I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland if he will state the amount of tithe rent-charge redeemed in Ireland since the Disendowment of the Church, and the average number of years' purchase at which the tithe rent-charges have been redeemed; and whether the Government have ever considered that any abatement in the tithe rent-charge ought to be made in consequence of agricultural depression?

The amount of tithe rent-charge in Ireland redeemed since 1869 is £230,579, the purchase-money for which has been £4,914,231, being 22½ years' purchase of the net rent-charge, poor rate being deducted, or about 21⅓ years' purchase of the gross rent-charge. The existing tithe rent-charges in Ireland are fixed by statute, and it would not be possible for any abatement on account of agricultural depression to be made without legislation.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether a Post Office Circular was issued on 4th June, 1889, giving rural postmen in Ireland the option of starting on their return journeys one hour after their arrival at their respective destinations on bank holidays, and thus reducing their hours on duty; and whether this Circular has been acted upon; and, if not, would he explain on what grounds?

Yes, Sir, such a Circular was issued, and has been acted upon throughout England and Wales; but I understand bank holidays are not generally observed in Scotland and Ireland; and it has not, therefore, become necessary to apply it to either of those parts of the United Kingdom.

J.P.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether Mr. Hugh Graham, J.P, of Dromore, County Tyrone, recently suspended by the Lord Chancellor on charges of drunkenness and threatened assault, has yet been dismissed from the Commission of the Peace; and, if not, can he explain which of his magisterial functions Mr. Graham is forbidden to discharge by his suspension, and what is the distinction drawn between his case and that of Mr. George Sandes, J.P., recently dismissed from the Commission of the Peace by the Lord Chancellor, on the grounds that his retention in that capacity would not be in the interest of the Public Service?

Mr. Hugh Graham, J. P., of Dromore, County Tyrone, has not been dismissed from the Commission of the Peace, as the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, after full consideration of all the circumstances of the case, was of opinion that the facts did not call for such a course. There was no charge of threatened assault, but of two cases of alleged intoxication. His suspension precludes him from sitting on the Magisterial Bench until further orders, meanwhile his conduct being under the Lord Chancellor's observation. The different decisions arrived at by the Lord Chancellor in the two cases referred to were arrived at after a full review of the facts disclosed in each case.

Is this gentleman, in the meantime, discharging magisterial functions which do not relate to the administration of justice?

He has been suspended from the discharge of all his magisterial functions.

I rise to move the Resolution which stands upon the Paper in my name, namely,—

"That after Whitsuntide, unless the House otherwise order, the House do meet on Tuesday and Friday at Three of the clock, and that Government business have priority on Tuesday; that Standing Order 11 be suspended, and the provisions of Standing Order 56 be extended to the other days of the week."

I can assure the House that no explanation is necessary for my making this proposal. The circumstances of public business require it, and I hope it will be accepted without much discussion. I observe that the hon. Member for Crewe (Mr. M'Laren) has an Amendment on the Paper to exclude from the operation of the Resolution Tuesday, June 3, so that the Motion on the extension of the franchise to women may be discussed. I would suggest, however, to the hon. Member that instead of moving an abstract Resolution on that subject he should, early next Session, bring in a Bill dealing with the question, and so test the feeling of the House in that way.

I am very much surprised that no reason has been given for a Motion which, at this period of the Session is absolutely unprecedented. But, while expressing my astonishment on that point, I am bound to say that, having regard to the deplorable condition of the public business, my right hon. Friends on this side of the House have already indicated, in what passed yesterday, that they do not intend to oppose the demand of the Government. The condition of business in the House is indeed deplorable, and I do not think that it has been so bad for many years. Up to now only six nights of the Session have been devoted to Supply, whilst in 1888, which was supposed to have been a particularly backward year, eight nights were devoted to Supply before the end of May, so that matters are really worse now than they were in 1888. But let me point out the great difference between this year and 1888. In 1888 the legislation of the House was sympathised with and generally approved of, while this year, unfortunately, the Government have so contrived that every Bill of the first class which has been introduced is not only objectionable in its details, but objectionable in its main objects, so that behind the legislative business there is no such momentum as in 1888. I am very much mistaken if even the supporters of the Government, to whose loyalty and constancy I am willing to pay a tribute, do not give their support with much reluctance and with very grave misgivings as to the wisdom of the measures for which they vote. The obvious remedy for the present backward state of business is for the Government to sacrifice certain of their measures, and they will have to do so before the end of the Session. But, in the meantime, considering that the necessary business of Supply and the whole condition of affairs are so backward, I do not think it is altogether unreasonable on the part of the Government to make a large claim upon the indulgence of the House. Nor can I forget that upon private Members' nights we have had a number of counts out, which further strengthens the claim of the Government. But while I am not prepared to resist the Motion, I must protest against the Resolution being looked upon as a precedent, inasmuch as it is only accepted in consequence of the backward state of the public business, which is due to the mismanagement of the Government. I am sorry that the Government have not resolved to take Day Sittings on Tuesdays and on Fridays, and to devote the Evening Sittings on those days to Supply. However, as the Government have decided otherwise I will not raise an objection to the Motion on that score. I do not think that hon. Members will vote against the Government proposal, however much they may dislike it, because I think that, in the circumstances of the Session, the proposal is justifiable.

I wish to move an Amendment to the proposal of the Government which will come in earlier than the Amendment of the hon. Member for Crewe. I wish to point out that if the proposal of the Government is adopted there will be no opportunity for bringing forward grievances. Although £7,000,000 have already been voted in Supply, not a single penny of Irish Supply has been taken up to the present time, and, therefore, no regular opportunity has been afforded for discussing Irish grievances. The hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) holds a strong view that the proposal of the Government should not be assented to unless an undertaking is given that Supply shall be taken regularly once a week after Whitsuntide. As a matter of protest, I shall oppose the Motion, unless the right hon. Gentleman gives an assurance that after Whitsuntide Supply will be taken at least once a week, and I beg to move to amend the Resolution by inserting after the word "Whitsuntide" that "Supply be taken at least one day in every week."

I am sorry the hon. Member has thought it necessary to move a formal Amendment. It is one to which I cannot consent, because, in the making of arrangements for business, it is necessary the Government should have their hands free, so that they may adopt the course that is most convenient to the House, as a whole, and most conducive to the progress of business. The arrangement for the first week after the recess includes two days for Supply, at least—Monday and Tuesday. I am sure the House will see it is impossible for the Government to have their hands tied by a Resolution of this kind. The Government wish, as far as they can, to consider the convenience of hon. Members. The suggestion that the House should meet at 3 o'clock meets, I understand, with the concurrence of a majority of Members, for many Members rather object to coming down at 2 o'clock and again at 9 o'clock. This is a matter about which the Government have no strong feeling; but it is one they are bound to consider with reference to the conduct of business and the convenience of the House as a whole. In these circumstances I trust the hon. Gentleman will accept my assurance that I will endeavour to make progress in Supply as rapidly as I can.

It is not rapidity I ask for, but regularity.

At all events, the hon. Gentleman will see that whoever is in charge of the business could not accept a positive direction of this kind, under which it would be absolutely impossible to conduct the business. When the House gets into Committee on a Bill, I believe the House is in favour of pro- ceeding with it from day to day until the Bill is through Committee. The Government will at all times be glad to give the most careful consideration to suggestions from any part of the House with a view to making such arrangements as will, on the whole, best meet the convenience of hon. Members.

In making future arrangements for the conduct of public business in this House there are two Government measures to which I wish to draw special attention. One is a Bill which has been sent down from the House of Lords—the Indian Councils Bill—in regard to which the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury is under a specific pledge to the House. I will only remind the House that I refrained from raising any question on this subject by Amendment to the Address on the distinct understanding that at least a real opportunity would be afforded for discussion. One of the matters which I should have felt it my duty to urge was the question of the extension of the Legislative Councils of India and the introduction of some principle of representation in reference to members. Although that Bill came down to this House from the House of Lords before Easter it has never yet been put down on the Paper as the First Order or even as an early Order. I am not prepared to deny that there is great pressure upon the Government in reference to public business, but I would venture to suggest that some day soon after the re-assembling of the House after the Whitsunside recess might be fixed for the Second Reading of the Bill, so that hon. Members may know when it will be taken, and might be prevented from coming down day after day, simply because the Bill is on the Paper, with very little prospect of its being brought on. The question is a very grave one, affecting, as it does, the interests of more than 210,000,000 persons in India, and as I refrained from raising any Indian question upon the Address I think I am entitled to make this demand. All that I ask is that the Bill may be taken on an early day, and that a couple of days' notice may be given, so that Members may not come down fruitlessly. The next measure is the Employers' Liability Bill. The Government have been under a pledge, repeated for years in succession, to amend the law, but they have made no real effort to do so. In 1888 they did introduce a Bill which went before a Grand Committee, but it was not introduced at all last year, and in its present state it would raise more discussion than the earlier Bill did. The Bill has been mentioned three times in three Queen's Speeches, and the Government ought to let the House know whether it is to be persevered with now.

May I ask what is going to be done about Scotch Private Bill legislation?

I wish to support, as strongly as I can, the claim for time to discuss the Employers' Liability Bill, and also to urge that the Miners' Eight Hours Bill should receive some attention. Both of these are measures of vital importance to the working classes, and at the earliest moment they ought to be discussed by the House, in order to convince the working classes that we do sometimes occupy ourselves with their affairs. The Miners' Eight Hours Bill has also been introduced for three successive years, and it is a measure upon which we have had a distinct expression of opinion from a large majority of the persons concerned. A conference of miners, representing 350,000 men, have unanimously declared in favour of the Bill. Then, again, there is an important measure which affects the extension of the Parliamentary Franchise to Women. On this side of the House we have received a whip to-day asking us to support the Motion of the hon. Member for Crewe to secure a discussion of this measure on the 3rd of June.

Order, order! The hon. Member is now discussing a Motion in regard to which there is a notice already on the Paper.

I am not convinced that there are a majority of miners in favour of the Eight Hours Bill. In reference, however, to the remarks of the First Lord of the Treasury, I fear that he does not quite appreciate the motive with which the Amendment has been moved by the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sex- ton), which is that Supply should be fairly taken at a reasonable period of the Session, and not put off to the close of the Session, to be taken under pressure and in a perfunctory manner. What is desired is that Supply should not be put off until the fag end of the Session, and then run through in one day.

I must remind the Government that hopes have been held out that the Eight Hours Bill would have been discussed before this period of the Session. There are many thousands besides miners who wish to have this question discussed.

I do not believe that business has ever before been so backward at this period of the year. In the last three Sessions the average number of days required for Supply has been 37; and last year at this date 20 had been already given to Supply, and in the previous year 10 had been devoted to it, in spite of which it was necessary to have an Autumn Session, in which 22 days were given to Supply in the months of November and December. In the present year only seven days have been devoted to Committee of Supply, and between the present time and August 20 there are only 44 days which could be devoted to Government business. If 30 of these are given to Supply, to make up the customary 37 days, only 14 will be left for other Government business. There ought to be an understanding that a reasonable proportion of the remaining time will be given to Supply. Personally, I should have been glad if the Morning and Evening Sittings were continued—[Cries of "No, no !"] but at least one day a week ought to be given to Supply. I hope the leader of the House will take the figures I have given into consideration. Our real difficulty has been caused by the ambitious Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the introduction into the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill of highly contentious matters, which have already occupied the attention of the House for 11 days.

I beg to move as an Amendment, after "Tuesday," to insert—

"Except on Tuesday, June 3, when the first Notice of Motion, Parliamentary Franchise (Extension to Women), shall take precedence."

I am obliged to the First Lord of the Treasury for the kindly tone in which he referred to this Amendment, but I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the advice which he has given to me is advice which I cannot possibly accept. If my Motion were to be carried, the subject to which it refers would certainly be considerably advanced in Parliamentary importance. It should not be forgotten that earlier in the Session—on March 4th—I obtained precedence by the Ballot for a Motion similar to the one which now stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for the Leigh Division of Lancashire (Mr. C. Wright), but the exigencies of the business of the Government rendered it necessary that I should give up that day. On that occasion I asked the First Lord to promise that he would not again take our day away, and he said he would not do so mischievously or wilfully. He is now breaking the spirit of that promise, for there is no need to take this evening. I will suggest instead that the Government should take Wednesday, June 4, which is the Derby Day, for their business instead of taking four hours on the previous evening, which would do them very little good indeed. The opportunity is not taken away by the mere exigencies of public business. There is always what I must call an intrigue to prevent the subject of Women's Suffrage being discussed, and it is a matter of common notoriety that the senior Member for Northampton has a full share in making these arrangements. I do not say that the First Lord of the Treasury knows of it; perhaps these things are purposely kept from his knowledge, in order that he may be in a position to deny them. But they are within the knowledge of his Whips. I now press the Government to leave us one evening of four hours. We have had great ill-fortune with this Bill. In 1887, it had the first place on the Paper on July 20th, and that day was taken from us by the Govern- ment, on the plea of the exigencies of public business, although they refrained from giving us a day later on in the Session. In 1888 we had a very good place on June 6th, and we lost that day owing to the operation of the new Rule under which Bills not read a second time before Whitsuntide lost precedence. In 1889, one of my hon. Friends had first place for this Bill on the Wednesday before Good Friday, and a Memorial, signed by 170 Members, was presented to the First Lord, asking him to-allow us to sit on that Wednesday. I am aware it is not a usual thing to sit on that day: but the Government have no hesitation in appointing Wednesday Sittings when they desire to get a stage of the Coercion Bill, although they seem to hold very different views when a Women's-Suffrage Bill is under discussion. On the 25th April this year this Resolution stood second on the Paper, the first Motion thereon having reference to the duties on dried fruits. The Member who had that Motion on the Paper persisted in keeping-it down in order to prevent the Women's Suffrage discussion taking place, though his subject had been dealt with in the Budget, and as I did not see why we should try to keep the House for him under those circumstances, I consequently took this Motion off the Paper, and immediately I had done so that hon. Member removed his Motion. I have reason to believe a similar arrangement has been made in regard to Tuesday, 3rd June. Now, I think we are making a reasonable request in asking the Government to-defer the operation of the Motion they are proposing now until Friday, 6th June. The right hon. Gentleman, in moving his Resolution, said that four hours was, no doubt, a very short time, but a great deal of business could be done in it if the House only chose. Now, the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that on the 4th June we are going to waste six hours by not sitting on that day, which is Derby Day; and I will make a practical suggestion to him, that the Government should take their business on Wednesday, the 4th June, and give us this Tuesday. The right hon. Gentleman refuses. That only shows what a sham is his plea about the necessity of taking our four hours. We are now three or four months from the end of the Session. We desire to get a discussion on this question. It has been agitated a very long time by a large number of women throughout the country, and I appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite to do us this justice, and allow us to debate the matter. One of the women who have been most actively engaged in this movement asked me the other day why we were prevented having a Debate—

Order, order! The hon. Member is not adhering to his Amendment.

Well, then, Sir, I will simply say I ask the House to pass my Amendment simply as an act of justice. As the subject has been deliberately shelved by this Parliament, I intend to divide the House.

I rise to second the Amendment, as this is a subject in which I take great interest. I desire to put forward some reasons why this question should be discussed. There are a large number of reasons—

Order, order! That line of argument is not in order.

The question has been before the House on many occasions since 1870, and on many grounds it is desirable—

Order, order!

It is not often that I indulge in the luxury of voting with the Government, but on this occasion I shall certainly avail myself of the opportunity of going into the Lobby with them. I do not share the views which have been expressed by the hon. Member for Crewe. There are questions of far greater importance requiring debate than that of female suffrage. For instance, only the other night, by tactics which some of us took occasion to condemn, we were prevented discussing the grievances of a large number of working men—a subject which was to have been brought forward by the hon. Member for Woolwich. Then, again, there is the registration of voters question. Many of us—most of us I believe—desire to get rid of the anomalies that surround the present system; but we have never yet, either by Bill or by Resolution, succeeded in getting a day to consider that question, which is of supreme importance. The hon. Gentleman is, therefore, not alone in the difficulty of which he complains. In the early part of the Session I was fortunate enough to get a good place for the consideration of a Registration of Voters Bill which I have brought in for four years, but the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury deprived me of the opportunity. I had just as much right to complain as has the hon. Member for Crewe, but I did not come down to the House with a whine on that occasion, but have ever since been trying for another chance to bring it forward. Then, again, there is the question of the water supply of London, which vitally affects the millions of people of London, and which we are anxious to get discussed. Many other questions also press for solution, all of them of far greater importance than that which the hon. Member for Crewe is anxious for the House to consider.

I intend to indulge in the same luxury as the hon. Member who has just spoken and to vote with the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe ascribes to design what really was chance. It is a mere chance that the hon. Gentleman has no opportunity of bringing forward his Resolution. As one of his own fair clients, the Duchess of Gerolstein, said, it is fatality. The hon. Member has accused the First Lord of the Treasury and myself of intriguing in order to prevent this Resolution from being brought forward. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord will allow me to protest in his name that there has been no sort of intrigue. The position of the hon. Member for Crewe is, I repeat, due solely to chance. He has referred to the fact that on one occasion a Memorial was presented to the First Lord asking him to pursue the exceptional course of making a House on the Wednesday before Good Friday, and he suggests that, owing to certain intrigues, that privilege was refused him. The hon. Gentleman forgets that there was another Paper signed—and signed by a large number of Members—against his proposal, and that, possibly, will account for the refusal of the First Lord to adopt his suggestion. Again, the hon. Gentleman complains that on the occasion on which he had secured second place for his Motion, the hon. Member for Glasgow would not yield to him and withdraw his Resolution upon dried fruits. He also states that, immediately he had taken his Motion off the Paper, the hon. Member for Glasgow also removed his, and this he quotes as another instance of intriguing against him. But the hon. Member for Glasgow had a reason for what he did. He spoke to me on the subject He pointed out to me that he did not want to be interrupted in the middle of his speech by a count, and he asked what course he should take. I told him I thought it was a pity that he should only be able to deliver a portion of his speech, and that it might possibly be as well for him to choose a better moment for bringing it forward. That is why he took it off the Paper. Now, I am a person of principle. I have always opposed Ministers taking private Members' nights, and, consequently, I am opposed to this Motion of the Government. But I have another principle upon which I act, and that is, that, when once such a Motion is carried, it is not wise to make exceptions in favour of anyone. I sympathise greatly with my hon. Friend in his disappointment; but I cannot consistently support his Amendment, because if it were carried it would be my duty to move a series of Amendments, asking that about 20 subjects should be exempted from the operation of this rule. Under these circumstances, I think it is no use further debating this Amendment, and that we may as well take a Division on the proposal of the First Lord of the Treasury. The hon. Member for Crewe has simply been unducky, and he will have to grin and bear it.

I think it is time some protest was made against this fresh raid on the rights of private Members. We have some right to complain of the mode in which this Motion has been brought forward. Had we had fair notice we might have secured an attendance of Members sufficient to defeat it; but as it is, we are completely powerless. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury has got us by the throat I do appeal, however, to that amiable garrotter to make this one exception to his Resolution.

I desire to thank the First Lord of the Treasury and the Government on behalf of a great number of Members greatly interested in the Tithes Question for having promised to put down the Tithes Bill for the first Thursday after the Recess. I hope I may take that promise to imply a determination on the part of the Government to pass the measure with all due despatch. I am not disposed to blame-the Government for having so long delayed progress with the Bill. I know the circumstances of the last few days have made it impossible to redeem the promise made that the Bill should be taken before Whitsuntide. At the same time, however, we cannot, in face of the history of the question, view without some anxiety the postponement of the Bill until a later day than was originally promised. Although I have every reason to suppose my right hon. Friend intends to pass the measure with all due despatch, in consideration of the fact that there is considerable agitation in the country on the question—and in matters of this kind, when agitation once begins, it is better to have the question settled one way or the other—I urge upon the First Lord to risk nothing. I hope we are to understand that the Bill will be passed this Session.

The right hon. Gentleman has not said whether the Tithes Bill will be the first Order on that day.

I shall not put it down late.

Is it to be the business?

Certainly. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) thinks that the state of business is duo to the fact that the Government have not proposed measures entirely agreeable to the Opposition. It is very singular that they have not done so. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite have themselves done what the Government now propose for the promotion of public business. I will leave it to the right hon. Gentleman to say how far the prolonged Debates upon the Budget Bill and other measures of the Government will account for the condition of business. The Government cannot propose measures to Parliament with reference solely to the views of the Opposition. They must have regard to what they believe to be for the public interest. I recognise the claim of the hon. Member (Mr. Bradlaugh) for the early consideration of the Indian Councils Bill, and it shall be brought forward so as to give him an opportunity of stating his views upon it. With regard to the Employers' Liability Bill, I desire that it shall be read a second time and considered again by a Committee, and I hope the result will be, what the Government very much desire, to settle the question in the interest of all parties. Supply will be taken on the Monday and the Education Estimates on the Tuesday after the holidays.

I do not want to occupy the time of the House unduly, and I do not want to prevent hon. Members getting away for their holidays, but some hon. Members on this side of the House feel that on every occasion they must oppsose this Bill. They look upon it as part and parcel of the whole scheme for the compensation of publicans and the endowment of public house property. They can see the evil which this Bill is already doing. Accounts are arriving from the country as to the increase in the value of public house property since the measures of the Government have been before the House; and it is clear that if this goes on there will be a very heavy burden placed on the public. Two days ago the President of the Local Government Board said that he had received a telegram giving an account of a public meeting in Glasgow in support of the measure. The public meeting turned out to be a meeting of 12 publicans in a back parlour. That is the public opinion in support of the Government on this occasion. We would consider ourselves to be absolute traitors to our constituents and to the public good if we did not on every possible occasion offer every possible opposition to the passing of the most mischievous and most abominable measure which even this Government has proposed. I beg to move that the Bill be read a third time this day six months.

I merely wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer why it is a Return I moved for 10 days ago showing the military expenditure during the present year has not been already laid before the House? It is as well we should have had the Return before the Third Reading of this Bill, because I think it will be found we are spending for military purposes £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 over and above the amount provided for by taxation.

I had no opportunity on the Second Reading of entering my protest against the Bill. I therefore wish to join with my hon. Friend the Member for Cockermouth (Sir W. Lawson) in opposing the Bill. I look upon the Bill as introducing a principle most disastrous and most mischievous. I am informed by a leading man in the City that the shares of those large Brewery Companies interested largely in tied public house property are going up day by day since the policy of the Government on this point has been initiated. Whatever the good intentions of the Government may be, the actual effect of their policy is seen in the augmented value of public house property and brewery shares.

As I, too, had not an opportunity upon the Second Reading, I wish at this stage to join in the protest against this Bill. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer must now be satisfied that public opinion is growing exceedingly fast against this measure. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will find time on Saturday week to attend the Hyde Park meeting and see the large numbers who will flock to the Park to protest against the Government proposals. Reference has been made to the character of the public meeting held in Glasgow. To some extent the same remarks will apply to the meeting of the Church of England Temperance Society. Hon. Members have read that Canon Wilber-force has said he will never again go to a meeting of that body until the Council have purged themselves from the invitation which they have issued to their members to support the licensing proposals of the Government.

The right hon. Gentleman has promised a Select Committee to consider the financial arrangements as between the three countries. I suppose the Motion for the appointment of a Committee will appear in the Orders of the Day immediately after Whitsuntide. As to the Irish share of the money, I should also like to have a Return showing how the money is to be distributed during the first financial year, and eventually between the several counties and the corporations as soon as the principles of Local Government are extended to Ireland.

I am sorry that it has not been possible to present the Return asked for by the right hon. Member for Bradford. I had hoped to present the Return yesterday, but the right hon. Gentleman is aware that it refers to Navy expenditure as well, and this involves dealing with two Departments instead of one. It has been found that it is not possible to follow exactly the wording of the Return, or to give the figures in the form in which they are asked for. There is not much alteration, however. It is extremely important in presenting the Returns to remember that the Treasury become responsible for the accuracy of the figures, and we, therefore, ask for a little indulgence, in order that we may have time to examine the figures carefully. I hope to be able to present the Return on the first day after the recess.

Reference has been made to the action of the Church of England Temperance Society in this matter, and to the secession of the Rev. Canon Wilberforce. As everybody knows, Canon Wilberforce is a very extreme man. The action of the Society has been dictated by sound common sense, and by an earnest desire to promote true sobriety and temperance in every part of the country. It was because they recognised that the Bill was an honest and well-devised effort in that direction that they were glad to support it. If, as is alleged brewery shares have gone up since the introduction of this Bill, the fact is solely due to the tactics of the Opposition. It is because of their constant misrepresentations of the scheme that people outside who have not closely-studied the Bills believe their statements to be true, and that the Government really propose to compensate the publicans. Believing these misrepresentations, they naturally rush to buy the shares. They will find they are mistaken, and that the Bill does not propose compensation. The scheme is voluntary, and need not be put into operation at all by the County Councils unless they like.

I take the opportunity of expressing my opinion that there is no more hollow, unsecure Society to be found in England than the Church of England Temperance Society. I do not know of a single instance in which of two candidates before a constituency, the one in favour of temperance principles and the other not, the Church of England Temperance Society gave its support to the temperance candidate. I have never heard of a single instance. Canon Farrar has referred to the fact that of the 12 working-class Representatives in this House who are temperance men not one received support from the Church of England Temperance Society.

I do not know whether it is expected that I should answer the questions that have been put. I cannot undertake that the names of the Committee shall be put upon the Notice Paper immediately after Whitsuntide. The nominations and terms of reference will require a good deal of reflection. The hon. Member will recall to mind that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Morley) expressed some doubt whether the Committee could be appointed this Session. We shall do our best for this Session, and, if the Committee cannot be-appointed at once, at all events, we will proceed without delay to put together the information to be laid before the Committee. As to the Return asked for, I will communicate with my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland, but, of course, the points mentioned can be raised on the Local Taxation Bill.

It will be rather late then to enter upon it.

Well, it shall be provided at the earliest possible date. I will confer with my right hon. Friend on the subject.

I only wish to say, in regard to the hollowness of the Church of England Temperance Society, that I think there is something more hollow in the declamations against the Society by hon. Members who support the hon. Baronet the Member for Cockermouth (Sir W. Lawson). Looking over the Amendment Paper I find the only Amendments of importance standing in the name of the hon. Member for Barrow (Mr. Caine) are those which emanate from the Church of England Temperance Society.

The new clause I have to propose has relation to the commencement of the Act. I have named the 1st of September next, on the assumption that the Bill will receive the Royal Assent by the end of June, and thus an interval of two months will elapse before it comes into operation.

New Clause, "This Act shall come into operation on the first day of September one thousand eight hundred and ninety," read a first and second time, and added to the Bill.

In moving the new clause, of which I have given notice, I need not detain the House beyond a few minutes. I am, glad to say that when the Bill was passing through Committee the right hon. Gentleman showed a certain amount of sympathy with the question which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Longford and myself, and promised to meet us as far as he could on the Report stage of the Bill. This new clause proposes to put some limitation upon the powers and duties of the officers who may be appointed under the Act. As the Bill at present stands those powers are absolutely undefined; but we want to provide that those who carry out the provisions of the Bill shall take action within a certain time, and practically the right hon. Gentleman has assented to the first part of the clause, for I understand he proposes to insert -1 days in Subsection 6 as the period within which the powers of compulsory slaughter shall be carried into effect; but what I want the right hon. Gentleman to do is, when the slaughter has taken effect, to declare the area free from infection as soon as possible. Suppose the slaughter has taken place within the 21 days, and it is found that the slaughtered cattle were actually not suffering from pleuro-pnoumonia at all, but were perfectly free from that disease, then I say there should be no delay in declaring the area free from the disease. Without some limitation of time, that will happen which happens under the existing Act, that the officials will allow a great number of days to pass without taking action at all, simply from thoughtlessness or carelessness, and dairymen and others will thus be subjected to an unnecessary amount of expense and annoyance. I by no means insist on the two days mentioned in the Amendment if the right hon. Gentleman thinks that a longer interval is necessary; but, at all events, there should not be an unlimited time left open. Then the other branch of my clause refers to the other contingency, that after slaughter it appears that the cattle were infected with the disease. Here I propose that, in the same way, there shall be a limit to the ban which is placed upon the area or place. Upon the best advice I can get, it appears that 56 days is a sufficient interval wherein to decide that infection has disappeared after the diseased animals have been slaughtered, and I provide that the loss and annoyance to the proprietor shall not have an indefinite continuance. It is too often the case that in legislation on this subject the interests of the owners is lost sight of, and the officials are left too free a hand. The right hon. Gentleman has shown sympathy with our object in inserting the 21 days' limit in the first instance, and I hope he will see his way to meeting us so far as to fix some definite limit within which the declaration shall be made.

I join with my hon. Friend in recognition of the spirit with which the right hon. Gentleman has endeavoured to meet our wishes in providing that the decision as to exercising the powers of slaughter shall be carried out in a reasonable time. These powers having been carried out, it is reasonable that the declaration of infection should not be indefinitely continued in either contingency, whether the disease is found not to have existed or whether there is proof that it did exist. At present there is a minimum period within which the area cannot be declared free, and if the right hon. Gentleman thinks that under all circumstances it would not be safe to limit that period we do not seek to alter it, but, on the other hand, I agree with my hon. Friend there should be some maximum period within which the declaration of freedom from infection should be made.

I am glad to find hon. Members approve of the Amendment I have placed upon the Paper proposing the limit of 21 days, and which I proposed with a view to meeting what, I think, wore reasonable objections raised. Now, as to the first point raised in the present Amendment, that if animals are slaughtered, and it is subsequently found that they were not suffering from the disease, then the locality shall be declared free within two days, that contemplates a contingency which it is almost impossible can arise, because no slaughter could take place unless there was reason to suppose the disease existed. It is true that a number of animals suspected of disease might be slaughtered, but I do not think that circumstances could arise under which a general slaughter could be ordered, unless it was proved that some animals were infected with the disease, and the disease can always be detected. Then, as regards the second contingency with which the clause purposes to deal, the period of time within which it shall be obligatory upon the authorities to declare the locality free. This matter has been arranged, and is now carried out under the Act of 1878, and I have not found that the arrangements are defective, or that serious complaints have arisen of the administration under that Act. So many contingencies, so many conditions may arise known only to experts, who have to put into operation the provisions of the Act, that it is important to leave the officials the widest discretion. As a matter of fact, I am of opinion that to accept this second part of the clause might be to place the infected locality in a worse position. One good reason submitted to me is this:—A man in buying stock very often buys from one herd, and the stock when sent home are perhaps distributed over two or three farms. A case of disease breaks out in an animal in one locality, and the animal there being slaughtered, and within 56 days the place being declared free, what is the result? Immediately other stock are imported from the other two farms, with, perhaps, the consequence that there is a fresh outbreak of disease, among animals from the same herd originally. There is every desire on the part of the Board to administer the Act with the greatest possible consideration for the convenience of all concerned, but I am strongly impressed with the importance of leaving the widest discretion possible to those who have the responsibility of carrying out the Act, and I hope the hon. Member will not think it necessary to press the Motion.

What I would point out is that we should secure uniformity of action and the cooperation of the different authorities in the boroughs and counties. That is far more important, I think, than laying down a hard and fast line. It is to be deprecated that while one Local Authority is doing its duty another one should be acting carelessly.

In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has an Amendment on the Paper which covers mine, I do not think it necessary to propose that which I have on the Paper. I am quite sure that when the Bill becomes law it will be carried out with spirit by the right hon. Gentleman, and that local officers will be subjected to a supervision which will free the owners of cattle from unnecessary delay.

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would have no objection to issuing a Memorandum to the local officials.

Yes.

I believe the effect of this Amendment will be to enable the special losses incurred by certain Unions in Ireland, especially by the North and South Dublin Unions, to be defrayed out of the moneys provided by this Act. I should be glad to be assured of that fact.

That is the effect, for the reason that much of the work to be accomplished has already been done.

I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.

I only wish to make one observation. I think there is one defect, though I thoroughly approve of the principle of the Bill. The Lord Advocate is not in his place to answer for Scotland. We have three alternatives—the local taxes, the taxation of the Nationalities, and—which the Government have been good enough to step in with—the Imperial Treasury. To that extent I take this opportunity of saying that I think the measure is defective.

I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has consented to send out a Memorandum to insist that the work under the Act shall not be delayed. I have received a telegram this morning which gives an instance of the vexatious loss caused by official delay.

I am very much obliged to the House for allowing me to move that the Bill be read a third time. I readily undertake to issue the Memorandum to local officials.

I beg leave to explain that there was no intention on the part of Irish Members to prevent the Motion for the Adjournment being decided at the Morning-Sitting; but it was prevented by two circumstances, the length of the speech of the Chief Secretary and the superfluous intervention in the Debate of the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson). It was simply by inadvertence that my hon. Friend (Mr. Gill) overran the time.

The fact that I happened to talk out the Debate on the Report of Supply arose from my want of knowledge of the Rule that governs an Afternoon Sitting. I was under the impression that we did not break off Debate until 7 o'clock.

Upon this Motion I am anxious to say a few words, and they shall be very few, in corroboration of the statement of my hon. Friend the Member for Tipperary (Mr. J. O'Connor). [Cries of "Agreed."] Well, if you agree with the statement of my hon. Friend, then the question is settled; but the Chief Secretary has made a statement entirely at variance with the statement of my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend has referred to the English Members who accompanied him, and I intend, in a few sentences, to emphasise what he has said. The Chief Secretary states that the arrangements for the public meeting at Tipperary were not made with the cogni- sance of the police. But, Sir, these arrangements were made in the light of day and ought to have been within the cognisance of the police, if the police did their duty. The preparations for the meeting were apparent to every inhabitant, a platform was erected, and, I suppose, 10,000 people must have seen it. Speeches were delivered to an immense concourse of people in the open air at New Tipperary. Personally, I addressed largo crowds at some eight or 10 meetings standing by the side of my hon. Friend (Mr. J. O'Connor). [Interruptions.] I can assure hon. Members that I am as anxious to get away for my holiday as any of them can be, but I consider I have a public duty first. On the day my hon. Friend has referred to there were meetings held in the town and outside, and thousands of people gathered. During the time the Ponson by evictions were proceeding, I. addressed a meeting of the evicted tenantry; and a day or two afterwards at Youghal I spoke to a crowd estimated by Canon Keller, who is a good judge of numbers, at 3,000 or 4,000 people. It is vain for the Chief Secretary to assume that the police were ignorant of these proceedings. Irish Members and English Members spoke at these meetings. When Irish Members speak alone, they are interfered with by the police; but when they are accompanied by English Members, there is no interference on the part of the police. You may explain it as you will, the fact remains, and we desire to record it here, where the statement may be challenged and disproved if it is capable of disproof. You deal out one measure of justice to your Irish fellow subjects and another to Englishmen. [Cries of" No!"] The facts are in evidence. Will you agree with me now? Let hon. Members opposite, with that spirit of honour which has always been supposed to characterise the Tory Party, put them selves in the place of Irish Members; let them imagine, if their imaginations are sufficiently fertile, what would their feelings be if they were governed by an Irish majority, and Irish Members were permitted to visit their constituents unmolested, while they themselves were denied the right to hold public meetings. The only way to appreciate the feelings of Irish Members is to put yourselves in their place. Look at the position from an Irish point of view, and I do not understand how the Tory Party, with all their traditions of Constitutionalism, can support the action of the Chief Secretary. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to keep peace and order in Ireland let him keep the police away from public meetings; they are the origin of the troubles; the source and fountain of the confusion that arises is the action of drunken policemen. [Cries of "Oh, Oh !"] You cry shame, perhaps, on the drunken policemen, but the Chief Secretary does not repudiate their conduct. Irresponsible Members behind the Government Bench may interject denials, but it is a fact that we were followed from Cashel to Tipperary by four drunken policemen on a car. They were armed with loaded revolvers, and we travelled in peril of our lives from Cashel to Tipperary. This is the sort of protection offered to Members of Parliament. I have intervened most reluctantly in this Debate. There will be other opportunities for English Members to make good their case, but, knowing how my hon. Friend the Member for Tipperary enjoys the esteem and confidence of tens of thousands of his countrymen, I could not allow his statement to go uncorroborated when it is the fashion to attach more importance to the word of an Englishman than to that of an Irishman.

I wish to add my protest to that of the hon. Member against interference with the meeting appointed to be held on Sunday next. Every English man mustre-volt at the suppression of rights always considered to be the possession of Irishmen and Englishmen. Hon. Members on that side, as well as hon. Members here, in their addresses and speeches at the General Election, declared they would insure equality of rights to Irishmen and Englishmen. I do not apologise for intervening in this Debate. The interference of the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh was totally unwarranted. He occupies no official position—to his disappointment, perhaps—but he has adopted the position of judicious bottle-holder to the hon. Member for South Hants (Mr. Smith-Barry). I can add my experience to what has been said by the hon. Member who has just spoken in reference to the meetings in Tipperary. The Chief Secretary does not seem to be well informed upon what is taking place in Ireland. His predecessors in office, the right hon. Gentleman who is now President of the Board of Trade and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle, were continually going backwards and forwards between London and Dublin sifting evidence, and endeavouring to learn facts for themselves; they were not satisfied with Reports from Dublin Castle; but the right hon. Gentleman is chiefly employed in following his favourite pastime on the breezy downs. I regret this interference with the meeting on Sunday. The open-air meetings in April were attended by English Members and English ladies, and we all felt the greatest admiration for the pluck, the energy, and sympathy with their fellows shown by the men of New Tipperary. It shows the solidarity of the Irish tenantry that, when they found a body of their fellow tenantry treated as they were treated on the Ponsonby Estate, they determined to carry the war into the enemy's country, and I am glad they have done so. I have no reason to doubt that the hon. Member for South Hunts will bitterly regret that ever he entered on this internecine struggle. I have no wish to detain the House beyond expressing my admiration for the conduct of the gallant men of Tipperary, and my abhorrence of the policy of the Chief Secretary.

As one of the Members against whom this attempt at muzzling is directed, I do not think it necessary to make any apology, but I do make my most earnest protest. The Chief Secretary will find, later on, that never in his political career has he made a more egregious mistake if he supposes he will he successful in his attempt to intimidate the people of Tipperary. I can tell him, as one of the Representatives of the county, that we are not to be intimidated. I shall exercise my right to meet my Constituents in Tipperary on Sunday, and I challenge the right hon. Gentleman or any of those whom he may send there at their peril to interfere with the just rights of the people. 1s this not the time in this brief Parliamentary Recess when Members should meet their constituents? Where are the equal rights to all if we are denied the right to meet our constituents in peaceful assembly? I assert for my constituents that they are peaceful, well-disposed, intelligent, respectable men, and our meetings, if not interfered with by the police, will be orderly as they hitherto have been, honourable alike to the constituents and the Members who address them. I tell the Chief Secretary again that ho will find he never made a more fatal mistake than to attempt to intimidate the Members and people of Tipperary.

I do not think any apology is needed for our intervention in this Debate. It is not my habit to intervene very often in debate; but here is an occasion when a great public issue is at stake in Ireland, and though we subject hon. Members to the inconvenience of sitting here for an hour this evening, we are impelled by duty to our constituents and the assertion of public rights. You, the English Members, can go away on your Whitsuntide holidays without fear or danger of having your free right of public meeting in your constituencies being interfered with, but we can indulge in no such expectations. I have been present here during the day, and I listened to the previous discussion this afternoon, and I can say that it is due to the tone and temper of the speech of the Chief Secretary that we are here now. Had the duty of replying to my hon. Friend the Member West Belfast, who raised this discussion, been left to the Attorney General for Ireland, I venture to say the House would not be now sitting, and we might have been on our way to the enjoyment of our brief holiday. But the Chief Secretary, after having been absent from the House during the greater part of the day, and being sent for when my hon. Friend raised this subject, has made a speech, the effect of which has been to exasperate every Irish Member and every English Liberal Member who heard it. The right hon. Gentleman, in the course of that speech, followed as it was by the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh, based his interference with the meeting on Sunday on the assumption that the meeting would lead to intimidation and boycotting. The right hon. Gentleman asserted that the tenants of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Smith-Barry) were engaged in a policy of intimidation. Now, it was pointed out by my hon. Friend (Mr. Gill) that the tenants upon the estate of the hon. Member for South Hunts had gone out of their holdings without any protest whatever. It is a fact known to the Chief Secretary himself that these tenants are engaged in a lawful and peaceful combination against a combination of landlords. Let me quote words used by the right hon. Gentleman himself on this very subject, speaking in this House on July 1, 1889. On that occasion the Chief Secretary said—

"He had been told that he had interfered with combinations of tenants, and that he ought, therefore, to interfere with combinations of landlords. He did not care how much the tenants combined or how much the landlords combined. If he were a tenant in Ireland and he found the landlords were combining against him, he would combine against them."

Will the right hon. Gentleman truthfully answer—I do not use the expression in any offensive sense—my question how he explains the combination of tenants which exists in Tipperary today if it is not a combination against a landlord conspiracy, against which he has said he in like circumstances would enter into combination? The tenants have combined peacefully and legally to carry out their policy of protection; and if the tenants in Tipperary fail to carry out that policy, including as it may do boycotting to a certain extent, the man who will be mainly responsible for driving the tenants of Tipperary to that very policy he has indicated to-day will be the Chief Secretary. He wants to put down conspiracy. So do we. We want to give utterance to our feelings and to express our indignation in open meeting; but when we want to come together for the purpose, when Members for Tipperary want to address their constituents, then the right hon. Gentleman tries to prevent open discussion, tries to do that which Lord Cowper once boasted of having done when he said he had "driven disaffection beneath the surface." The right hon. Gentleman is attempting the same thing. He is trying to drive the Members for Tipperary from the public platform, to suppress the public discussion of grievances, and to induce a return to the vices of that evil time when an exasperated tenant was driven to find vengeance for his wrongs with a musket from behind a hedge. For a recurrence of these evil times, this infatuated policy of yours will be responsible. I ask Tory Gentlemen on the other side, are they afraid to listen to the Irish people? You listen readily enough to Irish Representatives hero in the House of Commons; are you afraid to hear the same opinions expressed in Ireland? And yet you have declared your willingness that the people of Ireland shall enjoy equal rights with the people of England! You are anxious to get away for your holiday; you will not recognise the condition of affairs in Ireland; you will not realise that deep down in the heart of the Irish people is the intense desire for some sort of self rule. You are impatient because your holiday is delayed for a few hours; but whatever may be said of our motives, if it were possible and necessary, we would keep your Parliament sitting until doomsday to make these facts known. No answer has been given to the facts put forward by my hon. Friends. You permitted meetings to be held on April 12, and at those meetings English Members and English ladies were present, but other meetings are prohibited. Why do you behave in this fashion? You laugh now; but we shall win in the end, and those laugh loudest who laugh last. The Irish National cause is winning against all your efforts. The Chief Secretary has admitted that he had an interview with Mr. Townshend and the hon. Member for South Hunts. The policy of his Party in Ireland is shaped by the landlords. According to the supporters of the Government, the government by repression and tyranny is to continue until the youngest among us has a grandson buried. But I tell you that to persist in this policy will leave you no cause for laughter. The Attorney General for Ireland may laugh now, and Attorneys General and Chief Secretaries have laughed before, but the attachment of the Irish people to the old and sacred cause of self-government will survive all the laughter from the Ministerial Bench. We are determined, and the determination has been expressed to-night by my Colleagues to support our people. You have not passed the threshold of the Irish difficulty, and you will have to face it until you adopt a higher, nobler policy than yon have indicated to-day. I tell yon that you but intensify your difficulties by such exasperating speeches as that we have heard from the Chief Secretary to-day, and some day you will have to admit there is no way to govern Ireland but by-applying the policy advocated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian.

The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has, in effect, admitted that he determined to prohibit next Sunday's meeting at Tipperary on insufficient information as to what its character would be. He has said that until speeches in the House and, in particular, until the speech of the hon. Member for West Belfast, the information which reached him had not led him to believe it would be of a large or dangerous character, and, therefore, he must have taken action on insufficient grounds. To prohibit the right of public meeting in any place is a most serious step which ought only to be taken after the most careful consideration. If bloodshed should ensue from the action of the Government in regard to this Tipperary meeting the country would hold the Chief Secretary-responsible, and the House would call him to very severe account. I rise for the purpose of appealing to the right hon. Gentleman to re-consider the situation. If, after the assurance given that the meeting will be held in a peaceable manner, and that its main object is to give hon. Members an opportunity of taking counsel with their constituents, the right hon. Gentleman can see his way to permit the meeting, I trust ho will do so. The right of public meeting is a very sacred thing in this country. It ought not to be lightly interfered with, and as the right hon. Gentleman has been assured that the Tipperary meeting will be a peaceful one, he ought to see that there is no justification for prohibiting it. I have not sympathised with extreme measures in the Irish agitation. I have never at any time said a word in favour either of the Plan of Campaign or boycotting; I have never justified any violent resistance to authority in Ireland; and I trust my appeal will be met by the right hon. Gentleman in the spirit in which it is made, and that he will not adopt a course which may lead to serious occurrences in Ireland. I do not wish to make a long speech, or to stand in the way of the adjournment; but I feel it my duty as an English Member to advocate the proper and just treatment of the Irish people in relation to this matter of holding public meetings.

We have been told by the hon. Member for Tipperary that he desires to take advantage of this Whitsuntide recess to address his constituents; but we have had no such assurance from other hon. Members who are expected to attend this meeting that the gathering will be a peaceful one, and I would ask—Is it not possible to give the Government some such assurances; can they not give an undertaking that the addresses delivered at the meeting shall be only those which are ordinarily delivered when an hon. Member meets his constituents and that there will be no appeal to the people to break the law.

There never is.

Hon. Gentlemen have said that from shore to shore of the island the law of the League is the law of the land, and we cannot forget that that assertion has been made. I say that if hon. Gentlemen who are to speak at the meeting will promise that their speeches shall be of the character I have indicated then I think an appeal may fairly be made to the Government not to proclaim the meeting.

I promise to deliver any speech I may make next Sunday to the Falkirk Burghs when I return.

Does the hon. Member (Mr. Sinclair) submit the speeches he is about to deliver for the opinion of the Lord Advocate? A more indecent proposal, in the Parliamentary sense, has never been made in the House of Commons than that which the House has just listened to. My hon. Friends have not proclaimed their intentions to break the law, but merely to assert their Constitutional right to address their constituents; and yet here we are having it laid down as a Constitutional doctrine that Members about to address their constituents in Ireland are to give an undertaking to the Government of the day as to the language they will use. If the right hon. Gentleman adopted a wise and statesmanlike policy he would judge this meeting by those which have previously been held at that place. He has prosecuted no one who spoke and attended at the meeting at Tipperary on the 12th April, and he has no right to assume that the meeting of Sunday next will in any way differ from that meeting. The hon. Member for St. Pancras has tried to throw oil on troubled waters. I quite recognise the force of what he says: that every allowance must be made for the Government when they have avowed a settled and determined policy. But then, also, some allowance ought to be made for hon. Members who believe that they are within their right and are pledged to meet their constituents. They have not proclaimed that they will break the law, they are only claiming to exercise a Constitutional right which the Government are seeking to abrogate. This policy of repressing public meetings in Ireland, which hon. Gentlemen opposite treat so lightly, is, to our mind, a very serious grievance; and I say, with the force of my 11 years' experience, that by pursuing this policy you are fostering and encouraging secret societies, and that you will thereby bring about a crop of far more dreadful crimes than anything in the shape of intimidation. Why cannot the Chief Secretary rise to the greatness of a statesman? I thank those of our English friends who have come down to support us to-night. We should have been glad, if we could, to release hon. Gentlemen at an earlier hour, but we were forced into the course we have taken by the temper and tone of the reply of the Chief Secretary, backed up by the very ungallant references of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Armagh to a man who is head and shoulders—morally and physically—above him. I recognise that for anyone to run the risk of bringing the people into close proximity with the forces of the Crown is a serious thing, but I consider that the right of public meeting is so sacred that men are bound to run some risk; and the answer of the Chief Secretary has left nothing open to us but to run that risk.

When the hon. Member for Falkirk finds it necessary to address a caution to the Government, we may judge pretty well what the feeling of the country is. I listened to the speech of the Chief Secretary with amazement. A speech more atrocious, a speech more utterly devoid of argument, a speech more deliberately intended to wound, annoy, and insult than the Chief Secretary's it would be impossible for a man to make. That speech has convinced me that there is not a shadow of justification for interfering with this meeting. I have no hesitation in saying that the country will not hold him guiltless if one drop of blood is shed on Sunday. I advise my hon. Friends not to take the right hon. Gentleman seriously; be is dressed in very brief authority, and the day is coming with rapid steps when the right hon. Gentleman will be hurled from power and visited with the punishment he so richly deserves.

When I came down to the House to-night I had not the slightest intention of interfering in this Debate; but I cannot help supporting the appeal so well made by the hon. Member for North St. Pancras—an appeal which was really an attempt to throw oil on the troubled waters. The speeches delivered by hon. Members from Ireland have all been in a like direction; that of the Member for South Kerry was most conciliatory. We are told that this meeting is to be suppressed. Well, I can only say that when hon. Members declare that they desire to address their constituents in a peaceable, orderly, and Constitutional way, very considerable responsibility will be cast on the Government if any disaster occurs from the attempt to hold this meeting on Sunday next. I cannot conceive any wisdom in the policy of the Government. Since 7 o'clock Ministers have had an opportunity of conferring together, and now there seems to be a conspiracy to allow the Debate to close without any one of them saying a word. I am sorry we have no Members present on the Front Bench on this side of the House. But the Government must not construe their absence into a sign that they approve the policy adopted in regard to this meeting. I believe that it is due to the belief that the House would be adjourned at 7 o'clock. I hope Her Majesty's Ministers will not take advantage of the fact to remain silent, and in that way to support the Chief Secretary and Attorney General for Ireland in carrying out their policy of suppressing this meeting. I do make a most earnest appeal to the Chief Secretary to re-consider his decision. I think the speeches which have been delivered from below the Gangway must satisfy him that this is intended to be an orderly political meeting. I hope that some independent Members of the Tory Party will support this appeal. I am sorry that anyone should have been put to the inconvenience of returning to the House, but now that we are here I trust we shall turn the time to profitable account.

I feel that there is a point at which silence becomes almost criminal. I am not prepared to play the part of a political criminal or a mis-representative of my constituency in face of the addresses we have hoard from the opposite side of the House to-night. I am here to say, as the Representative of a not unimportant English constituency, that none among the many actions of the Chief Secretary for Ireland will be more applauded in England on Monday morning than the announcement of his having prevented a disloyal and criminal meeting in Ireland. I am prepared to stand any odium which may be cast on me by hon. Gentlemen opposite, in consequence of my having pronounced this opinion. I am bound to say, in answer to the pleas of hon. Gentlemen opposite for the right of public meeting, that we on this side of the House are not usually deprived of that right except by the low Irish element resident in Great Britain. I have never received insult or contumely or disrespect from any body of my constituents whom I have addressed, save in one instance from a number of Irish voters whose votes I had declined. I then expressed myself in very plain terms, and said I should consider myself insulted by the votes of the disloyal Irish Party.

There was not one of them but was better than you.

I am very sorry that hon. Gentlemen opposite should be at all affronted.

Withdraw your insults, then.

Order, order! I must ask hon. Gentlemen to restrain themselves on both sides.

There is no need to introduce any irritation or any thing disgraceful and to the scandal of this House.

Order, order! I rose for the purpose of allaying any feeling there might be

Allow me to explain. I should be very sorry to introduce into the Debates of this House a scandal—

Order, order!

I made no reflection on hon. Gentlemen opposite, who, I am bound to say, while ready to rain down charges of the most odious, atrocious, and untruthful character upon the head of the Chief Secretary, show themselves singularly thin-skinned when the mildest criticisms are addressed to themselves. Now, I would address myself for a brief moment to the proclaimed meeting at Tipperary. I can understand an hon. Member addressing his own constituents; but it is a different thing when Members from other places flock together for the purpose of flouting authority, setting the law at defiance, and causing disorder. What use would be made of it if this meeting were permitted to be held? It would be used in the columns of United Ireland as another instance of the weakness of the "base, brutal, and bloody Balfour." I am prepared to measure swords upon this point with hon. Gentlemen in my constituency, and to tell my constituents, what the House and English Members know, of the feeling and the views that prevail among Englishmen as to the disloyal action of the Irish Party in the past and the plans of the disloyal Party in Ireland for the future, and the obstruction of public business that takes place in this House. I believe that each English Member who goes to his constituents, as I will go to mine, to tell them of the action of the disloyal Irish Party, who obstruct our business by the "dreary drip of dilatory declamation," and to toil them of the more than veiled insurrection which takes place night after night on the floor of this House. I say any English Member who goes to his constituents and tolls them that will receive rich approval and hearty endorsement of his action at the next General Election.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. Member who spoke last has added very much to either the interest or the dignity of this discussion. He complained of being driven from his platform. [do not wonder at a certain impatience being manifested at any speaker making such a speech to his constituents as that which the hon. Member has just delivered. I am very sorry that any speaker should be driven from any platform; but if the hon. Member speaks habitually to his own constituents as he addressed this House to-night, I cannot wonder that some demonstration should have been made. Although I do not approve of violent measures, one must make allowance for human nature, which after all, is weak and passionate, and could not stand many hours of declamation such as that with which the hon. Gentleman has just favoured us. In my position I cannot regret the course which has been taken by the Government, because we wish to accentuate and emphasise our protest against the system of ignoble personal rule which is now going on in Ireland. I think it an anomaly in a country like this, and in a Parliament like this, to have a system of Government like that which the Chief Secretary proclaimed and defended to-night. It reminded me of some of the chapters in Charles Lever's novels, when the Chief Secretary is interviewed by some "Con Heffernan," of importance and significance in his own district, in some room in this House, where is arranged a system of governing Ireland under which right of public meeting is not allowed, and all because this Con Heffernan had an interview with the Chief Secretary, and told him what ought to be done. The real anomaly is that this system should be allowed to go on by a country like England, where people may hold a meeting without oaring throe straws whether the Government like it or not. But in Ireland, when a Member is going to address his constituents, the meeting is announced three weeks before, and no word is said against it until Con Heffernan interviews the Chief Secretary, who tells the Member that he cannot address his constituents unless in some room or small hole and corner place. I do not know whether there is any distinction in the Constitution of this country between a meeting held in a room and an open air meeting. I should like to know what you would think in this country if a Member were told that he may address his constituents under a roof and within walls, but that if he attempts to address the same men on the same subjects in the open air, the force and strength of the State would be employed to stop the meeting, even if bloodshed should be the result.

There is no National League in England.

The hon. and gallant Member only shows his ignorance by making that statement, because there is a National League in England, on the Council of which I have the honour to sit. Let me remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman of what happened in the old days of the second French Empire, where the sort of system he advocates was carried into execution. In those days the people had to apply to the police for permission to hold their meetings, and the conditions were that they wore not to exceed a certain number of persons, and that the meetings must be held under a roof and within four walls. We all know what a brilliant success was achieved under that system, and I am perfectly sure that a similar fate will await any English Government which attempts to enforce in one part of the Empire that French Imperial regulation which they dare not attempt to enforce elsewhere.

In moving the Second Reading of this Bill I would only remark that the sooner it is passed the sooner will it be possible to remedy the insanitary condition of certain barracks.

This Bill is one that is brought in at a late hour, and I have to state that certain military gentlemen with whom I am acquainted have asked me to give attention to the matter, and have furnished me with certain details. The reason why I now object to proceeding with the measure is that I think it ought to be taken at a time when it can be discussed. I hope, therefore, that instead of trying to push it through at this juncture it will be put down for the first day of the reassembling of the House, when we may have a full opportunity of considering its details.

I wish to ask you, Sir, whether it is competent to put down for the Evening Sitting a Bill which has been put on the Paper for the Morning Sitting?

Order, order! The Question is that this Bill be now read a second time.

I desire, Sir, to point out that this Bill is one of a very extraordinary character, and has been so drawn that I am perfectly unable to understand to what schools it really refers. It certainly cannot apply to all the schools mentioned in the Act of 1868—that is to say, Winchester, Harrow, Rugby, Shrewsbury.