asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, in order to assist the Coroner's Jury in the case of the suicide of Dr. Ridley, late medical officer of Tullamore Prison, to come to a decision as to the state of his mind, the Irish Government will produce at the inquest any Reports made by Dr. Ridley as to the health and treatment of Mr. John Mandeville during his imprisonment at Tullamore, and any correspondence on that subject between the officials of Tullamore Prison, the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, and the Irish Prisons Board; and, whether copies of such Reports and correspondence will be laid upon the Table of the House?

also asked, Will the Government lay upon the Table of the House the Rules in force at Tullamore Gaol at the time of the imprisonment there of the late Mr. Mandeville; during the imprisonment of Mr. Mandeville were any communications made by the officials at the gaol to the authorities in Dublin with regard to the treatment of Mr. Mandeville or his state of health; were any directions given to the authorities at the gaol on the subject; has any correspondence passed between the Government and Dr. Ridley, or any other official at the gaol; and, is there any objection to the production of this correspondence?

I cannot undertake to make any statement in regard to the proceedings at the inquests now going on; nor can I make any statement on the other matters referred to until these inquests shall have terminated.

inquired, whether all the Papers belonging to the suicide would be laid before the Coroner?

said, he believed that the Coroner was in possession of all Dr. Ridley's papers.

I wish to ask, what objection the right hon. Gentle- man has to lay upon the Table of the House a copy of the Rules of Tullamore Gaol that were in force during the imprisonment of Mr. Mandeville?

said, there was a Notice on the Paper in the name of some hon. Member asking that all the Prison Rules should be laid on the Table of the House, and he had not the slightest objection to doing so.

said, that, no doubt, there was a Notice to that effect; but the preparation of the Return would take some time. The Rules of Tullamore Gaol would be wanted at an early date, and would they at once be laid on the Table of the House?

said, he did not pretend to be an authority upon the point; but, as far as he understood the matter, the Rules were the same in all prisons.

Then why not lay them on the Table of the House?

I have already intimated my willingness to lay the Rules upon the Table of the House.

asked the right hon. Gentleman, whether his attention had been called to the menacing language used to the Coroner by the counsel for the Crown in the course of the proceedings at the inquest upon John Mandeville; whether the language of the counsel for the Crown was in pursuance of instructions received from Dublin Castle; and whether, in any case, the right hon. Gentleman would give instructions to the counsel for the Crown to observe, in future proceedings, the attitude of a respectful, responsible, public official, in accordance with recognized rule?

I have no information on the subject to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I apprehend that the counsel for the Crown needs no instructions either from the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. P. Stanhope) or myself as to how he shall conduct himself at the examination.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether he will inquire into the case of Captain Kennedy, who, with the exception of the gift of £100 in 1864, has received no compensation, pecuniary or otherwise, for his great services to this country by the discovery of the most direct North-West Passage, and who now, owing to loss of property and ill-health, is incapacitated for any of the active duties of life.

Mr. Kennedy's case is not one with which the Admiralty can deal. This gentleman is not a naval officer, and has not been employed by the Admiralty; nor are his services in connection with the exploration of the Arctic Regions, which consist mainly in the discovery of Bellot Strait, of sufficient importance to the Navy to justify a recommendation that a grant should be made to him from Naval Funds.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether, in carrying out the policy of the Admiralty, as recently announced in that of inquiring into the circumstances of the appointment of a chemist to the Navy, with a view of adjusting the salary to the requirements of the day, he will take care, in view of the importance of the post to the scientific development of the Service, that the Professorship is not degraded to a lectureship, and that the services of the best man available shall be secured?

Until the Reports called for from the College at Greenwich have been before me I cannot undertake to say whether the gentleman selected to fill the office of chemist will he appointed as a Professor or a lecturer. My endeavour will be to make whatever arrangement is most conducive to the efficient performance of the duties that the position calls for.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, When the House may expect to be in possession of the Evidence upon which the Report of the Select Committee on Revenue Estimates is founded; and, whether a Special Report of the Controller of Stamps, dated February 8, 1888, will be laid before Parliament, with the Evidence, before the Revenue Estimates come up for discussion?

(who replied) said: Evidence can be circulated without the Appendix on Saturday; with the Appendix five days later.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether during the course of the evictions on the Vandeleur estate in Clare, on Thursday last, Mr. T. W. Russell, M.P., Mr. Arthur Patton, of the "Irish Loyal and Patriotic Union," and a reporter of The Times, were allowed to remain within the cordon formed by the troops and police, whilst all the other representatives of the Press, together with the local clergy and Members of Parliament, were kept beyond the cordon and prevented from observing the proceedings; whether Mr. T. W. Russell, M.P., was allowed, whilst within the cordon, to cross-examine evicted tenants who were in custody of the police; whether Mr. Jordan, M.P., was assaulted and driven back by the police for having contradicted a statement made by Mr. Arthur Patton; and, whether the local clergy had exerted themselves to promote a settlement and preserve the peace?

The Divisional Magistrate reports that it is the case that the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell), as also Mr. Arthur Patton and The Times correspondent, were given passes by him to admit them inside the cordon formed by the troops during the eviction, but that it is not the case that the other Press representatives were excluded; all of them who asked for passes were given them. The tenants' counsel and solicitor were also admitted. The hon. Member for South Galway (Mr. Sheehy) was not admitted, as he had incited the tenants to resistance. But the hon. Member for West Clare (Mr. Jordan) was at once given a pass by the Divisional Magistrate upon hearing that he had been put outside the cordon as not possessing one; he was not assaulted in any way, so far as the Divisional Magistrate is aware. The hon. Member for South Tyrone, and anyone else who liked, was allowed freely to converse with the tenants. The local priests, who, according to their own statements, are responsible for the combination under the Plan of Campaign on the estate, have been excluded, because they incite the people to resist, and have utterly thwarted any reasonable settlement. In no case do they appear to have used their undoubted influence to preserve the peace; but, on the other hand, some of them were seen to enter the church and set the bell tolling to assemble the people, notwithstanding the Proclamation that had been issued.

asked, whether the Press representatives were all informed that the passes might be obtained by them?

said, on that point he had no information.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he is aware that Mr. James Hughes and, Mr. Thomas Parker have received reliable testimonials from well-known mining engineers and others showing their fitness for second-class certificates under Section 80 of the Coal Mines, &c. Regulation Act, but that Her Majesty's Inspector of Mines in North Staffordshire refuses to recommend them, asserting that they are not duly qualified; whether he is aware that Mr. James Hughes and Mr. Thomas Parker are unable to obtain permanent employment pending the decision of their claim to second-class certificates; and, whether, under the circumstances, he will order inquiries to be made at once as to the accuracy of the Report of Her Majesty's Inspector of Mines in North Staffordshire?

Yes, Sir; I am aware of the facts stated. I have summoned the Inspector of Mines for the district to attend at the Home Office to-morrow, when the whole matter will be carefully investigated.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether the following report in The Globe, of the 18th instant, as to the sufferings of the crews of Her Majesty's ships stationed at Suakin is correct—

No Reports of the circumstances mentioned in the Question have reach the Admiralty. The Commander-in-Chief in the Mediterranean is aware of the necessity of relieving the vessels at Suakin as frequently as the service admits of; and the preservation of the health of the crews of the vessels employed there is always a subject of careful consideration to the Admiralty, I have instituted an inquiry as to whether any further relief in the direction indicated in the Question can be given; for every endeavour should be made to mitigate the discomfort and unhealthiness of this service.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, If it is correct that two French vessels, the Virginia and Amazon, have been seized and confiscated, and the masters fined 200 francs each, for an alleged infringement of the Anglo-French Newfoundland Bait Treaty; if so, can he state the extent of the infringement, and by what ship the vessels were seized; and, whether, if true that the masters had been fined, it is intended to restore the ships to their owners?

(who replied) said: No information respecting the seizure of any French vessels has reached Her Majesty's Government.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, in view of the fact that farmers in the Lower Bann suffer serious loss by floods caused through the establishment of navigation works which are of no benefit to that district, he will press forward the Bann Drainage Bill, and thus relieve struggling farmers from the loss of what sometimes is the product of a whole year's labour; and, if no legislation takes place this Session, will the Government grant compensation to those farmers should their crops be destroyed or damaged during the next 12 months?

Sir, in answer to the Question of the hon. Gentleman, I may say that it is my desire in the interests of the farmers, who alone are affected by the proposed works, to press them on by all means in my power; but if, through the action of Gentlemen opposite, the Bills fail to become law, I am afraid it will not be in my power to mitigate the consequences of their rejection to the classes concerned.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether Mr. Kirkby, M.A., C.E., county surveyor, in his Report to the Grand Jury of the County of Cork, recommended them not to take over the Ballycotton Pier; whether it is a fact, as alleged before the Grand Jury, that in the portion of the pier in deep water serious settlements have taken place, and that cracks have appeared in some places for the entire height, and that one of the most serious of these cracks has considerably increased since last spring; whether the surface of the pier is still subsiding, and the settlement of the structure is still going on; whether, as alleged by Mr. Kirkby, the end of the pier shows unmistakable signs of falling out, and whether many of the Grand Jury stated their personal knowledge of the utter worthlessness of the structure; and, whether that Body unanimously refused to take it over from the Board of Works?

(who replied) read a telegram that he had just received from the Board of Works which denied that any serious settlements had taken place in the structure; but admitting that a few cracks were observable.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with regard to the case of Mr. Patrick Brosnihan, Dunvullen, Cahercoulish, County Limerick, who was evicted about two years ago by his landlady, Mrs. Gabbett, for half a-year's rent, Whether he is aware that Mr. Brosnihan held under a lease at £3 per acre, that his landlady refused him any abatement as well as permission to go into the Laud Court to get a fair rent fixed; and, whether two policemen have been protecting the Emergency men in care of the farm for the past two years at a cost of over £300 to the ratepayers; and, if so, will the Government, if Mr. Brosnihan should now pay all arrears without any abatement, on condition of being restored to his farm at a rent fixed either by the Land Court or arbitration, withdraw police protection from the Emergency men in care of the farm?

I am informed that Brosnihan was evicted in May, 1886, for non-payment of one year's rent. He held under lease at £3 an acre. It is stated that he demanded an abatement of 30 per cent; but that owing to the language he used when making the demand his landlady declined to treat with him. Since the eviction two constables have been employed protecting the caretakers on the farm. There has, however, been no extra charge on the ratepayers of the locality for these men. The Government cannot undertake to adopt the course suggested in the concluding portion of the Question.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury. Whether he is aware that there is at Ballycotton in the middle of the harbour a mass of rubbish 90 feet long, 60 feet wide, and three feet in depth, deposited there by the contractor in the course of construction of the pier; and, what authority had the Board of Works to grant an additional £600 to the contractor for removing a portion of the rubbish deposited in the harbour contrary to specification?

(who replied) said: I am not aware that the statement in the first paragraph of this Question is correct. The second paragraph appears to be based on a misapprehension; £598 was paid to the contractor for extras beyond his contract, not for removing obstructions. An expense of £444 has been incurred—£370 for removing projecting rocks, and £74 for removing some loose stones in the harbour.

asked, by what authority the extra money had been paid?

asked for Notice of the Question.

asked whether, considering the allegation of the local bodies as to the unsuitability of the pier, the Board of Works would institute an independent inquiry?

asked for Notice of this Question also.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Michael Lighane, of Ballyvourny, was awarded £20 compensation by the Grand Jury of the County Cork for the burning of his stable, &c. on the night of December 2; how such burning was proved to be malicious, and in how many instances have the Grand Jury during the present July sitting awarded considerable amounts of money as compensation for malicious burnings; and, what was the evidence in each case?

The Inspector General of Constabulary reports that the statement in the first paragraph of the Question is correct. In about 26 cases the Grand Jury have, at the July sittings, awarded compensation for malicious burnings. The total amount of compensation awarded in all these cases was about £747. The Grand Jury, in making these awards, were acting under their statutable jurisdiction; and I have neither the means nor the power to describe or discuss the evidence they had before them.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in many of these cases the burnings have been caused by landlords of the County of Cork, in order that they might get more for property they could not otherwise sell?

Order, order!

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What are the exact number and names of the Local Justices entitled to sit upon the Millstreet Bench of Magistrates, and the number of attendances of each since the appointment of Mr. Jeremiah Hegarty to the Court?

I am informed that the names of the Local Justices who have sat, or who are entitled to sit, at the Millstreet Petty Sessions, together with their attendances during the year ended August 31, 1887 (which is the latest Return of attendances furnished to the Lord Chancellor's Secretary's Office), are as follows:—T. H. O'Connell, 18; John Howard, 19; Jeremiah Hegarty, 10; Benjamin Leader, 6; C. A. Duncan, 5; M'Carthy O'Leary, 2; R. M. F. Townsend 1; Alexr. M'Carthy, 1; Sir George Colt-hurst, nil. In addition to these gentlemen, Messrs. M. Blake Burke and H. A. B. Wallis are entitled to sit at the Petty Sessions mentioned; but, inasmuch as they were appointed since the last Return was furnished, there is no present information in the Lord Chan- cellor's Secretary's Office as to their attendance.

Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether it is not the fact that Mr. M'Carthy O'Leary, a local magistrate and a Liberal Unionist, refused to sit on the Bench with Mr. Hegarty, who was appointed by the right hon. Gentleman?

I have no grounds for saying that that is a fact.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the complaints recently made on more than one occasion in The Cumberland and Westmoreland Advertiser, as to the absence of magistrates from the Penrith Bench; whether it is the fact that on the 2nd instant there were three prisoners to be tried, the Court was opened and the officials ready to begin at 11 o'clock, but after waiting three-quarters of an hour the Court had to be closed owing to the non-arrival of any magistrate, and whether, in consequence, the prisoners were kept unnecessarily locked up in the cells, and were returned to gaol without having an opportunity of being tried; whether such additional and unnecessary imprisonment will be taken into account in fixing the term of their sentences, if any; whether, on the 5th instant, a case was brought up at the police court in the same town which required the presence of two magistrates, and that, as only one was in attendance, it had to be put back until the next day, when, the same thing occurring, the prisoner had to be discharged; and, whether he will consider some means of providing a remedy for such grievances?

I am in communication with the Lord Lieutenant of the county on this matter. He is now making inquiries, which he has not had time to complete, with regard to the alleged want of magistrates in this district. No complaint has been made to him of any such want, and no complaint has been made to the Court of Quarter Sessions. I will inform the hon. Member of the result of the inquiries that are being made.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the attention of the Government has been called to the Report of the Morayshire Farmers' Club, dated March 9, 1888, stating that an average reduction of 33 per cent is necessary, owing to the fall in agricultural produce, on all rents fixed within the past 13 years; and calling attention to the probable ruin of present occupiers, whose proprietors decline either to give substantial abatements of rent or a fair re-adjustment of contract; and, whether, having regard to the fact that some Scotch proprietors have made no reduction, and many only small ones, the Government propose to introduce legislation on the subject?

The Government greatly regret that the prevailing depression has so seriously affected the agricultural tenants in Morayshire as well as in other parts of Scotland. The depression, however, has affected not only the occupiers, but also the proprietors of the land; and the Government are unable to promise legislation in the direction indicated by the hon. Member.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is true, as stated in the London Times newspaper to-day, that the German Government have determined to grant a draw back upon the exportation of manufactured goods containing sugar and cocoa corresponding to the tax paid upon the sugar and cocoa used; and, if so, whether the importation of such articles into the United Kingdom will be prohibited under the provisions of the recently concluded Convention or Treaty respecting bounty fed sugar?

I have reason to believe that the statement which the hon. Member quotes is accurate; but I have repeatedly informed the House that the Convention for the suppression of sugar bounties has not yet been completed. It is still under the consideration of the Governments concerned; and I am not in a position to enter into details with respect to its provisions, nor to say whether a particular course is or is not at variance with them.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Draft Convention on Sugar Bounties contemplates measures which will restrict the importation of cheap sugar into this country; and, if so, whether it is the intention of the Government to give its assent to the Convention?

It has been stated, in reply to Questions put by the hon. Members for Northampton and Leicester, that no measures affecting the importation of sugar can come into force without the assent of Parliament; but Her Majesty's Government are precluded, by the condition of confidence accepted by all the powers represented in the Conference on Sugar Bounties, from making any statement of the terms of the Draft Convention now under the consideration of the Governments concerned.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, with reference to the Members of Parliament (Charges and Allegations) Bill, With whom it is intended that there shall rest the function of collecting evidence, prosecuting charges, and especially of deciding who are to be examined as witnesses and protected from punishment for crime (on condition of full disclosure), and who are to be left liable to criminal prosecution; whether these functions are to be entirely performed by the Commissioners themselves; or, if not, whether the Government is to prosecute charges and determine who are to be examined as witnesses and pardoned, or whether the defendants in the action of "O'Donnell v. Walter" or any other private parties are to be permitted to do so?

If the hon. Gentleman will be so good as to read the Bill which establishes the Commission he will see that all the functions he alludes to rest with the Commissioners, and certainly the Government is not the prosecutor in the case. The hon. Member is probably aware of the manner in which such inquiries are usually conducted by Royal Commissions; but if he has any doubt on the question I may refer him to the practice of the Commission appointed to investigate the charges against the Metropolitan Board of Works.

Is it, then, to be understood that parties appearing before the Commission will not be entitled to call what witnesses they like; but that the function will rest with the Commission to say whom they will examine and whom they will exclude from certificates?

If the hon. Member will look at the Bill he will see for himself. I cannot add anything whatever to the information it contains.

said, he had compared the Bill with similar Commissions in which he had taken part; and he wished to ask whether there was to be any Executive officer at the disposal of the Commissioners for the purpose of prosecuting inquiries, collecting evidence, and exercising the functions of a prosecutor.

The hon. Gentleman must be satisfied with the information given by the Bill as to the powers of the Commissioners. As in the past, they are of the most extensive character, and the Commissioners can direct anything they think fit.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, having regard to the labour bestowed by the two Standing Committees on the five Bills already passed by them, and the prejudicial effect which the possible abandonment of those Bills would entail upon the whole system of delegation lately adopted by the House, as well as to the sub- stantial progress made with them, the Government will consider the expediency of taking up such Bills before the House adjourns, instead of relegating them, with other measures of a more controversial character, and in a less advanced stage, to the chances of an Autumn Session?

I can add little as regards Bills which have passed Grand Committees to what I have previously said. I am afraid there is very little hope of escaping an Autumn Session. I will endeavour to consult the Business of the House and the interests of the country; but, at present, I am not in a position to state what arrangements can be made, but I will endeavour to do so on Thursday.

I hope the statement will not be delayed beyond Thursday; because we have had a good deal of disappointment in the withholding of information up to the present date.

I can only say that I myself have been disappointed, because I have not been able to foresee the events which have occurred, or the delays which have taken place; but I shall endeavour to consult the convenience of the House, and to arrive at a satisfactory determination.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that the Bills will not be abandoned? One was referred to a Grand Committee last week, and it is proposed to take the same course with another to-night.

I do not think it is possible for me to add anything to the assurances I have already given. I attach the highest importance to those Bills. I said, when I made my statement on the course of Business, that it would amount to little less than a public scandal if these Bills were not passed into law during the present Session. That is my deliberate opinion still. It must remain with hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to assist us in putting forward the Business of the nation.

observed, that the Liability of Trustee Bill was referred to the Committee on Law. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he was aware that this Grand Committee had already sat nearly three months and had passed four Bills, and that it was exceedingly unlikely that a fifth Bill of this importance could be adequately discussed at the fag end of a Session?

said, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman must be aware that Her Majesty's Government could only be responsible for the conduct of their own measures. He did not think that the Liability of Trustee Bill was a Government measure.

asked, whether it was not a fact that some months ago, when Questions relating to the procedure with regard to Public Business were being discussed, Her Majesty's Government pledged themselves to give facilities for this Bill if it came down from the other House; and whether the arrangement was not made with the full sanction of the Attorney General?

said, he thought it probable that the statement of the right hon. Gentleman was absolutely accurate; but it was not for him (Mr. W. H. Smith) to ask the House to sit longer than was necessary for Government measures in order to pass this particular Bill. The Government would be exceedingly glad to see the House pass measures coming from the House of Lords; but, as far as he was concerned, he was only responsible for Government measures.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Criminal Evidence Bill is to be proceeded with at present, or in the Autumn Session?

, in reply, said, he could give no assurance that the Bill would be passed before the Autumn Session. What would happen then he could not say.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, On what day he will take the second reading of the Universites (Scotland) Bill, and the Report stage of the Bail (Scotland) Bill; and, whether in the meantime, he will see that those Bills are not put down on the Notice Paper on days on which it is not intended that they should be proceeded with?

I am not in a position at the present moment to answer that Question.

asked, whether it was true, as stated in the newspapers, that the Government had decided to abandon the Committee on Small Holdings?

No, Sir.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he proposed to take the Excise Duties (Local Purposes) Bill?

, in reply, said, he had answered a Question on this subject two days ago. He proposed to take the Bill in a week or, probably, a fortnight from now.

asked, whether the Bill would be the first Order when taken?

said, he could not make any pledge on that point at present.

asked, whether it was the intention of the Government to proceed with the two Tithe Bills this Session; and, if not both, which of them would be taken? Would the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that they would not be proceeded with before the Autumn Session?

I cannot give any such assurance.

Will both Bills be taken?

Yes.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland a Question of which he had given him private Notice, Whether his attention had been drawn to the following paragraph in The Irish Times of the 16th instant—namely,

"A daring attempt at murder took place about a mile from Woodford on the 13th instant on a man named Thomas Noonan, a summons-server here. Noonan had left his house for Woodford at about 9 o'clock a.m., and had not gone more than a mile when two men, who were lying in ambush, fired two shots at him. Both missed, as the falling of a stone from off the wall where aim was being taken caused Noonan to look round. He then stooped and miraculously escaped. Henry Bowles, nephew of the famous 'Dr. Tully,' has been arrested and fully identified;"

and, whether steps would be taken to protect Thomas Noonan and officials in the execution of their duties in that neighbourhood?

The Inspector General of Constabulary reports that the circumstances connected with the firing at Thomas Noonan, process server, are accurately set forth in the newspaper statement, with the exception that the occurrence was at about 10 o'clock a.m. Henry Bowles, nephew of the so-called "Dr. Tully," has been arrested, fully identified, and remanded. Noonan is now receiving personal protection. He had, up to the occurrence, persistently refused such protection, although informed by the police that they had reason to believe his life was in danger. They had, however, endeavoured to look after his safety by patrols. Protection is invariably afforded in any case in which the circumstances appear to call for it.

asked the Solicitor General for Ireland a Question of which he had given him private Notice, Whether jury packing was in full operation in Queen's County; whether all the Roman Catholics had recently been ordered to stand aside without cause shown, and for no other apparent reason than that they were Roman Catholics; whether of the entire population of the county 88 per cent are Roman Catholics; whether a strong feeling of indignation existed among the special jurors in consequence of their exclusion; whether that feeling had found expression in a respectful, but firm, protest presented last Thursday week to Mr. Justice Johnson, the Judge of Assize; whether the learned Judge told the memorialists that it was a thing with which he had nothing to do; whether——

I think the hon. Gentleman will see that he should put that Question on the Paper in the usual way.

asked the hon. Member for the Penrith Division of Cumberland (Mr. J. W. Lowther) a Question of which he had given private Notice, What sum of money the Charity Commissioners contemplated assigning to the General Governing Body to be constituted by them under the City Parochial Charities Act?

rose to Order, and asked why the hon. Member for North Islington and the hon. Member for South Antrim (Mr. Macartney) were allowed to put Questions of which they had given private Notice, while his hon. Friend the Member for the Ossory Division of Queen's County (Mr. W. A. Macdonald) was prevented from putting his Question?

It entirely depends on the nature of the Questions which are asked. I understood that the hon. Member for the Ossory Division of Queen's County had given private Notice on Friday last. That is a very unusual way of proceeding; and the Question was so large and important that I thought it more respectful to the House that it should be put on the Paper.

I may be allowed to explain——

Order, order!

I wish to ask whether it is not a fact that the Question of the hon. Member for Antrim related to a matter which appeared in the newspapers on the 16th instant?

Order, order!

said, his Question appeared on the Paper on Friday last. Unfortunately, he was unable to put the Question to the right hon. Gentleman on that occasion, and he now took the earliest opportunity of asking it.

The Charity Commissioners hope to be able to place a sum of £5,500 per annum, or thereabouts, at the disposal of the General Governing Body to be constituted under the City Parochial Charities Act. Perhaps the House will allow me to correct an inaccuracy of which I was guilty during the debate on the Vote for the Charity Commission. I then said that a scheme was under discussion for St. Giles's, Cripplegate. I should have said St. Botolph's, Bishopsgate.

I wish to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland a Question of which I have not given him private Notice, but of which I do not think he will require any Notice. It is, whether the Government has employed, and is paying, Dr. Barr, who appears every day at the inquest on Mr. John Mandeville; whether he is the same impartial person who was appointed to inquire into the condition of Mr. O'Brien and Mr. Mandeville in Tullamore Prison; and, if he is paid and employed by the Government, under what head in the Estimates his salary will appear?

, in reply, said, it was perfectly true that he requested his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to allow one of the best officials in the management of prisons at his disposal to give him some assistance in Ireland in connection with the inspection and management of Irish prisons. That gentleman was Dr. Barr.

asked, whether the right hon. Gentleman would instruct Dr. Barr to conduct himself as a gentleman in the Coroner's Court?

Order, order!

asked, whether it was a fact that Mr. John Dillon was called upon in Dundalk Gaol a week or 10 days ago by a doctor, who required him to submit himself to an examination, but who refused to give his name; whether Mr. Dillon, upon that refusal, declined to submit himself to examination; whether that person was Dr. Barr; and, if so, why he refused to give his name?

Really, Sir, I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman should give me Notice.

, in moving to reduce the Vote by £500, for the purpose of expressing his dissent from the policy pursued by Her Majesty's Government with regard to Zululand during the last 12 months, and especially in sending back Usibepu, thus causing a renewal of war in that unfortunate country, said, there had been three settlements of the country since the unfortunate war of 1879. Each one of these had been followed by war, and the cause of each one of those wars was the Chief Usibepu. It would have been wise policy on the part of Her Majesty's Government to support Cetewayo against Usibepu. Usibepu had a large and well-supplied army, which had been drilled and trained by whites. Cetewayo had none of those advantages, and he was defeated; while Usibepu remained in the country, and the settlement previously made was broken up. Usibepu was afterwards defeated, and turned out of the country, and remained out of it until Her Majesty's Government sent him back in January last, when the third war began. Lord Derby had pointed out that he had been accepted only after he had deluged the whole of Zululand with blood and had announced his intention of increasing Cetewayo's territory; but Her Majesty's Government did nothing at all, and there was no settlement, except such as was made by the Zulus and a few Boers who took possession of the country, and in 1884 had Dinizulu, Cetewayo's only son, proclaimed King. The Reserve had in the meantime been filled with anarchy; but Her Majesty's Government would have nothing to do in the matter. Relatives of Cetewayo Dinizulu's uncles and his five half-brothers, now came into power, and governed the country in his name; but the Zulus had to pay the Boers, as the ancient Britons had to pay the Saxons, for foreign aid against their invaders, and the Boers began overrunning the country. The question of the price to be paid was left for some time indefinite, but ultimately 2,700,000 acres were fixed upon, although it was doubtful whether the Zulus generally had any idea of the extent of land that was demanded. By-and-bye the British Government began to interfere, not to protect the Zulus, but because it was found that British interests were affected, as the Boers were getting near the sea. Negotiations were entered into between Her Majesty's Government and the Boers in Zululand, who had formed themselves into a new Republic. The idea was to limit the area of land to be given to the Boers and to keep as much as possible for the Zulus with the primary object of keeping the Boors from the sea. It was supposed that, if they once got to the sea the German or some other Power would obtain a controlling influence in Central Africa through the Boers seeking their aid. Those inland States desired to get to the sea in order to avoid paying what they regarded as unjust taxes upon goods that passed through British Colonies. It was a mistake to suppose that those people wanted to have anything to do with the Germans; and if Germany were to interfere with us, we should have no better troops than the Boers if we would only stop the injustice of compelling them to contribute to the taxation of our Colony. In handing over Zulu territory to the New Republic and in every other way we had sacrificed Zulu interests to our own, which was altogether a mistaken policy, and, of course, the Zulus were not well pleased with us. They wanted to come here to state their case; but they were refused passes to enable them to do so. If they had been fairly heard, they would not have been as dissatisfied as they were now. We had determined the boundaries of the New Republic, we had reduced the area of Zululand, and the question was what was to be done with the remaining Eastern portion of Zululand? There were two courses open to us, either to establish a Protectorate, or to annex Zululand to a Colony. A Protectorate had been proposed, and would have been the best for the Zulu people; but, unfortunately, there were always officials who were looking forward to Governships. If we had waited patiently we, as a matter of fact, might have annexed the Zulu people with their own consent; but, unfortunately, we had acted precipitately and with the consent of petty Chiefs, but without the consent of the great Chief and the King of Zululand. The Government annexed the country, and having made unwilling subjects, proceeded to coerce them, and they had worried the Chiefs into taking up arms against us. That they had done by establishing a system of passes, and in other ways that were most vexatious and irritating. In fact, they seemed to have looked upon this part of Zululand as if it were a new Ireland, and to have determined to adopt a policy of coercion, and the Zulu Chiefs not unnaturally were resisting this interference with their liberty. Sir Theophilus Shepstone had advised the Government to send Usibepu to Central Zululand, saying that his presence there would be as useful as an armed force. Thereupon Usibepu was sent among the Chiefs to overawe them, and he (Dr. Clark) blamed the Government for acting on that advice, for that Chief began at once to clear out all the followers of Dinizulu and to take possession of their villages and standing crops. In that way Usibepu had fomented war, and once more showed himself a curse to the country, deluging it with blood. He (Dr. Clark) did not know what he should be told about the war, because no Papers had been given them about it, and all his information on the subject came from the Chiefs and the people affected by these events, and it was altogether of a most unsatisfactory character. The following account of the circumstances of the first engagement he believed to be true:—A police force, accompanied by some of Usibepu's men, was sent to arrest certain Zulus who were accused of taking property which did not belong to them. Dinizulu's people refused to surrender the accused men, and an armed force was at once sent against them and fired upon them without parley or notice, two messengers sent by Dinizulu being killed. The Government were now calling upon the Basutos and other tribes headed by vagabonds like John Dunn for aid in their operations against Dinizulu, and were thus laying the foundations of future blood feuds. He protested against the employment of Native levies in a South African war, for they often committed great atrocities, and for the conduct of these barbarous savages English commanders could not be responsible. He was glad to think that signs were not wanting that Sir Arthur Havelock was awakening to the fact that he had been misled by his advisers in these affairs. In one of his letters, censuring Mr. Osborn, he said—

"I am reluctantly compelled to think that more fair and greater discretion might have been exercised in the restoration of Usibequ. Allowances should have been made for the difficulty which the chiefs found in accommodating themselves to the new order of things, which was in some respects disappointing and distasteful to them."

Now, who were the men upon whose advice the annexation had been effected? They were men who had already caused a great deal of trouble in South Africa—Sir Theophilus Shepstone, his son, and Mr. Osborn. Those were the men who made the Government believe that the people of the Transvaal wished for annexation when, in reality, they were bitterly opposed to it. Not only did they mislead the Government, but they meanly swindled them. The money spent by these men for clothing, hair brushes, fishing rods, vases, and other articles of use and luxury was, at one time, all put down as money spent on forage. He was glad to know that the bill was surcharged, and that Sir Theophilus Shepstone's pension was stopped. He believed, however, that the present Government intended to restore it. Lord Knutsford was quite wrong in thinking that the Zulus were aiding Dinizulu under the influence of fear. They were aiding him of their own free will, and were ready to lay down their lives in the cause which they had espoused. It was also a mistake to imagine that the Boers were in any way concerned in the disturbances. Boer filibusters did not care to fight, unless something was to be gained by it. He believed that Zululand might be made as peaceful as Basutoland if they worked through and made friends of the Chiefs, and he thought that it was now very necessary to appoint a Commission of Inquiry into the condition of things in South Africa; without it no information of value could be obtained, and valuable lives and treasure would continue to be spent. Did the Government believe that they would control the northern Zulus, if that people heard, as they certainly would hear, of the conduct of the Government towards the southern Zulus? There were going to be more wars, and if they could get some trustworthy information, the Government might be able to solve the difficulties of South Africa, which was now the only place where such troubles existed. He begged to move the reduction of the Vote.

said, that at that stage the hon. Member could not move the reduction of the Vote. The Question before the House was that they agree with the Committee in their resolution to pass the Vote. The hon. Member could say "No" to that proposition.

said, he hoped the House would allow him to represent his hon. Friend the Under Secretary for the Colonies (Baron Henry de Worms), who was prevented by his official duties from attending at the House. He hoped the House would come to the conclusion that neither the present Government nor the preceding Governments which had administered the affairs of Zululand had deserved the very wholesale censure which had been cast upon all Governments and every Administration by the hon. Member opposite (Dr. Clark). If there was one subject more than another which those who had held Office in this House could not afford to reproach one another about, it was about the condition of Zululand; because all Governments had to deal with this extremely difficult subject. All Governments had no doubt made some mistakes in dealing with it, and all the House of Commons could do was to watch the administration of successive Governments, and hope that ultimately this extremely difficult problem might be satisfactorily solved. He hoped the House would forgive him if he did not follow the hon. Member for Caithness into all the topics with which he adorned his speech. He did not intend to follow the hon. Member into the personal matters to which he referred. He did not understand that the hon. Member brought any specific charge against any of the persons he had named, except Sir Theophilus Shepstone, and that was a very old story about his expedition prior to the annexation of the Transvaal. He happened to know something about that, because he was Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts at the time when those accounts were brought before it, and they were disallowed and reductions were made. He could only say, speaking from recollection, that nothing was done by Sir Theophilus Shepstone that merited the charge made against him. No doubt the accounts were irregular, and as being so were disallowed; but the Committee were unanimously of opinion that there was not a word against his private honour or public integrity, and he thought it was on the recommendation of that Committee that the disallowance of his pension was rescinded, and that he now enjoyed his full pension. He did not like to go back quite so far in the history of Zululand as the hon. Member. He thought it was quite enough to begin in 1879, when the conquest of Zululand was accomplished. From that moment the British Government became virtually responsible for some settlement or other in that country, and the effects of successive Governments since that date had been to extricate themselves as honourably as they could from the liabilities which that conquest had thrown upon us, and to endeavour to make a settlement at once beneficial to the Zulu people and not onerous to the British taxpayers; and he felt bound to say that up to the present time, the honest efforts which had been made by successive Governments had not led to very considerable success. The hon. Member opposite had referred to the restoration of Cetewayo. Whether the restoration of Cetewayo to supreme power in Zululand would or would not have been a settlement of the affair was a vexed question; because, although it was understood that that was the sort of settlement which was promoted by the Government of 1880–5, of which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) was the head, yet that policy was never actually carried out, because, instead of Cetewayo being restored to supreme power in Zululand, the country was divided into three parts, and an attempt was made to maintain a Reserve under the direct government of British authority, a portion of the residue was placed under the command of Cetewayo, and the remainder under the powerful Chief Usibepu, of whom the hon. Member had spoken. Usibepu and Cetewayo quarrelled. Usibepu proved the stronger and drove Cetewayo to the Reserve, where he afterwards died. Neither did he propose to follow the hon. Member into the settlement made by the Secretary for War (Mr. E. Stanhope) in 1886. That was made under circumstances of some difficulty. Although consummated by the present Government, it was initiated and was entirely due to the Government of the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian. Dinizulu had made a compact with the Boers in 1884 by which he ceeded 4,234 square miles of territory to the Boers. It was not until after that—not until March, 1886—that the Zulu Chiefs appealed to Sir Arthur Havelock to save them from the utter destruction which the incursion of those Boers threatened; and it was not until that appeal from the Zulu Chiefs themselves that the Government commenced the negotiations with the New Republic about the line of demarcation which were finally consummated by his right hon. Friend. The responsibility for the initiation of those negotiations therefore rested with the late Government. He did not follow the hon. Member into the question of the Customs Duties. The hon. Member attributed the very worst motives to the late and to the present Government in regard to the negotiations. He (Sir John Gorst), on the contrary, believed they were actuated by the best motives, by the desire to save the remnant of the Zulu people from the very certain fate that would have overtaken them if the Government had not interfered. He did not think the late or the present Government were animated by those motives attributed to them by the hon. Member.

said the hon. and learned Gentleman misunderstood him. What he said was, that the reason believed in Zululand was that the Government wished to make them still pay blackmail.

said, he trusted that that delusion was in course of being entirely removed. There had been a conference on that subject which had ended satisfactorily, and it only awaited the approval of the Legislatures of the various Colonies concerned to bring that vexed question to a conclusion. He did not think, however, that result would be at all assisted by the hon. Member's speech. The result of the negotiations had been that, instead of 4,234 square miles, which the Zulus ceded in 1884, 2,854 square miles only had been ceded, and the remainder of the territory was brought under British protection, part as Reserve, and part as what was known as the territory of Eastern Zululand. That agreement having been come to, it became the duty of his right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary for the Colonies (Lord Knutsford), at that time a Member of the House of Commons, to determine in what way that territory—for the government of which this country had then taken a very much more admitted responsibility by that settlement with the New Republic—was to be governed. He (Sir John Gorst) did not know that that subject was under discussion in the house at the present moment. It was discussed last year, though not perhaps under the best possible auspices, for it was interpolated as one of the dilatory Motions which were brought forward during the progress of the Crimes Bill. At any rate, it was discussed, and, although the senior Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), with that profound knowledge of the British Empire which characterized him, denounced the Government in no measured terms, he did not think the hon. Member's denunciation was supported by the official Opposition. He would, therefore, pass by that question. He now came to the questions whether, since the annexation of Zululand, Her Ma- jesty's Government had in the administration of that country made mistakes which deserved censure, and whether they were now endeavouring to administer the affairs of Zululand on principles which the House of Commons would approve and support. He thought he could show that, on the whole, the administration of the Government had been sound, and that the policy they were pursuing in South Africa was such as to deserve the confidence of the House, such as it could well approve, and the country also at large. The hon. Member (Dr. Clark) had a much easier way than he (Sir John Gorst) had of settling the present difficulty. The hon. Member said that Usibepu caused all difficulty in Zululand, and that he was the man who had brought about the present war. The hon. Member saw Usibepu everywhere—that Chief was to him the cause of every difficulty, and he really talked as if her Majesty's Government had invented Usibepu. Unfortunately, having undertaken to govern the country, the Government had that awkward customer to manage as well as the other Zulus. If Usibepu were not in East Zululand he would be in the Reserve, where he might be as troublesome as, or even more trouble-some than, he was in his present position. When they undertook to govern a semi-civilized people like the Zulus, they must necessarily encounter a great many difficulties, and must deal with them as best they could. He did not think that the mode in which Usibepu had been treated deserved the censure of the hon. Member. It was true that when Usibepu was defeated and driven into the Reserve, Lord Derby refused him military aid, on the ground that he had been distinctly warned and told that he must maintain himself by force of his own arms. The hon. Member represented to the House that Lord Derby cast some censure on Usibepu; but, in reality, his Lordship did nothing of the kind. His Lordship said, that this country was not bound to go to war for the purpose of restoring Usibepu; but that, as he had been driven into the Reserve, we would give him an asylum there, though he could do nothing further for him. It was also true that in 1886 Lord Granville, acting on the advice of Sir Arthur Havelock, refused to let Usibepu return to his own territory. The ground for that decision was the unsettled state of Zululand. At the same time, a promise was made to Usibepu that when affairs were on a more satisfactory footing, his position should be considered. But when we assumed the Sovereignty of Zululand, the state of affairs changed. Every Zulu was entitled to our protection, and there was no logical ground for withholding permission from Usibepu to return. Accordingly, in August, 1887, Sir Arthur Havelock, who had recommended Lord Granville to refuse Usibepu permission to return in 1886, himself earnestly begged the Secretary of the Colonies to entrust him with the authority to arrange the repatriation of Usibepu, under certain conditions. That request was backed up by Sir Theophilus Shepstone, Mr. Osborn, and the other officials. The Secretary of State, writing on September 12, 1887, said—

"Having regard to the strong opinions expressed by those best qualified to form them, I am prepared to leave you full discretion to act as you think best in this matter, it being clearly understood, however, that Usibepu is not to resume his former position as an independent Chief, but that he will be a British subject, exercising only such powers over his own people as the Government may assign him."

Shortly after the receipt of that despatch, Sir Arthur Havelock thought proper to restore Usibepu to his old position in Zululand. Looking at the matter in the light of the evidence of subsequent events, he had not the slightest hesitation in saying it would have been better if Usibepu had been kept in the Reserve, instead of being restored to his own country. There was no doubt that the experiment had been unfortunate, and soon after the experiment was tried, Sir Arthur Havelock admitted that there was considerable uneasiness in the minds both of the Usutus and the other Zulus. On the 18th of January in the present year, Sir Arthur Havelock stated that he was alive to the necessity of great care and circumspection. The hon. Member for Caithness attributed the outbreak of the present disturbances in Zululand to Usibepu's turbulence and determination to fight, but nothing was more remote from the truth, for in reality he had not been engaged in any operations which were calculated to promote disturbance. In the Papers which would shortly be laid before Parliament, hon. Members would find that every effort was made to explain to Dinizulu the grounds and conditions on which Usibepu was restored. The real cause of the disturbances was that Dinizulu and Undabuko had been induced to give ear to reports which had been industriously circulated, to the effect that the British Sovereignty was not going to be maintained in Zululand; that they were likely to draw back, and leave their allies to their fate; and it was the hope inspired in that way that led Dinizulu and Undabuko to make preparations for securing to themselves the reversion of the Sovereignty of Zululand. As long ago as April 6 last, Dinizulu left Zululand and entered the Transvaal and the New Republic, endeavouring to obtain recruits and adherents for his intended resistance to the British Government. He was, however, glad to say that neither the Government of the New Republic nor the Government of the South African Republic lent any heed whatever to his proposal. Both those Governments had acted in perfect loyalty to the British Government, and had given no countenance whatever to the disturbances. Although there might be an odd filibuster or two in Dinizulu's camp, they were merely independent and isolated personages, and had received no encouragement, direct or indirect, from the Government of any Republic in South Africa. On May 13 Dinizulu returned to Zululand, and on June 2 the attempt was made to arrest him and Undabuko, which, if it had been successful, would probably have prevented any of these outrages. No doubt, that was a very unfortunate attempt. It was made by Mr. Osborn, in conjunction with the Military Authorities, and it was made after distinct warning from Sir Arthur Havelock that no such attempt was to be made, unless the authorities were satisfied that the force at their disposal was sufficient for the purpose. But he would like the House to mark clearly that the attempt was made because Dinizulu had actually seized the cattle of Umnyamana, who was one of the most loyal and reliable Chiefs in Zululand. As hon. Members knew, reinforcements had been sent in the shape of one regiment from the Cape of Good Hope, and one of the regiments now in Egypt would, on its way to the Cape, stop at Durban, and, if necessary, proceed to Zululand, and the Military Authorities there assured the Government that when these reinforcements arrived they would have a sufficient force to put down the rebellion. There was in the camp at Ceza an unknown number of Zulus headed by Dinizulu and Undabuko, and it was against that body that these reinforcements would be directed. It must be admitted that, having undertaken the government of Zululand, and having annexed the territory to the British Crown, Her Majesty's Government must put down all armed resistance which existed within the territory, and it was quite impossible that anything could be done until these Chiefs had been compelled to abandon their present attitude of attempting to take the Sovereignty of Zululand out of the hands of Her Majesty's Government. The contest would be simply one between the British force, representing the authority of the British Crown, and Dinizulu and his friends, who were now in armed opposition to it. There was no intention whatever, when the camp was broken up, to punish the people committing these outrages with any undue severity, and the moment armed resistance was put down and Dinizulu's force dispersed, every attempt would be made to induce the Zulus to go back to their old peaceful avocations, and no vindictive measures would be resorted to with the object of punishing them for the part they had taken in the war. The ringleaders must, however, be punished.

Is that a definite statement of policy?

said, it was. The Secretary of State for the Colonies had not yet, of course, received full details as to what had occurred; but it seemed clear that it was impossible for the British Government to tolerate the presence in Zululand of men who had stirred up the people to attack the Sovereignty of the British Crown. Moreover, it was essential that Undabuko and Dinizulu should be removed; because it was quite clear that there could be no peace or good government in the country as long as the ringleaders who had incited the people to take up arms against the authority of the British Crown remained there as a centre of disaffection. When the insurrection was put down, there was no desire or intention to act harshly towards the people, because the Government believed that they had been encouraged to engage in these hostilities in ignorance, and without any complete knowledge of the facts, and that they deserved rather the compassion of the Government than anything like severity of punishment. It must, however, be distinctly understood that from the duty of asserting the Sovereignty of Great Britain over Zulu territory the Government would not go back. Having once undertaken the government of that country, it was impossible to tolerate any power setting itself up against the authority of Great Britain, and any attempt to negotiate with persons while actually in armed resistance to our power would be a most cruel wrong even for the Natives themselves, and would cause a great deal more destruction and bloodshed than a short, sharp engagement. In mercy to the Zulu people themselves, it was imperative that the armed resistance should be immediately put down, and that the inhabitants should be made to know that Her Majesty's Government intended to maintain the Sovereignty they undertook two years ago. So far as the action of Her Majesty's Government in London was concerned, he did not think that even the hon. Member for Caithness could find fault with that. So far as the conduct of the local officials was concerned, he admitted at once that the restoration of Usibepu was unfortunate; but he thought that he had a very strong claim to be allowed to go and enjoy his own territory, and he thought he had shown that at the outbreak of hostilities Usibepu was not concerned. In conclusion, he hoped, now that it was known distinctly that Her Majesty's Government would not surrender the Sovereignty of Zululand, and intended to reduce the country to a state of order and obedience to the law, this temporary outbreak might speedily be put down. He was afraid, however, he would be too sanguine a prophet if he were to say that that was the last the House would hear of Zululand. Still, he hoped that the manly and direct responsibility the Government had now undertaken for the administration of the affairs of the country might, at least, lead to a more settled state of affairs in it, and that ultimately the task which this country had been compelled to take upon itself of governing Zululand might be accomplished with honour and success.

said, it was high time this important Question, which had been so often postponed, should be fully discussed. It was to be regretted that the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies (Baron Henry de Worms) was not able to be present; but he could not have selected a more able substitute than the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India (Sir John Gorst). Lord Knutsford had said the other night that the situation in Zululand, though not dangerous, was serious. But for the last 10 years the situation in Zululand had been a serious one. Ever since that disastrous Zulu War by which we had crushed the life out of a brave and high-spirited people and had turned a nation of soldiers into a nation of serfs Zululand had been a thorn in our side. He would not go through the long and dismal tale—the Wolseley settlement—the restoration and death of Cetewayo—the irruption of the Boers and the so-called cession to them of the greater part of Zululand—those were matters of history. He would come at once to the settlement of May last, and the tripartite division of Zululand. Of that settlement he had remarked at the time that we were making the best of a bad business. But, be that as it might, it was essential to its success that it should be loyally and permanently accepted by all parties, Yet the ink on the Proclamation was hardly dry before two of these Zulu Chiefs, Dinizulu and Uzibepu, were flying at each other's throats. That was hardly surprising, for the normal state of these men was one of inter-tribal warfare, and considering the hereditary character of their feuds it was about as probable that a cat and dog should live in peace and amity together. That was a contingency against which he thought the Government ought to have been on their guard, and he could not acquit them of blame. Indeed, Lord Knutsford admitted that our force was not equal to maintain order in the country, and it was impossible to ignore the fact that while Dinizulu, as Cetewayo's son, represented what was left of the national sentiment in the country, his rival, Usibepu, was hated by the National Party among the Zulus. There was another fact, however, which greatly aggravated the difficulties of the situation. About a week ago a paragraph appeared in The Times from the Durban correspondent of that paper, who appeared to be well informed, which stated that it was beyond doubt that Dinizulu was receiving assistance from White men, and that the authorities of the New Republic were powerless in the matter. We had now, according to the statement of the hon. Gentleman, some 1,500 or 1,600 European troops and some 600 Native levies in Zululand, so that we had there all the materials for a war on a small scale. No doubt that force, especially if strengthened by the reinforcements which were under orders to proceed from Egypt, would be sufficient to cope with the Zulus. But a Boer war in the background was, as they knew to their cost, a very different thing. Lord Knutsford had said that the authorities in the Transvaal and the New Republic were behaving loyally at this crisis; but he must be excused for not placing absolute confidence in the Rulers of those territories, or rather in their power to hold in hand their own people. At such a juncture the death of Sir John Brand—the President of the Orange Free State—a man of great ability and scrupulous integrity, who had always acted with perfect loyalty to this country, was an incalculable misfortune. He had no wish to embarrass the Government, who had enough on their hands already. It might be necessary to put down this rebellion by force, for we had annexed the country, and we must assume the responsibilities of annexation. A mere paper annexation was of all evils the worst, and we must be prepared to govern as well as to conquer. It was difficult at this distance to say how far the problem was a military and how far an administrative one, and he observed with regret from The Times of to-day that a serious friction existed between the Civil and Military Authorities. It was not the first time that such a state of things had arisen; but it was always to be deplored, and the sooner it was terminated the better. What was really wanted was that as soon as this rising was over Zululand should be administered not only with a firm hand, but with some regard to the wishes and sentiments of its people. The history of Basutoland—not much more than 100 miles distant—presented a marked contrast to that of Zululand. Basutoland, thanks to the good sense and firmness of one of the best public servants the Crown ever had (Sir M. Clark), had been administered in a manner most creditable to the British Government, and he devoutly hoped that the authorities in Zululand would learn a lesson from that distinguished man, and would not attempt to ride rough-shod over a people who, like most other savage nations, were easy enough to govern provided they were governed in the right way. If the hon. Member went to a Division he could not support him, and he would tell him frankly why. The expression of a strong difference of opinion in the House of Commons might weaken our authority in South Africa when it was of the utmost importance just now to strengthen it; and if, as he had always maintained, there was to be a continuity in our Colonial policy, it was desirable, except upon grave questions of principle, that the action of the Government of the day should not be lightly challenged.

said, that he could not agree with the right hon. Gentleman opposite that they ought to ignore altogether the history of this question, because it was from the past history that they could best learn what they ought to do now. He believed that the present position of affairs in Zululand was a very serious one, and while it called in question our whole policy in South Africa, it would, he hoped, prove the turning point in that policy. The hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark) had spoken that night as the advocate of what he might call the Royal Party in Zululand; but the Royal Party had been destroyed in war. The ancient history, as it had been termed, of Zululand stopped with the complete break up of the organization of Cetewayo as a party system. He would remind the hon. Member for Caithness that Cetewayo was neither by blood, election, or other constitutional means, the head of the Royal Party; he was only one of Panda's sons, selected chiefly by the aid of the British Government from among all the sons, who fought among themselves, the object of the British Government being that there should be some representative of the Zulu nation. But in 1879, whether rightly or wrongly, the Zulu nation was broken up, with the result that the Zulus were left without any organization or head. The restoration of Cetewayo, which was strongly deprecated at the time by the present Secretary of State for the Colonies (Lord Knutsford), failed, because there was no central authority to maintain law and order over everybody. The annexation of Zululand followed, and the restoration of Usibepu. In taking over that country he maintained that we became morally responsible not only for law and order, but for the peace and prosperity of the country, and he contended that it was our duty to retain in our hands sufficient territory in Zululand for the Zulus to live upon. No mention had yet been made in that debate of the views of the Colony of Natal on the subject; and he wished to emphasize the fact that they ought to pay the greatest attention to the opinion of that essentially English Colony. There had been a proposal from Natal which he very much respected, that they should relieve the British Empire of all trouble in the matter by taking Zululand over and ruling it themselves. That proposal should be treated with great respect. Though he did not think Natal was as yet sufficiently advanced in power or wealth to take over the control of so turbulent and disturbed a country, we should not forget that we had out there a band of prosperous Englishmen, ready to assist us in bearing the responsibility the Empire had incurred in Zululand. With regard to the feelings and intentions of the Boers, he must really deprecate the incursions made by the hon. Member for Caithness into the commercial policy of the Free State, because that policy had nothing whatever to do with our policy in Zululand. He fully re-echoed what had been said by the right hon. and learned Member for East Denbighshire (Mr. Osborne Morgan) as to the loss which South Africa had sustained by the death of Sir John Brand. He had seen a great deal of him, and it was quite true that, while he was first for his own country, under him the Orange Free State always worked hand in hand with the British Government. He hoped the day had gone by when we might look upon the Boer States as our foes. The events which had occurred in Zululand showed that the Boer Republics had loyally acted in our interest and their own in opposing anything like turbulence or rebellion on their borders. A pamphlet had recently been published with regard to South Africa to which he should like to draw the attention of the House. It was entitled Boers, Blacks, and Blackguards.

British.

said, he thought that must have been a parody, because the one he saw was as he had quoted it, and he wanted to refer to the last class in that book—the blackguards. In South Africa there were a great number of persons who were Europeans in blood, but who were certainly not Boers in the ordinary sense of the term. Those men were ready at the slightest sign of turbulence to join on either side, hoping out of the scramble to obtain somethipg to their own benefit, and those men were our greatest trouble. It was said they were siding with Dinizulu already, and unless we showed a strong front there were hundreds, if not thousands, ready to flock to the standard of any rebellious Chief in the hope of sharing the plunder, and it was against these men chiefly they had to guard; and we could best do by a greater display of strength and a more consistent policy. There was another point with regard to the administration of Zululand that he wished to mention. Careful inquiry in Bechuanaland had convinced him that if we had set up a firm permanent administration there at a cost of £10,000 or £15,000 we should have avoided an expedition which cost the country over £1,000,000 sterling. He hoped we should be forewarned this time, and avoid anything like that in Zululand. He fully agreed with the hon. Member for Caithness as to the weakness of the administration that had taken place in Zululand up to this. When they found their Representative there addressing such language as he did to Dinizulu after he had become a rebel against the Queen's authority, it was time that he should be either rebuked or recalled. What was wanted was a sufficient show of force to call upon the Chiefs to attend before a magistrate and give an account of themselves when they did wrong. No half-measures were of any effect with these people. He hoped that Her Majesty's Government were taking measures to send sufficient troops to South Africa. They had most wisely ordered reinforcements out, and he trusted that they would not hold their hand, but would send more reinforcements. He trusted that the Government would give them some explanation of the very serious telegram that appeared in that day's Times, which told them, rightly or wrongly, that serious friction existed between the Civil and Military Authorities of Zululand. He hoped that this was not the case, and now that the Civil Government had broken down in Zululand full and complete responsibility would be thrown on the Military Authorities to re-establish the Queen's authority. That, he thought, was absolutely necessary. When law and order were restored there then a strong civil administration could follow. He could wish nothing better than that Sir M. Clarke should be sent out to Zululand. That would be much better than the Royal Commission which the hon. Member for Caithness advocated. He was not at all confident that the removal of Dinizulu and Undabuko would settle everything; for they must remember that the removal of Cetewayo and Langilebalele did not settle the country, and he thought they ought to send a strong and experienced administrator to Zululand. The Government must show by our force that we were willing to undertake the responsibility of Empire, and that we remembered that cardinal political maxim that in a Government weakness was wickedness.

said, that no subject could come before the House which more required us to see in what direction we were going than that now under discussion. No one could be more competent to address the House upon this question than the hon. Member who had just sat down; and he (Mr. John Morley) had been surprised to hear him repeating exactly the remarks which had laid the foundations for the admitted mistakes into which Mr. Osborn, Sir Theophilus Shepstone, and Sir Arthur Havelock had fallen with regard to Zululand. The hon. Member had said that the Royal Party in Zululand had been entirely destroyed, and that they were entirely broken up, and that we had no longer to deal with a nation. The Blue Book had shown that the mistaken theory of the three gentlemen he had just named, able as they were, had been that there was no National Party in Zululand, and that there was no Zulu nation. But, in that case, how was it that whenever any Members of the Royal Family came forward they were sure to attract to themselves these tribes, and that the whole of the people rallied round them? The fact was that there now existed a great number of the Native inhabitants of the district—by far the greater portion of it—who were National, and by the course we were taking we were sending regiments of soldiers to coerce the very people who, we were told, were yearning for our presence. He was afraid that a more grievous mistake had never been made in history than that which we had committed with regard to this unfortunate country, and which, apparently, we were about to repeat. By the disastrous policy which had been pursued by Sir Bartle Frere the Zulu nation had been broken up. The greater portion of what remained of the nation was following Dinizulu; and it was with them, led by their voluntarily chosen and adopted Chieftain, that we were going to fight, following exactly the same lines that had led us to disaster in Zululand. We had got into a fresh mess in the same manner that we had got into the old one. How could anyone talk, as the Under Secretary had talked that evening, of our acting for the benefit of the Native race, when he remembered that our intervention, coloured and veiled by exactly the same honourable plea in its intention, but by the same mistaken plea for that policy, had deluged Zululand with blood, had led to the destruction of far more thousands of Zulus than Cetewayo and other Chiefs had ever destroyed? He wished the hon. Baronet the Member for the City (Sir Robert Fowler) to say whether the intervention of the English power in Zululand had not been as great and cruel a disaster to the Native races as could possibly be. He would, therefore, utter his protest against the renewal of that mischievous and mistaken policy upon exactly the same principles and plea urged by Sir Bartle Frere in 1879. Some sort of peace must be restored in this portion of Zululand, but the Government were going the wrong way about it in insisting upon the restoration of Usibepu. He merely wished to ask the Government on that occasion whether they intended to insist upon the removal of Dinizulu, and trusted they would not conclusively pledge themselves to do so.

said, he should have supported the proposal for a Commission of Inquiry if the hon. Member for Caithness had urged the demand on other grounds than those which he put forward. Those who had watched the course of events since the annexation of Zululand would agree with much that had been said as to the doubtful character of the policy that had been pursued in that country of late. But the hon. Member went further. In demanding this inquiry he took up the cause, not of a nation, but of one faction only. The hon. Gentleman had blamed the Government for permitting Usibepu to return from the Reserve into his own country in Eastern Zululand, and he certainly had gone out of his way to attack those who were at the present moment British officials in that country. The fact they had to remember was this—that the National power in Zululand had been destroyed; we had no longer to deal with a nation, but with a small faction headed by Dinizulu and his friends. It was necessary that we should put down armed resistance to the authority of the Queen before entering into negotiations with those carrying on the armed resistance. Any attempt to invest Dinizulu and his faction with the dignity pertaining to a nation would be a very great blunder indeed, especially so long as those men were in open opposition to the power of the Crown.

said, he had to complain of the absence of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies (Baron Henry de Worms), who seemed to be away on business in no way connected with the Colonial Office. No doubt the business on which the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State was engaged was important from the Government point of view, but the appointment seemed to be an illustration of that unfortunate chopping and changing of Offices, in the course of which the square man happened to be put into the round hole. The other evening the affairs of Mauritius were brought under the notice of the House, and the reply on behalf of the Government was made by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Scotland (Mr. J. P. B. Robertson), whose conspicuous ability was universally recognized, but who had no kind of responsibility for the Colonial Office. Scarcely a day passed without some difficult question being raised in the House; and there was absolutely no one from whom they could elicit full information and upon whom they could fasten responsibility. This was a most unfortunate condition of things. It was not respectful to the House, and scarcely showed, on the part of the Government, that regard for the interests of our Colonies about which they so loudly protested.

said, he would remind the House that the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India (Sir John Gorst) had, during a long course of years, taken a prominent part in the debates on South Africa. They regretted the absence of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, but there was no man more entitled to speak with authority on South African questions than his hon. Friend. As to the Mauritius debate, he believed that the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Scotland on that occasion had sat with Lord Knutsford, the Colonial Secretary, during the protracted discussions with Sir John Pope Hennessy; and therefore his hon. and learned Friend was able to represent the Government in that debate. The right hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. John Morley) had made personal reference to him in this matter. He (Sir Robert Fowler) had always looked with great regret at the attack made by Sir Bartle Frere on Cetewayo, and he had always looked upon the war as a great mistake, and believed that it laid the foundations of the subsequent events which they had to deplore. He had encouraged the restoration of Cetewayo, which he thought at that time was justified, though it had turned out to be unfortunate. At that time the Government and statesmen of Natal disapproved the course taken by Lord Kimberley; and if Lord Kimberley's action in the restoration of Cetewayo turned out to be unfortunate, the fault was not to be laid on Lord Kimberley, but on those subordinates in Natal who did not support him. It seemed to him, however, that moving the reduction of the Vote was a most unsatisfactory way of expressing approval or disapproval of a policy, and he, therefore, could not support the Motion. He had very great confidence in the Secretary of State for the Colonies. He thought it would be admitted on all hands that no one holding that Office had had so much previous experience as his noble Friend; and he knew that the noble Lord would carefully consider what course we ought to pursue. He joined his hon. Friend (Sir George Baden-Powell) in paying a tribute to the statesmanship of Sir John Brand, who had left behind him a great reputation, and whose death was a loss, not only to the Free State, but to the world at large.

said, he agreed with the hon. Baronet who had just sat down as to the advantage which the House enjoyed in the Government being represented on this matter by his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for India (Sir John Gorst). Although they regretted the absence of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies (Baron Henry de Worms), the House would lose nothing in the way of information by the substitution of his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for India. With reference to what had fallen from the hon. Member for the South-West Division of Bethnal Green (Mr. Pickersgill), he (Mr. J. Chamberlain) must say he thought that the criticism of the hon. Gentleman was neither just nor generous. The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies was absent carrying out a matter as to which he pronounced no opinion at the present time; but nobody could conceive anything more important to our principal Colonies than the settlement of the question of the sugar bounties which the hon. Gentleman had undertaken. He hoped that his hon. Friend the Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark) had no intention of dividing the House, because his object had been fully gained by the discussion which had taken place. They were indebted to the hon. Member for a most interesting statement of the quarrel which had arisen. The hon. Baronet opposite had referred to the old Zulu War. He (Mr. J. Chamberlain) was one of those who were responsible for the restoration of Cetewayo. He was convinced, now as then, that it was the only right policy to pursue at the time, and if it had had a fair chance it would, he believed, have been successful. But it did not have a fair chance, and for this reason—our officials in South Africa were opposed to it. He did not mean that they did not loyally do their duty to the Government which employed them, but it was quite impossible for persons who believed that a particular policy was wrong to carry it out successfully. With the greatest goodwill and the best desire on their part, they could not do justice to a policy of which they personally disapproved; and he thought the only mistake which the Government of which he was a Member made was that when they determined on that policy they did not find other instruments to carry it out. He understood that the policy pursued in the case of Cetewayo was to be pursued in the case of Dinizulu. He hoped not; but if the Government had arrived at any determination of that sort he trusted that it was a matter for further consideration. He had endeavoured to ascertain the facts, and his sympathies, he confessed, were in favour of Dinizulu as against his opponent Usibepu. Dinizulu, no doubt, represented the influence of Cetewayo. They had succeeded in reducing the Zulu nation to little more than a faction, but Dinizulu had more authority over what remained of the Zulus than any other Chief. Dinizulu was by our action put in a defenceless position as against his opponent; but if they put him on an equal footing he thought that Dinizulu would swallow up Usibepu without any difficulty. Inasmuch as Dinizulu had been led to make an attack upon the British positions, and to put himself in direct opposition to the authority of the Queen, he must be put down. He very much doubted whether Dinizulu knew what he was doing. They must remember what sort of a man they were dealing with. He thought that the Chief had been deceived, and led on from what he considered a tribal quarrel with Usibepu until he had unwittingly found himself in opposition to the Queen of England. What he pleaded for was that when they had put down Dinizulu mercy and consideration should be shown to him; and that the most careful consideration should be given to the question whether, after all, it might not be well to restore him to his former authority when he had learnt the lesson that he must not attack the soldiers of the Queen. What was the moral of these continual lessons which they were having with regard to South Africa, and especially with regard to Zululand? That debate and other debates on the same subject had been conducted without the least reference to Party Divisions in the House, and there seemed to be a general agreement of opinion that the difficulty in which they were placed arose from an erroneous interpretation of the situation by those in authority in South Africa. This had always been the case. Our officials advised the Government wrongly in the first instance when the original war took place, and he thought that they had advised the Government wrongly ever since. He did not want to say a word against those gentlemen, who, no doubt, were perfectly loyal and very able men. But when he found that again and again the advice which they gave had been wrong, he thought that the time had come when they should consider whether their places could not be taken, with credit and advantage to the country, by others. It was recorded that Peter the Headstrong said that he hated most of all "unfortunate great men." Our great men in South Africa had been very unfortunate. They had led successive Governments into war and into the most grievous expenditure of life and treasure. He did think that under these circumstances, and now at this moment, when they were suffering from a similar want of correct information, the Government ought, he would not say to remove these gentlemen, but at all events to consider whether they should not supplement them by some fresher intelligences, by whom the Government would be kept more accurately informed of the true state of things.

said, he quite agreed that it was inconvenient and difficult to discuss this question in the absence of fuller information than they were in possession of. He believed that Papers would shortly be laid before the House on the subject, and they would show that Dinizulu had no excuse whatever for taking the law into his own hands in the way he had done. When the right hon. Gentleman drew a parallel between the action of Cetewayo and that of Dinizulu, it was important to remember that Dinizulu was a British subject living within the territory; and it had been admitted that in the present circumstances the course now being taken by the Government was an absolutely necessary one. Even in the interests of the Natives themselves, the proper course was to put down, first of all, the state of affairs now existing, and to enforce peace and order throughout the country as quickly as possible. As to the ulterior steps, he could not say much. The right hon. Gentleman opposite made an appeal to the Government not to be too hasty in coming to a decision as to the course to be adopted when peace and order had been restored. He entirely agreed with him. It was very desirable that they should be put in full possession of information showing what had taken place, and that they should reserve their judgment on all the questions to be settled until that information was obtained and placed before them. The Government had been asked whether it was true that there was any substantial friction between the Governor and the General Officer commanding in Zululand. He was very glad to say that there was not. The steps to be taken for the purpose of restoring peace and order in Zululand must, of course, be concerted between the Governor and the General Officer commanding; but as soon as those steps were settled the General Officer became invested with full military authority, and was free from the control of the Governor until they were carried, as it was hoped they would be, to a successful conclusion.

said, he thought the conduct of England with reference to South Africa in general for many years past had been anything but creditable to them, and in regard to their treatment of the Zulus in particular he considered it was unjust and ungenerous. Many years ago the Boers swarmed into Zululand and took some of their best land from the Zulus, who endeavoured to expel the intruders and attacked the Transvaal. We interfered and advised the Zulus as to the course which they should follow. They accepted our advice, and Commissioners were appointed to investigate the matter. The Commissioners practically decided in favour of the Zulus; but those Boers who had taken possession of land were not to be disturbed, but compensation was to be given to the dispossessed Zulus. The Zulus were naturally discontented, and in consequence of that discontent became involved in war with this country. We conquered them and made Cetewayo prisoner. The late Mr. Forster, who took a great interest in South African affairs, commented in severe terms on the gross breach of faith of which we had been guilty with reference to the Zulus. We had, he feared, lost the confidence of the Natives by our past policy, and he earnestly hoped we should avoid the mistakes which we had committed in the past. If we were to maintain our hold in South Africa, it must be by a different policy from that which we had carried on in the past.

said, he should like to ask whether it was intended to arm Natives, as was done in the Transvaal under Lord Wolseley, when the employment of one section of Natives to fight another section led to the most frightfula trocities.

said, with the consent of the House he begged to withdraw his opposition, because the matter could be further debated on another Vote. As he had been misunderstood, he wished to explain that he did not desire a Commission for Zululand, where he thought the General in command, having full control, would be able to settle the matter; but when he suggested a Commission he was speaking generally of South Africa, and not of Zululand in particular.

Sir, in rising to move the second reading of this Bill I have to state at once that it is not my intention to occupy the time of the House at any length. I look upon it as the preliminary stage of a judicial proceeding, and, therefore, it would be highly undesirable, for me at all events, and I hope the opinion will be shared by other hon. Members, to attempt to give the slightest colour to the circumstances under which we ask the House to accept the second reading of the Bill. The measure is one which has been proposed as an alternative to that asked for by the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell)—namely, a Committee of this House. I will not again dwell upon the circumstances which induced the Government, and many hon. Members besides, to think that a Committee of this House is wholly unfit to enter into a consideration of the grave charges which are to form the subject of investigation. Apart from other considerations, we are of opinion that the passions excited by debates in this House during the last four or fives years render it hardly possible for Members to divest themselves altogether of Party prejudice and feeling, and to enter upon a judicial inquiry of this character in a judicial spirit, and with the perfect calm in which alone they ought to enter upon it. Under all the circumstances it would not be fair to imperil the character and reputation of the House of Commons by asking it to enter upon an inquiry under such conditions. But we admit that circumstances have occurred recently which justify an inquiry into the charges and allegations advanced. Those charges and allegations have been made now in a formal and distinct manner in a Court of Justice, and they have, therefore, advanced from the position they occupied last year into another and a totally different position. We have, therefore, offered to the House and to the hon. Members who are concerned, that a Royal Commission, based upon precedents which exist in the past, when great questions of immense difficulty have presented themselves for investigation and inquiry, based upon the precedent of Sheffield many years ago, and also based upon the precedent of a less important character in regard to the Metropolitan Board of Works—I say, following these precedents, we have offered a Royal Commission which shall have full and complete powers to investigate all the charges and all the allegations which are contained in what the Lord Chief Justice declared to be a tremendous indictment against hon. Members below the Gangway. The Bill is neither more nor less than an extension in clauses of the Notice on which it was introduced last week; it contains the powers to which I then referred and the authority which I then described, and we consider that with anything less than the powers and authority with which it is proposed to clothe the learned Judges who are to conduct this inquiry, it would fail in justice and in fairness to all the parties who are concerned. We are of opinion that if this inquiry be entered upon it must be a complete and searching inquiry, and must finally dispose of the charges which have been made bearing wholly or partly upon hon. Gentlemen opposite. We do not think we should be acting in common fairness and justice to those Gentlemen accused by or concerned in those charges if we failed to afford them the most full and complete opportunity before a judicial tribunal of entirely clearing their character; and we have confidence that a judicial tribunal such as that we propose to constitute will act with the fairness, with the justice, with the impartiality, with the consideration which all English Judges have exhibited in recent years, and which have entitled the Bench to the respect and esteem of all honest men, no matter what politics they profess. In the course of the debate last year the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) expressed the most complete confidence that every Judge on the Bench would discharge a duty of this character with absolute impartiality. I regret very much that the same confidence has not been extended to an English jury. It is an extraordinary thing that in these days faith and trust are not placed in an English jury in a case of this great importance. If hon. Members will not appeal to an English Court for the justice they desire to receive—I have nothing to do with the motives or the arguments or the reasons which induce hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, or those who are associated with them opposite me, to decline to submit a case of this character to an English jury; still I feel that such a circumstance is to be most deeply regretted and deplored. The fact remains the same, and we have neither the inclination nor the power to compel them to resort to an English jury—[Mr. PARNELL: Oh, yes, you have.]—but the indisposition to do so will appear to the House and the country as one of the circumstances rendering it expedient that a Commission, rather than the House itself, should be the tribunal to determine questions which have long been a public scandal. It rests with the House to say whether this inquiry shall be as full, as complete, as impartial, as searching, and as final as we desire it shall be. No one will rejoice more than I shall if the result of such inquiry shall be to entirely clear hon. Gentlemen opposite. Under this Commission the Judges will have power to determine what they will regard as the material charges and allegations advanced, and which in other circumstances would be, and are now to be, investigated. I have myself full confidence in the Judges we desire to name on this Commission. We believe they will command public confidence and esteem, and, referring to the observation which has been made, they will command the confidence which has always been felt in English Judges, and when I mention the names to the House I think they will justify the confidence I have expressed. The Lord Chancellor has, Sir, nominated Sir James Hannen as President of the Court, and Mr. Justice Day and Mr. Justice A. L. Smith as the other members of the Court. I have now, Sir, made my statement, and I have endeavoured to avoid making any remark which would distract attention or rouse angry passions or feelings. I do not desire to prejudge the issue—the tremendous issue—before the House and the country, nor do I desire in the slightest degree to say one single word or a single syllable which could be taken c to influence the Court. The issues, Sir, are tremendous to the character of the House and those concerned in this great trial—this great inquiry—and I believe that if the House accepts the proposal which I have made the result must be to the advantage of the country, whatever the result or the determination of the case may be. I beg to move the second reading of the Bill.

I am glad, Sir, that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury has seen it expedient to change from the absurd and untenable position which he took up on the last day when this matter was before the House, when he told me that it was a question for me to decide—it was for me and others to decide whether we should accept or reject this Bill. He now takes a more becoming ground for a Minister of the Crown when he says that it now rests with the House to decide. I am glad he has amended his hand in accordance with the advice I took the liberty of giving him on the last occasion. It is well that I should direct the attention of the House very shortly to the history of this question. I originally asked for a Select Committee to inquire into the statements made affecting Members of this House, and into the genuineness and authenticity of the evidence on which the statements were made. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, in reply to a Question of mine on the 1st July, couched in these terms, said that he declined to give me a Select Committee to inquire into the genuineness and authenticity of these letters—firstly, on the ground that he considered the issue was too limited and narrow; and, secondly, on the ground that the tribunal I asked for was unfitted for the purpose. But he went on to say—

"We are willing to propose that Parliament should pass a Bill appointing a Commission to inquire into the allegations and charges made against Members of Parliament in the recent action of 'O'Donnell v. Walter.'"

The House will observe that the statement of the right hon. Gentleman on the 12th of July was that the inquiry was to be confined to the allegations made against Members of Parliament. In the Notice of Motion which the right hon. Gentleman placed on the Paper two days afterwards—having, in the meantime, received a friendly hint at the Cabinet Council from the counsel for The Taxes—let that statement be denied or not—and having had, perhaps, also the advantage of an interview then or subsequently with Mr. Walter himself—he mends his hand, and extends the inquiry by the addition of "and other persons."

Order, order!

He now proposes to inquire into the allegations and statements made against Members of Parliament and others in the course of the trial of the recent action of "O'Donnell v. The Times." Now, Sir, I will show that this Bill proposes to inquire, not into my conduct, not into the conduct of my Parliamentary Friends, but it proposes to inquire into the conduct of the whole agitation of the Land League in America, in Ireland, and in Great Britain. If you want an inquiry into the Land League, say so. Bring in a Bill for the purpose, and then we shall know what to say to it. It is very odd that, although the Land League sprang into existence 10 years ago, it never occurred to the Government to move for a Commission to inquire into its proceedings until these forgeries—these infamous forgeries—appeared in The Times. The right hon. Gentleman said the other day that he had brought this matter forward in order to give us an opportunity of clearing our character, and he repeats that statement to-day. I say that he has not brought it forward in response to my request, or for any purpose of the kind. He has brought it forward for the purpose of casting discredit on a great Irish movement, to endeavour to traduce a people whom you ought now to be fully ashamed and fully tired of traducing, and to contrive a means of escape for his confederates from the breakdown of the charges which he and the hon. and learned Attorney General sitting beside him know full well will break down. We are now told that these letters are only secondary matters, and even if proved up to the hilt, as it will be proved, that each and every one of the letters mentioned the other night are barefaced forgeries, it will not affect the case of The Times. You seek now to raise this turgid cloud in order to cover your retreat and the retreat of your confederates, which you know well will soon be forced upon you. I shall show, by reference to the speech of the hon. and learned Attorney General, that these charges and allegations are charges against the Land League, and not against me. The hon. and learned Gentleman made no charges against me until he came to the forged letters. He made four charges, which he supported by false statements—statements which I shall show to be false charges, which the hon. and learned Attorney General will not venture to repeat when he knows what they are, as he will know after I have done. But these four charges and allegations would not have been charges and allegations but for the false statements put into the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman; so that it comes to this—that the whole case in the speech of the hon. and learned Attorney General for the defence in the recent proceedings breaks down against me personally. It amounts to nothing. It has not the weight of a grain of wheat, not the weight of the chaff belonging to a grain of wheat apart from these forgeries. Yet we are told by the right hon. Gentleman that he is offering this inquiry into allegations made, not against me—leaving the forged letters out of the question—for the purpose of enabling me to clear my character from the most cruel and infamous charges ever made against a public man, and which have been made against me because I am a public man. For I do not suppose that the London Times ever would have given £1,000 for these forgeries of this wretched ex-Member of Parliament of whom we hear, if they had not been letters implicating me or seeking to implicate me. But my vindication from these cruel and abominable charges is to be postponed and left to the last. There is first to be an inquiry into every conceivable thing—an inquiry which we cannot see the limits of within less than two or three years, and I am to be put to the expense of finding counsel to conduct this inquiry in Ireland, in America, in France, and wherever the Judges may think it necessary to send a Commission, while if the inquiry went to the point as to these forgeries I know I could demonstrate to conviction within a week that they are forgeries. And that is the fairness of the right hon. Gentleman. This is how he shows himself so anxious to do justice to a Member of this House. He has told us, indeed, that he cannot compel us to go before a jury. Yes; but if he had the courage of his grandmother he would send me before a jury. Now, I say again that the charges and allegations of the hon. and learned Attorney General were made, not against me and my Colleagues, but against the Land League. The hon. and learned Gentleman makes abundant reference to the Land Leage in this pamphlet from The Times. Almost every page is studded with them. He tells us at page 54 of the pamphlet that—

"Most grave and serious charges have been made against the Party known as the Parnellite Party. I deny that the plaintiff is justified in saying that nine-tenths of these charges refer to him. They refer to the Land League in Ireland, which was guilty of crime and iniquitous acts."

On page 55 the hon. and learned Attorney General says—

"Why, I will undertake to demonstrate that the alleged libels prior to June 17, 1887, did not refer to the plaintiff or to the 'Constitutional Party,' with whom Mr. Lucy represents Mr. O'Donnell to have been connected, but to the Irish Land League."

On page 56, speaking of Mr. O'Donnell, the hon. and learned Attorney General says—

"He knew that incidents would be put to him received in those journals which would have incriminated the Land League."

Also, lower down on the same page, he says—

"What I say is that Mr. O'Donnell has no right to assert that he ever was a member of the Irish Land League, and that the organization of the Land League under which outrages were incited and committed was one with which he was associated."

Then, on page 64, we find more in the same strain. The hon. and learned Gentleman says—

"Now the letter of Mr. O'Donnell was a very sensible one; but what are we to think of the gentleman who is now posing as an injured man as included in libels upon this very body—the Irish Land League?"

And lower down, on page 64, he says—

"And his (Mr. Ruegg's) client has pretended through his counsel that he is libelled in these attacks upon the League."

On page 65 he says—

"These murders can be traced to no cause whatever except the language used at Land League meetings,"

and so on. I can run through the whole of the pamphlet, and give you dozens of similar extracts to prove my contention still further if necessary; but I do not think that it is necessary that I should do so. It was the Land League against which the indictment was brought by the hon. and learned Attorney General in the recent trial, and it is against the Land League that you are to issue this Commission of Inquiry, and not against myself. Now, if I refer to the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman—the greater part of which was absolutely void of foundation and a great deal of the rest of it without sense—it is because the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury referred me to that speech as a substitute for the details which ought to have appeared in this Bill. In that speech there are abundant references to the doings and speeches of other people, many of them most obscure; but there is very little reference to my doings or speeches. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman quotes one of my speeches in America, and this is the head of one of the indictments against me to which the discovery of the forged letters is merely secondary. I think there are four references to me altogether in the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman outside of the forged letters. He says that I went to America in 1879. This is one of my crimes for which I am to be tried by this Commission, and into the truth of which this Commission is to be appointed to inquire. He says that while I was in America in 1879 I had interviews with Devoy, Ford, and Walsh. The mere fact of my going to America in 1879 would have been too innocent even for the gullibility of a Middlesex jury, and it was too innocent for the hon. and learned Gentleman, so he was obliged to bring in some of the falsehoods to which I shall refer. He was obliged to say that I had interviews with Ford and Walsh. Walsh was the name specially mentioned, because he was the organizer and prime mover in Great Britain of the conspiracy which Carey in his evidence alleged was directed against Mr. Forster's life, and which was known as that of the Invincibles. The hon. and learned Gentleman had seen, I suppose, that while in America I had had an interview with a Father Walsh, who afterwards became treasurer of the Land League in that country, and who is now dead; and it occurred to him—at least to the intellect of the prompter of the right hon. Gentleman—because I do not attribute any personal untruth to him, because those untruths were put into his mouth, and he was guilty, not of want of truth, but merely of want of veracity. He had seen that I had known a Father Walsh in America; but let it be known that Walsh, the Land League organizer, was not in America at the time I was there. He was at his house at Middlesbrough in this country, where he continued to live until 1882, when he left after the time of the revelations of Carey, and went to America. Therefore, he could not be that Walsh that I met in America. The only other Walsh that I remember in America was Father Walsh. But perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will explain who was the particular Walsh whose acquaintance condemns me to the suspicion of having been engaged while in America in unlawful and criminal practices. As regards Mr. Patrick Ford, I have never seen him in my life; but if I had seen him, what then? If I had seen him at that time it would not have made me guilty. As a matter of fact, while I was in America, I was anxious to see him, and I went to his office for the purpose of obtaining an interview with him; but he was not at home, and, my time being limited, I was not able to call again. That describes the whole of my connection with Mr. Patrick Ford during my stay in America. It has also been stated that I met John Devoy while I was in America. That is quite true. With Mr. Devoy I had several interviews. He boarded the vessel in which I went to America on her arrival as a reporter of The New York herald. He took me over the office of that paper and other places of interest in New York. I admit to the fullest extent that I held communications with him with regard to political matters; but all these things are open to the fullest scrutiny, and they will be found on scrutiny to be absolutely innocent and colourless in every particular, and destitute of any incitement to bloodshed. So that halo of bloodshed and the lurid aspect which the hon. and learned Gentleman thought to make out of my visit to America, and my meeting with men having the terrible reputations of Devoy, Walsh, and Ford comes to this—that the only one of these three that I saw was Devoy, and our intercourse was certainly of the most harmless and Constitutional character. This is one of the accusations, apart from the forged letters, to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has referred. Then the hon. and learned Gentleman, in his second indictment, said that I went to Paris in February, 1881, and while there I had interviews with Mr. Egan. It is perfectly true that I went to Paris in February, 1881. I went there to see Mr. Egan, and I not only had interviews with him, but I stopped in the same hotel with him. I not only went to Paris once, but I went there twice. But then the hon. and learned Gentleman goes on to say that in 1881—this is to show how wicked I was when I went to Paris—about the same time Sheridan was going about Ireland disguised as a priest. Will the House credit that the hon. and learned Attorney General was so little informed of the facts of his case that, for the purpose of attaching a guilty complexion to my visits to Paris, he was obliged to antedate Sheridan's journey to Ireland disguised as a priest by fully eight months. Nobody but a person who was conscious that his statements could not be subjected to the test of evidence could have had the unblushing effrontery manifested by the hon. and learned Attorney General at the late trial. Then there is a third point which the hon. and learned Attorney General endeavoured to make against me in the same speech, and that was a speech which I made on the 9th of September, 1880, at Ennis, when I advocated Boycotting. Undoubtedly I did make that speech advocating Boycotting. And then the hon. and learned Gentleman went on to say that I was present at a subsequent meeting in October, at which Mr. Matthew Harris made a speech, and that I did not rebuke him, although I was present. That makes the fourth charge urged against me in the speech of the hon. and learned Attorney General, and these are the whole of the charges that the hon. and learned Gentleman made against me in that statement apart from the forged letters. Then, with regard to my speech advocating Boycotting, it is true that I did so. No doubt I am responsible for having advocated, and perhaps introduced, the practice of Boycotting in Ireland. And the hon. and learned Attorney General claimed against me that, from Boycotting, outrages and murders in some measure resulted. That may be the hon. and learned Attorney General's opinion; but it is not mine. I have never advocated the practice of Boycotting since the passing of the Arrears Act of 1882. Before that time I believe that it was necessary, owing to the helpless and defenceless state of the Irish tenantry—a state to which your Party and the House of Lords contributed by the rejection of the Compensation for Disturbance Bill. I believed that I was justified, under the circumstances, in making that speech and advocating the practice of Boycotting. I admit that is a question that is open to discussion, and that the hon. and learned Gentleman is entitled to his opinion, and I to mine. But I believe that this speech and other speeches of mine, so far from promoting outrages, prevented them. I know well what my thoughts and my intentions were. I know that my view and desire in all my speeches in Ireland during the winter of 1880 and 1881 was to wean those few of the Irish people who had sought refuge in criminal acts and outrages as a means of defence against their oppressors, and to teach them to value Parliamentary methods and the safety of entrance within the gates of the Constitution just then opening, and which now, thank God, are fully opened to them. I believe I have been successful in achieving that object, and that no man lives who can boast that he has brought a nation so soon to an implicit trust in Constitutional and pacific measures as I can boast that I have brought the people of Ireland. Now, with regard to the speech of Mr. Matthew Harris. Here, again, is another example of the slipshod fashion in which the hon. and learned Gentleman got up his speech. He stated that I was present during that speech. Why, I was not present at all. As a matter of fact, I was several hundreds of yards away, sitting in the hotel in Galway; and, as another matter of fact, that speech was not made at Mayo at all. The Government shorthand writer who reported my speech, and who reported Mr. Harris's speech at that meeting, afterwards swore in Court during the State Trials in Dublin that I was not present at that meeting. But all these little facts are too small and too insignificant to be inquired into by the hon. and learned Attorney General in making statements which he knows are not going to be answered. Now, I have dealt with the four charges which the hon. and learned Attorney General made against me in his speech; but he did not rely upon these merely, but flourished a whole bundle of forged letters in the face of the Court as well. Now, Sir, I have dealt fully with the question of the forged letters on a former occasion in this House. What I have to say, so far as my doings and proceedings go outside the question of these forged letters, is that there is not one single true statement which was then made by the hon. and learned Attorney General, and which is made in the pamphlet called Parnellism and Crime, which is not an open and notorious matter, which is not recorded in every public journal of the day as having taken place, and for ascertaining the accuracy of which you require no Commission. They are open and on record, and everybody has his opinion in regard to my acts and utterances. If it was a question of opinion, I grant you the case might be different; but you do not appoint a Commission to inquire into questions of opinion, but into matters of fact. I come, then, to the forged letters. We have had from Mr. Egan recently, as I ventured to predict we should have, the fullest and most complete denial, coupled with absolute evidence of their falsity, that any man could have given with regard to such productions. As to the letter to which my signature was attached—and which is alleged to have been in the handwriting of Mr. Henry Campbell, my private secretary—I have seen during the last few days my late private secretary, Mr. Henry Campbell, who was dangerously ill during the trial, but who, nevertheless, would have taken his place in the witness-box at any risk to his life, in order to refute the calumnies of the hon. and learned Attorney General if the trial had gone on, and he assures me of the fact, of which I was already aware, that the handwriting of the body of the letter bears not the slightest resemblance to his. I wish to ask the hon. and learned Attorney General a simple question—Whether he ever personally himself compared any of Mr. Campbell's admitted handwriting with the handwriting of the forged letters? Did he or did he not? [Sir RICHARD WEBSTER made no sign.] I think that is a fairly plain question to which the hon. and learned Attorney General, if his conscience was easy, might have nodded or shaken his head. I will ask him another question, which he, perhaps, will find more difficult to answer—Did he ever learn from The Times the source from which they got those letters before he, the Legal Adviser of the Government, consented to link his fortunes and those of his Party and Government with those infamous productions? If he did not take those precautions, I do not think he will be absolved from the charge of rushing blindfold into accusations of such infamy against his brother Members of this House without that due examination and inquiry which a man in his high and learned position ought to have used. Well, Sir, the object of all this is perfectly plain. It is evident to the Government and to the hon. and learned Gentleman, and to The Times, from all their utterances during the last few days, that the case of the forged letters is going to break down, and they want to divert the inquiry of the Royal Commission into other channels. If they have anything to say against me, let them appoint a Commission by all means to inquire into my actions, and I know I shall come out untarnished from their scrutiny. If they have anything to say against the Land League and any reasons why this inquiry should be gone into, although they themselves never proposed it or thought of it during all these long years, let them come down to the House and say, "We think the proceedings of the Land League ought to be investigated, and we propose a Commission;" but I, Sir, will be no party to letting the Government, by a side-wind, under the pretext of investigating my doings, enter into such an inquiry as this, which must undoubtedly extend over a very long period of time. Why, Sir, these four charges that the hon. and learned Attorney General made against me were matters of notoriety. They were known to Lord Carnarvon in 1885, when he sought an interview with me in an empty house in London. They were known to Lord Salisbury a month or two later, when he spoke in his speech at Newport of the Irish Chieftain.

The Irish Chief.

When he referred to me as the Irish Chief, when he expressed the wish and hope that it might be possible that Ireland might have restored to her some small portion of her lost legislative independence by the adoption of the Colonial model. These things were all known to the old Tory Party and the Tory Government of 1885, when you deliberately abandoned coercion, asked for no inquiry into the Land League, and said, through the mouth of Lord Carnarvon, that you would try another and a better way in the dealings of England with Ireland. Nothing new has happened from that day to this to create suspicion, or to point any additional charge against me, except the production of these forged letters. I shall call for the production of evidence in support of those charges, and for the production of the forged letters. I call upon the Government to limit the scope of this Commission to what the right hon. Gentleman avowed in his reply to a Question he was going to limit it—namely, to charges and allegations made against myself and other Members of this House. I ask that the Bill shall exclude "other persons," and name specifically any Member of Parliament charged. I ask that the Bill shall provide that the Commission is not only to be one conducted by Judges, but that it shall also be a judicial inquiry. I ask that the Bill shall provide that I and my Parliamentary Colleagues as the persons accused shall have the power at the commencement of the proceedings of opening our case by counsel and conducting it as in a judicial proceeding for libel. If that be not so, the Commission might call any witnesses they pleased, in any order they pleased. They might refuse to call witnesses whom we considered urgent; they might refuse to do many things which would be necessary for the conduct of our case; and this is not provided for in the Bill as it stands. I ask, fourthly, that the Bill shall provide for a definite specification of the charges made against me. I say that if this is not done it would be open to the Commission, under the imputations made in Parnellism and Crime and in the statement of the hon. and learned Attorney General, to go into the history of every outrage that has occurred in Ireland, and every speech that has been made by every member of the Land League in England, Ireland, Scotland, and America, before it came to the question of the authenticity of the forged letters. And I ask, finally, that the Bill shall provide for the discovery of documents, &c., before the commencement of the inquiry. It is obvious that it will be of vital importance for us to have facilities for seeing these documents before the Commission commences to sit—not only for seeing them, but for taking photographs of them, and for having them examined by experts; for, according to the statement of the hon. and learned Attorney General, these statements have been in the hands of his experts for weeks and weeks, and we want them to be in the hands of ours. Now, Sir, I think I have made out my case that, in asking the House to adopt this Bill, the Government, under pretext of appointing a Commission to inquire into the conduct of myself and my hon. Friends, is appointing a Commission which will not close its labours until it has inquired into every speech and every outrage that has ever been committed in Ireland or elsewhere, and that this is not a fair way of proceeding. I have shown the absurdity of the case so far as disclosed in Parnellism and Crime, and in the speech of the hon. and learned Attorney General in the late proceedings sought to be made against me. I have shown it has no shadow of foundation—that it consists of open and overt acts, of speeches delivered in the full light of publicity, and of proceedings about which there was no shadow of concealment whatever, which were announced in all the newspapers; and I say it is not fair, decent, English—it is, moreover, I believe, cowardly and unjust—to ask us to accept such a measure in response to the claim I make in this House for an investigation into these infamous charges, meaning no more than ordinary justice.

Sir, I have waited till the very last moment before rising in my place, because I must confess that, as on many occasions in life, truth exceeds the bounds of fiction, and passes wholly beyond them, so I can hardly describe the astonishment with which, after listening to the speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down, after listening to the plain and explicit demand which he has made on the Government, and the grave and remarkable allegations that he has made as to the speech of counsel in the case of "O'Donnell v. The Times," that no answer has been offered. As the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury said that he could not force the hon. Member for Cork to bring his case before a jury, though the right hon. Gentleman entirely passes over the fact that he might have brought the hon. Member for Cork before a jury, so I may remark that it is out of our power entirely to compel the Government to speak when they find it expedient and politic to keep their mouth closed. The hon. Member for Cork has spoken, as I think, with great power, with some warmth, which was absolutely unavoidable in the circumstances in which he is placed, and with very great plainness, although we perfectly understand the position which he has thought it his duty to assume. It would be entirely inexcusable if I were to imitate the hon. Member for Cork in deviating from the tone of calmness on this subject. There would be no excuse for me. I have to look at it from another point of view, and I think that, rather than allow the House to go to a Division without any further explanation, it has been my duty—acting, as I have the honour to act, in connection with a considerable section of Members of this House—it has been and is my duty to state my view of our position in reference to the proposal now before it. I speak for that section of the House which is one, perhaps, less responsible than any other portion of the House. Because, during the last Session of Parliament, we explained very distinctly our views that by justice, that by policy, that by precedent, that by regard to the jurisdiction uniformly assumed by the House over its own Members in cases where their public character was gravely and even fatally impugned, we were bound to appoint, in the absence of other conclusive evidence, a Select Committee of our own to make this inquiry. I cannot complain that the right hon. Gentleman has delivered his opinion against that method of proceeding; but he will allow me to say that all that has since happened shows me more and more how entirely we were justified—nay, how entirely we were bound—to make the proposal that we then made, and which the majority of this House thought proper to refuse. I pass on from that to show that what we have now to do is to exercise our best judgment upon the vote before us, and take such course as our public duty may appear to dictate. Undoubtedly, I will go so far as to say that any inquiry, however unprecedented, which is likely to attain the object in view, has for me, individually, strong claims upon my assent if I have not power to obtain a better and a more Constitutional inquiry such as I have failed to obtain. Whether or not the inquiry now proposed is to afford the least hope of attaining the end to be pursued depends, I think, upon the answer to be made by Her Majesty's Government—for, after all, they will have to make an answer—depends upon the answer to be given by Her Majesty's Government to requests such as, in his suggestions, if I understand them rightly—such as those which have been made by the hon. Member for Cork. I must refer briefly to one or two observations of the First Lord of the Treasury which I cannot allow to pass uncontested. He says—and it shows the poverty of his case as to precedents—he says he relies on the precedent of the Commission of Inquiry into the allegations against the Metropolitan Board of Works. If the Metropolitan Board were a section of this House—if it were composed of persons whom it was in our power to deal with by a Vote of Censure or of expulsion, I might assume there was some primâ facie ground for that case. But the Metropolitan Board is an extraneous Body. It is only by legislation that we can proceed to try the case, and that question is vitally and fundamentally separated from the case before us. Well, then, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman refers to the proceedings of last year, and states that since then the position has been totally altered. How has it been altered? By a speech of counsel, unsupported by a rag of evidence. I have not a word to say against that speech of counsel or respecting it except to say that, as I understand, the duty of counsel is to speak according to the instructions received from the party he represents, and that it is no more than an echo of that party in the case. How, Sir, does that alter the position of the question? I admit that the front has been extended, and that new letters have been produced. They fall into the same category as the letter of last year; but, as to the authority of the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman, he would laugh if I were to assign the slightest authority as apart from the evidence which he might have to produce, of which I know nothing whatever, and as to which I say nothing whatever on its merits, but as to which, as non-apparent, I must treat it as non-existent—the speech of the Attorney General stands alone, and it adds nothing whatever in weight, in power, or in authority to the original articles. I shall refer very shortly indeed to what appeared to me to be the points necessary to be mentioned—for, so far as I am concerned, the decision of those points cannot take place before my vote upon the second reading, and they will have to be considered at another stage. The right hon. Gentleman has given us the names of three Judges whom he thinks fit to constitute a tribunal that will, with reference to the personal qualities of those composing it, command the confidence of the House. Well, Sir, before giving my own assent to the entire composition of that tribunal, I am bound to say I must take time for full consideration. I am not prepared at this moment, as at present advised, to meet the assertion of the right hon. Gentleman, with regard to that unqualified confidence, in the manner which I most earnestly desire. I know the fact—that which I have said on former occasions—with respect to the general character of the Bench. It would have been in the power of the right hon. Gentleman to have made a selection which would at once have hushed everybody—nay, rather would have commanded the warmest acclamation. I cannot at this moment say, with respect to the whole of those three names, he has made such a selection. The practical points suggested by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cork are these. In the first place, he asks that the proceeding shall be a judicial proceeding. I can hardly suppose that that demand of the hon. Member for Cork can have raised any difficulty on the part of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman himself stated fairly and explicitly that this was "the first step in a judicial proceeding." It is our duty to make such reasonable provisions as may at least clearly declare the mind of Parliament in regard to the nature and the limits of the heavy task that it is proposed to lay upon those gentlemen. We are—in the opinion of a very large minority of this House, at least—devolving upon others a responsibility that belongs to ourselves. If we do that, the very least that we can do, in addition, is to make clear to those whom we solicit to undertake our duties what we desire them to do, and to lay down distinctly the limits within which those substitutes are to walk. That is the first demand. The second request that is made is that "other persons" shall be excluded. I own, Sir, I never read words in a draft Bill with greater astonishment than I did the words "other persons" in the Bill now before us. In the original proposition of the right hon. Gentleman there was not the slightest reference to "other persons."

I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. My own impression is that I mentioned "other persons." ["No, no!"] I put it on the Paper on Friday.

Certainly.

But it was certainly always in our minds.

The surprise with which I read the words, when I saw them on the Friday, is the exact measure of my confidence that they were not used before. However, I hardly suppose that it will be seriously believed that we are going to appoint a Commission to inquire into the acts of other persons, subjects of Her Majesty, with regard to whom no definite allegations have been made, and who may include any number of thousands of Her Majesty's subjects. It is impossible for me to take any responsibility with respect to a Bill for the purpose of appointing an inquiry of this kind with reference to other persons who, whatever their deeds may be, ought to be left to the action of the ordinary law. The whole ground for the proceeding, which does not seem to have been understood by the Government, rests in the historical and Constitutional fact that this House assumes—and, in my opinion, rightly assumes—a jurisdiction over the conduct of those who are Members in matters of public duty vitally affecting their capacity to serve the Empire. That is the reason—if there be a reason—for this inquiry, which does not touch the other persons, who would properly come under the ordinary law. I have some confidence that even the majority of this House will hardly be prepared to include those persons within the purview of the Bill. The letters alleged are of a character that evidently, if they proved to be genuine, would require such notice in this House as I will not now stop to describe. The Members of Parliament who are to be the objects of this inquiry, necessarily one of a penal aspect—I am not bringing that forward as a matter of complaint, but as a matter of fact—are entitled to be pointed out, and are bound to be pointed out, as the objects of the charge. Surely it can hardly be intended that an investigation is to be made against all and sundry persons unnamed. Gentlemen who may apprehend and suppose that they may possibly have a share in these imputations are entitled to claim that they shall be brought out into the light of day, and that the intention to charge them shall be laid before the world; so that there shall be some responsibility in making these terrific charges, and that people shall not be able to recede from them by saying—"It was not you whom I meant, but somebody else whom I have not named." In that case you provide a shelter and refuge for a skulking cowardice of such baseness as no words of mine can adequately describe. Finally, I wish to learn from Her Majesty's Government whether they intend to define the charges that are to be the subject of investigation? It appears to me, as far as I am able to understand, that there are but two. First and foremost come the letters alleged to be forged, letters which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cork has denounced with an indignation which no honest man could do otherwise than feel. But I assume nothing on the subject, except that they are the head and front of the matter. Everything else is in comparison ancient history; everything else passed the ordeal of our debates from 1880 to 1885; passed the ordeal of the Dissolution of 1885; passed the ordeal of the Tory policy of that memorable Autumn which history will never forget; passed the ordeal of the General Election without raising a single scruple in the minds of those who were then the Ministers of the Crown, and whose duty it was, if they thought there was a case, to make their inquiries and bring these evil deeds to light—I do not speak now of the letters, but of the general charges—and it was only last year that the publication of those letters which appeared in the broadsheet of The Times astounded the whole world, which constitute, together with the family of letters which follow, the main charges against the hon. Member for Cork, and which he demands an opportunity of being able to examine and confute. There is that charge of the forgery of the letters, and what other charges are there? As I apprehend, there is the question whether any Member of this House can be found guilty of complicity with crime. I will say nothing upon that subject. It is a charge which I have never made; it is a charge which no Colleague of mine has ever made; but it is a charge which we should not have scrupled to make if we had known or believed that there was any ground for supporting it. With that, I admit, you have nothing to do. I recognize it now simply as a charge. I do not deny, if facts can be produced belonging to the case of the Attorney General tending in the minds of a judicial tribunal to establish complicity with crime against any Member of this House, that that is a legitimate matter for the cognizance of the House, and for the inquiry of this Commission, if this Commission is to sit. I will not now inquire whether it is to be done by words introduced into the Bill in Committee, or by general direction, in the Bill, or by Schedule; I do not enter into that question; but what I do declare in my judgment to be the absolute demand both of policy and of justice is that definite charges, and only definite charges, shall be handled as a matter of legitimate accusation, whether against Members of this House or against any other persons. Now, Sir, the position is very peculiar. I heard the right hon. Gentleman challenged repeatedly by Questions in this House as to his communications with the Attorney General. The right hon. Gentleman said that he would give no answer whatever as to the nature of these communications. I am bound to say that in giving that answer the right hon. Gentleman did no more than fulfil his public duty; but the right hon. Gentleman must see that that does not quite get rid of the whole case, and we who think that he was right in demanding unlimited liberty of private and confidential communication with the Attorney General may still think that a more deplorable error of judgment never was committed than when the Attorney General of the Government—of any Government, but especially, perhaps, of a Government diametrically opposed in politics and sharply divided by prejudice and feeling from the hon. Member for Cork—undertook the conduct of the case of The Times. I do not believe that the Attorney General would make any unfair use of his position. I am making no charge of that kind, but I am speaking of this. I know that, while it was his duty to do everything he could for the defendants in the action, it was likewise his duty to advise Her Majesty's Government with regard to the proceedings we have now before us, and in my opinion these two sets of duty are absolutely incompatible with one another, and may lead us into difficulties and embarrassments of which we have no conception. As far as I am concerned, I think that an inquiry under thoroughly competent and impartial Judges is a method of proceeding which, after the right and true method of proceeding has been refused, is better than none; but that inquiry must, I think, be put into such a shape as shall correspond with the general law and principles of justice. I do not see that the general demand which has been made ought to constitute the slightest difficulty on the part of Her Majesty's Government. I speak in the belief that every one of these requests are requests easy to be complied with—requests to do nothing but to define and clear the road for the Commission, and make certain the attainment of clear and definite issues, which otherwise I hold to be most doubtful. The right hon. Gentleman has not said anything as to the period of passing a Bill of this nature—a Bill open to the objections which lie against the wording of the measure we have before us, and with omissions so strange of what appear to me the first and most essential conditions of securing a thorough and an effective inquiry, and enabling gentlemen who may be charged to sustain the enormous burden to which they must in any case be subject. Without those securities I certainly will have no responsibility whatever. The right hon. Gentleman has not told us to-night what view he takes of the Bill at present, whether it is a measure of legislation to be pressed forward on the ground of public principle, independently of the manner in which it is received, or of the time it may take; nor do I press him for information on that point. I simply describe the course I intend to pursue myself. I have given my opinion that the conditions stated by the hon. Member for Cork appear to me to be fair and true conditions; I might go further, and say that unless they are conceded I think that the country will be driven to the conclusion that the proposal had been made in order that it might be refused.

I do not propose to reply, Mr. Speaker, in much detail to the observations which fell from the hon. Member for Cork, who, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite observed, spoke with considerable warmth. I am not disposed to imitate that warmth. It would not become me to utter a word, either conveying any opinion of my own or the opinion of the Government, with respect to anything which may be the subject matter of the inquiry before the Commission. There is only one matter to which I must allude. The hon. Member said that the Attorney General had linked his Party and the Government with the accusations. To that I must enter a most emphatic contradiction. It is perfectly true that the Attorney General appeared in the case of "O'Donnell v. Walter" as counsel for the defendants; but everything that he then said was said solely in his capacity of counsel for the defendants, and did not emanate from him as Attorney General in the slightest degree. It may be right or it may be wrong—it is a matter on which hon. Members are perfectly free to form their own opinions—that the Law Officers of the Government should be allowed to take private practice. But as long as the Law Officers of the Crown are allowed to enter upon private practice it must be obvious to anyone who knows that they are governed by the rules which apply to the Profession of the Law, and that what they say in advocacy of private clients has no more to do with their position as Law Officers of the Crown than any two subjects the most remote from each other. I do most emphatically deny that the Government have, in any sense, made themselves parties to the charges and allegations the investigation of which this Bill is intended to assist. We have never brought any charge against hon. Members of this House, or against persons outside this House. We have heard with great concern, and with the interest which, of course, anybody must feel on such a subject, the accusations which have been made outside this House and in the public journals. We have listened to the debates which have taken place in this House on this subject, and to the denials—I hope I may say without offence the passionate denials—made from time to time by hon. Members who sit below the Gangway. We have said, and expressed our opinion more than once, that these matters are so grave, so momentous, that in our judgment they ought to be brought to some public test; and it seems to me that the right test—I was going to say the only right test, but that would be too strong an expression—certainly the right test is that which the Courts of Law properly constituted afford to every British subject who is attacked in his reputation, and who meets there with abundant means of justifying himself. But hon. Members below the Gangway have always met that allegation with assertions of this kind—"We cannot trust your British Courts of Justice; we do not trust your British juries." And even the infirm and despised Primrose League is dragged in, and it is said that it may be potent enough to influence one juryman. We have listened to these statements with sorrow and dismay; but it does not become us—we have not attempted to judge those who have declined to appeal to the Courts of Law. That matter has been left undecided until the present moment. What occurred the other day? "O'Donnell v. Walter" has revived all the statements which were made in the public Press. May I take this opportunity of saying that I entirely agree with what fell from the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), whom, I think, I am not misrepresenting when I say that he urged that the statements of the Attorney General added nothing to the statements of the clients he represented? But may I take leave to add that there was this circumstance of difference between what had occurred before and what occurred then? Up to that time all that had been alleged against anybody was simply contained in newspaper articles, of which, perhaps, it was not incumbent upon any public authority to take further notice than they might be deemed to deserve. But when these matters were alleged in a Court of Justice—[Cries of "By whom?"]—by counsel for one of the parties. I would draw hon. Members' attention to the fact that they were alleged in circumstances which prevented hon. Members opposite from taking the ordinary remedy of an action. The charges were alleged under an absolutely exclusive privilege, because nobody could sue the Attorney General or any counsel-at-law for what he said in a Court of Justice. What he says in a Court of Justice as advocate for one of the parties is absolutely privileged. There was that circumstance of difference—namely, the singular solemnity and the great public notoriety of the circumstances, with all the importance which attaches to the proceedings of a Court of Justice. These statements are repeated in the most emphatic way with the offer of proving the truth of the allegations. That circumstance, in our judgment, did add something to the situation. Not only were the anonymous newspaper charges solemnly repeated in a Court of Justice and offer of proof tendered, but the hon. Member and other persons who were aggrieved and attacked by those statements had no legal remedy. Consequently, although we refused the tribunal asked for by hon. Members opposite, although we refused a Special Committee of this House when this matter was brought forward again, this offer has been made by the Government in order to settle the question which has been raised. Now, what are the questions raised and to be settled by the Commission? The hon. Member for Cork was guilty of a singular inconsistency. The drift of his speech was this. He said that the charges brought against him by the Attorney General had no more weight than the chaff of a single grain of wheat.

Apart from the forged letters.

Yes; apart from the forged letters; and the hon. Member said that the charges were charges against the Land League. The conclusion—and I thought it a singular conclusion—at which the hon. Member arrived was that there should be no inquiry into the doings of the Land League, but that we should confine the inquiry into the allegations against him —["No!"]—which, with one single exception, he said, had not the weight of the chaff of one single grain of wheat.

I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon—I really said nothing of the sort. My contention is that in causing an inquiry into my proceedings you are inquiring into the proceedings of the Land League. I said if you wish to inquire into the proceedings of the Land League frame your Bill for that purpose.

What we wished to inquire into was the allegations made by counsel for the defence in the action of "O'Donnell v. Walter." We brought no charge—["Oh!"]—we have brought no accusation even against the Land League. But accusations have been made against them in this action, and it was upon the ground of these accusations that we were appealed to, and accordingly we said we would issue what we considered a fit and proper judicial tribunal to inquire into these allegations made in the course of the action. We do not say that those allegations are levelled exclusively at the hon. Member for Cork, although, of course, he is included among them. These are accusations raising certainly a very large issue, an issue of a most painful kind, which involves complicity with crime beyond a doubt on the part of some persons or other. [Laughter.] Do hon. Members wish me to assume the attitude of an accuser? [An hon. MEMBER: It is an innuendo.] I will certainly do nothing of the kind. That is not the attitude which either the Government or I intend to assume. It is you who complain of certain reflections made in the course of certain proceedings, or, if you like to take the original offence, in certain newspaper articles. We assent to an inquiry into those allegations. But the moment the assent is given you turn upon us and say—"You, the Government, must pick out from these allegations what you allege is the substance and meaning of them. We demand that you make specific allegations against A, B, and C, and come forward as their accuser." That is not the part we have undertaken to play. I have looked into the proceedings of "O'Donnell v. Walter" with some care, and if I may be allowed to say so, I agree with the hon. Member for Cork that it is to the Land League, much more than to himself, that those allegations refer. The Land League is in the first rank, and the hon. Member himself is connected with the Land League. Now, let me state to the House the allegations and charges made in the action of "O'Donnell v. Walter" in as few words as I can. The allegation is that the Land League first, and in a less degree the National League and the members of it, have used their own organization for the purpose of intimidation, outrage, and crime. That, I understand, is the one main charge brought in what the Lord Chief Justice called "this great indictment." There is a second charge formulated in these words—

"That the Land League, the National League, and the members thereof have allied themselves with the perpetrators and with the contrivers of intimidation and crime, and have availed themselves of their help in order to further their own peculiar ends."

If I may paraphrase those two charges, they are charges that what has been called a Constitutional movement and a Parliamentary agitation does not stand by itself, but that it leans upon, and has been assisted by, a concurrent system of terrorism, outrage, and crime, and not that crime dogged the steps of a Constitutional movement, but that the leaders and managers of that movement encouraged intimidation and crime. I understand that to be the grave indictment, and undoubtedly it is very grave. It is an indictment which touches so closely political subjects and political passions that, for our parts, we thought that a Committee of this House was the last tribunal to try it. We, who have been engaged in conflict very often with the members of the League that was incriminated, and our supporters were disqualified from our hostility upon other points and other matters; while, on the other hand, hon. Members opposite were disqualified from sympathy and association in a common political struggle. On those grounds we refused to grant a Committee of this House as a means of inquiry into this indictment, which, though not a political indictment, touches the very verge of political questions. If the two things are incapable of being distinguished, why did not hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite in Parliament last year ask us to grant a Committee of Inquiry? To mix the two subjects of Party politics and crime does not depend upon the tribunal which is to try the charges. Whether there is a Special Committee or a Commission of Judges, that dangerous proximity to political questions which I agree exists in the case of this indictment against the Land League would have existed with far greater peril to the mere sailing skiff of the Committee than to the solid steamship of the Judicial Commission. A Committee would practically have gone astray and been wrecked on these rocks, which we hope a Commission would keep clear of. These are the allegations which I find in the case of "O'Donnell v. Walter." I agree with the hon. Member for Cork that it is mainly against the League, and against himself as connected with the League, that these allegations are made; and it seems to me that it would be childish for the Government to say that this indictment having been made, and having been repeated in a Court of Justice—having been challenged and taken up by a political Party, having been passionately denied in the House—that we were, forsooth, to take it up and direct a Commission to inquire into it, and to leave out the main items and substance of the charge. Of course, as regards the hon. Member for Cork, and suggestions either of knowledge or complicity on his part respecting certain lamentable events, about which I will make no further comment, the letters, as pieces of evidence, are most important; and I quite agree that he is, on every principle of fairness and right, entitled to make good every case he has in the strongest and the most emphatic way against them and at the earliest opportunity.

They are the only evidence.

So be it. If that is the only thing he has to deal with, his part in the inquiry will be a short and an easy one. But, after all, those letters are only evidence in support of one part of one of the allegations made in the case of "O'Donnell v. Walter." I can see no difference between a letter that shows either complicity or sympathy with outrage and crime, and a speech or an article in a newspaper, or acts done which show similar complicity or sympathy. Now, it cannot be said that the issues I have endeavoured to present to the House are not definite issues. The reference in this Bill is perfectly definite and precise as to persons who are charged. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian requires that before he can assent to this Bill we should define the charges. Well, I am not quite sure what is meant by that. Either the charges are in the proceedings of "O'Donnell v. Walter," and in the articles on Parnellism and Crime, or they are not. If the charges are not there, they are not referred to the Commission. If they are there, why do you require somebody who has not made the charges to define them more closely? On the part of the Government, I refuse to assume the office of interpreter, enforcer, or explainer of the charges. They are there. They have been before hon. Members for many months, and they have thought it worth while to make them the subject of applications for a Special Committee to inquire into them; and, therefore, I suppose they knew what they were. Now, when a judicial tribunal is offered to them—which I, at least, hope will be accepted by the great majority of the House as an impartial tribunal—the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian turns on us and demands that the charges shall be put into a more definite shape. It is quite right and proper, when your object is to punish a man for a specific act committed on a given day, that you should tie up his accuser by narrow and technical rules of criminal proceedings, in which time, place, and circumstance are mentioned. When, however, your object is not to inflict punishment, but to discover the truth, this specific definition of charges becomes——. Well, I said I would avoid any words savouring of passion, and therefore I retract the observation I was just going to make. It appears to me that, in showing a desire for a strict observance of the technical rules in a criminal pleading, hon. Members lay themselves open to the suspicion that they wish to evade inquiry into what is really material and substantial. What is the meaning of this demand for a specific enumeration of the charges? Observe that you have never done so when you thought the occasion deserved the statutory institution of a Commission of this kind. Such a Commission has never been used as an instrument for the prosecution of people, and that is why you cover it with indemnity. You use it as the instrument for discovering the truth on an occasion of such great public importance as to warrant the creation of an extraordinary tribunal of this sort. Why is it that you shut the door against punishment, and against all those consequences which are the root and foundation of all that is precise and accurate in your Criminal Law? It is because you want to discover the truth of the matter. You did so in both the precedents which have been referred to in the course of this debate. You did so in the case of the Metropolitan Board of Works. ["Oh!"] Oh, I know it is less important, less grave, but still it was also important to the Metropolitan Board to know of what they were accused, and the reference in the Bill was to investigate and report into the workings of the Metropolitan Board of Works and the irregularities which are alleged to have taken place in connection with it. There no definition whatever is laid down; the Commissioners are left perfectly at large. Take the precedent of the Sheffield rattening case, which is one more to the point. There had been a series of outrages committed at Sheffield, and criminal proceedings had proved abortive. The public mind was exercised. Then, as now, accusations were levelled, not so much against individuals as against an organization. It was said that the Trade Union was responsible for the outrages, and members of the Trade Union strongly resented those accusations, and came to this House and demanded an inquiry, which, after a good deal of hesitation, was granted. The inquiry was like the present, a judicial inquiry, and the Reference was in the largest possible terms—

"The Commission shall inquire into any acts of intimidation, outrage, or wrong"—

the word "wrong" was inserted after debate in the House—

"alleged to have been promoted, encouraged, or connived at by Trade Unions or Associations, whether workmen or employers, in the town of Sheffield or in the immediate neighbourhood, and as to the cause of such acts, and the complicity therein of such Trade Unions or Associations."

At that time no political Party was Specially interested in this matter, and there was no outcry as to the injustice, unfairness, and iniquity of leading a general inquiry into acts "alleged" by anybody in the world against these Trade Unions or Associations. That Commission, like the present one, was not to discover crime in order to punish it, but to ascertain, as far as possible, the whole truth about the grievances, outrages, and scandals which had moved the public mind. Therefore, when the right hon. Gentleman calls upon us to specify the charges in question in a definite way, I take leave to submit that both reason and precedent are against him. I again must repeat that this extreme anxiety to tie the hand of the Commission whom you trust—and I agree that if you cannot trust your Commission it had better not he appointed at all—and to prevent them from following up any evidence which appears to them to be material and within the four corners of the document I—savours very strongly indeed—and I think the public mind would so regard it—of a desire to hamper and to embarrass the Commission. For my part, as far as I am entitled to speak for the Government, all I can say is that we shrink, and not only shrink, we decline to assent to any limitation that will have that ugly aspect. Another point which the right hon. Gentleman very strongly made was that the Government ought to confine the case to the charges and allegations as they affected Members of Parliament. Against that demand I must enter my emphatic dissent and protest. I deny absolutely that any different treatment in this matter should be meted out to Members of Parliament than to other persons. As I read these accusations, they strike even more heavily at persons of distinction who are not Members of Parliament. The Lord Chief Justice, in his summing up, used language which struck me very much when he spoke of a great variety of persons who were deeply incriminated by the charges, Members of Parliament and those who were not Members of Parliament, and who are well known to the world as prominent men. I do ask, on every principle of fairness and justice, are you to say, We give you both the benefit and the risk of this inquiry, for there is the benefit of the accused persons clearing themselves successfully from allegations made against them, and there is the risk that some charges may be considered by the tribunal to be established? [Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: Not the smallest.] As the hon. Member pleases; but in every inquiry of this sort there is that benefit and that risk. But is that benefit and risk to be confined to Members of Parliament? Do hon. Members suppose that this inquiry is of our own seeking? Certainly not. It is offered in response to their own insistance and their own pressure. Inasmuch as we accede to the demands and pressure of hon. Members below the Gangway opposite, while telling them that, in our opinion, their remedy is elsewhere, are we to leave out in the cold those who have not the opportunity of coming to this House and making applications to us, but who are equally implicated, whose characters are equally valuable to them, and whose guilt, if there be guilt, it is equally important to the public and the country to know? I assert that this inquiry would be a mockery and a farce if you tried to strike out the words "other persons." Why, the whole substance and force of the allegations which are made is this—that certain persons, members of the League, some of them Members of Parliament and some not, have, as I have said, been brought into complicity, connivance, association with crime and criminals, and into making use of the fruits and results of crime. That is the charge, and how is it possible to investigate that charge at all if you leave out the actions of other persons? I am reluctant to mention names, but there is a gentleman named Egan whose name figures largely in these proceedings. Of Mr. Egan I know nothing. I know that the right hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) has asserted of him that he is a most respectable citizen of Dublin; but I am aware that in the recent proceedings it has been stated that he used Sheridan as a go-between between himself and the outrage-mongers in the West; that he was charged with knowing about the Invincibles; that he declined to say whether the funds of the Land League, of which he was treasurer, were used to promote the dynamite explosion at the office of the Local Government Board; that he removed books and papers which would have thrown considerable light on the proceedings of the association; that it is suggested he left England as soon as the evidence of Carey was given because he thought it safer to be abroad; and that he is alleged to have organized a "martyrs' fund" for the Phœnix Park murderers. If all these things are true, the description of the right hon. Member for West Belfast would be totally inapplicable. How is this inquiry to be conducted unless you first ascertain whether Egan is a most respectable citizen of Dublin? This person was in close connection with leading members of the Land League. Will anybody suggest that this inquiry into the charges and allegations made should be held without in quiring into what Egan may have done? Then there is the name of Mr. Byrne. Here, again, I do not pretend to the slightest knowledge of Mr. Byrne; but I cannot imagine any Commission conducting this inquiry without first ascertaining whether or not Byrne did write a letter which I find it stated he did write, in which he advocates "the torch, the knife, and dynamite." Is it true he kept certain knives which were used upon a memorable and tragic occasion for days in Palace Chambers in a room which I need not further describe? Are these things true or not? If true, to what extent were they known by those with whom he daily associated and whose servant he was? Those are the two stages of the inquiry. Mr. Byrne is not a Member of this House, and is the Commission not to inquire into his case? I might mention Mr. Patrick Ford—[The ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir Richard Webster): Sheridan.]—and Sheridan. This inquiry will be a ludicrous farce unless the relations of Patrick Ford with hon. Gentlemen opposite are to be investigated. I will not multiply examples. What do hon. Members opposite wish? Do not let them suppose that I am expressing my own opinion of their conduct when I say that the suggestion in these papers is that they who call themselves Leaders of the Irish Constitutional Party are in the closest alliance every day with the band who are by every means in their power inciting to outrages of every kind, the use of dynamite and war to the knife with this country. The hon. Member for Cork says that he failed to see a certain person in New York—that is what it will be the business of the Commission to inquire into. The hon. Member is not the only person attacked in these papers. To my mind this is one of the gravest charges that ever was preferred against a body of men, and it is one in which the public have a deep interest—it is that a Party professing to be a Constitutional Party are really in the closest alliance with men who are organizing outrages and murder, who are collecting the money to be expended in the furtherance of outrages and murder. The question into which the Commission will have to inquire is—Is that charge well founded, or is it not well founded? This, it is said, is the point that ought to be omitted from the inquiry; but in the public interest and your own it cannot be so. To me it appears to be the cardinal point of the whole case. Are hon. Members opposite content to sit down under a charge of that kind? Are they content to be ranged on a common platform with men of the character which I have indicated? Is the suggestion that your movements in connection with the Clan-na-Gael are not to be inquired into—is that to remain uninvestigated?

No; certainly not.

I am very glad to hear it. I am rejoiced to find that your alleged connection with the Clan-na-Gael is a subject which you do not fear to have investigated?

The hon. Member for Cork said so.

Then the members of the Clan-na-Gael are the "other persons" whom it is now proposed to exclude from the scope of the present inquiry. If you strike out those words, you will reduce the inquiry, so far as the Clan-na-Gael is concerned, to a farce. I maintain that the charges to which I have referred are not of common knowledge—they are charges which demand inquiry and proof on either side for the satisfaction of the country and the House. Upon some other matters I shall waste very few words. I rejoice to hear the hon. Member for Cork demand that the proceedings of this Commission shall be of a judicial character, which shows that he appreciates the value of the rules of procedure of our Courts. Undoubtedly the Judges who will sit upon this Commission will give, as they are accustomed to do, every facility to those who are before them to appear by counsel, who will make speeches on their behalf, who will examine and cross-examine the witnesses, and I am sure that that part of the hon. Member's demand will be readily granted. But the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian, as I understood him, desires that we should confine the inquiries of the Commission to the question of the authenticity of certain letters, which he maintained were the head and front of the offences, while the rest of the charges contained in these papers were ancient history. These sneers of the right hon. Gentleman at outrages and crimes which are barely seven years old seem to me to be misplaced. The right hon. Gentleman said that this ancient history of outrages and crimes having passed the ordeal of a General Election in 1885, and of a Dissolution and of the formation of a new Government, had disappeared from view for ever. But if that was the case, why had the right hon. Gentleman in April of last year, in tones of passion, demanded the very inquiry which was now offered? In April of last year the charges of Parnellism and Grime were before the public, while the letters which were produced at the recent trial were not before the public. [Cries of "They were."] Not in April of last year. I am referring to the arguments of the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian, who has not done us the favour to remain in the House during the rest of this debate. The right hon. Gentleman said that to go into anything behind the letters was to go into ancient history which had been whitewashed by the General Election. But the right hon. Gentleman did not regard the facts behind those letters as ancient history last year when he demanded an inquiry into them. It would almost seem as though the right hon. Gentleman wished to make it appear that the Government desired to make it impossible to accept their offer. There can be no doubt that the fact that these charges were reproduced before a Court of Justice in the case of "O'Donnell v. Walter" gives them additipnal solemnity. Charges brought forward in that case include not only hon. Members of this House, but others far below them in social position; and it is into the deeds and misdeeds, into the merits and demerits, of such persons that this Commission is to inquire. Unless the inquiry were to be far-reaching, thorough, and complete, it would be useless for the Government to undertake it. Unless the inquiry were to be of that character this great dispute can never be satisfactorily settled; and if the action of the Commissioners is to be hampered and crippled by technical restrictions, as is proposed by this Motion, it will be impossible to get at the whole truth.

The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department has made a very remarkable speech, which has been characterized by his usual ability—a speech which certainly would not have given any casual visitor to this House any idea of the subject which we are debating. If an intelligent visitor had entered this House and had listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, he would have come to the conclusion that the Bill was one to inquire into every crime and into every outrage that had occurred in Ireland during the last 10 years, during a time of great political and social excitement, instead of being a Bill put forward by a Government as a means of giving to a number of hon. Members of this House an opportunity of meeting charges which had been brought against them. The right hon. Gentleman has made some very extraordinary statements. We are pressing to have the specification of the charges which those hon. Gentlemen are called upon to meet, and we are met by the right hon. Gentleman, who makes the startling statement that while the meanest criminal in the country is entitled to a specification of his alleged crime, he is only so entitled because there is a punishment attached to his offence; but that in this case, although the charges made against hon. Members would, if established, be followed by blasted reputation and might involve death to their political hopes, they are not to have a specification of their offences because, forsooth, in consequence of there being a provision for indemnity under the Bill, their offences will entail no punishment, and, therefore, they are not to receive that protection to which the meanest criminal is entitled! The speech of the right hon. Gentleman makes it necessary for me to recall the circumstances in which this proposition of the Government was made. It will be recollected that last year an hon. Member brought before the House the fact that in an article which appeared in The Times serious imputations were made against the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), and that those imputations should be made a matter of Privilege. That hon. Gentleman asked this House to appoint a Committee to inquire into those allegations. Among other objections which were urged to the appointment of a Committee, it was said that the issues raised would be too narrow and confined; and, in answer to the objection made, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. John Morley), with the authority of hon. Members below the Gangway, expressed the readiness of this hon. Member to meet any specific charge to be preferred before that Committee, whether it was contained in the particular article of the newspaper or not, provided always it was described and defined. That was refused. Why? Because it was said that so strong was political feeling in this House that a Committee could not be trusted to do anything like justice to the hon. Member for East Mayo and his Colleagues. And yet the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House (Mr. W. H. Smith) to-night got up and, in tones of mournful lament, exclaimed against the fact that faith in juries was a thing of the past. Are juries free from strong political prejudice? Is it to be said that juries can discharge an effort of self-control in the conscientious discharge of duty to which hon. Members of this House are not equal? The right hon. Gentleman seems to forget, when he speaks of that failing of faith in juries, that he and his Administration have shown very little faith in juries, and have practically in Ireland put an end, for a time at least, to that institution, which the right hon. Gentleman on this occasion and in this connection appears so much to cherish. That matter was then disposed of. It comes up again in the late trial. Let me remind the House of the circumstances of that late trial. I shall not make any comments on that trial, or the course it took. A gentleman institutes an action for libel against The Times, and The Times, in effect, says—"We did not mean to libel you; you are not worth libelling; you are an inferior personage to whom the matters complained of do not apply;" and the plaintiff, having proved the libel, left his case in that condition for the time. What followed? I am bound to call attention to what followed, because it has been said that additional sanction and additional weight are given to those charges, because they were solemnly made under the sanction of a judicial trial and by an officer of the Crown. What was the state of the case? At the end of the plaintiff's case, those who were representing The Times knew that their case was that nineteen-twentieth parts of the charges did not apply to Mr. O'Donnell. They did not submit that to the Judge. They did not even confine the address which they made to the jury to the parts of the libels which were said to be in question. What they did was this—I am merely stating the facts; let the House draw its own conclusion. They took that opportunity of restating and republishing in the form of a report of a judicial proceeding, with added emphasis and with added force and evidence to be given, and particularly with the addition of alleged forged documents, the whole indictment against the Leader of the Irish Party and against the Colleagues of that hon. Member. Then, having occupied nearly three days in that course, the concluding portion of that address was an appeal almost to the learned Judge, out of fairness, forsooth, to the Irish Members, that they might not be called upon to enter upon proof in circumstances so unfair and so disadvantageous to the Irish Party at that stage! The matter then comes again before Parliament. A statement is made by the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) and by Colleagues of his on the subject of those letters. Again the request is preferred for an inquiry in this House. The hon. Member for Cork, at least, has shown more faith in Members of this House who sit opposite to him than the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, for, although he knew that the majority of that Committee must necessarily by the ordinary rules be a majority of his political opponents, he was not averse to trusting himself to the honour of those political opponents. "No," the right hon. Gentleman repeated, "go into a Court of Law; bring an action for libel." I will say, with all deliberation, having some experience of actions of libel, that I would infinitely prefer, with all its difficulties and with all its attendant disadvantages, which are great in such a case, an action for libel before the most bigoted and partizan jury in the City of London, than a tribunal constituted in the vague and unfair and on the disadvantageous terms that are found in this Bill. Now, what are the charges? It is necessary that I should say a word or two upon this, in order that the House may understand what justification I have for this, I admit, sweeping criticism of this Bill. I read the charges last week for the first time. I read Parnellism and Crime, and I read the report of the trial of "O'Donnell v. Walter," which consisted in by far the greater part of the unproved speech of the learned leading counsel for The Times. Those charges I make out to be these in substance. First, that the Land League, of which certain Irish Members were members, had been guilty of encouraging or being parties to Boycotting, of speeches which were incitements to intimidation, and so to the causing of crime; that the managers of the Land League—those most prominent in Irish political movements—had been in association with Patrick Ford, and had obtained moneys for their purposes in Ireland largely contributed through his instrumentality. Upon what, in great part, rest those allegations? We have the best authority for the proof of the foundation on which they rest, for I find in The Times the other day that they were apparently a little in doubt as to the authenticity of the alleged letters. On the 13th of July The Times wrote thus—

"We are prepared with our proofs of the genuineness and authenticity of the letters read by Sir Richard Webster, but we have never professed to treat it as more than secondary evidence in support of what we hold to be an overwhelming case"—

how proved?—

"proved mainly by the speeches and by the writings of the men whom we have denounced."

Are those speeches and those writings secret matters? Does it need a Special Commission to catalogue the speeches of members of the Land League, prominent and obscure, in its thousand branches throughout Ireland, or the speeches of those who are supposed to be in sym- pathy with them on the other side of the Atlantic? It would be ridiculous, so far as this part of the case is concerned. The point rests not in dispute about facts so much as the inference to be drawn from the facts; and are you to appoint a Commission of Judges who are not to elicit facts, but who are to draw conclusions as regards particular circumstances, some of which happened nearly 10 years ago, instead of leaving the country, as has already been done, to draw its own conclusions from premisses which on this part of the case are open and notorious? The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House spoke on this matter as if those writings in The Times were a new revelation. Has the right hon. Gentleman never read The Truth about the Land League, by "One Who Knows?" I think the name of Mr. Arnold Forster appears in connection with it; and has he never read The American Irish and Parnellism Unveiled by a Mr. Bagenal? These things have been said again and again—nay, more, so far as their main pith, point, and substance are concerned, they were contained in a remarkable speech delivered by the late Mr. Forster in an attack which he made in this House on the hon. Member for Cork. Then, I want to know, is it to be confessed in this House that what is wanted by this Commission is not to endeavour to fix criminality, criminal complicity, on specific individuals in relation to crime, but under the guise of a Judicial Commission to present afresh to the country the occurrences—the hideous, hateful, and condemnable occurrences—many of which, in times of great political excitement and great social pressure, occurred over a space of 10 years in Ireland? That may or may not be a justifiable object, but if it be the object declare and announce it. But do not be guilty of the hollow and deceptive conduct of making specious offers of treating your honourable opponents as if you were conferring a favour upon them. State in downright language what it is you mean. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of state for the Home Department said that principle and precedent were in favour of the course which the Government had taken. I say there is no precedent for such a course. The Sheffield and the Metropolitan Board of Works cases were mentioned; but in neither of those cases were definite per- sons charged, nor was the matter of those inquiries in any way under the control of this House, except in so far as this House is part of the Legislature which brings them under control by Act of Parliament. But the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary seems to me to have entirely lost sight of the only ground on which this inquiry can be justified as it was offered, and with reference to the object with which it was offered. It is that this House, anxious for the reputation of its Members, anxious in the interests of its Members and its own character and dignity, desires to give an opportunity to the Members implicated of meeting specifically the charges made against them. But will that be effected by this Bill? I will endeavour to show that the plan of the Government, carried out on the lines of this Bill, would not only be unfair, but would be positively unworkable, and might be interminable. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary says that there is a specification of the "other persons," because those other persons are named in the proceedings of "O'Donnell v. Walter." Let me illustrate my objection to this. Supposing in the course of the inquiry an allegation is made by a witness in which he mentions as accomplices or accessories, before or after the fact, certain named persons—is the Commission not to inquire into the history of that, and not to follow it up? According to the Bill it would seem they must. And is not the person whose name is introduced, although not even mentioned in the proceedings of "O'Donnell v. Walter," to have an opportunity of appearing before the Commission? Of course, he must have that opportunity; and once you make this groping inquiry there is no possible limit to the number of persons who may be entitled, according to the principles of common justice, to come before the Commission and be heard in explanation or defence. But the cardinal point is this—that the inquiry should be a judicial inquiry in the real sense of the word. Make your general inquiries as wide as you please, but as regards the allegations against Members let the charge be specified, and the inquiry into them judicial. Now, I understand the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to have made a concession on that point. I wish clearly to understand what it is. What does he mean by a "judicial inquiry?" Does he mean simply an inquiry in which all the inquirers are to be Judges, and is the whole matter at large to be left to them? I wish for an answer.

Answering the demand of the hon. Member for Cork, who said—"We demand that we shall be treated as though we were plaintiffs in an action for libel with counsel to open our case and reply." That is the judicial feature.

That is not an answer to my question. I will indicate what I mean, because I think it is all important that the matter should be cleared up in view of the misleading references to the precedents of Sheffield and the Metropolitan Board of Works. Does he mean that this is to be an inquiry conducted according to the rules of legal evidence? I want an answer. I await an answer. A nod of the head will be sufficient.

No; I will not answer in that way.