asked the Postmaster General, If he will arrange to have letters delivered at Glengevlin, County Cavan, on six days of the week instead of four days weekly, which is the present practice?

, in reply, said, that the expenditure for the present service exceeded the available revenue, and he regretted, therefore, that he could not grant an extension.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he can say whether it is true, as alleged, that, on the night of the 12th June, a shift of day-wage men entered the Park Mine of the Tawd Vale Colliery, Skelmersdale, without a report of the condition of the mine required by law having been made; and, whether workmen other than those engaged in the firing of shots were allowed in that part of the mine during the time such shots were being fired?

I am informed by the Inspector that 28 day workmen did go down at 9.30 p.m. on Sunday evening, June 12, to repair the roads in the mine referred to, although the last formal inspection had been made at 11 a.m. on the same day. As this case may come before a Court of Justice, it is better that I should refrain from expressing an opinion whether there has been an infringement of the law; but, if applied to, I shall be willing to give my sanction for proceedings to be instituted against the manager. So far as I can ascertain, there were no shots fired on the night of June 12.

asked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether he has considered the possibility of mitigating the nuisance caused by the constant use of the railway whistle at night on some railway lines to the inhabitants of the Metropolis; and, what is the result of his correspondence with the Railway Companies on this subject?

The Board of Trade have communicated with the Companies, and are assured that every effort will be made to reduce the nuisance caused by whistling as much as possible.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the state of Whitfield Chapel Burial Ground, Tottenham Court Road; if he is aware that it has been converted into a ground for public shows and amusements; and, whether he has any power to put a stop to the proceedings which have been described as disgraceful by the Parliamentary Committee of the Vestry of St. Pancras?

, in reply, said, he was informed by the Commissioner of Police that the ground had been let to a person who was using it as a place of entertainment, and had erected swings and shooting galleries. An injunction had been obtained restraining the person from continuing a noisy entertainment, and from giving annoyance to worshippers in the chapel. A summons had been taken out against the person under the Unlawful Fairs Act, and would be heard that day.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been called to the condition of the Re- gent's Canal Basin; if he is aware that it is covered with slime; that many dead animals have been taken out of it; and that it emits a bad smell most obnoxious to the neighbourhood; and, whether he will inquire into the possibility of improving its present state?

Prior to the Notice of this Question, ray attention had not been called to the condition of the Regent's Canal Basin. I have obtained a Report from the Medical Officer of Health of St. Pancras on the subject. It appears, as to slime, that when the wind blows from the northerly points anything upon the surface of the arm of the Canal leading to the basin is blown down into the basin and collects at the extreme southern end. With regard to dead animals, the Medical Officer of Health states that the basin and the Canal itself are the receptacles for most of the dead animals of the neighbourhood. The Company clear them away twice a-week. Occasionally there has been delay; but, as a rule, the duty is fairly well done. With regard to the bad smell, I am informed that there have been complaints from a resident on the bank of the arm leading to the basin; but the Medical Officer of Health has not been able to verify any nuisance, probably from its fitful occurrence. I have no doubt that the condition of the basin is unsatisfactory. The Medical Officer of Health has made certain suggestions with regard to the more frequent dredging of the basin and other matters; and I am informed that the Vestry are in communication with the Canal Company on the subject. Some time since the Chief Sanitary Inspector received instructions to have the Canal constantly watched, with a view to taking proceedings, if necessary.

asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether he is aware that a man, named Philip Quigley, was committed for contempt of Court, for refusal to sign a document, by the County Court Judge of Monaghan, on the 23rd of May last, to Dundalk Gaol, and is still confined there; whether a County Court Judge has power to commit for contempt of Court for a longer terra than a fortnight; and, if so, what is the maximum term; and, whether he will inquire into the circumstances of Quigley's committal?

, in reply, said, that Quigley had been committed on the 25th, not the 23rd of May, under an order made by the County Court Judge in the exercise of the equitable jurisdiction vested in him under 40 & 41 Vict. c. 50, which gives him the powers of the Court of Chancery with regard to contempt. Quigley contumaciously refused to sign an assignment, and had not yet purged his contempt.

How long can this man be kept in?

The ordinary rule is, in cases of contempt, that a man shall remain in custody until he has purged his contempt. He has been ordered to sign a deed by the Court, and when he does this he will be discharged.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether it is proposed that any new ships are to be built at Portsmouth to employ the permanent hands, who cannot be dismissed, after the Trafalgar is completed; whether it is the case that some hundreds of men are about to be dismissed from the Portsmouth Dockyard immediately; and, if so, how many this year and next; whether extra hands have been put on temporarily at Portsmouth during the past three months; and, if so, how many; whether, in view of the proposed discharges, it would have been possible for the Dockyard hands to have done the work for which extra men have recently been engaged; whether it is still his intention to construct the Melpomene at Portsmouth, as mentioned in the Naval Report of The Times of 20th August; whether, after the enormous expenditure in constructing the Portsmouth Dockyard, and bringing together workmen to be employed there, the Government intend to stop shipbuilding there; whether about 20 ships are now being built at private yards for the Government; what number of workmen have left the Service each year in the last three years from deaths, superannuation, &c.; and, whether the Government intend to build any more iron-clads, to take the place of worn-out and obsolote ships now in the Service?

Though the Trafalgar will be launched next month, her completion will occupy many men for some time to come. A considerable number of ships will be built during the ensuing year in the Royal Dockyards sufficient to employ not only the permanent hands, but many thousands of hired workmen. Certain discharges from Portsmouth Dockyard will be necessary during the present year and the next; but the exact number cannot be estimated until the shipbuilding programme for 1888–9 is definitely settled. Endeavours are being made to provide useful work so as to reduce discharges; but their whole effect cannot be foretold. The Melpomene will be built at Portsmouth. Owing to the sudden commissioning of a large number of ships for the recent naval evolutions, it was found necessary to enter 200 extra hands to complete the work, as the regular Dockyard employés could not have accomplished it within the necessary time. There are six, not 20, ships now building by contract, two of which will be delivered in a few weeks. The number of men who left the five Home Yards from the causes named during the last three years were 1,173, 1,391, and 1,229 respectively. It is not proposed to lay down any new ironclads; but our policy is to complete those now building as soon as possible. Between now and the end of the financial year we hope to add to the Fleet five armoured battle ships and five belted cruisers. These are in addition to the ships that took part in the Naval Review.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he can cause an inquiry to be made as to the truth of the alleged illegal transfer of over £2,000 from the Sick Benefit Fund to the Trade Fund of the Agricultural Labourers' Union?

Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to answer the Question. I understand that the Registrar of Friendly Societies has no official information as to the alleged transfer, and therefore that no question can arise of action on his part. The best course would be for any person who thinks himself aggrieved to lay a full statement of the matter before the Registrar.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, What are the conditions, as regards speed and coal-carrying capacity, laid down by the Admiralty as necessary to qualify a merchant steamer for annual subvention for purposes of war; and, whether the arrangements for an annual subvention to be paid to the Peninsular and Oriental Company for the Victoria, Britannia, and Oceana include any stipulations as to crews and stokers; and, if so, what is the nature of such stipulations?

(who replied) said: It is impossible, within the reasonable limit of an answer to a Question, to give my hon. and gallant Friend full particulars of the relative importance attached to the many points that have to be considered in determining the comparative value of merchant steamers for cruising purposes. Speed is, however, of primary consideration, and no vessel with lees than 16 knots sea-going speed has been entertained. Four of the steamers retained from the Peninsular and Oriental Company exceed this rate of speed—namely, 384 knots per day, and can carry sufficient coal to maintain it for 26 days, during which they could traverse 10,300 knots. For an ordinary cruising speed of 10 knots their coal capacity is equal to 50 days' consumption. In addition to this quantity of coal they have room for from 1,800 to 2,000 troops. Allowing for hospital, issuing rooms, and the other requirements of Transport Regulations, this is all she could do; and then she could not take coal in all the holds, as we should require baggage room and stowage for provisions. I am assured that with a slight change in the form of screw, their speed would exceed 17 knots. In reply to the second part of the Question, the agreement stipulates for the Company, if required, to find the crew according to the usual Transport Regulations. The Company are also under an obligation to arrange, as far as possible, that the European portion of their complement shall be members of the Royal Naval Reserve, and for their services being at the disposition of the Admiralty.

asked the Lord Advocate, Whether the statement in The Highland, News is correct, that about 2,000 crofters, small tenants, in Inverness-shire, 1,736 in Ross-shire, and 539 in Sutherland shire, have been disqualified and kept off the voters' roll for non-payment of poor rates in June; whether large farmers of over £50 rental are retained on the roll, whether they pay their poor rates or not; and, if so, whether the Government will introduce a measure to place small tenants in the same position in reference to this matter as the larger tenants?

Two thousand small tenants in Inverness-shire have been reported to the assessor as not having paid their rates, 1,599 of these being crofters. I have no accurate information as to the number in Sutherland-shire; but it is believed to be between 500 and 600. As regards Ross-shire, I am informed that 1,215 crofters and 521 other persons have been returned to the county assessor as not having paid poor rates. Non-payment of rates is a disqualification for electors who were enfranchised by the two last Reform Acts. Tenants paying over £50 of rent are not enfranchised under the Acts of 1868 or 1885, but under the Act of 1832. Her Majesty's Government are not prepared to bring in a Bill regarding franchise, the policy of reform legislation having been not to interfere with any existing franchise in extending the franchise to other householders on such conditions as to the Legislature seemed wise.

asked the Secretary of State for War, What in- structions have been given to the accountants appointed to investigate and report upon the accounts of the Army Manufacturing Departments, and what is the estimated cost of the investigation; and, whether one of the accountants selected to report upon, the correctness of the War Office system has been actively engaged in getting up the case against the War Office officials before the Select Committee on Army and Navy Estimates?

My hon. Friend will find a copy of the instructions given to the accountants in the Fifth Report of the Committee on Army and Navy Estimates. I have made inquiries from the Secretary to the Treasury as to the estimated cost of the investigation, and I find that he is not yet able to give me such an Estimate as can be laid before the House. I believe it is true that one of these accountants has been assisting my noble Friend the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) in preparing for the work of investigating the accounts of the Army Manufacturing Departments. But he has now been selected by the President of the Society of Chartered Accountants to discharge a most responsible public duty; and I have no reason to doubt, from his high general reputation, that he will perform it with impartiality.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Government will abstain from appointing any successor to the late Mr. Justice Lawson until Parliament has had an opportunity of considering the Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland) Amendment Bill?

also asked the right hon. Gentleman, Whether, having regard to the fact that according to the latest annual Return in the Judicial Statistics there were tried by the 15 Common Law English Judges 3,626 prisoners and 2,282 civil actions, and by the 10 Common Law Irish Judges 1,014 prisoners and 588 civil actions, he will abstain from filling up the present vacancy in the Irish. Common Law Bench until Parliament has had the opportunity of considering whether the number of the Irish Judges cannot be reduced?

I am anxious, of course, to carry out as far as I can the policy expressed in the Bill laid on the Table of the House. The hon. Gentleman and right hon. Gentleman are aware that the Judgeship which has been made vacant by the death of Mr. Justice Lawson is not one of those which it was proposed to abolish either by the Bill of the late Chief Secretary or by the Bill which I have laid on the Table of the House; and though I shall do everything in my power to carry out generously everything involved in that Bill, I could not give the pledge which the hon. Gentlemen ask for.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that the Sub-Sheriff of Westmeath drove from Mullingar to Tang on Wednesday the 17th instant, a distance of 18 miles, to attend an eviction, without police protection, owing to the peaceable state of the county; whether, during the process of evicting Patrick Dillon, one of the tenants on Mr. Frederick Russell's estate, the police behaved in a violent manner, batoning men and women indiscriminately; and, whether the Government will cause an inquiry to be made into the conduct of the police on the occasion?

(who replied) said, it was the case that the Sub-Sheriff drove, for the purpose of executing 24 judgment decrees, the distance stated without police protection. That appeared to have been due to his personal popularity. On endeavouring to gain access to Dillon's house the police did not behave in a violent manner, nor did they baton any women. On the contrary, they acted with the greatest forbearance towards the people, as was testified by the Roman Catholic clergyman, the Rev. Mr. Byrne, at the close of the day. Dillon was not evicted owing to illness. No inquiry was necessary.

asked from whom the information came?

From the usual sources.

The police, I suppose.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Why the later Reports of Mr. Justice West, specially deputed by Her Majesty's Government to inquire into the administration of justice in Egypt, have never been laid before Parliament; and, whether certain extracts from those Reports which got into the newspapers at the time, and which condemned in very strong terms the action of the Courts, and the treatment of untried prisoners in the gaols, were genuine, especially those which set forth that, owing to the inefficiency of the new police and new tribunals, brigandage had greatly increased; that in view to its suppression methods more arbitrary than those of the old Cazees had been adopted; that people were thrown into prison without evidence and kept there without trial; and that, in consequence, great abuses prevailed in the gaols?

A Report of Mr. Justice West on Judicial Organization in Egypt was published in Egypt No. 5, 1886, page 28. Some reference is made in that Report to abuses such as are mentioned in the Question. Mr. West was not specially deputed by Her Majesty's Government to inquire into the administration of justice in Egypt. He was selected and appointed by the Egyptian Government to be Procureur Général of the Indigenous Courts, and he drew up the Paper in question at the request of Sir Evelyn Baring. Mr. Justice West made a further Report containing a long and technical explanation of a Code of Criminal Procedure which he had prepared for the Native tribunals. This was referred to a Commission for consideration. The Papers will be examined, in order to see if anything can be presented with advantage. I may add that great reforms have been accomplished in the particulars upon which Mr. West animadverted.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with regard to Egypt, What final arrangement has been come to with the French and other Powers for finding the money, beyond that assigned for administrative purposes by the Convention, which is required to substitute paid labour for part of the corvée and to pay the Native Army, and from what source the money is to come in each case; whether the 9,393 men of the Native Army include the special battalions raised to garrison Suakin; what is the calculated cost of the Egyptian Army, exclusive of the payments for European troops and the British Navy, and inclusive of Suakin; and, whether the Financial Papers relating to Egypt, promised in a few days, frill be got out quickly, and will contain the Budget for the present year?

As regards the cost of hired labour instead of corvée, a revised Decree has been accepted by the French Government, and has been proposed to the other Powers, sanctioning the charge of £250,000. This charge will form part of the general administrative expenses to be paid out of the general revenues. No arrangement has been come to with the other Powers with reference to the extra cost of the Egyptian Army beyond £130,000; but the Egyptian Revenue of this year will probably exceed that estimated by the Convention by more than £500,000. Further, is is hoped that the reduction of the British Forces in Egypt will lead to a corresponding reduction in the cost of the Army of Occupation. The 9,393 of all ranks of the Egyptian Army include the garrison of Suakin. The total cost of the Egyptian Army is E£367,000. The Financial Papers will be ready very shortly. Further reductions are still under discussion.

asked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether his attention has been called to the present filthy state of the water in Trafalgar Square, and if he is aware of its cause; how often the water is changed; whether he can hold out any hope that an improvement may shortly be effected; whether the attention of his Department had been called to the fact that through the summer months the square is used at night as a sleeping place by vagrants, to the annoyance of the inhabitants; and, whether any steps can be taken, either to abate this practice or to obviate its attendant consequences, which prevent the place and the seats therein from being used by any other persons even in the daytime?

The water in the basins of Trafalgar Square is being constantly replenished; besides this, these basins are, under ordinary circumstances, completely cleaned out three times a-year; but I have given directions that this operation shall be immediately performed. The fact is that during this long spell of fine weather a great number of homeless people have congregated in Trafalgar Square at night for the purpose of sleeping there; and before they vanish in the morning some of them not only perform ablutions at the fountains, but deposit various portions of their raiment and other chattels in the basins. I am afraid that these nocturnal visitors also leave behind them certain nomad populations on the benches, which make them not very safe for cleanly people afterwards; but it is not easy to see what can be done. I have communicated with the police, and they have succeeded to a great extent in checking the disorderly and offensive conduct which was lately complained of. But I have not the power, even if I had the will—and I certainly have not the will—to banish these unfortunate creatures from the Square altogether; and I should be very unwilling to take away the seats which were placed there by the charity of Lord Brabazon—I presume mainly for the use of the poor. All I can do is to see that our rule that the Square, including the benches, is to be washed down every morning, and that all filth and rubbish is to be cleared away, shall be carefully carried out, as I believe it now is; and, as I have said, the fountains shall be as often as necessary cleaned.

asked, whether it was a fact that the water used in the Square was obtained from the neighbouring baths and washhouses?

said, it was not a fact. The water came from the Water Company.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to a letter in The Liverpool Courier of 8th August, from the Rev. W. Venables Williams, Vicar of Llandrillo, Denbighshire, in which he attempts to connect the Nonconformists of his parish with the burning of St. Paul's Church, Colwyn Bay, and states that he has evidence in his possession which leaves no doubt as to the identity of the individual who set fire to the church, and that stores of lime and gas tar were carted into a neighbouring farmhouse in order to make solid balls for maiming the police; whether the inhabitants of the parish have petitioned the Home Office to instruct the Public Prosecutor to take action in the matter, so that these serious charges may be examined; and, whether any steps will be taken to grant their request?

No, Sir; I have not seen the letter in question; but I have received a Petition from certain tithepayers and Nonconformists in the parish asking me to instruct the Public Prosecutor to institute proceedings for the purpose of compelling the rev. gentleman to reveal all the evidence in his possession. There are no means by which I or anyone else can do this. I can only say that I hope that if the rev. gentleman, or any other person, has in his possession any evidence with reference to any alleged crime, he will lose no time in communicating all particulars to the proper authorities.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether his attention has been called to the fact that Circulars issued to members of Friendly Societies, containing a statement of arrears of contributions and fines, and summoning them to their several periodical meetings, are charged 1d. postage, while the same information or matter, placed on a separate paper and enclosed in another paper is only charged a halfpenny; and, whether any steps can be taken to put an end to an anomaly which is productive of much inconvenience, and without any apparent advantage to the Revenue?

In reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that I have had, as he is indeed aware, the subject of his Question for some time under consideration. There is, without doubt, an anomaly in the present practice; and it is one which, I hope. I shall see my way, with further consideration, to remove.

asked the Lord Advocate, Whether any parishes have been determined to be crofting parishes by the Crofters' Commission since the last Return; and, whether the Annual Report of the Commission will be published before the Vote for the Commission is taken?

No more parishes have been determined to be crofting parishes since the last Return made to Parliament. The intention of the Commissioners to determine the parishes of Kirkwall and St. Ola and Stromness to be crofting parishes has been, as usual, advertised for the last month. No objection to this determination having been made, it is probable that it will be shortly confirmed. I promised last night to inquire as to the Report of the Commission.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether he has considered the Report of the Select Committee on Sunday Postal Labour; and, what action he intends to take in reference to it?

I have already carefully read the Report of the Committee; but time has not yet allowed of my making a complete examination of the evidence tendered to them. This I hope to undertake during the Recess; and I shall be very glad if I can give effect to any recommendations which are supported by evidence and appear likely to conduce to the convenience of the public and the Service.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether three officers of the Salvation Army were, on Monday last, the 22nd instant, fined, without the option of appeal, by the Warwick Bench of Magistrates, for holding a religious service in the Corn Market there on Sunday the 7th instant?

Three members of the Salvation Army were convicted by the Warwick Magistrates for obstructing the highway by holding services in the Corn Market, notwithstanding warning and caution by the police. The men have a right of appeal by law. I cannot give off-hand the names of the magistrates.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether he is aware that the Post and Money Order Office in Vicarage Road, Willesden, is held at a shop where beer is retailed from barrels behind the counter; and, whether he intends to continue the office at this shop?

In reply to the hon. Member, I may say that I am aware of the circumstances to which he alludes. As a general rule, I think it is desirable to avoid having post offices in shops where beer is sold; but in the case in question the premises were the most suitable that could be obtained at the time the office was opened; and as it has been well conducted for four years without complaint from the public I do not purpose to deprive the receiver of his office. I may add that the house is not licensed for the sale of beer to be drunk on the premises.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he will secure the inspection, by the Board of Works, of the following police stations in Donegal:—Linsford, Doaghbeg, Fintown, Grousehall, Gweedore Bunbeg, Redcastle, Barnesgap, Knockbrack, Aughakeely, Kincashlagh, Mynthias, Breenagh, Glenveigh, and Dunkineely, and report on the sanitary state of each, and the accommodation afforded to the men?

(who replied) said, he did not think he could comply with the hon. Member's request, on account of the expense which would be involved in holding the investigation. It might, however, meet the hon. Member's convenience if a Report were obtained from the local constabulary authorities with regard to the sanitary state and accommodation in each barracks. The Executive, on receiving the Report, would be in a position to see what steps should be taken in the matter.

asked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether the recommendations of the Patents Office Inquiry Committee, as regards the simplification of the system of examination of specifications, have been carried out; whether the publication of the arrears of Abridgments and Indexes has been resumed; and, whether anything has been definitively settled with regard to the staff and the internal regulation of the Patent Office?

also asked the hon. Gentleman, Whether the late superintendent of the Index at the Patent Office, Mr. Michel, died or resigned nearly three years ago, and that his salary of £800 a-year had since been annually voted by the House, and re-appeared this year on the Estimates although no successor had been appointed?

No definite arrangements have yet been made; but the alterations necessary in the Office are now under the consideration of the Treasury. With reference to the further Question of my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, I may say that the post held by the late Mr. Michel has not yet been filled up, pending the re-arrangement of the Office generally. For the same reason the active publication of the arrears of abridgment was stopped, as both these questions largely depended upon the Report of Lord Herschell's Committee on the Patent Office, of which I was a Member. The alterations necessary upon the Report of that Committee are, as I have already stated, under the consideration of the Treasury. The necessary amount is provided for in the Estimates, but has not been expended.

asked how long this had been going on?

said, he could not say without making inquiry.

asked, Was the Treasury responsible?

said, he could not admit that the Treasury was responsible for anything.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Government have yet decided what means to adopt so as to secure from Venezuela the indemnity decided upon as due to the owners of the two British vessels improperly seized by Venezuelan officials several years ago; whether the Government have been made aware of the fact that property valued at £750,000, belonging to British subjects, has been confiscated by the Government of Venezuela since the suspension of diplomatic relations; and, whether the Government will intimate to the Government of Venezuela that they will be held responsible for all acts of spoliation of property belonging to British subjects?

It is unusual and inconvenient to state in advance what measures Her Majesty's Government may deem it expedient to take. No information has reached Her Majesty's Government of any such action on the part of the Venezuelan Government as that implied in the Question?

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the Government are in possession of information to the effect that the President of Venezuela has asked for, and been declined, the intervention of the United States of America; and, whether he had accordingly sailed for Europe, so as to endeavour to secure the intervention of His Majesty the King of the Belgians, in the dispute now pending between British Guiana and Venezuela, with reference to boundary?

(who replied) said: In reply to an offer of the United States Government of their good offices to promote a settlement of the dispute between Her Majesty's Government and that of Venezuela with regard to the boundary line between that country and British Guiana, they were informed that the attitude which had been taken up by General Blanco in regard to the question at issue precluded Her Majesty's Government from submitting it at the present moment to the arbitration of any third Power. Her Majesty's Government have no information as to the intentions of General Guzman Blanco.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it be the case that a General Order was issued on the 3rd instant, forbidding regimental bands to play out of their own districts; and, whether it be the case that the band of the Grenadier Guards was permitted to play on the 17th and 18th instants at the Flower Show at Shrewsbury; and, if so, why?

An Order was issued on the 2nd instant forbidding regimental bands to play out of their military districts without special permission from headquarters. The band of the Grenadier Guards played at the Shrewsbury Flower Show on the date named under a misconception of this Order, and believing that they had authority to do so under a previous permission. Orders have now been issued making it quite clear that permissions granted anterior to August 2 are cancelled.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is a fact that the religious services in Stamford were held in a square, and could not be regarded as obstructing any public thoroughfare?

also asked the right hon. Gentleman, Whether he has come to any decision with respect to the persons now undergoing imprisonment in Leicester Gaol for obstructing the highway by holding religious rervices in the Market Square of Stamford on Sunday evenings?

The Salvation Army services in Stamford were held in a public square. The magistrates held that square to be a '' highway "within the Highway Act, and found, that it had, in fact, been obstructed. I see in the newspapers to-day that an appeal by way of special case has been lodged against this decision, and the defendants have, I understand, been liberated meanwhile. I have telegraphed to ask if this is the fact, but have not yet received a reply. If it is, pending such an appeal, I ought not to express any opinion on the point of law involved, or on the sentences.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, with reference to the pier at Milan Head, County Donegal, What has been the cost of constructing the 30 feet extension to the original design of the pier; what the extra flight of steps cost; what has been the cost of the "toeing blocks" which were put down along the wharf wall and the sea wall, in order to protect the foundation of the structure; what is the estimated cost of the rock cutting under water adjacent to the pier head; what engineering expenses have been incurred during the progress of the work: what surplus (if any) yet remains of the original Estimate, £10,000, the original contract being taken at £7,765 14s. 11d.; and, whether it is the intention of the Board of Works to expend any surplus which may yet remain in further deepening the harbour inside to the depth of low water at spring tides?

, in reply, said, the cost of the extension was £1,140; of the extra flight of steps, £60; of the blocks, £400; of the rock cutting, £280; of the engineering expense, £297. There was no surplus.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he would state what authority there is for the statement that upon the occasion on which Head Constable Horgan, of Kanturk, and other constables forced their way into the private grounds of Father Collins, that it was intended to hold a public meeting there; what authority is there for the statement that some people present carried pitchforks; if he is aware that, on the occasion in question, the reverend gentleman, whilst protesting against the entrance of the constables into his private grounds, offered to conduct them to a spot outside those grounds, but within a few yards distance, from whence they could hear and see any proceedings which might take place, but the Head Constable refused the offer, and insisted upon entrance; and, whether, in view of all these circumstances, he will grant a local inquiry into the conduct of the policemen?

(who replied) said, the statements alluded to were made on the authority of the Divisional Magistrate after full investigation. A turbulent crowd proceeded to the place of meeting, and the Rev. Mr. Collins asked the police to stay outside the grounds; but the police constables preferred to go inside the grounds, believing that a meeting was to be held.

If I can assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that no meeting was about to be held, and if I can assure him that the crowd was not turbulent, will he look into the matter?

I have already told the hon. Gentleman that we have made an inquiry, and what the result of the inquiry is.

; I wish to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman if the whole affiair was not this—that the Member for the Division accepted an invitation to dine with the parish priest, and the town band played him to the parish priest's house; and what right the police had, under such circumstances, to intrude themselves on private premises without a warrant?

It is perfectly plain that the police on the spot did not adopt that view.

Had they a warrant?

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the Member for the Division—that is myself—asked the Head Constable if he had a warrant, and, under the circumstances, what authority he had to intrude on private premises; and, furthermore, if the Head Constable was asked by myself on the occasion what information he had that any meeting whatever was going to be held on the night in question?

said, he could not answer as to the conversation between the hon. Member and the Head Constable. But a warrant was not necessary.

On account of the unsatisfactory answer of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I beg to give Notice that I will call full attention to the matter when the Estimates come to be discussed.

asked the First Commissioner of Works, When the Crypt of the House of Commons will be open for inspection by the public?

I have communicated on this subject with the Home Office; and I am informed that the police authorities do not consider that the time has yet come when the crypt of the House of Commons can be safely opened to the public.

asked, whether the right hon. Gentleman would consider the advisability of allowing Members of the House with their friends, if they wished, to see the crypt? [Cries of "No, no!" and an IRISH MEMBER: Why?]

said, if hon. Members expressed a wish to see the crypt he would consult the authorities on the subject.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether the through postal communication along the line of the Caledonian Canal, between Inverness and Fort William, is broken by a distance of 16 miles (between Invergarry and Spean Bridge), whereby persons along the route cannot intercommunicate without an interval of several days; whether numerous petitions have, from time to time, been sent from the inhabitants to have this state of matters remedied; whether it is the practice for the Post Office, in estimating the Revenue from the remoter districts in the Highlands, to count only the letters carried out from the post office, and not to count those carried to it; whether they only allow a halfpenny for each letter instead of 1d., and only 1d. for every parcel whatever its weight; whether over five miles of this gap of 16 miles—namely, between Spean Bridge and Glengloy, the Post Office refuses to supply postal communication unless the cost is guaranteed by private individuals; whether 9,000 letters are carried to the post office, and as many carried from this district in a year, while the whole cost of the service is only 10s. a-week; whether the carriage of letters from Invergarry Post Office, Invernessshire (the only post office serving the surrounding district of upwards of 100 square miles), to Achnacarry, a distance of eight miles direct, occupies about 48 hours; whether these letters are sent by a circuitous route of about 180 miles; and, whether letters from Invergarry to Paris are delivered as soon as letters from Invergarry to Achnacarry, a distance of eight miles?

The facts stated by the hon. Member are substantially correct; but he has omitted to state that during the summer months, when the steamers are running, direct postal communication between Inverness and Fort William is main- tained. There is a difficulty about maintaining such communication in the months when the steamers are not running, as the amount of correspondence is too trifling to warrant any increased expenditure in the way of additional mail carts. It has, therefore, been necessary to have recourse for the local letters to the circuitous route viâ Inverness and Kingussie, for correspondence emanating from Invergarry and other adjacent places. But I shall be glad to consider whether some economical system of post may not, under the special circumstances, be established.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true, as stated in The Times of the 24th August, that he had an interview in Dublin Castle, on Tuesday the 23rd instant, with Irish Divisional Magistrates, who are entrusted with the administration of the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act; whether it is true, as stated in the same paper, that full information was received from the magistrates as to the state of their respective localities, and that their opinions were elicited as to the probable effects of the Crimes Act; and, whether it is in accordance with Constitutional usage that the Chief Minister of the Crown in Ireland should seek interviews, obtain full information, and sound the opinions of persons discharging judicial functions, with reference to matters coming, or likely to come, before them in their judicial capacity?

I cannot admit the right of the hon. Gentleman to ask me Questions as to interviews I may have had with persons in Ireland in the discharge of my official duties; but I can re-assure the hon. Gentleman on one point. He appears to be of opinion that Divisional Magistrates are entrusted with the administration of the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act; but there are no judicial functions assigned to them.

asked, whether not only Divisional Magistrates but Resident Magistrates were present at the inter- view; whether that interview lasted from 2 o'clock till 5; and whether the Lord Lieutenant was also present?

As I have already informed the hon. Member, that is not the kind of Question that ought to be put to me. At all events, it is not the kind of Question I feel bound to answer.

asked why, if these Divisional Magistrates had no judicial authority, they were called magistrates, and paid out of the sum voted for the Magistracy in Ireland?

Has the right hon. Gentleman any objection to state whether he conferred not only with Divisional Magistrates, but also with ordinary Resident Magistrates with regard to the Proclamation of the League?

asked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether he has received any information in regard to the disturbances reported to have occurred at Ostend; and, whether any steps have been taken for the protection of British fishermen and other subjects at that port?

asked, whether Her Majesty's Government had taken, or were about to take, any adequate steps to obtain compensation for the injuries to British fishing belonging to the East Coast?

(who replied) said: Her Majesty's Minister at Brussels has sent the substance of a Report by Mr. Vice Consul Thellusson, of Ostend, on the disturbances referred to, which corresponds substantially with the reports in the newspapers. Lord Vivian, on being made acquainted with the circumstances, at once brought the facts to the knowledge of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, who assured him that measures would be promptly taken to prevent a recurrence of the disturbances, and for the protection of British fishermen in the exercise of what His Excellency admitted to be their undoubted right, to soil their fish in the Belgian market. In answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck), I have formerly explained to the House that it is not within the function of the Public Prosecutor or the Government of a foreign country—of Belgium, for example—to procure compensation for damage done. That compensation may be obtained by a civil action; and the law of Belgium provides unusual facilities for recovery of such damages, seeing that it allows the civil suit to be brought by the aggrieved parties before the same Court which has tried the matter criminally.

said, his Question was, whether the Government would insist on compensation being paid?

I think the House will see that it is not for Her Majesty's Government to seek for compensation diplomatically when that remedy can be readily obtained by the ordinary course of law.

As arising out of the Question and answers, I should like to ask whether there is any foundation for the allegation that fish brought here, whether in British or in foreign ships, is liable to duty?

I have a Memorandum from my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Board of Trade in case this Question was asked, and as regards the United Kingdom no Customs duties are levied on the import of fish, whether in British or foreign vessels; but dues are levied in many ports and harbours for the support of such harbours. But no favour or exemption is shown to fish brought in British boats as regards these dues.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether any means have been taken to bring the statement contained in the despatch from the Bombay Government to the Secretary of State for India, of the 22nd April, 1887—namely, "that Government would regard a 'genuine movement in favour of temperance with satisfaction," to the knowledge of the Natives in those districts where spirits are retailed by Government contractors?

The extent and manner of making known the opinions of the Government of Bombay to the Natives of that Province must be left to the discretion of that Government; but the Question of the hon. Member will, no doubt, bring the matter to the knowledge of the Natives referred to.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the fact that the bayonets belonging to a battalion of the Lincolnshire Regiment, and which were supposed to be serviceable weapons, have recently been examined at Grantham, and found in many cases defective; what was the number so examined; and, what were the results?

(who replied) said: The 4th Battalion of the Lincolnshire Regiment is a Militia battalion, whose bayonets, as stated by the Secretary of State for War on the 18th of April, are in process of re-testing. At Grantham, of 800 triangular bayonets examined 512 were found serviceable, and 18 out of 31 sword-bayonets.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, How many criminal cases were tried in Ireland at the Summer Assizes, and in how many of them the Judges disapproved of the action of the juries; and, whether any Assize Court was adjourned, or the trial of any case postponed, in consequence of the withholding of evidence, the absence of witnesses, the refusal of juries to convict in proper cases, or any other impediment to the due administration of justice?

(who replied) said: As Notice of this Question was only put down yesterday evening, I am not able to answer the first paragraph as to the number of cases in which, the Judges disapproved of the action of the jurors at the last Summer Assizes. I have, however, gleaned from the ordinary sources of information—namely, the newspapers— the following facts:—At Longford, in the case of a trial for homicide, there was an acquittal, on which Mr. Justice Murphy remarked strongly, saying the verdict was contrary to the evidence. Several cases were postponed on the application of the Crown in County Clare on the ground of the impossibility of a fair trial; and after several acquittals in the face of clear evidence in Kerry, Mr. Justice O'Brien, on the application of the Crown, postponed several cases, stating the jurors had not done their duty; that they had refused to convict in the clearest and most certain cases; and that, in his experience, no such example of unfaithfulness to duty had occurred on the part of jurors in any trial; and that it was well it should be understood so far as the machinery of justice was concerned for the protection of person and property and life in that county law was at an end.

Then the answer of the right and learned Gentleman amounts to this—that in the 32 counties of Ireland there was nothing of this kind except in those cases in Clare and Kerry, and one case in County Longford?

Those were all that I could get in time for the purpose of this answer; but it is quite likely that I will be able to give the hon. Gentleman a half-dozen others.

I wish to ask the Chief Secretary, in view of the pledge given some time ago in the House that specific details should be forthcoming with reference to this matter, whether, in the course of the debate this evening, he will lay before the House the specific cases that the Government have to produce?

And I should like to ask, will the right hon. Gentleman take means to ascertain how many of these cases are due to the action of the National League?

With reference to the case of Kerry, is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that in County Kerry at the Assizes, contrary to the ordinary practice in Ireland, the Crown did not exercise the right of "stand aside," or challenge; and that Mr. Adams, who represented several of the prisoners, said to the Crown Prosecutors, in the presence of the Judge in Court, that they rode for a fall, meaning thereby that they had ridden for the discredit of the jurors, by not excluding relations and connections, as it might be, of the persons accused?

I am aware that the Crown did not exercise the right of challenge, upon the ground that such challenge would be in operative, as all the jurors were practically of the same class. As regards the observations of my friend Mr. Adams, I am unable to say what he may have said in the discharge of his duty as the prisoner's counsel; but I am able to state—having read the paper this morning—that the learned Judge gave as his reason for acceding to the request of the Crown for a postponement that he had never seen such a disregard of duty on the part of jurors in any previous trial.

May I ask whether it was by any previous concert that this method of no challenge was adopted by the Crown in Kerry?

It is hardly necessary to state to the House that the word "concert" has no application to the action of the Crown. The Crown counsel acted on their discretion on the spot, and the subsequent observations of the Judge, in my opinion, demonstrate that they acted wisely.

I must press the Chief Secretary, in view of his pledge, will he be good enough to say whether the Government intend, in the forthcoming debate, to allege specific cases?

I have no details to give to the House—I gave no such pledge.

asked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, When the Inspector General in Bankruptcy's Fourth Report will be issued; and, why it was not issued in June this year, as usual?

The Fourth Report of the Board of Trade, under Section 131 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, which includes the Report referred to by the hon. Member, was presented on Monday last, and will shortly be circulated. The Report of last year was not delivered until the 21st of September.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, in the case of the Belle of the Fleet, Ramsgate boat, the master of the Ostend boat was fined £1 and sentenced to three days' imprisonment and to pay the whole costs; whether no damages were awarded by the Belgian Court to the owner of the British vessel; on what grounds, if the captain of the Ostend Boat was found guilty of having wilfully run into and injured the Belle of the Fleet, he was not ordered to make good the damage and loss incurred by the British owners; and, what further steps he proposes to take in the matter?

asked, whether the British seamen who gave evidence in the Belgian Court were each awarded the sum of one franc only for the trouble and inconvenience to which they were put?

I have no information on that matter; but I can say, with regard to this inquiry, that several points seem to require further explanation, which has been asked for. In answer to the Question on the Paper, I may say that the master of the Ostend boat was condemned to pay a fine of 25 francs, with the alternative of three days' imprisonment, and to pay the costs. As to the question of damages being awarded, it rested with the owner of the Belle of the Fleet to make a claim for damages by a civil action at the same time and in the same Court in which the criminal proceedings were taken by the Public Prosecutor.

Is it not a practical denial of all justice that a poor man is expected to bring a civil action in a Belgian Court of Justice to obtain damages in a case like this?

I can assure the House I have again and again inquired into the matter. The Belgian law seems to afford peculiar facilities for recovering debts in the way I have described; and I have always been surprised that these facilities are not embraced by our fishermen, and that Associations do not take advantage of the opportunity to bring civil actions in the way I have indicated.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to the outrage perpetrated last October upon an English lady in Aleppo by the dragoman of the Governor of Aleppo, and to the failure of the authorities there to have the offender brought to trial; and, whether the Government have taken, or are taking, any action in the matter, with a view to the protection of British subjects? He wished to add that the outrage was only brought to the notice of the Foreign Office last month.

No Report respecting this case seems to have been received. Last autumn the Porte sent a Special Commissioner to Aleppo to inquire into the conduct of Djemil Pasha, the Governor General, and he was removed to another post in consequence of the Commissioner's Report. Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople instructed the British Consul to bring to the notice of the Ottoman Commissioner any grievance and complaints of British subjects.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether a Petition addressed to him in favour of the commutation of the sentence of eight years' penal servitude passed upon Miriam Jones at the late Swansea Assizes was forwarded to the Home Office on the 8th instant, and its receipt ac- knowledged on the 18th instant; and, if so, whether the Petition has yet been brought to the knowledge of the Secretary of State?

, in reply, said, that he had received several Petitions in favour of the commutation of the sentence.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, If, on the re-assembling of Parliament, he will allow a Select Committee to be formed, composed mainly of Scotch Members, to inquire how far the large additional expenditure, stated by the Secretary to the Treasury to be about £11,300, for the newly created Office of Secretary for Scotland and Education Department is justifiable by its usefulness to Scotland, as to the advisability of transferring some of the expenditure hitherto provided under Votes 14 and 16, Class III., to the Secretary for Scotland's Vote, and as to the possibility of meeting the whole extra expenditure of about £11,800 for the Secretary for Scotland by economies out of the other Scotch Votes; and, generally, to inquire into the position and duties in and out of Parliament of the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General for Scotland in relation to the Secretary for Scotland?

It will be the duty of the Government to consider most carefully what establishment for carrying out the work of the Secretary for Scotland's Office shall be granted; but the Government do not think it right that they should delegate their responsibility to a Committee of the House. It will be for the House to consider the proposal which the Government may make next Session.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Mr. W. J. Courthope, who has been appointed third Civil Service Commissioner at a salary of £1,200 a-year, has till now been a Junior Examiner in the Education Department; what are his special qualifications for the important post to which he has been appointed; whether any of the Commissioners have any special acquaintance with science or mathematics, in which subjects it is their duty to direct examinations; and, whether it is the case that up to the present time Mr. Courthope has been one of the editors of a Conservative periodical called The National Review; and, if so, whether he will be permitted to continue in that post?

asked, whether there was any Regulation, statutory or other, which precluded Civil servants from editing any political paper?

I have had no Notice of the last Question, and I cannot answer it. Mr. W. J. Courthope has been a junior in the Education Department. These examiners are specially selected from those who have taken high honours at the Universities, and Mr. Courthope obtained at Oxford, in 1863, a first-class in classical moderations, and in 1865 a first-class in the Final Classical Schools. He also obtained the Newdigate Prize for English verse in 1864, and the Chancellor's Prize for the English essay in 1868. These honours, and also the result of inquiries I made, were quite sufficient to satisfy me that Mr. Courthope was specially fitted for the post for which he was selected. I am not aware what special acquaintance the Civil Service Commissioners have with science and mathematics, which are only two out of many subjects in which they have to direct examinations. These examinations are conducted under the superintendence of an eminent staff of examiners, and no complaint has ever been made that the papers set in either of these subjects are of too easy a nature. If the hon. Member has any doubts on the subject the Commissioners would, I am sure, be glad to send him a few of their examination papers. Mr. Courthope resigned the joint editorship of The National Review on being informed of his appointment.

asked, whether any one of the Commissioners had taken a degree either in mathematics or science?

I really do not know; and I have already stated that these are only two of the many sub- jects in which the Commissioners have to direct examinations. It is not reasonable or desirable that they should be called upon to take a degree in every subject in which they have to direct examinations.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it was his intention to bring the debate on the Proclamation of the National League to a close at a convenient hour this evening, with the view of making effective progress with the Allotments Bill?

The debate will, I suppose, be adjourned at the usual hour at which such debates are adjourned; and, having regard to the period of the Session, I do not doubt that hon. Gentlemen who take a great interest in the Bill, as I know the hon. Member does, will be content to sit for a couple of hours in order to make progress with it.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman must be aware that there was a very large number of serious questions in connection with the Bill that could not be discussed at a late hour; and he wished to appeal to him to make an effort to bring the debate to a close a little earlier than was usual, so that they might really get one English question discussed adequately this Session.

I do not doubt that there is a strong desire on the part of English Members to discuss this question adequately, and I am certain that they do not want to discuss it more than adequately. The Government will endeavour to find ample opportunity for that adequate discussion, and I shall not be justified in interfering with the debate this evening at too early an hour.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he would inform the House how the Members of the Privy Council in Dublin were summoned to its meetings; whether they were summoned in the usual manner on the occasion of the recent Proclamations; and, if so, how we are to account for the fact that out of the 53 Members constituting the Privy Council only two were present, in addition to the Lord Lieutenant; whether he adhered to the statement he made on Friday last, that the Privy Council were not consulted before the Proclamation was issued; whether that is not in direct contravention of the terms of the Statute, which provides that an Association shall be declared to be dangerous only by and with the advice of the Privy Council; and, whether this irregularity does not render the Proclamation invalid?

I am not acquainted with the method by which the Privy Council is summoned. I have no doubt whatever that the ordinary practice was followed in the case alluded to. I do not know why not more than two Members of the Council were present; but, of course, it is habitual for the work of the Privy Council to be carried on by a very small portion of that body, especially at a time of year like the present, when a great number are absent. The hon. Gentleman asks me whether I adhere to the statement made by me, that the Privy Council were not consulted before the Proclamation was issued? Yes, Sir; I do adhere to that statement. The hon. Member asks whether that is not in direct contravention of the terms of the Act, which provides that an Association shall be declared dangerous only by and with the advice of the Privy Council? The advice is given by the Members of the Privy Council present attaching their signatures to the document; and the hon. Member concludes by asking whether this irregularity does not render the Proclamation invalid. No, Sir; it does not.

Can the right hon. Gentleman state whether a notice was sent to the right hon. John Morley, who is one of Her Majesty's Irish Privy Councillors?

The hon. and learned Gentleman had better address I that Question to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle.

Would it be in Order for me, Mr. Speaker, to take the advice of the Chief Secretary, and put a Question to a private Member?

Order, order ! The First Lord of the Treasury.

I rise, Sir, according to Notice, to move the following Resolution which stands on the Notice Paper in my name:—

" That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, humbly to represent to Her Majesty that there has been laid before this House a Special Proclamation of the Viceroy of Ireland declaring the Association known as the Irish National League to be a dangerous Association, under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887; that no information has been furnished to Parliament to justify the issue of the said Special Proclamation, by virtue of which Her Majesty's subjects are liable to be punished as criminals without judicial inquiry into the nature of their acts; and that this House, in the absence of such information, prays that the said Proclamation shall not continue in force as to the Association named and described therein."

I hope there will be no misapprehension in the House as to the nature of the function which we have to discharge to-day. It is a function imposed upon us by the act of the whole Legislature. An act of great importance, undoubtedly, which we, many of us, think to be an act of great violence, but an act of great importance has been performed by the Executive Government. That act, according to the law of the land, cannot be their act alone. The action of Parliament, whether in a negative or in a substantive form, must not be withheld. At this moment the action of Parliament is as essential, in the view of the law with respect to this Proclamation, as the action of the Executive itself. The Executive takes a solemn decision. It then introduces that solemn decision to our notice. We are called upon either to give or not to give an opinion upon it. For my own part, and for those who may think with me, I have expressed that opinion, I hope, clearly in the Motion upon the Paper. If no opinion be given upon the Proclamation the Proclamation conies to be the Proclamation of this House just as truly and substantially as it is the Proclamation of the Government. That is the reason why reference is made in the Statute to this House, that the House may become a party to it by the silence of approval, or by such comment or objection as the House may choose to make. Well now, Sir, in this particular Proclamation the Viceroy of Ireland declares, by and with the advice and consent of his Privy Council, that he is satisfied that the association known as the National League in Ireland is an association which incites to acts of violence and intimidation—I think those are the words. Sir, we do not and cannot possibly suppose that this conclusion of the Viceroy thus announced is a conclusion arbitrarily arrived at. It is necessarily founded upon information. It is impossible that the Viceroy should not have consulted—in fact, it would be the grossest breach of his duty if he had not consulted the best, the most authoritative sources of information, the largest number of those whose duty it is to supply him with information upon the state of the country; and upon that information we must take it for granted that this important conclusion of the Viceroy has been founded. Now, Sir, where is that information? We have a right to ask for it. We have a right to that information. The Statute has put upon us the duty of becoming parties to the act of the Government. Was it the intention of the Statute that when the House of Commons was to become a party to the act of the Government, or was to pass judgment upon it, it was to do so without being possessed of the means of forming a judgment? I assume it to be a matter that requires no argument, and that bears no argument. I assert that if we are associated with the Government when it comes to an important conclusion, we have a title to know the grounds upon which that conclusion has been arrived at, in order that our judgment may be supported and justified by this information in the same manner as the Government believe that their judgment is supported and justi- fied by such information. Well, Sir, the Government have been asked whether they intend to give us information in order to enable us to discharge our duty, and they have refused. I suppose there is no doubt at all that I am accurate in making that statement. Now, it is not for us to be led blindfolded to a decision upon this matter. It is for us to claim that we shall be supplied with the means of action; and if these means of action are withheld from us, then I say there are three propositions which we must immediately urge upon the House and the Government hi consequence. In the first place, it is a slight—I may almost say an outrage—upon the dignity of Parliament to suppose that it is to discharge a statutory duty of this importance without being in possession of the grounds upon which alone the discharge of that duty can properly be founded in the face of the country. In the second place, it reduces to utter destruction, to utter absurdity, the main contention of the Government put forward at the time when we were discussing the Coercion Act under which this Proclamation is issued. When the Government were pressed with the unquestionable fact that this is a wider and more searching and far-reaching Act than ever has been passed with a view to the restraint of private action in Ireland—[Ministerial cries of "No !"] I answer "Yes." I am very familiar with, that method of interruption, and treat it with as much respect as it deserves. But it is not necessary for me to make the assertion with regard to the Act as a whole. The assertion was made with regard to the Act as a whole; but of course it had reference specially to the most salient point of the Act—to the 6th and 7th sections of the Act in particular. It was pointed out that though undoubtedly this is a very unusual method of proceeding—a proceeding wholly without precedent—I think no negative to that can be ventured, even by the boldest of silent Members, yet we were called upon to observe the peculiar and effective safeguards under which it was placed. What were those safeguards? They were two. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant (Mr. A. J. Balfour) had the courage to refer to the fact that the provisions of the Act were largely or gene- rally dependent upon the discretion of the Government who applied them—that is to say, upon his own discretion. It required some cornage to place that before the House as being in the nature of a safeguard which we were to take into our view as of appreciable weight. But there was a second and a greater safeguard, and that safeguard was the action of the Government under the 6th and 7th clauses, the most vital, perhaps, and the most far-reaching of all the clauses in the Act. That action was to be subject to the concurrence, to the review of Parliament. But what, Sir, is the value of the concurrence of Parliament, what is the meaning of the review of Parliament, if the vote of this House is to be a vote given blindfolded, given in ignorance of facts, given under circumstances under which the Government daringly refuse to make known to us the very grounds of their act which the statutory authority has required us to perform and sanction? Therefore, these safeguards have proved to be a farce—a farce, and nothing less than a farce. I want to know what is the value of the approval of this House given in the dark? I want to know whether it is not an approval given in the dark if the information upon which the proceedings of the Government have been founded is to be kept secret, if that information is to be withheld? I hope I shall not be told that there are various Papers on the Table of the House with respect to Ireland which will show to me that, for a long time past, there have been a number of persons subjected to the painful process termed Boycotting, and a number of persons in Ireland subjected to the protection, and, of course, necessarily annoying protection, of the police. These are the facts which, no doubt, have been before us for months and for years. If these are the facts upon which you are to justify these proceedings, why did you come to us for a discretionary power; why did you not ask us, in the regular and Constitutional method, to proclaim, denounce, and prohibit the action of the National League when the Statute was passing through Parliament? Why did you not do that which Sir Robert Peel and the Duke of Wellington did in 1829, who, when they deemed the Roman Catholic Association to be an association injurious to peace and good order in Ireland, asked Parliament to prohibit the action and existence of that association? I do not think that following times have greatly favoured the justness of their conclusion; hut nobody can doubt the propriety of their method. Why was not that course taken in the present instance? It was obviously the duty of Her Majesty's Government, if they had a case for the prohibition of the National League, to ask Parliament to concur with them in that prohibition in a regular manner by enacting it by Statute. So much, then, for safeguards. The safeguards, be it understood, have disappeared—they are absolutely null. Be the rest of the case what it may, no man will tell me that the mere action of a Party majority in this House, not founded upon information supplied for the purpose of enabling it to form its judgment, is a safeguard and not a delusion. It is a delusion practised upon the country, and is as little creditable to the Parliament who enacted it as to the Government who proposed it. So much for these two propositions with regard to the information that is withheld from us on this important occasion. There is a third proposition not less material and weighty than that to which I have already referred, and that is this—What are we to think of the information which those who have it know will not bear the light? Remember what has been the great controversy between us during most of the debates of this year. You have professed to legislate against crime, while we have contended that you were legislating against combination apart from crime. We have now come to the occasion when, if you had a case to produce, it was alike your duty and your interest to produce it; and to show that the combinations you are legislating against are combinations which issue in a crime. You shrink from the test. You decline our challenge, although we have as much title to know on what grounds you are proceeding as you yourselves have. It is impossible not to arrive at any other conclusion than this—that you yourselves know that the information which you withhold is information which will show that your proceedings are in effect proceedings against combination which does not issue in crime. Well, Sir, so much for the question of information. But what follows? What is the light thrown by this manner of proceeding upon the nature and provisions of the Act we have been passing, and particularly upon the nature of these 6th and 7th clauses, by which it was deliberately decided to deprive Irishmen, within the liberal and large limits assigned by the 2nd clause, of the protection afforded them by judicial inquiry? The issue of it all is this—that as the concurrence of Parliament is reduced to a mere form—I am afraid I might say a mere imposture —tho action of the Government, according to the view of the Government, is to be a solo action; and, being so, what I affirm is this—that this Bill in these particular sections, so viewed and so interpreted—and, in my opinion, such an interpretation is a great and mischievous aggravation of the Bill—is a new form of suspending the Habeas Corpus Act. Yes, Sir; it is a new form of suspending the Habeas Corpus Act; it is in essence the same, in exterior shape it is somewhat different, but not, perhaps, an improvement. The meaning of the Acts which have been passed for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act is this—that the discretion of the Executive is substituted for judicial inquiry with reference to the liberty of the subject. That is the essence, and with respect to that central provision and substance of the matter the action of this Act is precisely the same—when the concurrence of Parliament in this Proclamation has been reduced to idle form by its being deprived of all judicial character, the essence of this Act becomes exactly the same as the measures for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. In the shape of the enactments I admit there is a difference, because in the case of the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Acts you have a power of imprisonment undefined in its length further than it may be denned by the fact of such Bills being necessarily odious and un-Constitutional, whereas this Act has been deemed to be so great a blessing to Ireland that it has been deemed unjust to assign beforehand any limited period during which she is to enjoy it. What have we got to substitute for the discretionary power of the Executive in those Acts in the present Act? In the present Act we have an apparent trial, with a summary jurisdiction of imprisonment for six months. Is that an improvement? Is that apparent trial an advantage? Why do I call it an apparent trial? Because, although it has the exterior of a trial, inasmuch as the fact must be affirmed before a judicial tribunal, yet the law, the nature of the acts done, the character of the association, the substance or the emptiness, and futility of the allegations of the Government are entirely withheld from the cognizance of any Court of Justice whatever. And when any hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hackney (Sir Charles Russell) endeavoured to secure that there should be something like a judicial concurrence, at any rate, of these Resident Magistrates in the judgment arrived at by the Lord Lieutenant that was refused by the Government, and nothing is left to the Court of Summary Jurisdiction but the simple recognition of the fact that a meeting of the National League was held when a certain person was present at it, or that an advertisement appeared in some newspaper friendly to the general purposes of Nationalism, or something else of that kind. Why, Sir, what kind of trial is this? It is, as it appears to me, identical in substance with what the Law of Libel was in this country before the time of Mr. Fox, when what you had to do was to prove the fact of publication, and when the fact of publication was proved the character of the publication was altogether withheld from the cognizance of the jury. Now, how do you look back upon that period—the introduction of the Court of Justice as little better than a mockery and a delusion and a snare, to use the language of Lord Ddntnan—when the essence of the thing was withheld from judicial cognizance? When you were giving the Viceroy the whole substance, you might as well, perhaps, have given him the shell too. At any rate, this apparent trial may have the effect of deluding superficial observers into the idea that the case has been judicially handled, when, in point of fact, it has been determined, exclusively, to all substantial intents and purposes, in the chambers of the Viceroy of Ireland. I think that that is a state of things which is hardly creditable in a country in which liberty is valued as highly as it is hero, and which has lately widened very largely its securities for liberty by calling in the popular judgment on a scale hitherto unprecedented. The libertie of the people in one of the Three Kingdoms are to be committed to a jurisdiction unprecedented in our annals, unknown to our history; and that upon a scale, and in a manner, of which tyranny, even in former times, had never formed the brilliant conception. The arbitrary will of the Government is to be substituted for the regular action of the law. This principle of assumption instead of law is a principle most dangerous—I think most disgraceful—to be enacted in any country, most of all to be enacted in Ireland. There is no country whose claim to be treated with the strictest legality, and with the strictest observance of the higher principles of the Constitution, is so strong as that of Ireland; because there is no other country in which for such lengthened periods law has been made to assume the form of an outrage upon, the people. Unfortunately, we ail know very well that this has not been simply in ancient times. We all know very well that a great wrong has been inflicted upon the people of Ireland by the Acts of the Imperial Parliament. All of us, at least the great bulk of us—a large and increasing proportion of us—who sit on this side of the House are of opinion that nothing could be more grossly unjust than the manner in which, by Acts of the Imperial Parliament, the whole law of tenure and the recovery of rent was completely reconstituted in the earlier years of this century against the tenant and in favour of the landlord. We know—at least, I believe we know—that there never was a grosser act of injustice—though I do not believe it was unjustly intended, but that is quite another matter—there never was a grosser act of injustice perpetrated by the Legislature than when in the Constitution of the Encumbered Landed Estates Court we not only enabled but encouraged by our solemn sanction the encumbered landlords of Ireland to sell the improvements they had not made to people who were to give value for them, knowing that the value was to go into the pocket of the outgoing landlord, and the incoming landlord, who would pay for it, was naturally expecting it would be repaid to him in an increased rent. I might go later down. I might make an appeal to the Treasury Bench in relation to the Habeas Corpus Act of 1881, which I have heard this year censured by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bury (Sir Henry James), and which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland has described in my hearing as a monstrous Act, with respect to which I confess I am not forward to undertake the defence of its provisions, although I am of opinion that in the condition which Ireland then presented special legislation of some kind was necessary unless we were prepared to give over to Irish hands the management of Irish affairs. All this has been done, and the law in Ireland is still upon its trial. The misfortune of Ireland is that in Ireland, in contrast to England and Scotland, those who administer the law, and especially those who administer the law locally and enforce the law, are not in sympathy either with the aspirations or the feelings or the interests of the people. Under these circumstances, it appears to me to be in the strongest sense playing with edged tools to pursue these rough and ready, these arbitrary methods, of dealing with the people of Ireland, for while the Coercion Act set up the intervention and review of Parliament as a safeguard and control on the Executive and the language delivered most emphatically by the authorized Representatives of the Government in de bate was to the same effect, yet a course has been taken which reduces the whole of this supervision of Parliament to a mere idle form, and makes the Executive Government uncontrolled master, within the limits of the 2nd clause, of the liberties of the people of Ireland with reference to all associations which they may think proper to proclaim. I am of opinion, therefore, that in Ireland it is not merely the Moonlighters, not merely the exclusive dealers, the Boy-cotters; but it is also the administrators of the law, and the law itself, that have, to a large extent, a character to retrieve, with respect to which it is our most sacred and solemn duty to take care that we do nothing further to compromise its dignity and its influence in the eyes and the minds of the Irish people. Well, now, Sir, we are tempted to ask which is the object which Her Majesty's Government contemplate as the probable result of this Proclamation. I will not oven touch the more delicate part of the question; I will ask myself, What is the National League? It is said to be a League which has for its members 500,000 of the people of Ireland. I know not whether that is statistically established. I simply quote the figures which are in current circulation, and I do not know whether they can be contradicted. If these figures be true, it is a very important truth, because it shows how unawares we come, or may come, nearer and nearer to that state of things which was once vividly and boldly described by Sir James Graham in reference to a far milder Statute, and under a far milder Government—when he said of a Bill he was opposing that in his opinion it came near to a declaration of war against the people of Ireland. I do not doubt that the sin of the League is that it has actively promoted and incited popular combination. I take it, there can be no question that those combinations have been formed and encouraged, not by any means only—far from it—but partly with a view of the enforcement of what is called exclusive dealing. I have never said a word to mitigate the character of exclusive dealing. It is, in my opinion, an evil and an objectionable practice in whatever hands it may be. This, I own, is a very popular practice, and popular, not in the sense of being dear to the people, but in the sense of being very agreeable to those persons of power and influence who make it an instrument by which they can promote their purposes. I have not a doubt, Sir, and perhaps hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway may partially, though I do not think they will wholly, dissent from my observations—I have not a doubt that these combinations, this exclusive dealing, must involve much personal hardship on innocent persons. What is this exclusive dealing? It is the symptom of a social disease, and you, like quack doctors, are aiming all your power at a symptom and neglecting the source of the disease. You are only driving the disease in. Does the most sanguine among you believe that you can stop or effectually narrow the practices you think objectionable on the part of the National League? I doubt if you believe it. Certainly, I think, none of us believe it; but what we do contemplate as possible is this. If your Proclamations, or your measures, or your orders under this Proclamation have any success at all—which must be most problematical— but if they have any success at all, all the success they can have will be to substitute secret and clandestine action for action open to the light of day, and to substitute secret proceedings which none of us can get at for proceedings that can be published in the newspapers, that can be blazoned abroad as they very properly should be in all the organs of the landlords, and can be made the subject of special criticism and censure in the House of Commons. Is that substitution of secret for public action of itself good? It appears to me to be the exact reverse of good. You release all those who are engaged in it from responsibility—public responsibility—but you do not seriously narrow their liberty of action. You cannot deal with a whole people—I mean the whole people in by far the larger part of Ireland—effectually by these methods of coercion. You failed to do it in former centuries and former generations. Great changes have taken place in the present generation, and the most important change of all is that which has occurred within the last five years, when the Irish people have become fully enfranchised—possibly, looking to the construction of the law as it bears upon Ireland, quite as fully emancipated—I beg pardon, I mean enfranchised—quite as fully an enfranchised people as the people of either England or Scotland. So much for the miserable and scanty fruits—not miserable and scanty only, but the unsavoury and probably poisonous fruits—which you will hope to reap from this discretionary and arbitrary action. Now, Sir, I have contemplated the League on its side of weakness, and I have said that I do not doubt for a moment that much hardship must be involved in the action of popular combination; but is that a reason why we should go to the root of the matter and declare them illegal, or act against them as if they were illegal? If you strike at the hardships inflicted by exclusive dealing—though I do not believe that you could strike at them without substituting a greater evil for a lesser one—you ought to strike at them in all classes alike. [An hon. MEMBER: Huntingdon.] What is the difference, the vital difference, in this respect between the wealthy and poorer classes? The difference is this—that for all the important purposes of annoyance, vexation, and oppression which are comprised in the large assemblage of acts which in one or other of its various forms may be called exclusive dealing, in the use of that great power the rich man can proceed single-handed; he is strong enough to annoy, to vex, and oppress in a multitude of cases by his own solo action, without asking counsel or aid, and without rendering account why or wherefore. Not so the poor man. The poor man can only be defended by combination. It is combination alone—apart from crime—it is combination alone which places them upon a footing of anything approaching to equality with those whose interests may at times be in competition with or in opposition to theirs; and if you strike at combination on the part of the mass you deprive them of the weapon which in its full efficiency remains in the hands of the adversary with whom they may have to deal. We say you do not go to the root of the matter, and what we mean by going to the root of the matter the House is well aware. I will not enter now on the merits of that discussion; but having looked at the League from one sido—namely, the evils which its action produces, or the errors its members may have been betrayed into—I must look at it upon the other side. I must consider what it has done for the people of Ireland, as well as what it has done against any individuals among them. I wish with all my heart we may live to see the day when exclusive dealing in every class and rank may not only be abandoned in practice, but the very name forgotten. But I cannot consent to overlook the facts which stare me in the face as to the effect which has been obtained by means which may not be warranted, but for an end and a purpose which is not only lawful merely, but almost sacred. There has been—it is admitted now on all hands—a case in Ireland. The Legislature has thought it necessary to step in to recognize that case, and to legislate upon it. There has been a ease in Ireland where rents required to be reduced, and where there was not that willingness to reduce them which happily so widely prevails in this country, and the wide prevalence of which has enabled us to tide over, as I trust in the future it will, many and many a social as well as political difficulty. Has the action of the League in these respects been able to afford a real and humane influence in that behalf? I shall quote testimonies in its favour that cannot be contradicted—testimonies of persons who cannot be accused of undue friendliness to its principles, or even to its objects. Now, Sir, I shall quote only two of those testimonies—one of them is the evidence of Sir Redvers Buller, to which, in these new and unparalleled circumstances, it becomes necessary to revert. When Sir Redvers Buller was asked by Lord Milltown as to the general sympathy with, the action of the League, Sir Redvers Buller replied—"Yes; I think there is sympathy, because they think it has been their salvation." That is the statement in the evidence of Sir Redvers Buller. I have seen various editions of the evidence of Sir Redvers Buller. One of those editions contained an expression of concurrence in that view and sympathy with that view which is apparent in every line of that evidence of Sir Redvers Buller. In answering a further question, he said—

" The tenants in the West part of Ireland told me of rents that have been reduced and evictions that have been stayed which is directly due to the operation of the League. They believe that, whatever truth there may be in it."

Then he goes on, without any interposition of words, to say that he is merely quoting the opinions of others. He goes on to say—

"Nobody did anything for the tenants until the League was established; and when the landlords could not let their farms, then they were forced to consider the question of rent."

How does this evidence stand by the side of other testimony borne in this House by a very able Member of this House—the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell)—whose private opinions and leanings I have no-power to estimate, but with respect to whom, listening with much admiration to his able speeches, I must own I think that if there be any man who must be wholly exempt from the charge in whole or in part of any kind of sympathy with Irish Nationalists in Ireland or in this House, the Member for South Tyrone appears to be that man. Were I entitled to assume the character of a critic, I might even say that there is a little more than the absence of sympathy; but, at any rate, it is enough for me to establish the character of the hon. Member as a witness in this House. I am going to quote language of the hon. Gentleman, and he will correct me if I am wrong, as to the substance of a very recent declaration of his—uncontradicted, so far as I know, in any quarter of the House. The substance of it was this. The hon. Member said that in Leinster, Munster, and Connaught, the three Provinces of Ireland, I think he said, in which outrage and intimidation had done their work, there had been reduction; in Ulster there had not been outrage and intimidation, and there had been no reduction.

I said little or no reduction.

I beg pardon—little or no reduction—I wish to quote accurately; but I was not very far from the mark. Well, Sir, the meaning is this—he has indicated three Provinces of Ireland in which there have been reductions, and those three Provinces have been the Provinces in which there has been effective action of the League. Do not suppose that I am stating these facts with respect to the National League for the purpose of insinuating that the League is to be allowed to do what it likes. Nothing of the sort. But what I am contending is this. That where there is a great association which, through a considerable part of Ireland, commands the confidence of the people, and where that association is, by the confession of witnesses, in some cases hostile and in others perfectly impartial and raised far above the reach of prejudice—where that association has been the means of conferring relief upon the tenantry of Ireland, relief which you, by your legislative acts, have admitted ought to be conferred—those are reasons strong and conclusive as if almost they were written in Holy Writ. My object is to show that in dealing with such an association you ought rigidly to adhere to the principles of law, and carefully to eschew the methods of arbitrary government and discretion. [Ironical Ministerial cheers.] You sneer, but you seem unconscious that my main, position is this—that by the strained and unheard of construction which you give to the statutory declaration respecting the intervention of this House, you depart entirely from the principles of law; you become yourselves so far, not law-abiders, but law-breakers. You set a bad, a mischievous, and a dangerous lesson to the people of Ireland when, if you find the language of the Statute inconvenient and restrictive with reference to a licence of action, you are determined to make no more difficulties than some persons in some parts of Ireland have made in bending the language of that Statute to your purpose. Well, now, Sir, I am well aware that in dealing with this question we are not to reargue the 6th and 7th sections. I am not rearguing them. I have spoken entirely upon what appears to me to be their undeniable construction, if any Act of Parliament is capable of being read plainly, in a plain sense and meaning. I have spoken of war against the people of Ireland; but pray observe that you cast the net very wide. I believe the members of this League are counted by hundreds of thousands; but in the 7th clause you go beyond the members of the League. The League itself is to be unlawful; the assemblies of any of its members for its purposes are to be unlawful; to call or to share in them is to be unlawful; to publish, with a view to promoting them, is to be unlawful. These are curious words. I think if those words be thus construed they will apply to comments in a friendly newspaper on any of the proceedings of the League—not to The Times or The Standard, who will not be suspected of sympathy with those purposes, and will be exempt from this prosecution, because it will not be construed to be "with a view to promoting the purposes of the League;" but whore the friendly newspaper inserts an advertisement or comments, without entirely condemning, where it points out that moneys have been received for the League, and that moneys will continue to be received for the League in such and such a place, I suppose that friendly newspaper will run a very slender chance indeed before the two Resident Magistrates. And, now, Sir, I may remind the House of a rather remarkable passage in a speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland—I think it was the speech in which he introduced the Crimes Act. He said that the Bill contained no clauses relating to the Press, but that it contained provisions—I am not quoting his exact words; he will correct me if I misrepresent their substance—but it contained provisions under which he thought it reasonable to hope that the conduct of the Press would be somewhat modified and restrained. No Press Clauses! Not for the world would this Government have the odium of Press Clauses; but it is a new and ingenious invention to avoid the odium of Press Clauses, and yet to introduce words into your Act under which at the sole discretion of the Executive Government persons writing upon the National League, with ever so qualified a favour of its purposes or with ever so candid a recognition of the real good which General Redvers Buller and the hon. Member for South Tyrone say that it has attained, will be liable to be brought before two Resident Magistrates and to have their action qualified, modified, and restrained. Well, it appears to me that, viewing the matter as a whole, we are pressing the people of Ireland very hard. It is quite evident that it is intended to work the recent law by the method of summary jurisdiction, and the circuit of summary jurisdiction has accordingly been expanded, and the actions of which, it can take cognizance have, according to Mr. Justice Holmes, been enlarged and increased. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland said it was very unfortunate that Mr. Justice Holmes had never been able to attend this House for the purpose of contradicting the account that had been given of his words. Yes, Sir; and what is a great deal more unfortunate still is that if he had attended this House he could not and would not have contradicted the account that was given of his words. I, for one, am perfectly ready to take my affidavit and make my deposition of having heard those words, and I am perfectly certain that Mr. Justice Holmes will not contradict them. Well, we have taken away from the people of Ireland within limits which we think sufficiently wide to make this summary jurisdiction an effective instrument for the working of the Act—we have take a away from them trial by jury. We have brought the whole law of association and the law affecting all those who belong to an association, or who in any way promote their purposes—for the words are as large as they can be—under the sole discretion of the Executive Government, just as much as if we had passed in plain and honest terms a suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. We have set up with this tribunal of summary jurisdiction and constituted it in a manner that was deemed to be safe; and now, even to this pet tribunal—even to these two Resident Magistrates—we will not allow any power of trying I the nature of the acts done in connection with the proclaimed association for which they are to award six months' imprisonment. Sir, is not that pressing hard on the patience and spirit of endurance of the people? We will not allow them to judge. Of course, they cannot judge anything but the bare fact, which is of little or no consequence; but of the character of the act, its legality, or its spirit, they can pronounce no judgment; and finally we, the House of Commons, are absolutely shut out by the action, and I presume we shall be shut out by the declaration, of the Government from performing anything but an absolutely perfunctory operation in connection with the great responsibility laid upon us by the Statute. Our judgment is to be of no more worth than the nodding of a Chinese mandarin made in porcelain to convey our sanction to a measure or a proposition. This is going very low indeed. And most curiously, by the structure of the Act in this respect, even now we are not dealing with conclusive proceedings under it. Under the Proclamation itself nothing can be done. It is only indirectly that action can take place, and in virtue of that action the liberties of the people are to be sacrificed and trampled under the feet of the Executive Government. It is to be done by orders issued from time to time, and of these orders the House of Commons is not to have even the smallest cognizance. We are called upon to take cognizance of the Proclamation, which by itself does nothing, and that cognizance is reduced to a perfect farce. The whole of the operative proceedings under the Proclamation is reserved for the action of the Government of Ireland, without even the formal acknowledgment of our authority in the matter. The sword of Damocles is to hang over the heads of the Irish people. When we look to the sanction of the Act, there are no jury, no Judge, no Resident Magistrates, no control of Parliament; there is nothing but the absolute, unmitigated, arbitrary discretion of the Executive Government—of a political and necessarily a partizan Government. Well, will the Irish people bear the pressure that we are thus putting on their patience? I hope that they will, and I believe that they will. In my opinion, although the remains of former ill habits will necessarily be found in a country like Ireland, which has suffered so much and so long—although grievances may in the hands of those of the less instructed and less Christian-minded part of the population associate themselves with opportunity for the indulgence of evil passions—yet I rejoice to think that under recent pressure the conduct of the Irish people has testified to the great absence of all special and exceptional crime and to a great regard for and observance of the authority of the law. I trust, Sir, with all my heart, that that attitude will be continued; and if I may be permitted to offer them one syllable of recommendation, with all the earnestness that I can command, it is that it should be steadily continued. But what will be the motive that will come to reinforce other good motives in inducing the people to show respect for the law is Ireland under such trying circumstances as I have described in connection with the proceedings of the Legislature and also those of the Executive Government at this moment? If the Irish people suffer silently and obey, as I trust they will, they will not, I am sure, suffer and obey through fear. It will not be through fear of your Viceroys and your Chief Secretaries, nor through fear of your Proclamation and your orders issued from time to time. It will not be through fear. It will, on the contrary, be from the action of strong, vivid, and buoyant hope. The spirit of hope has come into the mind of Ireland within the last two years, and has become a great agent in determining its conduct. That spirit of hope was not effectually damped even at the General Election, when the Irish people saw that those to whose sympathy they looked had become a very small minority of this House. It subsisted under the darker circumstances of the last summer; it has become brighter and more lively. The Irish people believe that the policy of Her Majesty's Government is not the sense of the British nation. They know that the time and the opportunity must come—whether the majority of this House like it or whether they like it not—when that sense will be fully and authentically declared, and they are willing to trust to: it and they are confident of its character. They know likewise that under the operation of the law from time to time, as we have seen during recent years, opportunities sufficiently significant arise from month to month, and almost from week to week, from which inferences can, with rational probability, be drawn. I believe, Sir, that when that time comes the verdict will be the verdict that they desire and that they like; and they derive from current events accumulating and not insufficient evidence that such will be the case. And as they believe this, so, I think, I may say that we—those for whom I may presume to speak—believe it also. That that opinion of ours is the opinion of those who differ from us in this House or outside of it I do not say; but many of those who differ from us, if they do not believe that that is the case, are beginning rather ominously to suspect it. In the feeling of Ireland, Sir, we concur. We think that you have built your house upon the sand. The house may be in itself all very well as far as it goes. It is a majority of this House—a majority of tin's Parliament; and that majority is hold together with a great, or possibly we may find a somewhat diminishing, tenacity. But the House will not make the foundation of the house. The foundation of the house, if we are right, is slipping away from under your feet. It appears to us on this occasion in connection with this Proclamation that the violence of your proceedings increases as the strength which alone can sustain them steadily diminishes. And this, Sir, Ireland sees, and wisely and justly judging the signs of the times and taking account of this accumulating evidence, she trusts to this great nation for the fulfilment of her reasonable wishes; and in that generous expectation I, for one am convinced that she will not be disappointed. I beg, Sir, to move the Resolution which stands in my name.

There is much, Sir, in the speech to which we have just listened as to which I should like to have detained the House, but which, however interesting in itself, does not appear to me to be relevant to the issue now before us, but to be rather appropriate in its character to the too prolonged debates which we have already had on the Criminal Law Amendment Bill. There is especially one passage of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman on which I should like to have dwelt, in. which he took occasion to repeat for the third or fourth time a proposition which. I believe to be wrong in law and in fact, a proposition which he attributes—without a shadow of foundation, though. I do not doubt that he believes it—to the late Attorney General for Ireland, of which no record can be found, which, was not heard by his Friends, which is in direct contradiction to all he said in private, and which has been contradicted in the House of Lords, by, perhaps, the greatest living legal authority, the noble and learned Lord who was Solicitor General, Attorney General, and three times Lord Chancellor in the Governments of the right hon. Gentleman. That proposition is that by the Crimes Act we created new offences. But, important as such a statement would be if it were accurate, I must on this occasion abstain from doing more than giving it a passing contradiction, and must hasten at once to a consideration of the substance of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. On what does he base the Resolution which has been put from the Chair? He bases it, in the first place, on the ignorance in which he asserts that the House has been left as to the ground of the Proclamation; and, in the second place, on on a defence of the action of the National League. I confess, though I think his case a weak one, on his first point he would have been well-advised had he not gone further. I think he would have been well-advised, in the interests of his own fame and reputation, if he had not taken upon himself to defend an association, the character of whose actions in certain parts of Ireland I shall shortly have to discuss before the House at considerable length. I will take the first count in the right hon. Gentleman's argument. It is that the House is not at this moment in possession of sufficient information to enable them to form a judgment on the question before them, and that the deficiency of information is the fault of Her Majesty's Government. Sir, information abounds. It is not want of information that is the difficulty, but the mass of information. It is not the difficulty of finding facts which taxes our industry or ingenuity, but how to make a selection out of the enormous accumulation of facts presented to our notice, and I will point out to the right hon. Gentleman that some of those facts have been laid before the House in the form of official Returns. He seems to make very light of those Returns—he seems to suppose that they have little bearing on this case. Is he aware that in the last Return laid before this House it is shown that nearly 5,000 persons in Ireland at this moment me suffering under the curse of Boycotting? Is he aware that Boycotting is the chief instrument of the National League—an instrument which it has freely used and never disavowed; and is he incapable of drawing the inference that the association under whose auspices nearly 5,000 persons are subjected to this kind of coercion is an association fatal to the rudiments of personal liberty in the country where it exists? That is not the only fact before the House in an official form. The right hon. Gentleman has quoted from the Cowper Commission. Has he read what the Commissioners say upon this question? The Cowper Commission gives an account of Boycotting practised by the members of the National League. I shall read an extract to the House—

"Outrage was at first made use of to intimidate parties who were willing to pay rents, but latterly the methods of passing resolutions at National League meetings, causing their proceedings to be reported in local newspapers, naming obnoxious men, and then Boycotting those named, have been adopted. Tenants who have paid even the judicial rents have been summoned to appear before self-constituted tribunals, and, if they failed to do so, or, appearing, failed to satisfy those tribunals, have been fined or Boycotted. The people are more afraid of Boycotting, which depends for its success on the probability of outrage, than they are of the judgments of the Courts of Justice. This unwritten law in some districts is supreme. We deem it right to call attention to the terrible ordeal that a Boycotted person has to undergo, which was by several witnesses graphically described during the progress of our inquiry. The existence of a Boycotted person becomes a burden to him, as none in town or village are allowed, under a similar penalty to themselves, to supply him or his family with the necessaries of life. He is not allowed to dispose of the produce of his farm. Instances have been brought before us in which his attendance at Divine Service was prohibited; in which his cattle have been some killed, some barbarously mutilated; in which all his servants and labourers were ordered and obliged to leave him; in which the most ordinary necessaries of life, and even medical comforts, had to be procured from long distances; in which no one would attend the funeral of or dig a grave for a member of a Boycotted person's family; and in which his children have been forced to discontinue attendance at the National School of the district."

Now, Sir, the facts here stated are familiar to the House, and I do not require to go to the Cowper Commission to establish their existence. But I quote the extract to show that there is evidence now before the House on this question in an official form, which of itself is conclusive.

It is not a unanimous Report.

If that is so, you ought to have prohibited the League by the Act.

I did not catch the right hon. Gentleman's interruption.

I do not wish to interfere; but, as you desire it, I say that the Cowper Report ought to have been dealt with in the recent Act.

That is an argument with which I shall deal in its proper place. The right hon. Gentleman seems to suppose that the Government have entirely relied upon secret and confidential Reports. Of course, there are confidential Reports. It is perfectly true there are confidential Reports in large numbers on which a case might be made; but it is a great error to suppose that you require confidential Reports to make out a case. There is ample and overflowing material in the reports of the local newspapers in Ireland, which, to go no further back than the last two or throe months, abound in facts sufficient, in my judgment, and I hope in the judgment of the House, to justify the action of the Government in this matter. Then he asks me why we did not issue the Proclamation before; why we did not mention the League in the Crimes Act. I will give the hon. Gentleman—[Mr. T. M. HEALY: Right honourable.]—the right hon. Gentleman three reasons why we did not mention the League in the Act. I have been of opinion ever since I went to the Irish Office that the League came under the definition of a dangerous association; but I thought it inexpedient to proclaim it until the Land Act was passed. That is the first reason why we did not put the National League by name in the Act? But there is another reason, of which the right hon. Gentleman should know something; for his own Government had experience of how an association can change its name without changing its nature. How the National League would have laughed at such legislation—[Mr. T. M. HEALY: They laugh at you now.] [Cries of "Order !"]—which they would be able to overcome by no more elaborate process than a change of name. But there was yet a third reason why the National League is not mentioned by name in the Act. It may prove not to be the only association which will come under this clause. We cannot tell what dangerous associations may spring up under this Act. Had we limited the possibility of action to one association we should have rendered ourselves open to difficulties. I hope I have now answered sufficiently the right hon. Gentleman in regard to this matter. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that, by our action, we had practically abolished the Habeas Corpus Act. It appears to me, with all due deference, that when the right hon. Gentleman made that statement he did not really understand what the Habeas Corpus Act does for the liberties of the country. [Ironical cheers.] Well, I will show what I mean. The effect of the Habeas Corpus Act, and the system of law of which it is the expression, is to make it impossible to put and keep a man in prison for an offence not known to be an offence when committed, or of which cognizance cannot be taken by the tribunals when it is committed. This effect it will still have. A man must have ample opportunity of knowing that he has committed an offence before he can be brought under the clauses of this Act. By the Proclamation, and by the order depending upon it a particular association is declared to be illegal in a particular locality. If after that a man acts as a member of it he commits an offence against the law as knowingly and as directly as if he picked a pocket or broke into a house. Whether it is a good law or a bad law is a different point. The right hon. Gentleman thinks it is a bad law; we think it is a necessary law, and therefore a good law, and so far we differ; but there should be no difference of opinion on the point that the law, be it good or bad, leaves the man who obeys it under the protection of the Habeas Corpus Act. Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect the action of his own Government when he says, and says most falsely, that we have, in effect, suspended the Habeas Corpus Act?

That is not usual language.

I will at once apologize to the right hon. Gentleman; I meant no offence by using the word "falsely"; I simply meant that the accusation was not one that could be sustained. Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that his own Government actually did what he alleges without a shadow of foundation that this Government has done? They suspended the Habeas Corpus Act, and by so doing destroyed the predecessor of the National League—the Land League—while the Leader of the Irish Party was in prison, when Parliament was not sitting, and without a fragment of information being given to the House or to the country. They proclaimed the Land League in a manner which made it absolutely impossible for any man in Ireland to know whether he would or would not be imprisoned by the Executive without the intervention of any tribunal. No doubt the proclamation of the Land League without the intervention of the Habeas Corpus Act is open to the strictures which the right hon. Gentleman has erroneously made upon us. Does he recollect the terms in which his Government proclaimed the Land League? They are very interesting taken in connection with the line of argument which it has pleased the right hon. Gentleman to take to-night. He was eloquent to-night upon the fact that the National League was a protection to the tenants in the struggle with their landlords, and that we by our action are interfering with a legitimate combination which deals with the relations between landlords and tenants.

That was not my statement at all.

If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to correct me specifically I shall be glad to give way. I will now read the Proclamation the right hon. Gentleman issued in 1881, when the Habeas Corpus Act was really suspended—

"Whereas an association styled the Irish Land League has existed for some time past and assumes to interfere with the Queen's subjects in the free exercise of their lawful rights, and especially "

—let the right hon. Gentleman mark these words—

"to control the relations of landlord and tenant."

The right hon. Gentleman has done a great deal more, it appears, than change his opinions on Home Rule since this Proclamation; it appears that he has changed his opinions upon the fundamental operation of law in this country, and upon what does or does not constitute justice or injustice as between different classes. It is not merely his political opinion that has altered—his political morality has altered too. In vindicating the National League the right hon. Gentleman gave what I can only regard as a defence of Boycotting. I am aware that he faintly condemned certain of the aspects of the process; but in the main he appeared to find in the League something necessary, if not laudable, and something which produced excellent and desirable fruits in the country; but it appears to me that when the right hon. Gentleman claims Boycotting as a legitimate mode of limiting the unjust exercise of rights in any society, did it not occur to him that precisely the same argument, with no less effect and force, may be used to defend assassination, when used for the same purpose? I can understand someone following strictly the line of argument which the right hon. Gentleman suggested, and saying of assassination that it was an instrument the use of which he deplored, which leads to very disastrous consequences, which was perhaps wrong in itself, but which as a check, as a limitation on rights unduly pressed, might be used with advantage in certain countries and in certain states of society. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would shrink from such an argument. Then he should be careful how he uses a similar one to justify practices which in times past nobody has more severely denounced than himself. I regret that it is necessary that I should go at some length into the character of this association, quoting evidence from various sources of information which in the main are open to hon. Members. I cannot give a better summary of the conclusions I shall claim to deduce than by reading one quotation, which is in these terms—

"It is not only the landlords and the red-hot Orangemen who feel apprehension, but it is everyone who has offended the Land League—or the National League, as it was called aftor-wards—by not taking an active part in its support; everyone who has asserted his legal right to work for whom he likes or to take farms from whom he likes; everyone who has taken any part in bringing to justice those whom the organs of the now dominant Administration and Party regard as victims and martyrs; every quiet citizen and every member of that minority which would not be a minority if both Parties would join in a determination that law and order should no longer be trifled with in Ireland any more than it is trifled with in Yorkshire and Somersetshire."—(3 Hansard, [304] 1111.)

There cannot be a better summary of the facts and arguments I shall lay before the House. It does not lose any weight with me, and I am sure it will not lose any weight in the House, when I say that that passage is from a speech made by the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir George Trevelyan) in the debate on the Government of Ireland Bill in April of last year. It has been asserted by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) that the association which we take power to suppress in certain parts of Ireland is a political association, and ought to be treated with the same careful regard to all its rights as any other political association in Scotland, England, or Ireland. I entirely deny that, according to any sound definition of political, association, the National League is a political association. That some of the objects of the National League may be political I do not deny. I have not the least doubt that all the members desire Home Rule, and will make every effort they can to obtain it, and I admit that that is a political object; but you cannot determine whether this association is a political association in such a sense that it deserves the respect of the House merely by defining the objects for which it was originated. You have to consider its methods also. Are the methods by which the National League obtains adhesion to its views, by which it obtains increase in the number of its members—are they argument and persuasion, the only instruments legitimately used by political organizations deserving of the name? I have no doubt that some of the ruffians who in the French Revolution used the guillotine to obtain uniformity of opinion in France would have described themselves—as indeed they did—as a political organization. In the same way, no doubt, the Inquisition would have been described as a religious organization. The Inquisition, like the National League, obtained adhesion to its ranks by other methods than those of argument and persuasion; and, had it suited the exigencies of the time, the right hon. Gentleman might have moved some such Resolution as this in defence of its position, and the senior Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) would have given it, as he now gives to the National League, his "moral support." But does that justify arguments of the kind I have described? The fact that associations are religious or political may absolve them from the judgment of this House; but it does not prevent us, should it be necessary, from taking action in the interests of order. I have had occasion to remind the House that the National League recruits itself by intimidation. That statement, when I first made it, was denied by the hon. Member who was, and still is, I believe, secretary of the organization. He said the Central League in Dublin would dissolve any branch that practised intimidation for such an object. I do not know what course the Central League may have taken; but I can state with absolute certainty that at the time I spoke, and before and since, the branches of the League have never hesitated to coerce persons to join it and to subscribe to its funds. It is that which fundamentally distinguishes the National League from anything that we know as a political organization in this country or in Scotland. Let me read a few extracts to establish what I say. Here is one dated the 13th of August, 1887. The Munster Express of that date says—

"Kilmacow.—The usual meeting of this branch was held on Sunday, July 31. The Rev. Thomas Kennedy presided. A notice was ordered to be taken of Edmond Cassin's conduct, as a member, in giving assistance to James Kinsella to draw coals, knowing him to be an expelled member, and at the same time having the assistance of a supporter of a land-grabber. Mr. Peter Haberlin, Kilmacow, was then called in and charged with working for an obnoxious party. He admitted all, and promised, if pardoned, he would not offend for the time to come."

Of course, what I wish to point out hero is that this is simply a way of saying that a man shall not work for anybody who has been expelled from his branch of the League. In The Dundalk Democrat of the 25th of June, 1887, there is a resolution which was passed by the Tallanstown branch condemning as traitors and cowards all persons who did not become members of the League. In The Kerry Sentinel of the 3rd of June, I read that a resolution was passed strongly condemning all persons who have not joined the League.

Give the text of the resolution.

If the hon. and learned Gentleman doubts the accuracy of what I have read he can refer back for himself to the newspaper which I have mentioned. On the 12th of June—and this is official information—

Five men carrying arms entered the house of Alexander Moyinham, of Raheen, put him on his knees, and fired shots over his head. The motive was that he had not paid his subscription to the National League.

The Tuam News of the 24th of June says that in the Kilcornan branch of the League a resolution was passed expelling all members who had any communication with persons who declined to join the League.

Is the right hon. Gentleman still reading from the papers?

What I was reading from was a brief extract of a notice which appeared in The Tuam News of the 24th of June. Here is a resolution in The Kerry Sentinel of the 3rd of June, passed at the Knocknagoshel branch. It strongly condemns all per- sons in the district who have not joined the League. The New Ross Standard, of July 25, contains the following:—

"Rathmure and Templeudigan Branch.—Mr. J. Redmond, V.P., presiding. It was announced that at next meeting a new committee should be appointed, as the term of the existing one had expired; consequently every member is expected to attend. Another cogent reason for a full attendance is that on that day will close the receiving of subscriptions fur membership, and cards for same will be distributed. All who have not yet subscribed will be good enough to do so at or before next meeting, and the committee are requested to bring a list of the subscribers and non-subscribers in their respective localities. The names of the latter will be kept in the committee room as a record of the number of anti-Nationalists in the district. The charge made against a certain member at previous meeting was postponed, as the accused was absent. John Cullen, Rathduff, smith, came before the meeting, asking pardon for working for objectionable parties, and he promised, if admitted a member, he would never again work for these parties. His conduct in the past being so strongly opposed to the National cause, the further consideration of receiving him was deferred to a larger meeting. A long discussion on the meanness of grass-grabbers or grass sneaks next ensued, and resulted in a cordial vote of thanks to the Bree League for exposing these mean creatures. They also highly complimented Father Sheil for his spirited and very patriotic letter. We find that James Forristal, Grange (Anthony's brother), had cattle on forbidden grass, but he has withdrawn them."

We all know what is the fate of anti-Nationalists. If hon. Members have forgotten what that fate is, I will read another example. The Midland Tribune of the 11th of August, 1887, says—

"Kilruane Branch.—A meeting of this branch was held on Sunday last, Mr. Michael Flannery, P.L.G., in the chair. The following resolution was agreed to:—'That we take the earliest opportunity of reminding our members of their duty with regard to the machinery they use in cutting down the harvest this season, and call on them to use no implements that are not the property of Nationalists. The adoption of such a course will have the effect of leaving the enemies of the tenant farmers all alone in their glory and their machines to rot in the field.' "

Through that you will observe what the fate of the anti-Nationalist is. The next extract, as will be seen from the character of it, is not from a newspaper. I have derived it from official sources of information—

On the 22nd of January, 1887, the houses of 16 families were visited and the inmates ordered to join the National League.

[A Home Rule MEMBER: Where?] In County Kerry. I shall not give the exact locality—

"On the 7th of February, 1887, the houses of 15 other families were visited in a like manner, the inmates being ordered to join the National League and subscribe Is. in every £5 of their valuation towards its funds."

Visited by whom?

Visited by a gang of men. This advertisement appeared in The New Ross Standard of the 13th of August, 1887:—

"Tullogher.—Met on Sunday, August 7. We have several times given public notice to those interested that their subscriptions were overdue, and unless defaulters had paid on or before a fixed date their names would be given to the public. When such a list appears people can have little excuse if some may find their names there emblazoned. …The first business taken up was to procure a list of those honourable men in the parish who have not yet paid their subscriptions. It was decided that the best course to be followed would be to invite a full attendance of the collectors at the next meeting, when they would be expected to furnish a complete list of the defaulters in their respective districts."

Now, in the case of associations in this country, it matters very little whether names are given to the public or not; but let the House recollect that the giving of the names of non-members or defaulting members of the National League to the public means that these men, their families, and their acquaintances are Boycotted. I think I have now given a sufficient number of extracts to prove my first proposition, which was that the recruiting of the National League is a recruiting which is done by intimidation, and that by this fact alone it is separated by an enormous abyss from any legitimate association whose methods of procedure consist of argument and persuasion. But the right hon. Gentleman went on to tell us that, besides being a political association, and on that account worthy of our respect, the National League was in effect a trade combination, and his argument was that it was analogous in its character to trade combinations in this country. What is the essence of trade combinations in this country? It is that persons who have a particular article to dispose of—namely, their labour—combine together for the purpose of seeing that it is disposed of at a price which they think proper, and on terms which they think just. That is the whole essence, as far as I know, of every labour association in this country, and I appeal to the Labour Members in this House to say if I am not right. If that be a true account, I ask is there the slightest resemblance between an association of the character which I have described, and which I will describe in greater detail later on, and the ordinary trade combinations with which we are acquainted in this country? Does the House not see that whereas combinations of tenants not to take a farm would be exactly analogous to combinations in this country, combinations to prevent other people from taking farms which they have a right to take and which they ought to take are upon a very different footing? I imagine that it requires no proof, and I do not think hon. Members opposite from Ireland will deny, after the speech of the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) the night before last, that one of the objects and methods of the National League is to prevent men taking farms through intimidation. Is that denied by the hon. Member for East Mayo himself? If it is, would it not be sufficient to show that the Plan of Campaign is under the patronage of the National League, has been supported by the League, and supported through the instrumentality of Boycotting and outrage? ["No!" and cheers.] Is it not sufficient to show that? Even by the hon. Gentleman's statement it is manifest that where the Plan of Campaign in its entirety does not exist, nevertheless intimidation against tenants who have the audacity to pay their just debts prevails to a large extent? I should like to read to the House an extract bearing on this point. This is a resolution passed at Kilmacow, on Sunday, June 26—

" That we condemn in the most emphatic manner the callous and treacherous conduct of Mr. John Moloney, Thomas Kennedy, Edmond Barry, and Sirs. Lawrence (members of this branch), John Durney, Pat Durney, and Mrs. Hetherington (non-members), all of Skough, in paying rent to Peter Walsh while their brother tenants were being evicted, thereby enabling the exterminator to crush more ruthlessly and effectually his unfortunate victims; and to mark our abhorrence of such baseness we hereby expel the first four"—

Hear, hear!

—"and direct our secretary to demand their cards; while, of course, we regard the last three in exactly the same light."

Some hon. Member cried "Hear, hear !" but I should like to tell him that expulsion from the National League means something more than expulsion from a club. The next case I give is not from a newspaper. This happened in County Clare—

The houses of Pat Morrisey and Mic Murrihy were fired into on the night of the 13th of August. Morrisey had paid his rent on the 26th of July without consulting the other tenants. For this he was denounced by the Mullough branch of the Irish National League. Murrihy had refused to sign a memorial with the other tenants. Shortly before the outrages the band of the Mullough branch of the Irish National League, headed by its president, Father Garry, C.C., marched by at short distance from these houses with the evident object of intimidation.

Whose report is that?

That report I give upon my own authorHy—the authority that would have been the sole authority for the statistics, for not laying which upon the Table the right hon. Gentleman has denounced us during the greater part of his speech. It was also reported in another instance that on the 13th of July, 1887, at the weekly meeting of this branch "a man," who a short time ago was refused membership of the League for not having adopted the Plan of Campaign, was admitted on promising to do so immediately. And here let me say that since the Crimes Act was passed there has been a marked diminution in the number of cases in which the name is mentioned. These cases, I apprehend, clearly show the methods by which the League, which is represented to us as being a legitimate trade combination, on the lines of English trades unions, carries out its behests—namely, by intimidation and outrage. Let me also remind the House that in these cases the National League is using as its tools men who in many cases have cause profoundly to regret the action of the League and its influence over them—men who are quite willing and able to pay their rents, but who are compelled by the tyranny of the League to submit to the extreme penalty of eviction, involving a loss of their homes and the loss of their holdings—and this they are obliged to submit to though they can pay their rents, and avoid it because this irresponsible association says they shall join this combi- nation to rob the landlord. Those men are deprived of all their improvements, of their homes, and of everything they regard as valuable in order to satisfy the demands of tenants who have been sometimes less prosperous, often less deserving, than themselves.

Give an instance.

Is the hon. and learned Member not as well aware as I am how many of the tenants, let us say on the Lansdowne estates, would now give anything they are worth to be restored to their holdings?

They can still redeem if they like.

But they would not be allowed to redeem in consequence of the action of that organization of which the hon. and learned Gentleman is so distinguished a member. Another object of this League, which has been described to us as a legitimate trade union association, is to punish by all the means in its power those whom it is pleased to describe as "land-grabbers." I believe the hon. Member for East Mayo at Dublin two nights ago gloried in that fact.

Would the right hon. Gentleman read what I said?

I have not the speech by me; and if the hon. Member denies what I say I will withdraw it. It is a matter of small importance to me, and of no importance to my argument. But, at all events, whether he denies it or not, I shall prove by instances that I have here that the National League does attempt to punish what it styles "land-grabbing"—in fact, it is an offence against which it directs all its tyrannical methods. Here is a case derived from official sources.

I rise, Sir, to a point of Order. I wish to ask you, Sir, whether it is in Order for a Minister of the Crown to quote from an official document without laying it upon the Table?

It does not follow that every document from which a Minister quotes must be laid upon the Table of the House. Public documents and despatches must, of course, be laid on the Table; but it is possible that a Minister may quote from confidential communications which could not be laid before the House even if moved for. But, of course, if a Minister declines to lay on the Table documents which he has quoted, it so much diminishes the authority they carry, inasmuch as the House cannot judge for itself of their value.

I am quoting the substance of the official Report—

In November, 1886, the Mullagh branch of the National League condemned a man named Patrick Kennedy, because in 1879 he took a farm from which the widow Dempsey had been evicted, and he held it still, It was determined to hold a public meeting on the farm, and printed placards were posted through the country. On the 21st of November a meeting was held on the farm. About 3,000 persons were present; violent language was used, and Kennedy was hooted and groaned. He became so frightened, and the people became so hostile to him, that he went before the committee of the Mullagh branch of the National League, on the 6th of December, and promised to give up the farm. He obtained from the branch a ' permit' written by the secretary, stating that, as he had yielded to the League, and asked time till January to sell his stock, there was no objection to people dealing with Kennedy. Kennedy removed his cattle off the farm on the 8th of January, 1887. At a meeting of the Mullagh branch, on the 6th of March, 1887, the committee decided to write a letter to Kennedy, asking him to state whether he had given up the Kylebeg farm to the landlord or not. On the 10th of March Kennedy received a letter from the secretary of the branch, saying that they were informed that he was still in possession of the farm, although he had removed his cattle, and 'that if he did not send some satisfactory account before next meeting they would be under the disagreeable necessity of declaring him still a land-grabber.' Kennedy did not reply, and on the 5th of April he received another letter from the secretary, saying he was again directed to communicate with him, and demanding a reply. Kennedy did not reply. In May the former tenant, Mrs. Dempsey, put some sheep and goats to graze on the farm, and Kennedy was afraid to interfere, although he still pays rent for the farm. Mrs. Dempsey's son is now cutting the meadow on the farm, and Kennedy is afraid to interfere, and states he is waiting for the passing of the Crimes Act before he asserts his rights. The Tuam News publishes accounts of Kennedy's offence against the League and his consequent treatment as described.

Was that in 1884?

I have brought that case down from 1884 to the present time. I have not quoted from The Tuam News, but from my official information; but I am informed that from time to time notices of the case were published in The Tuam News. Here is another case; it occurred in the Portumna district of the County of Galway—

On the 27th of December a man named Heagney was brought before the National League committee and charged with having grabbed land. (This land Heagney took 18 years ago.) He refused to give up the land, and on the 15th of February, 1887, threatening notices were posted against him, and he became Boycotted. More notices were posted on the 20th of February, and when he or any of his family go out into the country or to Mass they are hooted and groaned. Heagney's children and a servant man of his have been assaulted, and as their lives are in danger they have been placed under police protection. On the 1st of July a sheep belonging to Heagney's servant was maliciously killed.

Will the right hon. Gentleman, in the face of those cases, maintain that there is any analogy between the proceedings of the National League and the proceedings of trade unions in this country?

I never said anything about the relations of the National League to trades unionism.

The whole burden of the right hon. Gentleman's song for the last three months has been to draw this very parallel between combinations for the protection of the tenants in Ireland and combinations for the protection of workmen in England. Hero is an instance of a man being Boycotted who took a farm from which a tenant was evicted 41 years ago—

A meeting of the Killoe branch, County of Longford, of the National League was held on the 22nd of May, and a resolution was adopted and published in the local newspaper condemning a man named Owen Hughes for having grabbed a grass farm from which a tenant had been evicted. The eviction took place 41 years previously. Within the last few years the farm has been held by two other persons, who, in succession, had to give it up owing to the action of the League. Four years ago Hughes' windows were broken and a shot fired into his house, and a year ago, being sorely pressed, he promised the League he would give up the farm, but he has not done so. He is Boycotted, cannot purchase goods, and two men who ventured to speak to him were summoned before the League and censured.

I cannot conceive that a more remarkable instance of the action of the League can be given to the House.

From what is the right hon. Gentleman quoting?

It is, partly, official information.

Is there any public notice of it?

The resolution which I mention was published in the Weekly News. I hope that will be sufficient. If anyone caves to inquire further into these matters, he may consult the The Leinster Leader and other local papers. In The Tuam News of the 18th of July there was a charge of giving a water supply to a "grabber," and of allowing him a right of way to the well to procure water. The local branch of the League caused a wall to be built, blocking up the passage to the well. I do not know what comments hon. Gentlemen will be disposed to pass on that proceeding. Then, on the 11th July, there was a case of a man taking an evicted farm brought before a branch of the League, and he was compelled to make a public apology for having committed that crime, not against the laws of the land, but against the laws of the League. The Munster Express of the 30th July, 1887, reports that a branch of the League at Kilmacow in the County of Kilkenny had before it the case of Thomas Ryan, who, with his brother, was evicted for non-payment of rent, and who, unknown to his brother, came to terms with the landlord as far as his own share of the farm was concerned. It was stated that—

"Great interest attached to this case, because some short-sighted people could not see how Thomas Ryan could have done wrong in taking his own land. The committee, however, unanimously condemned him for not having acquainted his fellow-tenant with his action, or sought the advice of the National League, and they ordered his name to be erased from the roll of members."

On this particular branch of my case I believe I have said enough to satisfy the House of that no punishment is regarded as too severe in dealing with a person who may have taken a farm from which another tenant has been evicted, with a view to carry on a legitimate industry. But there is another offence against what is known as the law of the League, which, I think, specially deserves the consideration of the House; it is with regard to the taking of grazing land. I think this particularly interesting, because it is perfectly obvious, from the nature of the case, that the only possible object of making that an offence against the rules of the League is to injure the landlord, not to benefit the tenant. I can conceive that there are persons who think that they are doing the community a service in punishing a man who has taken an evicted farm; but when you are punishing a man for no other offence than that of taking landlord's grass is it not manifest that you are using the vast power you have taken upon yourselves, not for protecting the tenants, but solely and only for the purpose of injuring, and, if possible, destining the landlords? And yet the proofs that this is an offence against the League, and punished as severely as any other, are absolutely overwhelming and conclusive. Let me give a few cases to the House—

At a meeting of the Ballyhur branch of the National League on May 22, 1887, a resolution was proposed condemning a farmer named Michael Allen for taking the grazing of some glebe land from Lord Kenmare. This glebe land was voluntarily surrendered by a farmer named Leahy. The neighbouring farmers objected to the land being taken by Allen, as they were in the habit of allowing their cattle to stray over it and get cheap grazing. On May 29 the case of Allen came before the League meeting again. He was accused of grabbing, and condemned. On June 2 Allen had to be given protection. On June 27 a report was received that Allen had submitted to the League, promising to give up the glebe land in November, 1887. Allen informed the police that he required no further protection as he was now safe. On July 31 Allen gave up the land, having been required to do so by the League in writing.

Here is a man whose sole offence is that he had taken land which the previous tenant had voluntarily given up. That he was acting legally, it might be, even meritoriously, nobody will deny, and yet in consequence of that action he is condemned by the League, and has to receive police protection. But when he finds life so intolerable that he has to give way to the authority of the League he informs the police that he does not require protection any longer. I cannot conceive a stronger instance of the species ox tyranny exercised by an irresponsible body than the action of the League in this matter.

What is the right hon. Gentleman's authority for that case?

Official. Here is a quotation from The New Ross Standard of July 25, 1887—

" Ramsgrange and button's Parish.—Met on Sunday, the 19th instant, Very Rev. Canon Doyle, P.P., president, in the chair. P. Cahill, steward of Mr. Gifford, came before the meeting and said Mr. Gifford wanted to be a member of the League. Mr. Gifford was not a landlord; he was only a tenant. If he was allowed to be a member he would act up to the rules of the League. The following resolution passed:—'That we accept Mr. Gifford's explanation that he is not a landlord, but merely a tenant, and that, therefore, we deem it reasonable for him to act in all matters, selling grass, &c, as a tenant farmer; and that we further accept his adherence to the rules of the Irish National League, and receive him as a member."

Because this man is a tenant and not a landlord, therefore the National League permits him to sell his grass to whom he likes, when he likes, and where he likes. If hon. Members will refer to The Wexford People of the 23rd of April this year, they will find two resolutions—the one passed at Cushinstown, prohibiting the taking of demesne lands for grazing, the names of the offenders to be published; and the other passed at Gorey, directing the names of persons who took grass lands contrary to resolution to be read out, and an offender residing in another parish to be reported to the neighbouring branch. Therefore, if any Member of this House was before in doubt whether the authority of the League was to extend to grazing land from which no tenant had been evicted, he can be in doubt no longer. I have now shown the House, by specific instances, the kind of action which the League has taken with respect to the relations of landlord and tenant. But he would be a shallow interpreter of history who could for a moment think it possible that action of that kind can be confined to the individual who commits the offence against the avowed rules of the League. If you allow any body of men to arrogate to themselves the authority which the League arrogates to itself, you must expect to find that that authority is extended till it interferes with every relation of life. But this general truth is specially true of the League in consequence of the special character of the punishment which is the chief sanction of its decrees. It is used for every purpose. You can only Boycott a man by threatening to Boycott a vast number of people who trade or associate with him. Therefore, Boycotting strikes a vast number of persons who have committed no offence against the League, and yet who suffer from the heavy weight of the penalties it has the power to inflict. The Nationalist of the 13th of August, 1887, speaking of the Baltinglass branch, says—

"A largely-attended meeting of this branch was held at Mr. Byrne's on Sunday. Mr. William Loughlin presided. … Mr. Denis Murphy, of Woodfield, who hires out a mowing machine, came before the meeting to explain about his having mowed Boycotted meadows in county Kildare. He said he was unaware of the Boycotting: but, as it was so extensively published, he should have known of it or made inquiries about it. He would make every reparation in his power, and volunteered to put an apology in The Nationalist and Leinster header of Saturday. This was deemed satisfactory, and the meeting adjourned."

Can any humiliation be more profound than that? Can anything better show how deeply intimidation has eaten into the heart of the people? Here is a resolution passed, according to The Wexford People, on the 4th of July, at a meeting of the League in Ramsgrange and Sutton's parish—

" That the conduct of John Quinn, of Tin-nock, is most reprehensible. He came to Ramsgrange on the 19th ultimo, and admitted he had violated an important resolution of the New Ross Convention. Yet since then he had the audacity to attack a respectable member of the baronial committee for having done his duty in reporting it. He is, therefore, required to come before the National League on the 10th instant, and apologize for his conduct, or take the consequences; and that Patrick Stafford, of Boderan, be also required to attend on the same occasion."

Here is an extract from The Kilkenny Journal of the 13th of August, 1887, as to a meeting of the Dunnamaggin branch—

" The members of this branch met on Sunday…Letters have been read from the neighbouring branches in answer to complaints from this branch; a member apologized for using a Boycotted machine, and promised not to do so again."

I am now going to read a case which appears almost pathetic. The Leinster Leader of the 10th of July, 1887, speaking of the Ballyadam and Wolfhill branch, tells this story of what it calls "a repentant sinner"—

" Abbin Morrin, from Boley, came before the committee, and stated that in an evil hour, and being pressed by extreme want, he drew coals for the benefit of Trench's house wreckers. He was now sorry for having so far betrayed his neighbours and his country, and promised that if the committee would restore him to the friendship of the people he would not offend again. The committee promised, in consequence of Morrin committing the offence before any evictions were carried out, to consider his case next meeting if in the meantime he kept aloof from the landlord party."

Let the House observe that even, extreme want was not thought by the League to be an excuse for serving an unpopular master. The next case, I think, shows to what depth of humiliation the tenantry have been reduced. The case is reported in The Leinster Leader of August 6. A man was called upon, to explain why he had used a hack-car which belonged to an Emergency man, and replied that he did not know upon whose car he was getting, but that after travelling some distance on the car he discovered where he was. He admitted that he should have got off the car there and then, and he expressed his regret for remaining on the car when the state of affairs became known to him. That is almost a more impressive case than those which tell of National League proceedings of a more violent character, for it shows how every action of life, however innocent in itself, is controlled by the League, and how abject is the position of those persons who come under its wrath. Then there is another case reported in The Leinster Leader of August 13. The committee of the Ballyadam and Wolfhill branch of the League were considering the cases of certain Emergency men in the neighbourhood, and the rev. chairman said—"There is Jack George, with his henchman Larry Dempsey, whose action, it is needless to add, excites disgust." A Mr. Brennan replied that he did not think that Dempsey would have gone to George had he not been unable to procure the necessaries of life, and the rev. chairman thereupon said—"It is no excuse at all." Now, what does the House think of such action, and of the fact that the League that indulges in proceedings finds defenders here? May I just read a few reasons why people are Boycotted? There is an extremely interesting case, which will be instructive to the House as showing how one man's offence is visited by the League upon his relatives and friends. Justin M'Carthy, senior, allowed a land agent to collect rents at his house. That was his offence, and on account of it Justin M'Carthy, junior, is Boycotted. Jeremiah M'Carthy is similarly treated, because he is Justin M'Carthy's brother; another person is Boycotted because he speaks to members of McCarthy's family; a blacksmith is Boycotted because he is Justin M'Carthy's friend; someone else is Boycotted because he voted for M'Carthy at the election of Poor Law Guardians; another man is Boycotted because he swore an information against some members of the League who assaulted and robbed M'Carthy; and yet another because he sold a heifer to M'Carthy; and another because he drank in a tent with a member of M'Carthy's family. This case shows how far-reaching are the effects of the decrees of this irresponsible tribunal, and how large is the amount of suffering that may be caused in one neighbourhood where a violation of its rules has been committed by a single individual.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that imaginative statement has been contradicted? Will he give the House the authority upon which he repeats the statement?

I think it would be more convenient if the hon. Member reserved his reply to the proper time. As the hon. Member has chosen to throw some doubt on my authority, I may tell hon. Gentlemen who cast aspersions upon these statements that they are on the authority of officials to whoso character the highest testimony was borne by the late Chief Secretary for Ireland, the right hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. John Morley). To return to my argument—as the House will recollect, I was endeavouring to show how the National League extends its sphere of operations, and the case to which I am now about to refer is not connected with land. The tenants of whom I am about to speak are not tenants of farms, but of ordinary houses. It is known as the New Ross Workhouse case.

As a matter of Order, I wish to know whether the right hon. Gentleman will lay upon the Table of the House the quotations which he reads, and which he calls official information?

The right hon. Gentleman was not in the House when the Speaker gave a ruling on that point.

I was in the House, and the Speaker gave no ruling on that point. The ruling had reference to private and not official information.

I wish to ask, Sir, if when a Minister quotes from an official document it is not the invariable rule of Parliament and the House that the Paper shall be laid on the Table, and that he is not at liberty to quote it without laying it on the Table?

I have already given a ruling on the point generally, but not on the specific point. What I said was that it does not follow, because a Minister quotes from a document, that it must be laid upon the Table. It might be a confidential document like a Police Report. Such Reports are frequently quoted and yet not laid upon the Table. But when the right hon. Gentleman calls a document official it is not necessarily implied that the document is confidential; and it might be necessary, in order that the House may verify the statements made, that it should be laid on the Table of the House.

To print all these references would only cause a great deal of trouble.

I do not refer to the extracts from newspapers. What I wish to know is whether, after the ruling of the Speaker, the right hon. Gentleman will lay upon the Table every official document from which he has quoted?

No, Sir. My quotations have been of three kinds. I have read advertisements that have appeared in newspapers; I have read confidential documents; and I have read notes which I have made of certain cases. I presume the right hon. Gentleman does not want the first of these, and he cannot have the second. When I was interrupted I was reminding the House of a very curious case, which shows how the National League interferes in matters altogether outside the sphere of land and landlordism. The tenants in the New Ross case were householders, not tenants of land, but household tenants from week to week. Under the compulsion of the National League they allowed themselves to be evicted for non-payment of rent in August, 1886. They were taken into the workhouse, and the Guardians of the workhouse, being practically the nominees of the National League, these people were allowed special and un authorized privileges, wholly outside the practice of the Poor Law. The Local Government Board in Ireland thought it necessary to interfere, and, in order to insure that the tenants should be treated like other paupers, dismissed the Guardians and appointed Vice Guardians. These unfortunate house tenants, who, in an evil moment, obeyed the National League, remained in the workhouse for 10 months, and at the end of that time insisted upon going out, as they could stand it no longer. During these 10 months every effort was made to prevent the poor rates being paid, in order to compel the Local Government Board to withdraw from their position. A force of police was required to protect the collector of poor rate in the district in consequence of the action of the National League. These tenants, who had stayed in the workhouse for 10 months at the bidding of the National League, would endure it no longer, and they came out and returned to their homes. They have ever since been Boycotted by the local branch of the National League for not obeying its orders. For my own part, I am unable to conceive any form of tyranny more gross and scandalous and unwarrantable than this case discloses. The people were not farmers at all. The League first compel them to leave their home, to go into the workhouse and to stay there, and finally Boycott them for leaving it. I hope, Sir, that I have now made it clear that the National League, whose branches we have taken powers to suppress, has made itself responsible, by resolution published in the face of day in the newspapers, for urging persons to defy and resist the law, for urging resistance to the payment of local rates, for interfering with the ordinary civil rights of individuals in the matter of taking land, selling and buying goods and cattle, let ting houses, engaging servants, employing professional advisers, the exercise of the ordinary affairs of the Poor Law franchise, and the choice of companions in everyday life. And among the commodities of which it would deprive its victims are the common necessaries of existence—bread and water—that there is a system of espionage established, under which the actions which it condemns are made known by one branch to another, so that a man who is denounced in. one part of a district cannot escape from the tyranny of the League, by fleeing to another. That tyranny overshadows him. Vainly he changes his sky, for tyranny overshadows him wherever he goes. Under this monstrous system, at the present moment some 5,000 people in Ireland are actually suffering punishment, and they represent but a very small fraction of those——

Stuff!

Order, order !

This is the sort of interruption of which the right hon. Gentleman opposite complains, and to which I have been subjected several times. I should have asked Mr. Speaker to interfere to protect me several times from the observations of hon. Members opposite; but, as a matter of fact, I am personally indifferent to them, although I do not think they conduce to the order of debate, or to the clearness or consecutiveness of my argument. Well, I said that nearly 5,000 persons are actually subjected to Boycotting, and that number represents but a small and insignificant fraction, because others are afraid of being Boycotted, and either do that which they would rather not do, or they abstain from doing that which they would rather do, and which they have a perfect and absolute right to do. And when I hear hon. Members like the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), who stated that he prided himself upon the fact that he had opposed outrage and violence, and that the Leaders of the National League had themselves opposed outrage and violence. I say that it is my deliberate conviction that a condition of society in which there is no intimidation, but in which, through failure of the police or other cause, there may be crime, is far healthier than a state of society in which there may be no crime, but in which intimidation so prevails that no man living under its shadow is master of his own actions. About the facts I have stated to the House, taking them broadly, there can, I conceive, be no dispute. The great bulk of them have been taken from the public papers, or from sources the trustworthiness of which, at all events, the right hon. Gentleman opposite cannot complain—they are from sources open not only to this Government alone, but to every other Government. How poor is the plea put forward by the right hon. Gentle- man the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), that the association whose deeds and operations I have described to the House must be considered either as a political association or a legitimate combination in the interests of the tenants. The truth is, the right hon. Gentleman appeals to us in the name of freedom. He always appeals to us in the name of freedom. It appears to me that there is nothing in Ireland that cannot be done if you only give it a sufficiently fine name. The whole object of the Leaders of the Irish Party at the present moment appears to me to be to treat the Irish problem in as histrionic a manner as they can. They desire to take a course of action which will strike the imaginations of the people of England and conceal from them the real nature of the acts which are done in Ireland It is in obedience to that principle that they like to compel landlords to adopt the last resort of eviction. The result of eviction is that some hardships will really happen, and many hardships will be invented; and these are made the most of and figure prominently in speeches made by hon. Members from Ireland and by Radical Members of England. The people of this country little know that the outrages depicted before them in these glowing terms would never have taken place but for the action of the organization which the Government to-night ask the House to give them the power to suppress. As the Leaders of the Irish Party have played this tragic comedy of Irish politics in the matter of eviction, so they attempt to defend, under the seductive name of law and liberty, an association whose very essence consists in nothing else but a negation of law and a negation of liberty. The right hon. Gentleman opposite comes down to the House and tells us that we are straining the law and interfering with freedom when we are trying to put down that system of intimidation which, if it be allowed to prevail any longer in Ireland, will make the observance of law and the restoration of liberty almost impossible. I believe that many hon. Members have not hitherto been aware of the facts I have mentioned to-night; but after what I have now stated I hope there will be no ignorance on the point in future. They may, up to the present, have shut their eyes as to what is the true nature of the so-called political organizations; but if in the future they are blind, their blindness will be wilful blindness. They have made themselves tonight, through the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid to than (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), apologists of intimidation. You cannot be an apologist for intimidation without making yourselves accomplices of intimidation; and on every hon. Member who votes for the Resolution now before us will, in my opinion, rest the guilt of having done all in his power to perpetuate a system which would be a disgrace to any civilized country in the world. I believe the verdict of the House will be in favour of the Government; and I believe that, as the verdict of the House will be in favour of the Government because hon. Members know the facts upon which the Government rest their case, so the verdict of that people whom the House represents will not be the less in favour of the Government when they realize the true nature of the system at which we aim this blow. The political freedom about which you talk is totally and absolutely valueless except in so far as it contributes to personal freedom. That is, and that must be, the basis upon which every superstructure of political liberty in a healthy, free society must rest; and my belief is that the love of individual liberty is so deeply engrained in the minds of the English people that, when they once understand and realize what is the working of that association against which this Proclamation is levelled, they will, without distinction of Party or creed, support the Government in the action which, in the exercise of our responsibility, we have thought it right to take.

said, that the Chief Secretary for Ireland had made that night what he was sure would be described by his friends as the best speech of his life. The right hon. Gentleman had quoted from three sources of information which he might say were anonymous. A large part of his quotations consisted of reports from the public Press of meetings of the National League; but he would like to point out that there was no more authenticity as regarded those reports than there was with regard to any other paragraph; and he would have Members recollect with what indignation day after day Ministers had stood up in their places and repudiated the assumption that they should pay any attention to anonymous paragraphs even though they appeared in some of the most important papers. These local papers from which the right hon. Gentleman had quoted were in a great measure dependent upon unpaid local correspondents, who gave more attention to the rounding of a sentence sometimes than to its strict accuracy, and who very often put things into the newspaper which looked big, but which those who were acquainted with the circumstances of the locality know how to estimate at their proper value. It might be said that the editors of these papers ought to exercise more discretion. So they ought, and perhaps under the Grimes Act they would; but the fact remained that many of those items got into the papers in a form which was especially regrettable to those who had the conduct of these newspapers and those members of the National League who were represented to have performed the actions. He did not pretend to deny the general accuracy of the Press reports; but, take them all in all, and take them at the worst, what did the whole statement of the Chief Secretary amount to? After searching over the transactions of all the local branches of the National League—1,800 in number—for many months and years the Chief Secretary had only been able to indicate that in a particular branch they threatened to publish the names of those who had not subscribed, and in another branch they threatened to cut off a member who did not conform to the rules. After all, it was a common thing for any society to threaten to cut off members who did not conform to the rides; and he would remind them that on a former occasion, when the Chief Secretary said certain National League branches had threatened to publish the names of defaulting members, the hon. Member for the Harbour Division of Dublin (Mr. T. C. Harrington) had shown that whenever such a thing came under the cognizance of the Central Branch of the League such action was strongly condemned. Wherever such a course had been adopted by a local branch, not only had the National League in Dublin condemned that branch, but the better sense of those who were in the local branch had always been against such a proceeding. He would challenge the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel King-Harman) to show a single instance in Ireland where the threat to publish the names of defaulting Members was carried out. After all, were they not living in a country which pretended to have a Constitution? Did they not in England day after day hear threats of what the Socialists would do if certain conditions were not granted; and did they not see threats in public papers of what would be done if the Home Secretary persisted in a certain course? Even if such a threat of publication were carried out the parties had their remedy under the ordinary law against the editor of the newspaper, who could be subjected to a severe punishment. They did not object to the Government using the Crimes Act against these isolated cases of individuals or individual branches who had wrongly and grossly violated the law. They maintained, however, that the ordinary law was sufficient to meet these cases, and they now maintained with greater force that the Government having a Crimes Act were able to deal with this violence and intimidation whenever it showed itself. The Government had chosen the time when they had sent what they said was a message of peace to Ireland—as he believed in his soul for the purpose of irritating the people of Ireland—to strike at that organization which their own witnesses declared to be the salvation of the people of Ireland. The right hon. Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) had referred to the different editions of General Buller's evidence. It was a matter of common notoriety that that evidence as printed was not as it was given, and that the ordinary course as to proofs was not taken in the case of General Buller. District Inspector Davis, too, had had leading questions put to him in order to make him say what the Government wanted to prove that evening, "The strings of intimidation," he was asked, "are held by the League?" He says—

"I only know that in a case where it denounced land-grabbers, and those people appealed to the central branch, the local branch was admonished for interfering, and those people held on without trouble over since.''

The President said—

"I gather from you that there is less outrage now than in former days, and that Boycotting still prevails, but that rents with abatement are being paid better than they have been?"

The answer was, "Yes; and in that district abatements were necessary." Being asked whether Boycotting was to be attributed to local action or to the influence of the League, he said—"I would not attribute it to the League at all." He now came to what he thought the gist of the matter. Sir James Caird said—

"I understand there is no sympathy among the respectable tenants with these outrages?—Yes; there is not.—Then there must be an organisation exercising a tremendous power over them. Have you any objection to state what that organization is?—I do not think that it would be for the advantage of the country that I should say what it is."

It would be seen from that evidence that the witness was again and again led up to the brink of the statement which the Government desired, and every time he shied at it. The officer of the Government said that there was in those districts an organization to name which might frustrate the ends of justice. It was in districts where the Land League had not established a footing, but whore there were societies which encouraged crime and outrage, that disorder and lawlessness prevailed. The Chief Secretary had mentioned the case of a man named Justin M'Carthy living in a small and obscure village in County Kerry, and the right hon. Gentleman named a list of about 50 or 60 persons in that single parish who were stated to be Boycotted. These names were not read out from 'the local papers, but from "official" sources. Now, taking each Kerry family as averaging six or seven persons, the right hon. Gentleman's list would represent nearly all the population of the parish as being Boycotted. The thing was an utter absurdity; and that preposterous story would excite a hearty laugh among the miserable people of that district at the expense of the Chief Secretary when they came to hear of its being attempted to be palmed off upon the House. It was an insult to the intelligence of those who really knew Ireland to represent, as was done in the official Returns, that 5,000 persons were Boycotted in that country. When any serious accusation was made by the Chief Secretary against the National League, and when they sought to test the ground on which it was based, the right hon. Gentleman said—"Oh, I fall back upon official information and on privileged communications," adding, in his lofty style, that he gave the facts to the House on his word as Chief Secre- tary. If the Irish Members were only supplied with the particulars on which the right hon. Gentleman founded his accusations, they would be able, he was sure, to dispose satisfactorily of every one of them. He believed that Mr. Samuel Hussey, who was the head and tail of all those fabrications which appeared in The Times and the I L P U, and on the official Returns of that House, had been the sole author of the cases mentioned by the Chief Secretary. There might be family quarrels here and there between the inhabitants of a village; they might, sometimes, not interchange good wishes with each other at Christmas time or the New Year; and, occasionally, they might have given one another a good basting; but it was a gross "sham" to speak of those things as aggravated cases of Boycotting. He did not believe that there was a sane man from John O'Groat's house to the Land's End who, if he read what he had now said, and placed it side by side with the speech of the Chief Secretary, would not believe that the Boycotting case of the Chief Secretary was an utter delusion and a sham. As to the interruptions which the Chief Secretary encountered, a great deal of the blame for them attached to the other side, because, when the right hon. Gentleman was quoting from some paper, he all at once made some outrageous charge, as if he were still reading, against that organization whose interest Irish Members had at heart, and when he was challenged to state where he got his facts he said he was relying on official information. The right hon. Gentleman wound up his speech by an accusation against the League. He said that English Radical Members and Irish Members going over to Ireland and finding evictions going on started a tragic drama to excite the pity of the people of England, and he asked the House to remember that it was the National League that was to blame for all. He (Mr. E. Harrington) denied the justice of that accusation; it was almost too much even for a Chief Secretary for Ireland to make. The right hon. Gentleman knew that it was the evictions that necessitated the Land League, which was, according to him, the predecessor of the National League. But he (Mr. E. Harrington) thought it was in many respects dissimilar. It had widened its scope considerably since it succeeded to the Land League. He could tell the right hon. Gentleman what he could verify himself by referring to statistics—he could tell him that there were only two evictions in the County of Kerry in 1878. They rose to 19 in the next year, and from that year onwards the evictions had not been less than at an average of from 350 per quarter in the County of Kerry. He asserted that since the commencement of the trouble in the County of Kerry—since the commencement of what was called the agitation, there had been rendered homeless by evictions in those years as many as 14,000 persons, and while some of these had been restored to their places, he said that there were between 2,000 and 3,000 people in the County of Kerry huddled together by the ditch sides in places where hon. Members would not put their dogs after a day's shooting. Seeing and knowing that that was going on for years, they in self-defence for the protection of the people, and acting on the instincts of manhood, and disregarding whatever the consequences might be to themselves, flung themselves into an organization that was already awake in the country, and tried as far as they could by that organization to stem the disasters brought upon them by landlordism. It was too much for them, therefore, to listen to these accusations, and all this talk about the League inciting to crime, violence, and intimidation. What was the League doing at present? If they wont into the office of the National League in Dublin they would find a large staff—or at least they would when they decided on the Proclamation—engaged in the work of registration in order to keep their political position in the country in the districts where there might possibly be a narrow fight. The Government struck down that which was their political weapon and which was their protective weapon, and which was the shield of their persecuted people, and having done so they still chose to speak of the existence of Constitutional freedom in Ireland. He would not weary the House further; but if he sat down it was not for want of matter—it was not for want of discovering off-hand in the speech of the Chief Secretary for Ireland sufficient matter which he could show to that House to be wholly baseless. He believed that the Irish Members would be able to show that there was no founda- tion of truth for the accusation made against the National League as a whole, and that if here and there there was a fault on the part of individual branches in obscure localities, or individual member a of that organization, there was no more than would be incidental to an organization of the kind when people had to try and act within the strict letter of a cruel law, and to protect themselves against unjust and harsh evictions, and at the same time to try and educate the country up to that tone of mind which would be useful when the time came to apply themselves to the reconstruction of the Government of Ireland. He challenged the Government to go on with their Proclamations. The Irish Members had told the Government what their purpose was. If they were found to be the abettors or counsellors of violence, then let the Government punish them by all means. But in the absence of this necessary evidence, they ask the Government not to proclaim this organization; not to destroy an instrument fur good. If the Government disregarded their appeal, then so strong would the Irish Members feel it to be their duty to the people of Ireland—believing that the sharpest hour of need was the nearest hour to triumph—that they would adhere to their work in Ireland and not shirk the consequences, cither there or in Parliament.

maintained that the hon. Member had offered no reply to the case of the Chief Secretary founded on the statements of newspapers and of advertisements inserted in them by the local secretaries of the National League. When the hon. Member recommended persons who felt injured by such advertisements to seek redress against editors by means of the ordinary law, he reminded him of a statement made last year by the right hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow, that for a Boycotted person to try and get redress by means of the ordinary law and from a jury struck from the ordinary panel was a cruel farce. The question before the House was not one of principle, but of expediency. As far as principle was concerned, it was decided by the Crimes Act and by the large majorities who gave their assent to that measure. Those majorities took the course they did, believing that the hands of the Government required to be strengthened in order to deal with the conflict between lawlessness and order in Ireland, and because they felt it was possible that the Government might require the power which they were now demanding in order to deal with the National League. Having voted for the Crimes Act, he was not inclined to refuse to the Government the weapon which they now desired. He trusted that the Government, having decided that it was necessary to use those powers, would not use them in a half-hearted manner. Whatever might be said of the Irish, they were a very bad people to run away from—and he hoped the Government would not flinch from the course they had taken. The House had been told that the National League was the salvation of the Irish people and and that it had done its best to repress outrage. In his judgment, however, it was a somewhat remarkable coincidence that the largest number of cases of Boycotting occurred in the county of Cork, where there were more branches of the National League than in the rest of Ireland. It was also remarkable that in Ulster, where there were comparatively few branches of the League, there was less Boycotting and fewer persons required police protection; but that in Munster, where there were 400 branches of the League, there were more outrages last year than in. any other Province of Ireland. The other night the hon. Member for Longford drew a dreadful picture of agricultural prospects in the West and South West of Ireland. He pointed out that the hay crop was a failure, that prices generally would rise, and that where the people were poorest there rents would be risen. But the hon. Gentleman did not carry his argument to a conclusion, or he would have told them also that when the food of the live stock was exhausted, the animals would necessarily be put into the market and sold for what they would fetch, and the consequent reduction in the price of meat would more than counterbalance a trifling rise in the price of butter or potatoes. When he was told that the National League had been the salvation of the people he remembered that these words were attributed to the officer who would be concerned in enforcing this Proclamation, and he hoped the Government would rely largely upon the courage and discretion of General Buller in carrying out the provisions of the Act, and that; having chosen their policy, as he believed, wisely, they would pursue it with that patience and courage, which alone would render it successful.

said, it was quite impossible for any one who had read anything about Ireland to doubt that Boycotting and intimidation had largely prevailed, and had been the weapons largely used by the National League to enforce its decrees; but he also thought the Chief Secretary hardly made fair allowance for the other side of the work of the League. It was in its objects an agrarian society. It had endeavoured to deal with what had been the great evil and difficulty in Ireland—the exaction of exorbitant rents; and in this regard it had undoubtedly been successful in diminishing these exorbitant rents. It had been successful in compelling the attention of Parliament and in securing a limitation of the landlords' demands. They had the well-known evidence of General Buller, quoted by the late Prime Minister, to the effect that the tenants looked to the League for salvation. They had the further fact that in Ulster, where the League was not powerful, there were no reductions. Therefore the Proclamation of the League and this debate must be looked upon as a development of the situation, and as, to all intents and purposes, part and parcel and the continuation of the debates and discussions on the Crimes Act. During the progress of that Bill it was frequently disclaimed by the Irish Secretary and others that the Bill was aimed against combinations, but against crime. The ease for suspending the Constitutional liberties of the subject must be one of overwhelming necessity, of convincing evidence of the wide prevalence and intensity of crime. He thought when the Crimes Act was brought forward they did not find in the speech of the Chief Secretary, or the speeches of other Members of the Government, that a case of this overwhelming necessity was presented. They had now on all sides testimony, including that of the Member for West Birmingham, that Ireland was at present conspicuously free from serious crime, and that that was the case one could see from the evidence of this very Proclamation, because the National League was proclaimed under Sub-section "D" of Section 6—namely, for promoting and inciting to acts of violence and intimidation; and under part of Sub-section "E," as to interfering with the administration of the law. The Proclamation passed over the first three subsections, which dealt with a question of crime. The Government did not say that the National League was framed for the commission of crime, or carried on operations by means of crime; and, more than that, the Proclamation did not even include the second part of Sub-section "E," and did not say that the National League was disturbing the maintenance of law and order in Ireland. That, he thought, was a very serious consideration for hon. Members when they had to determine how they were to vote on this question. The Government had proposed the Proclamation of the League as encouraging Boycotting and intimidation, and hon. Members had to ask themselves was it likely they would succeed in the object they had in view? It would be absurd in anyone to refrain from regretting and denouncing the tyrannical Boycotting and intimidation that went on in Ireland, and no man could view it with greater indignation than he did. But they had really to look at this point. Was the action which the Government were taking likely to succeed in putting down Boycotting? He believed they had ample evidence to the contrary. They had the evidence of Lord Salisbury in his speech at Newport, the evidence of Lord Spencer, the evidence before the Cowper Commission, and particularly that of Captain Plunkett, who distinctly stated that Boycotting under the Crimes Act of 1882 was as strong as it is now. If they were to get rid of Boycotting and intimidation, they must alter the conditions under which they took place. Then they had to ask themselves, was it likely that the action of the Government would diminish the political power of the League? Here, again, he thought the experience of recent history would give a negative reply. The political power of the hon. Member for Cork and his Friends was more than doubled and quadrupled after the Government of the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian had put them in prison and proclaimed the Land League. Then there was the further question, was the Proclamation of I the League likely to bring us nearer a final and satisfactory settlement of our Irish difficulties? Would it postpone or hasten it? Here, again, he thought they had only to appeal to recent ex- perience. There were people in this country who were not keen Party politicians, but who were very effective in bringing about decisions at General Elections. He thought these people would look at the question, mainly from this point of view—they would look at what had taken place during this Session—at the time spent on the passing of the Crimes Act, upon the work the House was now engaged in, and upon the future difficulties which would come in the way of the Government in carrying out the policy they were now embarking upon. Because it was to be blind to all their experiences from 1882 not to feel that the difficulties of the Government were just beginning now that they had proclaimed the National League. It was customary to sneer when politicians put the issue that was now before them as an issue between conciliation and coercion. He put it to hon. Friends on that side, and also to Conservative Members on the opposite side, was it not the case that at the last General Election there was a very general repudiation of any desire to return to the old policy of endeavouring to rule Ireland with the high hand; and was there not also this positive resolution at the last General Election, that, however much they differed as to the proposals made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, they all came there with the primary duty imposed upon them of endeavouring so far as in them lay to attain, within certain well-defined limits, under safe and reasonable conditions, a settlement for Ireland which, above all things, should be an amicable settlement? In view of that, what they were now proposing to do, and had been doing, was a fearful commentary. The policy of the Government was not at all likely to bring about any such amicable settlement. He viewed with particular regret the line which had been taken up by his noble Friend near him (Viscount Ebrington) and by several other Liberal Colleagues who, like himself, voted against the Home Rule Bill. They had looked forward as one of their primary duties to arrive at an amicable settlement for Ireland, and they considered that the best means of attaining that would be the influence of these hon. Gentlemen and noble Lords, and particularly of the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Harting- ton), whom they all respected and admired, in carrying out the object which he had so much at heart. He thought it was patent that what was being done now by those hon. Members would hardly tend to increase the power with which they would be able to press their views. He hoped, even at that eleventh hour, that when they were away from the heated atmosphere of that House the noble Lord and his followers would look at it differently, and would yet be found working with the view of obtaining the only satisfactory settlement. He had never before spoken on Irish affairs, but he did not wish to give a silent vote on this question, because it seemed to him that the policy which had been adopted and was being pursued by Her Majesty's Government would undoubtedly indefinately postpone and make infinitely more difficult that amicable settlement for Ireland to which they all looked; because he was convinced the policy of Her Majesty's Government had tended to stir up again the embers of political hatred and animosity, and that spirit of antagonism of which they had so vivid a recollection in the Parliament of 1880. It was for these reasons that he should vote in favour of the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian.

said, that for several reasons he should have preferred to give a silent vote on this occasion; but after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), at the close of which the right hon. Gentleman made pointed reference to a speech which he (Mr. T. W. Russell) made in this House, he found it absolutely impossible to give a silent vote as he had desired to do. Now, the Irish National League did some work of which he cordially approved, although he objected very much to its methods; it did another class of work of which he totally disapproved. The right hon. Member for Mid Lothian quoted him as a witness of the good that the League had done in Ii-eland. The right hon. Gentleman called him a hostile witness; and what were the words which he quoted? They were words he made use of in the debate on the second reading of the Irish Land Law Bill, and the substance of them was as follows:—"In the Provinces of Leinster, Munster, and Connaught intimidation and outrage had done their work, and abatements of rent had been given in these Provinces; whereas, in the Province of Ulster, where intimidation and outrage had not been prevalent, little or no abatement had been given." And that was what the right hon. Gentleman chose to call a character for the National League! What did it mean? He had never dared to say that the National League was the author of that intimidation and outrago—that was left for the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman took him a long way further than he went, and upon his shoulders must lie the responsibility for that journey. There was another point on which he desired to join issue with the right hon. Gentleman. If the National League were an organization to protect the Irish tenant farmers from unjust rents, and prosecuted that work by fair means, he should join it and be an active member. Taking it to be an association with that object in view, what were its admitted methods? The right hon. Member for Mid Lothian talked about "exclusive dealing" as the method of the National League. When, and by whom, was this phrase invented? That was not the phrase the right hon. Gentleman used in 1882 when dealing with this matter. For himself, he objected to the phrase. The methods of the National League involved exclusive dealings and very much more. The right hon. Gentleman, in 1882, when he dealt with this very subject, used very different language. Speaking on the 24th of May. 1882, in this House, the right hon. Gentleman asked this question—"What is meant by Boycotting?" They had never heard then of the phrase "exclusive dealing." They had the honest name put upon it—Boycotting. "In the first place," the right hon. Gentleman said—

"It is combined intimidation. In the second place, it is combined intimidation made use of for the purpose of destroying private liberty of choice by fear of ruin and starvation. In the third place, that being what Boycotting is in itself, we must look to this—that the creed of Boycotting, like every other creed, requires a sanction; and the sanction of Boycotting, that which stands in the rear of Boycotting, and by which alone Boycotting can in the long run be made thoroughly effective, is the murder which is not to be denounced."—(3 Hansard, [269] 1551.)

That was the way in which the right hon. Gentleman spoke when he, as Prime Minister, had to deal with this very evil. Now, what were the facts which the House had before it to-night? They had it stated by the responsible Minister of the Government that there were 5,000 people Boycotted in Ireland in this inhuman way. What did it mean? Not exclusive dealing alone. It meant what the hon. Member for Cork called it in the town of Ennis when he invented it and set it afloat. It meant moral leprosy. It meant that where it did not mean outrage and intimidation and murder. Now, he was told that the Primrose League in England practised exclusive dealing. It was absurd for grown men to be talking stuff of this kind—literally absurd. He admitted the charge of exclusive dealing as freely as they liked—he would make hon. Gentleman below the Gangway a present of it. But what stood behind the exclusive dealing of the Primrose League? Was there the bullet of the assassin? [A Home Rule MEMBER: Stuff !] Was there the marching of the midnight marauder? Was there the trampling out of all human freedom if one did not obey its orders? Nothing of the kind. He repeated that it was absolutely farcical for grown men to compare the Primrose League or any other political organization in England with the National League in Ireland. He objected to its methods in toto. It was an organization for literally stamping out all human freedom. He did not object to combination; very far from it; but he did object to men combining to prevent him doing what he had a right to do. The National League was an organization the main object of which was to produce a dull level of uniformity by absolute force. It would not be possible to establish such an organization in any part of the Empire where free-born men lived, and it was only possible in Ireland, where the virtue of obedience had been taught as the one supreme duty of life. [An hon. MEMBER: Obedience to authority.] Obedience to authority! He was not going to bow down to any such authority. Let them look at its operations. He would quote some cases from National League newspapers, arid if they were wrong, on the League be the responsibility. The Munster Express on the 9th of July reported the proceedings of a branch of the League at which attention was called to the fact that a Mr. Edward O'Brien had had in his employment for three weeks a stonemason (Paddy Norris) who was one of the most notorious Emergency men in that part; and the secretary reported that he had called the employer's attention to the fact, and had received from him a note stating that the man was prepared to join the League, and if the League would not have him as a member he should be dismissed on the completion of his contract. This stonemason, he contended, had a right to follow his occupation without any profession of political faith being extorted from him. It was this stamping out of human freedom that had kept many from supporting the work of the League in other directions. He was for convincing men that they were wrong; but the League represented coercion of the meanest and most detestable kind. Another instance he would quote would show cause and effect. The Clare Advertiser of the 27th of June last reported the usual fortnightly meeting of the Kilrush branch of the National League, at which Mr. John M. Nagle delivered an impassioned address on the necessity of drawing the line of demarcation between real, puresouled Leaguers and the execrable class of rent-warners, whom the speaker denounced as worse than Judas Iscariot; that was the cause, and the effect was found in The Irish Times of the 19th of August, which stated that printed notices were posted in the district threatening Ned Kennedy, a rent-warner for Mr. J. Vesey Fitzgerald, D.L., that he would be shot if he did not give up a farm from which a widow had been evicted. This was a literal instance of cause and effect, and it was childish to say that the Primrose League or any English association carried on proceedings of this kind. If it did, how long would it exist? The right hon. Member for Mid Lothian had said there were 500,000 members of the League in Ireland, and no doubt he was right; but perhaps the House would like to know how the membership was made up. In June The Munster Express reported the meeting of a branch, at which a resolution was passed to the effect that all farmers' sons already admitted be expelled unless their parents became members of the League. What did the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) think of this stamping out of all human freedom? A Sligo paper of the 9th of July recorded the passing at a League meeting of a resolution that each member of the committee was strictly required to furnish a complete list of those in his district who had not joined the branch, and it was significantly added—"Those outside our ranks will please take note." [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT: Hear, hear !] If the right hon. Gentleman the Monitor for Derby, instead of being what he was, wore an Irish peasant, and had got a notice of that kind served upon him, he was quite certain the effect would be that he would join the League, or, indeed, any League under Heaven; for any man getting a notice of that kind would know perfectly veil what it meant. That was the way the membership of the League was made up, and for the Secretary to stand up in the House and declare that no compulsion was used and that the central bodies saw that none was used was to go against facts piled mountains high.

Does the hon. Member mean to say that I stated in this House what I did not believe to be true?

said, that for the hon. Member to stand up in the House and state that no man was compelled to join the National League, and that the central branch prohibited that sort of thing, was to go in the teeth of evidence piled mountains high. He objected to the National League.

And they object to you.

said, he had no doubt they objected to him very much. He objected to the National League because it usurped the functions of the law. He had heard it denied that League Courts were held; but The Leinster Leader of the 11th of June last reported the meeting of a branch at which it was resolved to summon to the next meeting some turf-bank grabbers to explain their conduct. [Mr. WALLACE: Hear, hear! A man who was described as a grabber was one who had taken a turf bank and paid for it; and no organization had a right to summon such a purchaser. The hon. Member who said "Hear, hear !" came from the same county as himself, and knew that nothing of this kind would be tolerated in Scotland for a moment. The Wexford People of the 9th of July reported the meeting of a branch at which the conduct of a man was described as reprehensible, because he had violated an important resolution of the New Ross Convention, and yet had the audacity to attack a respectable member of the committee who reported him; and he was required to attend and apologize or to take the consequences. He had quoted these examples out of hundreds he had in his possession, and all had occurred since June, 1887. On every Sunday 1,800 meetings were held in Ireland, and they were attended by men who investigated the affairs of the neighbourhood and pronounced and executed judgment upon the people. He should oppose the Resolution of the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian, and for more reasons than one. One reason was that he supported the Crimes Bill. He did so because he thought the Government had made out a case for it, because he knew the facts from his own knowledge, and because he believed that Bill to represent the least that any responsible Government could do. But he wished Parliament had not been called upon to give its sanction to this Proclamation. He wished the Government had seen their way to rely upon the Summary Jurisdiction and the other clauses of the Act to repress disorder. He wished they had given the Land Act, such as it was, a reasonable chance, instead of asking the House to take a seat on this switchback railway to be driven Heaven knows where. But the Government asked Parliament for authority to act if it were necessary, and they had larger knowledge than an individual Member, and were responsible for the peace of Ireland. He, at all events, having voted for the Crimes Act, did not see his way Constitutionally to refuse them the powers they asked for. He could not say he should vote in favour of the Proclamation with a light heart; very far from it. He saw nothing but clouds and darkness all around. We had lost a golden opportunity which was granted to us as by miracle, and the Chief Secretary might possibly need this power and more. He, however, gave his vote without any hesitation. He believed the National League to be a competitor with the Government of the Queen in Ireland. We could not have two Governments in any country; the people could not serve two masters. As he was not prepared to hand over the people he represented to the tender mercies of the League he should give his vote against the Motion.

said, that a great part of the discussion had been, if not irrelevant, at all events superfluous. Too much stress had been laid upon that portion of the debate relating to Boycotting; too little on the connection of that with the present Proclamation under Section 6, sub-sections (d) and (e) of the Coercion Act. So far as Boycotting was concerned, it could be punished under Section 2, and the Proclamation was unnecessary if Boycotting was the evil sought to be reached. Boycotting was not the invention of the National League, nor of the Land League which preceded it. Boycotting was not the invention, of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell), as had been alleged. It had formed part of the history of Ireland for a long while, and had been introduced by the English. Not one at all conversant with the history of our connection with that country could fail to know by what varied forms of law we had tried to exterminate the Irish people—by the most scientific processes of legal Boycotting. He was not now referring to the later and most infamous Penal Laws by which Catholics were Boycotted, but to our earlier legislation. We had, for instance, forbidden marriage or trading with the Irish. Boycotting was not quite unknown in England. Since he had been referred to personally in the debate, he might obtrude a personal matter upon the House, and point out that he himself had had some experience of it during the past seven years. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) had quoted the case of one Justin M'Carthy, Boycotted because he was the son of another Justin M'Carthy. He (Mr. Bradlaugh) had seen on the Books of the House for months a proposal to Boycott his own two daughters, a proposal to prevent them from earning their livelihood as teachers at, South Kensington, because they were his daughters; and that was actually formally moved in that House. Attempts had even been made to Boycott the voters and traders in the town which he had the honour to represent, because it had returned him to Parliament. Those who had voted for him at Northampton had been Boycotted, and paragraphs had been sent round asking the leather sellers not to deal with his supporters; and yet he had never heard a word of blame from hon. Members opposite with regard to any of these cases, although the effect had been to saddle him with nearly £3,000 of debt. He certainly should not now defend Boycotting; he had suffered too much from it personally. But the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) said that there was a difference between the Boycotting of the Primrose League and the Boycotting of the National League, because there was not the bullet of the assassin behind the former. Did the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary think that the bullet of the assassin was behind the Boycotting of the National League? If he did, why was he so half-hearted, and why did he not proclaim it under Subsections a, b, and c as an association for the commission of crime, or for procuring and abetting crime and outrage? The right hon. Gentleman asked the House to be a party to what, for his (Mr. Bradlaugh's) own part, he would call a criminality against the Irish people; and if they were asked to accept as evidence the statements which had been brought forward, it should, at least, be made clear to them that these things were now being done by the League. The question before them was this—Were they, or were they not, to acquiesce in and endorse the Proclamation which the Government had thought fit to issue at the present moment? The House could not acquit itself of the responsibility. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) had alleged that the House was ignorant of the facts which, if they existed, and if the House knew them, might warrant such a Proclamation. The Chief Secretary had answered by a statement founded in part upon Press paragraphs, and partly on some Returns to which he had not specifically referred, but chiefly upon official information, the sources of which were peculiar to himself. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that his sources of information were, in the main, accessible to Members of that House; but it was hardly possible for them to obtain all these scissors-and-paste cuttings from various Journals. The evidence which had been brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman was not the kind of evidence upon which, as judges by their sentence, they ought to be called upon to take away the liberties of a people. He protested against this light-hearted method of dealing with so great a question. This evidence was not, in the main, accessible to them; it was only accessible to them through the right hon. Gentleman himself. The right hon. Gentleman told them that if the Returns had been laid on the Table, those Returns would have had the same authority, and would have been the same.

It happened that I quoted certain facts upon official information, and hon. Members below the Gangway jeered. I reminded the House that if the Returns had been laid on the Table, they would have been derived from the same authority as that which had been attacked by hon. Members below the Gangway.

said, that was practically what he had said. What they now wanted was to examine this evidence at their leisure. It was impossible to follow and judicially weigh it as delivered in the speech of the Chief Secretary. Then the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had made an astounding statement as to a matter which had occurred on the 10th of November, 1884, which he had brought down to the present time. The right hon. Gentleman had used the expression that he had carried the matter through for eight months consecutively; but it was difficult to make out where these eight months came in, according to the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman had named no year with regard to this matter except the first; and he thought, also, that the right hon. Gentleman had said that he did not intend to take any case except those of the present year.

said that the Boycotting had begun in 1884, but had come down to the present date.