asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether a man named Cronin is now undergoing a term of ten years' penal servitude for alleged moonlighting in Duagh, county Kerry; was he convicted on the uncorroborated evidence of a woman of known bad character; whether the witnesses for the defence were men of unimpeachable reputations; whether several years of his sentence have already expired; whether several others who were convicted and sentenced with him are now at large; whether a Memorial signed by the resident magistrate and most of the grand jurors of the county was forwarded to Lord Aberdeen, praying for his release; and, whether, under the circumstances, he will advise the Lord Lieutenant to set Cronin free?

, in reply, said, it was true that a man named Cronin was now undergoing a sentence of 10 years' penal servitude for the offence mentioned. He was not convicted on uncorroborated evidence. He was not aware that the witnesses for the defence were men of unimpeachable reputation. Several years of his sentence had now expired. Others who were convicted at the same time, but not equally guilty, had been released. A Memorial was forwarded to the late Lord Lieutenant, and had been considered, and it had been decided that the law should take its course. He wished to state that the Lord Lieutenant only had power to exercise the Prerogative of the Crown in Ireland, and it had never been the duty of the Chief Secretary to exercise it. If necessary, of course, he would advise with His Excellency on the subject.

asked if the right hon. Gentleman was aware that the Judge who imposed this heavy sentence of 10 years declared that he did so for the purpose of deterring others, and that he hoped afterwards to be able to advise a remission of the sentence, and if the Memorial which was presented to Lord Aberdeen when he was leaving Ireland was signed by Justices of the Peace and many influential inhabitants of the district; and whether, in the extraordinary circumstances of the case, the right hon. Gentleman would advise the Lord Lieutenant to consider the Memorial?

said, he could not answer the Question without Notice.

asked the Lord Advocate, Whether the Sheriff Clerk of Berwickshire holds the following public appointments: County Road Clerk of Berwickshire; Clerk to the Commissioners of Income Tax, Berwickshire; Procurator Fiscal to Her Majesty's Justices of the Peace for district of Lauder, in said shire; Secretary and Treasurer to Duns Gas Light Company; Clerk to the Visiting Committee of Greenlaw Prison; Auditor to the Tweed Commissioners; whether it is the case that, when the said Sheriff Clerk was appointed, he came under an obligation to resign all or any of his other offices if required to do so; whether the Report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the condition of the Crofters, presented to Parliament in 1884, recommends that sheriff clerks should be prohibited from doing any professional work, or any business for profit, other than the proper business of their office; whether the Lord Advocate, in a Debate in this House on 21st April 1884, assented to this opinion; and, whether the present Lord Advocate purposes calling upon the Sheriff Clerk of Berwickshire to resign all or any of the offices mentioned?

I have not been able to obtain full information to answer this Question, but, at the request of the hon. Member, I will answer it as far as I can do so to-day. I am not aware of the exact facts as they at present stand, not yet having received an answer to my communication. I understand that the Sheriff Clerk of Berwickshire does hold several appointments of public offices in the county in addition to the office of Sheriff Clerk. Mr. Crawford, who is the Sheriff-Clerk, did come under an obligation to give up any public appointment it might be thought advisable he should not hold. As regards the question referring to professional work, if I am rightly informed, Mr. Crawford does not perform any professional work at all except in so far as holding these appointments may be held to involve professional work. I may state as regards the counties, not having a large amount of public business for the Sheriff Clerk, the amount of salary for that office would not, in my opinion, enable the Crown to obtain a suitable person for the office, unless he were allowed to hold appointments not incompatible with the duty of Sheriff Clerk. But I may say the appointment was made just before the Conservative Government left Office in January, and I do not find in the records of my office that anything has been done since then; but I will look into the matter during the Recess.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to the contemplated scheme for pulling down houses on the Cadogan Estate in Chelsea, to which his attention was recently drawn, Whether he is aware that more than 4,000 persons of the working classes will be displaced, and compelled to seek homes at a distance from their employment; and, whether he will con- sider the feasability of providing by Law that an adequate notice should be given to the persons affected by such schemes, and for compelling some accommodation to be made for at least a certain proportion of the persons displaced, within a moderate distance of their old homes?

I am informed that provision will be made by Lord Cadogan for a large number of the working classes who will be displaced by the contemplated alterations on the Cadogan Estate at Chelsea, which will constitute a public improvement. The total number of persons of all classes who will be displaced is considerably below 4,000. The number of the working classes displaced is, of course, much lees. I will consider whether it is possible or expedient to interfere by law with dealings by a private owner with his own property.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, in view of Her Majesty's Government having promised to procure similar information from Foreign Countries, he will cause inquiries to be made through Her Majesty's Inspectors of Mines with respect to the royalties or mine rents paid in the United Kingdom, so as to be able to lay upon the Table of the House a Return showing the scale of royalties which exists in different parts of the United Kingdom, and also giving information as to any penalties or restrictions which are placed upon the lessees of mines by the owners of minerals?

The Inspectors of Mines have no authority to make the inquiries suggested, and no special means of obtaining the information desired, which could only be supplied voluntarily by the owners or lessees of mines. The time required for making such inquiries would seriously interfere with the duties which the Inspectors were especially appointed to discharge. The Home Office has no means of ascertaining what penalties or restrictions are placed upon lessees by owners of minerals. These are matters of private arrangement. A list of any penalties or restrictions imposed by Acts of Parliament could be supplied and laid upon the Table.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether any arrangement could be made by which receivers of letters upon which the postage has not been paid might pay for them direct to the General, or nearest Branch, Post Office?

In reply to the hon. Baronet, I think that some inconvenience would arise from adopting the suggestion referred to, and I think considerable risk might be incurred from people receiving their insufficiently paid letters and forgetting to pay the sums due to the Post Office. If I have not correctly apprehended the hon. Baronet's Question perhaps he will confer with me.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been drawn to the Report for the past year of Mr. F. M. Corner, Medical Officer to the Poplar Board of Works, in which the following passage occurs:—

"A greater scandal cannot well be shown in matters vital to health than that, in spite of abundant evidence of the magnitude of the evil, thousands and tens of thousands of families living in houses, the rates of which are payable by the landlords, may at any moment, without a particle of fault of their own, be suddenly denied one of the first necessaries of life, water, through the neglect or wilfulness of others. That disease and death are directly traceable to this want no one acquainted with sanitary work in London can doubt. Take this instance: water cut off, drains stopped, opening up of ground and drains, removal of filth accumulation, horrid stench, diphtheria, death. Should the tenant justly refuse to pay the rent, the water supply being included in the charge, the Law allows of the broker being put in, as was done in Cotton Street in 1885, when the goods of a widow were seized until the whole was paid, although the house had been without water for six weeks. In Hanbury Place, having six houses, there was no water supply for twenty-six days, and families numbering each seven, nine, two of six, and others, had to exist, in May 1885, with choked drains, yard flooded with sewage, and no water, and all be- cause of non-payment of rates by their landlord. In another case there was no water for seventeen days. In a third, from Nos. 2 to 10, Galbraith Street, with a population of seventy-four, there was no water supply from the same cause for fourteen days;"

and, whether, in the paramount interest of the health of the people, the Local Government Board will, pending legislation, make representations to the Water Companies, or take such other steps as may be necessary, with a view to prevent the recurrence of the condition of things here described?

The Report of the Medical Officer to the Poplar Board of Works calls attention to a condition of things which undoubtedly urgently calls for remedy. The House will recollect that in 1884 Lord Camperdown carried through the House of Lords a Bill which would have altogether taken away from the Companies the power of cutting off the water from tenements such as those alluded to in the Question. This Bill passed its second reading in this House, but, unfortunately, did not get through its remaining stages. In the opinion of the Government the power of cutting off the water from such tenements, entailing as it may do very serious consequences to the health, not only of the persons immediately affected, but also of the whole district, ought to be abolished. The hon. Member is aware that the Government have no control over the Water Companies in this matter at present; but I earnestly hope the Water Companies will take care that the powers which they possess by law are not exercised in such a way as would be detrimental to the community and extremely hard upon the tenants. I propose to send to the various Companies a copy of the Question of the hon. Member containing the extract from Mr. Corner's Report, and to ask them to give it their consideration.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he can now state to the House the result of his promised inquiries as to the alleged ill-treatment of the boy Dunn in the Han-well Schools, and also as to the allega- tion that a system of extensive flogging is in vogue in those schools?

, in reply, said, that the Local Government Board had received a Report from the schools with reference to this matter, and he had considered it necessary to instruct an Inspector to go down and hold an inquiry into the matter, and also into the whole question of punishment in the schools.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he is aware that the Guardians of St. Pancras have spent in five years £700 in removing paupers to their respective parishes of chargeability; and, whether he will cause inquiries to be made, in order to lay upon the Table of the House two Returns as follows:—A Return of the Amount spent annually during the last five years by each Union in England and Wales in removing Paupers to their respective parishes of chargeability, including all Law Charges connected therewith; and, a Return of the Amount spent annually during the last five years by each Metropolitan Union in removing Paupers to other Unions within the area covered by the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund, including all Law Charges connected therewith?

said, he had no information with reference to this subject; but he had no objection to furnish Returns of the amount expended in removing paupers in all the Unions of England and Wales, if the hon. Gentleman would move for them.

asked the Postmaster General, If sub-postmasters and letter-receivers in Ireland have yet received their salaries for their services in connection with the Parcels Post for the months of May, June, July, and August; whether it is a fact that they were not paid the amount due to them for Money Order and Post Office Savings Bank business for the quarter ending 30th June till the end of August; and, whether the postal authorities some time ago averaged the amount earned on the sale of stamps, and have since made the average a fixed salary; and, if so, whether they will consider the advisability of adopting that plan of payment in regard to the Parcels Post, the Money Order, and the Savings Bank Departments of the Post Office, or of adopting some other means by which officials in the Post Office would be paid their salaries more promptly than at present?

said, that in May last, when the Parcel Rates were revised, certain changes in the method of payment to the persons referred to became necessary, involving revised calculations at 16,600 offices. The matter was being proceeded with as quickly as possible, and no unavoidable delay had occurred. He had not had time to examine the remaining portion of the hon. Member's Question.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What are the duties performed by the Assistant Commissioners of Intermediate Education in Ireland, and by the Chief Clerk and the other clerks respectively; and, whether the office of the Board of Intermediate Education in Ireland will come within the purview of the inquiry to be held by the Royal Commission into the Civil Service Departments; and, if so, whether the Government will postpone filling the vacancy in the office of Assistant Commissioner of Intermediate Education in Ireland till that Commission has reported?

was understood to say that the Assistant Commissioners of Intermediate Education in Ireland were responsible for the general superintendence of the Office, and especially for the supervision of the papers set by the different Examiners, which was a work of considerable difficulty, requiring special qualifications. They had also to supervise the working arrangements of the examinations. The clerical staff of the Office was very small. He was not quite certain whether this Office would come within the purview of the inquiry to be held into the Civil Service Department; but he would consider the matter, and postpone anything of the kind contemplated by the Question if the Office was included.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he is aware that by 10 Geo. 4, c. 50, s. 113, it is enacted that the annual income of all the possessions and land revenues of the Crown to which the Act relates shall be applied in the manner following:—First. In payment of costs, charges, and expenses attending the management of the said possessions and land revenues. Secondly. In payment and discharge of any annual sum or sums of money or any pensions already charged upon, or to be charged thereon respectively, and on the payment of any other principal sum, and the interest of any principal sum or sums which is already or may be hereafter charged upon the said possessions and land revenues. Thirdly. In payment and discharge of the costs, charges, and expenses of repairs, alterations, and improvements of Buckingham Palace; whether he will state under which of these heads the payment of £500 per annum for the food of game in Windsor Great Park and Windsor Forest (in addition to a charge for the payment of game) is included; and, whether this game (presumably pheasants) was fed at this annual cost when the above-mentioned Act was passed?

In answer to the hon. Member, I have to say that the payment referred to is included under the first head mentioned. The latter part of the Question I am unable to answer on such short Notice; but it may interest the hon. Member to know that previous to 1850 the cost of feeding the game was £1,100 per annum.

asked the Postmaster General, If the Government will appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the feasibility of cheapening the rate of postage between England and the various Colonies of the British Empire? He also wished to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to a Notice of Motion he had placed on the Paper to move for a copy of the Correspondence relating to the refusal of the Cape of Good Hope and the Australian Colonies to join the Postal Union.

,in reply, said, that the question of the solution of this difficulty had not escaped his attention, but beyond that he was not in a position to say anything further on the subject. With regard to the latter part of the Question, he could not give the hon. Gentleman any definite reply until he had had an opportunity of consulting the Secretary of State for the Colonies; but he quite felt that it might be useful to the public if, at all events, the important portions of that Correspondence could be brought to the public knowledge of the country. If he could take any steps to meet the hon. Gentleman in this matter he should be glad to do so; but, at the same time, he hoped he would not press the Motion he had placed on the Paper.

asked the Secretary of State for War, What steps he intends to take in regard to the Militia Quartermasters who were compelled to retire before being entitled to their full pensions?

, in reply, said, that no alteration whatever had been made in the retirement of Militia quartermasters. They would certainly receive all that was promised to them. Looking to the heavy charge in the Estimates for the non-effective list, he could not hold out any hope that the weight of that charge on the Votes could be increased by an additional pension which had not been offered or promised to these officers in the first instance.

asked the President of the Local Go- vernment Board, Whether changes have been recently made in the composition of the Metropolitan Asylums Board; and, if so, whether he can state why such changes were made, and what is the present number of the Board, and how many are nominated members?

The Board have recently increased the number of elected members of the Metropolitan Asylums Board by nine. The change has been made in consequence of the great alterations which have occurred in the population and rateable value of the Unions and parishes in the Metropolis since the number of members was fixed in 1871, and the large additional duties which the Managers have now to undertake as compared with those which devolved on them at that time. The present number of elected Managers is 54, and of nominated Managers 15.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Local Government Board arbitrator held an inquiry at Kilmallock on the 3rd of last August, under the Labourers' Act; if so, has he yet sent his draft award, and, if not, for what reason; and, will he be directed to do so immediately, so that the erection of the cottages may be proceeded with immediately?

said, there certainly seemed to be considerable delay in this matter. He was not aware of the precise reason for it, although he had made inquiries on the subject. The draft award would be sent in on Monday.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether letters reaching Borris, county Kilkenny, by the morning mail at 10·3 a.m. are not delivered in Graigue (five miles distant) till 2·15 p.m.; whether letters intended for the Irish and English night mails must be posted at Graigue, county Kil- kenny, before 9·20 a.m., for the purpose of reaching Borris (five miles distant) for the mail train leaving for Dublin at 3·30 p.m.; whether, owing to representations made by the inhabitants of Graigue, the late Government promised to establish a car service between Graigue and Borris, and enable the letters arriving by the morning mail to be answered the same day; and, why this promise has not been fulfilled?

said, there had not been time since the Question was put upon the Paper to obtain the information necessary to enable him to answer it.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he can give any information as to the place where prisoners under the Debtors' Act, from county Tyrone, are to be confined, now that the Omagh Gaol is no longer available; and, whether it is legal for the sheriff to take prisoners into an adjoining county?

said, the prisoners who were committed under the Debtors' Act in the county of Tyrone, were now sent, pursuant to the order of the Lord Lieutenant under the Act of Parliament, to the prison in Londonderry.

asked the First Commissioner of Works, At what hour the Regent's Park is opened and closed to the public at different seasons of the year, and why a difference is made in this respect between the Regent's Park and the other Royal Parks of the Metropolis; whether he is aware that the time of opening varies from day to day, and that a large number of the working class resident in the district are put to great inconvenience by the present conditions by the loss of time they are put to; and, whether he will take steps to afford them greater facilities, especially by causing the park to be opened to the public earlier in the morning?

At present the gates in Regent's Park are opened at 5 A.M. from March 1 to September 30; and at 6 A.M. from October to the end of February. I hope, however, to be able now to make arrangements by which these gates will be opened regularly at 5 o'clock in the morning all the year round. I should be very glad also to keep the gates open later in the evening; but that would involve a great increase of the charges for police and lighting in Regent's Park. I have had a rough estimate made by which it appears that it would cost upwards of £5,000 capital expenditure, and more than £1,800 a-year additional. I will look further into this question, but I cannot make any promise on the subject.

asked the Vice President of theCommittee of Council, Whether his attention had been drawn to the Resolution passed by the Council of the Metropolitan Federation of Radical Clubs to issue an address to all persons sending children to Board Schools in the district of the London School Board, advising them to discontinue the payment of school fees on and after 4th October, and, further, to refuse to fill up or sign any papers in reference to school fees; and, whether, in the event of a strike against school fees, the Education Department will take any steps to enforce the Law?

My attention has been called to the resolution passed by the Council of the Metropolitan Federation of Radical Clubs, with reference to the new bye-laws of the London School Board, and should any person be so misguided as to follow the advice tendered, I am informed that the London School Board have ample powers to deal with the difficulty, without the intervention of the Department. As the hon. Member is aware, the School Board have power to remit fees in all cases where it may appear to them advisable to do so.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether his attention has been drawn to the letter of The Times correspondent (Sept. 21st) regarding the Mandalay inundation; and, whether he will institute an inquiry regarding the alleged neglect on the part of the British authorities to strengthen the bund although duly warned of its danger?

I have no official information with regard to the Mandalay inundation later than that given to the House on August 25 and September 3. That information was furnished by telegram, and is of later date than the statement of the Correspondent of The Times. It exonerates the British officials as far as it goes from the charges made, and shows that the loss of life, which The Times Correspondent states was unlikely to be less than 1,000, did not, in fact, exceed 12. The Secretary of State for India, when the news of the disaster was received, at once ordered an inquiry, which, however, proved to have been already instituted by the Government of India on its own motion. The Secretary of State will take care that this inquiry is searching and complete, and full information on the subject shall be given to Parliament.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true that the American schooner Vought, which returned to New York on the 15th September, was, on arriving at Paspebiac, Canada, in a distressed condition, not permitted to obtain a supply of water or to have her damages repaired, but was ordered to sea; and, whether he can now inform the House what measures Her Majesty's Government contemplate adopting for the purpose of amending or abolishing the existing Fishery Treaties, and which, from time to time, cause friction between this Country, the United States, and the Dominion of Canada?

Her Majesty's Government have not received any information respecting the occurrence in question, and I cannot, therefore, say if the facts are correctly stated. As I have already informed the House, the Secretary of State is in communication with the United States Government, and is also communicating personally with the United States Minister in this country with a view and an earnest endeavour to remove the causes of difference which exist.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If the renewal of the Hotel Licence of Mr. John Lee of Dingle, has been refused by the local bench of magistrates, because he would not sign an undertaking to furnish cars for eviction duty; and, whether the Queen's Bench in Ireland last year granted licences which had been refused by local justices under similar circumstances; and, if so, whether the Government will take steps to compel magistrates to respect the decisions of the Court of Queen's Bench?

said, this Question only appeared on the Motion Paper this morning, and it was impossible for him to say whether or not the facts were as stated in the first part of the Question. As to the second portion of the Question, any decision of the Court of Queen's Bench which had been given on this subject must be referable to the particular case which came before it. As he mentioned yesterday, the refusal of cars to police might be a ground for refusing the renewal of licences; but whether it was so or not would depend on the circumstances of each case.

asked if the right hon. and learned Gentleman was aware that the Bench of Magistrates being composed of landlords and land agents, they would naturally refuse hotel licences to any publicans who would not assist in the work of eviction in this manner?

said, it was perfectly competent, under certain circumstances, for a Bench of Magistrates under the powers conferred upon them by law to decline to give a certificate of renewal on the ground that the publican refused to furnish cars.

asked whether there was not a telegraph wire between Dublin Castle and Dingle, where this decision took place?

said, there was, but it was wholly impossible to get information in time. He had telegraphed at 11 o'clock, and up to the present had not received a reply.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether he will cause to be prepared in the Telegraph Department, for laying before the House, a Report showing the financial results of the reduction of the charge of telegrams to sixpence, giving the number monthly since the change in comparison with the previous year, the number of telegrams at various rates of charge, and the average number of words used for addresses, showing also the increased expenses and the receipts for registered addresses?

In reply to the Question of the hon. Member, I regret that I am unable to give the whole of the particulars asked for. I have, however, caused a statement to be prepared which gives some very interesting particulars in regard to the increase of telegraphic business under the new tariff. This Return is too long to read to the House, but I will give the following figures:—For the last three months of 1885 and the first three months of 1886, as compared with the corresponding months of 1884 and 1885,I find that the number of telegrams under the new tariff reached 16,787,540, as against 11,314,423 under the old tariff, showing an increase of 5,473,117, while the revenue derived from these telegrams and from the additional amount received in respect of the registration of abbreviated addresses, as compared with that received in the corresponding six months, was less by £22,000. For the five completed months of the present financial year, as compared with the corresponding months of the last financial year, the number of messages is 17,369,161, as compared with 11,125,794, showing an increase of 6,243,367, or 56 per cent; and, although the loss of revenue in April and May was £15,000, the revenue in the last three months has been greater by £12,000—the loss of revenue for the five months being, therefore, about £3,000. The present month will, I think, show a similar increase of business, and it is probable that the small loss of £3,000 will nearly disappear. I am unable, at the present time, to furnish the House with the further particulars asked for by the hon. Member; but the Department has already taken steps for obtaining the figures asked for, and, as soon as I am in a position to do so, I will furnish the hon. Member with the figures he desires. In the meantime I shall be ready, if the hon. Member will move for it, to furnish, as an unopposed Return, the particulars contained in the Paper some details of which I have read to the House.

I will ask a Question of the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which I hope he will be able to answer, though I have not given him Notice of it—namely, To what date does the Government intend to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament; and whether the rumour is true that an early day will be named for the possible re-assembling of Parliament; and, if so, will that meeting be for the dispatch of Business? I put that Question specially with reference to the somewhat menacing statement made by the Chief Secretary for Ireland last night.

I am unable to give an answer to the Question of the right hon. Gentleman. The date of the Prorogation of Parliament will be stated in the Commission appointing the Commissioners to prorogue Parliament.

asked, in the event of the Appropriation Bill being passed at that Sitting, to what day would the noble Lord move the adjournment of the House?

In the event of the Appropriation Bill being passed to-day—and I cannot contemplate any other contingency—it will probable be convenient for the House to meet on Saturday for the Prorogation, as there is no Public Business of any importance on Thursday or Friday; and I propose, as I stated earlier in the Sitting, to move the adjournment of the House till that day.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a Question of which I have given him private Notice—Whether the Government intend, at an early date next Session, to introduce any amendment in the present mode of Parliamentary Procedure with the purpose of expediting Public Business?

Of course, my hon. Friend will understand that the intentions of a Government with regard to the arrangements of a future Session are not at all exempt from all those changes and chances which beset all human arrangements. But with that rather important qualification, I may say that it is the most decided intention of Her Majesty's Government to recommend to the House of Commons at the commencement of next Session to devote its continued attention to very considerable alterations and modifications of its present method of conducting Public Business.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he is aware that another body of Greek gipsies are encamped in Hull; and whether, having regard to the fact that these people are in a destitute condition, are likely to become a serious burden to the inhabitants and ratepayers, and that their sanitary condition leaves much to be desired, he will take some steps to deal with this matter in the interests of the country generally?

I have had no information respecting the arrival of the Greek gipsies at Hull; and I am afraid the law of this country affords very imperfect protection against the landing of destitute and insanitary aliens.

, in rising to move—

"That, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient and necessary that an official inquiry should be held into the conduct of the resident magistrate and police in the city of Derry on the 6th of July last, when it is alleged that, under the orders of the resident magistrate, an unwarrantable attack was made by the police with staves, upon a number of respectable and orderly people who were assembled on the steps of the Imperial Hotel, Londonderry, on the occasion of the declaration of the poll at the city of Derry election on that day,"

said, that this Motion had been on the Paper on several occasions, and had stood over from time to time, not from any fault of his, or from any disinclination to bring it forward, but from his desire to give the Government every facility to get through Supply and pass the Appropriation Bill. He was happy to be able to state that the question involved in the Motion did not in the least degree provoke any conflict between the Party of which he was a Member and hon. Gentlemen opposite below the Gangway; it did not involve any sort of Party conflict, although it arose out of an election. No one could be more unwilling to limit in the least degree the authority or damage the prestige of the Royal Irish Constabulary than he, for he knew how important it was for the safety of the public that that authority and prestige should be maintained to the highest possible extent, and he knew perfectly well that nothing could be more disastrous to the maintenance of the public peace in Ireland than that that authority should be subjected to any check or blow. He took the course he had done in consequence of meetings both of the citizens and magistrates of the City of Derry. The election for the City of Derry took place on the 5th of July, and the declaration of the poll on the 6th at noon. Prior to the election a large number of police were imported into the city. He did not complain of that, for he thought that, having regard to the circumstances of the case, it was a very proper step. Before the polling day the Mayor and the Resident Magistrate, without any consultation with the Bench of Magistrates generally, issued a Notice, which stated that they had received sworn information to the effect that a procession, with bands and torches was going through Derry on the 5th July, and that this would be likely to lead to a breach of the peace, and that Notice concluded by saying that the Mayor and the Resident Magistrate prohibited any such procession, and that if it took place it would be dispersed by force. Looking at that Notice from a legal point of view, he had no hesitation in saying that it was a mere brutum fulmen, that it was ultra vires, and that it had no authority or effect. But what he wished to draw particular attention to was that it was a Notice prohibiting a procession with bands. Now, the position of affairs at the declaration of the poll on the 6th July was this. Derry was absolutely quiet through the whole election; there had not been so much as a disturbance in the streets. There were no assaults, no conflicts of any sort or description tending to a breach of the peace. Indeed, he never knew an election more absolutely free from breaches of the peace or riots. The committee-room of his opponent was situated in the same street as his own, but lower down the street. The Court House was above his (Mr. Lewis's) committee-room. The street might thus be considered as divided roughly into three portions. There was a crowd round his opponent's committee-room, and round the Imperial Hotel, where he had his committee-room, there was a crowd of some 1,000 or 1,500 people, but there was no contact between the two crowds. The consequence was that there was an entire absence of any indication of ill-feeling or excitement. As he (Mr. Lewis) came from the Court House to the Imperial Hotel he passed through the crowd, and in the middle of the crowd, in front of the hotel, there was a person with a wind instrument, on which he was playing some favourite air.

What air?

said, he did not know; but the Proclamation of the Mayor, whatever its nature, was directed against a procession with bands, and not against the mere playing of music. Well, the playing went on, filling up the time until the Member appeared. As to what then took place he would rely in the first place, not on his own statement, but on the testimony of the Bishop of Derry, whom everyone would admit to be unimpeachable. In a letter which he wrote shortly afterwards to the papers, the right rev. Prelate said that he was, with a large party of his (Mr. Lewis's) friends, in a room of the Imperial Hotel, the windows of which opened on the balcony, from which the new Member was to address the people. He saw that there was a crowd in front of the hotel, extending some distance above and below. The crowd was a well-conducted assembly. The people cheered now and then, and occasionally groaned. After a short time, the Bishop went on, a band approached, with instruments and flags. This was, perhaps, an infraction of the Order of the magistrates. What occurred between the band and the Resident Magistrate he (the Bishop) could not tell, but after a few seconds he saw the police making for the crowd with swords, truncheons, and guns, striking out right and left. As far as he could see, no resistance was offered, and it was simply a saturnalia of violence. He saw a policeman of Herculean proportions aim a blow with his truncheon at the head of a respectable woman who was trying to escape. Fortunately, the blow missed her. He (the Bishop) then came out on the balcony and denounced the conduct of the police, in the hope that his voice might reach the Resident Magistrate. So far the Bishop. The rest of the story he (Mr. Lewis) must ask the House to take from him. The band turned down into the yard of the Deanery opposite the hotel, and he himself then saw a constable with a drawn sword thrust his sword through the rails of the yard, and endeavour to prick those who were assembled there. So horrified were other members of the Constabulary at this that the man was actually dragged back by a police officer. In consequence of this extraordinary and outrageous proceeding, a number of well-conducted citizens standing on the steps of the Imperial Hotel cried out "Shame!" upon which the Resident Magistrate, who seemed to have lost his head, directed the police to charge them. These people, who were quietly waiting for the Member to return thanks for his election, were wedged in and could not escape, and he himself saw, to his horror, 20 or 30 constables with their bâtons drawn rush at the small crowd and knock many of them on the head. One unfortunate person standing on the steps had his head broken, and as a consequence his life was in danger for a considerable time. That was a plain and unvarnished statement of the whole case. These people were doing nothing but enjoying a fine summer day, and waiting to hear the successful candidate return thanks, when they were set upon in the outrageous manner which he had described by those who were paid to preserve the public peace. The outrage was witnessed by the Bishop and the Dean of Derry, and by five or six magistrates and other independent persons not resident in the city. In the whole course of his life he never saw such horror and excitement. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Sligo laughed—

Yes; you made the horror and excitement.

said, he had made his statement as a matter of honour and upon the authority of the Bishop of Derry. This was a matter which could not be laughed away in the manner in which hon. Members seemed to desire. The conduct of the police caused the greatest possible excitement in the city, and the magistrate met and passed a resolution asking for a public inquiry by the Government. The right hon. Gentleman the late Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. John Morley) declined to institute an inquiry without giving his reasons. A largely-attended meeting of the citizens was next held, at which a resolution was unanimously passed calling upon the Government to institute an inquiry as to the conduct of the authorities in order to insure the punishment of the guilty parties. A change of Government came, and the magistrates again met and asked for an inquiry. The present Chief Secretary replied that he himself would make inquiries into the matter, but that no public inquiry would be ordered. These occurrences took place on the 6th of July, and nobody had yet been called upon to account for the extraordinary and violent conduct of the police. The outrage was not committed by the City Constabulary, but by police brought in from a distance; therefore the offenders could not be identified. The right hon. Gentleman the late Chief Secretary said he would not consent to an inquiry, but he proclaimed the city under the Arms Act, without the smallest pretence in the world, or in respect of any abuse of arms or conflict between the citizens. The right hon. Gentleman carried out the policy which he foreshadowed when in Office as to the putting into operation of the Arms Act. He said it would be very useful in Ulster. That was the conduct of a right hon. Gentleman seeing fair play between the police and the citizens. Such were the proceedings of the right hon. Gentleman; for it turned out that his object in proclaiming Derry, where there had been no outrages, was, as he said, to keep the balance even between North and South. That was to say, because he had had to put the Arms Act in force in the South, therefore he proclaimed Derry in the North. ["Oh, oh!"] Why, it was not more than a week since he made that statement in Committee of Supply. The right hon. Gentleman on that occasion said—"I proclaimed Derry to make matters level." The right hon. Gentleman was a Member of the Party who would not support coercion under any circumstances. They brought in their Arms Bill, and the first thing they did was to put it into operation against an unoffending city. He challenged the right hon. Gentleman to say upon what material it was that, in the month of July last, when there had been no outrages and no disturbances in the City of Derry, he advised the Lord Lieutenant to proclaim the city under the Arms Act. He could not help thinking it was a set-off to him for having condemned the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman with reference to the Arms Act. The events which he had stated having happened, there was a distinct refusal by the right hon. Gentleman to hold an inquiry. No doubt, the late Chief Secretary made inquiry from the Resident Magistrate, Mr. Harvey, who played an important part in the disturbances. But did he endeavour to obtain information from any independent person? The events having happened which he had stated to the House, he demanded to know the grounds upon which the Government refused a sworn inquiry. He ventured to say that when a meeting of magistrates called the attention of the Government of the day to the serious conflict that was going on, not between the Orange and Catholic parties, but between the authorized protectors of the citizens and the citizens themselves, it required a very strong case to justify the refusal of the Government to make an inquiry with a view to bringing the guilty parties to justice. He had no doubt the right hon. Gentleman received a very crushing reply from the Resident Magistrate, who now walked about Derry despised by the citizens. The House would see whether the right hon. Gentleman was able to quote any other witnesses in support of the maintenance of the dignified silence which the Government assumed under the circumstances. The right hon. Gentleman the present Chief Secretary was in a totally different position. He had to deal with the difficulty that an inquiry had already been refused. He (Mr. Lewis) maintained that when the House had the testimony of so highly respected a Prelate as the Bishop of Derry, such an occurrence should not be allowed to happen at noonday withou some inquiry being held to ascertain who was responsible. The present Chief Secretary stated, in reply to the resolution of the second meeting of magistrates, that he would make an inquiry into the matter. Was it to be expected that, with all the serious responsibilities which rested upon him, and with all the difficult duties he had to perform, he could go down to Derry and conduct an inquiry on the spot? In the face of all the facts and circumstances, it was a scandalous thing that these most extraordinary occurrences should have gone on without any expression of reprobation on the part of the Government of the day, and that the citizens, after the serious attack that had been made upon them, should be deserted by the Government to whom they were entitled to look for support. Under these circumstances, he ventured to move the Resolution which stood in his name for the purpose of vindicating the rights and privileges of citizenship of the city which he had the honour to represent.

seconded the Resolution.

said, that not many sentences would be required from him in answering the speech which the hon. Gentleman had made in defence of his Amendment. The hon. Gentleman's statement of what happened rested upon the letter written by the Bishop of Derry, and upon the hon. Member's own account of what he saw from the steps of the Imperial Hotel. The hon. Member, however, was not at that moment in a frame of mind, he submitted, which made his testimony of any great or decisive value. The hon. Member was not always distinguished, even in that House, for urbanity, or for happy serenity of demeanour. Upon this occasion the House would judge, from a speech which he delivered, how likely he was to see things without excitement, and as they occurred—

That was after the event.

said, he supposed the events all went on in a very short and rapid space of time, and probably the hon. Member was in one frame of mind from beginning to end of the transaction. The House would judge. The following report of a speech delivered by the hon. Gentleman on that occasion would illustrate the way in which this champion of the party of law and order thought fit to speak of the agent of law and order. The report stated that—

"Mr. Lewis spoke under great excitement. He said—'Ladies and gentlemen of Derry—Mr. Harvey, you rascal'—this being the Resident Magistrate—'look at that mob down there (pointing to the Nationalist crowd), look at them, you rascal! Why don't you disperse them? Ladies and gentlemen, I have to thank you, citizens of this city, who for the fifth time have returned me to Parliament, and I now pledge myself, in the face of that man (Mr. Harvey)—I pledge myself that my first act in Parliament will be to expose and reprobate the conduct of that wicked man in the way that he deserves.' (Loud cheers and groans.) The hon. Member went on to say that the representatives of the Government had behaved in a scandalous, criminal, and cowardly manner. A dastardly attempt had been made to assault and butcher"—butcher!—"the citizens of Derry."

He only read that report as an illustration of the calm and judicial temper in which the hon. Gentleman had looked on at the transaction.

It was after the event I made the speech.

It was all pretty simultaneous, as a matter of fact. Well, the resolution of the magistrates was sent to the Government, and inquiry was made of the Resident Magistrate himself (Mr. Harvey), and the Government instituted a full investigation. They collected reports from all the officials who took part in the maintenance of order in Derry on that occasion. One or two points of difficulty arose, and they referred those to the Inspector General of Constabulary. They had the whole affair thoroughly investigated. What case was there for a sworn inquiry? Talk of "butchering" the citizens! Who was "butchered?"

I will answer the question—the man who was four days in the infirmary.

Yes; it was reported in the newspapers that the man was given over; it was said that tetanus had set in. When the officers went to the Infirmary, however, they found the gentleman in bed reading the newspaper. A more trumpery affair was never brought under the notice of the House of Commons. The hon. Member tried to harrow their feelings with descriptions of Constabulary officers and constables running their swords into inoffensive and peaceable citizens, and all he could prove in the way of butchery and massacre was that one man went to the infirmary with a bruised head and was out again in a very few days. The conditions under which the action of the police took place were not quite so simple as the hon. Gentleman would lead the House to suppose. He made a point of the police being foreigners; but did all his friends in Belfast pay such respect to the Proclamation of their own Mayor, who was not a foreigner, as to warrant the attitude he now took up? The hon. Gentleman said that the Mayor's Proclamation had no legal force. On that point at the moment he was not able to answer the hon. Member; but no doubt the right hon. and learned Gentleman (the Attorney General for Ireland) would say whether the Mayor's Proclamation was legally a compulsory document or not. It was the opinion, at all events, of the magistrates of the town that it was expedient and necessary for the maintenance of law and order that bands and processions should be avoided and suppressed. [Mr. C. LEWIS: Processions of bands.] On this occasion a band made its way out of the Dean's Yard to the front of the Imperial Hotel, and there it began to play "God Save the Queen" and also Party airs. The hon. Member would not deny that that was a very dangerous thing in a town like Londonderry, where, as the poll showed, parties were so equally divided, and where, although order had been preserved, there had been great excitement. It was a very dangerous thing, and, in the opinion of the Mayor, disorder would be likely to follow if bands were allowed to go on playing Party tunes. After carefully considering all the reports, the Lord Chancellor and himself came to the conclusion that the Resident Magistrate and the Constabulary officers used no more force than was necessary, and they did not in fact use any very considerable amount of force. He had not the least wish to impugn the testimony of the Bishop of Derry, although the Bishop, speaking from the Imperial Hotel, used very strong language—he presumed strong language for a Bishop. Comparing the charge made in the Bishop of Derry's letter, and the evidence in support of the resolution of the magistrates, with their own full and elaborate reports, they came to the conclusion that this was a thoroughly trumpery affair, and that to institute any further inquiry would be to give it an importance which was entirely uncalled for. The hon. Member said he would be the last person to wish to bring discredit upon authorities or upon the Irish Constabulary. But he submitted to the hon. Member and the House that for the Executive Government in Dublin to take the serious step of having a sworn inquiry into so trifling and insignificant a business would place the Resident Magistrates and the Constabulary officers in such a position that they would be little disposed to do their duty with energy and vigour. It would be a most fatal thing to institute sworn inquiries without a conviction that there was really strong ground for believing that a serious dereliction of duty had occurred. He and the Irish Executive had no such a belief. The hon. Member had introduced matters which had nothing to do with the Motion he had made. On a former occasion he had fully explained and justified the phrase he had used, which gave such utterly unreasonable offence to some gentlemen of Ulster, and on which the hon. Member had put so unreasonable an interpretation. The remark would bear no such interpretation as that he was determined unnecessarily to proclaim Belfast and Derry, because Cork had been proclaimed. He could not imagine why Derry should be specially insulted by being placed under the same restrictions as Belfast, Dublin, and Cork. In Derry itself the friends of the hon. Gentleman did not always take that line with respect to law and order which he should expect from them. Some remarks on the proclamation of Derry, which were made by The Londonderry Sentinel, would give the House an idea of the difficulties that Governments, whether Conservative or Liberal, had to deal with in the North of Ireland. The purport of the Lord Lieutenant's Proclamation, as the House knew, was to prohibit the possession of arms without a licence. The organ of law and order said of the Proclamation issued by Her Majesty's authority—

"Our advice to the people who happen to possess any of these weapons is to keep a firm grip on them, whether they have a licence or not. Let no one part with his rifle or revolver; there is no saying how soon they may be needed; and probably one of the first acts of the new Government will be to rescind the offensive Proclamation that Mr. Morley has so meanly sprung upon the Northern towns."

Would the Attorney General for Ireland say whether the Government were going to rescind the Proclamation or not? He thought they would not do anything of the kind; but the extract showed there was, even in the party of law and order, a temper which justified the Executive in dealing with Derry as they would deal with Dublin or Cork. It showed too that upon such an occasion as an election, when excitement was aroused, and when the flame was fanned by such speeches as those of the hon. Member, Derry was not a place where the Executive Government could afford to discourage its own agents, or play fast and loose with its own authority.

said, he had to thank the hon. Member for the courtesy he had shown in having on different occasions postponed the Motion so as to avoid interfering with the convenience of the Government and of the House. He wished also to state that the Chief Secretary for Ireland would have replied to the hon. Member's speech, but he was prevented from being in his place by urgent public business. The Lord Chancellor and himself had assisted the Chief Secretary in the inquiry into this matter, and probably the hon. Member and the House would accept the explanation he had to offer. The House was no doubt aware that the present Government did not come into Office until about a month after these transactions occurred. Their attention was first directed to the matter by the second resolution that was passed by the magistrates of Derry, and in which they called attention to the resolution previously passed requesting the Government to grant a sworn inquiry. That resolution was carefully considered by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary and his Colleagues, and the conclusion they arrived at was that a sworn inquiry would not conduce to the public interest. The Chief Secretary, however, expressed his readiness to acquaint himself most fully with the facts of the case. As regarded the advantage or disadvantage of having a public inquiry, there was one point which must be borne in mind—namely, that there could not be a public inquiry on sworn evidence without Parliamentary authority, for the Constabulary Acts only pro- vided for such an inquiry into the acts of individual constables. The only inquiry there could be into a matter of this kind, assuming the circumstances to call for it, would be an inquiry on the spot, without the power of administering an oath, by one or two Special Commissioners; and it seemed to the Government, after comparing the statements made on one side and the other, that it would not advance the public interest to have an inquiry of this character. On considering the statements of officers and officials and statements made by others, he thought this was a right and proper conclusion. Perhaps the House would bear with him while he stated the view the Government took of the matter. He could quite understand that transactions of this kind would excite ill-feeling in the locality. When there was a collision between the police and the people, no matter what the circumstances, there was naturally a strong public feeling excited. Therefore, a great deal of forbearance was required. Those whose duty it was to conduct an inquiry must, as far as possible, discriminate between the allegations on the one side and those on the other. The first thing the attention of the Government was directed to was the action of the Resident Magistrate. He presumed Mr. Lewis would admit that in considering the conduct of the Resident Magistrate they could not overlook his antecedents. He (Mr. Holmes) had the honour to know something of Mr. Harvey for a long time, and up to this transaction he had never heard any charge brought against him, although he had been called upon to perform his duty under the most trying circumstances. Not very long ago Mr. Harvey received in the discharge of his duty a very serious wound, which incapacitated him from work for several months. It was only very recently he had returned to his post. This Resident Magistrate had again and again to act under very trying circumstances, and so far as the Government had been able to ascertain had always performed his duty in a most satisfactory manner; and the Government were satisfied that on the occasion in question he had performed his duty in endeavouring to preserve the peace with discretion and promptitude. In a city like Derry it was obvious that at a time when considerable Party excite- ment prevailed there would be danger in a contested election unless the greatest precautions were taken, and accordingly four or five days before the date fixed for the election a meeting of magistrates was held, and it was determined, with a view of preserving the peace, to issue a Proclamation prohibiting processions and band-playing in the streets of Derry on the day of the election. It was said that there was no legal authority for that Proclamation; but it must be admitted that it was unquestionably the duty of the magistrates to take such steps as they might consider necessary to prevent a breach of the peace; and as in their judgment processions would be likely to lead to collisions between rival parties, it would be in the power of the magistrates, and would, moreover, be their duty, to prohibit such processions. The Proclamation prohibiting processions was accordingly issued, and it seemed to him that the Resident Magistrate would have been neglecting his duty and incurring a very grave responsibility had he not endeavoured to enforce that Proclamation. If he had, under the circumstances, neglected to carry out the Proclamation, he (Mr. Holmes) did not see how it would be possible to justify his conduct. Well, it was announced that a band was going to play in the public thoroughfares, and Mr. Harvey came to the conclusion that the action of the band was a violation of the Proclamation, and he accordingly took measures to prevent the band marching and playing through the streets. An order was given to the police to prevent the band playing in the street; but the police were under the command of their own officers, and the magistrate was not responsible for the manner in which they carried out their duties. In like manner, when the excitement occurred in front of the hotel, Mr. Harvey gave an order to clear the streets; but the order was carried out also by the police under their own officers, and he did not think any charge of illegality or improper conduct could be made out against Mr. Harvey. Resident Magistrates in critical times were in a very trying position. They had to judge for themselves according to the circumstances of each case, and they had to make up their minds at a moment's notice, and therefore some allowance should be made for errors of judgment. But in this case he (Mr. Holmes) did not see any ground whatever for censuring the conduct of Mr. Harvey, who appeared to have acted with great judgment and moderation throughout, and when he considered that the police were using unnecessary violence interfered to restrain them. The Bishop of Derry and the hon. Member who had brought this subject forward alleged that the constables were guilty of unwarrantable violence. Well, Mr. Harvey himself was of opinion that some of the men used their truncheons too freely; and if it were possible to identify them their conduct would certainly be made the subject of inquiry. It had, however, been found impossible to identify them. Besides, a good deal of allowance must be made for men acting under the very trying circumstances in which the police constables were placed when engaged in the endeavour to clear the streets of a hostile crowd; and he was free to confess that though he had himself seen policemen act with what he considered at the time was unnecessary violence, he had, on calmer reflection, come to the conclusion that there were not many men to be found who, under the circumstances, would have acted differently. It should be remembered, in considering a question of this sort, that very often what appeared to lookers-on as very violent, as even unnecessary and brutal violence, was, after all, by no means such a serious affair as it looked. It in reality bore a more serious aspect to lookers-on than to those engaged in it. At all events, such appeared to be the case in respect to the action of the police in Derry. No doubt there was a violent rush of the police, who charged the people, and onlookers might naturally think that terrible injuries were being inflicted upon the crowd. But in such cases as this the only way of ascertaining whether or not the amount of violence really used was too great was to judge by the results. They had to ascertain what injuries had been inflicted upon the people in the crowd. Well, judged in this way the conduct of the police at Derry could not have been so violent as some people alleged. The only serious result of the disturbance was the injury received by one man. This injury was much to be regretted; but fortunately it was only of a temporary character, and the individual who suffered it was able to leave the hospital in four days. Having regard to the fact that there was only one case of anything approaching to serious injury, he was inclined to believe that the violence alleged to have been used was not so great as it appeared to be. The Government had come to the conclusion that it would be inexpedient, inadvisable, and indeed unjust, to pass the least censure upon the Resident Magistrate, or upon the conduct of the police whilst engaged in carrying out the order they received. Under all the circumstances, therefore, he thought it much better now to let the matter drop. The election was over and the excitement was over, and there was no useful purpose to serve in keeping up the discussion.

said, it must be admitted that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, if he had erred in this matter at all, had erred on the side of civility. He had never in his experience known an Attorney General who was so civil towards a man who had revolted against the law and did his best to provoke a riot. He (Mr. Sexton) could not help thinking that if anyone on that side of the House—any Nationalist—had delivered excited speeches, and endeavoured to provoke the people to riot, and then had the immeasurable audacity to rise in his place in that House and denounce the administration of the law, which, despite his efforts, had succeeded in maintaining the peace, the right hon. and learned Gentleman's words would have partaken more of the forcible than the feeble strain. Some reference had been made to the Protestant Bishop of Derry. He had no desire to detract from the merits that might belong to him; but if, instead of being the Protestant Bishop of Derry, he had been a Catholic priest, say, named Fahy, and if instead of using language calculated to incite to breaches of the peace he had endeavoured to help some poor people in Ireland to retain possession of their holdings there; instead of being eulogized in that House, he would have been called upon to find sureties for his good behaviour under a Statute passed 500 years ago for the better management of rogues and vagabonds. Well, he would leave the Bishop of Derry to obtain whatever satisfaction he could from the contemplation of his own conduct in this matter. The hon. Member for Derry thought fit to rebuke the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for inattention, and the right hon. Gentleman met the rebuke by walking out of the House.

I was summoned to a Cabinet Council.

said, he thought no Cabinet Council could have been so important as to have taken him away from the House when the hon. Member was impeaching the conduct of a magistrate. It was, however, creditable to the right hon. Gentleman, as a respectable man, not to wish to be mixed up with the conduct of the hon. Member for Derry on the 6th of July. The hon. Member himself had not, indeed, been in any great hurry to justify his character or conduct. This affair took place on the 6th of July. The House met for Business on the 19th of August, and there had been many opportunities for discussion which the hon. Member had not taken advantage of. He might have used his opportunity in the debate on the Address. He put down a Motion against the Motion that the Speaker leave the Chair; but he let the opportunity go by. He put a Motion against the Constabulary Votes; but he let the opportunity go by. He put a Motion against the reading of the Appropriation Bill; but he postponed that until the last day was reached; and then he put the Motion in such a form that it was impossible for him to divide the House upon it. He left hon.Memberstojudge for themselves whether the hon. Member for Derry might have held the sneaking hope that he might, in the long run, have been deprived of any opportunity of vindicating his character at all. Those Members of the House who knew anything of the city of Derry knew that the readiest means of getting up a riot was to employ a band to go into the streets and play certain Party tunes. "Croppies Lie Down," "We'll Kick the Pope Before Us," or some such conciliatory tune, could be warranted to get up a riot in five minutes. Well, the city of Derry had been noted for riots and breaches of the peace, and the hon. Member had been equally noted as being the principal figure in providing incitements to riot in that city. On the 6th of July there was a contested Election, and the hon. Member's counsel declared that "the men of Derry would wade up to their necks in blood" rather than that a Parnellite should be returned. The Mayor of Derry was a friend of the hon. Member, and on the election day there appeared to have been going on a process which was known in America as "counting in" a candidate. The Mayor, in accordance with that process, "counted in" the hon. Member by a majority of 103. Well, wind having been got of what was going on, that count was called in question. A second count was then made, with the result of a tie. Of course, that was not satisfactory to the Mayor or the hon. Member, and a third count was instituted, when the hon. Member was "counted in" by a majority of three. The result of all this manœuvring was indescribable excitement in the city. It was generally felt that the Mayor had been playing fast and loose with the voting papers, and the excitement under the circumstances was natural. Under these circumstances the Proclamation prohibiting the appearance of bands of music in the streets was absolutely necessary if the peace was to be preserved. Anyone who knew Derry—who was not, like the hon. Member, a foreigner, but who was a native of Ireland—would know that the inevitable result of bringing a band into the street under such circumstances of excitement to play Party tunes must create a riot. But those peculiar people, the so-called loyal administrators of the law, who obeyed the law so long only as it ministered to their own Party and private passions, the magistrates of the city, Messrs. Pollock and Wilde, denounced the Proclamation, and organized a band to go into the streets and play music in defiance of it. The hon. Member said there was no impact between the rival crowds; but there was no impact because there were bodies of soldiers and police between them. Well, the band went into the street, and the Resident Magistrate went and told the band to disperse, when the two magistrates named came up to him and abused him in the presence of the excited crowd. Then came the scene upon the steps of the hotel, where the hon. Member for Derry was shouting and gesticulating violently, and these guardians of the law were shaking their fists at the police, and crying out "Morley's murderers." Had it not been for a happy inspiration of his (Mr. Sexton's) friend Mr. James O'Doherty, who at this juncture called to the Nationalists to follow him to the League Rooms, the result would probably have been very serious. When this excitement was high, the hon. Member for Derry went to a window and delivered the speech which had to-day been recited by the right hon. Member for Newcastle-on-Tyne. He (Mr. Sexton) had before challenged him across the floor of the House for having called the stipendiary magistrate a scoundrel and a rascal. He denied it; but that was only a further proof of the audacity of the hon. Member. The report read by the right hon. Gentleman said that the hon. Member came to the window, and, shaking his finger, called out—"Harvey, you rascal, why do you not disperse the mob below?" He wondered how the hon. Member could come and impeach the administrator of the law, or that he could ask that an official inquiry should be held. Well, an official inquiry would presently be held; but it would be as to whether the hon. Member was really the Member for Derry at all. The only inquiry which, in his opinion, would meet the requirements of the case, would be one in which a Judge or a magistrate should be on the Bench and the hon. Member for Derry in the dock. He found the general impression amongst impartial persons to be that if on that day the hon. Member had got knocked on the head by a bâton, or pricked through the rails to a moderate extent, he would have got what he richly deserved.

said, that representing as he did a constitu- ency of South Essex, largely composed of sailors and fishermen, who were adversely affected by the laws relating to salvage, he begged to call attention to Vote 27. These men exercised their calling in the estuary of the Thames and the flats of the North Sea. On those flats there were great numbers of derelicts; but the men were not allowed to claim an amount of salvage which would pay them for their labour. The result was that wrecks were not salved at all, that they impeded the mouth of the Thames, and that the loss to the owners was severe. He would ask whether it would not be possible to modify the laws relating to the subject so that sailors who effected a salvage might have 50 instead of 30 per cent?

called attention to the work of the School Board of Glasgow, with the view of meeting some statements which had been made by the hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Caldwell) in Committee the other night, and which had caused a considerable amount of irritation in Glasgow. His hon. Friend told the Committee—

I must remind the hon. Gentleman that he is not entitled, when the Speaker is in the Chair, to refer to a speech made in Committee of this Session.

said, he at once bowed to the Speaker's ruling. He had wished simply to state a few facts in connection with the School Board system in Glasgow. It had been alleged that the School Board were not giving effect to the Compulsory Clauses of the Act of 1872. But the records of that Board showed that they had had meetings with parents whose children were not at school, and that the number of children represented by these parents and dealt with by the Board was between 30,000 and 40,000, while at present the Board were meeting 100 such parents every week. When the Act was passed the population within the area of the Glasgow School Board was calculated to be 513,000. Striking the average between the Registrar General's figures and those of the Sanitary Authorities, it was supposed that the population last year would not exceed 533,000. Now, the number of scholars in attendance in 1873, the year after the Act was passed, was, in round numbers, 43,000. The increase of population since allowed for a proportionate increase of not more than 2,500. Last year the number of children in attendance was 68,000; and if there was any error in getting up these statistics now, he would point out that the error would also be in the statistics for the former period, because the statistics were got up by the same Board and by the same machinery; and, therefore, the action of the Compulsory Clause had resulted in an increase of more than 22,000 scholars—a result which he thought was very satisfactory, and which went to prove that the Act was being properly worked. He believed, moreover, that the Roman Catholic and other outside schools were securing a proportionate increase of attendance. With regard to another point to which reference had been made, it was notorious that the ratepayers of the City of Glasgow were those who were engaged in business there. They might live outside, but they paid the rates inside, and were quite entitled to send their children to the Board schools in the city. It was quite a mistake to suppose that the Board had aimed at suppressing private schools, or were catering specially for the education of the middle and upper classes. In respect to the endowments of the City of Glasgow, which it was said had been taken away from the poorer classes, it must be borne in mind that they were managed under separate Boards entirely, and that the Glasgow School Board was in no way responsible for the altered condition of things if there was any grievance in connection therewith. He thought these facts showed that the Glasgow School Board was doing admirable work; and he saw no cause for complaint in connection with its management. It was a popularly-elected Board, and thoroughly under the control of the ratepayers; and, therefore, he could not understand why there should be any ground for complaint. He would be very glad if the Secretary for Scotland could see his way to support a movement for improving secondary education; but, generally speaking, he wished it to be understood that they had an admirable system of education in Scotland, and he did not think they should disturb it at present. The existing system ought to be allowed to work itself out some time longer before they meddled with it; and he believed the results would show, as they had done in the past, a large improvement in education. In Glasgow, in the last 35 years, the system of education had been greatly developed. Thousands of children for whom formerly there was no room had now abundant facilities for attending school, and the Compulsory Clause was bringing in a great number of children who otherwise would get no education. The School Board of Glasgow was doing its work well, gentlemen of the highest position giving up their time for the purpose; and he would be sorry if an impression got abroad that it was thought the Scotch system was not what it ought to be. He hoped, as he had said before, that the Scotch Secretary would let the system work itself out.

said, he was not going to enter into the general question of the School Board system; but he was glad the hon. Member for Mid Lanark had an opportunity of obtaining official information and endeavouring to rebut any statement that had been made on the previous occasion. They could not, he understood, go back on all that had passed in Committee; but he supposed he might refer to what he himself had said, or, at all events, repeat what he then said. Since the matter was discussed, his statements had been before the Glasgow public and the Glasgow School Board; and as the hon. Member for Mid Lanark evidently held a brief for the School Board, he might be allowed to reply to what that hon. Gentleman had said. It so happened that the points which he (Mr. Caldwell) regarded as material had not been answered at all. What were the real facts? They were these. That they had in Glasgow 91,000 children between 5 and 13; and that there were only 51,000 in full average attendance, while 40,000 were daily absent. That statement had not been contradicted, and in face of it, it could not be said that the Glasgow School Board was efficiently carrying out the Compulsory Clauses of the Act. More than that, he had pointed out that, whereas in all Scotland they had 66·7 of the children between 5 and 13 in daily average attendance, in Glas- gow the percentage was only 56. Glasgow, therefore, was 10 per cent below the whole of Scotland; and what he complained of was that Members of the Scotch Education Departmentcame down and made statements that everything in Glasgow was highly satisfactory. The hon. Member for Mid Lanark had not contradicted the public statements made in that House, which, he said, were creating a great deal of indignation. Another complaint he had to make was that, while the Glasgow School Board was undoubtedly doing a great deal of good work, what they were doing was principally for the benefit of the middle and upper classes. In Glasgow there were only 1,255 children attending private schools who paid over 9d. per week. The hon. Member for Mid Lanark said the Board schools were so well managed that they were able to undertake this work. But that was not the explanation. The explanation was that they had an unlimited local grant and a large Imperial grant, and with these and the school fees they were able to drive out all private competition. It was not the education they gave, but the lavish, amount of money at their command which enabled them to do this. When he made the remark that the middle and upper classes were receiving the benefit of the Board schools, the reply of the hon. Member for Mid Lanark was, "No." When they found, however, that the average attendance was only 56 per cent, they might be certain that the middle and upper class children would be there almost to a boy, and that the deficiency would be found among the poorer classes, which represented a much larger percentage than that of all those attending school. He would only say this—that if, as the hon. Member for Mid Lanark said, the Glasgow School Board were doing a great work among the children for whom the Act was intended, the fact still remained that the children were not in the schools. There were a great number of other points to which he would like to refer; but he confined himself to the one which had been referred to, and he repeated that none of his statements had been contradicted.

said, he wished on behalf of the city—one division of which he represented—to thank his hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lanark (Mr. Mason) for the protest he had made against the complaints which had been directed against the School Board. He thought the House would recognize in the speech that was delivered by the hon. Member for the St. Rollox Division of Glasgow (Mr. Caldwell) symptoms of a mind which was a little too much strained on one point, and which was hardly practically directed to any question of material importance. It would be found, if the documents of the Glasgow School Board were investigated, that the question which the hon. Member had brought before the House was never absent from. the consideration of the Glasgow School Board, and that they did not need to be instructed either in what they should do in the matter, or in the view they should take of the shortcomings of their administration. They knew perfectly well they had to deal with most peculiar circumstances—the circumstances of a population in which it was in the highest degree difficult, either by compulsion or other means, to obtain the regular attendance of considerable proportions of the juvenile community; and they were, on the whole, satisfied that they were doing their best. He wished to bear testimony to the views of his constituency that the Board had succeeded as far as circumstances permitted, and that they had not been successfully accused of any deficiencies in the machinery they applied, or in their endeavours to apply it. He trusted the Secretary for Scotland would continue to take this view of the matter, and he was not likely to fall into the error which the hon. Member for the St. Rollox Division appeared to be guilty of—namely, of overlooking the very peculiar circumstances of the case, and of applying a test and criterion to the efficiency of the Glasgow School Board which was not just.

said, that this was the last phase of a battle that had long been waged between the hon. Member for the St. Rollox Division of Glasgow and the School Board of that city. It was not his business to pronounce on the statistics that had been brought before the House. He did not know that he had the materials for dealing satisfactorily with the question. If the School Board had failed in their duty as much as the hon. Member appeared to think they had, he should doubt whether the Department over which he presided had any power of complaint in the matter. It would be sufficient for him to say—what the hon. Member for St. Rollox did not deny—that the School Board consisted of a most energetic, public-spirited, and able body of gentlemen; that they devoted a vast amount of their time and trouble to the solution of this great educational question; and that they had to deal with circumstances of extreme difficulty—difficulties greater than those that obtained in country districts—with which a comparison had been instituted. Having said so much he thought he might leave that matter to be discussed by the Glasgow School Board when the facts and figures of the hon. Member for St. Rollox were presented to them, as he understood they would be, in an authenticated and complete form. There was an accusation against the School Board, however, on which he must be allowed to say a word or two. The hon. Member for St. Rollox had told them that the School Board were devoting the rates to the education of the richer classes in the community. On the proper solution of that most difficult question he was not going to say anything; but he would remind the hon. Member that the Glasgow School Board was a popularly elected body, and that the working classes of Glasgow had it in their power to alter its constitution entirely. Therefore, if they thought that the public funds were being diverted from the use of the poor to the use of the rich, it rested with the poor majority to put that state of things right. The hon. Member for Mid Lanark (Mr. Mason) referred to the question of secondary education; and he (Mr. A. J. Balfour) might remind him of the fact that the Government had quite recently taken an important step in this direction by arranging for the Government inspection of secondary schools. That, he thought, was a great step in advance. The subject was one that must attract the attention of the Scotch Minister for Education; and he could assure the House it was one of those subjects to which he was devoting himself as far as possible.

, who had the following Notice on the Paper:—

"To move, That it is expedient to appoint a Royal Commission, with full power to take evidence, to afford protection to witnesses, and to report on all matters that may be referred to them in connection with the charges which have been so constantly and so persistently brought forward against certain branches of the War Department,"

said, the powers which he now asked for had been conferred with great advantage upon previous Commissions, as, for example, various Election Petitions, and the Sheffield Commission, which was appointed to inquire into the infamous practices known as "rattening," which disgraced that town some years ago. There were cases, he contended, in which the powers conveyed by his Motion were absolutely necessary; and surely the case to inquire into the charges against the War Department was one in point. It was always desirable to possess such powers when an inquiry was being made into alleged official or other corruption. He was very far from suggesting that the charges of this nature which had been brought against the War Department were true; but he could imagine cases, such as those of contractors and others whose dealings were impugned, in which full and satisfactory inquiry could not be made unless those powers were conferred. It could not be expected that any contractor would come forward and give evidence without being first assured, under proper conditions, of protection. Therefore, for the sake of having a full inquiry, it was absolutely necessary that the Commission appointed to investigate the charges made against the War Department should be endowed with powers of this description. Again, everyone who had been engaged in such inquiries knew the enormous difficulty sometimes experienced in obtaining the truth without taking evidence on oath. It was not necessary at all times to administer the oath; but the fact that it could be administered when the necessity arose would greatly strengthen the hands of the Commission. He, therefore, contended that the Commission should be endowed with the power of taking evidence on oath if they deemed it necessary. He apprehended that the Secretary of State for War, in appointing the Commission, had absolute faith in the discretion and judgment of its Members. If that were so, why should the right hon. Gentleman object to conferring the powers asked for in the Resolution? An eminent Judge had been appointed to serve as Chairman of the Commission, and he (Sir Henry Tyler) thought that the refusal to give these powers would be thought to imply some distrust in that high functionary, and in the Commission itself. Surely the right hon. Gentleman was not afraid of the Commission possessing this discretionary power. If the powers to protect witnesses and to examine witnesses on oath were not given, would it not be possible to place it in the power of those who brought the charges to say, afterwards, that they had not had fair play on the Commission? Would they not say that they were unable to bring forward their charges, that and they had no opportunity of proving their case? Therefore, he held that it was desirable that if they had a case it should be inquired into fully and thoroughly. Though, of course, he did not know of his own knowledge what position those who made allegations were in with regard to proof, at all events he considered they should be afforded an opportunity of proving their case; and if they were unable to prove it, then let them be hanged upon the highest moral gibbet that could be provided for them. The charges made were twofold. First, it was alleged that the Government had provided inefficient warlike supplies and stores; and if this were the case, as there was too much reason to fear, it was only right that the attention of the Department should be called to the fact, so that the Administration might be improved. He was afraid that in the near future they might have wars of a serious nature. There were clouds arising in the East of a most threatening character. How could we expect our soldiers and sailors to fight to the best advantage without having trusty weapons, proper food, and suitable provision? How could we expect great results from our Navy if the guns with which it was armed were more dangerous to those standing at their side or behind them than they were to those in front of them? How could our soldiers make the best use of their weapons if the projectiles with which they were loaded "jammed" in action? How could our Cavalry be well mounted unless they were supplied with saddles or other equipment of good materials and approved pattern? He had no doubt most hon. Members had read the report of the scandalous neglect which had occurred during the Egyptian Campaign, when it was proved before a Parliamentary Committee that the hay supplied was rotten and useless, and was full of bricks, stones, old iron, and wisps of straw; the flour supplied would not make good bread; and out of £13,900 paid for flour there was a loss amounting to £5,476. Those were matters into which there should be a full and impartial inquiry; but that inquiry could not be satisfactory unless the Royal Commission which he asked for were endowed with the powers set forth in his Motion, and which he now asked his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War to grant. He (Sir Henry Tyler) did not think that there could be a more unsatisfactory Report than that which emanated from so eminent a set of men as those who reported into the causes which led to the bursting of the Collingwood gun. A more unsatisfactory Report he had never read. Indeed, it was what might be called a reductio ad absurdum Report. If that Report were to be relied upon and depended upon, it would lead to the apprehension that there was not a gun now in the Navy which was suitable for the service. However, he thought he had shown cause enough why the complaints and charges which had been made should be thoroughly investigated and fully threshed out. He, for one, until the serious charges of corruption that had been made had been proved, would not believe them. He was much struck with the statement made the other night by the late Secretary of State for War (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) to the effect that when he was in Office he had been pestered by the officers of the War Department to allow such an inquiry to be undertaken, and he could quite understand that any Department against which, such serious charges had been made ought to be willing and anxious to submit to a full and satisfactory investigation in order to clear itself; and if this were fairly done it would have the effect, on disproof of the charges, of throwing obloquy upon those who had ventured to make statements which were proved untrue. Unless the Commission to be appointed were granted the full powers he asked for, he felt convinced that its limited powers and authority must deprive it of the great weight which it ought to have. He thought that the Minister for War should, for this reason, grant a full and searching inquiry; and if this were conceded the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would not be pestered to the extent he now was for complete and thorough investigation. It was necessary, in the interest of the country and of the Service and of the Department involved, that the inquiry should take place without delay, and that the Commission should not have to wait for another Session to ask for further powers. Let there be no desire whatever to conceal the truth; and in order to prevent all suspicion of this the Minister for War should make certain that the inquiry about to be held should be a full, fair, and impartial inquiry, so that it might be admitted afterwards with universal consent that justice had been done.

said, he desired to add a few words to what had been said in support of a thorough inquiry by the Royal Commission on Military Administration. The real state of the matter did not appear to be thoroughly appreciated by those who had authority to deal with it. The Government were not at all meeting the case which had been brought before the public and the House by calling upon the gallant officer whose name had been mentioned to take upon himself the burden of making a public attack upon certain persons who he believed ought to be assailed. It was a task of the highest chivalry to attack what was believed to be an almost organized band of corruptors, and a man might very well be excused from undertaking such a task. He had never seen Colonel Hope till the other day, when he desired to find out the real charges that had been made. That distinguished officer had made public charges of corruption, conspiracy, and favouritism, and he had put them in the form of a statutory declaration. It was alleged to be the consequence of this corruption that we had cartridges jammed, bayonets that bent, and swords that broke and would not cut. It was vital to the public interests that we should get at the bottom of the matter. It was said the charges were not sufficiently definite; but nothing could be more definite than the charges of corruption, favouritism, and conspiracy. They were face to face with this. Charges of a grave character were made; and they were told by Colonel Hope that if a Commission were appointed, with power to grant certificates of indemnity, he would undertake to prove the facts from the mouths of unwilling witnesses. The answer which the Government gave to that was that they would give a Commission, but not a Commission with the necessary powers. That was a kind of thing that could not be allowed to go on. There would be plenty of time during the coming Vacation, short though it might be, to carry on the inquiry by a Commission having proper powers. Charges had been flung broadcast by Colonel Hope, which, if they could not be justified, ought to cause him to be held up, not merely to ridicule, but almost to public infamy. But to ask a private individual to fight single-handed with these charges against high-placed officials who were not made known to the country or the Government was to ask something which in these days even the most chivalrous might be excused from undertaking. If the Government did not give the Commission the necessary powers to investigate these charges they would be charged with burking the inquiry, though he was sure there was no such intention on their part. They would be charged with stifling an inquiry which was of the most vital importance to the country. What he appealed to the Government to do was to adopt the same machinery that had been adopted in the case of Sheffield, and that was still in force at the hearing of Election Petitions, in order to get at the bottom of these terrible charges—charges so vital to the country.

asked the House to allow him, in a few words, to put before them a true statement of facts in this matter, and to point out how extraordinary and utterly unprecedented was the demand now made upon the Government in reference to the Royal Commission. The demand made was that powers should be given to this Royal Commission, in addition to the power of summoning witnesses, to indemnify the witnesses against their own misconduct which they might disclose. That power was only given in the rarest cases. It was only under the most exceptional circumstances and in the strongest possible case that any such powers ought to be given; and he would point out to the hon. and learned Member who had just spoken that he had failed absolutely to show the slightest ground for inducing the Government to give such powers to the Commission in this case. With regard to the precedent of the Sheffield Commission, the case was one where during 20 years outrages had been going on against working men, and both masters and workmen combined together to ask Parliament for these special powers, and they were only granted after strong protest in both Houses. They were granted not to protect misconduct in the past, but to prevent outrages in the future. In the case, also, of Election Petitions the powers were given for the purpose of insuring purity of election in the future in the particular towns concerned. He could say, without fear of contradiction, that there was no case in which such an indemnity had been asked for or granted, except where there had been sound and substantial grounds laid before Parliament of existing and known evils which could only be met and dealt with by the machinery of a Commission having such powers. He only wished that the hon. and learned Member had taken a little more pains to find out from Colonel Hope what the real gist of the case made by these three gentlemen was. Instead of there being before the Government any allegation showing that this wholesale corruption and conspiracy existed, or anything to justify them in putting men who had been 25 years in the Service upon their trial, three men, and three only—Mr. Armit, Colonel Hope, and Mr. Lynall Thomas—had, in Memorials which he might, without disclosing anything, say were singularly alike, alleged in general terms that this corruption and this conspiracy existed. Acting on the advice of the Solicitor General and himself, the Secretary of State for War had stated to these gentlemen that if they would in confidence give name, date, and circumstance, he would undertake to investigate the matter himself. The Government required no one to push them on in this matter. What was the answer received? These gentlemen, who had been so willing at no risk to themselves to bandy about these kind of charges, had declined to do so, because the information was only communicated to them on condition that they would not disclose it except to a Royal Commission possessing the power to indemnify the witnesses. Would the House, for a moment, be justified in paying attention to charges so made against well-tried servants who had served under successive Secretaries of State for War? He thought that any Government would be justified in saying that they declined to take this extraordinary step—a step which was only justified under circumstances of the greatest necessity—without having before them that primâ facie case, that evidence which would justify any lawyer in framing a charge. There was nothing in any one of these allegations which could have enabled any charge to be framed, either civil or criminal, against the persons supposed to be implicated. Colonel Hope had the remedy in his own hands. That gentleman was able to put the people of this country in possession of what he had made known to the Secretary of State for War. He had, however, a shrewd suspicion that Colonel Hope, who had, through the hon. and learned Gentleman, stated that he was not prepared to carry on this fight single-handed, was desirous to get these statements made through a Government official, so that a plea of privilege could be set up, and that he dared not place his charges before his countrymen, though he had been willing enough to send them through secret channels, where they would not be made public. It was perfectly well known that some of the transactions referred to happened as far back as 25 years ago—transactions which, as was also known, had been inquired into at the time, and had been found to furnish no facts upon which the Government could proceed. Three gentlemen had made these charges. First, there was Mr. Armit. The House knew that at this moment there was an action for libel pending in which the firm of Sir William Armstrong were plaintiffs and Mr. Armit the defendant, and in which the sub- stantial matter of the charges was to be the subject of discussion. With regard to Mr. Lynall Thomas, it was well known to the House that he was a gentleman who had a grievance against the Government for a great many years, which he had made the subject of a petition of right before Chief Baron Kelly and a special jury, and the Courts of Law had decided against him. In the case of Colonel Hope, also, it was common knowledge that he was one of those gentlemen who considered that he had been hardly treated by the Department because it had not adopted his gun. He ventured to think that when this matter came to be inquired into there would not be much difficulty in the Royal Commission getting at the real truth. It had been stated that the proposed inquiry would be absolutely abortive unless the indemnity asked for was given. Why the hon. Members had made that assertion, and on what grounds, he was at a loss to conceive, because they both said that they had no knowledge of the charges. But if a tithe of what Colonel Hope put into general language—such as "wholesale conspiracy," "organized band of corruptors," and "conspiracy between the highest officials"—existed, the Royal Commission would have no difficulty whatever in finding the facts out. The Government had, moreover, provided against any possibility of a miscarriage of justice. By the terms of the Commission an express direction had been given that if the Commissioners found that they could not get at the truth and desired to have further powers they were to apply to the Government to give them. One of the ablest Judges on the Bench had charge of the matter; and if a case should arise in which a witness refused to give evidence which might incriminate him, there might be the colour of a foundation for granting the special powers asked for. Full powers could be given without an Act of Parliament, although, of course, a Royal Commission could not commit for contempt. He ventured to say that those responsible in the matter, and particularly the Secretary of State for War, had gone to the fullest extent, under the circumstances, having regard to the vague charges which had been made. The Government had not issued the Commission to Colonel Hope. It had issued the Commis- sion because the Government recognized the existence of a state of things which called for inquiry; it was certain that some guns burst and that some stores were not satisfactory. It had, therefore, been determined early in the Session that there should be the fullest investigation. He only wished that the hon. and gallant and the hon. and learned Members who had spoken had the same knowledge of the facts of the case as had the Government. He only hoped that the House and the country might have an opportunity of judging of the nature of the charges made, and of the language in which those charges were couched. He must say, what the Secretary of State for War had said more than once, that it would be very strange if Colonel Hope, having made it a condition that the document should be returned on the 10th of September, were to put it in his pocket and let nothing more be heard about it. If Colonel Hope made these charges he must bear the penalty. It was only fair that anyone who made such charges should bear the penalty. The outside that the Government could do was to give an opportunity to persons to bring forward their complaints before the Royal Commission; but they could not go out of their way to libel servants, against whom they knew nothing, for the purpose of protecting those who stabbed in the dark. It would be an abuse of their power, and, in fact, unprecedented, to grant the Commission power to indemnify witnesses. He was sure the hon. Gentlemen who had brought this subject forward had no other object in view than that it might be fully and fairly understood by the public; but he must repeat that no further steps could be taken as long as men declined to give names and circumstances connected with the charge.

said, he felt it his duty again to call the attention of the House to the case of Father Fahy, who was lying in prison without trial by the direct action of the Attorney General for Ireland. He believed that Father Fahy was as innocent of the charges preferred against him as any man in that House. He must say that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had on a former occasion treated him with scant courtesy when he asked what steps he had taken to ascertain the facts. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said he had taken none, but had acted on the information of Mr. Lewis. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had also stated that he had no jurisdiction, and that it was a simple case for the magistrates to adjudicate upon of their own free will. But the fact was there never was a person committed to gaol in Ireland under the Act of Edward III., except by the direct action of the authorities in Dublin without consulting the Resident Magistrates on the question of bail at all. That was a matter of notoriety. The magistrates were never left to their own discretion in such matters, and he was astonished at the Attorney General for Ireland attempting to mislead the House. The right hon. and learned Gentleman admitted that Father Fahy had been sent to gaol owing to the pressure of Mr. Blake, the Sessional Crown Prosecutor for Galway, who was also Mr. Lewis's private law agent. He was the man who proceeded against the very tenants whom Father Fahy was trying to get terms for. And what security had the people there that this was not a conspiracy—as he believed it was a conspiracy—entered into between Mr. Lewis and his own private law agent, who was, at the same time, agent for the Attorney General as Sessional Crown Prosecutor? A more scandalous travesty of justice could not be imagined. Father Fahy denied that he had said a single word about dynamite. He had received the following telegram from the rev. gentleman yesterday in reply to a question as to whether any evidence was brought against him:—

"No evidence whatever was brought. I absolutely deny using the language imputed. It is a baseless fabrication. Blake tried to have me sent to gaol, and Blake is Lewis's private law agent."

He had also a telegram from Father Fahy's solicitor saying the same thing, and he had confirmation of that fact from several other sources. The facts were very simple. The rule was taken by direction of the Castle at the solicitation of Mr. Lewis, whose law agent overruled the discretion of the magistrates, and no attempt was made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman to inquire into the truth of the charge. What he wanted to know was whether this unfortunate man was to be left in gaol for six months without trial on a charge which he asserted to be false—a trumped-up conspiracy between the landlord and his private law agent, and was no investigation to be held and no justice done?

said, he hoped that hon. Members would acquit him of discourtesy if he declined to re-enter at length into this case. The House was aware that it had been discussed three times already, and at very considerable length on the Estimates, and on that occasion he had made four speeches on this very subject. The statement which he made then was the only statement which he could make now. That statement was the foundation of this prosecution, and he assured the House that he had acted in the case as it had been the custom for every Public Prosecutor to act in similar circumstances. Every prosecution was based upon a complaint made by the person who considered himself aggrieved. Having ascertained that there was a primâ facie case against Father Fahy, he instructed the Sessional Crown Solicitor, the only officer he could employ, to proceed in the ordinary manner.

said, the Crown Solicitor pressed for a rule of bail in opposition to the express wish of the presiding magistrate.

replied, that the case was not one of bail in the ordinary sense of the word, and it was perfectly well known that when a case was not returned for trial the Crown Solicitor could only act in one way. In this case Father Fahy was not returned for trial. [An hon. MEMBER: Why?] Why, it might be that he was perfectly justified in not giving bail; but the Crown did not oppose an application for bail. On the contrary, the Crown invited Father Fahy to give bail, and he refused to do so. The case had been heard in the ordinary way, and, a decision having been given, the Attorney General had no more power to interfere than was possessed by any other Member of that House.

said, he quite agreed that this was a question now rather for the Go- vernment than for the Public Prosecutor. The case really was one which the Chief Secretary for Ireland must deal with, because it involved the Prerogative of the Crown. This was a matter in which there was a very strong feeling, not only among Members below the Gangway, but also among many Members sitting above the Gangway. He had looked into the case, and he had come strongly to the conviction that gross injustice had been done. No English lawyer, no English magistrate, no English gentleman could look into this case without coming to the same conclusion. If a case of this kind were to occur in England, and if an English clergyman in such circumstances was sent to prison upon the evidence of a gentleman as to what took place in private between them, and if this clergyman was dealt with as Father Fahy had been dealt with, he ventured to say that there would be the strongest indignation felt throughout the country, and that the Government would be compelled to interfere in the matter. The facts of the case were very simple. The case all turned upon what took place at a private meeting between Father Fahy and Mr. Lewis. There was no corroborative evidence of what took place and what either of them said on the occasion. Father Fahy absolutely denied that he used any language of the kind imputed to him. In Court, Mr. Lewis was allowed to give evidence; but Father Fahy was not able to give evidence on oath, and Mr. Lewis's evidence was not corroborated in any single particular. It was said that the Crown Solicitor exercised undue pressure to induce the magistrate to order Father Fahy to give bail for his good behaviour. It was also said that this solicitor acted as agent for Mr. Lewis, and was, therefore, interested personally in the matter. He had no desire to make an imputation of that kind in a case in which he had no knowledge whatever of the parties, and it would be most improper for him to make any observations upon the charge; but it was most unfortunate that there should be that relation between Mr. Lewis and the Crown Solicitor, because it gave rise to imputations which might have no foundation. Father Fahy could be let out of prison by giving bail; but he naturally said that if he took that course it would be to admit the justice of the charge made against him, and, therefore, he declined to take that course. He was very much struck by what Father Fahy said to the representative of a Dublin newspaper, who interviewed him—"He said if he gave bail he would be tacitly admitting the truth of the charge against him; he would be admitting that his defence was a falsehood; he would be damaging his character as a minister of religion; and he would be sacrificing the truth in order to escape from prison." That was the language of an honourable gentleman, and he ventured to think that any honourable gentleman would take precisely the same position, and would decline to give bail. If he did otherwise he would be admitting that he committed a very serious offence. [Cries of "No, no!"] Some hon. Gentlemen said "No." He ventured to ask hon. Gentlemen present whether they would not take thes ame course? He could not but think that the Government, in view of this whole case, would be acting wisely in releasing Father Fahy. Unless they did so he would be in prison six months, for he could not now admit he was wrong. He was quite sure that the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, when he sat below the Gangway, interested himself in cases of this kind, would, if he had been sitting there now, have brought this question before the House, and expressed an opinion as strong as that which he had expressed. He would only add, in conclusion, that it was his conviction that an injustice had been done, and that the Government would do well, in deference to the opinion of the Irish Members, to release Father Fahy.

said, he hoped that the Government would not signalize the last day of the Session by perpetrating such an act of weakness as that to which they were invited. [Cries of "Order!"]

The hon. Gentleman has spoken already on the Main Question.

said, the Irish Members were thankful to the right hon. Gentleman above the Gangway (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) for the public spirit which had led him to bring the weight of his authority and his powerful advocacy to bear upon the present case in the interest of justice. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had complained that this was the third time that this matter had been brought before the House. If it was not going to occupy the time of the House more than three times the reason was that the House rose that day. At every Sitting when they were able to return to this question they would return to it as often as the Rules of the House allowed them. It would be discussed not only for three, but for 33 times, and father Fahy would prove to be the most inconvenient prisoner the Irish Government ever had. Not only next Session, but the next again and succeeding Sessions, he would prove the worst prisoner the Government ever had. The right hon. and learned Gentleman complained of the number of speeches he had made; but they certainly had not improved in clearness or cogency with their repetition. What they wanted the Government to consider was whether or not they should exercise the Prerogative of the Crown in the case of Father Fahy, and release him from prison; and for that purpose he appealed to the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

said, he was informed that no Memorial had been sent to the Lord Lieutenant asking for Father Fahy's release.

continuing, said, he did not think any Memorial would be sent. Father Fahy interfered in this case in the interest of peace between landlord and tenant; and he appealed to the noble Lord whether the action of a priest in endeavouring to promote good feeling was not deserving of the sympathetic attention of the Government? The rev. gentleman's only object was to secure peace in his district, and on two previous occasions he had used his influence in the same cause. He believed that if Mr. Lewis had himself taken out the summons against Father Fahy an amicable settlement of the dispute would have been arrived at. He was led to entertain that belief in consequence of the remarks that had fallen from the Bench. But no; Mephistopheles stepped in in the person of the Crown Prosecutor, who took out the summons. The magistrates were not allowed to exercise their judgment upon the question of the guilt or innocence of Father Fahy. They were bound hand and foot. The responsible agent of the Crown called upon them not to commit the defendant for trial, but to force him to give bail under the almost obsolete Statute of Edward III. The language ascribed to Father Fahy was certainly of a grave nature. If he had admitted that he had used such language not a man on the Irish Benches would have risen up in his defence or against his sentence. But he did not admit it. He publicly pledged his faith as a clergyman that he did not use any such language; and any language that might have been considered offensive he publicly, by his solicitor, apologized for in Court. He did not imagine that it was possible for Father Fahy to do anything more than that. If the question was not six months' imprisonment, but if it was a question whether Father Fahy, by bending to this decision and giving bail would escape the scaffold, he stated his solemn impression that Father Fahy would mount the scaffold and die rather than do it. What position would he be in if he did? If he gave bail, he admitted that the demand for bail was a just one, and he posted himself in every man's sight as a liar. The demand of the Government practically was that Father Fahy must suffer imprisonment for six months, or that he must declare himself a liar, unfrock himself, and expel himself from Holy Orders. [Ministerial cries of "No, no!"] If the Catholic Members opposite would be satisfied with the administration of a priest who had so disgraced himself, the Irish Catholics never would. One word on the question of public policy. Priests like Father Fahy had in the past been the main force at the back of every Government in Ireland. The House was breaking up that day, and the Chief Secretary last night hinted that it might be necessary to call Parliament together early for the purpose of considering measures of coercion. Was that to be the last word of the Government this Session? One word from the noble Lord opposite would induce the Lord Lieutenant to look into this case. Would he forbear to speak that word? Did he not know that the only hope, under God, of the tenants was the intervention of men like Father Fahy to calm the people? Would he set this hideous example of the punishment of a priest before the people of Ireland? Would he set the stern, the fatal lesson that the man who ventured into a landlord's house for the purpose of procuring an arrangement in the interests of peace between landlord and tenant was liable to be sent to gaol for six months unless he admitted that he had been guilty of blameable conduct and found bail for his good behabiour? Such a situation was intolerable. He regarded the situation with the gravest fear and apprehension. The very landlords themselves had calmed down; the eviction campaign had been suspended. There seemed to be a prospect of peace if the Government would frankly and courageously take this case into consideration, and help them, in the name of Heaven, to keep the people under control, which they would do unless they were determined to pursue a policy of sinister exasperation. If that was the idea of the Government he had nothing more to say. If that was the idea of the Government they were going the most effectual way about it; but if, in the recesses of their hearts, they had any hope that the peace would be maintained in Ireland during the coming winter, he begged of them in the name of common sense to take the case of Father Fahy into consideration. He wished, in conclusion, to put a question to the noble Lord in reference to the Royal Hospital at Belfast. Supply was through; the Appropriation Bill was on the point of passing into law, and he thought he had a right to complain that, notwithstanding the frank statement of the noble Lord when he called attention to this case on a former occasion, no Supplementary Estimate had been presented. He asked that a grant of £800, the sum spent by the hospital managers in consequence of the riots, which were in the nature of a public calamity, should be given to this hospital out of Imperial funds.

said, he thought it was perfectly plain, from the attitude of the Government, that Father Fahy was in prison in pursuance of an arranged policy. It also seemed to him that Father Fahy was invited to Mr. Lewis's house solely for the purpose of getting up a case against him. That was the only conclusion they could come to when they reflected that Father Fahy was a man to be believed, and that Mr. Lewis was not a man to be believed. They heard last night that the Government contemplated the possibility of meeting Parliament at an earlier period for the purpose of passing further coercive legislation for Ireland. The action of the Government with regard to Father Fahy was but a preliminary canter. If that was so he might warn the Government that their prisons were too small, for they were going back to the old practice of imprisoning the most honest and the most respectable men in Ireland. The Representatives of the Irish people defied the Government, and challenged them to go on and work out their policy of immuring them in prison. Moreover, they could point with the utmost confidence to the result of that policy. It had failed before, and would fail again. The Attorney General for Ireland had complained of the number of times that this matter had been discussed; but the Irish Members had a perfect right to discuss the affairs of their country as often and as fully as they liked, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself ought to apologize for occupying his present position with so little knowledge of the country. He hoped that when the right hon. and learned Gentleman recovered his senses—when he recovered self-possession from the irritation under which he had been suffering, he hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman would, in his better nature, reflect on the matter, and that he would give an assurance to the House that it would receive more favourable consideration. At any rate, it was but right that Members should warn him of the consequences which his policy involved.

said, it seemed to him that the Government were animated by a sort of heroic zeal to prove that they made no distinction between priest and peasant. That was a very virtuous position to take up; but it was unfortunate for Father Fahy that the proof should be made on his person if he were entirely innocent of the charge laid at his door. He supposed that, as the Radical Member for the borough of Leicester, he was as little inclined to make a distinction between priest and peasant as the Tory Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr. De Lisle); but his principles on that point led him to desire that equal justice should be done, and he was sure, so far as the evidence had gone, that justice had not been done in this case. There was one point which had not been sufficiently insisted upon, and it was that the very nature of the sentence pronounced showed that the Bench of Magistrates did not entirely believe the testimony that was given. They were told that Father Fahy had practically threatened Mr. Lewis that his house would be blown up with dynamite, and that the rev. gentleman had added that he should feel it his duty to denouce Mr. Lewis from the altar. If the Bench of Magistrates believed fully this testimony, did they do their duty in merely calling upon Father Fahy to find bail? If true, did not Father Fahy's words amount practically to a threat to murder; and if a man made a threat to murder, was it sufficient to call upon him to find bail? Besides, was Father Fahy's evidence of no account? This was one of the cases which showed how much we stood in need of an alteration of the law in respect to criminal cases. When men entered into an altercation and got into a passion things were often alleged to have been said that really were not, and certainly Mr. Lewis's account ought not to have been accepted without any corroboration. Father Fahy indignantly rejected the charge brought against him; so it came to this—that the testimony of one man who was opposed to him was to be taken, while the word of the priest was to be rejected, and he was to be treated as a liar. It was said that no injustice had been done, because Father Fahy could obtain his liberty by giving bail. But if Father Fahy had given bail he would practically have admitted his guilt. Although he (Mr. Picton) did not profess to have very much sympathy with priests of any kind, he was heartily glad Father Fahy had had the manliness to refuse to take any such course. He hoped the Government would yet reconsider the case, and he could not help having some expectation that they would. It was said by the noble Lord the Leader of the House that no Memorial had yet been received in favour of Father Fahy. He (Mr. Picton) hoped it was not impossible that some Memorial might be presented. If Irish Members objected to any such course being taken in Ireland there could be no such objection to a Memorial from England, for it was the honour of England that was at stake. He only regretted that at present no means seemed to be offered for reconciliation; but, at any rate, he trusted there was a spirit in the Government, that would lead them to take whatever opportunity arose to let Father Fahy go free without a stain upon his character.

said, that as a result of the Questions that were addressed to the Government by the hon. Member for West Belfast, and also of communications made to the Government by other hon. Members connected with Belfast, a deputation of the Committee of the Belfast Royal Hospital waited on the Lord Chancellor a few days ago. They placed before him the state of the hospital's finances and the number of patients treated; but, unfortunately, they did not give information on the precise points which he thought the House knew was required by the Irish Government. He recognized, as he had already said, the value of the work done by the Belfast Royal Hospital in healing the outdoor and indoor patients who had suffered during the recent riots; but he could not, as at present advised, recommend his noble Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to establish what seemed to him (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) a very dangerous precedent, by making a grant to the Belfast Hospital for the services it had rendered. He did not believe that any grant of the kind had ever been proposed before.

There never was such a case before.

There had been plenty of cases of riot in English and Irish towns in which the injured had been treated in hospital. The numbers of patients treated in this case were 148 indoor and 220 outdoor, numbers which formed a very small percentage indeed of the number of patients treated in the Belfast Hospital during the year. But, as he had said before, the Government did not wish that any of the Forces of the Crown should be treated by the hospital without being paid for by the Government. He was not sure, but he fancied that some arrangement existed under which payment had been already made; but when he was informed how many members of the Constabulary Force, or how many military, received treatment in the hospital, he would undertake to look into the matter; and, if there was sufficient ground to recommend his noble Friend to make a grant, he would not hesitate to do so. But he thought that when there had been serious riots of this kind in a town like Belfast, and civilians taking part in the riots, or who had been in the streets when they ought to have been at home, were wounded and taken to the hospital, it was not fair to ask the general taxpayers of this country to make a grant in aid of the local hospital in which the injuries sustained were treated. That was all he had to say about Belfast. In reference to the question of Father Fahy, the discussion which had been going on during that day seemed to him to be somewhat of a repetition of previous debates, and did not call for much in reply; but in regard to some of the matters which had been brought before the House, especially by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), he should like to say a few words. The right hon. Gentleman had stated in that debate that no English gentleman would for a moment sanction the treatment of any person in England in such a manner as Father Fahy had been treated. He would, however, like to call the attention of the House to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for New-castle-on-Tyne (Mr. John Morley), who had been in the House on the previous day during the discussion, and who certainly must know a great deal more about the matter than the right hon. Member for Bradford, had taken no part whatever in the debate.

Why should he? This did not occur during his term of Office.

said, he did not desire to suggest that the right hon. Gentleman was in any way responsible for what occurred; but from his knowledge of Ireland, and his fairness in dealing with matters that came before him, they might certainly have expected that right hon. Gentleman to have interposed in those debates if he had thought the case to be one of such gross injustice as hon. Members opposite would have the House believe it. It did not seem to him that the right hon. Member for Bradford un- derstood the point to which he had directed the attention of the House, or the position of the Chief Secretary in the matter. The Chief Secretary had nothing to do with the exercise of the Prerogative of Mercy; the Home Secretary exercised that Prerogative in England, and the Lord Lieutenant exercised it in Ireland on the advice of the Lord Chancellor, or anybody else, including the Chief Secretary, whom he chose to consult.

I need scarcely say that I knew that; but what I said was that the Chief Secretary might have advised the Lord Lieutenant in the matter.

said, that he had no right to advise the Lord Lieutenant unless he asked for his advice. He was sure that no one who was acquainted with the division of duty between the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary would contradict what he had stated. Such cases as that brought forward by hon. Members were not capable of being re-tried in the House of Commons. Hon. Members from Ireland assumed that Father Fahy's story was true—[Home Rule cheers]—and that Mr. Lewis's story was not true; but the magistrates who tried the case were of a different opinion—["No!"]—or else they would not have required Father Fahy to find bail. Hon. Members had referred to some report that the Resident Magistrate had expressed the opinion that it was a matter of no consequence, and one that might be made up between the two parties concerned. He had seen no such report, and he did not know where the statement was made.

It is in all the papers.

said, that a great many things appeared in the papers which were absolutely unfounded. Questions of this kind could not possibly be tried in the House of Commons; and he would venture to say that they ought not, under the Constitution, to be so tried. In the first place, they should be tried by the magistrates, or the Courts whom the law empowered to deal with them; and, secondly, if there was any fault to find on the part of a prisoner with the conviction or the sentence or finding of the Court, a Memorial should be addressed to the Home Secretary or the Lord Lieutenant, as the case might be, asking him to exercise the Prerogative of Mercy. He was not aware that any such Memorial had been addressed to the Lord Lieutenant in Father Fahy's case. If that course were adopted the Lord Lieutenant was bound by his position to take the Memorial into consideration. He did not intend to express any more opinion than he had already done in regard to this case—that anyone bound over to keep the peace, if he intended to keep the peace, should not hesitate to give bail; and he did not see why Father Fahy should decline to do what he should not object to do under similar circumstances. He protested against cases of this kind being made the subject of frequent debates in the House of Commons unless the Government had taken some action with regard to them, when, of course, it would be open to any hon. Members who desired to do so to challenge that action by the vote of the House.

observed, that every hon. Member on the Benches around him must be indignant at the tone adopted by the Chief Secretary in speaking of Father Fahy as a convicted prisoner. [Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I was only speaking generally.] He was glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman did not apply that term to Father Fahy. Hon. Members from Ireland, in bringing forward the case of Father Fahy, did not wish it to be re-tried in that House, because he had not been tried at all in Ireland. What they desired was the expression of the feeling of English Members in regard to the case of Father Fahy. He thought he could say they had received the expression of sympathy of a large number of the English and Scotch Representatives in that House, and what they had said would go far to strengthen their case and the belief of the people in the innocence of Father Fahy. It would also encourage Father Fahy to persevere in the course of action he had taken. The right hon. Gentleman had said that all Father Fahy required to do was to give sureties that he would be upon his good behaviour. He was absolutely astonished that a man in the position of the Chief Secretary for Ireland could have made such a statement. Did he forget that Father Fahy was accused of threatening to murder a man and to destroy his property, and that to act as the Chief Secretary required would be to admit the truth of the charges?—at least, that would be the interpretation the people would put upon it. He asked what the Chief Secretary would do if he were in Father Fahy's position? Would he give sureties for his good behaviour, and lay himself open to the suspicion that he had been guilty of the charges of threatening to murder and to destroy property? He did not think that the right hon. Gentleman would do anything of the kind; but if the Chief Secretary would adopt that course, he (Mr. Redmond), at all events, did not think that it would be a course that would be adopted by any considerable number of gentlemen and men of honour. It was absolutely atrocious to ask Father Fahy, in order to get the prison gate opened, that he should give bail to be of good behaviour, which would be practically to admit the assertion of Mr. Lewis. Father Fahy was innocent, and he would do nothing that could shake the faith of the people in the belief of his innocence. He warned the Government that to keep Father Fahy a prisoner for six months would raise ill-feeling and tumult in the country. The people would believe that as Father Father was imprisoned on one man's statement, that statement was accepted because it was made by a landlord. If the right hon. Gentleman desired to do everything in his power to render it necessary to come to Parliament at an early date and ask for coercive legislation, he could not act in any way more calculated to disturb the public peace than by inviting the people to outstep the law, which they were in danger of doing as long as there was kept in prison a respected minister of the Gospel, who had declared his innocence before God of the charge brought against him, and who was now only in prison upon the word of a single man, and that man notoriously a partizan in the case. He contended that an outrage of this kind would not be tolerated, nor would it be possible, in England or Scotland; and he warned the House of the seriousness of giving approval to a system by which a man's liberty could be filched, away on the testimony of a single accuser. If they approved Father Fahy's case it would certainly go forth to the people of Great Britain as well as to the people of Ireland that any one man could take away another man's liberty simply by swearing an accusation against him. He did not believe that Englishmen or Scotchmen would submit to such a state of affairs. In conclusion, he said if the imprisonment of Father Fahy were continued there would be great indignation, which would lead to disturbance; and in the end the Government, while losing much, would gain nothing by their action.

said, he would invite the Government to take a rational view of the situation. The circumstances were in Father Fahy's favour, as there was no evidence against him except that of an admittedly excited man. They were, in his view, acting a foolish part in making a martyr of this priest, by imposing upon him a punishment which was too heavy, and the most sensible thing they could do was to let him out of prison forthwith.

said, the first grievance of Father Fahy which the Nationalist Party had to complain of in this case was that a responsible officer of the Government should have considered that he was called upon to intervene in the prosecution, as the dispute was one arising between two individuals, and not a breach of the law in the criminal sense. The second grievance was that the proceedings were taken under the provisions of the Statute of King Edward III. which was directed against rogues and vagabonds. Under that Statute, if the Justices believed any part of the evidence, or thought there was any case whatever against the accused, if they did not dismiss the case, they had no option whatever but to put the party charged under a rule of bail, which, if he declined to comply with, they should send him to prison for six months. The meaning of that was that the Government deprived Father Fahy of the opportunity of getting his case before a jury, knowing well that if his case went before a jury of fair-minded men, where the evidence would be given in open Court, there would be no chance in the world of Father Fahy being convicted. No jury would give a verdict against a man upon such evidence as had been given in the case of Father Fahy. He did not believe that many Englishmen would do as the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary had said he would—that he would have no objection to give bail in similar circumstances, which would be to practically acknowledge that he was guilty. He had not read English history aright if it were not that it taught that Englishmen would not sacrifice their honour for their liberty; and there was nothing in their history of which they had more reason to be proud than the fact that, over and over again, men had been found amongst them who preferred the sacrifice of liberty, and even of life, at the altar of duty and principle. He could not, therefore, accept the right hon. Baronet's declaration as representing the real feelings of Englishmen on the question. He believed that if a similar case to that of Father Fahy had occurred in England the Attorney General for England would not have ventured to lend himself to such action as had been taken against Father Fahy; and he hesitated to believe that any English gentleman would have ventured, under similar circumstances, to invoke the aid of the Attorney General, as Mr. Lewis had done in this case. He combated the statement that Parliament was not the place in which to re-try the case; and he contended that Parliament's highest function was to consider all grievances, and cases of injustice which might have been done elsewhere. The right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary had thrown out a hint for a Memorial for the release of Father Fahy; but he (Dr. Kenny) could assure him, and he assured the House, that the hint was in vain, as no Member of the Irish Party, no respectable Irish Nationalist, would be a party to anything so mean or derogatory as a Memorial of the kind; neither they nor Father Fahy would memorialize—it was not mercy they were demanding, but justice. The case was an infamous, a deliberate attempt to produce a state of things in Ireland that would warrant the Government in the next Session of Parliament demanding coercive legislation. There was no action they could have taken more calculated to inflame the passions of the people in a great portion of a country where the dangers of discord and disorder were great enough already. He wished to add, in conclusion, that he regretted that the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieu- tenant had made a shuffling excuse for not giving a grant of money to the Royal Hospital at Belfast. That institution depended mainly for support on voluntary contributions; and, owing to the heavy strain on its resources arising out of the enormous number of persons treated in its wards for injuries received during the recent riots, there was now a deficit in its funds, which they had been able to avoid in former years. The hospital, being a voluntary one, might have refused to receive the injured police and soldiers; but what would have been said had it done so? He never knew of any hospital in Ireland shutting its doors to those sick or wounded whilst there was room for them, but the Royal Hospital in Belfast might have done so; and he thought it excessively mean on the part of the Government to avail themselves of its resources for their wounded police and soldiers, and then to refuse, on some technical plea, to come to the aid of the hospital, to make up the deficit caused in its funds through the help it had given to the wounded. Had the Government acted firmly in dealing with Orange rowdies in Belfast, no need would have arisen for the strain on the resources of the Royal Hospital. He and his Friends were convinced there was sinister influence at work preventing the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer granting the aid sought for, and which he felt that his more generous instincts would lead him to do if he were left to himself. The Irish Party were convinced that the malign influence of certain Gentlemen connected with the Orange Society, and who represented other Divisions of Belfast, was at work to prevent the noble Lord yielding to the very reasonable request of his hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) in this matter, lest any credit should accrue to his hon. Friend for the action he had taken relative to the subject. In conclusion, he trusted the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland would look into the matter, and see his way to granting the aid sought for.

said, a sort of official announcement had been made that day that, if the Irish Members signed a Memorial praying for Father Fahy's release, the document would receive a good consideration from the Government. Such a Memorial would, however, be an appeal ad misericordiam; and consequently, he believed, no Irish Member would append his signature to such a Memorial. The whole basis of their argument in the case was that an injustice had been done. The magistrates saw that the parties were in such a heated condition that it was a case in which the law should not have been brought in. He would have condemned the rev. gentleman if it had been proved that he actually did use the threats alleged. The Attorney General for Ireland had said that all that had been done was in due course of law. But unjust decisions were sometimes given in due course of law; and in all the cases in which he was called upon to interfere it was to avert injustice being done by decisions arrived at in the ordinary course of law. He (Mr. Molloy) had not heard one generous word from any Member of the Government with regard to Ireland; and their enmity was carried on with dogged silence. If in this case they refused, to do justice unless the Irish Party acknowledged that Father Fahy was in the wrong, he, for one, would, prefer that Father Fahy should remain in gaol. He made no appeal to the Government; he simply stated the case; he showed the injustice; and on the Government must remain the consequences which might follow.

said, he had voted the other night in favour of the Motion made from the Irish Benches with regard to the imprisonment of Father Fahy; but he must say that on the present occasion he could not follow a similar course. He would briefly explain to the House his reason for that statement. He admitted that, in the absence of a Court of Criminal Appeal, Parliament ought to be regarded as a Court of Appeal; and when any important case arose in which a large number of Members of that House were interested, and in which they believed injustice had been done, they were right in bringing it forward, and having it thoroughly discussed by the House. He did not mean to say that anyone would be justified in bringing up an ordinary case that had been tried at the Assizes or at Quarter Sessions. But when five-sixths of the Members from Ireland took up a case like this, believing that there had been a failure of justice, they were warranted in their action. At the same time, when the case had been brought up and discussed, as this case had been, he did not think it ought to be re-opened a second time. For that reason he felt unable to repeat the vote he had given the other night when this matter was first brought forward. At the same time, he desired to say that he agreed with a good deal which had been said by hon. Members below the Gangway about the merits of the case. He did think Father Fahy ought not to have been prosecuted in the way described. It seemed to him the prosecution was initiated more for political motives, and the proceedings throughout were unsatisfactory. There was one point on which he was not quite clear, and on which the House had had no information, and that was as to whether Father Fahy went into the witness-box or not. By the Summary Jurisdiction Act of 1879, the defendant was permitted to go into the witness-box and give his version of the transaction on oath. He did not know if the defendant had the same right to do that in Ireland as he had in England. Then the English Act provided a very short and simple method by which a person who had been imprisoned in default of finding sureties might obtain his release. All he had to do was to go again before the magistrates and ask for it. "Was the law the same in Ireland as in England? If it was not it was to be regretted. If it was, that was what Father Fahy ought to do. In any case he would make an appeal to the Government of the same nature as had already been made to them by the hon. Member for East Galway (Mr. Sheehy)—namely, that if they would not regard the question as a question of justice, they should, at all events, regard it as a question of policy and tactics, and consider what was the wisest course to take under the circumstances. He would put it to the Government whether they would not be making a mistake by keeping this priest in gaol and allowing him to become a martyr? He did not ask them to make any concession which they could not make with dignity and with due and proper regard for the supremacy of the law in Ireland. Perhaps they would not feel justified in releasing the priest immediately, as it might look as if they had yielded to clamour; but after that discussion was over and Parliament was prorogued he would suggest that they should take the case into their consideration and open the prison door.

I think the attitude of the Government throughout these debates has been one of insolent disdain. The Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland says he was not asked by the Lord Lieutenant for his advice. Why, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman is, in this House, the principal Officer of State for Irish affairs, and it is his duty to attend to our demands for redress of grievances. The whole action of the Government lately has been showing the cloven hoof of that wicked policy shadowed forth by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the beginning of this Session. This episode respecting Father Fahy looks like the first result of the encouragement he gave when he advised landlords to enforce their legal rights strictly—and that the Government would not shrink from recovering the land from the tenants for them. What does this new policy of extermination mean? The present Government objects to that dual ownership of land established by the Land Acts of 1870 and 1881. Apparently, the policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is—by the wholesale extermination to which he encourages Irish landlords—to extinguish the tenants' interest in the land, and at a blow to re-establish the single ownership of the landlords. A new clearance of Ireland—to be followed by a new Plantation! This Cromwellian policy will, however, I think, fail in the hands of the new Cromwell—the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As for the Memorial to the Lord Lieutenant on behalf of Father Fahy, recommended to us by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Sir, we decline to degrade ourselves and Father Fahy by being parties to anything of the kind. A most scandalous travesty of law has taken place in this case of Father Fahy. And it is lamentable to observe how far English Tory Members have allowed themselves to be carried by prejudice and Party spirit in this matter. The conduct of Government towards the Royal Hospital of Belfast has been shabby in the extreme; and surely it is unbecoming of the wealthiest Government in the world to take such a mean advantage of the humanity of the managers of that hospital—to sponge, in fact, on the poor resources of a charitable institution supported by voluntary contributions.

said that, as an English Member who had tried to follow the case, he could not help thinking that Father Fahy wished to figure as a martyr. The magistrates, if they had believed the charge against him, might have imprisoned him, or, if they had not believed it, they might have dismissed him; but they had taken the middle course, often followed where there was a conflict of testimony, and had asked him to give security. The act of giving security was a merely formal affair; and if Father Fahy had taken out a cross-summons he might have had Mr. Lewis also bound over to keep the peace. Even if the magistrates were wrong, this was not the Court to which an appeal from their decision should be brought. It seemed to him to be a waste of time to discuss this very trifling case. He agreed with hon. Members from Ireland that this thing could not happen in England, because no man would be so foolish here as to prefer six months' imprisonment to finding bail. He suggested that the common-sense course would be for Father Fahy to find bail and return to those peacemaking avocations in which, according to hon. Members opposite, he took such great delight.

said, he was surprised that the application for a grant to the Royal Hospital, Belfast, had not been better received.

interposing, said, that a discussion upon that subject was entirely irregular. He permitted the question to be put; it had been answered, and the subject ought not to be pursued further.

said, that in reference to the case of Father Fahy, it seemed to him that the Government jumped at the chance of imprisoning a Catholic clergyman. He marvelled that there was any doubt that the Government had acted injudiciously or unwisely, and concluded that it was the duty of the Government speedily to remedy their gross error. It was a revelation to them to be told that the Chief Secretary could not act till the Lord Lieutenant asked his advice. The Lord Lieutenant was a mere figure-head, and was not likely to ask the advice of the Chief Secretary on any question save that of the points of a horse. Father Fahy would not make any appeal for mercy; he did not want mercy, but only justice. It was to be feared that this case was an indication of the intention of the Government to pursue an infamous policy, by which they would seek to demoralize the Irish people and to set them in opposition to the machinery and the system of government. The Irish Members could say no more in Parliament now; but they would say a good deal out of Parliament.

said, they were shut out from bringing this case before the Queen's Bench through the intervention of the Crown Prosecutor. He asked the Government to consider what practical good could result from the Government maintaining their position in regard to Father Fahy? He asked English Members to consider whether, in similar circumstances, finding the law perverted for political purposes, they would give bail to avoid imprisonment? He believed they would not. The continued imprisonment of Father Fahy would do more to foster agitation and discontent in Ireland than the delivery of dozens of speeches by Nationalist Leaders. A Memorial in such a case as that of Father Fahy's would be a greater degradation than giving bail to keep the peace. Father Fahy's was only a typical case. Cases of the same kind were occurring every day where persons were kept in gaol without being admitted to bail or brought to trial. It was this kind of thing which brought the English law into disrepute in Ireland. He defied the Government to persevere in their present course; but the stupid thing was that, though they would not say one gracious word in that House, the moment the Session was closed and they learnt from the authorities in Ireland how dangerous it would be to keep Father Fahy in prison they would let him out.

said, that this was a case of rank injustice; but out of evil would come good. It would have the effect of rousing the priests in that part of the country in which he lived to the wrongs of their country. He had had frequently to complain hitherto that they were too backward in taking action against the landlords. His desire was that the Government should take such a course as would drive every priest and Bishop in Ireland into the ranks of the popular Organization. He was one of those who put their names to the "No Rent" Manifesto; and if the Bishops and priests had stood by that Manifesto manfully, instead of giving it a lukewarm support, they would by this time have got rid of landlordism in Ireland. But after the treatment which Father Fahy had received any priest worthy of the name would insist that all his parishioners should join the National League. Turning to another subject, he wished to inquire whether the Irish Commission would be at liberty to inquire with respect to one of the railways?

said, that this matter was in no way relevant to the Appropriation Bill, which contained no provision for the railway.

said, he was very anxious to keep in Order, and he believed the Speaker was equally anxious that he should be in Order. He went on to refer to the deficiency of postal arrangements in Ballinasloe and other country towns in Ireland and other subjects, when—

said, he must request the hon. Member to make his remarks more pertinent to the subject of the Bill.

remarked, that as he was out of Order he would say no more; but he hoped the Government would look to all these things, and would not put the Irish Members to the trouble of bringing them before the House again. Great complaints had been made about the waste of time of the House; but when they came back there was not a single matter connected with the grievances of their country which they would not go over.

I rise to Order, and wish to ask you, Sir, whether this has any relation whatsoever to the Bill before the House?

It has nothing whatever to do with the Appropriation Bill.

said, he could not refrain from commenting on the extraordinary behaviour of Her Majesty's Government towards Father Fahy, a clergyman belonging to the Roman Catholic Church. During the course of this discussion nothing had struck him more forcibly—nothing brought home to his mind more clearly the fact—that Her Majesty's Government were possessed with their duty of upholding the landlord system, which had had such a baneful effect upon Ireland—than some remarks which fell from the noble Lord the son of the present Premier (Viscount Cranborne), whilst an hon. Friend of his (Dr. Tanner's) was speaking. He was sorry the noble Lord was not now in his place. After making the remark the noble Lord got up and left the House.

Order, order! If the hon. Gentleman had any complaint to make he should have made it at the time. He is not now speaking in any way relevant to the Appropriation Bill, and I must ask him to be more relevant.

Certainly, Sir; I was merely—

Order! The hon. Gentleman must confine his remarks to the Question now before the House—the Appropriation Bill.

continuing, said, Father Fahy was a Roman Catholic priest, and, like many of the Roman Catholic priests in the country to which he (Dr. Tanner) had the honour to belong, he had always done his best on behalf of the poor and oppressed and down-trodden tenants. Because he took the side of the tenants, Father Fahy met with the fate which, as a rule, attended all educated people who espoused the popular cause. However the imprisonment of Father Fahy might be regarded by the Protestant population of the South of Ireland—he did not wish to transgress the Rules of the House, but he wished the House to understand the position in which it was placed by this imprisonment—by all the Protestants in Cork, in Dublin, in Belfast, in Limerick, in Galway, and in all the centres of population, the imprisonment of Father Fahy was regarded as a step taken in accordance with the attitude assumed by Her Majesty's Government—namely, that of war on the Irish people. It was regarded as a step taken on behalf of landlordism, on behalf of people who had always gone against the tenants in order to maintain rack- renting. As a Protestant coming from the South of Ireland, as a Protestant Nationalist Member, he had no hesitation in saying that the landlords of the South of Ireland would regard this step as an intimation to Her Majesty's Government to proceed with a crusade of evictions.

The question of the landlords in the South of Ireland proceeding to evict has nothing whatever to do with the imprisonment of Father Fahy.

I do not wish to argue the case. I was only trying to show that Father Fahy endeavoured to prevent evictions. I shall not pursue the subject any further now. I presume, however, as a medical man, I may be allowed to say a few words with regard to the grant to the Belfast Royal Hospital.

I have already ruled that that subject is out of Order. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to discontinue his speech for continued irrelevance and disregard of what I have already ruled. The hon. MEMBER accordingly sat down; but a few moments after rose and, placing his hat upon his head, left the House amid cries of "Order!" The following is the Entry in the Votes:—

Mr. SPEAKER, having called the attention of the House to the continued irrelevance on the part of Dr. Tanner, Member for Mid Cork, directed the honourable Member to discontinue his speech.

said, he wished to call attention to the case of the Crossmaglen prisoners, who were brought from Castlebar and tried and convicted in Belfast by a jury composed of men opposed to them religiously and politically. He commented strongly on the fact that Mr. Justice Lawson was sent down to try these prisoners, being at the time a Member of the Executive. These prisoners having served five years of their sentence, and having presented a Memorial as to the hardship of their trial and sentence, should be liberated. He contended that the change of venue in that case had tended to conviction, and hoped the Government would carefully consider the grievance.

said, he rose to call attention to the critical condition of affairs in the East. He wished to ask the Government, whether, in the face of the difficulties which existed, and the complications which seemed likely to arise in Europe, they would give the country a pledge that no war should be entered upon without the previous consent of Parliament? He might explain that he now renewed this Question because of the very unsatisfactory character of the reply given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Tuesday. In that reply the noble Lord rightly presumed that the putting of the Question implied want of confidence in Her Majesty's Government. It was because the House of Commons was about to separate for some months, and the Government would be left unchecked and uncontrolled, that the Question was again addressed to the noble Lord. The assurance that, in case of any serious difficulty presenting itself, the Government would be sure to act in a Constitutional manner was to him vague and unsatisfactory. He was afraid that too much freedom was permitted to the Government by the Constitution of the country with regard to foreign and Colonial matters. In the case of the annexation, or attempt at the annexation, of Burmah the conduct of the Government might have been Constitutional, but it was very reprehensible; and because he feared that the same course might be pursued with reference to some other portion of the globe during the Recess, he urged the Government, in case of serious difficulty arising in Europe or elsewhere during the Recess, to advise Her Majesty to summon Parliament. To that appeal, made on Tuesday, the noble Lord vouchsafed no reply. The outlook in Europe was of a most serious character. There was in Bulgaria a difficulty which might any day involve the whole of Europe in a fearful struggle. The present attitude of the Press fully justified the course pursued by the friends of peace 30 years ago, and proved the assertion that the verdict of history was always with the friends of peace. There had been rumours of Russia pushing on to Constantinople, and being allowed to do so by the English Government in return for Russia winking at our remaining permanently in Egypt. In view of those rumours it would be well if a decided and official denial was given to them. These rumours caused feelings of irritation in France, and endangered the peace between the two countries. He hoped that an assurance would be given that if any serious difficulties arose in the Recess Parliament would be convened, in order that the Representatives of the people should have an opportunity of expressing an opinion as to the merits of the dispute before rather than after the country had been committed to a struggle. Hitherto Governments had been in the habit of deciding upon a warlike policy, and then coming to Parliament to pay the bill. That had been the case with regard to Burmah. If the country had been consulted before the annexation was made, a very different conclusion would have been arrived at.

, who rose at the same time as Sir Wilfrid Lawson, said: I have a particular motive for intervening thus early before the hon. Baronet addresses the House. I make no complaint of the hon. Member for bringing up this question at this hour of the evening (7.50 P.M.), though the proceedings of to-day have been rather protracted. The hon. Member is perfectly within his right, and if he will allow me, in all sincerity, to say so, I honestly respect the opinions which he holds on this subject; but I do not share those opinions myself. They have never been opinions that have commended themselves to a majority of the House of Commons, nor do I think they are opinions largely shared by the people of this country. The hon. Gentleman has raised practically two questions. He has dealt with the Constitutional relations which are supposed to exist between the Executive Government and the Parliament of this country, and he has also dealt summarily, and, if I may say so, roughly, with questions of foreign policy. The discussion of the Constitutional point which he has raised must be a very academical one. The hon. Gentleman holds that the Government of the country, in dealing with Foreign Powers, should not commit itself, or take any step even of a diplomatic character, without having previously consulted Parliament.

I rise to Order. According to the terms of the Question which I asked yesterday, I did not go quite so far as the noble Lord represents. What I asked was that a guarantee should be given that the Government during the Recess would abstain from involving the country in further obligations or responsibilities for warlike operations.

The hon. Gentleman uses his own language, and I venture to use mine. His may be the best; but practically it means the same thing. I say that the hon. Member holds that the Government of this country ought to take no step, even of a diplomatic character, which might commit the country to any particular course of action, without having previously consulted Parliament. Has the hon. Member reflected on the consequences of that theory? No one has more frequently or more eloquently destroyed that proposition than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone). The logical effect of the proposition would be to place Parliament in the position of the Executive Government. But could Parliament—consisting as it does of two Houses, one with 670 Members and the other with 500 Members—undertake the duties of the responsible Executive Government? That has never been the Constitutional practice in this country, nor anything approaching it. The House of Commons has in late years largely increased its power. I do not in the least find fault with such increase of power; but it has never ventured, nor has any considerable section of the House desired, to place Parliament in the position of the Executive Government of this country. The Executive Government has undoubtedly great latitude of action. If it possesses the confidence of Parliament, it is for the convenience, and indeed necessary for the safety and very existence, of the Empire that that latitude should exist. The Executive Government, it must be borne in mind, only acts so long as it possesses that confidence. The Government is continually giving to Parliament full and complete information with regard to the course of action they take, and from time to time it is open to Parlia- ment to change the Government of the country, and so to change their policy. I do not know how you can possibly alter for the better that arrangement. I have never heard any argument put forward by any hon. Gentleman holding the opinions of the hon. Member opposite which would lead one to think that it would be possible to make any decided improvement upon the present Constitutional relations between the Executive Government and the House of Commons. The hon. Gentleman alluded to the question of the Burmese War and of the annexation of Burmah. It is quite true that that was a step decided upon outside the walls of Parliament; but it was a matter which, at any rate in the opinion of the Government of the day, required prompt and immediate action, which the summoning of Parliament would have altogether prevented. That was an act which was laid before Parliament almost immediately after it had been committed, and was approved of by the great bulk of the Members of the then House of Commons, the great majority of whom were Gentlemen of the same way of thinking as the hon. Member. Moreover, that action, the Burmese War, on which the hon. Gentleman to a great extent founds his interposition to-night, was altogether approved of, and ratified and followed up by, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian when he came into power. That destroys all the force of the illustration which the hon. Member has given. So much for the Constitutional part of the question. I do not think I could with any advantage to the House go into it further. It is a matter which hon. Members must work out for themselves in their own minds, and undoubtedly it is one that they may discuss to any extent. They may compare the practice of other European nations and the practice of the United States with our own; but I extremely doubt whether, after a careful comparison of the Constitutional practice of this country with that of other countries, they will be perfectly decided in their own opinion that the practice of other countries is preferable to our own. The hon. Member has alluded also to a question of foreign politics, and it is in reference to that matter that I wish to address the House. The particular question of foreign politics which exercises the mind of the hon. Member, and which rightly exercises his mind, is the state of affairs in the Balkan territory. He is of opinion that that state of affairs may lead to very serious difficulty and dangers, and dangers in which this country might become involved. Well, Sir, I would point out, in the first place, that he is discussing a question of foreign politics, on which it has not been as yet within the power of the Government to give official information to Parliament. The hon. Member has founded most of his opinions upon what he has seen in the newspapers; and no more unsafe guide—I say it with all respect—for an hon. Member who wishes to address the House on foreign politics can be found than the statements and opinions given in the public Press, and using those opinions and statements in the House of Commons unsupported by official testimony. This state of affairs in the Balkan territory is undoubtedly serious, and it might at any moment undoubtedly become critical. The hon. Member has expressed himself with very great freedom about the action of Russia, and the probable action of Russia and of the other Powers; but he must be aware that it is absolutely impossible for any Member of the Government to follow him in his opinions or his speculations—the very crisis, the very difficulty and danger, which the hon. Member is so anxious to guard against might be, to a certain extent, precipitated if the Government were to be so incautious as to follow the hon. Member into his speculations. Moreover, I would point out to the hon. Member and those who sit near him that they cannot divest themselves of a considerable responsibility with regard to the state of things in the East of Europe, which is serious and may become critical, if they allow themselves, in the absence of official information, to be committed to opinions of such width and freedom as those stated by the hon. Member. Foreign countries watch closely the debates in this House. Foreign Ministers are not accurately acquainted with the relative positions of hon. Members and Ministers of the Crown; and undoubtedly it would be perfectly natural and probable that foreign Ministers should attach to the utterances of the hon. Member as a Member of the House of Commons, or to the utterances of those who sit near him with regard to the action of foreign countries, almost as much weight as they would attach to the utterances of Ministers of the Crown. That is why I must ask hon. Gentlemen to excuse the Government from dealing at all with this question of the state of affairs in the Balkan territory. Moreover, I would appeal to those who sit near him to follow the example of the Government, and to abstain from discussing those questions at all. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Haggerston (Mr. Cremer) asks for a guarantee that the Government will not commit this country to any serious and strong action with regard to any questions which may arise out of this state of things in the Balkan territories without summoning Parliament and taking Parliament into their confidence. Obviously, no Government would think of deciding upon strong and definite action which might involve a portion of the Empire, with regard to questions of this kind, without immediately summoning Parliament and placing the whole case before them, and asking for the confidence and the support of Parliament in the action they intended to take. That is a state of things which has frequently arisen, and that arose in the case of the Egyptian War. To go back to an earlier period, it arose in the case of the Afghan War. It arose, also, with regard to the state of things which existed—a very critical state of things—on the North-West Frontier of Afghanistan in the year 1885. On all these occasions the Government came to Parliament, stated the case which they had to present, the action which they proposed to take, and asked for the confidence and support of Parliament in their action.

After the fighting had been begun?

No; certainly not with regard to the state of affairs on the North-West Frontier of Afghanistan, and certainly not with regard to the Egyptian War. It is true that the bombardment of Alexandria did precede the application to Parliament. That is true; but the actual military operations in Egypt were not even begun until Parliament had been consulted. Even the preparations for those operations were not begun until Parliament had granted a Vote of Credit.

But the bombardment took place.

That certainly took place; but the preparations for the military operations—which certainly came very near war—were not begun until Parliament had been consulted. So it was with regard to the North-West Frontier of Afghanistan. The Government of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone), before proceeding to any strong or definite action, came to the House and asked for a large credit. I am quite prepared to pledge this Government that we will act within the lines of precedent. I do not see how any British Government could for a moment hesitate to give such a pledge; but beyond that pledge it would be absolutely impossible for me to go. I do not think the hon. Member can really desire more than that pledge. The hon. Gentleman is a friend of peace; he belongs, I understand, to a Society which hopes to bring about a state of universal peace and to obtain a settlement of all international disputes by arbitration. I think that is an admirable Association, against the objects and aims of which I shall never say one word. I only hope that the principles which that Association professes may become more powerful and popular as time goes on. But I would point out that it is not always the avowed friends of peace who obtain peace, or produce peace, by their acts. Never was there a greater friend of peace, in the opinion of all classes—never was there a more devoted friend and insurer of peace—than Lord Aberdeen. But if there was one thing on which history is unanimous, it is that the action of the Government of Lord Aberdeen and the well-known peaceful proclivities of Lord Aberdeen were as much as anything else the cause of the Crimean War. I allude to this to show the hon. Gentleman that the action of the friends of peace must be controlled by the ordinary rules of prudence and common sense by which such inferior mortals as Ministers are obliged to guide their conduct. But, generally speaking, with regard to this question in Bulgaria, the hon. Gentleman may be perfectly confident that the Government are fully alive to the critical—I will not say critical—to the serious state of things which may become critical which there prevails. The hon. Gentleman may recollect that the policy Lord Salisbury's Government pursued last October with regard to the equally critical state of things in that part of the world received the approval of all Parties in this House. It was not censured even by those who agree with the hon. Gentleman. It was approved in the most marked and public manner by the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian. Am I making too large a demand on the hon. Member? I am not appealing to him now as a partizan; I am appealing to him as an independent Member of the House of Commons. Am I making too large a demand upon him if I say that the action which the Government—the Conservative Government—took last October, and which met with universal approval, constitutes some claim upon the House generally to repose a considerable amount of confidence in the treatment which the present Government are likely to give to this state of affairs in Bulgaria? The aim of the Government in all these great foreign and European questions is to maintain in its efficient form the concert of Europe for the purpose of preserving the peace of Europe. We have no other object outside that. None. We know that if we are successful in attaining that object we shall have preserved in its most effectual form all those great British interests about which the hon. Member is so anxious. I ask the hon. Gentleman and those who agree with him to realize that I am not making any appeal to them on this subject lightly, unreflectingly, or for the purpose of avoiding any inconvenient discussion. It is because I am convinced that any discussion—if any should arise—without the House being in possession of information might lead to most serious misinterpretations abroad, and might facilitate, accelerate, or precipitate those very evils which the hon. Member is really so anxious to avoid.

said, he thanked the noble Lord for the courteous, temperate, and able way in which he had answered the Questions of his hon. Friend the Member for Haggerston; but his answer had not quite satisfied them, and they would like to discuss the subject a little further. Everybody was aware that emergencies might arise in which it was the duty of the Executive to act at once; but it was equally well known that wars nowadays were gone into deliberately, and after some sort of consultation. The noble Lord told them that they might take it for granted that the Government would act in a Constitutional way, and for the interests of the country. Of course, everybody acted in a Constitutional way, because no one knew what Constitutionalism really was. Why should they trust the present Government upon questions of foreign policy? It was not appointed to settle the Eastern Question. It was appointed to settle the Member for Mid Lothian, and it had settled him. It was the duty of the Opposition, acting on the maxim once laid down by the noble Lord himself, to oppose the Ministry on all suitable occasions. Although they knew the opinion of the Government on the Irish Question, they did not know its opinion on the Eastern Question; and they wanted to have it clearly stated that no new engagements, no confederacies, no complications should be entered into until the policy was plainly laid before the Representatives of the people. He denied that this involved any interference with the action of the Executive. All they wanted was one broad declaration of policy from the noble Lord. The Eastern Question was just this—Were they to spend money and men in keeping the Turks at Constantinople and preventing the Russians going there? At the present moment everybody knew that the approach of Russia towards Constantinople was within a more measurable distance than it had ever been within the lifetime of the present generation. That state of affairs, so far from causing a scare, was being taken by the people very quietly. The newspapers were taking it calmly and rationally, and when newspaper editors got rational we might expect almost anything. All he asked was that the noble Lord should declare that he was in favour of a policy of non-intervention. The noble Lord was in a great position now. He had no trouble on his hands at present, except a little war in Burmah and one in Belfast. He led the House with ability and approbation. The Liberal Unionists had gone into seclusion. He had behind him 319 Gentlemen who would follow him on every question wherever he went. In snort, he was like the Dictator in the Spanish Republic, who was told on his deathbed that he was to forgive his enemies. "I have none," was the reply, "I have shot them all." The noble Lord had sent all his enemies to the House of Peers. Now was his chance. Now was his opportunity for proving that he was a great statesman. The noble Lord in his heart, he believed, agreed with every word he was saying, for he had a suspicion that the noble Lord was the biggest Radical in the House, and some day his 319 followers behind him would find that out. Let him get up, or let somebody else get up for him—anyone would do it, if he told them to do it—and say that he, on behalf of this country, did not care two straws whether the Turks or the Russians were at Constantinople, he would have gone a great way to settle the Eastern Question, as far as this country was concerned, and to promote the peace of Europe and the world. He would become the head pacificator of Europe; he would send the Radicals away in a happy and grateful frame of mind; and he would make himself an everlasting name as the Minister who, for once in a way, had spoken common sense on a question of foreign policy.

, differing from the noble Lord, thought that the suggestion of his hon. Friend the Member for Haggerston was essentially a practical suggestion. In other countries the Legislatures had a voice in the liabilities and obligations which were incurred by their Governments, and that had been found in practice to work most advantageously. In the United States every Treaty was submitted to the Senate and confirmed before being adopted by the country. The United States thus could live at peace and amity with other countries, and they were not ever meddling in disputes which did not concern them. In France, again, the Executive could not undertake any war without the consent of the Legislature; and he asserted that, had a similar power been vested in the British Legislature before the bombardment of Alexandria, the assent of the British Parliament to the bombardment would not have been given at that moment to the Executive, and the lives and treasure subsequently spent in Egypt might have been saved. When the noble Lord appealed to them not to discuss the Eastern Question on the ground that it might shake the confidence of Foreign Governments in Her Majesty's Government, who ought to be considered as acting for the nation collectively, he would point out to him that his Government had not the confidence of that House or of the country. [Ministerial laughter."] Surely hon. Gentlemen opposite were aware that the Liberal Unionists took every opportunity of saying that, with the exception of matters regarding Ireland, they had no confidence in the Government. Now, they must consider what was the policy of the Conservative Government when last in power and in a majority. At that time Lord Salisbury was strongly in favour of the maintenance of the Turkish Empire, and most anxious that we should go to war then in order to defend the Turkish Empire against Russian aggression. They wanted foreign countries to understand that there was a Party in this country—it might be a minority—who did not agree with the traditional policy of this country—the maintenance of the Turkish Empire in the Mediterranean. As regarded Bulgaria, again, it would be infinitely better that we should not interfere the least in the matter. We ought to let the Bulgarians chose their own Governor, and let the Russians, Turks, and Austrians fight it out as they liked. We might look on with sorrow and regret that persons should be so foolish as to fight; but certainly, if we were wise, we should not join in it, and envenom it by so doing. Why were we in Egypt? Because, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said, he felt it necessary to continue the policy of the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: Never.] Well, it was to carry out the obligations of the preceding Government. And so it always was—succeeding Governments were bound by the engagements of their Predecessors; but each protested against the action of the other. We were not in Egypt for the benefit of the Egyptians, or that of Turkey, or that of Europe, who all wished us away; and we were not there for our own, for our remaining there cost us £300,000 or £400,000 a-year. We were there simply because we had a vague idea that a policy of grab was a good policy. We were not like the dog in the manger, because the animal was in his own manger; but we were like a dog in somebody else's manger. Let the Chancellor of the Exchequer read over the excellent speeches he had made on the subject when not in Office, and give effect to them now that he was in power. There was an idea that the Red Sea route was necessary to us for the defence of India; but military and naval men were agreed that if we went to war with a Naval Power we should close the Red Sea route at Aden and send everything round by the Cape. Therefore, there was not the slightest necessity for us to hold Egypt or the Suez Canal, or for our meddling unnecessarily with what went on in Turkey. If Russia went to Constantinople we might regret it; but it would be most unwise to go to war to prevent it. There had been other illusions as to India. In point of fact, we were the aggressors and not the Russians. Russia naturally wanted to get to the sea; we were perpetually interfering to prevent her doing so; and Russia retorted by pushing on towards our Indian Frontier, but without any intention of invading India. If Russia were at Constantinople India would be safer than it was now, because Russia would be satisfied, and the two countries would live in peace and amity. There was no reason why we should not always be the best friends with Russia, except that we were always interfering with her natural rights and the necessity of her position. The Colonies would not stand by us if we got into trouble through meddling with paltry questions of European boundaries and disputes. If we kept up a strong Navy, and maintained communication with our Colonies, no country would attack us if we did not interfere in affairs that did not concern us. Within the last 100 years we had not been involved in war because we were attacked; but we had drifted into war because we had meddled in matters that did not concern us. The country was now anti-Jingo. The former Government of Lord Salisbury was turned out because it was too Jingo; and the Liberals did not win at the last Election because, notwithstanding Radical protests, we remained in Egypt. If the present Government wished to remain in power they would do well to remember what had occurred to both Lord Salisbury and the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian, and they would openly declare that we washed our hands of all European troubles, that we had nothing to do with them, and that we would not interfere with them, but that we would have a strong Navy, we would maintain our communication with our Colonies, and that we would only go to war with any country that directly attacked us.