain at the discretion of the Government, acting under the coercion of the Conservative Party. If the opposite course entailed the responsibility of retarding the remedial measure of the Government, let them not hesitate to take that course, seeing their end could be obtained by no other means.

said, he wished the Government would accede to the request of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), and have a Saturday's Sitting. ["Oh, oh!"] He said that as much in the interest of the Scottish and English legislation, which had been kept behind, as in the interest of Ireland. The present bad weather was beginning to make persons look to the harvest; and there appeared a prospect of another Session passing without anything being done for the agricultural interests of England and Scotland, which demanded attention. They ought to look at the mass of legislation behind the two Bills referred to in the discussion, and reflect how it was being hindered, solely by the waste of time now taking place.

said, he believed that it would be a very small minority of the people of Donegal who would support the Liberal Member for Donegal (Mr. Lea) in his appeal to the Irish Party to give up their resistance to Coercion. He was glad, however, to hear from the hon. Member for Donegal that he was aware of the cruel evictions that were taking place in the country—evictions in which all the rights were on the side of the tenants, and all the wrongs on the side of the landlords. But he could not but think that these deplorable facts would have been more properly brought forward at the introduction of the Coercion Bill as a reason for delaying the Coercion Bill, and not as a reason why Irish Members should now decline to criticize, and, if possible, amend that Bill. The Secretary of State for the Home Department had deprecated conversations of this kind; but the observation would have more power if it had not been preceded by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. The Chief Secretary for Ireland informed Irish Members that, even with regard to the discussion of the Coercion Bill, their observations would be of no use, that Her Majesty's Government at the commencement of each clause would state what was their will, and would refuse all Amendments on the part of the Irish Members. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland stated that when arson was committed by Emergency men it was not a crime.

I never made any such statement.

I am translating the right hon. and learned Gentleman's language into plain English, stripped of the technicalities of Dublin Castle law. If they wished to deal fairly with both sides, let them introduce a provision into the Coercion Act, making the burning of houses by Emergency men a crime.

said, he had contented himself hitherto with entering a silent protest against the Coercion Bill by voting against it, because he saw it was of no use opposing the Bill in the face of the overwhelming power brought into operation by the junction of the two great Parties. The sooner the Bill was passed the sooner they would get to remedial measures. He admitted the satisfaction he had felt at the frank and earnest statement of his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and regretted the unfavourable criticisms made upon it by the hon. Member for Dungarvan. At the same time, he could not but express his protest against the fatuity of Her Majesty's Government in bringing on coercive before remedial measures; coercive measures which all history proved would not paralyze the arm of the assassin nor insure detection; but would add weight to the disgust and hatred of the English Government in Ireland, out of which all such outrages sprung. He believed that the Government were causing deep regret and dissatisfaction among the Liberal Party by the course they were pursuing. They were dragging the Liberal Party, who felt no little disinclination to support measures which might have found a proper home on the Benches opposite, but which were a disgrace to the Liberal Party.

in moving, as an Amendment, in page 4, line 14, to leave out the words "to be," in order to insert the words "of which public notice shall be given," said, the clause, as at present framed, might lead to gross injustice. It presented no public notification of the fact that this order had been made. Persons might attend, wholly unaware the meeting had been made illegal. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell) had an Amendment lower down on the Paper, by which he also sought to obviate the infliction of the severe penalties, for offences against this section, on persons who might be ignorant that there was any prohibition. If this clause was left without amendment, it might cause the greatest injustice.

said, he should be glad to accept the Amendment.

thought it very desirable, before the Committee proceeded any further with the clause, that the necessity for such a clause should be shown. The Lord Lieutenant had already amply exercised his powers of prohibition. Had he not, within the last six months, prohibited every kind of meeting to which he had the slightest objection? What, then, was the necessity for this clause?

in reply, said, the first part of the clause gave the necessary power to the Lord Lieutenant to prohibit illegal meetings, and the second part was necessary to give the means of effectuating that prohibition by action against individuals who declined to obey the law. At pro-sent, where a proclamation was issued against the holding of a public meeting, the only means by which effect could be given to it was to disperse the meeting by force. It was thought to be necessary that there should be a continual machinery, and by this clause that machinery would be provided, so as to bring those who took part in an illegal meeting within the summary jurisdiction of the Act. This was the reason why the clause was deemed to be necessary.

wished to know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir William Harcourt) was aware that during last year the Lord Lieutenant had prohibited two classes of meetings, the sheriff's sales and ordinary public meetings? He also wished to know whether, in consequence of disobedience to these prohibitions, any public inconvenience had arisen? He desired to know likewise whether it was not the fact that the ordinary law was sufficient?

said, before that question was answered he would like to ask another. Had the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Homo Department (Sir William Harcourt) any information to give the Committee as to the number of public meetings that had been prohibited by the Lord Lieutenant during the last six or 12 months; and also as to the number of eases in which the proclamations of the Lord Lieutenant had been obeyed, or in which it had become necessary to disperse the meetings by force?

said, he also wished to ask whether, under the law, the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland had been entitled to make the proclamations that had been issued during the last 12 months? So far as his (Dr. Commins') research was concerned, the action of the Lord Lieutenant in this respect was not only utterly unconstitutional, but was also utterly illegal.

in reply, said, the questions that had just been put were entirely contradictory. One question assumed that the power was legal, and that of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Dr. Commins) assumed that the power was not legal. If the exercise of that power was not legal, it was the object of this clause to make it so; and if, on the other hand, it was legal, it was still desirable that the doubt expressed by the hon. and learned Gentleman should be removed, and that the people of Ireland should be made aware, by the declaration contained in that clause, that the power was legal. He need not say that Her Majesty's Government had introduced this clause with very great reluctance, and he might add that there was what he might term a national feeling among Englishmen of all parties and shades of opinion—a feeling of repugnance at the interference thus proposed with the rights of the people; and he believed that, in many parts of the House, he should be believed when he made this statement. But they ought never to allow themselves to be blinded to the fact that they could not overlook the actual state of the case. They were bound to consider what the condition of Ireland really was at the present time, and what were the peculiar circumstances which rendered the application of remedies of an extraordinary character absolutely indispensable. Public meetings might, no doubt, be considered as a source of light; but they ought to have some regard to the atmosphere into which the light was carried, and it would be the height of recklessness to carry a light in the form of a naked candle into a chamber filled with explosive material. It had been said that proposals of this character ought to be specially repugnant to the feelings of the Liberal Party. That was perfectly true; but he would call attention to the fact that, at one time, after the Liberal Party had been out of Office for half-a-century, during which they had had to fight the battle of freedom in Opposition, it became their unfortunate duty, but still their duty, and a duty which they did not shrink from performing, in the very first year after the passing of the Reform Bill, to introduce measures which they considered to be absolutely indispensable for the preservation of the peace in Ireland. That was the great Liberal Reform Administration, which was represented by Lord Grey in the House of Lords, and in the House of Commons by a Relative of the present Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. He supposed he might say, without fear of contradiction, that there was no man living who was more indisposed to recommend the adoption of measures of that description than the present Earl Spencer, unless it was that distinguished man, Lord Althorp, who was his Relative, and who was a Member of the Administration just referred to. And yet Lord Althorp, in the very infancy of the Reform Parliament, found it necessary, in the then disturbed condition of Ireland, to introduce a Bill, the very first clause of which contained these words:—

"That it shall and may be lawful for the Lord Lieutenant, or other Chief Governor or Governors of Ireland, at any time after the passing of this Act, and from time to time during the continuance thereof, as occasion may require, by his or their order in writing, of which public notice shall be given, to prohibit or suppress the meeting of any association, assembly, or body of persons which he or they shall deem to be dangerous to the public peace or safety, or inconsistent with the due administration of the law, and by the same, or any other order also to prohibit any or every adjourned, renewed, or otherwise continued meeting of the same or of any part thereof under any name, pretext, shift or device whatsoever, and that every meeting of any association, assembly or body of persons, the meeting whereof shall be so prohibited or suppressed as aforesaid, and every postponed, adjourned, renewed or otherwise continued meeting thereof under any name pretext, shift or device whatsoever, shall be and be deemed an unlawful assembly, and after notice has been given of such meeting having been prohibited or suppressed, as aforesaid, every person present at the same shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanour, and every such offence, whether committed within any district proclaimed in pursuance of this Act, or elsewhere, in Ireland, shall be tried and punished according to the course of the common law."

May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman in what year that Act was passed?

in reply, said, the Act was passed in the year 1833, the first year after the election of the Reform Parliament.

said, he would like also to be informed whether that Act abolished trial by jury in these cases?

in reply, said, the Act did not abolish trial by jury. The hon. Member for the City of Cork had used the words "in these cases." His (Sir William Harcourt's) reply was, that it established martial law.

asked if the Act just referred to established martial law in these cases?

said, it did not; but it did establish martial law in Ireland. He had said there had always been a feeling of repugnance among the Liberal Party at interference with the rights of the people; but he would also say that it never had been a tradition of the Liberal Party to tolerate disorder or attacks on life and property, whether in Ireland or elsewhere; and if it were true that the measures Her Majesty's Government were now proposing were necessary for the purpose of preventing such attacks, then he had a right to say that they were fulfilling and acting up to the traditions of the Liberal Party; and the Liberal Party—at least as much as the Conservative Party—were bound, under the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government, to preserve the lives and protect the property of the subjects of the Queen. The only question they ought to ask themselves was this—was the situation in Ireland at the present moment such as justified and rendered necessary a resort to measures of this character? If they found that it was so, then he must say that the present Administration would no more shrink from the performance of their duty than did the Administration of Earl Grey. Well, upon that point, he could only say that the opinion of the Irish Government was clear and distinct, that the powers asked for by this clause were absolutely necessary. He would read to the Committee what had been said by Earl Spencer on this subject. Earl Spencer said—

"The danger of meetings at which inflammatory speeches are made is very great, when the country is in the excited condition in which it has lately been."

He (Sir William Harcourt) would ask the attention of the Committee to these words:—

"Outrages follow these meetings with remarkable certainty. The Executive have, at great risk, stopped them; but they only rely on sufficient force to prevent bloodshed, and a statutory power to stop meetings believed to be dangerous to the public peace and public safety, and making it an offence for anyone to attend these meetings after such a notice will strengthen enormously the hands of the Government, and one of the greatest dangers to the public peace will be checked."

Such were the views of the Irish Government on this question. Her Majesty's Government were satisfied that those views were well founded; and it was for the reasons he (Sir William Harcourt) had thus stated that Her Majesty's Government had introduced, with whatever reluctance, the clause now under discussion; and it was on these grounds that they felt bound to support the application for the powers it was intended to confer.

said, by what extraordinary selection the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had been charged with the conduct of a Bill which abrogated the liberties of the Irish people he (Mr. Sexton) was unable to understand. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, in endeavouring to strengthen the position of the Government in their attempt to abolish the right of public meeting in Ireland, had referred to a precedent, and had been obliged to go back 50 years for the purpose. He had been compelled to refer to the acts of statesmen who did not claim to be called Liberal, but who were satisfied with the designation of Whig. One would have thought the Government would have been ashamed to refer in that House to the period of 1833, when the tithe movement might be said to have resulted in wholesale slaughter amongst the community, 60 murders having been committed in one county, and 33 in another, in the course of a year. A period such as that, when the country was convulsed with a violent outburst of public feeling, was not comparable to the present time, because the outrages then committed were to the outrages of to-day as ten to one. But coercion had failed in those days as it would again, tranquillity having only been restored by the illusory settlement of the Tithe Question. Although the right hon. and learned Gentleman had thought fit to put forward the Act of 1833 in justification of the policy of the Government, he had, however, not cited the opinion of Lord Morpeth, a man who knew the situation of Ireland, and who testified that the conflict with the forces raging at that period had utterly failed, and that it was only when a milder policy, he would not say of conciliation, was begun, that a period of repose ensued. Did the Act of 1833 tell in favour of the peace of Ireland? On the contrary; for years after the passage of that Act, when other measures of coercion had been piled upon it, as the pile grew higher and higher over the heads of the people, higher and higher grew the amount of crime. It was not until the people had the idea, delusive as it was, that their interests were being attended to; when coercion had proved, after four years' experience of it, that it was useless for the purpose it was intended for, that the Government of the day learned by degrees that there was no cure for the condition of Ireland but to yield to the just wants and wishes of the people. It was then, and then only, that tranquillity was restored. Never was there a more miserable failure than the Act of 1833, and for that reason alone it ought not to have been cited by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. It was true that the Act of 1833 suspended the right of public meeting in Ireland; but did it suspend the right of trial by jury? Even under that Act, that right was untouched, and it was reserved for the Radicals of the 19th century to deprive the people of Ireland both of their right of public meeting and their right to Constitutional trial. Again, it was said that Lord Spencer had expressed the opinion that if he had power to prohibit public meetings, it would greatly strengthen the hands of the Executive Government. But he (Mr. Sexton) contended that the hands of the Executive in Ireland, in that respect, needed no strengthening whatever; and in saying that he stood upon the experience of last year. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had gone into matters of history, but had not touched either of the two questions he had put to him, notwithstanding that he admitted they were somewhat pertinent to the matter in hand. Was it statesmanlike or consistent on the part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to make that admission, and then sit down with a triumphant air after evading those questions altogether? The Lord Lieutenant had undoubtedly prohibited meetings at Sheriffs' sales, where it was not to be wondered at that the people were exasperated into a state of excitement. But when the Lord Lieutenant exercised the power of prohibiting meetings for the discussion of the agrarian question, was the Executive in any case obliged to resort to force for the preservation of the peace? On the contrary, he said that the moment the proclamation appeared, the public stood aside, and there was no disturbance of the peace. Did it become necessary for the authorities to prosecute any individuals, or did the people in any way persevere in having meetings which were forbidden? Again the answer was in the negative. Then he (Mr. Sexton) said that the past year's experience abundantly proved that the existing powers of the Lord Lieutenant were ample, and that, so far as the clause before the Committee was concerned, the Preamble of the Bill contained a false and unfounded statement. The Preamble of the Bill said that the operation of the ordinary law had become insufficient for the repression and prevention of crime, and that it was expedient to make further provision for that purpose. He (Mr. Sexton) traversed, denied, and declared that statement to be false. The powers already in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant were ample for the preservation of peace and order, and he challenged any hon. or right hon. Gentleman to get up and deny the truth of the statement. Now, if the hands of the Lord Lieutenant were strong enough to combat the difficulties of the situation, as they were abundantly proved to be, it followed that the clause was unnecessary. He once more asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman if the Lord Lieutenant had, in any case, used force in connection with public meetings in Ireland; if public inconvenience had in any case ensued upon these meetings; had the powers of the Lord Lieutenant been found sufficient for the purpose of dealing with them; and, why, if they were, the Government were about to strengthen them?

said, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had expressed great reluctance in supporting a clause for the further limitation of public liberty in Ireland. Irish Members must do him the justice to say that his reluctance was admirably dissembled. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had stated that, under the existing law, there was no means of dealing with a prohibited meeting except by dispersing it by force. That being so, would the right hon. and learned Gentleman say that when this clause was obtained the Government would allow public meetings to proceed without dispersing them by force? Would they judge by results whether any action was to be taken with regard to them? He failed to perceive the reason for the previous statement earlier in the evening of the right hon. and learned Gentleman as to the progress of the Bill. If he were so anxious about the time of the Committee, it was difficult to understand why he should delay the Committee so considerably by the introduction of utterly superfluous matter in his lengthy endeavour to prove that the clause was strictly in the ways of the Liberal Party. He (Mr. O'Donnell) would suggest that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should, in future, take all arguments of that kind as said; for it was well understood that the ways of the Liberal Party were always compatible with the most rigorous coercion in Ireland; and, although he stated that the majority of the House would bear him out in his opinion, ho (Mr. O'Donnell) ventured to say that there was very little sympathy with the principles of the Liberal Party among those Members who now supported it anywhere outside the four corners of Great Britain. The only result of the clause would be to create as many punishable offences as it might suit the policy or fears of an incompetent Viceroy to call into existence. It had been said as a satire upon foreign tyrants that nothing was easier than to govern by a state of siege. Her Majesty's Government had set about governing Ireland by that means, and the application of that regime, discoverable in the present clause, was the most objectionable that could be imagined, because it amounted to this—that the Viceroy, upon some information from persons of whom nothing was known, and whose right to be listened to could not be tested, might prohibit any public meeting in Ireland. That meeting might be most orderly, the speeches at it most mild, and many things might be said there within the bounds of reasonable criticism and appropriate denunciation; yet because the meeting was for the purpose of considering things distasteful to the Government, and the speeches calculated to exhibit the fallacy of the Government policy, the Lord Lieutenant could come down upon it with the whole force of the Bill, bringing before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction in connection with it any persons he chosed, and subjecting them to the degradation and pain of six months' imprisonment with hard labour. The clause gave power to the Lord Lieutenant to create a number of undefined offences, and to trust to the Resident Magistrates to punish them with undefined penalties. He (Mr. O'Donnell) had been accused by an hon. Member, a Friend of the Liberal Party in all their attempts upon the liberties of the Irish people, with having misrepresented the Government in saying that their method of procedure with regard to the Bill was simply to declare their policy and refuse to accept any Amendments. He should be glad to find that he had in that respect misrepresented the policy of the Government, and would be ready to apologize to the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor), if ho could see the slightest disposition on the part of the Government to accept the smallest reasonable Amendments to the clause.

rose to Order. Was it permissible for any hon. Member to discuss the principle of the clause upon an Amendment?

said, as the Minister in charge of the Bill, in expressing the displeasure he felt at the manner the subject was being dealt with, had introduced a somewhat extended discussion upon the clause, it would hardly be becoming for him (the Chairman) to draw the line too strictly. It was entirely out of Order to discuss the merits of a clause upon a simple Amendment.

said, he could assure the Committee that he had no intention of following the eloquent second reading speech of the Secretary of State for the Home Department; because that would have the effect of leading the Committee too far from the subject before them. The hon. Member who had just intervened without reason (Mr. H. Samuelson) was, to a certain extent, justified by the action of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and it was doubtless owing to a truly Liberal tenderness for the conduct of his Chiefs that he had not risen to Order during the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

again rose—[Cries of "Order!"]

indicated that the hon. Member for Dungarvan was not out of Order.

resuming, said, the hon. Member for Frome, having intervened without reason, had now intervened without Order. But to continue. If this clause were passed, unamended as he presumed it would be, in conformity with the programme laid down by the Government, it would be impossible for public opinion in Ireland to find legitimate expression, and in that case it would not only seek, but find illegitimate expression. The conduct of the Government in refusing any Amendment to the clause was simply in keeping with their action upon other clauses of the Bill.

said, he did not think that a very fair charge, inasmuch as he had just signified his willingness to accept the first Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Patrick Martin).

said, the rapid acceptance of the proposal of the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Patrick Martin) showed how much the clause stood in need of amendment, and the intervention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman was therefore simply rhetorical. He (Mr. O'Donnell) had said if the public were prevented in the expression of their grievances, not only were the people of a country injured, but the Government was also injured, because it shut itself out from the knowledge of what was necessary to the good government of the country. Consequently, the refusal to grant the liberty of public meeting in Ireland was as much a blow against good government as against public liberty; and it confirmed the impression that good government and public liberty were, at the present time, equally apart from the designs of the Liberal Party.

said, he thought that the Secretary of State for the Home Department, when referring to the Act of 1833, might have given the Committee some information as to the state of Ireland at the time that Act was introduced. According to a very instructive book by Mr. Leader called Coercive Measures in Ireland, which gave some very interesting information as to the proceedings of the Liberal Party, it appeared that in the year preceding the passing of the Act, there were, amongst other crimes, 172 homicides, 1,465 robberies, 468 burglaries, and 425 illegal meetings—of which there had not been one last year—753 attacks on houses, 2,083 illegal notices, 280 arsons, and 3,156 serious assaults. Altogether the crimes connected with the disturbed state of the country at that time amounted to upwards of 9,000, and crime was then increasing. This Act when passed would apply to all Ireland. The happy and prosperous Province of Ulster would be just as much under the purview of this Act as would be the most disturbed parts of the county of Galway. The Act of 1833 did not extend to all Ireland, for the Lord Lieutenant was empowered to issue his proclamation, saying that a district was disturbed, and directing the application of the Act to that district. The Secretary of State for the Home Department, in showing his erudition in coercion, might have referred to the experiences of the Head of the Government, then a Member of a Cabinet, but not a Liberal Cabinet, for the Prime Minister, like many others, had seen the error of his ways. In 1833 the Clontarf meeting was put down by proclamation, and O'Connell was convicted by Judge and jury for having been one of the promoters of that meeting. In referring to the Act of 1833 the Secretary of State for the Home Department kept the Committee in ignorance of the real state of the country at that time. The right hon. and learned Gentleman also concealed from the Committee the fact that the Act of 1833 contained a safeguard that the present Act did not contain—namely, that it should only operate in districts which had been proclaimed by the Lord Lieutenant.

said, the next Amendment was one standing in the name of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), and in the temporary absence of his hon. Friend he (Mr. Dillon) would move it. It was, in page 4, line 15, to leave out from "which" to "safety," in line 16, inclusive, and insert "the holding of which he has reason to believe would lead to a breach of the peace." There were some important considerations connected with the Amendment, and he hoped that in moving it he would not interfere with the right of any other hon. Member to make an Amendment on the same subject. Perhaps the Chairman would kindly put the question as one to leave out the word "which," and thus enable other Amendments to be put. This Amendment raised some important considerations, and he hoped the Government would see their way to accepting it. He listened with considerable attention while the Secretary of State for the Home Department was reading the extract from the 1st clause of the Act of 1833, and one thing had struck him as being very extraordinary. This clause provided that the Lord Lieutenant might prohibit

"Any meeting which he has reason to believe to he dangerous to the public peace or the public safety."

Now, public peace and public safety were two very different things. If a meeting was believed to be dangerous to the public peace, it was believed that the dangers were such that they might amount to a breach of the peace. Allow him to point out that a meeting might be dangerous to the public safety, because it was held in furtherance of a movement which, in the opinion of the Government, was not a proper movement. There was no meeting held in England in furtherance of any reform which, in the opinion of a large section of the House of Commons, and very often of the Government of the day, was not dangerous to the public safety, because it was held in furtherance of a movement which the House and the Government might strongly disapprove of. If the words proposed to be left out were left in, no public meeting could be held in Ireland in furtherance of a public movement which the Lord Lieutenant considered the Government ought not to approve of. If the Secretary of State for the Home Department was so very anxious to go on the precedent of the Bill of 1833—and he (Mr. Dillon) submitted with confidence to the Committee that the right hon. and learned Gentleman ought not to go beyond the Bill of 1833—he certainly ought to remove the word "or," and make the clause read "dangerous to the public peace and the public safety," which were the words of the Act of 1833.

said, the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) would excuse him if he said that the words of the Act of 1833 were "which shall be deemed to be dangerous to public peace or safety." Then the Act of 1833 went further than the present Government had thought it necessary to go, for to the two conditions he had enumerated were added the words "or inconsistent with the due administration of the law."

said, he had not the Act of 1833 with him; but he would remind the Committee that the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in support of the contention that the clause was necessary, also read portions of a letter from Earl Spencer, the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and the wording of the letter was that it would be necessary to strengthen the hands of the Government by enabling him to prohibit meetings which he considered dangerous to the public peace and public safety. These were certainly the words of the Lord Lieutenant as read by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He (Mr. Dillon) wished to point out that the word "and" made a most important difference. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) would put it in the power of the Lord Lieutenant to prohibit any meeting, the holding of which he considered would lead to a breach of the peace. The question was, were they to place power in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant to prohibit meetings which, in his opinion, were dangerous to the public safety, or was the power to be confined to meetings which, in the opinion of His Excellency, would be likely to lead to a breach of the peace? One of the strongest arguments in favour of the Amendment was the dreadful penalty which was imposed for the offence. The punishment was an excessive and severe one, and as the clause stood, it, no doubt, would be inflicted on persons who simply attended the meeting, and did nothing illegal. He (Mr. Dillon) had had a good deal of experience in attending meetings in Ireland, and he knew of numberless instances in which prohibitions had been made on so short notice that it was ab- solutely necessary, in order to prevent bloodshed, that some of the popular leaders should attend and call upon the people to disperse. He challenged the Government to instance a single case in which popular leaders had attended meetings to advise the people to disperse, and in which they had not been successful. He asserted, without the possibility of contradiction, that at some meetings the magistrates had acted in a most unreasonable and provoking way, and it was only through the exercise of the influence of the popular leaders that bloodshed and frightful disorder had not occurred. The dispersion of a meeting was excessively dangerous. A meeting was, perhaps, announced a week in advance, the country was canvassed, numerous masses of people were called upon to attend, and, perhaps on the Saturday night a proclamation was published in The Dublin Gazette—a paper almost unknown in Ireland—prohibiting the proposed meeting as illegal. How were the people of the country districts to be informed of the proclamation, unless it be through their own leaders? He could mention many cases in which people had started to meetings in thousands; but they had been met on the road by priests and leaders of the Land League, and requested to turn back, in consequence of the prohibition of the meeting. The Government could not point to a single instance in which the leaders of the Land League had refused to exercise their influence, and to exercise it with effect in preventing collisions between the police and the people. He supposed he did not overstate it when he said that close upon 100 meetings had been proclaimed during the last year, and that in not a single case had a life been lost and a collision taken place between the authorities and the people. Was it to be supposed that every one of the thousands of people who attended a meeting, innocent of the fact that it had been proclaimed, were to be subject to six months' imprisonment with hard labour? How could the Government expect popular leaders to attend on the spot, and exercise their influence in preventing a collision between the police and the people, if by that attendance they would place themselves in danger of six months' imprisonment with hard labour? He knew of an instance of a meeting in the streets of Dublin, which was dispersed at half-an-hour's notice. He used his influence with the people to cause them to disperse, and they did so; there was no collision with the authorities, although the provocation given by the police was positively frightful. If this clause had been law at that time, he would have been subject to six months' imprisonment for being on the spot. If he had not been there, the people would have been left without any advice, and without any information as to whether the meeting was illegal or legal, except such as they could obtain from the police proclamation. One of the chief objections to this clause was that it would place hundreds and thousands of people in the position of having committed an offence against this Act, when it was utterly impossible to know that their attendance at a meeting would be any offence at all. Another great objection to the clause was that it would enormously increase the danger of collisions between the police, and the military, and the people, because he took it that whenever a meeting was prohibited the military would be sent. If this clause was passed, it would be made a penal offence, punishable by a severe penalty, for any popular leader to attend the place of a proclaimed meeting, and use his influence to cause the people to turn back. He feared that this could only be regarded as a deliberate attempt on the part of the Government to cause collisions between the police and the people. This was a question fraught with very great danger, and, therefore, he earnestly advised the Committee to consider carefully what would be the effect of the clause before they proceeded any further with its consideration.

wished to ask the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) if he had not an Amendment to propose on this subject?

If it is decided that these words stand part of the clause, the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) cannot move his Amendment.

said, he had not intended to move the Amendment, because he understood the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) had a better Amendment to propose.

asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.

moved, as an Amendment, in page 4, line 15, to leave out from the word "which" to the word "safety," in line 16, both inclusive, and insert—

"Convened for an unlawful purpose, or with an intent to carry out a lawful object riotously and tumultuously."

Anyone who took the trouble to read the newspapers that morning would see a good deal about what legal and illegal meetings were, because in all the papers there was a report of an appeal from a conviction of the magistrates of Weston-super-Mare, in regard to a public meeting of the Salvation Army. The magistrates prohibited a public meeting of the Salvation Army, and they committed certain chieftains of this Army for insisting upon marching through the town. The matter was carried to the Superior Court at Westminster, and, from the proceedings in that Court, ho (Mr. Labouchere) gathered that the only public meetings which were illegal, according to the English law, wore meetings convened for unlawful purposes, or with intent to carry out a lawful object riotously and tumultuously; and that was the reason why he had embodied these words in his Amendment. As the clause now stood, it was left to the Lord Lieutenant to decide whether a meeting was dangerous to the public peace or public safety. The consequence would be that there would be no sort of appeal from the decision of the Lord Lieutenant, because he would say—"I have reason to believe it;" whereas, if they laid down some sort of limitation, it would be open at once for anyone to contest before the Irish tribunals whether the Lord Lieutenant was exceeding his power or not. The Lord Lieutenant would have to say whether a meeting he prohibited was a lawful one or an unlawful one; and if ho were to prohibit a meeting that was law- ful in itself, the tribunals would step in and stop him. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department would very probably say—"The Lord Lieutenant is a man actuated by the very best motives—he never will make a mistake." Well, he (Mr. Labouchere) was quite ready to admit that Earl Spencer was a man actuated by the very best motives; but, supposing he was, he (Mr. Labouchere) should be sorry to give anyone, either in this country or Ireland, absolute power for the suppression of public meetings, simply because he believed he would not abuse it. What the right hon. and learned Gentleman never seemed to remember was that this Bill was not to be in force only during such time as Earl Spencer was Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. It was not "Earl Spencer" who was mentioned in the Bill, but "The Lord Lieutenant," and the measure was to last for three years. [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT: Keep the Government in.] The right hon. and learned Gentleman said—"Keep the Government in," and he (Mr. Labouchere) should endeavour to do that; but, notwithstanding all their efforts, it might be that the Government could not be kept in; and he would put it to the Committee, at least to hon. Gentlemen on that (the Ministerial) side of the House, suppose there was a change of Government, would they like to intrust the power of deciding what was or what was not a public meeting to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. J. Lowther)? It was obvious to everyone on that side of the House that the right hon. Gentleman, if these powers were intrusted to him, would, as he himself would say, use them; but, as they would say, abuse them. He had more than once pointed out that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman had power to prohibit public meetings, and put persons in prison in Great Britain under the Bill, he would have to put down the meetings of the Prime Minister in Mid Lothian, supposing the Prime Minister enunciated such views as those he enunciated during his political campaign. Such a course as that would only be carrying out the views of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and ho (Mr. Labouchere) therefore said, ought they not to put some limitation to the right to suppress public meetings of any noble Lord who might be Lord Lieutenant, or any right hon. Gentleman—and he said "or any right hon. Gentleman," because he presumed the right hon. Member for North Lincolnshire might be again the Adviser of a Conservative Lord Lieutenant, and the right hon. Gentleman's stronger will would practically prevail. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department objected to definitions. He would say—"Good gracious, if you have a definition here you will want one every where—you will want a definition of murder." But there were definitions in the Bill—there was a long clause full of definitions—and, as a matter of fact, the right hon. and learned Gentleman wanted to be allowed to define where he wished, to limit the power of the Bill, and not to be allowed to define where he wanted to extend it. He (Mr. Labouchere) would now move his Amendment.

said, the words the Lord Lieutenant might, from time to time, by order in writing, to be published in the prescribed manner, prohibit any meeting "which he has reason to believe to be dangerous to the public peace or the public safety," exactly expressed the object with which the power of stopping these meetings had hitherto been exercised, and the motive with which it would be exercised in the future. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), by his Amendment, begged them not to put themselves under the great disadvantage of having no opportunity of ascertaining what the feeling of the people of Ireland was. The hon. Gentleman's argument was not tenable, because if the Government wished to get at what public feeling in Ireland was, they were not likely to prohibit meetings at which that public feeling would be expressed in a legal, orderly, and quiet manner. They would not prohibit them, however unfavourable that public feeling might be to them and to their existence as a Government. The way the Government interpreted the words of the clause was this—that it would apply to meetings which were calculated to lead to a breach of the public peace—meetings which were calculated—he did not for a moment say intended—it might be indirectly, but which wore calculated to result ultimately in outrage and violence against individuals, or against a class, or which might intimidate individuals, or which might hinder people in the exercise of their just rights. It was meetings of this class that the Lord Lieutenant had prohibited in considerable numbers—no doubt, in the numbers named by the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon). On that point—and this was, in fact, the only argument he would endeavour to press before the House—he rested on the authority of hon. Gentlemen opposite below the Gangway. They admitted that this power had been very frequently used—they admitted that it was an existing and recognized power. He did not for a moment wish to represent those hon. Members as approving of the exercise of that power. The hon. Member for Northampton said in terms, or implied, that he trusted the present Viceroy. [Mr. LABOUCHERE: I said I would trust him comparatively.] That was hardly what His Excellency had a right to expect from the hon. Member. However, the hon. Member trusted the present Viceroy to a certain extent; but said that within the next three years another Government might come in. Well, he (Mr. Trevelyan) had no reason to think that another Lord Lieutenant would exercise these powers in a manner different to that in which Earl Spencer would exercise them. But suppose he did. Suppose they had an arbitrary Lord Lieutenant and an oppressive Chief Secretary for Ireland, if these powers were intrusted to them and they abused them, hon. Members could avail themselves of their right of protesting. Here they had a power which had been frequently put in force. It was a power which had been protested against by some hon. Members individually; but Parliament, as a whole, approved of it, and it had been put in force for 12 months past, and Parliament, as a body, had never objected to it. The question was—and he did not go farther in argument than that—whether this power had been exercised in a manner which would lead to the least possible public inconvenience, and the least public danger. At present the Lord Lieutenant, as the head of the Executive, and responsible for the public peace, prohibited a meeting where he thought it necessary, and supported that prohibition by collecting on the spot a large military force to overawe all opposition. But it was obvious that that, under certain circumstances, would be a most critical process. The hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) challenged him to give an instance where the popular leaders had not supported the law. The hon. Member had given a very interesting account of the manner in which, as he had said, under very disadvantageous circumstances, owing to not having had sufficient notice given, he and those acting with him—the priests and the leaders of the people—had turned people away from their settled purpose, in order that there might not be a collision with the authorities. But then there might be leaders—people who called themselves popular leaders, but who led only a very small part of the populace—who might take a very different action to the hon. Member and his friends, and, with them, the only method of enforcing the order of the Executive might be by dispersing the meeting by force, and, perhaps, killing and wounding those who resisted. The 7th clause gave that power. It did not create a power, but gave a statutory power, which, under the clause, in certain cases, would replace the power that existed, and which, under present conditions, might lead to a collision that all would deplore.

said, that, according to the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, the more wrong they did, the more wrong they ought to be able to do. Because the Government had exercised, in an arbitrary manner, a certain power without the smallest show of authority, during the whole of last year, they were to have a legal right to do it. Supposing they were dealing with a people less peaceful and more fully armed than the people of Ireland, what would happen? Suppose the Government issued a proclamation telling a meeting of these people to disperse, and suppose the people did not choose to do so, they might come out with scythes and pikes. There might be scenes such as were witnessed at the famous Peterloo affair. Who would be responsible for such things? Would it not be the Government, who chose to act arbitrarily and without legal authority? But because the Irish people were peaceful and disarmed, and they had acted arbitrarily against them recently, the Government made that a precedent for asking for legal power to do that which they had been doing without authority. That was the sum and substance of the right hon. Gentleman's case—because the people had acted, he (Mr. Healy) would not say tamely, but had, with calmness and with patience, submitted to the unauthorized, harsh measures of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) and Earl Cowper, therefore powers were to be taken to do in a legal way what had been done illegally. The Lord Lieutenant evidently could suppress meetings at present if he chose; and, that being the case, it was surely mere verbiage to put such powers as this in the Bill. To say—

"The Lord Lieutenant may from time to time, by order in writing to be published in the prescribed manner, prohibit any meeting which he has reason to believe to be dangerous to the public peace or the public safety"

was simply the gilding of the pill. They might just as well say "the Lord Lieutenant may prohibit any meeting in Ireland," because when he wanted to prohibit a meeting, he would at once imagine it to be "dangerous to the public peace or the public safety." The Government might be frank, and strike out all the words after the word "meeting;" but they would not do that. They wished to have, at least, the appearance of acting in a legal and Constitutional manner. Englishmen dealing harshly and arbitrarily with Ireland, whether by Act of Parliament or otherwise, must always soothe themselves with the belief that they were doing everything for the peoplo's good in a regular and proper manner. They could never think they were acting as brigands, because they had an armed force behind them. The fact was, the Government were showing a disposition to throw dust into the eyes of the people of this country; and such an attempt, although it might succeed here, would never deceive the Irish people. Meetings were to be prescribed, and they had sought to be informed of the view of the Lord Lieutenant as to the particular gatherings which were to be put down, but, so far, without success. Was an indoor meeting liable to be proclaimed as well as an outdoor meeting? As far as his own knowledge of Irish meetings went—and he had the fortune to attend a great many, both indoor and outdoor meetings—he was ignorant of disturbance. If a meeting was announced to be held in the Rotunda in Dublin to denounce the policy of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, or the Secretary of State for the Home Department, would it be proclaimed, notwithstanding that there would be no fear that such a meeting would be Con-ducted in a tumultuous manner? Were indoor meetings to be placed in the same category as outdoor meetings, for some of the former would be very similar in character to the latter? There was very poor accommodation for indoor public meetings in all Irish towns. Save, perhaps, Dublin, Belfast, Cork, and a few other cities, there were very few town halls or public buildings in the country which would hold over 200 people. It appeared to him that the Government were going to proceed on an altogether fallacious assumption. They were going to prohibit meetings; and why? Not only because they would be dangerous to the "public safety," but because they would be dangerous to the "public peace;" and the subsection spoke of "meeting," and not of "public meeting." It would, therefore, be open to the Lord Lieutenant to put a stop to private as well as public meetings; and whose information were they going to act on? Why, on the information of the Clifford Lloyds of Ireland. It would not, in reality, be the Lord Lieutenant who would be exercising the power to prohibit meetings, but the Clifford Lloyds. Ho did not believe that the present Lord Lieutenant would be a bit more careful in his action than any other Lord Lieutenant; he did not believe the stuff and nonsense about the way in which the Liberal Government would carry out the Bill. He would as soon trust the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Mr. Gibson); he would as soon trust the Duke of Marlborough, or whoever ho was, with the power of carrying out the Bill as the present Chief Secretary and Earl Spencer. He did not attach the smallest importance to the Administration which would carry the Bill out, because it would not, in any case, be the Lord Lieutenant or the Chief Secretary who would act. The voice, indeed, might be the voice of Jacob, but the hands would be those of Mr. Clifford Lloyd and such like people. The Government would have to act on the information of the local authorities; and he therefore wished to know whether every meeting to be held henceforth in Ireland, whether in the open or indoors, was to be at the mercy of the local authorities? On what principle would the Government act? Would they, at the request of the local authorities, suppress meetings convened for the purpose of advocating fair rents and complaining of high ones, or to complain of the adjudications of a certain Sub-Commissioner? Under what circumstances would the Government act? That might depend on the temper of the Mr. Clifford Lloyds at the moment, and, from first to last, the Lord Lieutenant would have nothing to do. The power would be in the hands of the local authorities—the village tyrants, acting against law and order, and against such power Irish Members protested.

said, he was obliged to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland for admitting that he (Mr. Dillon) had done nothing against the course of law and order. By the admission of the right hon. Gentleman he had successfully kept the people within the law, and made them obey the laws; and yet a clause was now to be passed which could only have been justified if he and his friends had not exercised their influence. The Chief Secretary for Ireland said that collisions might take place. Therefore, the people were to be punished, by these very stringent powers, for acts which they had not done, and he and his friends were not to get any credit for the influence they had exercised. Was that fair and reasonable? While there was no ground for arguments, there was nothing to support this clause, except that the right hon. Gentleman thought something might happen. He admitted that collisions had not happened during the recent administration of his Predecessor, and he did not attempt to meet the arguments advanced against the clause. He (Mr. Dillon) did not see how the argument was to be met, that this clause would render people who went to meetings liable to punishment; and against that the only argument was an apprehension, which was not shown to be well founded, as to something that might happen in the future. The Act would work against a number of people who might be doing a perfectly innocent thing, and were in no way acting against the law.

said, he agreed in the statement that under the existing law the Lord Lieutenant had power by proclamation to prohibit the holding of a meeting, and that it was in the interest of peace and good order that his order should be obeyed. Proclamations of that character had been issued by the late and many previous Viceroys. But this clause enlarged and extended that power which the Lord Lieutenant now had, made his arbitrary will the sole test of the legality of the exorcise of that power, and would render it an offence in anyone to attend once the order was made. At present, it was true, the Lord Lieutenant, after proclamation made, might send down and disperse a meeting; but, though it was the duty of every subject of the Queen to leave quietly on request of the lawful authority, yet the proclamation did not, under the existing law, prevent him from thereafter contesting the legality of the order. That he was correct in the view which he submitted as to the present limital on the power of the Lord Lieutenant, and the effect of its exercise, was shown in the most conclusive manner by the manner in which framers of the Act of 1833 dealt with the subject of illegal meetings. Unquestionably, in that Act, as in the present Bill, a new offence was created; but it was created, not by virtue of the issue of the proclamation, as was proposed in this Bill, but by the notification of the fact of the proclamation. That was shown by the 2nd section of the Statute, which said—

"And in case any of the persona so met or assembled together shall not disperse or depart within the space of one quarter of an hour from the time of such notice or demand being given shall ho deemed guilty of misdemeanour, and it shall be lawful for them to be indicted for the same."

Then there were special provisions, showing that there must be a special notification to those persons by a Justice of the Peace. That section conclusively showed that the framers of the Act meant the misdemeanour to be constituted by the fact of notification. But in this Bill the offence was made punishable on proof simply that the order had been made, and the fact of attending at the meeting. The instant the proclamation was made from Dublin Castle, although it might not be notified to any person, say, at 4 o'clock in the afternoon, persons attending a meeting held at half-past 4 in some distant part of the country would be held guilty and liable to six months' imprisonment with hard labour. When he found that the framers of the Act of 1833—the most stringent Act ever placed on the Statute Book with respect to Ireland—did not give such power, he thought it necessary to introduce a safeguard in the way suggested in the Amendment which stood in his name. He thought the Government could not refuse to amend this clause of the Bill. In reference to the allusion which had boon made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department to the name of Lord Althorp, let him remind the Committee that though the Act of 1833 was introduced when Lord Althorp was Prime Minister, yet, as he believed, it was in consequence of the passing of that Act and his disgust with its unnecessary stringency that Lord Althorp had found himself compelled to retire from the Cabinet.

said, that owing to the absence of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt), who had special charge of the Bill, the Committee were not in a position to listen to arguments upon the question, and he thought the best thing now to do was to report Progress. It was exceedingly inconvenient to have a discussion on an Amendment when the Minister in special charge of the Bill was not present to be influenced by the arguments advanced, and to reply to them on the one hand, or to give way to their arguments and amend the Bill on the other. He therefore moved to report Progress.