acquainted the House that he had received the following Letter from Mr. Bradlaugh, one of the Members for the Borough of Northampton:—

In all these proceedings with respect to Mr. Bradlaugh the House has always, I take it, been governed by two considerations. The main consideration has been this—that seeing in Mr. Bradlaugh a person who does not attach the meaning to the words of the Oath which it was the intention of those who prescribed the Oath should be attached to them, the House has considered it would be improper that Mr. Bradlaugh should be allowed to go through the form of repeating those words, and that the repeating of those words by him would not be tantamount to taking the Oath. This House has, therefore, protected itself against the Oath being taken, or the form of taking the Oath being gone through, by repeated Resolutions on every occasion when Mr. Bradlaugh presented himself to go through the form of taking the Oath. In addition to the desire of the House to prevent the form of the Oath from being taken in that way, there has also been a desire—and a very natural desire—on the part of the House to guard against the interruption of its proceedings at uncertain times and without Notice, or even with Notice, by Mr. Bradlaugh frequently attempting to enter the House. And, therefore, on each occasion that the question has arisen, the House has passed two Resolutions—one, that he be not permitted to go through the form of taking the Oath; and the other, according to the necessities of the case, that he be not permitted to come within the House, or, in some cases, within the precincts of the House. On the 11th of this month—10 days ago—Mr. Brad-laugh presented himself, and without waiting to be called to the Table, in a manner decidedly and entirely irregular, he came to the Table and went through the form of taking the Oath. The House had no real cognizance of what was actually done; but that appeared to be the real nature of the proceeding. The House thereupon proceeded to pass the old Resolution, that he should not be permitted to go through the form of taking the Oath, and also passed another Resolution excluding him from the precincts of the House until he should undertake not to disturb the proceedings. Within a few days of this, a new Writ was moved for by the Colleague of Mr. Bradlaugh, the senior Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), on the ground that Mr. Brad-laugh had vacated his seat by accepting the Chiltern Hundreds. This was a Motion which was made rather unexpectedly, and many Members of the House did not desire to pronounce a decision upon it immediately; but the majority were for going on, so that that there was no alternative, and the Writ was issued. That being so—the Writ having been issued, and a fresh election having taken place—we are thrown back upon the position in which we were before the Resolutions of the 11th of February were passed; and it becomes a question, whether, under these circumstances, the House ought not to do that which it did on a former occasion when it ascertained that Mr. Bradlaugh was re-elected—that is to say, as soon as it obtained information and knowledge that Mr. Bradlaugh had been again returned, it re-affirmed the Resolution which had been made before and adopted by the House. That is a course which I think it would be entirely in conformity with the precedent and reason of our proceedings that we should now take. A letter has been addressed to you, Mr. Speaker, by Mr. Bradlaugh; and a question might be raised whether, after that letter, this course ought to be taken. I would remark upon that letter, in the first place, that I do not understand the course the Government are pursuing in this matter. They are now proposing to proceed against Mr. Bradlaugh for something he did before his last re-election—and no doubt proceedings have actually been commenced, in order to test whether what he did was of such a character as to bear the legal interpretation of taking the Oath, and to empower him to sit and vote in this House. Now, if that course had been taken before the new Writ was moved for, and while Mr. Bradlaugh was still claiming to be a Member of the House—if that step had been taken then, I could understand the meaning and object of it. It would have been a mode of testing whether he did or did not vacate his seat; and if the decision were against him there would have been a vacancy on that ground, and further proceedings would have to be taken. But now, whatever decision the Court of Law may pronounce, the act belongs to his previous connection with the House, and not to his present connection with it. It would in no way affect his present connection with the House, whether the Court pronounced that his going through that form was a good method of taking the Oath or not. Therefore, I do not see why we should want the decision of the Court upon the question: although as an historical fact it might be an important feature as bearing upon other questions; but it does not bear upon Mr. Bradlaugh's present position. If the decision is that the course taken was wrong, it does not make void the election which has taken place since that time. That being so, I think, and the House will also feel, that whatever might be the decision of the Court of Law as to the legality of what was done—if the decision were in favour of the legality of what was done—it would not in the slightest degree touch the objection which the House has always entertained. It is not a question whether Mr. Bradlaugh takes the Oath at the hands of the Clerk at the Table or at his own hands. That is not the question. What the House objects to is the substance of the matter—namely, the going through a form which the House considers ought not to be gone through in its presence. Therefore, it does not appear that we should be in any better position to deal with the question after the Courts have dealt with it than we are at the present moment; and I think, under those circumstances, the House would do wisely and rightly to adopt the same course that it adopted on the occasion of his former election, and at once proceed, on hearing that he has been re-elected, to re-affirm the Resolutions passed on the 11th of February. I have not the slightest doubt that Mr. Bradlaugh's engagement would entirely protect the House from any inconvenience until the decision to which he refers could be given; but it does not appear that that has anything to do with the matter. Whether the decision were one way or the other, the House would still remain unprotected in a matter in which it would require protection. I think hon. Members must themselves be sufficiently conscious of the extreme inconvenience it would be for Members of the House that they should be in the position of never knowing from day to day whether the question was to be raised or not. Therefore, I will place in your hands the following Resolution—

"That this House, having ascertained that Mr. Bradlaugh has been re-elected for the Borough of Northampton, doth re-affirm the two Resolutions made on the 11th February, directing that Mr. Bradlaugh be not permitted I to go through the form of taking the Oath prescribed by the Statutes, 29 Vic. c. 19, and 81 and 32 Vic. 0. 72; and directing the Serjeant-at-Arms to exclude Mr. Bradlaugh from the precincts of the House, unless he shall engage not to disturb the proceedings of the House."

I quite agree, Sir, with one of the right hon. Gentleman's conclusions, that it is extremely desirable to relieve the House from uncertainty as to the particular moment that any further step may be contemplated by Mr. Bradlaugh. Certainly, it is not desirable that anything should take place in a grave matter of this kind except with full Notice to the House, and in order that this House might have the deliberate judgment of an abundant number of its Members. I am very glad, indeed, to agree to any course that is taken which obviates a repetition of the disagreeable and painful scenes which have been witnessed, from time to time, in this House; and I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has elected to proceed preventively, instead of waiting for the action of Mr. Bradlaugh. Beyond that I am not able to accompany the right hon. Gentleman. In my opinion there is a great change in the circumstances since we last heard of this matter. At that time I endeavoured to persuade the senior Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) not to divide the House, but to be content with recording the repeated attempts of Mr. Bradlaugh to establish himself as a Member of the House—these repeated attempts being simply repetitions made against the known Order and will of the House, and repetitions which I thought it was quite competent for the majority to repress and prevent, I think, without any opposition on the part of the minority. But we have now, it appears to me, arrived at circumstances entirely new; and I think that it is very desirable indeed—not for the sake of Mr. Bradlaugh, and not even exclusively or mainly for the sake of the constituency of Northampton, but for the sake of the House itself—to consider accurately, and ascertain clearly, the position in which we stand. We have the choice of two courses before us. The right hon. Gentleman says he thinks the circumstances would have been materially varied had my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General determined upon taking steps to prosecute Mr. Bradlaugh before the recent election. I am quite at a loss to understand what practical bearing the postponement of the prosecution of Mr. Bradlaugh has upon the present question. To me it appears that the matter stands thus—the House has decided that Mr. Bradlaugh's operation at this Table was not the taking of the Oath; but the House, while claiming its own privileges and powers, will, I apprehend, be always ready, in the exercise of those privileges and powers, to have every possible light and assistance that it can derive from any quarter. My proposition is this—that the judgment of the Court of Law upon this subject, which it is the intention of my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General to obtain with all possible despatch—a judgment for which I do not assert any authority against the House—will be or may be—it is enough if I say—and I think the House generally will agree that I am moderate—if I say that it may be a material aid to the House in arriving at a right, and final, and conclusive judgment upon this question. The proposition I am laying down is this—that before we can approach the question of the exclusion of Mr. Bradlaugh—unless there is some practical objection—we ought to wait until we obtain that judgment. I go no further. I do not proceed now on the principle that you were wrong in excluding Mr. Bradlaugh—I do not question the propriety of the judgment of the House at this moment, whatever I may think of that judgment—but I say that that is a judgment which will be more satisfactorily and more authoritatively given, and carry greater weight with the country, if it is given under circumstances that show a disposition to obtain every possible light that can be thrown upon it. Is there anyone who will deny that a calm decision on this question in a Court of Law, entirely apart from every religious emotion and excitement, and every action and organization of political Party, with the most acute minds addressed to it, to raise all points of law that can be raised in relation to it—is it not likely to add very materially to our stock of information for coming to a true judgment in the matter? If that proposition cannot be contested—and I doubt whether it can be contested—what reason is there now for our proceeding to reiterate our judgment with less and inferior light, instead of waiting until we have greater and superior light? It would be no answer to say that on any day Mr. Bradlaugh might present himself at the Table and again disturb the proceedings of the House, which must be painful to him and painful to us all. Mr. Brad-laugh's engagement entirely relieves us from that. What is the difference between that which is tendered and that which the right hon. Gentleman demands? I address myself to the right hon. Gentleman himself, because I frankly own that I regard him as having the greatest responsibility in this matter, and as being mainly, if not exclusively, responsible for the present position. Let me for a moment explain. When I say that, I do not beg the question in favour of ourselves—I merely draw a distinction between the right hon. Gentleman and those who act with him and follow him. But let us look at the difference between that which is tendered to the right hon. Gentleman, or, if you like it, to hon. Gentlemen opposite, and that which they demand. They demand an engagement, without limit of time, that Mr. Bradlaugh shall not disturb the proceedings of the House, while Mr. Bradlaugh tenders an engagement not to disturb the House until a given event occurs. And what is that given event? It is the judgment of a Court of Law, which, as we say, will materially improve the position of this House in arriving at a final decision. So far from dissuading the senior Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) from taking the judgment of the House on this Motion of the right hon. Gentleman, I shall feel it my duty to say "No" to that Motion. It is not necessary, and it is not my intention, to go over the ground so often trodden. In my opinion, the pith of the argument in favour of the course which the Government has pursued on this matter was never better or more concisely or fairly stated than by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. Forster) the other night, when he said that no greater disservice could be rendered to religion, no greater blow could be inflicted on religion, than to be brought into conflict with those principles of civil right and justice which commend themselves to the minds of all men. I will not enter into that argument; but I will remind the House that it is engaged in a serious contest. There have been times when this House has been in conflict with the constituencies of the country, and those conflicts have always ended in the defeat and retreat of the House. It is perfectly certain that the retirement of the House from this contest must come at some time or other. ["No!"] The question is how and when? I do not say that the House is to retire now. I do not ask that of the right hon. Gentleman and of the majority. What I ask is simply and solely this—that having the engagement of Mr. Bradlaugh, which secures the peace and dignity of the House, you will consent to wait after the new election has taken place for the judgment of the Courts in this case, which, if it affirms your view, will immensely strengthen your position—["No!"]—and if it does not, will yet increase your means of investigating and deciding upon the question. It is for that postponement that I feel it my duty to ask, and on that ground to give a negative to the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman.

The Prime Minister has stated that the contest in which the House is now engaged is a serious contest, and with that observation I think everyone will concur. It is not only a serious contest, but in some sense it may be regarded as an alarming contest. I do not think, however, that hon. Members on this side of the House will be inclined to recede because the contest is either serious or alarming. Whenever the right hon. Gentleman opposite is in power hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House always have to face alarming contests. They are accustomed to that kind of struggle. But the right hon. Gentleman stated in his speech that the House ought to wait—and I ask the attention of the House to this—before considering this matter further, until a decision has been come to in a Court of Law. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to explain why he did not take that view of the subject when the Writ for Northampton was moved? The Chancellor of the Exchequer made himself an accomplice to precipitation in this matter, either on his own responsibility, or, at any rate, on the responsibility of himself and his Colleagues, by allowing the Chiltern Hundreds to be conferred on Mr. Bradlaugh when it was in their power to withhold it, for the Chiltern Hundreds are absolutely in the discretion of the Government. Under the circumstances of the case, and with the information which they possessed that the Attorney General was going to take proceedings against Mr. Bradlaugh, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have acted more wisely if he had acted less precipitately, and had declined to bring about a fresh contest in Northampton. But the right hon. Gentleman would not wait a moment. The Writ must be issued. And why? Because the Government wished to intimidate the House of Commons. Mr. Bradlaugh was to be allowed once more to appeal to the mob, in order that not only the House of Commons, but the Court of Law should be biassed by the demonstration in his favour.

I rise to Order. I gather from the noble Lord that he referred to my constituents as a "mob." I would ask you, Sir, whether that was a proper and decorous word to use towards any constituency in this country?

I am not prepared to say that the observations of the noble Lord were out of Order.

I will merely say, in extenuation of the description I gave, that I did not apply the term "mob" exclusively to the electors of Northampton. [Cries of "Birmingham!" I did not apply the expression to the Northampton electors; but I meant by the expression to combine the whole army of Mr. Bradlaugh's supporters. In extenuation of the expression, which, no doubt, the hon. Gentleman very naturally objects to, I may say that I have been informed by a gentleman who was present during the whole of the Northampton contest that the election was seriously influenced by the extreme fear which pervaded a considerable portion of the constituency, that if Mr. Bradlaugh was not returned the town would be wrecked by the mob. I would not have mentioned that if the hon. Member had not interrupted me. I wish now to ask the Prime Minister a question on another point—a point of procedure. The Prime Minister stated that the Attorney General would take proceedings to test the legality of what the right hon. Gentleman guardedly called "the operation" Mr. Bradlaugh went through the other day; and added that the Attorney General would pursue those proceedings with all possible despatch in the Court of Law. Now, I believe it is the case—and I shall be corrected if I am wrong—that the Attorney General possesses certain privileges, and has special facilities, which enable him to obtain decisions from the Courts with greater rapidity than an ordinary suitor. I should be glad to know, therefore, the Attorney General's opinion as to when this case is likely to come before a Court of Law; and further—and this is a most important point—I want to know whether the Crown, or the Representatives of the Crown, are going to be satisfied with the decision of a Court of Law, or whether they intend to take this great legal and Constitutional question, if necessary, right up through all the Courts of Law to the highest Court in the Realm—the House of Lords? A great deal may turn upon this point. We have not, Sir, such exclusive confidence in Her Majesty's Government at the present moment, in this matter, that we can afford to leave the House in doubt on this point, especially as the whole proceedings are, I imagine, going to be in the nature of friendly proceedings. That is what those who wish to see the question honestly decided are most anxious to guard against. Therefore, when the Prime Minister states that with all possible despatch the Attorney General will obtain the opinion, not of the Courts of Law, but of a Court of Law, that is a matter which might certainly be settled very rapidly indeed; and the House might be brought face to face with the decision before, or certainly very soon after, Easter. If the Crown was satisfied with the decision of a Court of Law, look at the position in which the House would be placed if it did not adopt the Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote). Take it that the decision is given in May. Well, Mr. Bradlaugh might come down to this House the very next day, perhaps on a Wednesday morning, fortified with a decision in his favour—and I am inclined to think that if it only went before a Court of Law it might be in his favour. Well, fortified with that decision, Mr. Bradlaugh comes down, without any notice having been given to hon. Members, or any preparation having been made for the presence of that competent and abundant number of Members which the Prime Minister spoke of; and he might go through the form of taking the Oath at the Table. The Government having got what they wanted, which was, no doubt, a decision in a Court of Law in favour of Mr. Bradlaugh—["No!"]—would afford every facility to Mr. Bradlaugh to take the Oath; and would, no doubt, at once bring before the House the question whether it could any longer deliberately refuse its consent. Such a course as that would not meet the justice of the case, which requires that the matter should be presented properly to the Courts of Law; and that, if the decision of those Courts should be in favour of Mr. Bradlaugh, due notice of any further steps should be given to the House before Mr. Bradlaugh attempted to come to the Table to go through the form of taking the Oath; and that thus the proceedings of the House should be insured against being disturbed by what can only be stigmatized as a vulgar brawl. That is exactly what this Motion is designed to insure; and it is also intended to give the House some sort of control over the proceedings of the Attorney General, so that if the House, or a majority of the House, are of opinion that the case has not been adequately placed before a Court of Law, or adequately decided, the House may take steps to direct that the matter should be taken before a higher tribunal. In these circumstances, I think the House would only be acting with due regard to its own dignity if it agreed to this Motion.

The noble Lord, I think, has thrown a great deal of light upon the position in which the House stands in relation to the constituencies of the country, because we now learn that the battle is being fought, not against a particular man, but against the constituency of Northampton. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: No.] I use the word "constituency" advisedly, because I do not think it decent to describe the constituencies of this country as "mobs;" and, therefore, I shall not follow the example of the noble Lord in referring to them by that name.

No; I never said that—I did not refer to the constituencies as "mobs." I applied that term to those who sought to intimidate this House into allowing Mr. Bradlaugh to profane the Oath.

The noble Lord is good enough to say that he dilutes the phrase by extending it not only to the constituency of Northampton, but to the constituencies of those who support the hon. Member for Northampton. ["No!"] I am glad to hear that the mass of hon. Members opposite repudiate the noble Lord's language and doctrine on that point. But the noble Lord has made another statement which is very important, and which also throws a great deal of light upon this question. I do not know whether the noble Lord is acting as spokesman of hon. Members opposite—that is a matter which is sometimes left in doubt—but, at all events, speaking for himself, he wishes us to take this course, because in his opinion—for my part, I offer no opinion as to what the decision of the Courts of Law will be; but we all know that the noble Lord is a high legal authority—the Court of Law will determine that Mr. Bradlaugh properly and legally took the Oath.

I said that it might do so.

Let the House consider the result of that opinion, because, if the Courts should so decide, then the position of the Party opposite, so far as they are represented by the noble Lord, will be this—that the House of Commons has deliberately excluded, and is excluding from his seat in this House, a man, who, they believe, has legally taken the Oath. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: No.] We now, therefore, see upon what principles this battle is being fought. The battle is being fought against a "mob" of constituencies, who are represented by a man who has legally taken the Oath. I think that that sums up the position very well. In these circumstances we and the "mobs" we represent shall continue to come to you and protest, as we have all along protested, against a proceeding which the noble Lord admits he believes to be illegal.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary seems to imagine that the majority of this House misrepresents the feelings and opinion of the country in this matter. I am convinced that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is totally mistaken; his view is supported by no evidence whatever. Last year Her Majesty's Ministers introduced the Affirmation Bill in order to legalize the attainment of Mr. Bradlaugh's object, admission to a seat in this House; the number of Petitions and Petitioners was five to one against the attainment of Mr. Bradlaugh's object. The right hon. and learned Gentleman can produce no evidence to contravene that test, which proves that the majority of this House, in its opposition to Mr. Bradlaugh's pretensions, are in thorough accordance with the opinions of the country. I must enter my protest against this attempt to force the majority of this House to act against their convictions. I rejoice, Sir, that the Attorney General has intimated his intention of proceeding to recover the penalties, which Mr. Bradlaugh has presumptuously incurred by three times voting, whilst unqualified to sit in this House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer appeared, however, to have little confidence a few days since that the Attorney General would proceed as he has now announced; for the right hon. Gentleman granted the Chiltern Hundreds to Mr. Bradlaugh, apparently ignoring the fact that if the Attorney General proceeds to sue Mr. Bradlaugh under the Oaths Act of 1866, and recovers even one penalty; that if the judgment of the Court be thus adverse to Mr. Bradlaugh, that decision must not only entail the payment of the penalty, but the voidance of the seat, which Mr. Bradlaugh at present half occupies. The whole case of Mr. Bradlaugh has been tested, not only in one Court, but throughout the Courts, until it finally reached the House of Lords. It may be asked, why was not the penalty, when sued for, recovered by the plaintiff? The answer is simple enough; the Lord Chancellor, as the organ of the House of Lords, decided, not that the penalty then incurred by Mr. Bradlaugh for voting when disqualified was not due or was not annulled, but simply said that the penalty could not be recovered by the suitor; because, under his Lordship's novel interpretation of the Oaths Act of 1866, the ancient right of Action Popular had been annulled, and the then suitor was incapable, since no one but a Representative of the Crown had a right to proceed; the penalty, therefore, is not annulled, but simply suspended, until the Attorney General shall sue for its recovery. I cannot adequately express my regret that the present Prime Minister should have been the person to introduce the Oaths Bill of 18 66, which, as enacted and now finally interpreted by the Lord Chancellor as the organ of the House of Lords, effects the annulment of the ancient right of Action Popular—the right of any English subject to recover the penalty for the abusive usurpation of the functions of a Member of this House by an unqualified person. Anything more inconsistent with the antecedents of the right hon. Gentleman than his being a party to annulling this ancient popular right—the right of the people of this country to secure by law their rightful representation—I cannot conceive. I say that to have substituted for this popular right the direct intervention of the Officers of the Crown in matters relating to the election and qualification of Members of this House was an action totally inconsistent with the right hon. Gentleman's antecedents. The right hon. Gentleman seems to imagine that more light could be thrown upon this subject by its being again referred to the Courts of Law. I have had very expensive experience in this matter; it has cost me enough; and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the whole bearings of the case have been submitted to the Courts of Law, and that no further light can be obtained by referring it back again to the Courts. I am confident—and I speak from experience—that if the Attorney General be in earnest in his suit, he cannot fail to recover the penalties which Mr. Brad-laugh has incurred. I well remember the debates in 1866 upon the Bill of which the present Oaths Statute is the product. I little dreamt then—the House of that day little dreamt—that the effect of that Bill would be to substitute the action of the Crown for the ancient right of Action Popular. The House should be aware that Mr. Brad-laugh's intrusions are not the effect merely of the ascendancy he has obtained over the majority of the constituency of Northampton. These operations of Mr. Bradlaugh are not stimulated and supported by the Freethinkers and Atheists of this country only—they are the results of a conspiracy not limited to this country. "With the permission of the House I will read part of an account of an International Congress of Freethinkers in 1881—

"Mr. Bradlaugh, M.P., as Chairman of the Council of Freethinkers, and President of the National Secular Society, took the chair, pending the election of its officers by the Conference. The number of delegates present was between 70 and 80; and among them, besides those from various parts of the United Kingdom, were representatives from the United States, Austria, Belgium, Germany, France, and Hungary. Of the leading foreigners may be named, Professor Dr. Beuchner, Darmstadt; Dr. Schlaeger, Berlin; M. Von Canbergh, Brussels; Mrs. Foote, New York; M. Gerritson, Dr. Hartog Heys Van Zouteveen, and others, Holland; M. E. Cointepas, and others, France; M. Le Lubez, who resides in London, represented The Union Anti-Clericale of Paris, of which Senator Schælcher is President. The portions of the floor not assigned to delegates were filled with the most influential members of the National Secular Society, and in the galleries were a large number of spectators."

I take this from a report in The Times; but a similar account of that Conference was given in a newspaper under the title of The National Reformer, of which Mr. Bradlaugh is the avowed owner. It appears that Mr. Bradlaugh declined to take the chair at this Conference, but that he nominated the Chairman. After what has occurred, I do not think that this House ought to remain even for an interval with no security against Mr. Bradlaugh's interruption of its Business but his bare promise not to intrude himself. I see nothing in Mr. Bradlaugh's re-election to justify the House in failing to re-adopt the securities which were contained in the Resolutions of the 11th of this month. The House had then sufficient light and sufficient information to justify its action. I see nothing in the subsequent circumstances that can justify the House in failing to re-inforce those securities. I shall, therefore, certainly vote for the Resolutions now proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon.

I was not surprised at the cries of "Shame" which proceeded from this side of the House when the Resolution moved by the Leader of the Opposition was brought forward. Still less was I surprised at the Leader of the Opposition moving the Resolution which he now asks the House to pass, because I have found that when men enter upon a course of illegality the tendency is to go on from bad to worse, until they end by ignoring law and justice altogether. Nor was I surprised at the remarks which fell from the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill). I was under the impression for the moment that the noble Lord called my constituents a "mob." I am not surprised at that, because, if I remember rightly, the noble Lord on a previous occasion spoke of my constituents as "scum."

No; I did not. I never applied the word the hon. Member has mentioned to his constituents.

Well, the remark has frequently been quoted, and I am glad to hear the disclaimer, and to find that the noble Lord entirely withdraws it. Now, what strikes me as being the leading characteristic of the noble Lord is that he is perpetually finding mares' nests, and coming down to the House of Commons to announce the fact. Look at what has happened to-day. An election took place at Northampton the day before yesterday. The noble Lord was not there; but as he was coming down to the House he happened to meet with some gentleman—some mysterious stranger. We do not know who that gentleman was, because his name was not mentioned by the noble Lord; but this mysterious stranger informed the noble Lord that the Conservatives on the day of the Northampton Election were in dread of their lives from some "mob" which was roaming about the streets, and was put in such deadly peril that they did not dare to vote. Now, allow me to tell the noble Lord, from my own knowledge, that the Conservative vote in Northampton was a perfectly full vote. All the Conservatives voted; and I do protest against the noble Lord calling the Conservatives among my constituents such abject cowards that they are absolutely afraid to vote. There was no attempt in Northampton to intimidate any man. I was down there myself, and I am able to say that the election was a perfectly fair and honest election on both sides—both in regard to the Conservatives and Liberals. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Northamptonshire (Mr. P. Phipps) is in his place; but I think he will bear witness that, as is always the case in Northampton, there was no intimidation, or bribery, or unfairness either on the one side or the other. I think one of the Members who represent Northampton in this House ought to know the constituency better than the noble Lord, or this mysterious stranger who has confided in him. The noble Lord has not paid a high compliment to the Courts of Justice. He implies that the Chief Justice and the other Judges would, under any circumstances, decide against the views of hon. Members opposite, and would say that the oath Mr. Bradlaugh has administered to himself was a legal oath. In point of fact, the noble Lord knows it must be so. He knows that it is the law—he has not been able to answer Mr. Bradlaugh's claim; but, having been pointed out what the law is, he now applies for time. He humbly appeals to the Attorney General, in order, if necessary, that there should be an extended period in which he and his friends may go about bragging and swaggering of their knowledge of the law, concerning which they absolutely know nothing. The noble Lord and his friends seem to know everything, and they have not the courage to admit that they have made a mistake, and to apologize to Mr. Brad-laugh, the elected Member for the constituency of Northampton, and say they will now allow him to take his seat without further hindrance. I venture to point out to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon that his proposition is hardly a fair one, if I may be allowed to say so, because he prejudges the question. As the Prime Minister has pointed out, we have certainly some new grounds to go upon if a Court of Law should decide in favour of Mr. Bradlaugh. I do not say whether the decision of the Court would be right or wrong; but there can be no question that it would throw new and additional light upon the case as to whether the oath which Mr. Bradlaugh administered to himself was or was not valid. The House would then be able, with its own knowledge, to do justice to Mr. Bradlaugh, and to decide by its vote whether the judgment of the Court that Mr. Bradlaugh had taken the Oath should be acted upon or not. I cannot imagine that the House would still be determined to set up its own judgment against what is laid down by the Courts of Law as the law of England. That is why I should have wished the House to have been content to accept the assurance of Mr. Bradlaugh; and I can only say that, although it is possible that Mr. Bradlaugh may be defeated again in this House, he is ready to return again to Northampton and take the voice of his constituents. You may send Mr. Bradlaugh 50 times to Northampton, but he will be elected again and again; and, what is more, when the next General Election comes, Mr. Bradlaugh will be able to take his seat, because no House of Commons can prevent him doing so if he presents himself for that purpose among the first 40 Members to ask to be sworn at the Table.

It is quite possible that the Courts of Law will decide in favour of Mr. Bradlaugh; but I wish to have an assurance that the Attorney General will submit to the Court not merely the dry question of whether Mr. Bradlaugh had or had not the right to administer the Oath to himself, but also all the surrounding circumstances connected with the administering of the Oath and the manner of it, and the question of whether the usages and customs of the House are not essential points to be decided.

I have never been able to vote in favour of Mr. Brad-laugh being allowed to take the Oath at the Table. I may be wrong, but I came to that conclusion after carefully reading Mr. Bradlaugh's evidence before the Select Committee; but it seems to me to-night that we are in a position somewhat different from that in which we have been previously placed. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon asks us now to come to a Resolution that Mr. Bradlaugh shall not take the Oath at the Table. At the same time, we have from Mr. Bradlaugh a declaration that he is prepared to give his word to this House that he will not come to that Table until certain legal proceedings, which, I understand, are already instituted, shall have been decided. Under those circumstances, it seems to me that the House will do well to take the advice of the Prime Minister and pause before it passes that Resolution. For my own part, I should like to see the judgment of a Court of Law upon the matter. I am one of those who entered this House by making an Affirmation, and I believe it would be wise to give the same privilege to every man. I am certainly unwilling to come to a decision upon the question until the legal proceedings which have been taken are brought to an end; and I therefore beg to move, as an Amendment to the Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, the Previous Question.

The Prime Minister has accepted the wisdom and utility of the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) pending the proceedings which may be instituted and the verdict which may be obtained in a Court of Law. The only objec- tion I can see to that limitation is that the verdict of the Court, whatever it may be, would be perfectly unavailing as affecting the Motion, and for this reason—if it declares that black is black it leaves the House in its present state of mind; and if it says that black is white, we should disbelieve the decision, and pursue the course which we originally took upon entering into this contest. [A laugh.] The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary laughs at my declaration; but I will give him a satisfactory and responsible authority for what I said. I am going to quote the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister himself. The House must recollect that the question at issue is whether a person who denies the existence of God can take the Oath and pronounce the name of God in the sense of one who believes in the existence of God? The right hon. Gentleman said, as distinctly as possible, during the discussion on this subject in 1880—"Taking the Oath with the declaration that the words were of no avail was not taking the Oath at all." That is the evidence of the Prime Minister. What is the evidence of the Attorney General? In the same discussion the Attorney General said he had taken great pains to ascertain what were the legal rights of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh), and he concluded by saying that the conviction he had arrived at was that the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) could not take the Oath. I think, therefore, I have proved, by the evidence of the Prime Minister and of the Attorney General, that the farce perpetrated in the House the other day was not the taking of the Oath. The House must recollect that the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) is incapable of taking the Oath; and no form he can go through, either by stratagem or otherwise, can put him in a position to do so, seeing that the highest authorities have declared him incapable. No Court of Law can alter the plain facts of the case. Here is a man who is declared incapable of doing certain things, and we are going to ask a Court of Law whether a man can do a thing which he has been declared incapable of doing. The Prime Minister has repeated with emphasis words which I heard with extreme pain and surprise as falling from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. Forster). The right hon. Gentleman, whose honesty and integrity are above suspicion, accused hon. Members on this side of the House of acting in a sense that is hostile to religion. I deliberately repel that charge, and affirm that our course has been guided by our religious instincts. [Murmurs.] I understand those murmurs to mean that what we call religion you deem superstition. ["Oh!"] If that is not so, why do hon. Members murmur at it? If they admit the religious feeling, why do they murmur at the assertion of it? I believe that hon. Members of this House, as Christian Gentlemen, and as Jewish Gentlemen, are all deeply interested in the assertion of religious instincts in the interests of the House itself. The Government, while admitting that Mr. Bradlaugh is incompetent to take the Oath in its true sense, contend that there is no precedent for the intervention of the House. That is true, for the offence is itself unprecedented; and the House, called to provide a remedy for a new offence, decides that it will not, by acquiescing in a procedure which it can prevent, become accomplices in the attempted blasphemy.

After the vote just given by the House, I must call upon Mr. Bradlaugh to withdraw.

who had been seated under the Gallery, but was now standing at the Bar of the House, said: I obey your directions, Sir, respectfully protesting against a persecution which has degenerated into illegality—and then withdrew.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is the intention of the Irish Board of Works to undertake any improvement of the Scariff River, which falls into Lough Derg, whereby floods may be rendered less dangerous to the navigation of that' tributary; whether the Board has considered the advisability of building a protection wall from the bridge at Killaloe to the pierhead, similar to the wall which'; was removed by the former Shannon Commissioners, or of adopting other means to insure the greater safety of the navigation of the Shannon at that point; and, whether the "cut" in the shoal at Bunnown, between Killaloe and O'Brien's Bridge, has been allowed to become choked with sand, the traffic-boats being thereby forced to use another course, condemned as dangerous more than sixty years ago?

in reply, said, that the channel of the Scariff River had been marked so as to show the course during floods, which had been considered sufficient for navigation. The Bunnown channel had been cleared last in September, 1882, and would be cleared again as soon as the state of the river permitted.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Irish Board of Works will advertise the reletting of the eel fisheries of the Shannon at an early date, in order that the inhabitants of the banks of the middle and upper sections of the river may be afforded a reasonable opportunity of competing; and, whether it is intended to revert to the former practice, under which the lessees were obliged to fish the weirs at Killaloe, County Clare?

in reply, said, that the eel fisheries at two or three places on the Shannon would be advertised to be let in two or three months, and the one at Athlone as soon as the present lease had expired. No such practice referred to by the hon. Member was known to have existed.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been drawn to the inquest held on the body of James Quinn, who was drowned at the latter end of October last, or early in November, by falling from the temporary bridge which crosses the Shannon near Drumshambo; whether he is aware that the Grand Juries of Leitrim and Roscommon have levied a considerable part of the expense of a new bridge; and, whether he will use his influence with the Grand Juries of the two counties to have the new bridge contracted for as soon as possible?

in reply, said, that James Quinn was drowned at the place mentioned on the night of the 27th of October last. He was informed that it was a fact that considerable expenditure for the new bridge had been already levied. He was not aware of the causes of the delay in the commencement of the new bridge; but he had communicated with the Grand Jury, urging the desirability of proceeding with the work as quickly as possible.

asked the Lord Advocate, If, in view of the deplorable accident during the fire at the Clipington Steam Waste Works, Dundee, on the 11th February, which resulted in the death of four members of the Fire Brigade, the Government would order a public inquiry into the whole circumstances?

Full inquiry has been made in the usual way by the Procurator Fiscal into this lamentable accident. The cause of the fire was clearly ascertained. When the foreman was lighting a lamp preparatory to the opening of the works, between 5 and 6 in the morning, some waste or dust which had collected on the lamp, and the rod by which it was suspended, took fire, and the fire ran up the rod and communicated with the highly inflammable materials in the warehouse. The death of the four firemen was caused by the front wall of the building falling outwards unexpectedly, about an hour and a half after the commencement of the fire. A large number of witnesses have been examined, and the fall of the wall is attributed by some of them to defective masonry, while others are of opinion that the iron columns and beams had expanded, owing to the heat, and burst the wall. As the building was totally destroyed, it is impossible to determine with certainty to which cause the fall was due; and I do not think that any further light would be thrown upon the matter by following the exceptional course of holding a public inquiry.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether, when Mr. Sendall's appointment as Lieutenant Governor of Natal was cancelled by the Secretary of State, any promise was made to him of employment elsewhere in a similar capacity; whether any opportunity has occurred of making such an offer; and, whether there is any prospect of a suitable offer being made in place of that which was made, accepted, and withdrawn?

Mr. Sendall was encouraged to hope that it would become possible to offer him employment as a Governor. The Secretary of State has not as yet been able to recommend him for such employment; but the matter has not been lost sight of, and Lord Derby will be glad if an opportunity of so employing him should occur.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Dr. Parke, the coroner for the northern division of the county Down, is also medical officer to the Newtownards (county Down) union workhouse; whether on the 17th ult, an inquest was held on the body of an inmate of the Newtownards workhouse, and it became necessary for two Justices of the Peace to hold the inquest, as Dr. Parke, in his capacity of workhouse medical officer, had to appear as a witness in the case; and, whether Dr. Parke will continue to hold the offices of coroner and workhouse medical officer, with the result that he never can act as coroner whenever it may be needful to hold an inquest on the body of an inmate of the workhouse?

The facts are as stated in the Question. The Local Government Board have under consideration the question whether Dr. Parke can continue to hold the office of medical officer of the workhouse if he retains the position of coroner to which he has recently been elected.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What were the grounds for proclaiming the Blacklion meeting; whether the magistrates, Messrs. Boulby and Mac Ternan, had any legal authority to force their way into the private room of a hotel in the town; and, whether he approves of their conduct; and, if not, whether he will take steps to punish them for their conduct?

This was a case in which a counter-demonstration on a large scale was organized, and both meetings were prohibited, because the Government was advised by experienced officers who knew the district well that the meetings, if held, could not fail to result in the gravest peril to the public peace. There was a certainty of the assemblage of very large and hostile bodies, and the physical character of the place chosen and of its surroundings was such as to make the preservation of the peace a matter of special difficulty. It was calculated that a force of at least 1,000 men would have been required, and that in a place difficult of access, and where no accommodation for them could be obtained. With regard to the indoor meeting subsequently interfered with, the magistrates who were charged with the duty of enforcing the Lord Lieutenant's Proclamation considered that they were bound to prevent the making of speeches in circumstances which would have been a practical violation of the prohibition. They felt that a meeting hold in a licensed house open to the public, with reporters present, with the doors open, and with people on the landing and stairs listening to what was said, was, to all intents and purposes, as public a meeting as if held in an open space. This was a matter as to which some discretion must be left to magistrates; and in this particular case he saw no reason for disapproving of their exercise of the discretion intrusted to them.

Is the fact of a Member of Parliament replying to the toast of his health to be considered a public meeting?

replied that, under all the circumstances of the case, the magistrates had exercised a wise discretion.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the Colonial Office will cause Papers to be laid upon the Table of the House showing the number of the black population who have left Jamaica for Panama, under contract with the Canal Company, and the nature of the contracts under which they are employed; and, whether any have returned to Jamaica; and, if so, what number?

The only information we have is contained in a short despatch just received from the Governor, in which he says that during the year ending on December 31st, 13,348 labourers left Jamaica for the Isthmus of Panama, and that only 4,992 returned to the Colony. Up to the end of January of this year, 1,346 had left the Island, and only 196 had returned. We have no information as to the nature of their contracts.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he has observed the following statement in this day's Times (18th February)—

"All the landlords of the Macroom Union, with one exception, have refused or declined to reply to the request of the Board asking for sites for labourers' cottages;"

whether he is aware that this is the attitude generally adopted throughout the country by the landlords; and, whether the Government propose any remedy?

I am informed that it is true that the great majority of the owners of property in Macroom Union have either dissented in respect of the taking of their lands, or have not replied to the notices served on them under the 7th section of the Labourers' Act. Landlords have in many oases elsewhere assented to giving land; but there are also numerous instances in which they have not done so. This, however, will be no bar to the operation of the Act; as, if the schemes are approved by the Local Government Board, and Provisional Orders are made confirming such schemes, the lands required can be taken compulsorily.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to adopt the recommendation of the Royal Commissioners to the West Indies, who, in their Report on Jamaica, paragraph 408, strongly urged the abolition of the West Indian Incumbered Estates Court, and the transfer of its duties "to the Supreme Court of the Colony, where ordinary Commercial Law prevails;" and, whether the Report of June last, on the West Indian Estates Court mentioned in the same paragraph (408), will be presented to the House?

The general Report on Jamaica, as well as the special Report on the West Indian Estates Court, have been referred to the West Indian Incumbered Estates Commissioners for their observations; and until their statements have been received—which, I understand, will be shortly—the Government do not propose to come to any decision as to any action in the matter. The special Report referred to will be given to Parliament.

asked the Vice President of the Council, When he expects to introduce the measure relating to Intermediate Education in Wales promised in Her Majesty's Speech?

I cannot, as yet, fix the exact day for the introduction of the Bill to which my hon. Friend refers; but I hope to be able to do so at a very early date. I will give Notice of its introduction as soon as some details, still pending, are settled.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, at the meeting of the Medway Board of Guardians held on Wednesday last, the result of the suspension of the Contagious Diseases Acts, in the Chatham District, was fully discussed; whether the medical officer (Dr. Buchanan) attended the meeting, and wished to know what he should do with male persons who entered the house with venereal disease, as he could not put them amongst the other patients in the hospital; whether Dr. Buchanan is correctly reported to have said to the Guardians—

"The condition of affairs that existed were of such a shocking nature as to be unfit for publication. Never in the whole course of his medical practice had he experienced such a state of affairs as there was at the present time. Husbands and wives, and babes, born within the last two months, he was sorry to say, were suffering from the disease, and he had to turn many away from his door who were suffering. Little girls were also suffering. It was something shocking. Male persons were likewise under his treatment in the Union, and he did not know what to do with them. Certainly they would have to have venereal wards again. He knew of three streets where there were nothing but brothels. He had no personal feeling in the matter, but thought it his duty to state how the disease was spreading. When the Metropolitan Police were there prostitution was subdued, but now the women made no secret of their infamous trade. He had been connected with that Union since 1864, and he never knew so many male persons with the disease as at the present time; "

whether the Medway Guardians have made any report relative to the above matters to the Local Government Board; and, whether he will institute a full inquiry into the circumstances, and lay the result of such inquiry upon the Table of the House?

The Local Government Board, when Notice was given of this Question, had not received any communication from the Medway Guardians on the subject referred to. The Board wrote to the Clerk to the Guardians for information, and it appears that the medical officer of the workhouse attended the meeting of the Guardians on the day alluded to in the Question, and reported that—

"If the number of venereal cases, which was greatly increasing, became much larger, new wards would be required for such cases,"

and also gave his views with regard to the Contagious Diseases Acts. The report which appeared in the local newspaper of the proceedings of this meeting is stated to be in many respects inaccurate. The Board, in reply to their request to be furnished with a statement of the number of inmates of the workhouse, who, according to the entries in the workhouse medical relief book, were suffering from this disease, are informed that there are three such cases. They are cases of male adults, the youngest of whom is 28 years of age. At the corresponding date in 1883 there was one case. It would not be within the province of the Board to institute an inquiry into the prevalence of prostitution and the communication of this disease at Chatham; but they will request one of their Inspectors to confer with the Guardians as to the provision which should be made for cases of this disease which are admitted into the workhouse, if it should appear that further provision is necessary.

Will the hon. Gentleman lay Dr. Buchanan's Report on the Table?

requested that Notice should be given of the Question.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government has instructed Lord Dufferin to press any advice upon the Porte with reference to the difficulty which has arisen in regard to the privileges of the Greek Patriarchate at Constantinople, affecting 8,000,000 of Greek population inhabiting Turkish territory?

Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople has lost no opportunity of recommending the Porte to bring about an amicable settlement of this question, and he has been instructed to point out that the delay in settling it must be disadvantageous to Turkey from a political point of view.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he is aware that Lord Ernest William Hamilton, a Lieutenant in the 11th Hussars, directly abetted a body of armed Orangemen, at Derry, on the 1st November last, in taking possession of the Municipal Hall, which had been duly engaged for the delivery of a lecture by the Lord Mayor of Dublin on the subject of the franchise; whether Mountifort J. C. Long-field, a Lieutenant in the 2nd Life Guards, has signed, in his capacity as a magistrate of the county of Cork, a public manifesto approving of the course of conduct by which Lord Rossmore incurred removal from the Commission of the Peace, and condemning the Government for having superseded him; and, whether such conduct is incompatible with the Military duty of the officers named; and, if so, what steps will be taken in regard to it? I would also ask the noble Marquess whether Lieutenant Lord Ernest Hamilton is not the same person who harangued a body of Orangemen in Derry Town Hall immediately before shots were fired from the Town Hall, by which two persons were wounded?

asked, whether a Government inquiry had not been held into the proceedings at Derry; when this Report would be laid before the House; and, why it was not laid before the House before the present time?

I understand from my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary that the proceedings at Derry on the occasion referred to have been the subject of an inquiry ordered by the Irish Government, and that the result of that inquiry has been, or will very shortly be, brought under the consideration of the Government with reference to the conduct of several persons who took a prominent part in the proceedings. I am unwilling, therefore, at this time, to express any opinion as to the part which was taken by Lord Ernest Hamilton or any other person on that occasion. With regard to the general question, I may add to what I said the other day, that I think the terms of the Queen's Regulations on the subject are liable to misinterpretation. The words of the Regulation are—

"Soldiers are forbidden to institute or take part in any meetings, demonstrations, or processions, for Party or political purposes in barracks, quarters, camp, or elsewhere."

The meaning of this Order seems to me to be that officers or soldiers on duty should not attend political meetings in which they have no local interest beyond being quartered in the vicinity. It could never have been intended that an officer or soldier should be altogether deprived of his civil rights, which would be the case if the word "elsewhere" was interpreted literally. It must, I think, be governed by the words which precede it, and be held to mean "elsewhere in the vicinity of the barracks, quarters," &c. It appears that the officer in question was, at the time referred to, on leave of absence from his regiment. The case of Lieutenant Longfield has not been brought to my notice; but it would seem that if his proceedings were reprehensible, it would rather be as a magistrate than in his military capacity.

I beg to give Notice that I will ask the noble Marquess, whether there is any intention to change the Regulations so as to prevent military officers from taking part in such proceedings at a distance from their barracks; and, if I do not get a satisfactory answer, I beg to give Notice that I will call attention to the subject on the Army Estimates.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to a report in The Cork Constitution of February 15th of a speech delivered at the Castletownroche Petty Sessions by Capt. Plunkett, divisional magistrate, with respect to the removal of the extra police tax from the parish of Monaning; whether he has observed that, Capt. Plunkett having stated that the man Hallissy, for whose protection the extra police tax was imposed, "was fired at in August," Mr. M. Hickey, one of the presiding magistrates, stated "it was not true that Hallissy was fired at," adding—

"It was investigated here fully before Mr. Lanyon, district inspector of police, and Mr. Butler, B.M. and I think everyone who heard it denied he was fired at at all; "

whether Mr. Starkie, another of the presiding magistrates, stated that—

"There was no more peaceful district in Ireland until unfortunate Hallissy got up this business; "

whereupon Capt. Plunkett said—

"There is no doubt about what Mr. Hickey stated; but it will be recollected this tax was originally imposed on account of the boycotting of Hallissy, and there can be no doubt about that, whatever doubt there may he about the matter Mr. Hickey referred to; "

whether a public inquiry into the alleged firing upon Hallissy was repeatedly demanded and refused; whether Hallissy is the person to whom Capt. Plunkett, with the knowledge that Hallissy's story was discredited, proposed that the ratepayers should present £50 in consideration of the withdrawal of the police tax; whether, in view of the declarations made by Mr. Hickey and Capt. Plunkett, a prosecution for perjury will now be instituted against Hallissy; what are the special circumstances now, as compared with six months ago, which justify the withdrawal of extra police; and, whether, if then as now they could be withdrawn with safety, the ratepayers will be pressed for payment of the tax up to the 31st December last as a condition precedent to the withdrawal?

Sir, I have seen the report referred to. Mr. Hickey was not present at the place where it is alleged that Hallissy was fired at, and therefore he cannot be considered to have done more than express an opinion. The Resident Magistrate's remarks as to the peaceful state of the district referred to a time long before the Boycotting of Hallissy. It was Mr. Hickey, and not Mr. Starkie, who expressed concurrence with his remarks on that subject. A public inquiry into the alleged firing at Hallissy has not been repeatedly demanded and refused. But whether the man was fired at or not, there is no doubt that he was assaulted and cruelly Boycotted, and required on that account the police protection which was given him. Captain Plunkett did not propose that the ratepayers should present £50 to Hallissy in consideration of the withdrawal of the police tax. A proposal was made in the district that £50 should be collected to enable Hallissy to emigrate. I have on former occasions stated that the proposal did not come from Captain Plunkett. With regard to the withdrawal of the police tax, the Lord Lieutenant was recently in the neighbourhood, and was presented with a Memorial praying for the revocation of the Proclamation, and His Excellency assented to comply with this prayer as soon as the tax up to the end of last year shall have been paid; but stated that if Hallissy should afterwards appear to be in danger the question of re-imposing the tax would be considered. It will thus be seen that His Excellency has only conditionally consented to the withdrawal of the police in consequence of the representations of a strong body of local persons who disapproved the Boycotting, and who, it may be hoped, will do their best to prevent it; and it remains to be seen if circumstances will enable him to carry out and adhere to his wishes in that respect. His Excellency would not feel himself justified in not requiring the fulfilment of the condition precedent as to the payment of arrears.

asked, whether Mr. Hickey was not present at the investigation into the firing at Hallissy; and whether he, the Resident Magistrate and Sub-Inspector, did not say there was not the least foundation for it; and, whether the Memorial to which the right hon. Gentleman referred was not signed by 13 persons, four of whom had since repudiated it; and, whether these persons included the four magistrates and two Earls who had signed a previous Memorial which the Lord Lieutenant had refused?

Am I to understand that Captain Plunkett will deny the public report of what he said? There is no doubt that Mr. Hickey stated that everybody believed, who was present at the investigation, that what Hallissy stated was a fabrication; and I would like to know whether, in view of the declaration made by Mr. Hickey and Captain Plunkett, a prosecution for perjury will be instituted against Hallissy?

Captain Plunkett was the first person to recommend a charge of perjury against Hallissy. There can be no doubt whatever that the poor man was knocked down and persecuted.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman——

I wish to point out the inconvenience of the course now taken by the hon. Member. The hon. Member for Mallow put a Question, the hon. Member for Westmeath then put another Question, and the hon. Member for Mallow rose and put a rejoinder. These Questions cannot be answered without Notice.

I respectfully submit that I am quite in Order, arising out of this Question, to ask the Chief Secre- tary to answer the part of the query that he has omitted to answer.

I did not rise to object to the hon. Member putting the Question; but I say Notice should be given of it.

Then I beg to give Notice that I will renew the subject.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether his attention has been called to the fact that, of the officers and clerks employed at the General Post Office in Dublin seventy-seven are Protestants, and only eighteen Catholics; and, what proportion of these officers obtained their positions by free and open competition, and how many by official nomination or patronage?

Mr. Speaker, it is not the practice, nor do I think it would be at all desirable, to make any inquiry into the religious opinions of the officers of the Post Office. With regard to the second part of the hon. Member's Question, I find that out of 95 officers employed in the General Post Office, Dublin, 74 were admitted by nomination before the system of open competition was introduced. That system was introduced for men in February, 1878, and for women in October, 1881, and since those dates 21 officers have been thus admitted.

Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to mean that they were admitted to the lowest grade of the service by competition, and that they have been promoted to the higher grade by patronage without having been subjected to proper competition?

Undoubtedly, there has been a certain number of promotions; but I can assure the hon. Member and the House that since I undertook the duties connected with the Post Office I have always been most scrupulous to know nothing whatever about the religious or political opinions of the officers engaged in the Department.

I do not attribute favouritism in that respect to the right bon. Gentleman; but I do attribute it to the Masonic ring that dominates the Dublin Post Office and I beg to give Notice that I will ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the last four promo- tions appointed in the Dublin Post Office to clerkships—Mr. Corry, Mr. Bernard, Mr. Sheridan, and Mr.——, who never passed an examination—whether these gentlemen are Protestants?

It is quite obvious that is a new Question, of which Notice should be given.

I am giving Notice that I will ask this Question arising out of it.

I shall be very glad to answer it if the hon. Member will put it on the Paper.

I think I am entitled to mention the terms of the Question I want to ask, whether those gentlemen have been put into office over the heads of men of long and faithful service who petitioned the Postmaster General for an examination? I wish to ask if the right hon. Gentleman has any objection?

This proceeding is out of Order. The House is now engaged in Questions, and the hon. Member is now giving Notice.

Well, all I can say, Sir, is that I hope it is in Order to say nothing.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether any Militia Reserve for the Army Hospital Corps was being formed?

The subject referred to by the hon. Member is under consideration; and General Officers commanding districts have been directed to obtain information upon it from Commanding Officers of Militia. I am unable to give further information pending the result of these inquiries.

asked the Lord Advocate, If he would cause to be prepared and lay upon the Table a Return of all the Procurators Fiscal in Scotland, with their salaries, giving the number of those gentlemen who, in addition to their public duties, occupy the position of private land agents?

All the particulars asked for by the hon. Member, except the salaries, will be found in a Return or- dered to be printed on July 18, 1882, and numbered 286. The salaries will be found on page 297 of Oliver and Boyd's Almanack for this year.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the proposals having reference to opium, which were made by the Chinese Government, and to which Her Majesty's Government have signified their readiness under certain conditions to agree, as was stated in the reply to the question of the honourable Member for Merthyr Tydvil on August 10th of last year, have been accepted by both Governments; and, whether he can present to the House the Papers connected with these negotiations?

No further communication has been received since last August in regard to the opium proposals from the Chinese Government; and I am afraid that we can hardly expect that they will be able to give their attention to the question until the Tonquin affair is arranged. It is not proposed to lay Papers at present.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Treaty with Korea, which was negotiated by Admiral Willes in 1882, contained an article which forbad trade in opium in terms similar to Article VII. of the Treaty between the United States and Korea; and, whether that article has been expunged in the Treaty which has recently been negotiated by Sir Harry Parkes with the Korean Government?

The Treaty with Korea, recently concluded by Sir Harry Parkes, does not contain an article forbidding trade in opium; but the exclusion of opium from Korea has been equally well provided for by its insertion in the Tariff as a prohibited article.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that, under prison regulations, female convicts and female prisoners under remand of the county and city of Kilkenny are sent under escort from the city of Kilkenny to Waterford City, a distance of twenty-five miles per rail, at the expense of such county and city respectively, instead of being committed to some gaol or bridewell in such city or in the locality; and, whether, in view of such hardship towards prisoners, he is prepared to propose some remedial legislation upon the subject; or, at all events, to have the expenses of such removals charged upon the Estimates until a remedy be devised?

in reply, said, he was aware that under the general re-organization of prisons under the Prisons Act of 1877, Kilkenny had ceased to be a legal place of detention for female prisoners, and the majority of such prisoners formerly confined there were now sent to Waterford. He was not aware that any hardship resulted to prisoners from this arrangement. In some instances the result was to lessen considerably the distance travelled. With regard to the expense involved by the general change which this arrangement had caused, it must be remembered that the cost of maintenance, clothing, &c, was borne by the Treasury.

asked the Vice President of the Council, Whether it is the fact, as stated in a recent letter in The Pall Mall Gazette (5th Feb. 1884), signed by Mr. Jesse Collings, M.P., that the Charity Commission have propounded a scheme for the establishment of a middle class school in the county of Wilts, in which "the rights of the poor of West Lavington whose property is taken from them are not even mentioned;" and, if not, what is the real state of the case?

I am informed by the Charity Commissioners that they have under consideration a scheme for the establishment of a middle school in the county of Wilts by aid of certain funds agreed to be provided by the Mercers' Company, who are the Trustees of Alderman Dauntsey's Charity at West Lavington. They assure me it is not the fact that the property with which it is proposed to endow the school will be taken from the poor of West Lavington, or belongs to them. The educational endowment founded by Alderman Dauntsey was for a grammar school not limited to parishioners of "West Lavington. The Commissioners have, however, made express reservations on their behalf, and believe that, under the scheme proposed, the poor of West Lavington will enjoy educational advantages superior to those which the endowment has provided for them in the past. When the scheme is submitted to the Education Department, it will be my duty to consider its provisions, together with any objections or suggestions from parties interested.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether he has given any additional pay to rural letter carriers, in consequence of the introduction of the Parcel Post system; and, if not, whether he intends to do so, and when?

in reply, said: In answering the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Birkbeck), on the 7th instant, I stated that there had been no general revision of rural postmen's pay since the introduction of the Parcel Post; but that when it is found that there is any special reason for an increase of pay, it is given, the pay being adjusted according to the distance traversed, and the wages prevailing in the locality. If the hon. Member has any case to bring under my notice in which a fair claim for additional pay appears to exist, I shall be happy to make inquiry respecting it.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Sultan of Turkey, who is Sovereign of Egyptian Territory, was consulted by Her Majesty's Government as to the abandonment of the Soudan, which Her Majesty's Ministers are now forcing upon the Khedive, his vassal? The hon. Member also asked, whether the Sultan had given his assent to the Proclamation respecting the Slave Trade which had just been issued on the authority of Her Majesty's Government and the Khedive?

I must ask my hon. Friend to give Notice of his second Question. With reference to the Question on the Paper, the Sultan was not consulted on the subject.

What! I beg pardon. The noble Lord replied so quietly I did not grasp it. I wish to know whether the House is to understand the noble Lord to state that the Sovereign of that country was not consulted before the order for the abandonment was given?

My answer was very distinct, and I am sorry it did not reach the hon. Gentleman. The Sultan was not previously consulted on the subject.

I understand the noble Lord to say he was not previously consulted. [Cries of "Notice!" from the Home Rulers.] I am perfectly in Order. Are we to understand that the Sultan has been consulted since?

I used the word "previously," and I used the word advisedly.

Exactly; therefore I beg to ask whether the Porte has been consulted since?

I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to give Notice of that Question.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Lord Lieutenant, in fixing the amount of paid-up capital upon which a Grand Jury guarantee will be given, will estimate the amount necessary for the construction of the line on the basis of the shares in the Company being placed at par, or if an increased capital will be allowed, in order to enable the shares to be placed at a discount by reason of the Grand Jury guarantee being given at a rate lower than would be accepted if the capital was placed at par; and, if not, whether an intimation to this effect will be given to the Grand Juries before they decide on the guarantee to be given?

The Irish Government and Treasury have agreed that the paid-up capital on which the Imperial subsidiary guarantee is given under the Tramways Act should represent the actual cost of construction and equipment only. I think this decision gives the assurance which the hon. and learned Member desires.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether, having regard to the great importance attaching to the practicability of a route through the Hudson's Straits to the grain-growing districts of the North-West, Her Majesty's Government will assist in this research by placing one or more vessels of the Royal Navy at such stations and for such periods as may enable a report to be made upon the number of days during the year for which such route is available?

We are in possession of information derived from the experience of a century and a-half, as to the limited season of the year for navigating Hudson Strait. This experience has proved that the Strait is so hampered with fixed and floating ice as not to be free for secure navigation for more than an average of seven or eight weeks in the year, confined between July and September. The open time varies considerably from year to year; for although the Strait is occasionally open by the middle of July, it has been found closed until the middle of August, and is rarely free after September. It would be an arduous and, to some extent, a dangerous service for one or more of Her Majesty's ships to be placed in this inhospitable region for a season to watch the movements of the ice; and the observations of many years would be necessary in order to come to a safe conclusion. The Government are, therefore, not prepared to undertake the duties suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman, although they fully appreciate the importance of the subject.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether there is any foundation for the rumour telegraphed yesterday by The Central News from Paris, that M. Waddington is in this Country for the pur pose of negotiating a Commercial Treaty; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will pledge itself that no engagement shall be entered into without the consent of this House of a character to bind this Country to the continued importation, free of duty, of manufactured articles of luxury which compete with those of our own home industries, that are already in a depressed condition?

It is, of course, true that M. Wadding-ton is in this country, as he is the French Ambassador; but as no negotiations for a Commercial Treaty are now proceeding with France, it is not necessary that I should enter into further details.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the British officers now being sent out to the Egyptian Army are to form new regiments, or to add to the number with those already formed; and, whether, contrary to the Indian practice, a large number of British non-commissioned officers are attached to Egyptian regiments, and more are being sent out?

The British officers now being sent out were asked for by Sir Evelyn Wood for the new Brigade which he is forming, and I presume, therefore, that they will be attached to it. British non-commissioned officers are attached temporarily to Egyptian regiments, and more are being sent on Sir Evelyn Wood's requisition. It is obvious that an entirely new force cannot at once produce its own non-commissioned officers, and must for a time depend on some external source of supply. The engagements made with these non-commissioned officers are purely temporary.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he can now give any further information regarding the circumstances attending a recent Petition of Egyptian soldiers to the Khedive?

A Petition was presented to the Khedive by six men belonging to the Artillery, stating that they did not wish to go to the Soudan or elsewhere with the English, unless they had Mussulman officers. The incident has not had any further consequences.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, On what date, if any, General Gordon was informed of the defeat of General Eater's Array?

The day on which General Gordon received the news was the 11th instant.

Will the noble Lord lay on the Table, or at least refer the House to the despatch in which Her Majesty's Government informed General Gordon of General Baker's defeat?

I cannot undertake to produce further Papers without consulting the Secretary of State. There are several telegrams bearing on the subject.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, on 4th August 1877, a Convention was concluded with the Egyptian Government containing, among other stipulations, the following:—

"Article 2. Any person who, either in Egypt, or on the confines of Egypt and her Dependencies towards the centre of Africa, may he found engaged in the traffic in slaves (Negroes or Abyssinians), either directly or indirectly, shall, together with his accomplices, he considered by the Government of the Khedive as guilty of stealing with murder ('vol avec meurtre'); if subject to Egyptian jurisdiction he shall be handed over for trial to a court-martial," &c.;

whether in the annexe to this Treaty, and forming part thereof, there is contained a Decree by the Khedive Ismail, in the following words:—

"Article 1. The sale of slaves, Negroes or Abyssinians, from family to family shall be and is prohibited in Egypt, in an absolute manner, in all the territory comprised between Alexandria and Assouan. This prohibition will have effect in seven years from the signature of the said Convention, of which the present Ordinance will form an integral part. The same prohibition will he extended to the Soudan and other Egyptian Provinces, but only in twelve years from the date of the above signature; "

whether such dates are respectively 1884 and 1889; and, whether the recent Proclamation of General Gordon relieves the Egyptian Government from the obligations of the said Convention?

The citations which occupy the second and fourth paragraphs of this Question are, I believe, accurate, and the dates referred to in the next paragraph are, I believe, also correctly given. With regard to the legal bearing of the recent Proclamation of General Gordon, I could not undertake to enter into the question, or to discuss that subject, until the Government are in authentic possession of official information. I have no official or certain knowledge as to the text of the Proclamation.

Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to say whether the translation of the Proclamation, as given in The Times, is accurate?

There is no doubt the translation approaches to accuracy, but it does not agree with other accounts; and even if we were certain of its accuracy, it would be obviously rash for me to give an opinion on its legal bearing until the text was in the possession of the Government.

Will the right hon. Gentleman state when the Government are likely to be in possession of the text of the Proclamation; and, whether the House will be put in immediate possession of it?

was understood to say that he expected to have the text of the Proclamation by Wednesday.

I suppose the House will be put in possession of it as soon as it arrives?

Yes.

And of all the Proclamations?

Yes.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has yet had the conference with Sir Patrick Keenan (referred to in his recent interview with the council of the Gaelic Union) as to the teaching of the Irish language to Irish-speaking children in the National Schools of Ire- land; and, if so, whether he can indicate the result?

Sir, I have received from the Commissioners of Education to-day, in answer to my letter, Papers which I certainly consider of sufficient interest to lay before the House of Commons, and if the hon. Member moves for the Correspondence he shall have it.

Has Sir Patrick Keenan written a statement on the subject?

The Correspondence, I think, will completely satisfy the hon. Member.

said, he proposed to deal with the conduct of the Government in connection with the Orange riots, and of certain Government officials. Considerable discontent had been expressed by Irish Members at the disgraceful Orange riots that had taken place, but he entirely disagreed with every one of his Friends in the matter. He found no cause of complaint at all. On the contrary, they were to him the cause for the greatest jubilation. Up to the present time there had existed in England a belief—although it was an absolute myth—that the Orange Party in Ireland was composed of the entire population of Ulster, and that the larger proportion of the Ulster men were anti-National in every sense of the word. For a very long period an attempt had been made to persuade the House and the people outside that the Orange faction in Ireland was a very small faction indeed; that its principles were of the most selfish character; and that their loyalty was, perhaps, more selfish than that of any other section of Loyalists in the whole of Europe. But that attempt was always met with the most absolute denials. Ulster Members above the Gangway had told the House, over and over again, that they really represented not only the sound and educated opinion of Ireland, but the entire loyal population of Ireland. He was, therefore, exceedingly glad that these riots had taken place in Ulster, for it had disillusioned the country. The House of Commons now realized for the first time what the Orange faction was. They realized that it was composed, in the first place, of a certain number of landlords holding strong political opinions. The motive power of that body was selfish in its very essence. When he read of the first Orange riot he feared that the Government should stop the Orange proceedings, and thus prevent the Orange myth being exploded. This debate was a proof of the weakness of Orangeism. He regretted that the Chief Secretary for Ireland had spoken so early in the debate. He thought the right hon. Gentleman had been anxious to get through his explanations at the earliest possible moment, and he avoided everything connected with the subject of the Amendment. Since then Members of the Government had been content to sit upon the Treasury Bench and allow what had been described as a faction fight to be fought out between the Representatives of both Parties in the House. The Solicitor General for Ireland had yet to speak, and he desired to ask him whether the Government admitted the right of any person in Ireland to make use of language such as that which had been quoted as used by members of the Orange Party, and acknowledged to have been used by them. Unless some answer were given to the question the natural inference would be drawn that there was one law for the people of Ulster and another for the people of the rest of Ireland. He understood the difficulty which the Government had in the matter of the magistracy, and in all probability, if they acted as was desirable, they would have to deprive fifteen-sixteenths of them of the Commission of the Peace. There was yet another matter connected with this subject to which he desired to draw attention, and that was the conduct of Mr. Jenkinson, the permanent Under Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. Mr. Jenkinson at present held the position of adviser to the Lord Lieutenant, and was practically the administrator of Ireland. It would be within the memory of the House that when Mr. Jenkinson was appointed some question was raised as to the reasons given by the Chief Secretary for his appointment. At that time he remembered distinctly a letter was read by the Chief Secretary from Mr. Jenkinson from which the House was given to understand that he had taken the post as a matter of duty, and was practically sacrificing himself to duty. He (Mr. Molloy) always had doubts of Mr. Jenkinson, but, from what had taken place of late in Ireland, they all knew that Mr. Jenkinson practically ruled Ireland, and that was the reason he intended to deal with him. He had often felt the greatest sympathy for the Chief Secretary in the position he occupied. He very often had to defend incidents with which he had nothing whatever to do, and over which he had no control. Mr. Jenkinson was the gentleman through whose hands all the correspondence, all the complaints, and all the official matters passed, and it was notorious that the mind of that gentleman, of whom, at the time of his appointment, the Chief Secretary boasted so loudly, was a gentleman whose mind was not of the character which one would call judicial, was warped and prejudiced to the last degree. As a rule it was easy to make such a statement, and difficult to prove it; but he should hesitate to make so broad an accusation unless he felt justified in doing so. He stated distinctly that at the present time it was well known in all circles in Dublin that Mr. Jenkinson was nothing more nor less than an official intriguer for his own benefit. Even The Evening Mail, a Dublin journal, far from being of a National character, but entirely in favour of the dominant classes, condemned his appointment. He had been recently intriguing and bargaining with another official that he might get his place, but he supposed this was not an unusual thing in Dublin Castle, but rather was one of the traditions of the place. What he objected to was the fact that Mr. Jenkinson was getting into his own hands, not only the power and emoluments of the post he held, but was gradually absorbing the government of Ireland, and no greater evil could befall the Government than this. It was true that the Lord Lieutenant issued proclamations, &c, in his own name, but in reality Mr. Jenkinson was not only his adviser, but was largely responsible for what was going on in Ireland. He (Mr. Molloy) did not know Mr. Jenkinson, and had never seen him; he had nothing to say against his private character or honour; he was merely referring to his official capacity. As an instance of one of his intrigues, he might mention the Constabulary Bill last year introduced into that House. Mr. Jenkinson, as they were perhaps aware, retired from one branch of the service on a pension of £1,000 a-year; and, without going into the question of pensions, he might still say that he thought they were only intended to be granted to persons who had become so infirm as not to be able to further work in the public service. However, when the Constabulary Bill was mooted, Mr. Jenkinson, as Chairman, Captain Slacke, now a divisional magistrate, Mr. Theod, Royal Irish Constabulary, now also a divisional magistrate, and Mr. Ross, of Bladensburg, constituted themselves as a Committee to consider the Bill. It recommended the pay of Mr. Jenkinson to be £2,200 per annum, with £200 additional for horses and forage, and that of the divisional magistrates to be £1,000 per annum with allowances. This Report was submitted confidentially, and was seen only by the Lord Lieutenant and the divisional magistrates, to whom copies were sent. The Law Officers were not even consulted. It was believed that a secret Circular was sent to the county inspectors, asking them to get up a memorial in favour of the Bill, which they declined to do. It was simply absurd to say that Mr. Jenkinson was sacrificing himself—he was simply looking for a higher position than he now occupied, and was not the pure-minded patriot which he had been described to be.

said, he felt bound to say that he had no recollection of having made any statement of the kind with regard to Mr. Jenkinson, although he did make such a statement with regard to Mr. Hamilton.

accepted the correction. He would only add, in conclusion, that he hoped the Solicitor General would answer him two questions—firstly, whether the same treatment which had been accorded to the Orangemen after their meetings in Ulster would have been shown to others in like circumstances in other parts of Ireland; and, secondly, if not, why should Orangemen be exempt from the punishments which were inflicted on others in case of disturbances arising at their meetings? He did not much care whether an answer was vouchsafed to him or not, for the minds of the people of this country were now opened to the fact that the loyalty of the Orange Party was only selfish class interest, and the desire to retain a supremacy which was passing out of their hands.

said, the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) described the speech of the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) as a speech of tight-rope dancing; and he thought he must be thinking of the Leader of his Party when he made such a reference to that class of performance. The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) undoubtedly, in many instances in that House, showed very great talent and tact in his tactics; and anyone reading his Amendment would think that his chief invectives would have been against Her Majesty's Government, and especially against the Irish Executive; but instead of that it was a tirade of abuse against the Orangemen and Loyalists of Ulster. The hon. Member knew more about Orangemen than many who were more closely associated with that body. He (Mr. Corry) was not an Orangeman, but he was proud to say he had a very large number of them in his constituency, and the more he knew them the more he honoured and respected them. He could not agree with the hon. Member for the City of Cork that it was the rejection of the Irish Registration Bill by the House of Lords which had induced the National League to hold meetings in Ulster. The hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) came nearer the mark, when he said that the resolution to hold those meetings had been come to on account of the Monaghan Election. He quite admitted that that election was one of the circumstances which led the people of Ulster to make up their minds that they would not allow it to be made a precedent for other elections in that Province. He was himself very much surprised at the result of the Monaghan Election, but much more surprised that the Government candidate was able to poll less than 300 votes. When the National League resolved to hold meetings in Ulster the people of that Province began to consider what was the best means of meeting them on their own ground. It was the inhabitants of the district—not the landlords—who made up their minds to oppose them, or at least to hold counter meetings, in order to show that the feeling of the Province was not that which the Nationalists would lead the public to believe if meetings were held by them alone. The result was to bring out the loyalty of Ulster in a very marked way. He was, unfortunately, from home at the time, or else he would have felt no hesitation in taking his share of the responsibility for those counter-meetings. The hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) went so far as to say that the time would come when Ulster would be all National like the other Provinces. He could tell the hon. Member for Longford that, especially in Belfast and that neighbourhood, they were never deluded by the Home Rule cry. They knew that it meant the Repeal of the Union, and they resolutely set themselves to oppose the dismemberment of the Empire, and would do so to the end. He was very strongly of the opinion that when a successor of the hon. Gentleman came to write the History of our Own Times, it would be found that the hon. Member was not a very good prophet. The hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) had asked the Govern- ment to withdraw their troops, and let the Nationalists and Orangemen fight it out. If the Government accepted that challenge, he would undertake to say, on the part of the people of Ulster, that the first meeting held by the Nation alists in that Province would be the last; but he did not think the Government would act upon the advice of the hon. Member. The Nationalists had a very small following in Ulster, though, no doubt, among the large population of the Province there were men who would be glad to get as much as they could of other people's property and as much power as possible into their own hands. [Mr. HARRINGTON: The landlords.] The recent proceedings in Ulster proved that the Nationalist Party had but a very slender footing in that Province. When their meetings were held in the South and South-West they were followed by crime and outrage, and the Ulster men were determined not to permit that sort of thing. It was due to the fact that the hon. Members for Westmeath, Mallow, and Monaghan used language in the House of the same character as they used out of it, that the English and Scotch Members were acquainted with the words and opinions that were poured into the ears of the Irish people. He (Mr. Corry) had observed that the visits of the Leader of the National Party to Ireland were few and far between; and that, except on some great occasion, as, for instance, the presentation of a large sum of money, he was very seldom induced to visit that part of Her Majesty's Dominions. Hon. Gentlemen who were Members of that Party had taken to themselves the name "Nationalists," and, so far as he was concerned, they were welcome to it; but, looking at the state of the country, he did not think they were entitled to any such designation. He should like to know what those hon. Members had done for Ireland, how much capital they had expended in the country, and what interest they had taken in the introduction of manufactures? Their action, it was evident, had created discontent, and that had been followed by outrage. He gave credit to Lord Spencer and the Chief Secretary for the manner in which they had performed their arduous tasks, but at the same time he held a strong opinion as to the action of the Government in the case of Lord Rossmore. Greater urgency was shown in that case than was exhibited in the case of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), who was not removed from the Commission of the Peace until he was a prisoner in Kilmainham. The Government, therefore, had either become more vigilant, or some other cause must be assigned for their action. He might say that in Ulster the people held a very important position, and as one of the Members for the capital of that Province he could assure the House that they did not intend to lose that position if they could help it. The instances given yesterday by the hon. Member for Monaghan showed that justice was fairly administered in Ireland, both upon Nationalists and Orangemen; and he was perfectly sure that no charge of unfairness in the administration of the law could be brought against anyone in the North. If the Nationalist Party were to come to Belfast, and only conducted themselves in a quiet and lawful manner, he was quite sure they would not be molested or interfered with.

said, he trusted that the Land League Party would learn from this debate that intimidation was a game two people could play at. If they had their way, such a thing as differences of political opinion in Ireland would have been inadmissible, and a state of things would have followed which would have made the country simply intolerable. He hoped they would profit by the lesson they had recently received. The Chief Secretary had spoken of the improved condition of Ireland; but that condition was, in his opinion, entirely deceptive, and he believed that the right hon. Gentleman had given an exaggerated idea of the peace and contentment which existed in the country. The contentment was all on the surface, and the Irish people would never be satisfied with the settlement of the Land Question on the lines laid down by the Act of 1881. The subject of leaseholders, of whom there were 70,000, especially wanted dealing with. If the Chief Secretary could speak of the improvement of the country after the withdrawal of the Coercion Act, his statements would be relied upon; but at present there was no doubt that the condition of Ireland was due to the operation of that Act. An opinion had been expressed that the magistrates who ap- proved of Lord Rossmore's action should have been removed from the Commission of the Peace; but, considering that there were so few persons in Ireland having the necessary qualifications of a magistrate, some difficulty would be experienced in the administration of justice if they were relieved of their duties on the Bench. At the same time, he could not say that they did not deserve to be removed. Much less difficulty would have been experienced if the Government had dismissed the Lord Lieutenants who were connected with the meeting. He could not approve of the passive and inactive manner in which the Government had dealt with Irish affairs, and thought that their conduct in regard to Ireland during the Recess had been vacillating and inconsistent. That term could be applied with much more truth to their Irish policy than to their action in Egypt. Some meetings had been prohibited, some had been permitted; and for the difference there was no apparent reason. It was simply absurd for the Chief Secretary to say that a large military force would be required in each case. Fifty policemen would have done it. The Government ought either to have permitted all or suppressed all meetings; but, instead of that, they acted on no fixed principle whatever.

said, he should not like the debate to close without expressing the view which he took of the transactions under discussion. He did not intend to deal at all in detail with the controversy as to the supersession of Lord Rossmore in the Commission of the Peace; neither did he desire to speak at length of the action of the Government in suppressing some meetings and permitting others in Ulster. He merely recorded his own opinion that the conduct of the Government in dealing with Lord Rossmore was harsh and unjust in the extreme; and in regard to their action in suppressing some meetings and permitting others—thus running a terrible risk of very serious consequences—he could not see on what principle they could vindicate their consistency. He was satisfied, for the present, to adopt the condemnation which was passed upon the conduct of the Government in these respects by his right hon. and learned Friend and Colleague (Mr. Gibson) on the first night of the debate. Nor would he go into the details of any of those other transactions in Ulster which had been fully, and, he thought, satisfactorily vindicated by hon. Members from that Province. What he wished to explain were the action taken and the views held by numbers of loyal men outside Ulster. For his own part, he deeply regretted that any circumstances should have arisen in which the Loyalists in the South and West of Ireland should have been found in controversy with the Executive; he did not care to which political Party that Executive belonged. These men—Grand Jurors, petty jurors, men of official positions, and men not in official positions—had, during the last three or four years, been found supporting the Government through thick and thin, and often at the peril of their lives. It was an unfortunate circumstance that even for a time they should have been forced into the attitude of protesting against the action of the Government. He trusted such circumstances might not occur again, and that what was passed might soon be forgotten. But some advantages had arisen out of recent events in Ulster. It had been demonstrated that a large proportion of the population of that Province, embracing all classes of society, from the highest to the lowest, were absolutely resolved to resist every attempt to sever the Union of the Three Kingdoms. The hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) found it convenient yesterday to speak of what had happened in Ulster as a mere faction fight; it had, indeed, been the misfortune of all Ireland in recent years that she had been divided into two hostile camps by the action of the Government. Recent events had, however, on the other hand, drawn together in the South and West Provinces, as well as in Ulster, many men who were previously separated by differences in religion and politics, but who were now bound together in a common cause, for what they believed might very soon be a struggle for political existence. Was it not a strange circumstance that in those protests which had been signed by magistrates in different parts of Ireland they found old political antagonists, Whigs and Tories, joining together cordially for the purpose of protesting against the action of the Liberal Government against Orange Leaders? Was it not a strange thing that numbers of Roman Catholics in Roscommon should be found joining with the Protestants for that purpose? The hon. Member for Mayo tried to represent the Loyalists as well as the Nationalists as only small sections of the people; but he should like to ask him this question—how many Members did the hon. Member suppose would be returned at the next General Election by the South and West of Ireland in opposition to the extreme Nationalist view? Was it not a fact that, with the exception of the thorough-going Conservatives, and, perhaps, one or two Whigs in Ulster, the wave of Nationalist sentiment would sweep Ireland from end to end? The speech of the hon. Member for Mayo was listened to with rapt attention, for it was a skilful piece of rhetoric; it not only gave intellectual pleasure to hon. Members on both sides of the House, but it seemed also to give great solace and satisfaction to the Treasury Bench, as it indicated that at last one advanced Nationalist had been converted by the beneficent legislation of the last few years. He was sorry to dispel the illusion, but he must give it as his opinion that, although the piece was excellent, and the acting was admirable, and although in this arena a great success was achieved, in Ireland it would be played to an empty theatre. There was no audience anywhere in Ireland at the present which would feel sympathy with those views. For his own part, he deeply regretted that things had come to that pass, but it was madness for the Government to shut its eyes to the real state of the case and the dangers which that state betokened. He was not an Orangeman; so far as Orange institutions were inspired by religious exclusiveness he had no sympathy with them; and there were some pages in their annals he would gladly see torn out of the book of Irish history; but with all their faults, in the controversy of today, as between Orangemen and Nationalists, the former had his entire adherence. There had, he knew, been epochs when Orangemen had borne themselves in a way he could not approve; but he also knew that whenever rebellion was attempted or threatened in Ireland, they had been found willing and ready to support, not merely with words, but also with physical strength and courage, the established Government. Again, as he considered the history of the last few years, on the one hand he saw, among the followers and supporters of the Land League, agitation, conspiracy, bloodshed, plunder of the rich, and oppression of the poor; and on the other side in Ulster he saw tranquillity, order, the absence of crime, and the union of all classes in mutual respect and in observance of the law. But when he looked forward to the further development of the Separatist movement, and feared they had not by any means seen the last or worst of it, he felt that it was mainly on the solid loyalty of Ulster that they must rely for resistance to that movement. He was not speaking only of the Orangemen, whose numbers he did not know, but of all the loyal men in Ulster, who had proved, and would again prove, that they were neither to be coerced nor coaxed away from their loyalty. In the South and West there were hundreds of thousands of loyal men, of Catholics as well as Protestants, who were as devoted to the Union as the Orangemen of Ulster; but they were scattered thinly amongst overwhelming numbers of those who had joined the Separatist movement, and their influence and votes were lost. [Cheers, and cries of "Monaghan!"] Well, he knew that in Monaghan Parties were supposed to be more equally divided, but he did not see what that interruption had to do with his argument; but, as Monaghan had been mentioned, he would say that he believed a great deal of this excitement which had occurred in Ulster had grown out of the Monaghan Election. When the hon. Member (Mr. Healy) came to Monaghan, he sunk, to a certain extent, the Separatist character of his programme. He went entirely upon his offers and proposals about land, which were happily described yesterday by the hon. Member for Mayo as "modern Socialism." The Government candidate received very few votes; but the Loyalists of Monaghan were not at all deceived or carried away by the Nationalist candidate's representations. It was true, the hon. Member received a small majority of votes, but the body of the old Conservative phalanx of Loyalists stood firm, and rejected the bribe offered them. Immediately the hon. Member for the City of Cork changed his hand altogether, and proclaimed that he had won the North of Ireland for the Nationalist Party, and then commenced the campaign in Ulster, of which they had read and heard so much. What was the feeling which instigated those Orangemen to take the course which they adopted? Great efforts had been made to prove that the instigation was wholly on the part of persons in high position, who had none but selfish motives for their action. He was glad that there had been an opportunity in that debate for Members from Ulster to prove convincingly that the movement had been entirely a spontaneous one. The question in their minds was one of self-preservation. Devotion to the connection with England, and their opposition to every proposal of separation between the two countries, was with them a political instinct. For they knew that their civil and religious liberty was at stake, and that if the Nationalist Party attained their ends, a Celtic claimant would rise up for every rood of Ulster ground, and that farmers in whose families holdings had been for centuries would be imperilled in their homes. He would remind the House that that protest against the programme of the Nationalist Party was by no means the first which had been made by Ulster men. These were the same men who had gone to the Southern and Western Provinces to assist loyal men to stand their ground against the oppression of the Land League. He had himself seen them on Captain Boycott's farm, when the Land League was at its height. He could quite understand what tidings those men took to their homes when they returned; tidings of outrage, cruelty, torture of men and women, murder undetected, not only of landlords and men in high positions, but humble men like themselves—farmers shot at through their windows, their families scattered about the hearth; herds and labourers dragged out of bed and shot on their own thresholds. Doubtless, as they told these stories, they swore that, so long as they had voice to utter or strength to resist, that vile conspiracy should never get foothold in Ulster—the one spot on Irish ground on which the blood-stain had not fallen, where outrage had not entered, nor treason triumphed. And if they swore this deeply and fiercely, he could not find it in his heart to blame them for it. However, he would not say more on that sub- ject. He would next refer to the view taken by the Government of the present state of Ireland, and the particular measure of legislation which they proposed for the present Session. The Government seemed to be perfectly content with the present state of things, and to look forward with confidence to the future. The important measure which they proposed was one for the extension of the franchise, which would have the effect of practically throwing the whole electoral power into the hands of the hon. Member for the City of Cork, if he should still lead his Party. The Franchise Bill, until it was followed by a Redistribution Bill, would efface and silence the loyal Party, who formed more than a third of the population of Ireland. As to the present state of Ireland, he did not wish to underrate the improvement which had taken place, nor did he desire to minimize the good effects which had been brought about by the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary, to whom great credit was due for their firm, and patient, and vigorous administration of the law. The Land Act had been passed, and, much as he opposed it, it was his duty, as a good citizen, to make the best of it. He rejoiced that there had been an improvement in the observance of covenants, and the payment of rent and other just debts. But, on the other hand, the condition to which, in many instances, the landlords had been reduced was one of great misery. He was not referring to the reduction of their rents—that was a controversy of the past; but to one thing which had been specially promised when the Land Act was passed. The Prime Minister admitted last year that they had been called upon to make great sacrifices, and that further sacrifices which would be inconsistent with justice ought not to be demanded of them. They were promised in 1881 that, at all events, there should be no reduction in the capital value of their property; and provisions were inserted in the Land Act to secure a market for those who might wish to sell their estates. But those provisions had proved a dead letter, and at the present time the interest of the landowners was absolutely unsaleable. This result was not owing to the effects of agricultural depression, because the tenant's interest was never so valuable as now. He had been informed, on good authority, that in the present year the landlord's interest would, in many cases, be absolutely sacrificed by forced sales to land jobbers. Encumbrancers had not pressed their claims; but in the face of falling markets they could not be expected to show much more forbearance, and unless something was done within the present year, numbers of estates would be disposed of in the Landed Estates Court for a mere nominal price. He was glad to think that there was in progress a movement among men of different political Parties with a view of having some steps taken which would enable that part of the Land Act to be worked fairly; and he trusted that the Government would honestly consider the case, which was one of the most cruel and undeserved hardship which had fallen on the landlords of Ireland without any fault whatever of their own, and in the teeth of promises and assurances which were made to them by Ministers of the Crown when the Land Act of 1881 was passing through Parliament. He was extremely glad that as to the decrease of agrarian outrages the country continued to show signs of improvement, and so long as the law was firmly administered he had no doubt that the improvement would continue. At the same time, no one who knew the country well could deny that to a great extent, if not altogether, the tranquillity at the present time was due to the enforcement of a strong Coercion Act; and that, if the pressure of that Act were removed, things might soon begin to wear a different aspect. He would read a few passages to the House, which would enable them to form an opinion on the subject. The Rev. Mr. Ryan, in a speech delivered on September 2, 1883, said—

"Verily the calm which succeeds the storm was fast disappearing, and, despite the operations of the Crimes Act, a new life, and a new spirit, and new hopes were gradually taking possession of the people…… The retrogression which was said to have set in after the agitation was, as Mr. Healy happily stigmatized it, 'hacking for a bound'—that is to say, it was only setting back in order to take a running jump towards the goal of Irish independence."

The following was an extract from another speech, delivered by Mr. Davitt on the 4th of February of the present year:—

"The struggle against Irish landlordism.—The struggle which commenced four years ago for the overthrow of Irish landlordism, root and branch, is still carried on. Although, owing to the coercive laws which have been passed, it is not proceeded with as determinedly and vigorously as two years since, you must not conclude that the struggle has ceased, or that we have grown weak in our purpose to carry on that movement until the iniquitous system of land tyranny is completely destroyed."

It was evident that Mr. Davitt regarded the comparative tranquillity of the present moment, not so much as the result of the satisfaction at the Land Act, but as the consequence of the Crimes Act. However, there was another element in the present state of Ireland which seemed to him to be even more formidable, especially having regard to the legislation with reference to the franchise with which they were threatened in the present Session. He was afraid it was true—and he said it with the deepest sense of the seriousness of what he uttered—that never in the memory of living men—perhaps never in this century—liad there been such widespread and such distinct expectations of the realization of those dreams and hopes of National independence which it had been the object of all our great statesmen of both Parties for the last 50 years to turn the people away from. He knew it was very acceptable to Members of that House, wearied with the troubles of Ireland, to think that when tranquillity existed on the surface all was well, and to believe that this Nationalist agitation was not really of a serious or a dangerous character. If, however, we might believe those Nationalist Leaders who spoke or wrote for the great masses of the Irish people, nothing could be more clear and distinct than that they had attained to enormous influence and power in Ireland. But he did not depend solely on the expressed opinions of the Nationalists. Lord Carlingford, who probably of all the present Ministers had the most close personal acquaintance with Ireland, said in Liverpool last month—

"The truth is that in Ireland nobody cares much about Home Rule. As I understand Home Rule, it means the ingenious system of Federalism, the creation of superintended legislation, with carefully-defined and limited functions. It is not what the dangerous or active Party in Ireland care for. No system of the kind is ever alluded to in Nationalist circles and speeches; it is always Ireland as a nation, the harp without a crown. What is wanted is either literal or virtual separation, and that is exactly what we in Great Britain have a moral right to refuse."

Yes; and if they Lad a moral right to refuse it, was it wise for them to do everything in their power to exaggerate this movement to the utmost extent, and to give it a double or a treble power? Was it wise at such a time to throw into the hands of the Leaders of this Separatist movement an overwhelming and swamping influence in the constituencies of Ireland? He did not know whether hon. Members had been led to forget this by the daring and adroit tactics of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), and the way in which he had introduced the Amendment to the Address now before the House. The hon. Member had contrived for the moment, and in view of the approaching Franchise Bill, to shift his attack entirely from the Government to his loyal fellow-countrymen in Ireland. Not long ago there was a banquet given in Dublin on the occasion of the presentation to the hon. Member of a considerable sum of money. On that occasion there was a large assemblage at the Rotunda, but there was a total absence of the well-to-do classes of society. ["Oh, oh!"] He had gone through the list of those who were present, and he asserted that positively as a matter of fact. But there was an enthusiastic gathering of the representatives of Irish democracy. On that occasion the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) said—

"We carry on a combat in an alien Parliament. We can give back the English Government blow for blow, hate for hate; and so, I trust, we will pursue our course—patient, relentless, untiring."

The same hon. Member also said—

"We shall establish in this land once more a Parliament, which shall be no successor of the Parliament of the Pale—no pale echo, miserable and subservient to the Foreign Assembly, but which shall be the free and independent expression of a democratic people determined to work out to the end the destiny of this grand old nation."

And what did the hon. Member for the City of Cork himself say?—

"Beyond a shadow of doubt it will be for the Irish people to determine at the next General Election whether the Tory or Liberal Ministers shall rule in England. If we may not rule ourselves, we can, at least, cause them to be ruled as we choose; "

and he concluded—

"This generation shall not pass away until it has bequeathed to those who come after it the great birthright of National independence and prosperity."

In the face of these distinct declarations and frank avowals on the part of the men who, at the present moment, had sole audience of the great masses of the people of Ireland, he asked the House most solemnly whether to throw additional power into the hands of the Leaders of that movement would not be an act of the most amazing and the most culpable folly that had been ever committed by the Government of this or of any other country? It was not his intention that evening to enter upon the subject of the coming Reform Bill. As he had already said, he accepted with gratitude and satisfaction the improvement which had taken place to some extent in the condition of Ireland; but he had also pointed out circumstances of a very grave character, and of very formidable omen. He was perfectly certain that if the issue were put plainly even now to the people of England whether they would encourage or tolerate the further growth of this Separatist movement, leading on, as it must lead if successful, not only to civil war and ruin in Ireland, but likewise to the breaking-up of the strength, the greatness, and the power of this Empire, there was still sufficient public spirit, sufficient political instinct, and there was undoubtedly ample strength and courage in the English people to resist and to defeatthose objects. But he was afraid that, in obedience to Party tactics in that House and the exigencies of the Government, the Representatives of this Party in Ireland, whose proceedings and whose purposes he had been describing, might be admitted within those walls in overwhelming numbers, and that, through this hasty act of legislation, the Government might facilitate and give a speedy success to a movement which they all declared they were willing, if the issue were raised openly, to resist in the last resort, if necessary, by force of arms. He appealed very seriously to the House, and, as far as he could, to the people of this country, to consider that, although the present state of Ireland was comparatively tranquil, those grave dangerswere underlying that tranquillity on the surface, and that they might very easily be developed into the most formidable proportions.

said, he was sure the House must have listened with great interest, and, perhaps, with equal amaze- ment, to the protestations of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Plunket) upon the deleterious effects of an Irish National Party in the House of Commons. Not many years had passed since the great regret of the Party represented by the right hon. and learned Gentleman was that the Irish National Party was not strong enough in combination with the loyal Gentlemen who sat above the Gangway to change the Government of the United Kingdom. [Mr. PLUNKET: No.] Considering this, he certainly thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman's protestations savoured somewhat of strangeness. He believed that if the right hon. Gentleman's terrifying prophecy proved true, and if, at the next General Election, there was an overwhelming representation of Irish National feeling in the House, the most direct result of that apparition would be to quicken the desire of Her Majesty's most Conservative Opposition to enter into terms of profitable negotiation with the Irish National Party. A great deal had been said about the virtuous indignation of the Conservative Party in Ulster, and also the Orange Party in Ulster, at the appearance of Nationalists at a meeting held there. Had they forgotton the Tyrone Election not many years ago, when the Irish Nationalists deliberately started a candidate with the charitable purpose of preventing the success of a supporter of the Liberal Party? Later still, had they forgotten the County of Derry Election, when the Nationalist voters and the Orange voters marched to the poll together in order to oppose Porter and fair rents? On that occasion it fell to his lot to share with redoubtable Orangemen the duty of bringing up the allied voters, and the common regret of Orangemen and Nationalists was that their union did not succeed in defeating the Representative of the policy of Her Majesty's Government. If the like emergency were to arise, he was certain that all the declamation which had been heard from above the Gangway on the Opposition side of the House would be just as completely forgotten in the future as similar declamation had been forgotten in the past. The right hon. and learned Gentleman who had last addressed the House pointed out the evils which would befall the propertied classes in Ulster if the Irish Nationalists succeeded. But what could those who wished this evil to come about do better than to maintain in the House of Commons a Party actuated by a desire to avenge a terrible wrong, and ready by any means in their power to punish the propertied classes who refused justice to Ireland? He (Mr. O'Donnell) now repeated what he had said in the days of Isaac Butt—that the safest, wisest, and most Conservative policy—using the phrase in no Party sense—as far as Ireland was concerned, would be to allow the Irish people to look after the prosperity of their own land, and not to insist on their sending into the Imperial Parliament a hostile army who, if they could not do any good to Ireland, could, at any rate, in some dark day do an infinity of harm to England. He looked upon Orange excesses as the results of delusion and deliberate deception. The ignorant Orangemen were taught by those whom they were accustomed to respect, and who, he thought, were also their paymasters on a recent occasion, that it was their duty to oppose in a riotous and tumultuous manner their Catholic fellow-countrymen, not only from other parts of Ireland, but from Ulster itself. The persons who were to blame for that were, in the first place, the deceivers of the ignorant Orangemen, and, secondly, Her Majesty's Government. His own belief was that if a single clear intimation had been given to certain noble Lords and estated gentlemen that they were within an equally measurable distance of picking oakum as were the poor cottiers in the South and West of the country, there would not have been the semblance of an Orange riot from one side of Ulster to another. As an Irish Nationalist, he was very anxious occasionally to play the game of equilibrium, and he regretted the success which had attended the tactics of Her Majesty's Government in so thoroughly hoodwinking the Orange Leaders and the Conservative Party, and in leading them to the most disastrous fall which they had experienced in Ireland for many a day. But while he congratulated the Government upon the cleverness of that move he must condemn them for its unscrupulousness. There were, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Plunket) had said, many passages in Irish history which the Orange Party would be glad to have erased from the annals of the country. Taking the worst picture of the excesses of the Land League ever drawn in that House, even by the horrified imagination of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) when smarting under the sting of compulsory resignation, they would not have even an approach to the murderous horrors of Orange activity during many years in the North of Ireland, when it was directed against the weak and comparatively defenceless Catholics in that part of the country. Why, the ancient name of that Society, "Peep o' day Boys," was a remarkable and significant designation. At the peep of day, while the dawn was breaking, or ere it had broken, while the Catholic family were still slumbering under the humble roof-tree, the terrorists and outrage-committers came stealthily to the door, sometimes putting a torch to the roof-tree or bursting in the door, and proceeded to hamstring the father and to beat and bruise and torture the other members of the family, and in the excesses of their mercy giving them so many days to clear out "to hell or to Connaught." All these facts were contained in a document which hon. Members might consult. [An hon. MEMBER: Where?] In the Report of the Royal Commission of 1835 or 1836. Those were the dark pages which he could agree in thinking it would be well to pluck out of Irish annals; but, while arraigning the misconduct of the Orangemen in the past, he did not forget to glory in one event, and that was the occasion when loyal Orange Lodges united as one man in the last years of the last century, and in the first years of the present, against the cursed Act of Union, which every true Irishman must only curse. The vast majority of the Orange Lodges at this time were ready to maintain the liberties which Grattan had won. There was still some hope of the Orangemen of Ireland. The object of the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for the City of Cork was to expose, above all, the shameless inconsistency of Her Majesty's Government, and in that sense he, for one, would support it. If only the Irish Nationalist Party continued to enlarge according to circumstances, the area of its operation and the circle of its allies; if, looking on the Irish nation as a whole, welcoming the alliance of every class which loved Ireland, above all things steering clear of every unworthy prejudice, carrying out to the letter and in practice those noble declarations of toleration which were conspicuous in the speech of the hon. Member for the City of Cork; if the Irish National Party would proceed on strictly National lines until it gathered every Irishman into the National fold, then he should make the confident prediction that the present generation would not pass away without bequeathing to its successors the realized heritage which they derived from so many generations of freemen—free, even though struggling—and resolved, in spite of so many unsuccessful struggles, never to rest until a National Irish Parliament, without the control or the yoke of any English Minister, governed Ireland in the Irish capital.