asked the President of the Local Government Board, What has been done in fulfilment of his promise to provide a public supply of calf lymph for the vaccination of those who preferred it; if he would state at what date the Government calf lymph establishment was opened; how many points and tubes of preserved lymph have been distributed from it; what arrangements have been made for its distribution to public vaccinators and medical practitioners; what arrangements, if any, have been made for calf-to-arm vaccination at a public station or stations; and, how many children have been vaccinated by public vaccinators direct from calf to arm?

A permanent vaccine station has been established at Lamb's Conduit Street, under the management of Dr. Cory, providing regular calf-to-arm vaccination, and giving opportunity for the vaccination of children direct from the calf twice a-week. In the first instance great difficulties were experienced in obtaining suitable premises; but temporary accommodation was obtained at Notting Hill, and lymph began to be distributed last summer from calves vaccinated there. Since July last lymph has been obtained to the amount of 2,106 points and 78 tubes, of which 1,672 points and 51 tubes have been distributed. It is supplied to public vaccinators, and to other registered medical practitioners on application, free of charge. Since the Lamb's Conduit Street station was opened in March, 37 children have been vaccinated there direct from the calf.

asked the Vice President of the Council, Whether his attention has been called to a notice in Gaelic and English, dated Chamberlain's Office, Stornoway, March 8th, and circulated among the crofters of the Island of Lewis, to the effect

"That children who do not regularly attend school and make up the requisite number of attendances, and be present at the examination of the school, put the ratepayers and the School Board of the parish to the loss of the Government grant;"

"Children once entered on the admission register of the school, who fail to make up the requisite number of attendances, or who are not present at the examination of the school this year, their parents will have to pay with their first rent the sum of 18s. for each child who may thus fail in attendance;"

I have seen the notice to which the hon. Member refers, and as it is a question between landlord and tenant, and not between the Department and the school board, I have no right to interfere. I understand that the Chamberlain has been re-elected Chairman of the four school hoards since the issue of this notice, and that his sole object in issuing it was to insure regularity of attendance, and to prevent loss to the ratepayers through absence of children on the day of inspection. I understand that any fines inflicted will he paid into the school fund; but I hope the local authorities (who have been very remiss hitherto) will so discharge their functions as to render such fines unnecessary.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the case in which James M'Govern, Thomas M'Govern, and Owen Maguire, who were arrested on the 7th instant, and charged with being

"Accessory to a crime punishable by law, that is to say, shooting at and wounding a certain person with intent to murder him,"

The grounds stated for the arrest of these men in the warrants under which they are detained will be laid before the House in due course, as provided by the Act, and I cannot give the hon. Member the supplemental information he asks for. I have received a letter from James M'Govern, making the allegation contained in the last paragraph of the Question, and have forwarded it to His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the cases of all suspects from the county Clare have now been reconsidered; and, if so, how many of those suspects His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant has decided to retain for the present in custody?

In reply to this Question, the Lord Lieutenant authorizes me to say that he has been, and still is, considering the cases of all the prisoners arrested in the County Clare, and in any case in which he considers he can do so with safety to the peace of the district he orders the prisoner's release.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has received testimonials from gentlemen of position in the county, as to the high character borne by Mr. Daniel O'Loughlin, of Lisdoonvarna, late master of the Bally vaughan (county Clare) Workhouse, who, together with Mr. Denis Hogan, of Bally vaughan, was on the 17th ultimo sent to Galway gaol for six months by Mr. Wilfred Lloyd, E.M. under a Statute of Edw. III.; and, whether those prisoners may hope for release or for a mitigation of their punishment?

I have received through the hon. Member testimonials as to the character of Mr. O'Loughlin. In his case, and that of Mr. Denis Hogan, there were appeals to the Queen's Bench, which were dismissed and the committals upheld, and His Excellency has not considered the cases with a view to any mitigation of the sentences.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, having regard to the present peaceful state of the neighbourhood, His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant will withdraw the warrant, if any, against Mr. J. Malone, of Tomgraney, county Clare?

If the hon. Member refers to a warrant under the Protection Act, I can promise him that such warrant will not be executed if Mr. Malone does not commit any further act calling for its execution. Mr. Malone is at present in custody on remand under the ordinary law, charged with writing a threatening letter.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, in view of the high testimony to character, and the recommendations (including that of his employer, Captain O'Callaghan, a magistrate and deputy lieutenant of the county), in the case of Mr. Whelan, of Ballinahinch, County Clare, His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant finds himself in a position to order Mr. Whelan's release?

His Excellency yesterday considered all the facts of this case, and decided that he could not at present order Mr. Whelan's release.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant has considered the strong recommendations in favour of Mr. T. M'Kenna, of Ogonelloe, which have been submitted at various times; and, whether His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant is in a position to comply with them, and to order his release?

His Excellency has this day ordered Thomas M'Kenna's release.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If there is any reason for the continued detention of Mr. John Ladrigan in Kilkenny Gaol, who was arrested at Rock-chapel, county Cork, on the 17th February; and if it is not the fact that his district is quite peaceable; and, if John M'Namara, of Tulla, county Clare, is still confined in Kilmainham Gaol, and if the Lord Lieutenant has re-considered his case?

The case of Mr. John Ladrigan is now under the Lord Lieutenant's consideration. John M'Namara was released on the 8th instant.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether Adjutants of the Auxiliary Forces, who do not draw an allowance in kind from any mess, may be exempted from the reduction of commuted allowances for fuel and light, and receive that granted to Staff and Departmental officers; whether the mess allowance, at the rates granted to individual officers of the Royal Engineers away from their mess, on duty, may be extended to Adjutants of Auxiliary Forces; why Adjutants of Auxiliary Forces receive smaller commuted allowances than Departmental officers of the same relative rank, being similarly situated to them as regards deprivation of mess, quarters, servant, fuel, and light; and, why Adjutants of Volunteer Artillery, who draw no extra pay, and draw only the same forage allowance as Adjutants of Engineer and Rifle Volunteers, are called upon to provide themselves with horse appointments of Cavalry pattern, which are much more costly than Infantry pattern, while ail other Artillery Captains and Subalterns who have to use horse appointments (without extra pay) are provided therewith from the public stores?

In reply to the hon. Gentleman, I have to say that the emoluments of the Adjutants of Auxiliary Forces have been increased lately, after full consideration; and I am not prepared to change the particular allowances enumerated in the Question on the mere ground that Staff or Engineer officers draw higher rates. Adjutants of Volunteer Artillery have to provide themselves with horse appointments of Artillery, not Cavalry, pattern. They are not supplied from public stores, because the Adjutants are appointed for five years. Officers of Artillery, who are so supplied, are liable, at short notice, to go to dismounted duty.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has received information that, notwithstanding a well known feud in the neighbourhood, and recent evictions of leaseholders, all intimidation has been abolished at Miltown Malbay, county Clare; and, whether His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant can, therefore, see his way to the release of the suspects from that place who are confined on suspicion of connivance in intimidation?

His Excellency is glad to learn that the state of affairs at Miltown Malbay has much improved, and he has been able favourably to consider the eases of several prisoners from that locality, and is still considering others. There are a few, however, whose discharge he cannot consistently with his duty at present order.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Local Government Board has received a second protest from the majority of the Kildy sart (county Clare) Board of Guardians as to the unusual punctuality of the meeting at which a minority consisting, according to one version, of three, and according to another of two, guardians, recently elected a chairman of the board; and, if so, whether the Local Government Board has considered the protest worthy of notice?

The Local Government Board did receive protests from certain of the Guardians of the Kildysart Union in reference to the subject of this Question, and, having considered the matter, sent their reply to the clerk of the Union on the 15th of April.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has any objection to instruct the Inspectors of Factories and Workshops to attend coroners' inquests held on persons who lose their lives from lead poisoning, in the same way as the Inspectors of Mines watch inquests into deaths from accidents in mines; also, if the inquiry into the question of lead poisoning, promised some time ago, has yet been completed; whether he can state the result of the investigation; and, if he will lay any Papers relating to the subject upon the Table of the House?

, in reply, said, that the Factory Inspectors did attend inquests on persons killed in factories, when they received sufficient notice. He thought it would be well to issue a Circular to Coroners, asking them on every such occasion to communicate with the Factory Inspector, There would be no objection to the production of the Papers mentioned in the Question.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been called to riots by soldiers in Belturbet on the 3rd instant, in which they, to the number of about thirty, armed with stable forks, fireirons, &c, attacked and dangerously wounded several peaceable citizens; how did these men get out of barracks; what steps, if any, were taken by the officer in charge to quell the riot; whether an inquiry into the whole case has been made by the military authorities; and, if so, what punishment was awarded; whether the Constabulary authorities considered the affair of such consequence as to demand the presence of additional police force in the town on the following day, with the view of protecting the inhabitants, as the soldiers in question once before threatened to wreck the town; whether on Sunday the 4th, the magistrates who had taken the depositions of one of the injured men refused to deliver up to the custody of the Constabulary the soldiers sworn to have been participators of the riots; and, whether the police entered their protest against the conduct of the magistrates in thus departing from the usual custom in cases of aggravated assault?

As the Question refers to the conduct of the military, I will answer it. The reports of the disturbance at Belturbet are so conflicting that a special Report has been called for as to the whole facts of the case. As cross-summonses in the matter appear to have been issued, it would not be at present for the public interest to give any further information as to the action of the military and civil authorities.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Why the appointment of Inspector of Machinery in the Channel Squadron has been done away with, and by whose advice?

There has been no reduction in the establishment of Inspectors of Machinery. The officer who held that position in the Channel Squadron has been transferred to Bermuda, taking the place of the chief engineer at that station, whose time had expired; the reason being that it had been found from experience that there is more need for the services of an officer of that rank at Bermuda than in the Channel Squadron.

, in whose name the following Questions stood on the Paper —namely, To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true that the officers and men of Her Majesty's ship "Superb," who were killed in the recent emeute at Alexandria, were buried at sea; and why it was that they were not buried at Alexandria; whether Her Majesty's Government has warned English subjects at Cairo that their safety is dependent on Arabi Bey; and, what arrangements have been made by Her Majesty's Government for receiving on board any ships the large number of European refugees now endeavouring to leave Egypt; "said, that before he put his Questions he rose to a point of Order. He gave Notice yesterday of three Questions, the manuscript of which he now held in his hand. The second Question, as he gave Notice of it, was in these words:—Whether Her Majesty's Government has warned English subjects in Cairo that, considering that their safety is dependent upon Arabi Pasha, the safest course for them would be to leave Egypt? The point of Order he wished to raise was whether, having given Notice of that Question, and the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs not having challenged its form, and the Speaker not having told him that it was not in Order, it was competent for the Clerk at the Table, without the cognizance of the Member giving such Notice, to alter the language of the Question. He made this inquiry, because he found that his Question, as it now appeared on the Paper, had been materially altered.

It is quite impossible for the Speaker to say at once when Notice is given of a Question that every phrase of that Notice is in Order. The Questions of the hon. Member were brought to the Table, and were sub- jected to revision in accordance with the Rules of the House; and no doubt an expression was struck out of the Question on the ground that it was an expression involving matter of controversy. I have no hesitation in saying that, if an opportunity had been afforded to the Clerk at the Table to communicate with the hon. Member, he would have done so. It is the practice of the Clerk at the Table, whenever an alteration is made in a Question by my authority, to communicate the grounds of the alteration to the hon. Member who had given the Notice.

asked whether, when the Clerk at the Table found that a Question was not, as he thought, within the Rules of Order, it would not be more consistent with the practice and the dignity of the House that the Question should be altogether omitted from the Paper?

I scarcely think that this Question is one of Order; but it strikes me that if that course were taken it would produce much more dissatisfaction than the present practice.

Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, when there is so much divergence of opinion among hon. Members on this subject, you will inform them where the Rules of the House as to the putting of Questions are to be found?

said, that, of course, he bowed to the Speaker's ruling; but he might observe that he had not put the Question down as a matter of controversy at all. He now put the Question as it stood on the Paper.

With reference to the burials at sea, the Foreign Office have heard of the fact from the Admiralty, to which Department I must refer the hon. Member for a reply to that portion of his Question. Sufficient vessels are chartered, and at the disposal of Sir Beauchamp Seymour, to provide for the removal of all British subjects who wish to leave.

Are the boats of the Fleet employed, or to be employed, in carrying away European refugees?

I cannot say. That is a matter which is left to the discretion of Sir Beauchamp Seymour. Transports have been engaged for the purpose of conveying from Alexandria any British subjects who may desire to leave. The last vessel engaged will arrive there to-day, and the transports will afford accommodation for 4,500 persons. We have received a telegram from Sir Beauchamp Seymour, saying that the accommodation thus provided is, in his opinion, sufficient for what is required.

Where are the refugees to be conveyed to? To Malta, or Cyprus, or where?

That I do not know, and cannot say. It depends on the nationality, or rather the origin, of the refugees, and that matter also is in the hands of Sir Beauchamp Seymour. [Sir DRUMMOND WOLFF: Hear, hear!] Well, I do not how it would he possible for the Admiralty to know where the British subjects in Alexandria wished to be taken. It is our duty to provide transports where they are required, and that has been done to an extent, I believe, somewhat in excess of the actual requirements of the case. As to the Question of the burial of those who, unfortunately, were killed, that is a matter of which we have merely learned the fact. We have received no Report from Sir Beauchamp Seymour; and, in fact, there has not boon time to receive any despatch stating the reasons for that course being taken. It would be very easy to give hypothetical reasons; but, because they are hypothetical, I do not think it would be desirable to state them.

I wish to ask a Question arising out of the answer given just now by the Under Secretary in connection with the Notice I gave him yesterday. I wish to ask him what arrangements have been made, or whether any arrangements have been made, for the security of British subjects in Cairo, and, I would add, in other parts of Egypt; and, whether there is anyone connected with the Government at Cairo with whom they could communicate in case of necessity?

The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) has given Notice of a Question similar to the last Question put by the right hon. Baronet; and, as a matter of courtesy to him, perhaps I should defer answering it until his Question comes on. As regards the first Question of the right hon. Baronet, he must be aware that as Cairo is not a seaport, and we are not in military occupation of the country, we cannot give immediate protection at Cairo; but this would not diminish the responsibility of the de facto authority in Egypt if outrages on British subjects were committed.

Are the refugees put on board ship to pay for their board and lodging?

I beg to give Notice that on Monday I will repeat the Question.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he can state the date when the earthworks were first commenced at Alexandria, and how long a period elapsed, after the commencement of those works, before the guns wore mounted; what communications the Government received from the Admiral in command of the Fleet with respect to those works during that interval; and, whether he will lay those communications upon the Table?

The construction of earthworks appears to have begun at daylight on the 29th ultimo. On the 4th of June, the Admiral reported by telegraph that two guns had been mounted that morning. Very brief telegraphic communications on the subject of the earthworks were received between these two dates. I should see no personal objection to the despatches from the Admiral upon this subject being included in the Papers; but the question is one for the Admiralty to decide.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether there is a Diplomatic or Consular Agent of Her Majesty now at Cairo to protect British subjects there; and, whether, if so, he is instructed to hold official communications with Arabi Pasha?

Yes, Sir. There is a Consular Agent at Cairo. He has not received any instructions from the Foreign Office with regard to his official communications, and the instructions which Sir Edward Malet may have given him are not yet in our hands.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the list of killed which he read to the House includes the names of all Her Majesty's subjects killed during the riot at Alexandria?

The list telegraphed and read by me was one of British-born subjects killed. To prevent any possibility of omission, we have telegraphed to know whether, under that title, all subjects of Her Majesty were included?

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, in sending the troops now said to have been telegraphed for by the Khedive and Dervish Pasha, the Sultan will do so as Sovereign of Egypt or as mandatory of the European Powers; and, whether any, and what guarantee has been taken by the Powers that the intervention thus made by the Porte shall be strictly limited to, and cease with, the suppression of the present revolutionary movement?

I already informed my hon. Friend yesterday that I should be unable to answer this Question. I may say, however, that it has been a matter of discussion among the Powers.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, having regard to his letter of last year, addressed to magistrates, directing them to restrain the processions of the "Salvation Army," and having regard to the recent decision of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court, in the case of Beatty v. Gillbauks, declaring the processions of the "Salvation Army" to be "perfectly legal," what steps he proposes to take towards undoing the effect of that letter?

This Question is put under some misapprehension. I have frequently explained that the Home Office does not issue directions to the magistrates. I often hear of Circulars from the Home Office. The Home Office never issues Circulars, except when it is asked for information. What it does when magistrates consult it is to give them the best advice in its power in the particular cases with regard to which it is consulted. Papers on the subject are already on the Table of the House; and the 1 on. Member will see from them that for the last 20 years the Home Office has given the same advice to magistrates who have consulted it, that advice being founded on the opinion of successive Law Officers of the Crown. I have not, as my hon. Friend knows, in consequence of the pressure of Business, had an opportunity of particularly examining the legal decision to which he refers, as to whether it does or does not conflict in any way with the opinion which has been given by the Law Officers to which I have referred. From a cursory view, I should say no; but I have directed the matter to be referred to the Law Officers for their opinion. All I can say is, that I should extremely regret if it should turn out to be the law that magistrates have not the power to prevent by anticipation collision between party processions; because, although in some places there might be an overwhelming force of police to prevent disorder, in places where the police force was weak that state of things would inevitably lead to confusion and disorder. When I have had the advantage of the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown on the subject, I shall be able to give some information with regard to it.

asked whether the Statute of Edward III., which was now being applied in Ireland for the maintenance of the peace, would apply to England also?

said, he had not had an opportunity of considering the Question.

said, that next week he should put another Question on this subject.

asked whether the Home Secretary would communicate the opinion of the Law Officers to the House.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been directed to a paragraph in the "Standard" and "Freeman's Journal," of yesterday, by which it would appear that the permission granted by the Lord Lieutenant to erect huts for Lord Cloncurry's evicted tenants has been re- voked; and, whether there is any truth in the paragraph?

No, Sir. The permission has not been revoked.

Then there is no foundation for the rumour that the erection of the huts has been interfered with?

There is no foundation for the rumour.

said: I do not know whether I should be in Order if I took this opportunity to amplify the answer which I have given to the hon. Member for the City of Cork. I wish to add that one of the most able special magistrates in Ireland—one who has succeeded as well as any special magistrate in the management of his district —gave the Lord Lieutenant the advice that in the case of these huts for sheltering evicted tenants he himself acted on the principle that, wherever there was any reason to apprehend they would be used for purposes of intimidation, a police hut should be erected with them. The Lord Lieutenant, after consultation with the special magistrates, had directed that that system should be adopted.

asked if these huts would be erected on the same spot as those erected for the purpose of intimidation would have been had that been allowed?

said, that was an was an important Question, to which he could not then give a reply. He would answer on Monday, and he hoped that would be sufficient for the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

asked whether, since the Lord Lieutenant had come to the decision referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, huts might now be erected under all conditions for evicted tenants, provided that protection was afforded against intimidation?

It is difficult to explain without raising a debate; but I may say that the reports of the special Resident Magistrates prove very clearly that there has been a divergence of opinion on the subject. One set of magistrates stated that all huts were intended for purposes of intimidation, and others stated that that was not so. The Lord Lieutenant has decided that, where the special Resident Magistrate of the district held out any apprehension of intimidation, the best way would be to have police huts also erected. In the present state of Ireland, I feel myself justified in saying that that decision was received with satisfaction by eminent officials whose names, were I to give them, would carry conviction.

asked whether these magistrates, among whom there was such a divergence of opinion, would be chosen to exercise summary powers under the Coercion Act?

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is the fact that the editor of the "Freiheit" was prosecuted and convicted for general incitement to assassination; if his attention has been called to the following from the "Glasgow Herald":—

"To govern an Irishman you must get him down, then you must kick him till he cant get up, then you must sit on him in case he comes to;"

I have no knowledge of the paragraph except what I have in this Question. If the hon. Member wishes for my opinion upon it, I will say I object very much to strong language being employed to any class of Her Majesty's subjects, including Irishmen as well as others; but then the hon. Member must take it that I include in that statement all classes of Irishmen, including even magistrates and constables. No strong language should be employed; but when the hon. Member asks me to compare it with the language of The Freiheit, all I can say is that the two things do not seem to be at all parallel.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, as there are still in prison in Ireland ninety-one "suspects" who are not suspected of association with crime and considering the length of time that has elapsed since the decision of the Government to set such "suspects" at liberty was announced, he can say that the releases of these ninety-one persons will now be steadily proceeded with in every case in which it appears to the Lord Lieutenant that the release of any particular "suspect" will not prejudice the condition of his district?

This Question only appeared this morning, and I have consequently been unable to consult the Lord Lieutenant in reference to it. I can, however, state that the cases of all the persons in the category mentioned in the Question are being considered by His Excellency; and from time to time he orders the release of those in respect of whom he is satisfied that such order may be made without danger to the peace of the district.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the fact that Patrick Kelly, of Geevagh, County Sligo, was arrested on Sunday last, conveyed to Galway Gaol, and imprisoned there under a warrant of the Lord Lieutenant dated thirteen months ago; whether this arrest was made with the concurrence of the heads of the Irish Executive; and, whether, in view of the adoption and development of the policy of release, it is the intention of the Irish Executive to hold Mr. Kelly in custody?

Patrick Kelly has been arrested as stated in the Question. The arrest was made without communicating with the Government, and His Excellency is now making inquiry as to the necessity for Kelly's detention.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that Mr. J. P. Quinn, imprisoned under the warrant of the Lord Lieutenant, was removed some time ago from the prison of Kilmainham to the prison at Enniskillen, and has now been again removed from Enniskillen to Kilmainham, or that an order for such second removal has been made; and, if so, what is the reason?

Mr. Quinn was removed last March from Kilmainham to Enniskillen for certain reasons which no longer exist, and His Excellency has thought it right now to remove him back to Kilmainham.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he is aware that Mr. Gowing, coroner, attended at Rhode, King's County, on Wednesday last, to open an inquest upon the body of a child, aged twelve months, who died from exposure after an eviction; that if, at the time of the eviction, the infant was suffering from measles, and in a dangerous state; whether the Sub-Inspector, Mr. Caulfield, wrote to the coroner stating he had not time to summon a jury, although he had received the coroner's warrant at 8 a.m. on the previous Tuesday; if the coroner had ordered the exhumation of the infant's body, and had stated that he must now leave the matter in the hands of the Government; whether, at the time of the eviction above alluded to, the resident magistrate prevented the erection of temporary buildings to shelter the evicted; and, what steps the Government will take as against the neglect of the Sub-Inspector, and as to the prevention to erect some shelter for these evicted persons?

had a Question on the Paper to the same effect.

This Question and that of the hon. Member for Sligo following relate to the same subject, and both appeared for the first time this morning. I have called for immediate Reports, but cannot possibly reply to the Questions to-day.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether His Majesty the Sultan has shown any indisposition to take those measures which the Governments of England and France have suggested to him for the restoration of order in Egypt, and the maintenance of the authority of the present Khedive; whether he will state the reasons which have induced Her Majesty's Government to press upon the Sultan his assent to a Conference; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will join in any demand which the Powers may make upon the Sultan to act as their mandatory instead of as Sovereign of Egypt?

Before the Question is answered, I should like to ask when it is likely that the measures which the Governments of England and France have suggested for the restoration of law and order in Egypt will be before the House?

Sir, with respect to the last Question, I do not know quite what is the meaning of it. The measures that have been taken by the Governments of England and France, or by England or France, will appear, of course, in the Papers that are in preparation. If the noble Lord means to ask whether the measures which the Government will recommend to the Conference will be in possession of the House, it would be premature for me at the present time, when the date for the Conference has not even been fixed, to make a statement on the matter. With respect to the Question of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bourke), I thank him for calling my attention to the subject last evening. With respect to the first part of the Question, the Government has never at any time made a complaint of the indisposition of the Porte to take the measures which have been suggested to it by the Governments of England and France. I stated on Tuesday very emphatically, that at the present moment our relations with Turkey were very satisfactory, and that there was a strong spirit of co-operation between the Government and the Sultan. With respect to the second portion of the Question, I am sorry to say, Sir, that I cannot state the reasons which have influenced the Government in pressing upon the Sultan his assent to the Conference, because to do that at the present moment, although it would be a proper subject for future investigation, would be decidedly impolitic, beyond saying that they are reasons in which there has been, according to the latest advices in my possession, a general concurrence among the whole of the Powers of Europe. With regard to the third part of the Question, Her Majesty's Government had stated explicitly that, in their opinion, the Sultan has not parted with the Sovereignty of Egypt, and they believe that opinion to be shared by the rest of the Powers.

Are we to have an opportunity of knowing the nature of the measures to be taken before the Conference meets; and will there not be any possibility of a discussion in this House upon those measures? I do not specify the measures, because I do not know what they are.

I do not think it would be possible for us—and it would not be wise if possible—to undertake to predict or speculate upon what the Conference may determine. When you enter into joint council, either among individuals or Powers, you reserve to a certain extent your final decision, whilst you may lay your first opinions before those with whom you are going to take counsel. Evidently that is the nature of the Conference; and nothing could more tend to defeat the purposes of the Conference than for the separate Powers, each of them individually, to make known the views with which they would commence the Conference.

I should like to ask who is the de facto Governor of Egypt at the present moment? Considering the grave state of Egypt, not only at Alexandria, but at Cairo and elsewhere, and the danger in which the European subjects are placed, can the Government state whether Turkish troops are now on their way to Egypt; and, if so, what is their number? Yesterday the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs hardly gave us an answer to that question, I should also like to ask the Prime Minister if he will state whether a sufficient force is now ready to land, so as to ensure that protection, which is naturally looked for, considering our paramount interests in Egypt?

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can also state whether there is any truth in the statement that the French Government are preparing to send 20,000 men to Egypt?

With regard to the last Question, I have never heard of the statement, and have no reason to believe that it is true. With regard to the Questions of the hon. and gallant Baronet, it is extremely difficult, without Notice, to answer with accuracy a long series of Questions put across the Table. I am not, aware, Sir, whether Turkish troops are on their way to Egypt from Constantinople. As to whether a sufficient force was ready to land for the purpose of protecting British life and property, I do not think it would be expedient—considering the risks that are run, and that we know are run, by the prevalence of unauthorized rumours with respect to the landing of a foreign force in Egypt—I do not think it would be expedient in me to enter in any manner into that subject. We have committed to most competent hands the disposal of the means which we have placed at their command. With regard to the Question who is de facto Ruler of Egypt, Her Majesty's Government have no further information than that which has been made known to the House. The Khedive is the de facto Ruler of Egypt, and the Khedive has, under pressure, consented to receive back Arabi Pasha in the capacity of Minister of War. These facts are well known to the House, and I do not think there is anything that it is in our power to add.

I wish to ask whether any news has been received as to the present state of affairs in Egypt?

Of course, the hon. Gentleman does not mean political news; but news with regard to the security of the people. The news received since yesterday is, on the whole, of a re-assuring nature. There has been no fresh outbreak or disturbance of any kind, and we have no reason to apprehend any.

I beg to give Notice that on Monday, if it is convenient to the Prime Minister, I shall ask the right hon. Gentleman, Whether, before the proposed Conference takes place, Parliament will be informed what the bases agreed upon are; and, what are the limits within which discussions are to be confined?

I beg to give Notice that on Monday I will ask the Prime Minister, Whether he will give an assurance to Parliament that, in the event of a Conference upon Egyptian Affairs, Her Majesty's Government will assent to the neutralization of the Suez Canal in time of war?

gave Notice that on Monday he would ask the hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he had seen the correspondence in the "Cologne Gazette" giving the views of the German colony in Egypt, and stating that the real and serious danger to peace arose from the anti-Mahomedan attitude of the English and French Governments; whether it was true that the Consuls for Germany, Austria, and Italy, in order to obviate the peril arising from such a policy, waited on Arabi Pasha and induced him to become responsible for peace and order; whether, in consequence of their representations, which Arabi received with much dignity and intelligence, he agreed with his comrades to preserve order?

I quite admit the difficulty of answering Questions not on the Paper; but these Questions arise day by day, so that it is impossible to put them down beforehand. The right hon. Gentleman has stated that Turkish troops are not being sent—

I never said so.

He said that he was not aware that Turkish troops were being sent.

Were on their way.

Well, the Question I wish to ask is— and I ask it because a satisfactory answer will go far to allay public feeling— Can the Government give us an assurance that they will not shrink from taking any stop which is necessary to protect European life and property in Egypt?

The Government are aware that they are responsible for using, to the best of their ability, all the means at their command for that purpose.

In consequence of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, might I be allowed to ask what are the means at their command which the Government are using at the present time at Cairo?

wished to put a Question to the Prime Minister, of which he had sent him private Notice.

I have not received it.

said, he hoped the Prime Minister would be able to answer it without Notice. It was, Whether the right hon. Gentleman had been informed that several writs for arrears of rent had been served on the estates of Lord Rossmore and the Rev. Mr. Aitcheson, in county Monaghan; that three of those writs had been executed on the estate of the Rev. Mr. Aitcheson, the tenants' interests being purchased on behalf of the landlord by his bailiff, so as to debar those tenants from all rights under the Arrears Bill? Also, whether his attention had been called to a letter from the Rev. Mr. Donnelly, of June l2th, in which he stated that writs were being served all over the Rossmore estate for rents which the tenants had no means of paying—a proceeding which meant the utter destruction and annihilation of the tenants; and, whether, when that same system was being pursued in many parts of Ireland, he, with a view of putting a stop to such a state of things, would not at once introduce a short Bill to put a stay —say for six months—to all evictions in Ireland?

The Question is very voluminous and important; and, as the matters to which it refers have not before come to my notice, I am not in a position at this instant to give any answer, except in regard to the last clause—legislation—in respect to which I can only refer the hon. Member, however disappointing it may be, to the answer I have already given — namely, that, in my opinion, it would only make confusion worse confounded if the Government were to attempt to introduce any Bill for the object suggested.

I wish to ask the leave of the House to make a short personal explanation with reference to a Notice which I quoted yesterday, and which was publicly given last Friday by the hon. Member for Greenwich. The hon. Member for Greenwich yesterday said that the words of his Notice on Friday last were—"Also, in view of the recent cession of Assab Bay to Italy"—not "by Her Majesty's Government." I have refreshed my memory of the Notice as he gave it publicly before the objectionable words were struck out by the Clerk at the Table as being argumentative. They spoke of "the further danger caused," in respect of the security of the Suez Canal, "by the recent cession, with the full concurrence of Her Majesty's Government, of Assab Bay to Italy." It was on these words that I severely commented at the time.

I am anticipated, to some extent, by the action taken by the hon. Member for Chelsea; but I think, Sir, the explanation which the hon. Member has given fully shows how correct I was in the statement which I made yesterday, and how utterly incorrect were the words which he attributed to me. I should have thought that with the experience which the hon. Member has had, or ought to have had, of foreign affairs, he would have recognized the vast difference between the words "by Her Majesty's Government" and the words "with the full concurrence of Her Majesty's Government."

I objected to the whole statement of a cession. There has been no cession of any kind, either with or without the concurrence of Her Majesty's Government.

That is a question which does not arise. The hon. Member said yesterday that in my Question occurred the words, "the cession of Assab Bay to Italy by Her Majesty's Government." I ventured then to get up and deny that. The hon. Gentleman did not accept my denial, but repeated his statement, and added these words—"I will place the Question as originally printed before the hon. Member." In order to satisfy myself on a point as to which I was more or less certain—that I could not have put into a Question such an absurdity as the cession of a part of one country to another by a third country to which it did not belong—I went to the Record Office of the House, and there I found the manuscript of my original Question. It stands as follows:—

With respect to the recent cession of Assah Bay, with the full concurrence of Her Majesty's Government."

There is no difference of opinion on the mere point of fact. The words did not appear in the Notice as printed in the Questions on the Paper next morning; and they wore not put in the Question which was really asked.

I quite accept that explanation; but I should be glad to know how the hon. Member knows that the words he read had been struck out?

I have already informed the hon. Member that I was present at the time when he gave his Notice; and I have refreshed my memory this morning by referring to no less than four newspapers, in which it appears at full length; and perhaps I may be allowed to add that one of the greatest difficulties in answering Questions on foreign affairs is that Notices which are given here publicly, with a certain set of words, appear in the newspapers with that set of words; but words which are argumentative being struck out by the Clerk at the Table, Questions have to be answered in an altogether different form.

On that point I may be allowed to say that this Question was given publicly, and, moreover, it was read over by me to the Clerk at the Table, and no objection was taken by him to the words. I therefore reasonably assumed that those words would be inserted in the Question. But when the hon. Gentleman stated so positively that those words had been expunged at the Table, he led the House to the impression that when I gave my Question to the Clerk the words were expunged, and that I was aware of it. Moreover, he said that he regretted that they had been expunged, as otherwise they would have met with an indignant reply from the Prime Minister. I can, of course, accept that indignation by proxy from the hon. Gentleman; but, at the same time, I do not think it affects the question at all. I think it is very much to be regretted that an hon. Gentleman in the responsible position of the hon. Member for Chelsea should have attributed openly in this House to another Member words for which there is not the slightest foundation.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that Mr. William Clarke, of Rathleague, the coroner for the Queen's County, dropped dead in his residence on the 11th instant; who was the proper official to hold an inquest, if necessary, upon the body; whether Baron Dowse refused to fiat the presentment, at the Queen's County Assizes at Maryborough, for the salary of Dr. Robert O'Kelly, late of Ballyroan, Queen's County, but now residing at Ballyragget, in Kilkenny; whether there is any coroner for the Queen's County at present; and, whether there will be two writs de coronatore eligendo issued to the sheriff, as on the death of one coroner and the ouster of another?

I telegraphed for information, but have not yet received it.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, When the Annual Report of the Commissioners of Public Works (Ireland) will be laid upon the Table?

Next week.

asked the Prime Minister, Whether, seeing the great amount of time now occupied by the asking of Questions in the House with regard to Foreign Affairs, he would not consider the advisability of commencing the proceedings on the Prevention of Crime Bill at once on the meeting of the House, and take the Questions after Progress was reported—after 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning?

asked, Whether it was not a fact that three or four times as many unimportant Questions were asked on Irish affairs as were put on other subjects?

moved, in page 4, line 17, to leave out from "any" to "shall," in line 18, and insert—

"And, in case such meeting be so prohibited, two or more justices of the peace shall attend at the place where they have reason to believe such meeting is to be held, and then and there notify and repeat aloud, to the persons attending, the order prohibiting such meeting, and direct such persons to disperse; and in case any of the persons so met or assembled together shall not disperse within the space of one half-hour, such persons thereupon."

said, the Government were perfectly willing to accept the Amendment; but they must accept with it the addition of the word "forthwith," in substitution of the words "within the space of one half-hour." If the clause were fettered by any specified time, it would be clearly giving to the persons present at the meeting a period within which they might practically disobey the law; and the Government were of opinion that the word "forthwith," instead of the stated time given by the hon. and learned Member, would be sufficient to meet the requirements of the case. He would, therefore, move to amend the Amendment by striking out the words "within the space of one-half hour," and substituting the word "forthwith."

asked, if it was not necessary that the Amendment itself should be carried, before any Amendment could be inserted in it?

intimated that that was not necessary.

said, that in reference to the remark of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary that the law might be disobeyed if a period were allowed within which the people were to disperse, he might remind the right hon. Gentleman that, under Lord Grey's Act, the people got a quarter of an hour, and why the Prime Minister should now require a more stringent measure he could not understand. The law might be broken in a quarter of an hour as well as in half-an-hour. It was quite evident that the Chief Secretary had had no experience in regard to dispersing public meetings in Ireland, and he could not know how that operation was carried out. He (Mr. Healy) had seen a meeting dispersed. He had seen Mr. Clifford Lloyd come up at Drogheda and order his police, with drawn swords, and with loaded guns pointed at the people, to clear the meeting. That was a very summary process, and if the same course were to be taken under this Bill, he could not see how the power of the Government would be by any means impaired. At Drogheda, when the people were actually dispersing, Mr. Clifford Lloyd told them, while they were going away, that if they did not clear out more quickly he would fire upon them. That was the kind of power exercised by Mr. Clifford Lloyd on the 1st of January, 1881; and if the Government allowed this interval of half-an-hour in order to enable the people to disperse, they would still possess all the power they could desire in the event of a breach of the peace. The statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary that the people attending a meeting would be likely to break the law if a space of half-an-hour were conceded to enable them to disperse quietly was evidently made under an entire misapprehension of the facts. It must have been based upon some idea of a softness of character pervading the breasts of the Irish magistrates, which, in reality, did not belong to them. He (Mr. Healy), therefore, thought the Government might safely assent to this proposition, seeing that in the time of Lord Grey a quarter of an hour was actually given for this purpose. If the Government would not give half-an-hour, or even a quarter of an hour, he would take ten minutes, or, to split the difference, even seven minutes and a-half.

supported the Amendment. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kilkenny (Mr. P. Martin) proposed half-an-hour. The Government proposed "forthwith," and his right hon. Friend interpreted forthwith to mean a reasonable time. He would suggest that if half-an-hour could not be allowed, a quarter of an hour, or the words, "within a reasonable time thereafter," would be more satisfactory than the Government proposition. As the law now stood, the Riot Act provided a period of one hour, and the Peace Preservation Act passed by Lord Grey in 1833 gave a quarter of an hour. Why would not the Government say "thereafter within a reasonable time should disperse?"

said, the Government felt a difficulty in accepting the Amendment. The view of his right hon. Friend was that, if they fixed an arbitrary time, it might tell both ways. For instance, it might inform a man that he might take a certain time in order to break the law. If they said "forthwith," then the legal meaning of that term was that it should be within a reasonable time. Of course, it could not be intended that a meeting which it was considered desirable to prohibit under these circumstances should be instantaneously dispersed.

said, he was at a loss to understand why the words were inserted in the Amendment requiring two or more Justices of the Peace to attend at the place where there was reason to believe an unlawful meeting was to be held, in order to notify its prohibition.

said, that that was altogether another point. He thought it would be better to dispose of the matter now before the Committee first.

said, he did not understand exactly what it was the hon. and learned Gentleman wanted to dispose of. The words "two or more Justices of the Peace" came in the Amendment before those they were now discussing.

said, the point referred to by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowther) was not at present before the Committee; but it would come on immediately the point now under discussion was disposed of.

asked whether the two Justices of the Peace mentioned in the Amendment would, under any circumstances, be allowed to sit on the Bench and dispose of the case afterwards? He thought some guarantee ought to be given that the two magistrates who ordered the dispersion of the people should not be allowed to sit in judgment upon any offender.

said, that matter would come on directly the present Amendment was disposed of. At the present moment, the Committee were considering whether the word "forthwith" should be substituted for "within the space of one half-hour."

said, it so happened that he had had experience in dispersing unlawful assemblies in England, and he knew from experience that the magistrates ought to be intrusted with a discretion in judging whether their order was being complied with from the first. He had known a case in which the mob removed to a distance of 100 yards and then assembled again. That evidently was an evasion of the order; and, if any time had been specified for the dispersion of a meeting, the magistrates would have been unable to discharge their duties. He must also say that, in his opinion, the magistrates intrusted with the duty of dispersing unlawful assemblies were those best qualified to judge of the conduct of those who were present on such occasions.

said, what he wanted to draw attention to was the very unnecessary provision that the attendance of two Justices of the Peace should be necessary for the prohibition of a meeting.

remarked that the Committee had not yet reached that point. It would come on immediately after the present Amendment was disposed of.

said, he should certainly like to know what was meant by the words "forthwith within a rea- sonable time?" He understood that it might be necessary to perform an act "forthwith," or that it might be necessary to perform an Act within a reasonable time; but he had never heard of the two being brought into conjunction together. If persons were to be dispersed "forthwith" it was usually understood that they were to be dispersed within a reasonable time; but if they said "within a reasonable time," they allowed the persons present at the meeting to constitute themselves the judges of what was and what was not a reasonable time. In a matter of this kind, it was most desirable that there should be no ambiguity of expression. He did not wonder at the cheers with which the proposed Amendment had been received by the Irish Members; it could only be received with complete support by those who had no very great desire for the success of the Act. ["Hear, hear!"] He thought hon. Members below the Gangway who derisively cheered would admit the justice of his remark; and he asked the hon. and learned Attorney General for England to state what he believed to be the real meaning of this extraordinary expression.

said, the meaning of the word "forthwith," if it stood alone without any further addition, would be "within a reasonable time;" but the addition of words making the clause run "forthwith within a reasonable time" made the matter perfectly plain. By using that expression, it became clear that an instantaneous dispersion was not contemplated.

complained of the manner in which the time of the Committee was being consumed on small points by Members of the Tory Party. If the Irish Members were guilty of the same thing, they were immediately accused of Obstruction.

, in consequence of the remarks of the previous speaker, desired to point out that the expression to which he had called attention was a novel phrase which had never, so far as he knew, occurred before in an Act of Paliament. He thought it was by no means a waste of time, to ask the responsible Legal Advisers of the Government for an explanation.

said, he had certainly meant, in proposing the word "forthwith," to say "within a reasonable time;" but he had no objection to add the words suggested by his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, if by so doing it became impossible for a lawyer to raise a difficulty.

suggested that the original Amendment proposed by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kilkenny (Mr. P. Martin) had not yet been put from the Chair. He wished himself to move an addition to that Amendment if he were not too late.

said, any Amendment to be proposed by the hon. Member must come after the words "forthwith within a reasonable time."

intimated that his Amendment would come after those words.

Then it would be quite regular.

said, he had already stated that he wished to take exception to the words in the early part of the Amendment, "two or more justices." He had understood the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair to rule that the exception was taken too soon, but that it would be regular to take it afterwards.

said, the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly correct; but he had already put the Question that the Amendment, as amended, be inserted, and it had been agreed to.

remarked that he had been listening as closely as he could to the proceedings of the Committee, and he certainly had not understood that the Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny (Mr. P. Martin) had been put.

said, he had put two Questions—first, that the Amendment be amended, and when that was passed by the Committee he put the Question that the Amendment, as amended, be inserted, and as there was no dissent, he declared that the "Ayes" had it.

wished to add the words—

"Provided they shall knowingly refuse to disperse after such intimation, or shall previously have received such intimation that such meeting had been prohibited."

said, he was sure the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) would feel that there was every desire on the part of the Government to consider his Amendment in the fairest spirit. The hon. Member said that last night the Home Secretary admitted the desirability of inserting some words of this kind. When his right hon. and learned Friend said that, he wished to protect persons against being convicted on account of an act of ignorance, and he said that the safeguards contained in the Bill would be retained. He (the Attorney General) thought the Committee would see that proper safeguards had been taken in the Amendment by the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny (Mr. P. Martin). By the previous part of the clause, it was required that the Lord Lieutenant should publish a prohibition of the meeting. It then became necessary that notice should be given to the promoters of the meeting that it was prohibited; and, thirdly, by the acceptance of the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kilkenny, it was required that two Justices of the Peace should appear at the meeting and notify the order prohibiting the meeting and directing all persons present to disperse. What the hon. Member for the City of Cork asked was, that it should be proved to demonstration that a knowledge of the prohibition of the meeting had been brought home to different persons at it, after the proclamation was made, so as to prove that they were knowingly refusing to disperse. Now, he (the Attorney General) thought that the publication of the prohibition of the meeting, either in writing or by notice to the promoters of the meeting, and the proclamation of its prohibition, were quite sufficient without proving to demonstration that the persons present were made aware of the circumstances, and had knowingly refused to disperse. He could assure the hon. Member that there would have been every desire to accept his Amendment if the clause had remained as it was. The hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) had an Amendment upon the Paper for the insertion of the word "knowingly;" but the Amendment now adopted would get rid of all difficulty, and was the best substitute that could be provided.

regretted that the Government did not see their way to give a more favourable reception to this Amendment. The Attorney General had stated three reasons why, in the view of the Government, it was not considered necessary. In the first place, the Lord Lieutenant would be obliged to give public notice of the prohibition of the meeting. Now, what was a public notice? It simply meant that the Lord Lieutenant should issue a proclamation in The Dublin Gazette; but was it meant to assert that such a proclamation in Ireland was a public notice, sufficient to make known anything to the Irish people? An advertisement in The Dub, in Gazette would be about as effectual as if it were written on the walls of the Roman Capitol. The Irish people knew just as much about the one as of the other. In the next place, the Attorney General said that notice was to be given to the promoters of the meeting; but the promoters, acting upon a sense of the urgent necessity of the meeting, after receiving a notification from the Lord Lieutenant, might not convey it to the public. The promoters might determine to go on with the meeting and encounter all the hazards and penalties of the Bill, and the people all the time might know nothing about it. In the third place, the Attorney General said that two Justices wore to attend the meeting and notify its prohibition to the persons present. But the Irish magistrates wore no uniform, and had no distinguishing mark; they would be dressed like any other persons, and entering a meeting suddenly they would make an announcement which might not reach the ears of the majority of the persons present. There was the utmost necessity that there should be some protection for the public generally, because some time might elapse after an announcement was made before it became generally known. The Attorney General said that before they could bring it home to the knowledge of the persons present it would be necessary to probe the minds of the people, and that there was no provision in the English law for probing the minds of the people. But the Attorney General knew very well what was meant by circumstantial evidence. If the surrounding circumstances showed that the people present at a meeting knew that it was proclaimed it would only be necessary to apply to them the ordinary rules of circumstantial evidence. He thought that two things were necessary before persons should be convicted under the clause—first, that they should have got previous notice of the prohibition of the meeting; and, secondly, it should be proved that they were knowingly contravening the law. He thought the reasons given by the Attorney General were quite insufficient to justify the rejection of the Amendment.

asked if the Justices mentioned were to sit on the Bench and try any of the persons accused of breaking the law? Would the two Justices exercise both Judicial and Executive functions?

regretted that the Government could not give way. They could not consent to insert the word "knowingly." With respect to what the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had said,hefound the usual method of advertising public meetings in Ireland had become so anomalous as to be a public scandal; but he did not think that hon. Members opposite would have reason to complain of the Government on that point. The real object of the Government would be to give full publicity to the fact that a meeting was prohibited. Then, in regard to the question of the two Justices not being the same Justices who might sit afterwards to try the case of persons who had refused to disperse, he might say that all these questions of the division of Executive and Judicial functions would be regarded by the Lord Lieutenant as administrative questions; and the Lord Lieutenant would prescribe the functions of the Justices, partly by a general Order contained in a Circular, and partly by the proceeding always adopted by the Castle, of directing certain Justices to go down to particular districts with administrative functions. The Government would be very unwilling to increase the size of the Bill, or to hamper the action of the Executive by saying positively that certain Justices in certain events should exercise certain functions. That would not appear in the Bill; but everything would be carefully considered, and would be dealt with in the Orders and Circulars issued by the Executive, and the whole matter would be conducted administratively and executively.

said, he was sorry now that he had not had an opportunity of putting the Committee on their guard against the introduction of the words "two or more Justices of the Peace," because he believed they would be found to be a source of much inconvenience. He had demurred altogether to the part of the Amendment of the hon. and learned. Member for Kilkenny (Mr. P. Martin), which required the attendance of two or more Justices. [Mr. HEALY: Order, order!] He did not think that the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) was exactly the authority entitled to interrupt him on a point of Order. With all respect to the Committee, he would submit that the observations which had fallen from the Chief Secretary necessitated a reply from him (Mr. Lowther). The question had been asked the right hon. Gentleman whether it was the intention of the Irish Government to prevent the Justices who, under the provisions of this section, would have to act in putting down or prohibiting a meeting from acting judicially in any proceedings which might arise in consequence of a disobedience of their orders?

rose to Order. He wished to submit to the Chairman that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. Lowther) was not in Order in discussing the clause as a whole. It would be much better and more convenient if the Committee were allowed to go on with the discussion of the points involved in the Amendment.

said, that was quite true; but the hon. Member for Wexford had raised a distinct question as to the functions of the Justices of the Peace. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had answered the remarks of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) at some length; and it was only fair that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. J. Lowther) should be allowed to speak on a question which had already engaged the attention of the Committee.

said, that hon. gentlemen below the Gangway were not slow to avail themselves of the utmost freedom of debate—he would not use a stronger expression—and he thought it would be well if they would allow the proceedings of the Committee to go on without offering to the Chairman their unsolicited assistance. He must point out that one difficulty which the Irish Government had hitherto had to contend against was that a large number of meetings were often simultaneously announced to take place within a comparatively limited area on the same day. He found that the case in the early stage of the proceedings of the Land League, which the hon. Member who had now assumed the office of Chairman, pro hac vice, would, no doubt, remember. The difficulty was that several meetings were announced on the same day within what was termed the same district. The Government, following the example often set in that House, where two or more persons were accustomed to talk at the same time, proposed to send down to every meeting two or more Justices to notify aloud that it was pro- hibited. He feared that if certain things laid down in the clause were insisted upon, it would become the practice for the persons convening meetings to ascertain, from sources already at their command, what particular meeting it was which the authorities were prepared to deal with, and they would then hold another meeting at a place where there would not be two or more Justices in attendance. He would not now dwell upon some of the points he had intended to dwell upon, and which he had intended to ask the Committee to avoid, if he had not been precluded by a circumstance for which he could not accept any share of responsibility. He had risen for the purpose of drawing attention to the words "two or more Justices;" but he was informed that he was not at that moment in Order in doing so, although an opportunity would present itself later on. He had resumed his seat in obedience to the suggestion of the Chairman; but although he was listening very attentively to the proceedings, the point was passed without any intimation being conveyed to him that he would be in Order in continuing his observations. He had, no doubt, been properly prevented by the Chairman from interposing when the point had been passed over; but he had conveyed to the Committee his desire to call attention to a special point, and without wishing to blame any other person,hedid not credit himself with any responsibility for having failed to keep the engagement he had made to the Committee in the matter. He regretted, therefore, that the Prime Minister should make audible observations which could not possibly tend to advance the discussion. He had no wish to use discourteous language; but up to this point did the right hon. Gentleman consider that the great difficulties of the task the Executive had to perform had been increased by the course pursued by that (the Opposition) side of the House? He would repeat that, knowing as he did from experience that a great number of meetings were frequently announced within a short distance from each other on the same day, he regretted that it should be seriously contemplated to hamper the administration of the law by providing that the same Justices of the Peace were never to exercise both Executive and Judicial functions.

As this discussion has not been terminated, I must recall the attention of the Committee to the Amendment now before them.

said, he thought there should be some words inserted in the Amendment proposed by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kilkenny (Mr. P. Martin) to make it necessary that there should be knowledge on the part of the persons attending a meeting before they became liable to punishment. It was true that the words he had suggested might seem to be rather cumbrous; but he thought they would fit in with the clause very well, and he would read it as it would stand with the adoption of the Amendment—

"And, in case such meeting be so prohibited, two or more justices of the peace shall attend at the place where they have reason to believe such meeting is to be held, and then and there notify and repeat aloud, to the persons attending, the order prohibiting such meeting, and direct such persons to disperse; and in case any of the persons so met or assembled together shall not disperse within the space of one half-hour, such persons thereupon in case they shall knowingly refuse to disperse after such intimation, or shall previously have received such information that such meeting had been prohibited."

said, he was perfectly aware of what his right hon. and learned Friend had stated yesterday; but the view of the Government was that the safeguards now imposed were sufficient to prevent any person from placing himself unintentionally in a position in which he might be punished. If on the Report it was found that these words did not carry out the intention of the Government, then he was sure that either by an additional Amendment, or by some further action, the object sought to be accomplished would be attained. He hoped that that explanation would satisfy the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). There was no desire that an innocent person attending a prohibited meeting should be affected by the clause.

would suggest to his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) that he should accept the offer made by his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General. He thought there was no difference between his hon. Friend and the Attorney General as to the object both of them desired—namely, that no person should be brought within the criminal category included in the section to whom a guilty knowledge had not been brought home. Under these circumstances, he would suggest that the offer of the Attorney General should be accepted, and that the matter should be left open for future consideration.

said, he would accept the suggestion of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dundalk (Mr. C. Russell), buthewould not ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. He would prefer that it should be negatived.

wished to call attention to one point which had been raised by his Friend the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), and that was that the notice given to the promoters that the meeting had been prohibited might possibly be withheld from the public, and might lead persons into the commission of crime who would otherwise have avoided it. There was a large portion of the people of Ireland who never looked into the newspapers at all; and however carefully a matter of this kind might be advertised, it would not be brought home to the knowledge of everybody. He would, therefore, suggest that it might be expedient to amend the clause in such a way as to secure that the notification might, to some extent, be given by the use of placards.

said, he had heard the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary in regard to advertisements, but he thought the Government would see that a notification in The Dublin Gazette only would not be sufficient to meet the requirements of the case. It also ought to be advertised in the local papers.

said, he did not wish the hon. Member to infer anything from his statement, except that the prohibition of these meetings would be duly advertised. It must be borne in mind that within the last 12 months something like 1,200 meetings had been prohibited under the discretionary power of the Lord Lieutenant, and he believed that very little practical inconvenience had resulted from the course which had been taken by the Executive in making the announcement of the prohibition public. He was certainly under the impression that, as new legislative conditions wore laid down by the present Bill, the mode proposed to be adopted would be found to work satisfactory.

said, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Trevelyan) seemed to forget that the arguments all through in support of this clause was that the clause itself was intended to meet some extraordinary circumstance. The Irish Members had contended all along that there was sufficient power in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant already to repress these meetings. He was quite willing to leave the clause as it stood; but he hoped the Government would not allow anything to slip through that would prevent a fair knowledge of the prohibition of these unlawful assemblies being made thoroughly public

called upon Mr. STOREY to move the next Amendment.

said, that after the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny (Mr. P. Martin) had been disposed of there were several Amendments on the Paper before that proposed by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey). There was one in his (Mr. Sexton's) name, and he wished to know if it would be possible for him to move it after the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) had been, disposed of?

said, it was absolutely necessary, in inserting the last Amendment that had been agreed to, to cut out certain words, and the Amendments which stood on the Paper and affected the words which had been cut out, could not be put.

said, that the words of Sub-section 2 of Clause 7 had already been struck out, and they included the words affected by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton).

moved, at the end of the Clause, to add the following subsection:—

"A copy of every such order, and of the information upon which the same was founded, shall he laid before Parliament within fourteen days after the day on which such order was made, if Parliament be then sitting, and if not, then within fourteen days after the next meeting of Parliament."

said, the Committee had already decided in the negative the question of requiring sworn information for the prohibition of meetings. The question was raised 13 days ago, and he had then stated his objections to the use of the word "information" in the Bill, and he would not repeat them. He believed that he stated those objections at considerable length, so that they could not have been misunderstood. The Government, however, were quite ready to accept the Amendment if that part of it relating to the "information" was struck out. He would, therefore, move to omit the words "and of the information upon which the same was founded."

remarked, that if these words were left out, they would be in this position—that they would get just as much information as they were enabled to get under the Act from the Irish newspapers, and they would gain nothing by carrying the Amendment as it stood. What they wanted was this— they desired to know the information upon which the Lord Lieutenant was to exercise his exceptional powers? The Committee must bear in mind that the Lord Lieutenant, under this clause, got power to prohibit perfectly legal and lawful assemblies; and he would submit, that if the Committee gave the Lord Lieutenant that power, the least they could do was to ask him to give the grounds upon which he exercised it. It must not be forgotten that these assemblies could not be called unlawful until such time as the prohibition of the Lord Lieutenant was proclaimed. As a matter of fact, men might attend a meeting and the meeting would be quite lawful until such time as it was proclaimed. If, therefore, Parliament proposed to give to the Lord Lieutenant power to put down assemblies that were perfectly lawful, the least they could do was to provide that the grounds and the information upon which they were prohibited should be given to Parliament.

said, the Government admitted that the Lord Lieutenant must act on some information or other. Of course, he knew the Chief Secretary was not very well acquainted with the nature of the meetings that had hitherto been proclaimed. It was not unfrequently the case that a meeting in the North of Ireland was proclaimed because an Orangeman objected to it; and a sworn information was laid before an Orange magistrate, which was quite sufficient to stop the meeting. "Under this Bill, if a landlord or anybody else laid an information against the holding of a meeting, that should not be sufficient to justify the action of the stipendiary magistrate in putting it down, except it was considered to be unlawful upon adequate information by the responsibility of the Government themselves.

said, the Committee had been told last evening that the reason why the functions of the Privy Council were not exercised in prohibiting these meetings was, that the Lord Lieutenant was to be wholly responsible. He had endeavoured to explain that he thought that would be a futile course; but, as the clause now stood, the Government would prevent any Member of the House of Commons by any possibility introducing a Motion to show the motives by which the Lord Lieutenant or anybody else might have been moved in prohibiting a meeting. He did not think, if the clause were passed as it at present stood, that either the Lord Lieutenant or the Government could be held to be responsible to anyone for any proclamation that was issued.

said, the pledge which the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) asked for was one which the Government had given already more than once, and he was unwilling to repeat that nothing could exceed the care with which the Government of Ireland collected and weighed opinions before they proceeded to take any step of an arbitrary character, and those which were taken were not of very great frequency. [Mr. HEALY: Not now.] He could only speak for the existing Government of Ireland. His own experience was not sufficient to enable him to criticize the conduct of his Predecessors, or to make any engagements for his Successors; but as far as the present Government were concerned, he knew the methods by which their administration was carried on, and he could assure the Committee that it was their sole desire not to take any arbitrary step.

moved, in page 4, line 18, at end, add—

"Provided always. That it shall not be lawful for the Lord Lieutenant to order, under the provisions of this Act, any such prohibition of a meeting, nor shall any person he guilty of an offence under this Act who may be present at a meeting so prohibited, unless the Lord Lieutenant shall, by proclamation previously made, declare the county, or the district of county in which the meeting is to be held is in such a state of disturbance as to require the application of the provisions and powers in this Clause enacted."

said, he had stated the other day that the Irish Government were exceedingly anxious, as far as they could, to apply the various clauses of the Bill, where they could apply them, to the principle that they should not operate universally in Ireland, but only in the proclaimed districts. The advantages of that object would be to give great encouragement to districts not to come under the proclamation, and to give great encouragement to other districts which were under proclamation to get rid of the proclamation. Practically speaking, it gave to the Lord Lieutenant the power of suspending the operation of the Act at any time by withdrawing the proclamation. That was the general advantage of adopting the principle of proclaiming districts, and the Government had desired to extend this power as far as possible, especially in the case of the extraordinary provisions given by Clause 5 and Clause 11, which were provisions that did not exist before. These they regarded as the most inquisitorial provisions of the Bill; but they did not see their way to the application of this principle to the present clause. It had not been contested that it should not apply to Clause 6, which dealt with unlawful associations, and the Government had applied it to that clause because it was in the very nature of secret societies that they should be dealt with wherever they could be found. With regard to the present clause, it was considered desirable not to apply the principle of a proclaimed district, because it was the view of the Government that meetings might have the effect, not only of increasing the existing few disturbances, but of creating a tendency to disturbance even where it had not previously existed; thus, not only increasing an existing conflagration, but of spreading a conflagration to districts already quiet. That was the experience of the Irish Government, and it was a reason why Lord Spencer and the Irish Government, while they desired to extend, as far as they could, the principle of proclaimed districts, had arrived at the conclusion that they could not apply it to the provisions of the present clause.

felt bound to say that no more reasonable Amendment than this had been brought under the notice of the Committee. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary had given no reason why the proposed provision should not be applied to Clause 7, except that in regard to secret societies it might be desirable to take the same course that was applicable to public meetings. This clause did not apply to secret societies, and it was somewhat singular that the same considerations that were held to apply in one instance to secret societies should, in the other case, be held to apply to open public meetings. Then, as to the arguments as to stopping the spread of a conflagration, surely it would be in the power of the Lord Lieutenant to make his proclamation as wide as the district over which the conflagration was extending. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had referred to other clauses of the Bill which required the application of the proclamation. Take the Curfew Clause, the 8th, which enacted—

"That, in a proclaimed district, if a person is out of his place of abode at any time after one hour later than sunset and before sunrise under suspicious circumstances, any constable may arrest that person and bring him forthwith before a justice of the peace, and such justice, after inquiring into the circumstances of the case, may either discharge him or take the necessary steps, by committing him to prison, or taking bail, to bring him before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction acting under this Act, and if such person, on appearing before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction acting under this Act, fails to satisfy the Court that he was out of his place of abode upon some lawful occasion or business, he shall be guilty of an offence against this Act."

said, his hon. Friend (Mr. Sexton) had pointed out the inconsistencey of this clause so far as proclaimed districts were con- cerned. At the same time, it was hardly consistent to discuss that clause now, seeing that the question of the proclamation of districts was not raised by it. He, for one, did not think that the Amendment was in the right direction. He was strongly of opinion that there ought to be no such clause in the Bill at all; but the Amendment must be argued on the assumption that the clause was in the Bill, and on that assumption he wished to point out how the Amendment would operate in a wrong direction. In the first place, the Government or the Lord Lieutenant must have the power according to their judgment of proclaiming a meeting in any part of the country, and they would only have to throw what he might call the proclamation - net wide enough in order to obtain that power universally; and he was afraid the effect of passing this Amendment would be to induce the Lord Lieutenant, under certain circumstances, to do that which he would not be prepared to do unless the absolute necessity for it were shown. Again, assuming that some such clause as the present was desirable, and must be contained in the Bill, it was perfectly obvious that there might be meetings in districts not proclaimed which, in the interest of the public safety, it might be desirable to suppress.

confessed that he was unable to follow the reasoning of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. C. Russell) in this matter. The hon. and learned Member said he must proceed on the assumption that this clause was in the Bill; but thenhesaw special objections to requiring that the provision of the right of holding a public meeting should only be exercised in a proclaimed district. But why was this clause in the Bill at all? The excuse of the Government was that this clause was in the Bill because there were exceptionally disturbed districts in Ireland. Why should not those districts be proclaimed by way of example to the public outside those disturbed districts, and by way of warning to people within them? The only argument the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk brought forward in support of his objection to the Amendment was the extraordinary argument that the liberties of Ireland were to be placed in the power of the Lord Lieutenant, in order that he might have in his hands the power of sup- pressing public meetings and proclaiming districts that ought not to be proclaimed. No graver charge could be brought against any public officer than the charge which was applied in the argument of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk. It was based on the supposed readiness of the Lord Lieutenant to proclaim districts that ought not to be proclaimed, for the mere purpose of having power to put down public expression of opinion. He would only say that if that was an argument accepted by Her Majesty's Government, the Government entertained an opinion of the Lord Lieutenant infinitely worse than had yet been expressed by the Irish Party. He must do justice to the Home Secretary, and say that his arguments did not imply quite so low an opinion of the general unsatisfactory condition of the Irish Executive The Home Secretary stated as his reason for objecting to this most acceptable Amendment, that the experience of the Irish Government went to show that public meetings might create a tendency towards disturbance. Now, taking the declaration of the Home Secretary for what it was worth, and for the light it threw upon the Lord Lieutenant, it was absolutely necessary that they should introduce some Amendment to limit that power. In the opinion of the Home Secretary, public meetings had a tendency to excite disturbances. They were not to be prohibited because they were unlawful in themselves, and contemplated unlawful acts, but because they might excite a tendency towards subversive sentiment, which might result in criminal acts next year or the year after; so that an unlimited extension were sought to be given to the reasons which might induce the Lord Lieutenant to suppress public meetings in Ireland. He listened with all due gravity to the Home Secretary's exposition of his experience in connection with the Irish Government, because he was not aware until that statement was made that the Home Secretary had been particularly distinguished for any experience of Irish affairs whatever. But, doubtless, the Home Secretary possessed the rare power of acclimatization; and, having already been in charge of a Coercion Bill for Ireland, he felt himself qualified to be "Sir Oracle" on all the details of the Irish Government, and all the results of Irish experience. What he (Mr. O'Donnell) wished to know was, if it was the experience of the Irish Government that public meetings and disturbing outrages were at all connected? If they were at all connected, it was in a way that was by no means favourable to the argument of the Home Secretary. When they suppressed public meetings they had disturbances and outrage, and not when they had public meetings. Since the meeting at Wexford, when the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) criticized somewhat severely the speech of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, at Leeds, there had been practically no public meetings in Ireland, and yet disturbance and outrage had most lamentably increased in that country. The experience of the Irish Administration distinctly went to show that the more public meetings were suppressed the more they promoted private outrages; and he was afraid there would be a further confirmation of that view if the peculiar Irish experience of the Home Secretary, who had never had any Irish experience at all, was to be taken into account, and the opinion of the Irish Members, who were well qualified to speak on the subject, was to be neglected and ignored by the Government.

said,hehad listened to all the arguments which had been adduced in the course of the discussion; but he saw no necessity for applying to every district in Ireland the same repressive measures in regard to the holding of public meetings. Reference had been made to the Province of Ulster, but in that Province, so far as he was aware, no public meetings had been held which were conducive to crime and disorder. If it could be shown that such meetings did take place there, it would be the duty of the Executive to prohibit them, on the ground that they were likely to endanger the public safety; but if it were absolutely necessary to proclaim districts in which public meetings were prohibited, the consequence might be that the whole of Ulster, and the most peaceable portions of Ireland, would come not only under the operation of this section, but also of the 8th —the Curfew Clause—and several other clauses which were regarded as stringent and objectionable. He entirely objected to the suggestion that the power to be conferred upon the Lord Lieutenant of putting a stop to meetings in Ulster, should involve the necessity of proclaiming that Province, or any district within it.

supported the Amendment. He believed that if Ulster were brought under the stringent provisions of the clause, some day or other the people of that Province would join with the rest of the Irish people in asking for the restoration of the rights of the country generally. He supported the Amendment because he considered it to be a fair and reasonable one. He failed to see what reason there was for prohibiting a meeting in a district which was not disturbed. If a district was not disturbed, and there was no reason to proclaim it, why should they prevent any legal meeting being held? If it were found that meetings which were being held were intended to disturb the neighbourhood, it would be easy to proclaim them; but to prohibit a meeting, and to say that it should not be held in a district which was not disturbed, was not only unfair, but most unjust. He saw no reasonable ground why the Government should object to this addition to the clause. He failed to see that it would put them in a worse condition than they were at present. It would not deprive them of any power they now possessed in the slightest degree, and if a district was not in a disturbed state the Lord Lieutenant ought not to be invested with any special powers beyond thosehealready possessed, which would enable him to interfere with the right of free meeting.

said, the hon. Members who had criticized the Amendment in a hostile spirit had evidently not paid attention to the words of the Amendment. The Amendment was to the effect that the clause should have effect only in districts which had been previously proclaimed, and in which there was such disturbance as to require the application of the provisions and powers of the clause. Some hon. Members appeared to think that if the Amendment were adopted counties would be proclaimed, so as to subject every person residing in them to the consequences of being resident in a proclaimed district. That was a mistake. If the Amendment of his hon. Friend were accepted, it would simply give the Lord Lieutenant the power of proclaiming a district for a special purpose—namely, that he might be able to put down a meeting. It was proposed that if a man happened to be out after sunset, or was a stranger in the district, he should be liable to arrest; but this could only be done in a proclaimed district. Yet the present clause proposed to give power to the Lord Lieutenant to prohibit a meeting in a district which was not proclaimed. He did not see, if the Amendment were adopted, how the Executive would be in a worse position than they were at pre-sent, because the Lord Lieutenant had already power to suspend any meeting whatever. He supported the Amendment, because he believed it would unquestionably tend to limit the power of the Lord Lieutenant. The hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Givau) said there would be inducements, if the Amendment were adopted, to bring Ulster under the operation of the Bill. So far as he (Mr. Leamy) was concerned, he should be glad to see that inducement given effect to. He stood up for the right of free speech and liberty in Ireland; but he thought there ought to be liberty of speech all over Ireland, and if these restrictions were to be applied to the whole country, instead of finding a certain section of the Irish Members supporting the Government, they would be found in active opposition to the Bill. It certainly was an extraordinary thing to him how this clause could meet with any support at all from hon. Members opposite.

said, he wished to correct a misapprehension into which the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Leamy) had fallen. So far as he (Mr. Givan) was personally concerned, he objected to the clause altogether.

desired to mention why he felt himself bound to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan). It appeared to him that the fact of the Bill being of a general character, extending over the whole of Ireland, had been forgotten, and that no public meeting could be held to which this section would not apply. It must also be remembered that there was a very stringent clause applied to acts done or words spoken, so that that clause, taken with the present, placed liberty of speech at a very low ebb in- deed. He thought the provision in regard to words spoken ought to operate sufficiently, and he was of opinion that unless the Amendment were accepted the right of public meeting in Ireland would be put a stop to altogether.

said, he hoped that the Government would not accept the Amendment, which would render the clause nugatory. If a proclamation were necessary to make a meeting illegal, the expedient would be resorted to of holding meetings in districts which were not proclaimed. He was old enough to remember the time when prize fights were of constant occurrence. They were considered illegal, and when it was known that one was about to take place a Justice of the Peace, attended by constables, went out to prevent it from taking place; but when they got to the spot, the whole assembly had migrated into an adjoining county in which the authorities, who had come to interrupt the proceedings, had no power, and thus an evasion of the law took place. So it would be if the prohibition of public meetings were confined to proclaimed districts. A meeting would be held in a district which had not been proclaimed by the Lord Lieutenant, and, therefore, the clause would be rendered nugatory by the acceptance of the Amendment.

said, the hon. Baronet (Sir Eardley Wilmot) was entirely under a misapprehension in regard to the case he had put. It would be impossible in Ireland for a meeting, after having been prohibited, to migrate to an unproclaimed district, because the Lord Lieutenant would still have the power of suppressing it. The only difference would be that it would be impossible to inflict a penalty of six months' imprisonment on the persons attending the meeting at the present moment. Without any proclamation at all the Lord Lieutenant had ample power for dispersing illegal meetings held in any district. The hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. C. Russell) had fallen into the same error as the hon. Member for "Warwickshire (Sir Eardley Wilmot). The hon. and learned Member for Dundalk said the Lord Lieutenant might be tempted, if the Amendment were accepted, to proclaim districts.

To obtain the power given by the clause.

said, that meant the power of inflicting a penalty of six months' imprisonment. The hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Givan) had also fallen into an error in asserting that the object of the Amendment was to extend the powers of the Bill to Ulster. That was entirely contrary to the real facts of the case. Their object was to keep it away from places which were not disturbed; and if the Amendment were adopted, Ulster, not being a disturbed district, would be exempted from the operation of the provisions. He was sorry that the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Givan) had mistaken the attitude of the Irish Members towards Ulster. The hon. Member had accused them of a desire to extend the provisions of the Bill to Ulster. They had opposed throughout its application to any part of Ireland; and if any hon. Member had helped Her Majesty's Government to pass this legislation, it was the hon. Member himself and his Friends, who had voted for the second reading of the Bill.

suggested that the Irish Members might attain their object by moving to amend the clause on Report by prefixing to it the words "in proclaimed districts."

said, the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) was acting under the same misapprehension as the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Givan). The words of the Amendment did not seek to proclaim the district, but they were to the effect—

"That it shall not be lawful for the Lord Lieutenant to order, under the provisions of this Act, any such prohibition of a meeting, nor shall any person be guilty of an offence under this Act who maybe present at a meeting so prohibited, unless the Lord Lieutenant shall, by proclamation previously made, declare the county, or the district of county in which the meeting is to be held is in such a state of disturbance as to require the application of the provisions and powers in this Clause."

said, he hoped the Government would accept the clause. From their point of view there were two things required in Ireland. They had already full power to prevent meetings, whether they were proposed to be held in proclaimed districts or not. if they considered that they might lead to disorder. He himself thought that in those parts of Ireland which it was not necessary to proclaim, and which were, therefore, supposed to be inhabited by people who did nothing to injure the public safety, it was quite sufficient to have the power of stopping a meeting when it was convened, without subjecting the people who attended it to punishment. By accepting the Amendment, the Government would not put themselves in a worse position than they were now occupying, except that they would not have the power of subjecting people in the quiet parts of the country, such as Ulster, to severe punishment.

said, he did not think that the Amendment would effect the object of its supporters. Districts only could be proclaimed when crime and outrage were prevalent in them, and it was, therefore, desirable that the proclaimed districts should be as few as possible. The Government did not wish to bring down on a whole district a sentence which it did not deserve; they only wished by the clause to be able to stop meetings, the holding of which would be dangerous in an unhealthy condition of things.

said, the 20th clause of the Bill, which had just been alluded to, was not at all pertinent to his Amendment.

said, there were some Members who, although they did not intend to vote for the Amendment, would vote against the clause. For his own part, he thought the Amendment would make the clause logically worse than it was at present, and, therefore, he should not vote for it. The Amendment was introduced by the hon. Member for Louth, on the distinct ground that meetings should not be prohibited except in proclaimed districts, and several hon. Members opposite had also spoken in the same sense.

I said nothing of the kind.

said, in the Province of Ulster the Government of the Lord Lieutenant had repeatedly and with good effect proclaimed meetings announced to be held on the 12th of July. That power had always been exercised with the approbation of the majority of Irish Members. But if this Amendment were accepted, the Lord Lieutenant must previously proclaim the Province of Ulster, or some portion of it in which the meetings were to be held. For these reasons he felt it his duty to vote against the Amendment.

said, he should vote in favour of the Amendment and against the clause; but, in saying that, he wished to guard himself against being supposed to endorse the opinions of the hon. Member who had just sat down. The hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Givan) and the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) had spoken of the Amendment as if the adoption of it would draw down upon a district all the penalties of the general proclamation under the 20th clause of the Bill. But in that they were entirely mistaken; and had they read the clause attentively they would have arrived at a different opinion, at the same time saving themselves from the strictures of the hon. Member for Louth. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Louth was—

"That it shall not be lawful for the Lord Lieutenant to order, under the provisions of this Act, any such prohibition of a meeting, nor shall any person be guilty of an offence under this Act who may be present at a meeting so prohibited, unless the Lord Lieutenant shall, by proclamation previously made, declare the county, or the district of the county in which the meeting is to be held is in such a state of disturbance as to require the application of the provisions and powers of this Clause enacted."

said, he thought the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) had scarcely grasped the meaning of the Amendment before the Committee. The hon. Member said the Government had from time to time, with beneficial effect, proclaimed Orange meetings in Ulster, andhehad argued as if that power would in future be interfered with. But that was not at all the effect of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Louth. The power of prohibition, referred to by the hon. Member for Galway as having existed before, would continue to exist if the Amendment were adopted. The clause proposed to inflict a special punishment upon persons who did not stay away from a meeting that was likely to lead to an infringement of order; and the Amendment of the hon. Member for Louth did not affect the principle of the clause, directly or indirectly. But the Government had no pretence whatever for asking for the powers under the clause unless there was disturbance in the district. When any part of Ireland was peaceable, the reasons which the Government might otherwise have for the prohibition of public meetings was taken away, and they had no excuse for interference by means of a Bill of this kind. As the hon. Member for Louth had pointed out, the special proclamation to which he referred had only reference to this particular clause, and to no other part of the Bill whatever; and he said that the sole object of the Amendment was to throw another obstacle in the way of arbitrary action on the part of the Government. Irish Members complained not only of the arbitrary but the sudden action of the Government in Ireland— they complained of the power which the clause would give of springing notices of prohibition on the people, and so bringing about conflicts between the people and the authorities. If a district were in a disturbed condition, there was, perhaps, reason for suppressing meetings; but when it was peaceable there was no necessity or justification for such a course, unless, as some were inclined to do, the object was to destroy the right of public meeting in Ireland altogether. He regarded the Amendment as extremely fair and reasonable; and he did not see how the hon. Members for Monaghan (Mr. Givan) and Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) could object to it on the grounds stated by them, be-cause the clause would still make it competent to the Lord Lieutenant to prohibit meetings of Orangemen on the 12th of July, for which great preparations might have been made, and these Orangemen, having made arrangements for their meeting, would be liable to be put in prison for insisting on exercising their Common Law right to hold a meeting which was prohibited simply by the will of the Lord Lieutenant. He and his hon. Friends had always insisted on the right of public meeting in the case of Orangemen; and he had himself been a supporter of Mr. Johnson, the former Member for County Down, when he was prosecuted for having taken part in an Orange procession. Not only did he sympathize with him, but he became a subscriber to the fund created for the purpose of indemnifying him for the inconvenience suffered in his endeavours to insist on the right of public meeting in Ireland. He repeated that he and his hon. Friends were always in favour of the right of public meeting, either in Ulster or anywhere else, although they were not in favour of bands and banners, and things calculated to irritate the feelings of persons who held different views from those which the meetings in question represented. He maintained that the arguments of the hon. Members opposite to whom he had referred were quite inapplicable to the Amendment, which he should feel it his duty to support.

said, notwithstanding the argument of the Attorney General, his Amendment had no reference whatever to the 20th clause of the Bill. The 20th clause did not authorize the Lord Lieutenant to act of his own motion, but with the advice of the Privy Council in Ireland; whereas his Amendment reserved action to the Lord Lieutenant without the intervention of the Privy Council. That was a most material point. But there was a still more material difference. The 20th clause said that—

"The Lord Lieutenant, by and with the advice of the Privy Council in Ireland, may from time to time, when it appears to him necessary for the prevention of crime and outrage, by proclamation declare the provisions of this Act which relate to proclaimed districts to he in force."

said, he should feel it his duty to vote both against the clause and the Amendment.

said, he rose for the purpose of moving the rejection of the clause. He believed the Committee would agree with him that there ought not to be any increase of the power of the Executive in Ireland, or the creation of any new offence, unless on the clearly proved necessities of the case. That opinion, he believed, would be accepted by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Now, he asked, did that proved necessity exist for the present clause? The clause enabled the Lord Lieutenant, in such cases where he came to the conclusion, on the information supplied to him, that any meeting was likely to prove dangerous to the public peace or the public safety, peremptorily, arbitrarily, and summarily to prohibit that meeting. But the clause did more than that; it made it an offence for a person knowingly to attend any such meeting. There was no such offence known to the law at the present time. It was important to consider the state of things in which this proposal was brought forward, and the state of things to which it was supposed that the clause would be applied. He asked hon. Members, in any part of the House, what were the meetings in Ireland which the existing powers of the law had been found insufficient in the interest of peace and safety in Ireland to cope with? Had any such occasion arisen, or in what place had it been found that the powers with which the Executive were already armed were inadequate to the purpose of the clause? He ventured to say, whatever hon. Members might think or express to the contrary of the conduct of the Irish people in particular districts, that there was one remarkable feature in the whole behaviour of the people of Ireland with regard to this question of public meeting, and that was, that whenever the Executive had thought it right to intervene and prevent a meeting up to the present time, on the sworn information that it was dangerous to the public peace, the greatest alacrity had been shown in yielding obedience to the law. Again, he asked, where was the proved necessity for that extraordinary power proposed by the clause to be conferred on the Lord Lieutenant? He said there was none. He would now inquire what was the existing law on this subject, and in doing so anything he might say would, of course, be subject to correction. The law, as he understood, was that a meeting, however peaceable it might be in itself, and however little it might tend to disturb the public peace, was in itself unlawful if the object it aimed at, or the means by which it sought to attain them, were unlawful; and the Lord Lieutenant had the right to invoke to the aid of the Executive the power of the law to put it down. Further, if the meeting, perfectly legal in itself, having a legal object, and professing to carry out that object by legal means, were held under circumstances which were shown upon sworn information to be dangerous to the public peace, the Lord Lieutenant had power to interfere and disperse the meeting. And the law further provided that if, upon a proclamation of that kind being made, there was reason to apprehend a breach of the peace, and the people did not disperse, then, by the reading of the Riot Act—which, by the way, gave larger powers than was proposed in this clause—any person who continued to take part in the meeting, would be subject to the penalty of the law, and could be dealt with accordingly. He was anxious to know how the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary would meet these arguments. Where, he asked, was there a case in which it had been found that these provisions of the law, as they existed, were not adequate to the necessities of the case, or where had it been found that the penalty attached by the existing law was inadequate to the offences committed? He said, if such things had occurred, they should be proved to have taken place. But no instance was forthcoming; and, therefore, he affirmed that the only basis on which the clause could safely rest, and the sanction of the Committee be given to it, could not be made out to exist. It would be said that the powers which the Executive possessed were rather vague and undefined. He met that by saying that, in his opinion, there was no harm in leaving undefined the powers of the Executive for dealing with the great Constitutional right of public meeting; andheappealed to hon. Members representing other than Irish Constituencies, to ask themselves how they would like to have applied in England this clause, and what the people of England would say if it were attempted by hon. Members opposite to effect this grave alteration of the right of public meeting in this country? The consequences of a clause of this kind were far-reaching and dangerous. These were not only the mere act of putting down public meetings, but the effect which the clause would have upon the public mind in making men afraid to discuss what they felt to be their grievances in the light of day. He feared it would be found that by preventing men in the open, deliberate, and full expression of their views, a greater evil would be created, because the matters so removed from open discussion would find their expression in the baneful organizations which it was now sought to put down. He asked the Committee to reject the clause, because it was unnecessary, because no case had been made out for it, and because it was likely to be dangerous in its consequences.

said, he yielded to no Member of the House in the desire to support Her Majesty's Government in legislation — severe and stringent legislation—for the purpose of putting clown crime, outrage, and intimidation in Ireland. But he could not find, and he had not heard, in the whole course of this discussion, any reason drawn, either from principle or expediency, which could justify him in voting for a clause which practically suppressed the right of public meeting in Ireland. In times of great political excitement, whether in Ireland, in England, or on the Continent, there was always a certain amount of what he might call political gas generated, and there were two ways of dealing with it. They might allow it to escape when the pressure was harmless, or they could confine it until the pressure became irresistible, and resulted, as was generally the case, in a dangerous explosion. The people of England were in the habit of saying to Continental Governments that it was the wisest and safest thing to allow the freest possible expression of public opinion, and to allow the acts of the Executive Government to be openly criticized. He held there was less danger in doing that now than in proceeding by the measures which this clause contemplated, and which, he believed, would have the result which his hon. and learned Friend had pointed out. The strength of a political principle was like the seaworthiness of a ship—it was to be tested by the way it would stand bad weather. Any ship would behave well in fine weather; but a political principle which would not bear the test of grave political crises was not a sound political principle. They had always contended that Constitutional government, so far from being endangered, was rather strengthened by the free expression of public opinion. He looked upon this matter from a political point of view, because he regarded the clause as opposing political agitation in one of Her Majesty's Three Kingdoms. It had been said by the Prime Minister that "crime dogged the steps of the public meetings of the Land League." He would admit, for the sake of argument, that outrage had followed public meetings of the Land League in Ireland. But by this Bill it was provided that if a man by speech incited to the commission of outrage, he could be brought before the magistrates and sentenced to six months' imprisonment. He said the Government could not have a better means of dealing with intimidation that might be attempted by public meeting. There was not a single consequence which either the Chief Secretary or the Secretary for the Home Department had pointed out as likely to follow from inflammatory public meetings which could not be fully and completely dealt with under the other clauses of the Bill. But the Chief Secretary said that this measure would be wisely administered. He laid great stress on the administration of the Act. Now, he (Mr. Fowler) had as much confidence as any man in the fair and impartial administration of Lord Spencer and his right hon. Friend. He did not know where at that moment two more competent persons could be found to fill the posts which they occupied; but he could not accept it as any justification of a bad law that it would be wisely or temperately administered. But he could perceive another danger resulting from the actual administration of this Bill. The Committee would remember that they had a far stronger power than was now proposed in the Riot Act for dealing with these meetings. Assuming this clause to be put in force, the men who were the real promoters of the meetings, who went there to say the things which the Government deprecated, were not the persons who would come within the sweep of the Bill. It was always those unfortunate persons who were innocently attending the meetings who became the victims and sufferers. The result of this would be that the very people who now supported the enactment of the clause would be most indignant with the natural results of their own legislation. What had happened in this country? It was almost half-a-century since what was described as the Peterloo massacre took place in this country, an event which Manchester had never forgotten nor forgiven. To put this clause in force would be to land the Government in Ireland in greater difficulty than it was in at present. They were engaged in passing a measure which would enable the Irish Executive to deal with every development of crime, and he contended that there was no necessity to deal also with the right of public meeting in Ireland, which was the safety valve for the expression of the political opinions of an excited people. By all means let the people of Ireland criticize the action of the Government. No doubt, they would not do that very pleasantly. Strong language would be applied, no doubt, to the policy of the Government; but this would do no harm in itself, nor would it do harm to the Government of Lord Spencer. On the contrary, he thought that this criticism would do the Government some good, even though it were expressed in unwise, objectionable, or intemperate words. He felt it his duty to vote against the clause, because he believed that the suppression of the right of public meeting would produce far greater evils than it was intended to prevent.

said, it was with very great regret that the Government felt bound to dissent from the view taken by his hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton. With every respect for his hon. Friend, he thought the views he had expressed were somewhat to be regretted at that moment, because, as had been stated by the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), it was support of this character which encouraged hon. Members opposite to go back to the principles of the Bill. Now, he contended that this question could not be solved by general argument upon the value of public meetings. Everyone knew the value of public meetings, just as they knew the value of trial by jury; but the Committee, by passing the 1st clause of the Bill, had suspended trial by jury in Ireland, so far as the offences named in the Bill were concerned. The same kind of common-places could always be uttered, both on the value of trial by jury, and on the value of public meetings. They were, however, common-places against the second reading of the Bill, and did not affect the question at issue; and although the hon. Member for Wolverhampton had directed his remarks against the clause itself, his speech was really against every kind of legislation for the suppression of public meetings. He had been struck particularly by one remark of his hon. Friend, who said for the sake of argument he would admit that these public meetings had led to outrage and intimidation in the past, but that there was no necessity for further interference, inasmuch as the Government already possessed machinery for putting down outrage and intimidation. The position taken up by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton was very like that of a man who supplied himself with an excellent fire-engine, and then concluded there was no use in taking any further precaution against his house being set on fire. That was exactly the case with regard to the hon. Member's objection to this clause. Because the Government could put down intimidation, there fore they were not to interfere with public meeting's which were likely to lead to intimidation, and it was upon that ground that the Committee were asked to reject the clause. His hon. Friend had referred to the evils which might arise from putting down public meetings by force, and had alluded to Peterloo by way of illustration; but it was the Peterloo system which was in force in Ireland under the existing law. It was because the Government could now suppress meetings dangerous to the public peace only by an exhibition of force that the present clause was proposed. The object of the clause was, by inflicting penalties, to prevent such disasters as his hon. Friend had referred to. Thus the clause would supply the means of putting down meetings avowedly held for the purpose of "Boycotting" and punishing those who persisted in attending them in spite of their prohibition; and, therefore, he desired it to be understood that any Gentleman voting against the clause would vote against giving the Government the power of putting down "Boycotting." The hon. Member for Wolverhampton had referred to Whig principles. He trusted he had as much respect for those principles as his hon. Friend. He confessed that he was a Whig, and he was ready to act as the great Whigs had done in old times, who never allowed themselves to be seduced by commonplace phrases when great political dangers were to be dealt with. The first fruit of the Reform Bill was the bringing in of the Act of 1833. That Act was brought in by men who fought for their principles, and for 50 years sacrificed every hope of political advantage. They did not consider themselves for one moment when they found the country in danger, but applied the remedies which they and everyone else knew to be necessary. These were the reasons which induced Her Majesty's Government to take such steps as they believed would be sufficient for the safety of the country. These were the reasons which induced the Irish Government under Lord Spencer to declare that, in their opinion, the country would not be safe without this clause, and to state that, in their opinion, this unlimited right of public meet- ing had been one of the main causes of the present condition of Ireland, and of the crime and outrage which prevailed there. It was for these reasons, and for these reasons alone, that the Government now asked the House of Commons to support them in this clause. They were told that this Act of Coercion would not produce the results which the Government expected from it. Yes—the Government having proposed a Bill which they considered likely to achieve the results they desired, the endeavour was then made to weaken it and cut it down, so as to bring about the failure that was prophesied. He appealed to hon. Members to allow the clause to pass.

said, that, not-with standing the great ability with which views opposite to his own had been supported, he was still of opinion that, without this clause, very great difficulties would be thrown in the way of the Executive Government in Ireland. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) had spoken of outrages being caused by the language used at public meetings in Ireland; nevertheless, he did not seem to think that the Government should be placed in possession of powers sufficient for the prevention of public meetings in the manner proposed by the clause. The hon. Gentleman, however, got to somewhat safer ground when he said that the advice which was tendered to Foreign Governments with regard to matters kindred to the subject now before the Committee, would be inconsistent when the Government of the country became a party to the clause under discussion. But he (Mr. Lowther) thought the best way to avoid such inconsistency was very easily discoverable— it was to discontinue giving advice unsought to Foreign Governments, who were certainly as competent as our own to manage their affairs. It was to be regretted that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary, who, he was bound to say, had, up to the present time, discharged his duty with great firmness, should have been called away for a moment upon public business, because, during his absence, an Amendment of importance had been under discussion, and was afterwards accepted by one of his Colleagues. He believed that Amendment would prove very injurious to the clause itself, inasmuch as it provided that two or more Justices should attend at the place where they had reason to believe a meeting was to be held.

That Amendment was accepted at my special instance.

said, he had not stated that the right hon. and learned Gentleman disapproved the Amendment accepted by his Colleague; he had simply expressed his regret at the absence of the right hon. and learned Gentleman when the Amendment was under discussion, which fact precluded the right hon. and learned Gentleman from hearing the strong arguments which were forthcoming against the change introduced into the Bill. He (Mr. J. Lowther) thought that what had taken place was illustrative of the great disadvantage of a measure of this kind being in the hands of a Member of the Government, who could not possibly have an opportunity of making himself acquainted with the opinions of the authorities in Ireland with regard to particular Amendments proposed to the Bill. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman had had the experience which it it was his (Mr. J. Lowther's) misfortune to have of the difficulty of contending with a movement of the kind now going on in Ireland, he would have known that the Amendment that had been accepted by his Colleague would make the clause practically unworkable. The Amendment made it necessary, as he had already pointed out, for two or more Justices to attend at the place appointed for the meeting. The general practice would be found to be that a large number of meetings would be simultaneously called in the same district. That was the practice when he was a Member of the Irish Executive, and he had known several instances of the kind. The plan would be to call meetings in almost every village throughout the district for one particular day. The persons who promoted these meetings would have a pretty good idea which meeting or meetings the authorities took especial precautions to deal with, and they would probably select a rendezvous not immediately under the eyes of the authorities. The effect of this was that, while the Justices were engaged elsewhere, the promoters of the meeting took the precaution to repair to a spot not far off, and there the meeting took place. His objection to the Amendment was founded upon experience, and the circumstances he had referred to were not unlikely to occur in the future. At the risk of detaining the Committee, he felt it his duty to call attention to this subject, in the hope that, between that time and the Report, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary would consult some practical authority on Irish affairs, who had had experience of the way in which public meetings in Ireland were conducted, and that he would consent either to the omission of the Amendment, or to so far modifying it as to remove some of the practical objections he had indicated.

said, the Home Secretary had complained of the length of the discussion on the clause before the Committee, and, at the same time, had congratulated himself that he was an old Whig. If that was so, he ought to have recollected that the founders of the modern Whig Party— Mr. Fox, Mr. Whitbread, and others— spent a very much longer time in discussing a similar clause in a Bill that applied to England. They fought against the suspension of the right of public meeting with more persistency than the hon. Gentlemen opposite had fought against that clause, and their fighting was accounted by their Party as an honour. The Homo Secretary had twitted the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) with having indulged in Liberal commonplaces. It might be retorted upon him that he had indulged in despotic common-places, for the substance and the spirit of his speech were just such as would have been fitting in the mouth of the Minister of an unchecked Tyrant. It was the sort of speech that any Minister of Louis Bonaparte would have made when trampling out the liberties of the people by a military force. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had referred to Lord Grey and to the Government of 1833. It was an unhappy reference. Lord Grey came into power upon a wave of popular enthusiasm and with a large majority at his back. He carried an Irish Coercion Bill, which was described by the late Lord Lytton as consisting of two sections—a whiff of grape-shot, and the suspension of trial by jury. The Bill was as complete, as disastrous, as hideous a failure as the Coercion Bill of last year had been. Lord Grey and his Colleagues—as the present Administration were now doing—attempted a second Coercion Bill; but Lord Althorp, a statesman that the Home Secretary had often quoted during these debates, objected to the measure. The negotiations that took place between him, Mr. Littleton, and Mr. O'Connell, ended in the defeat of the Government and the abandonment of the Bill. It was not at all improbable that as Irish coercion had killed Lord Grey's Government—with all its popularity and its power—Irish coercion would kill the present Administration also. After the retirement of Lord Grey, Lord Melbourne initiated a better policy, and, under his mild administration and without coercion, Ireland enjoyed a period of peace and prosperity such as had seldom fallen to her lot since the Union. This much for the Home Secretary's historical allusions. As for the clause before the House, his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dandalk (Sir Charles Russell) and his Friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) had stated clearly, ably, and eloquently all that was necessary to be said. It only remained for him to say "ditto" to their speeches. Their contention was unanswerable. No one denied that the Government ought to have the power to suppress meetings that were likely to be dangerous to the peace of the country and the stability of the State. Everyone admitted that all Governments ought to have such a power, and to suppose that any Government had not such a power would be to suppose that it could not justify its existence. The most loosely-organized Republic in South America possessed the right of putting clown riotous and tumultuous assemblies that threatened its existence. And our Government had exercised a like power in Ireland repeatedly. More than 100 public meetings had been suppressed within the last 12 months by the Lord Lieutenant, and the strongest argument against the clause was the fact that the suppression of not one of these meetings had led to the slightest disorder. No one had been arrested, the peace had not been broken, and the people had quietly and promptly obeyed even the arbitrary and, in some instances, uncalled-for exercise of authority by the Viceroy. The clause, therefore, was useless. But while the Government did not want the power they were now getting, the fact of their getting it would be a source of exasperation and annoyance. The Home Secretary had said that these meetings generated steam. That was quite true; but the material for making the steam existed, or it could not be generated, and the meetings afforded an opportunity for its evaporation. But the Government, instead of adopting the natural and reasonable process of getting quit of the steam, were going to bottle it up and await the results, however serious they might be. English. Members complained of the length of the discussion; but he would like to know how they would have argued against, and how strenuously they would have resisted, any attempt to deprive them of the right of public meeting. There was no Party in the State that utilized public meetings more than the Liberal Party did. They were the breath of their political nostrils. And yet the idolizers of public meetings in this country were now about to suppress them in Ireland. It was to the lasting discredit of the present Administration that they were bringing in a Bill that struck at the foundations of all the principles their Party professed. They had suspended the Habeas Corpus Act, and they were now abolishing trial by jury. They were suppressing the right of public meeting, and they meant to take away the liberty of the Press. And they would have men who valued principles more than Party to sit still and allow these things to be done quietly, and without protest. If they conceived that they would be permitted to enforce their high-handed authority in Ireland without resistance, they were mistaken. He knew, of course, the clause would be carried. Only an insignificant minority would vote against it. But the necessity for its opponents making their protest was none the less urgent because they were few.

said, the Home Secretary had told them a hundred times of the position in which the Government were placed. But in what position were the Government placed during the delivery of the speech in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman made attacks on the sacred principle of popular liberty? The speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman had been met by cheers; but these came only from the Tory quarter of the House. It appeared to him a most curious circumstance that a man who described himself as a Whig of the old times should be placed by the Government in charge of a Bill for the suppression of the liberties of the Irish people. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had quoted the case of Earl Grey, and when he desired to remind the Committee of the achievements of the Whig Party, he spoke of the infamous Coercion Bill of 1833, a Bill which was not only a failure, but a blunder, and which was the cause of the expulsion of Earl Grey from power. He could not congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman on the happiness of his metaphors. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that those who were opposed to this clause were in the position of a person who thought it was no longer necessary to take precautions against fire because he was in the possession of a fire-engine; but he would point out that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's method of dealing with Irish affairs was that, so to speak, of bringing up the fire-engine amidst hurry and noise to a house that was not on fire at all. Nor could he congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman on his reply to what he designated the commonplaces of his hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), who was opposed to the clause before the Committee. He did not think that the treatment accorded to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton would have been approved of by the Prime Minister; and he would only observe upon this point that the conduct of the right hon. and learned Gentleman was likely to lead to the very opposite results to those which he desired. There was no law which struck so large, so wide, so fatal, and so dangerous a blow at the great principle of public freedom as this law would. He had said that the right of public meeting was a sacred link between the convictions of the private individual and the opinions and acts of the Legislature. If the right of public meeting in England was so sacred that no Ministry dare propose to abolish it, was it not ten times more valuable and more essential in the case of Ireland? No country so much needed the right of public meeting as a country without a Parliament of its own. The people of England had a Parliament of their own, and even if the right of public meeting were taken away, the English people would still have in that House some protection against acts of despotism; but what protection had the Irish people? They had no Parliament of their own, and the voices of their Representatives in that House were disregarded, and their votes had no influence whatever upon the course of legislation. It was now proposed to take away the last safeguard they possessed— the right of public meeting. What case had been made out by the Government for this clause? The Home Secretary once more returned to the futile statement that this clause was necessary to prevent "Boycotting" meetings. Let him (Mr. Sexton) emphasize the undeniable fact that the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, during the past year, had prohibited about 100 meetings in various parts of Ireland, meetings called for various purposes, some of them for the mere discussion of the agrarian questions. In not one single case had a meeting been held when it had been prohibited; but the leaders of the people had invariably advised the crowds to disperse; there had never been any occasion to resort to brute force, and in no case had public inconvenience ensued. Why, in the face of such a state of facts, had this most wanton and oppressive clause been inserted in the Bill? What was the theory of the Government in Ireland in respect to "Boycotting?" They had heard from the late Chief Secretary (Mr. W. E. Forster) that "Boycotting" never received an effective sanction except by means of outrage. If that were so, why were not the present powers of the Lord Lieutenant sufficient? He had prohibited meetings upon two grounds; he had either apprehended a breach of the peace, or he had apprehended danger to some person living in the neighbourhood. If the Government were of opinion that "Boycotting" necessarily led to outrage, a theory which he rejected, if they considered that "Boycotting" meetings were dangerous to the public peace, why not prohibit them under their present powers? He believed they could prohibit a "Boycotting" meeting under the powers which now existed. There never was a time in the history of Ireland when the right of public meeting was so essential to the people. They had many great questions to consider; but he did not imagine that, under this Bill, it would be possible to hold any public meeting for the discussion of any political question. Could a meeting be held to consider the question of county government? Certainly not; it would excite ill-feeling amongst the Grand Juries of the country, and it would be considered as dangerous to the public safety. Could the Irish people hold a meeting in favour of the further development of the franchise? Certainly not, for such a meeting would create ill-feeling and hatred in the minds of those people who thought that the representation of Ireland in that House should be upon a much larger principle than it was at present. If the people held meetings to consider the proceedings of the Land Commissioners, they would be held liable to punishment under this clause, because the meeting would be considered dangerous to the public peace. Could the people hold meetings to discuss a question which, before very long, would have to be settled in that Parliament—the question of the inalienable right of the Irish people to their legislative independence? No political meetings would be possible under the extreme and extravagant powers which it was now proposed to give to the Lord Lieutenant. His Excellency might prohibit any meeting merely upon bare suspicion; in fact, all the liberties of the Irish people were to be placed in the hands of a single man. Of all the deplorable mistakes and blunders which had been made in that House in regard to Ireland, the deplorable blunder contained in this Bill was the greatest. In the Preamble of the Bill it was stated that—

"By reason of the action of secret societies and combinations for illegal purposes in Ireland the operation of the ordinary law has become insufficient for the repression and prevention of crime."