informed the House that he had received the following letter relating to the imprisonment of two Members:—

May I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether you have received any letters from resident magistrates announcing the arrest of Irish Members under the Coercion Act? No fewer than ten Irish Members have been arrested on the warrants of removable coercion magistrates since the House rose in August last and imprisoned on criminal charges.

No, I have not received any such letters.

Then, as a matter of privilege, I understand it is the bounden duty of the person by whose authority such warrants are executed, to communicate the facts as to the arrests to MR. Speaker at once, whether Parliament is sitting or not, and whether adjourned or prorogued. The resident magistrates in Ireland, however, have not done so, although some of these arrests are two months old, and thus they have violated the privileges of this House.

It is not a breach of privilege, although it would have been the usual and proper course to take. I do not know the circumstances, nor can they be inquired into at this moment. The magistrates may have some reason to offer when they write and inform me, as they probably will do, why they have not communicated sooner.

I submit that it is not a matter for the magistrates so much as for the House to consider. No distinction ought to be made in a matter of this kind between an Irish and a British Member.

I hope that if the hon. Member raises a point of order he will do so in the ordinary way, and not make suggestions of that kind, which are wholly unfounded.

That, Sir, is a matter of opinion.

Order, order ‡ An hon. Member expressing his opinion in this House must do so with due respect to the Chair, upon which I understand him to be reflecting.

I had not the slightest intention of acting disrespect-fully to the Chair, but I still maintain that there should be no difference in the treatment of Members. It has always been laid down that an hon. Member is primâfacie protected in reference to criminal proceedings, unless they are announced to this House, and it is a privilege of a Member of this House that the fact of his arrest should be communicated at the earliest possible moment. I shall be prepared at the proper time to prove that since the 8th August last, ten Members of this House have been arrested on criminal charges.

The hon. Member has already stated that, and I have informed him that the failure to communicate the fact to me has never to my recollection been treated as a breach of privilege, although the course referred to is the proper and courteous one for a magistrate or judge to take.

Would I be in order in putting a Motion on the Paper expressing the dissatisfaction of this House at the want of courtesy shown them in not so communicating?

I have no doubt a Motion could be framed that would be in order.

I will do my best, Sir.

I wish to ask the Prime Minister if the Motion he intends to move presently will allow the discussion after twelve o'clock at night of what are called "Forty days on the Table" Motions. It is just possible there may be a Home Office Rule laid on the Table of these autumn sittings to which we may wish to call attention: hence my Question.

Yes, I think the right hon. Baronet is right. I do not think it would be proper for the House to exclude from itself the possibility of discussing such a matter as this.

I desire, on behalf of the Irish party, to ask the Leader of the House whether, in view of recent occurrences in Ireland, he is prepared to give early, ample, and special time for the discussion of the condition of things in that country.

I beg to thank the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in giving me notice of this Question. I do not think it is either necessary or desirable to give the special facilities which the hon. Gentleman seeks.

I would ask the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the fact that my hon. friend speaks for eighty-two of the representatives of Ireland, and that the events that are occurring in Ireland are matters requiring immediate discussion, he will not look into the question a little further and see if he can not give us at least one day for the discussion of these matters, and whether even the loss of a day might not possibly turn out to be a good economy of time for the Government, while giving common fair play to the representatives of Ireland.

I do not think it would be an economy of time to have a day formally given up to the discussion of Irish affairs in addition to all the opportunities which no doubt hon. Gentlemen will find for dealing with affairs in Ireland.

Without at all interfering or expressing an opinion as to the policy of the Government in Ireland, may I not put it to the right hon. Gentleman that in former time sit was always the practice to introduce a coercive system for Ireland by long discussions in this House? The right hon. Gentleman introduced and passed a Bill—perhaps wisely; I do not pass any opinion upon that—which prevented any form of discussion before coercion was introduced. I would submit to him for consideration whether he should not on this occasion, when so large a portion of Ireland has been placed under exceptional law, grant the request of hon. Gentlemen below the gangway.

The right hon. Gentleman probably remembers that we had a discussion upon the placing of certain parts of Ireland under proclamation during the earlier part of this Session, and I do not know that a renewed discussion on the same topic would serve any public interest. Of course, if the Front Opposition Bench were to take such a view of the government of Ireland as to justify them in asking for a day in order to condemn formally the policy of the Government, that day would at once be granted. I do not think it is in conformity with the ordinary usages and practices of this House to grant the request in the form in which it has been made this afternoon.

May I ask whether, in giving his answer, the right hon. Gentleman is aware that amongst the occurrences we have to complain of since the House last met is the proclamation of the city of Dublin, where, on the authority of the Judges themselves, there is absolutely no crime.

Order, order‡ The hon. Member is now debating the question.

May I ask the Prime Minister whether he has not just now laid down the position that he will give a day for the discussion of the grievances of Ireland if a British party demand it, but that he will not give a day for that purpose when it is demanded by five-sixths of the representatives of Ireland.

It's the old story.

Precisely. It is the old story. I am following, as I propose to follow, the time-honoured tradition of this House, under which a day for a vote of censure is not granted except on the demand of the Opposition.

And I was called to order a few minutes ago for saying that there was one law for the British and another for the Irish Member.

So there is.

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to ask if I am to assume that his reply to the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench is a reply to me, and that we will get a day?

I think the hon. Gentleman must settle that with his friends on the Front Opposition Bench

I rise, Sir, to move the resolution which was placed on the paper before the House separated in August last—namely, "That, for the remainder of the Session, Government business do have precedence at every sitting, and at the conclusion of Government business on each day Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without Question put." I have very little to say on the subject except what the House is already thoroughly familiar with. We have resumed our work at this early date because we have before us the business of dealing with the Education Bill, and of carrying our proceedings on that Bill to a successful termination. There is one other large and important measure which we must also finish and on which substantial progress has been made I mean the London Water Bill, which is a measure of the greatest importance to the metropolis. There are some other absolutely necessary matters which would have been dealt with in the earlier part of the session had we not thought it desirable to make continuous progress with the Education Bill, and reserve them for the autumn. We must pass the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, and we must have a resolution in connection with the treaty on the sugar bounties. We ought certainly to introduce a Bill making it practically possible for the nation to accept the gracious gift which His Majesty has made in respect to Osborne. There must be a Vote in Supply to carry out the conditions of peace in connection with the Transvaal, and I must ask the House to turn the new Sessional Orders into Standing Orders—a matter which I do not think ought to lake any very great time—and, of course, we will deal with the Indian Budget, and it may be that we shall also have to deal with the question of the Uganda Railway. I do not anticipate that the list I have read out will in any way prolong the length or our autumnal labours, because, as the House is aware, there must be some interstices in the consideration of the Education Bill which may thus be usefully filled up. There are a few other measures on the Order Paper, which I think, are uncontroversial. With regard to these I shall certainly not think of asking the House to make any exceptional exertions, but, if there is a general desire that they should pass, I think they ought to pass into law. That, Sir, is really the statement which the House probably desires I should make on the question. I am not going to justify the course we have pursued in asking the House to meet again in the autumn. Those reasons are perfectly well known to all parties, and it will be sufficient, therefore, if I now ask you to put the Resolution from the Chair.

Is there not a supplementary Vote of £3,000 for the allowance to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland which must be passed? I am very anxious about that Vote.

I am not aware that there is any necessity to bring in a supplementary Vote on that subject. If the hon. Gentleman will put a Question to me on the matter I will inquire into it.

You certainly told me so last session

said the right hon. Gentleman had given the House a most meagre statement, and one far from satisfying the natural curiosity of the House. Of course none of them desired to prolong their sitting beyond what was absolutely necessary. He would not now comment upon the main purpose for which the right hon. Gentleman had called them together, although he was tempted to ask him whether, after the expression of opinion he had received from the country during the recess, he would not have done better to reconsider his position. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that they were not afraid of coming to close quarters with him on the Education Bill. The House must not forget that there were several important differences between the position in which they stood now and that in which the House stood in 1893, when time was given to the Government for carrying on the business that stood over from the earlier part of the Session. In 1893 they met in the autumn in order to carry the Parish Councils Bill. That was a Bill upon which both sides of the House were agreed, and the second reading of which was not opposed. They had now a Bill which was not merely a question of the keenest controversy between the majority and the minority, but also between the majority of this House and the country. In 1893 there was a safety valve in the power of moving the adjournment at Question time—a power which had since been so greatly curtailed as to have been practically extinguished. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to give the House an assurance that when any question of urgency and importance arose, he would allow the House an opportunity of discussing it. One such question had arisen in regard to Ireland—the question of the use which the Government were making of the powers which the law placed in their hands—and it might at any moment assume an even more menacing aspect. There were questions connected with the state of things in South Africa. He was afraid the position in South Africa was full of difficulty, and that these difficulties were not diminishing. Then, in the last fortnight we had seen the smouldering embers of unrest in the East again bursting into flame. These were only three of many questions which might arise, and which the House ought to have an opportunity of discussing. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman would tell him that such an opportunity would be given if a vote of no confidence were proposed. But that was not by any means the most convenient way of dealing with such matters. There were many cases in which the House had a right to fuller or better information than could be elicited by means of Questions across; the Table, and they desired to have opportunities of expressing their opinions on subjects which could not be suitably raised by a vote of no confidence. The right hon. Gentleman had not given them some information which he thought they were entitled to have. Would he give an undertaking that there would be no suspension of the Twelve O'Clock Rule? He had already made a very severe demand on the health and patience of hon. Members by calling them together this autumn, and they ought to have some assurance that they would not be required to sit after midnight. Again, the right hon. Gentleman had not indicated the order in which he proposed to take the business. Did he propose to carry the Education Bill through all its stages before taking up the London Water Bill? At what point between now and Christmas did he propose to ask the House to consider the Sugar Bounties Convention, and the Uganda Railway? Again, the Vote for carrying out the conditions of peace in the Transvaal involved very important questions, and the House certainly ought to have plenty of time to make up its mind in regard to them. Lastly, he came to the Rules of Proceedure. Did the right hon. Gentleman intend to reserve them until the very end of the sitting? If so. he would like to utter one word of warning. There were large and difficult questions which had been left unsettled, and one Rule had actually been left hanging in the air since the middle of the session. Another Rule which provided for the beginning of business at two o'clock had given rise to very general disapproval and discontent, and he was sure the House would very much object to not having ample time for debating these questions. Would it not be better to relegate them to the commencement of next session? Seeing that so much of the time of the House would necessarily be given to the highly controversial measure which the right hon. Gentleman had put in the fore-front of his programme, he did hope the right hon. Gentleman would reduce his demands as much as possible, and not force the House to deal with questions of great importance with undue and unreasonable haste.

said the right hon. Gentlemen had not made any allusion to the circumstances under which he had been compelled to make this Motion. The House unanimously put into the Rules of the Procedure—on the suggestion of the hon. Member for King's Lynn—a proviso dealing with autumn sittings, and the right hon. Gentleman ought to have mentioned that the Motion was more severe and drastic than he had expected it to be. and the question he put to the Prime Minister a little earlier in the sitting—with reference to "Forty days on the Table" Motions, only illustrated the tightness with which it had been drawn. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to tell him that motions of the character to which he then referred—were not to be precluded from discussion, but he feared that unless the right hon. Gentleman modified his present proposal it would be found impossible to debate them after midnight. He would like to ask the House to consider the language used by the Government in reference to the opportunities of private Members for discussion under the Rules of Procedure. When the Prime Minister was attacked by some of them for having deprived the House of opportunities of free discussion, the right hon. Gentleman replied that whilst the proper rights of Members were largely intrenched upon, the Government gave a valuable consideration in exchange—namely, that two nights a week would not be disturbed by Government interference, and that the Government would not in the future come down and say they required the whole of the time for Government business. The Prime Minister had also made the statement that the real privileges of Members would be greatly increased. The matter of the autumn sittings had been raised by the hon. Member for King's Lynn, who pointed out that as there was every prospect that the House would have to sit through the winter, it would be monstrous to deny them their right to discuss matters other than the particular business which had necessitated the autumn sitting. For his own part he did not suggest that the right hon. Gentleman would not be within his rights in asking at some period of the autumn sittings for some portion of Members' time, but after the words the right hon. Gentleman had used about the rights of private Members it was amazing that the rule should have been drawn so tight, and without a word of explanation to the House. This was not a matter which solely affected private Members. It was one in which the whole country was concerned. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen seemed inclined to think his appeal was likely to be accepted by the Government, but the answer which had been made to the request of the Irish Members for an opportunity of discussing the condition of Ireland was by no means encouraging. It was suggested that Motions for Adjournment would afford an opportunity of discussing important questions, but they were not always the most convenient way of obtaining the judgment of the House. During the autumn the Government would have to consider their legislative programme for next year. As a matter of fact, there were many subjects on which the Government could legislate with more safety to themselves and satisfaction to the country than the Education Bill for which this demand was made. There were matters on which the Government were pledged to legislate, and on which the House ought to have an opportunity of expressing its views in a constitutional way. There was, for instance, the question of the efficiency of the public service. Surely that was not a matter which could be dealt with on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House. There was the Bill dealing with the hours of shop assistants, and that was a matter which interested a great number of people. The Government were pledged to deal with this question. How were they to induce the Government to act up to their pledge unless they possessed the only opportunity which a free Parliament gave? The Government were also virtually pledged to deal with the amendment of the Compensation Act. There was a grave danger if they had no opportunity of discussing these matters that those pledges would be forgotten and others would take their place, with the result that those reforms which the country desired to possess would be rendered impossible of attainment simply because they would be no longer a free Parliament. They would have no sort of freedom about their deliberations during this autumn session. The programme put before the House would run them right up to the beginning of the next financial year. Therefore they would find themselves a muzzled and dumb Parliament as regarded all the matters which they really desired to discuss, and they would be dealing with two Bills to which he believed the majority of the people were opposed, namely, the London Water Bill and the Education Bill. [Ministerial cries of "No, no."] He was convinced that that was the case, and they would test it pretty soon at the County Council Elections. The House would be tied up discussing these two measures only, and would be prevented from discussing any of those proposals which might more advantageously have been brought before the House.

thought His Majesty's Government were, under the circumstances, fully justified in asking for the time of the House for the Education Bill. It was perfectly true, as alleged, that if the Government had taken the usual course they could have avoided this Motion. They could have done what other prudent Governments had done; they could have brought in their Bill at the commencement of the session and stuck to it to the end instead of dealing with the new Rules. But that was not done. That milk was spilt, and for the Education Bill the Government were fully entitled to ask the House to give precedence. The original design of the Bill was so good, and its promise so great of accepting all such compromises as would not destroy the Bill, that too much time could not be given to it. He hoped it was in the spirit of compromise that the measure would be conducted through the House. Under those circumstances, he thought the Government were entitled to ask for time. But were the Government entitled to all the time they were now asking for? It was barely six months ago that the House came to a new bargain about the Rules, made upon a Motion moved by himself and accepted by the First Lord of the Treasury. By that Motion the private Member would be entitled to about one quarter of the whole time of the House. Surely that was not a very large amount of time to leave to all the various matters which a private Member was entitled to raise. Perhaps in the course of this discussion the First Lord of the Treasury might be induced to still leave them Tuesday or Wednesday evening. If he did, then they would not suffer so much, and they would have an opportunity of raising matters of very considerable importance. Take, for instance, the Shipping Combine. The right hon. Gentleman had made no allusion to that, and at present the only means of raising a matter of so serious national importance would be by moving the adjournment. If His Majesty's Government asked for the time of the House for the purpose of the Education Bill alone he thought that, under the circumstances, they would be justified in that course, and the House would grant it. But that was not the case, for there were many Bills set down and promised. There was the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. Were they sure that that would not be discussed by hon. Members from Ireland and other hon. Gentlemen on the Liberal Benches? Then there was to be a resolution on the sugar bounties, and that would afford discussion for days upon days. The First Lord of the Treasury must be aware that the very greatest interest was taken in the question, for it raised the whole question of free trade and protection. Next, there was to be a Vote in Supply for the Transvaal. They had also to pass the Sessional Orders into Standing Orders, and that was an interminable job. The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that the time he had taken to pass the first and easiest part of the new Rules showed that he must look forward a protracted discussion. Then there was the Indian Budget. Had the right hon. Gentleman forgotten that on going into Committee on the Indian Budget there was the one opportunity offered of moving an Amendment to the Motion "that Mr. Speaker do leave the chair" and upon that Motion a very long and considerable discussion might take place. The right hon. Gentleman said that he was going to take Votes in Supply. That course involved the setting up again of Supply and the Motion "that Mr. Speaker do leave the Chair" on each class of Supply to be dealt with. He was not sure that this could be done under the new Supply Rule. He was not sure that the right hon. Gentleman appreciated the effect of it. He did not think the Government could not take extra days beyond the twenty-three already allotted. The Committee of Supply was closed and the Appropriation Act was passed, and it was contrary to all precedent under the circumstances to set up Supply again. He did not know whether this point had been considered by those who had been elevated to the Treasury Bench since the House last met, but he seriously committed this question to their attention. His belief was that as regarded Supply they could not set it up again. Such a course would be contrary to the Sessional Supply Order they had already passed. He believed that it was wholly unprecedented for any Minister to set up Supply in an Autumn end of a Session. It was not done in 1882 or in 1893, and what was not attempted then could not, he thought, I be proposed now, either according to the ordinary Rules of the House or on account of the particular Rules which the House adopted this session. He thought His Majesty's Government would be well advised to restrict their business during this Session to the Education Bill, and to that alone, and he was perfectly convinced that they would have very considerable resistance to the Motion as it now stood. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean was certainly right in saving that the Motion as it stood would preclude the consideration of any of the forty days orders after two o'clock, because the Motion ordersat the conclusion of Government busines Mr. Speaker to adjourn the House without Question put. As His Majesty's Government had come to this session with the set purpose of passing the Education Bill by making all those reasonable compromises which tender consciences might require, and which reason did not forbid, he thought the right hon. Gentleman would be well advised to restrict his demand for the time of the House to the Education Bill alone.

said he wanted to make an appeal to the Prime Minister with regard to the Indian Budget. It was of the very greatest importance that this question, should be discussed early in the session) and protests had always been made from time to time against its being delayed. At this point the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Wyndham, Dover) entered the House, and was received with hisses from the Irish Members.

said hon. Members making that noise must desist. Such a proceeding was quite unheard of.

resuming, said that those interested in the Indian Budget felt that, when the discussion was postponed, the House had not sufficient opportunity of expressing its opinion on the subject of Indian finance. The Indian Budget had in ordinary sessions been postponed to near the end, and if it was postponed now, until near Christmas Day, it would be absolutely impossible to have a discussion in this House with regard to the financial proposals of the Government. He did not remember any year in which there were so many events of burning interest which ought to be discussed in this House. There was one particular question which would have to be discussed—that of the Indian tea planters. Tea planting was one of the important industries of India, and in connection with that there was the question of forcing liquor shops on, the tea planters against their will in order that the liquor might be consumed by the coolies. He hoped that the Prime Minister would arrange for the Indian Budget being taken before the 15th of next month. Such a course would give the greatest satisfaction not only to the increasing number of persons in this House who wore taking an interest in Indian questions, but also to the people of India. The Secretary and the Under Secretary for India were now in this House, and two very long and important speeches would be made on behalf of the India Office. He hoped the Prime Minister would take into consideration the desire of those interested in Indian questions that he would give an early opportunity for their discussion.

said that after the reply given to hon. Member for Kilkenny, the Premier would scarcely expect that this Motion would be accepted by the representatives of Ireland without whatever opposition they could give it. If the Motion were passed it would mean that so far as the Government were concerned five-sixths of the representatives of Ireland were to be gagged and closured for the entire period of this winter, while the Government were engaged in torturing their country to the very verge of revolt. It would be a better day's work perhaps for England, and possibly for the future of the existing Administration, if this were a Motion to give the entire time of the House to the affairs of Ireland. Instead of that they had not spent a single day in the whole of this prolonged session in remedying what they confessed to be the pressing necessities of Ireland, while they had wasted many a day in trying to still further silence the representatives of Ireland, and to wound and insult the feelings of the people. They were willing to spend any amount of time and money upon any subject or country on the face of the globe except that place, of all others within their dominions which most required attention from Parliament. One fragment of a night was given, something like six months ago, to the affairs of Ireland, when a Land Bill was introduced. It had never been heard of since, and he was glad to learn from this morning's papers that it would never be heard of again. It was actually made a crime on the part of the Irish representatives that they did not immediately accept that Bill without demur, although the Chief Secretary for Ireland now publicly confessed in his speech last night at Bolton that that Bill would not settle the Irish land question, and that, in fact, no English Government could settle it. The right hon. Gentleman had not settled anything in Ireland, but he had unsettled everything there. In a way, Ireland possibly would be better deserving of the attention of this House than even the educational civil war in which the Government proposed to spend the winter. It was the duty of every Irish Member to solemnly warn every man—if there were any on the other side who; had not made up their minds to support outrage—that the people's good-will would be of more value than all the people of the Rand, and to warn the House that the Chief Secretary, whose conduct they were not to discuss any more this winter, was creating a state of feeling among the Irish people wantonly and without a scrap of justification in the way of crime, without even believing himself in the policy of coercion he was carrying out. He was creating a feeling among the Irish people, and the Irish race, of revolution and of bitter indignation which the hon. Member did not care to dwell upon. He knew no more terrible indictment of the infatuation and the perfect hopelessness of English rule in Ireland than that this state of things was occurring in Ireland, when Parliament was asked and forced to turn the whole of its attention for the next four or five months to a matter which, though important, might have been disposed of if the Government had devoted to it the time wasted on the ridiculous new Rules, and if they had closed in good time with the compromise suggested by his hon. friend the Member for East Mayo. He would refer briefly to what was going on in Ireland. He would call no other witness than the Chief Secretary himself, who was in nominal command of the coercion campaign. The right hon. Gentleman had placed on record the now memorable declaration that what was going on in Ireland was a struggle between two great organisations—the landlords' organisation and the tenants' organisation—and that not he, not the Government, and not this House alone could bring the Irish land question to a satisfactory settlement.

said these matters could not be debated on this Motion.

asked whether it would be in order for the hon. Member to put down an Amendment that this particular topic should be discussed.

Whatever the Amendment proposed, it must be relevant to this Motion, and no Amendment would be in order which is not relevant to the Motion.

said he anticipated the objection of Mr. Speaker. He was sure Mr. Speaker would allow him to say that his view was that the Chief Secretary had practically thrown up the sponge as to the Government of Ireland, and that the right hon. Gentleman was simply going blind in the affairs of that country. His subordinates in Ireland were carrying on the Government in the most unconstitutional and barbarous way, and this was a matter of far more urgency and importance to England, as well as Ireland, than even the Education Bill. It must be remembered that if this Motion were passed they should have still two days in each week on which it would be possible for them to press these matters on the attention of the House; and in order to justify their claim for the retention of these two days, he respectfully submitted that it ought not to be made impossible for the Irish Members to go into some of the particulars of the unjustifiable state of the Government of Ireland in order to illustrate the state of Ireland. No further did he intend to go.

Order, order‡ I observe that the hon. Member is desirous to comply with the Rules of the House; but it is impossible for me to permit an argument of that kind on this Motion. The hon. Member will see that if that were not so, any hon. Member might say, "I object to this Motion because the Education Bill is so bad that I wish to alter it, and I. wish, in order to illustrate my argument, to make a Second Reading speech." I regret that the Rules of the House prevent me from allowing the hon. Member to proceed in that direction.

I submit that after the words in the Motion "for the remainder of the session, Government Business do have precedence at every sitting." there might be inserted. "except those days when any Bill or Motion relating to the affairs of Ireland is set down."

The hon. Member could not discuss upon that Motion the action of the Chief Secretary for Ireland.

said he did not intend to controvert the ruling of Mr. Speaker. He was sure these new Rules had brought more trouble to Mr. Speaker than to the Irish Members. His experience in this House was that in the older times and under the older Rules there was still something like free speech.

I did not say that this is any new Rule. These Motions for the Government taking the time of House have been made for many many years in this House, and upon all occasions no debate of the kind the hon. Member is proposing to initiate would have been in order.

said he should not contest the matter further. [Laughter from the Government Benches, and cries of "Order‡" and a voice: "The Education of England ‡" That was simply the: kind of thing which made English-men loved in Ireland [Loud cheers from the Irish Benches.] He simply desired to state that if this Motion was rejected by the House, if they still got time to address this House on the grievances of Ireland, it would be perfectly easy for them to show—and that was the lines of the argument he urged as against this Motion—that what was going on in Ireland was not a war against crime, but a war against public opinion, against the whole mass of the elected representatives of the people of every category—of Parliament, of Corporations, of County Councils, and of District Councils. They should be able to show the House that the Government were doing absolutely a new thing, the most unwarrantable thing in the whole history of Ireland, in imposing such a tyranny on a country which was without any crime or bloodshed, and on a question in which the Chief Secretary himself confessed that the Irish Members were in the right and their opponents in the wrong. But this he would say: that the Government might cut themselves out of the opportunity of discussing these things here, as well as in Ireland; they might sit on the safety valve; but they knew very little of Irish nature, or indeed of ordinary human nature, if they imagined that they could go on in that way without raising a spirit for which their worst enemies, perhaps, would thank them.

said he had no objection to the proposal of the Prime Minister, but in the discussion which had taken place in regard to the subjects on which the House was to occupy the autumn there had been no reference to one which appeared to him to be of urgent importance, in which time was a chief factor, and one which affected great public and private interests. He meant the subject of the Savings Banks. A Select Committee on Savings Banks sat last session under the chairmanship of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—and attention was given to the question of the deficiency which existed, and would be largely increased, after the automatic reduction of the interest on Consols in 1903. The Committee recommended that there should be a reduction of the interest paid by the State to the Savings Banks to the extent of an-eighth per cent., and also several administrative reforms. The Savings Banks year commenced and ended in November, and he could hardly conceive it possible that there could be legislation afterwards of a retrospective character, which would be injurious to the banks and most inconvenient to the large bodies of the depositors. He suggested this matter to the Government for their consideration, though personally he had not favoured any reduction of interest, and did not desire it or think it absolutely necessary, and asked them to say whether, and if so when, they proposed to deal with this question, which affected both the State and private individuals to a large extent. He believed that the result of the Government failing to say this definitely would lead to uncertainty, which already existed, and which was highly disadvantageous to the people, and to the greatest inconvenience on the part of the bank managers. Inasmuch as time was of the greatest importance in this regard, and if legislation was to take effect next year, the latter must be accomplished soon, so as to give ample notice to all concerned, and the House should be informed what the Government meant to do.

said that before coming to the question of the Education Bill, he wished to refer in a few words to two other points. Shortly before the adjournment he had asked the Prime Minister or the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the Vote for the Transvaal, and was informed that that would not be necessary at all. He was very glad to hear that the Government had changed their mind, and that an opportunity would be given to discuss that Vote. He had also asked a Question as to the pecuniary grant that was to be made to the Cunard Company. He did not understand from the right hon. Gentleman whether any opportunity would be given for discussing that matter. He hoped, however, that if a grant of money were to be made to the Cunard Company such an opportunity for discussing it would be afforded in the present session. But, after all, they had been summoned together to proceed primarily with the discussion of the Education Bill. ["Hear, hear‡" from the Government Benches.] That cheer was a very feeble one, which, he thought, was rather indicative of the measure of the support which the Bill would receive, and that was one of the reasons why he was going to oppose the Motion before the House. What was the position they were in? Here was a Bill of which they had disposed of two pages, and which they had yet to go over again; while there were still seventy pages of Amendments to dispose of. Looking to the number of those Amendments the Bill was on the "wrong grass," to use the phrase of a right hon. Gentleman opposite—even if this were a Bill which the country really demanded. [An HON. MEMBER on the Government Benches: ''It does."] The interruption came from an hon. representative of a constituency to which the Bill did not apply; that was a London Member. This was a Bill that clearly nobody wanted. He was perfectly certain that the Prime Minister did not want it, and that the right hon. Gentleman would be very glad if he had never had anything to do with it. And yet the House was asked to give facilities for it, to the exclusion of every other subject, such, for instance, as the condition of Ireland, which was one of the most important topics which the House could discuss. He did not think any Government had the right to press through the House of Commons a Bill like this, and ask for extra facilities for practically five months. Any Parliamentarian who went through the Amendments on the Paper must come to the conclusion that if the Prime Minister wished to force through the Bill he could not do so without the use of the closure, which would be monstrously unfair, before March next year. [Ministerial cries of "No, no ‡"] He asked hon. Members who had taken the same trouble to go through the Amendments as he had done, whether they must not come to the conclusion that there was great substance in them and that they must be fully discussed, especially when the state of public feeling in the country in regard to them was considered? [An HON. MEMBER on the Ministerial Benches: "No."] That was the voice of another Member for London; but he asked Members for constituencies which the Bill affected whether they imagined that their constituencies really wanted the Bill, and whether, on the contrary, they would not prefer that it should be put off? He asked the Prime Minister to take into account the health of his supporters. He had been reading every day in the columns of the Morning Post a long list of casualties, and he found that these supporters were breaking down under the strain. Already they had leave to take rest of from six weeks to three months. An hon. Gentleman on the other side who supported the Nonconformist view on this Bill had so considerably broken down under the strain that he had booked a passage to the West Indies and he had had to find an under-study. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bordesley would take up the râle, now that he was out of employment. He cautioned the Prime Minister not to put an intolerable; strain on his supporters to go against the wishes of their constituents, in the endeavour to pass a Bill which nobody asked for, for which the Government had no mandate, and for which the country had, by every constitutional method, indicated its clear antipathy. Certain hon. Members opposite questioned that statement. They must have spent the recess out of the country and therefore had not been convinced; let them look at all the indications, not merely at the great demonstrations, the great public meetings, but all the indications. They had the greatest test as to whether the noisy fanatics at these meetings were the majority of the opponents of the Bill or whether they were the minority, in the remarkable character of the recent elections. How many hon. Members opposite had been addressing public demonstrations in support of the Bill? He observed that during the last few days they had been exhorting each other and saying "we must do something to support the Government," but that was rather an exhortation to someone else to go on and do something. He did not observe that those gentlemen addressed meetings themselves. They had had private meetings in support of the Bill, but even in Birmingham they could not hold a public meeting in support, not even when the Colonial Secretary addressed it himself ‡ That was a remarkable indication in itself, but the arguments used by the Colonial Secretary with regard to the Bill showed that he clearly realised that his own supporters were against it. He did not say "this Bill is a good one," but "if you do not carry this Bill I will resign," and then he said "and mark the consequences. There shall be neither dew nor rain in the British Empire for seven long years," and a shudder passed over the Birmingham Liberal Unionists which lasted for four resolutions. They then recovered themselves, and another resolution was passed, which resulted in a terrible threat being used. Another meeting took place, when the only argument used was that the Bill was opposed by the Pro-Boers. The Liberal Unionists then in the House, who addressed that meeting, did not like the Bill and could not say much for it, but said "we have got to stick together or there will be a dissolution." When such a condition of things existed, when every constitutional method had been exhausted by the country to show that it disagreed with this measure, and whilst on the other hand nobody wanted the Bill except perhaps the Church, no Government had a right without a mandate from the people to misappropriate the trust funds of the State for such a purpose. It was a revolution in the educational system of the country; it offended the convictions of millions of the best citizens of the land, and without an express mandate the Government had no right to legislate upon it. Where a case of great urgency arose and it became necessary to legislate immediately, an Autumn Session might be summoned and the whole time given to that legislation, but even then it the country rose against it, as it had risen against the Education Bill, such legislation could not be proceeded with. The Government should go to the country and say "We have got to get this Bill through and we come to you for your judgment upon it." It was only the great personal popularity of the Prime Minister which would enable this Bill to be carried, but the right hon. Gentleman had no right to use his personal popularity for the purpose of flouting the opinion of the country and taking advantage of a verdict obtained on another issue for the purpose of carrying through a Bill against the wishes of thousands of the people who placed him in power. He did not think the House of Commons ought to give the right hon. Gentleman any privilege for doing anything of the kind. The Prime Minister, in his opinion, was not entitled to call upon the House to sit for four or five months and suspend the ordinary operation of the Rules of the House for the purpose of forcing through this Bill.

said as the right hon. Gentleman had spoken upon the subject of the Estimates which he purposed to ask for this year, he desired to know whether the right hon. Gentleman had considered the bearing of the new Rule passed upon the subject: "Any additional Estimate for any new matter not included in the Estimates for the year shall be submitted for consideration in Committee of Supply on some day not exceeding two days before the Committee is closed." So far as he could read the Rule, it appeared to him that it would debar the production of new Estimates after the Committee of Supply was closed. It was a very unusual practice to close Committee of Supply in the middle of a session, but it was done in 1893 and the late Lord Randolph Churchill took the objection at the time, that after the Committee was closed no further business of that character could be brought forward. He (Sir William Harcourt) expressed the opinion then that such a proposition could not be maintained. But that was not a question of bringing forward new Estimates, and he thought he was right in saving that no question was ever raied of introducing new Estimates after Committee of Supply had been closed. Having listened to what the hon. Member for King's Lynn had said, which he thought was well founded, he had come to the conclusion that the Rule did include new Estimates to be brought forward after the Committee of Supply had been closed. As this was the middle of the session and it was a matter of great importance that the finances of the country should be safeguarded, it would be as well to know whether the right hon. Gentleman had considered the matter.

The right hon. Gentleman has asked me a question in reference to a matter raised by the hon. Member for King's Lynn, which deals with a point on which I should not like to give a, conclusive opinion now, nor is it relevant really to this discussion. I was asked to make a general statement as to the views of the Government in regard to business, and I explained to the House that one of the things we ought to deal with was the necessity of finding money for the Transvaal, and possibly also for the Uganda Railway. I think a statement to that effect was made by my noble friend the Under Secretary at an earlier period of the session. With regard to the need for finding money for the Transvaal, that, as the House knows, arises directly out of the arrangements come to at the time peace was signed. I indicated to the House the method which I think ought to be pursued; I will consider any difficulty that has been raised, in the course of this debate, and the proper time to discuss those difficulties will be when the Government make their definite proposals on those subjects to the House. The right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean wanted to know whether it would be possible—probable, at least—should an occasion arise, to have a discussion on one of those resolutions which by Statute have to lie forty days on the Table of the House. I think by a practice known to the House, it would, be possible if that should be necessary. An appeal was made to me by an hon. Gentleman opposite not only to bring on the Indian Budget early, but, I think, to devote two days or more to it. I think, that is a somewhat excessive demand on the time of the House. I do not at all say that the subject is not one of great importance, but after all, we must cut our coat according to our cloth, and we must have some proportion in the time allowed to the various subjects under discussion. I cannot hold out hope to the hon. Gentleman that I should gladly or willingly see two days devoted to the; Indian Budget.

Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether it will be taken early?

I have consulted my noble friend the Secretary of State for India as to when it will be brought in, but I do not know what great gain is to be obtained by an early discussion of the subject. My hon. friend the Member for South Islington asked me whether we ought not to introduce a Bill this year dealing with the difficulty which undoubtedly will arise when the rate of interest on Consols is compulsorily reduced, as I think it will be on the 1st April next. That, no doubt, does raise a question of importance in relation to the interest to be paid to Savings Bank depositors; but I gather from my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it will not be necessary to deal with that matter at present. May I say in regard to the general statement as to the business to be taken, that while I have endeavoured to indicate to the House the business, other than the Education Bill or the Water Bill, which we ought to take, I must not be held to pledge the Government not to deal with public necessities should public necessities arise. I am not giving a pledge to the House or the country on this subject. I am indicating the general intention of the Government, and I hope it will be distinctly understood on all sides of the House that the Government will ask the House to deal with anything else that it is pressingly and obviously necessary in the public interest should be immediately dealt with. The only general pledge I give to the House is that it will not be asked to discuss general legislative questions which, however interesting or important, can be deferred to a subsequent session. I believe, in that connection, I ought to mention in the first place a one-clause Bill which my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War will introduce and explain in good time, and which he tells me ought to be passed without any undue delay. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs opposed this Motion on the ground that the country, in his opinion, dislikes the Education Bill. I am not going to enter into the question as to whether the country likes or dislikes that Bill, or as to whether it will like it more when it knows more about it, or as to whether the Bill will grow in favour or grow in disfavour. These are questions which any man may estimate and may judge for himself, but I absolutely deny the constitutional principle which the hon. Gentleman has laid down, which is that this House is incapable of dealing with any measure if a certain number of Gentlemen express their own opinion that the country dislikes it. May I call the attention of the House to the extraordinary difference in the principle which appears to animate hon. Gentlemen when they are dealing with the present situation, and the principle which animated, these very hon. Gentlemen when they were dealing with the position of public business in 1893–4. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen, on behalf of the Opposition, did attempt to draw a parallel between the present situation and the situation in 1893, very much to the advantage of the situation in 1893. He said that it was quite true that the Government of that day asked the House to re-assemble in the autumn, but it was not in order to discuss a controversial Bill, but in order to discuss the Parish Councils Bill, which, passed its Second Reading without a division. That I believe is quite a true statement of fact. But how did the Government of 1893 ever get to the position which, enabled them to devote an autumn session to a Bill which was not opposed on its Second Reading? They did it by closuring in compartments the Home Rule Bill mouths earlier. If we had adopted that operation in regard to the Education Bill, we need not have had an autumn session at all for a Bill either controversial or uncontroversial. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs thinks that our procedure in this matter should be regulated by his estimate of the popular favour held by the constituencies for the moment in reference to the Education Bill. I do not know whether he thinks that the Home Rule Bill was so passionately liked, by the constituencies that it was proper and right for those then in charge of the business of the House to take the course they did. I hardly think the hon. Gentleman would take up that position.

They were elected on that issue, after all. This Government was not elected to deal with education; it was elected for the war.

If the hon. Gentleman raises that issue, I would ask what he thinks of the Home Rule Bill introduced in 1886. It does seem to me that the right hon. Gentleman opposite is adopting a very extravagant position when he says that the Government of 1893 were justified in prolonging the session, because the Bill they asked the House to consider was not divided against on the Second Reading, when the only method by which the Government ever reached that relatively favourable position in regard to public business was by closuring in compartments the Home Rule Bill in the preceding July. The only other observation of an argumentative character which I think I need make is that arising out of the claim made by a great many hon. Gentlemen opposite that, although we have met for the purpose, in the main, of dealing with the Education Bill this autumn, we ought to leave the ordinary arrangements for private Members' business as if this were an ordinary part of an ordinary session. There can be no justification for a practice so absolutely novel. Never has Parliament put upon itself the great strain of meeting in the autumn to finish measures which could not be completed during the early part of the session, without giving to the Government the facilities for which we now ask. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean will, I think, admit the historical accuracy of what I say; but if I understood his speech aright, he contends that a new principle or a new practice has been introduced by the new Rules of the House. He asks, having regard to the pledges and the statement of policy made by myself in introducing these Rules, and inasmuch as I had stated my hope with reference to the new Rules that however much they might interfere with the paper privileges of unofficial Members, the real privileges of unofficial Members would be greatly augmented, how was it consistent with that general undertaking that I gave when I asked the House to reform or to revolutionise its proceedings. If the right hon. Gentleman will turn to the report in Hansard he will see that an Amendment was discussed which makes it necessary for me to make this Motion today, and without which this Motion would not have been made. That Amendment was supported from the other side of the House, and I accepted it with reluctance, but I distinctly stated:—

"The universal experience of the House had shown that when the House met for an autumn session after an adjournment it met to finish up Government Bills." [(4) Debates, cv., 1491.]

What about ordinary business?

I cannot give any pledge with regard to ordinary business. The main business every week will be the Education Bill. No doubt there will be evening sittings, and possibly an occasional morning sitting, at which other business will be taken. I cannot give any general programme on that subject, but the general policy of the Government is plain. The Education Bill is what, in the main, we have met to deal with, and to that the main bulk of our time must be devoted.

When will the Water Bill be taken?

It will be taken, with the other measures to which I have referred, when we are not taking the Education Bill.

What about the Cunard subsidy?

I understand that no Estimate will be required for that this year. So I am informed. I suppose there will be an Estimate next year. May I ask the House now to consent to bring the debate to a conclusion? May I read one sentence from the speech of the hon. Member for Waterford, who was addressing himself to the Amendment to the Rule to which I have referred? I am quoting from the same page of Hansard. The hon. Member said—

"The right hon. Gentleman said that Parliament never met under those circumstances except to discuss some business which was so urgent that the whole House was anxious to discuss it, and to devote all their time to it. Suppose that was the case, why should the Government be afraid of having a discussion under those circumstances which could not last more than a couple of hours."

said the House must have been surprised at the entire omission from the right hon. Gentleman's speech of any reference to Ireland. The hon. Member for the Carnarvon Boroughs had spoken of the feeling of England with regard to the present Government. That was a matter he would leave to English Members, but as to the opinion of Ireland he would simply point the right hon. Gentleman to the first chapter of Revelations, where reference was made to the Church of the Laodiceans. What was there said would happen to those who were neither hot nor cold very well represented the physical proceeding which in a political form the people of Ireland would inflict upon the present Government if they had the opportunity. The present debate had had an instructive prologue. The hon. Member for the City of Cork had asked for a day for the discussion of the condition of Ireland. To that request one of the most extraordinary answers ever given in the House of Commons had been returned. It was not a denial of the gravity of the condition of Ireland, but a promise that if the demand were made, not by representatives of Ireland, but by the representative of an English s party, it would be granted. And yet the right hon. Gentleman spoke of the "doctrines of Separatists‡" What would have been said if Wales were in a condition approaching revolution, and the leader of the Welsh Members, on asking for a day for the discussion of the condition of that country, had been told that the request would be granted only if made by an Englishman or a Scotsman? He would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Irish party had been in alliance with more than one party in the House of Commons It was an alliance which had been sometimes injurious and sometimes beneficial; it had been injurious to a Party which honestly took up the cause of Ireland, and beneficial to a Party which hypocritically attempted to use the Irish Party for its own purposes. But when the Prime Minister and the Members of the Fourth Party were hunting in couples with the Irish Parnellite Party, and secret interviews and secret understandings were taking place, the Irish Members were not called the slaves of their Tory allies. Nor were, they the slaves of the Liberals today. The Liberals did not want to impose their official position upon the Irish Party, and if they did the Irish Members would not accept it. They simply demanded in the name of Ireland a day for the discussion of the condition of their country, and it was an additional insult to Ireland to say that that demand would be refused when made by the representatives of Ireland, but granted if put forward by an English Party. So far as the Government could carry out its policy the voice of National Ireland was stifled. If public meetings were held, the police dispeised them. If public men made speeches, the Chief Secretary called in two of his despicable tools from Dublin Castle—tools as base as those who did to death the Lord Edward Fitzgerald whose blood ran in the right hon. Gentleman's veins. The successors of Major Sirr had been used by a Geraldine for the purpose of putting into prisons a Geraldine's political opponents. The voice of Irish representatives was being stifled in jail by sentences which England alone passed upon political offenders, and these methods were being employed against political opponents by one who ran round the House asking Irish Members to support a request to put into a different category prisoners of his own political persuasion—men who were indeed political offenders, but men on whoso souls rested the guilt of as bloody and unjust a war as ever devastated a country.

reminded the hon. Member that the present was not an occasion for discussing generally the policy of the Government in Ire and.

said he was not discussing the policy of the Government in Ireland; he was discussing the state of Ireland, and urging that as a reason for demanding time for discussion, instead of Irish representatives being gagged.

said he had already explained the limits within which that might be done. The hon. Member was not at liberty to debate the question of Ireland. He was entitled to urge that time should not be taken by the Government because it left no opportunity for discussing the needs of Ireland, but he was not entitled to go in detail into the question, otherwise every question which could possibly be the subject of a Motion or Bill could be discussed on the present Motion.

repeated that he was not discussing the policy of the Government, he was discussing the state of Ireland, just as a Welsh Member had been permitted to discuss the state of England.

pointed out that the hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs had commented on the statement of the First Lord that time was asked for the consideration of the Education Bill, and he argued that time ought not to be granted because the Bill was unpopular. He had then given reasons for stating the Bill was unpopular. But that was a totally different thing from what the hon. Member for Scotland Division was doing, for the hon. Member, on the question of the time of the House being taken by the Government, was proposing to discuss the condition of Ireland.

said he thought that if the hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs was allowed to discuss the popularity of the Education Bill in this country, certainly he might be allowed to say something of the popularity of the Government in a country where the constitution was suspended. However, he did not want to even approach anything like a controversy with the Chair, because its authority must be preserved in an assembly like the House of Commons, and he would pass the matter by simply with the observation that he had sometimes longed to be a Welshman but he never longed so much, as he did now. What was the position of the Prime Minister with regard to their demand? Their demand was so fair, modest and urgent, and so required by the necessities of the case that ho thought the right hon. Gentleman would have been ashamed to refuse it. Their demand was that as the Government had silenced the Irish people, as far as they could, at least in this great Parliament the voice of Ireland might be heard. The right hon. Gentleman opposite was always telling them that they could get full justice for Ireland in Parliament, and that they could get more justice from an English Parliament than on the floor of an Irish Assembly. They came to the House with Ireland coerced and gagged, and they asked for one day to have the condition of the country discussed, but the Prime Minister replied that if a mere Irishman made the demand it would be refused, but if the demand had the sanction and patronage of one of the superior races then the request would be granted and Ireland would be heard. He was not sorry for the incidents of this debate. He was not sorry for the words used that afternoon, by whomsoever spoken, for they carried their lesson. They had had a brief debate, but it would be a fruitful one, and if Ireland had any doubt of its right and its duty to appeal from this unjust House and this unjust Government to a House and Government of its own people, then the Irish people were too blind to read the signs which were dearly written on the wall.

said he rose for the purpose of saying a few words upon the subject of the Uganda Railway. (Laughter.) In this he was greatly encouraged by the flattering way in which the subject was received by the House. Speaking as a native of Uganda, he wished to thank the Government for the great measure of advance they had made in Uganda, which he was sure would bring calm to Kerry and balm to Ballydehob. He thanked the Government for the proposed expenditure upon that country of further millions of public money and for proposing to take up the time of the House, as promised by the Prime Minister, with further discussions on this project. When ho contemplated the condition of portions of the Empire he could not help felicitating the Government upon the proposal to spend time and money upon the inhabitants of that distant and neglected island at a time of great stringency when the Education Bill was exciting so much passion! There must be some reason for this flattering attention which Uganda had received, He believed it was a perfectly crimeless country. Its administration was in the bands of the most virtuous "removables" the British Empire could afford. There law and order proceeded with a regularity of which they had no example in this country, and hence it was that, at a moment when Party passions had been roused to then highest pitch, the British Parliament was prepared to turn aside from mere paltry topics such as the affairs of Ireland, England, Scotland and Wales, and devote itself with one voice to the necessities of the people of that afflicted area. The Prime Minister was new to his office, but, by his promise to Uganda, he. had given a pledge to the Empire at large which would resound through Australia, Canada, and through every Colony and Republic absorbed by England, assuring distant peoples that however much this Parliament, which they were told only yesterday devoted so much time to sticking pins in pin cushions, might have its hands full yet it they had a nigger, a painted savage, or a heathen roaming in in the woods, the Prime Minister of England still had a tear at his disposal, and was prepared to appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to pour out the gold of England for the benefit of benighted mankind. Irish Members had long gloried in being Members of this Parliament and might now take comfort in the destruction of their own Parliament, for could they imagine within the narrow walls of an Irish Parliament such disinterestedness. When their own country was palpitating with emotion, could they imagine an Irish Parliament showing such altruism and turning aside to contemplate the condition of Uganda? No, it was here alone that they could contemplate such unselfishness. Irish Members would return to their own country, elevated and ennobled by the reflection, that though Connaught might be desolate and Munster miserable this House at least had a watchful care for the people of Uganda.

said Irishmen were invited to leave the discussion of their own affairs, which at present were being run under the Coercion Act, to come here and listen to discussions on the English Education Bill, which seemed to satisfy nobody, not even the Prime Minister. His hon. and learned friend the Member for North Louth had discussed the question of the further advances to the Uganda Railway, and the question of squandering further sums on the trackless sands of African deserts. He proposed to move an Amendment dealing with a specific question, and it was this. This was a most unseasonable time to withdraw from the consideration of Parliament proceedings in Ireland, which were absolutely unique and unprecedented in Irish history. Here there were 86 members out of 670, who charged the Government of the day with violating the fundamental principles of the constitution in Ireland, and the only answer was, "No, we gag you in Ireland and we gag you on the floor of the House of Commons." What were the Government afraid of? Were they ashamed of the removable magistrates? Were they afraid of an exposure being made of the abuse and prostitution of the forms of law which at present obtained in Ireland? They were afraid of it. If not, they would not hesitate to give a day or two for the discussion of this exceptional state of things. It had been said that in former times the excuse for coercion was that a state of crime and outrage prevailed. Not even the most hardened Member of the Cabinet had the face and the effrontery to make that statement now, and yet savage, vindictive, contemptible, and cruel sentences were being passed on public men in Ireland for what were called offences—men against whom no moral stigma was attached. The most powerful Government of modern times were afraid to give a few hours for the discussion of a state of things which was fomented by their own agents, and which was a disgrace to the Empire. It would be a disgrace to the most oppressive tyranny that ever oppressed a people. The representatives of Ireland did not make any considerable demand on the time of the House, but they did demand that if this violation of the constitution was to continue, they should not be denied for months time and opportunity for exposing what they denounced as the cruel wrongs under which Ireland was at the present moment suffering through the practical suspension of the constitutional rights and guarantees of the people. He moved his Amendment as a protest against the action of the Government, on behalf of the Irish Parliamentary Party and the Irish people. If the Government did not accept the Amendment, it was a plain declaration to Ireland that they were; afraid to discuss the dirty work their tools were doing in that country.

seconded the Amendment. It occurred to him that almost any subject may be discussed in this House except the condition of Ireland. In the programme the Prime Minister had put before the House for the Autumn Session he had omitted one very important measure. The right hon. Gentleman had not been unmindful of public opinion in England and Wales in regard to the Education Bill. The Non-conformists had declared that they would strike, against the rate if the Education Bill were passed in its present form. Did the Prime Minister propose to pass a Coercion Act for England and Wales, or did he propose to extend to thorn the Jubilee Coercion Act at present in force in Ireland? That appeared to be one great flaw in the proposal of the Prime Minister. He was sure the Chief Secretary would be obliging enough to give him a dozen removable magistrates to enforce the Education Act in England. Ireland could afford to lose them. Members of Parliament were sent to prison for the action they took on behalf of their countrymen, and yet their colleagues were denied the opportunity of discussing the state of affairs in Ireland. They were supposed to live under the British Constitution, bat the British Constitution did not exist in Ireland. To all intents and purposes they might as well live under the Turk. They would be better in Russia, because there there was only one despot. In Ireland he did not know how many despots there were. Besides the Chief Secretary there were Lord Cronbrock, Lord Abercorn and Lord Barrymore, and he could name half-a-dozen other despots. Give him Russian or Turkish rule. He had a greater stake in Ireland than the Chief Secretary, and he had nothing to gain by outrage and crime. The greatest enemy of law and order in Ireland was the man who sowed the seed which must inevitably lead to disorder. There was order now because the national movement had brought the people from other courses and made them put their confidence in the national struggle. The present course pursued by the Government in Ireland was calculated to drive the people to desperation.

The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised at my not being able to accept the Amendment proposed. The hon. Member for the Scotland Division has expressed surprise that I have made no reference to what has been said earlier in the debate in regard to Ireland. It escaped my memory, and it was not due to discourtesy of any kind to the Gentleman who discussed that subject. It is not correct to say that there will be no opportunity for debates on Ireland at all during the latter part of the present year. If an occasion should arise which seems to require debate, the power remains with the hon. Gentleman to move the adjournment of the House. I was surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen say that that power was now limited. It is not more limited now than it was in 1893, The limitation of which he spoke was that which arises out of the rulings of successive Speakers that the adjournment of the House cannot be moved on any subject with regard to which there is a Motion on the Paper.

said his point was that in 1893 no use was made of the Rule under which Motions for the Adjournment of the House were ruled out by putting on the Paper a Motion dealing with the same question.

I think the right hon. Gentleman is mistaken. Nor do I think that the Rule to which he has referred has been used to prevent Motions for the adjournment of the House. My memory does not recall a single case in which the discussion of an Irish grievance has been prevented by the fact of a Motion being placed on the Paper. Therefore, at all events so far as Ireland is concerned, I do not think there has been any encroachment on the rights—sometimes in my opinion greatly abused, sometimes greatly taken advantage of—in connection with moving the adjournment of the House. It is only necessary for me to say in connection with the Amendment before the House that it would be a total violation of the practice of all former Governments in the case of Autumn Sessions. It would be in itself highly inconvenient, and I do not think it is necessary that we should debate the Amendment which the hon. Gentleman has moved. Even without the Amendment there will be far greater opportunities afforded for the discussion of Irish grievances in the Autumn Session than if the Government had followed the usual procedure and had not had an Autumn Session at all.

I only wish to express my strong, opinion, after the discussion we have had in this House, that the Irish Members have a right to a day for the discussion of the condition of Ireland, which, as we know, is at present under the Coercion Act. It is a fact that there is need at the present time for the early discussion of the condition of affairs in, Ireland. The question is whether the Irish representatives appearing in the House of Commons should or should not have the right to state their case in this Autumn Session. In my opinion they have that right and ought to be supported, and so far as regards my vote, at all events, it will be given in favour of their having the opportunity. The Government have got at their disposal the time of the House. Of course the right hon. Gentleman said in his speech that the Government were going to deal with an important subject. [A HON. MEMBER: "Uganda,"]

Let the hon. Gentleman wait till he sees what the Uganda Vote really is.

Whatever importance attaches to the case of Uganda, the case of suspension of the ordinary law in Ireland is still more important and is very urgent. It is a subject on which the people of England, as well as those of Ireland, ought to be satisfied as to its necessity, just as much as in the case of. martial law. Martial law is justified, where the necessity is proved to the people of the country, and the people of this country ought to be satisfied as to the necessity of the suspension of the ordinary law in Ireland. The Government can easily give time for the purpose of an Irish sitting in which the Irish Members may have an opportunity of stating their case. In my opinion it is just and fair that they should be given that opportunity, and therefore I shall vote in favour of any Motion which has that effect.

said that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister seemed to think-that he had disposed of the Irish claim for a day to discuss the condition of Ireland when he said that if there had not been an Autumn Session the Irish Members would not have been there. Why were they there? They had their own Parliament, of which England had robbed them; and now that they were in the Imperial Parliament they had the same rights as the right hon. the Member for Dover. That right hon. Gentleman, however, had gone over to Ireland, and with the assistance of his removable magistrates had caused ten Members of this House to be arrested, and in some cases imprisoned, because they had made political speeches displeasing to him. The Prime Minister had said that, because he wanted to pass an Education Bill for England, the Irish Members had no right to open their mouths for Ireland. But they would open their mouths for Ireland, and he told the right hon. Gentleman that he would be sick and sore at heart for the refusal which he had given that day to their demand. The right hon. Gentleman thought he could stifle the voice of Ireland. Before the session was many days older the Leader of the Irish Party, which represented five-sixths of the people of Ireland, would be addressing the representatives of 20 millions of the Irish race in the first free city of America, and he told the right hon. Gentleman that the most eloquent speech which the Leader of the Irish Party would make to that assemblage would not be half so eloquent proof of the injustice done by England to Ireland as the speech of the right hon. Gentleman in this House today. Attempts had formerly been made to drive discontent under the surface in Ireland, and he did not think they had ever been too successful. It was not often they saw two Irishmen on the Front Bench opposite. There were now two right hon. Gentlemen there who had known Ireland for more than twenty years, and he could not believe that the Solicitor General for England or the Attorney General for Ireland agreed that the Prime Minister was acting wisely in refusing to give Ireland a day. The Education Bill had been exciting great commotion in England. He had been reading the newspapers, which it was said the Prime Minister never did, and therefore he was in a position to be better acquainted with the feeling in England than the right hon. Gentleman. He had been reading speeches made by people of high position—some by clergymen, some by Members of Parliament, some by men distinguished in various walks of life, and he found that many of them had called upon their constituencies and the people to combine and refuse to pay rates. Now, rent was no more sacred than rates; but if two or three Members of Parliament, or others, stood on a platform in Ireland, and called upon the people not to pay rent, the Member for Dover came along with his "removables," and hauled them up under a charge of conspiracy, and sent them to prison with hard labour. Yet in England they could combine to defy the law and refuse to pay the rates with impunity. He would like to see the right hon. Gentleman venture to bring down a brace of "removables" to any constituency in England for the purpose of arresting and imprisoning any Member of this House. He was inclined to thank the Prime Minister for doing something to compel the Irish Members to realise that which, perhaps, they had not yet fully recognised—the degradation of being governed by this House. Thank God the right hon. Gentleman had given them an eye-opener. There were at present in Ireland some people who thought that what was necessary for the preservation of Ireland was to keep the right hon. Gentleman in power, but he thanked the right hon. Gentleman for ringing the knell of English Government in Ireland. He denied that any justice was to be got for Ireland from a Tory Government. The Prime Minister, who had pitched the right hon. Member for Dover into his Cabinet, had stood idly by when the latter dragged Irish Members to prison for exercising the right of free speech. He could not help saying that the right hon. Gentleman had done a good thing for Ireland by his speech tonight. That speech would be flashed across to America, and would do good there also, because it showed that the right hon. Gentleman had been stifling the ventilation of the grievances of Ireland.

A point was raised almost at the beginning of our proceedings tonight which is relevant to the Amendment now under discussion, and to which I venture to draw the attention of the First Lord of the Treasury. The point is that some ten or more Members of this House have been withdrawn from the service of the House by sentence of Courts of Law. As to the constitution; of those Courts I make no remark at all; they are Courts sitting by the authority of Acts of Parliament; but it is an extraordinary circumstance the for the first time so far as I understand, Members have been withdrawn from the service of the House without any communication of the fact being made to this House by Mr. Speaker. Whether I can put it so high as to assert that this House has a right to exact instantaneous reports to this House of the withdrawal of Members from the service of the House, I am not in a position to say; but this I can certainly state, from my own experience, which is not inconsiderable, that if there is not such a right it is an established custom. Plenty of Members of Parliament have been sent to prison within the last twenty years, but I do not believe that (with deference to your own investigations, Mr. Speaker), a single case has occurred of a sentence of imprisonment being passed upon a Member of this House which was not followed with the least possible interval of time by a report of the circumstances to Mr. Speaker. I therefore want to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he proposes to take any action, and if so what action, to call the attention of those, which I venture to call defaulting Courts, which have made default in regard to the usage of this House. If not, what is to be the understanding for the future? Is a resident magistrate, or other legally constituted Court, to be in a position to withdraw Members of this House from the service of the House without making any report, or drawing the attention of the House to it? For my part, without any hesitation whatever, I wish to say that I support the Amendment now under discussion. The House does not seem to realise, and it is a very mournful thing that it should be so, what is the exact meaning and significance of the present state of the case in Ireland. I am not going into the history of the Crimes Act of 1887, but the House will remember that one of the strongest arguments used by the First Lord of the Treasury in making the Crimes Act perpetual, when we made the objection that the Government would be able under that Act to withdraw the representatives of the sister kingdom from the service of the House without discussion—the argument the right hon. Gentleman used constantly, with the utmost vehemence, but not more vehement than was right, was—and he assured and re-assured the House on that point—that there was no chance whatever of these exceptional powers being brought into operation without the House having full opportunity of discussing the case which was to be made for such a proceeding. Let us consider what would happen in England and Scotland if the Government were to withdraw either of these countries, or the larger portion of them, including the capital of the country, from the operation of the ordinary law. I should like to see it tried in Scotland ‡ And yet, in this House, we are grudged an opportunity, though not absolutely refused, to discuss such an extraordinary and serious step of this importance in the case of Ireland. Personally I for one cannot refrain from supporting hon. Gentlemen; below the gangway when they demand an opportunity for discussing proceedings which have withdrawn one eighth of their number from the service of the House.

said he was only speaking from report, he was not present when, as he understood, Mr. Speaker read the letter which referred to two of the hon. Gentlemen only who were withdrawn from the service of the House by a sentence of a court of law. He was making inquiries into the circumstances of the other cases, and if the right hon. Gentleman or any hon. Member would put a Question to him either tomorrow or at an early date he-would be able to give a full answer to it

said as a Member of the House of many years standing he, like all other Members elected for Irish constituencies, had had frequent occasion to observe the difficulties with which they had to contend in order to do any good for their country in this House, but never before had the incapacity of this assembly to do justice to Ireland been so emphasised. The present circumstances amply illustrated the system by which Ireland was governed. The majority of the Irish Members demanded that the House should give one day in the course of the next two months in order that they might criticise the government of their country, and a more reasonable and moderate demand had never been put forward by any Member of any party in the House. It was characteristic of what he might term the contemptuous insolence with which the Irish people were continuously treated that while this moderate and legitimate demand was being made the man who had been sent by the House and by the Government to conduct the administration of the law in Ireland did not even think it worth his while to be in his seat to hear what Irish Members had to say. Even those who were inclined to hold that the Irish Members were not justified in continually complaining of the treatment meted out to their country, would, he thought, be obliged to admit that under these circumstances there was ground for complaint. If the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland were in his place, he would ask him whether he was prepared to declare that in his opinion Irish Members were not justified in demanding that at least a short time should be given to them for the discussion of the affairs of their country, and he would be much interested to hear the right hon. Gentleman's reply. Why did not the right hon. Gentleman come and support the demand which was made? He could only form the conclusion that it was because the right hon. Gentleman was afraid of the criticisms that would be offered to his mode of administration; criticisms which the right hon. Gentleman knew the Irish Members would direct against him. If he were the Chief Secretary, responsible for the administration of Ireland at the present time, he would welcome criticism and have at least the courage to hear what his opponents had to urge against his conduct. But the right hon. Gentleman was afraid that the opinion of the House would be so stirred by the story of what was being done in Ireland in the name of England, that he refused to allow a single day to be given in order to raise the question before the House. The right hon. Gentleman t Member for Montrose put before the House what must have been in the minds of many when he asked what would happen in England if a state of affairs existed there similar to that which existed in Ireland at the present time; if ten British Members were prosecuted, not under the general laws but under a special law, and sentenced as common criminals and withdrawn from the service of those who elected them, and the Members of this House demanded that a day should be allotted to the treatment of that case. Would it be refused? The public of England would insist on the utmost publicity being given to the treatment of those Members of Parliament. But what happened in Ireland? The representatives of the people were sentenced by an extraordinary tribunal which existed only in that country, and this House was not allowed to listen to the case in which their fellow-Members were involved. The Prime Minister, a few moments previously, had stated in his speech that the case of Ireland had slipped from his memory. How could people complain of the Irish people being discontented and disloyal when they were treated in this way—when they were represented in such a way that so little did Ireland occupy the attention of the right hon. Gentleman that its very existence escaped him? Then, on the motion of the hon. Member for Cork, that this Rule should not apply to days when Irish matters were under discussion, the Prime Minister had said the Irish representatives were not in such hard case, because if they wished to discuss Irish affairs they could easily move the adjournment of the House. This was the first occasion on which he had heard such advice given by a member of the Government, and even if that advice were accepted, the right hon. Gentleman knew only too well that that course would be absolutely inadequate, because moving the adjournment of the House only meant a three hours debate from nine to twelve, which would not give an adequate opportunity of putting the facts before the House. The Irish Members were tonight face to face with a state of affairs to which they were unfortunately too long accustomed. They were allowed to come to this House in order that the world might be told that Ireland was governed constitutionally, and in the House they were denied the right of even having one day—twenty-four hours—to discuss the government of their country. Such treatment would justify the Irish people over and over again in having recourse to every method in their power in order to put an end to a system of government so unfair, so unconstitutional, and so scandalous. It was impossible for him to know from the rulings of Mr. Speaker whether it was in his competence to discuss to any extent whatever the condition of Ireland, under the system of coercion which had been put into force there. The hon. Member for Carnarvon was undoubtedly permitted to discuss in some detail the bearing of the Education Bill, for which the House was told the Autumn Session was inaugurated by the Government, but the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool, upon the other hand, had been several times called to order because he referred, with not nearly so much detail as the hon. Member for Carnarvon in the case of the Education Bill, to the condition of affairs in Ireland. If Members of the House had an opportunity of listening to the statement that could be made as to the operation of the Coercion Act at the present time, it would make those who were opposed to the Irish party as indignant as the Irish party itself. He contended that it was an outrageous misuse of the power of the Government to treat as ordinary criminals well-known Members of this House. The Chief Secretary, who, he observed, was now in his place, would himself admit that Ireland was a crimeless country; there was neither outrage or bloodshed, nor attacks on person or property. There was nothing but a combination of the people—no stronger and quite as legitimate as any labour combination in this country. Yet men who were Members of this House, because they advised the people of Ireland to put their face against outrage, crime, and violence, and place their reliance in this combination, had been sentenced to imprisonment, not as political offenders, but as common criminals, with all the attendant circumstances of degradation and misery which had no equal in this country. One hon. Member of the House, returned by an overwhelming majority, had been sentenced to three months hard labour, and in order that his punishment might be the greater, he was sentenced to three separate terms of one month each, the effect of which was that for the first fortnight of each of those periods he was compelled to sleep on the hard wood bed, was deprived of exercise, and starved upon bread and water. Yet that hon. Member was a gentleman against whose honour not a word could be spoken. He was a man with whom Members of this House were used to associate, and yet he and the Member for East Galway were to be treated like the lowest description of criminals. [Here a remark, which was inaudible in the gallery, was made by a Unionist Member.] He would not pay any attention to the remarks of hon. Members who sneered at the degradation inflicted upon their fellow-Members. He knew that there were Members on the other side of the House who did not approve of such proceedings, and he heartily believed that the majority of the Unionists had no sympathy with the action of cads. He would probably not have an opportunity for some time of speaking in this House, and he was anxious to state how strongly Irish opinion was inflamed by the administration of the law at the present time. He remembered when feeling ran high in this country on the subject of the war, when men were robbed and assaulted, and riotous mobs marched through Scarborough. Then they were told that allowances had to be made for human nature. No allowance had been made for human nature in Ireland, and it was not unnatural that a feeling of indignation should be cherished by the Irish people and their representatives in this House, when they contemplated the punishment, degradation, and misery put upon certain Irish Members, not for any crime, or riot, or disturbance which had been created by them, but because they had advocated, as they were quite entitled to do, a combination of the people and tenants of Ireland in the great struggle which was now taking place between the tenantry and the landlords of that country. Ten hon. Members had been treated in this way, the capital of Ireland had been proclaimed, and newspaper editors and others were being prosecuted all over the country, yet when the representatives of the Irish people asked that one day might be given to them in order that they might justify their proceedings before the world, that time was refused them. He supposed they would be asked next to support the Prime Minister in the division lobbies, but all he could say was that he thought the Irish Party should take the first opportunity to hurl the Government from office. If the Chief Secretary for Ireland imagined that by the course he was pursuing he would break up the combination of the people, and break the spirit, and turn the Irish Members from their course, the right hon. Gentleman was greatly mistaken. There were few among those who sat for Irish constituencies who were not prepared to suffer ten thousand times all the cruelties and all the tyrannies of law that could be put upon them, either by the right hon. Gentleman or any one who might occupy his position. The right hon. Gentleman was upholding a system in Ireland for which over and over again he had expressed his disgust and contempt. Over and over again had the right hon. Gentleman expressed his disgust at the system by which England held Ireland, yet such was his ambition, such his greed of power, that he did not hesitate to fill the position he did in the Government, which enabled him to inflict so much degradation on his colleagues in this House. He invited the House to compare what was being done under the Coercion Act in Ireland with what was being done in England, whore outrage and crime of the most dastardly description were punished without half the suffering with which these offences were treated in Ireland. If hon. Members would do that, they would well understand why the Irish people were in a state of semi-revolt at the present time. He devoutly wished and prayed to God that the Irish people had even the remotest chance, with their representatives, of striking with arms in their hands against the violent tyrannies to which they were subjected. If they had but the remotest chance of success they would do it. After all, it was impossible to explain in the British House of Commons the feelings of the Irish people with regard to the treatment meted out to their representatives. But the Prime Minister and the Chief Secretary for Ireland would have reason to know in the future, as they had had reason to know too well in the past, that the Irish representatives were not likely to flinch from the duty entrusted to them. They did not ask that the sentences should be lightened; they did not complain of the paltry imprisonment to which they were subjected; all they asked was that the men who were sentenced in Ireland to these punishments should not be asked to undergo the degradation which was only meted out in this country to the worst class of criminals. Nothing more contemptible, nothing more cowardly or more totally lacking in all the instincts of gentility, could be imagined than the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary in endeavouring to degrade the men who were politically opposed to him. It would be said that these Gentlemen were imprisoned for infraction of the law. It was no such thing. The pretence was too transparent. They were imprisoned because they were political opponents of the Chief Secretary and the Government. If hon. Members compared the administration of the law in the North and South of Ireland they would find that while in the South representative men who openly made speeches were treated as common criminals, in the streets of Belfast blasphemous ruffians were allowed to disturb the public peace and insult the religion of the majority of the people, almost without hindrance. Yet they were told to admire and respect the impartiality with which the law was administered‡ All he could say was that the refusal of the Government to grant even one day for the discussion of the condition of Ireland proved that the Chief Secretary was fully aware that his doings in that country would not bear exposure and criticism. He therefore hoped that every Member who was not bound to the Government in slavish obedience would support the demand which had been made on behalf of the vast majority of the Irish people.

appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his decision. The Irish Party had refrained from moving the adjournment of the House, he believed, out of a desire to promote Government business, and, that being so, it was very astonishing that they should be met as they had been. The right hon. Gentleman was adopting a course which would bestrew his path with difficulties right up to Christmas. The usual practice of the House, when such a state of affairs as was to be seen in Ireland existed, was to grant a reasonable demand for discussion. That was a more convenient way of dealing with the question than by Motions for adjournment, of which, if a day were not granted, there might possibly be half a dozen. During the recess he had visited Ireland, spending the greater part of his time in one of the proclaimed districts. There was not a vestige of crime to justify the proclamation of that area, and a certain incident which it had been thought might lead to crime and was the cause of the proclamation had, as a matter of fact, been peaceably settled. That showed that the House would not be in a position to judge of this question if it confined its attention to the violent aspects of the matter. There was almost a total upheaval of the social system in Ireland. Every class in every part of the country was discontented. Ulster rivalled the West and South in its discontent; the landlords, who used to be the bulwarks of English rule in Ireland, were, if possible, more discontented than the tenants. Under these circumstances it was surely a strong thing for the Prime Minister to say that he would not give the slightest opportunity for discussion.

I never said anything of the kind.

had no desire to put words into the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman, but surely he would admit that he had driven Irish Members back on Motions for Adjournment.

What I said was that I have followed ordinary precedent in saying that the business of the House at an Autumn Session should be Government business. Unquestionably there must be some safety-valve or some opportunity for discussing other matters, but that is provided for by the Rule of the House in regard to Motions for adjournment on matters of urgent public importance—a privilege which I have never sought to withdraw from the House. In addition to that, there is the more solemn and elaborate method by which, when the Opposition formally demand a day for a vote of censure on the Government, that day is given. This question of the extension of the Crimes Act has already been debated at great length this session

said the question that had been debated was that of the application of the Crimes Act without proclamation.

I think I am right in saying the question was very elaborately debated, although there may have been a certain number of counties added since. Whatever may be said of the action of the Government, I hope it will not be said that it has been discourteous to hon. Members opposite.

said he would say nothing more about Motions for Adjournment, except that in the present instance they were most unsuitable and did not at all meet the reasonable demands of Irishmen. The Prime Minister had said a day would be granted if the regular Opposition asked for it. But that raised a very difficult question. The Irish Party were, perhaps, the strongest section of the Opposition to the Government, and, seeing that the demand was supported by so many Members, it would be well not to persist in requiring them to submit to the humiliation of asking an English Member to make this request. As to the point that the proclamation had already been discussed, that was almost a disingenuous answer. The situation was daily getting worse, and the request for an opportunity of discussing it was ruthlessly, almost rudely, refused. He thanked the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose Burghs for supporting the Amendment, and hoped many Members would join him in voting for it in the lobby.

pointed out that since the House adjourned in August ten Irish Members had been sentenced to terms of imprisonment. He claimed this as an extraordinary state of affairs, and as such they were justified in claiming a day to put their case before the House. If Members were gagged in the House they had no alternative but to go back to Ireland and take to the platform, with the result that they would be put into gaol. Thus, whether they came to the House or went to their constituents, justice was denied to them. Look at the manner in which they were treated in the House of Commons. It had been said that the Irish people would be justified in taking every means in their power to strike a blow back at England if this state of things went on. He welcomed what had been done by the Chief Secretary and the First Lord of the Treasury, and the people of Ireland must be ready to strike back blow for blow. He sat in the House as the representative of one of the divisions of the capital of Ireland, and he protested against the proclaiming of the City of Dublin. He denied that there was any reason for this Act, and he challenged the Chief Secretary to show that there was. After this injustice had been done to them the Prime Minister denied Irish Members even the common justice of being heard in their own defence. That proclamation had done much to convert Conservatives in Ireland to Nationalist principles, and many of them were now prepared to assist the Nationalists in getting a Parliament of their own. He had been told this by many Conservatives, who protested against the wanton insult inflicted upon the Irish people by the Chief Secretary for Ireland. He appealed to both sides of the House to look at what all this meant. They had "removables" to try them and cast them into gaol. If trouble arose in Ireland it would have been created by the Chief Secretary. If the House of Commons refused to hear them that day they would return to the public platforms in Ireland and tell the people that it was no use sending them to the English Parliament where they could not get justice. For whatever might occur in Ireland during the coming winter the responsibility would lie upon the Members on the Treasury Bench. Irish Members knew their duty, and while they had the confidence of the people of Ireland they would carry on this struggle until they achieved their object, and that was the right to manage their own affairs. It was unworthy of a powerful Government to deny to Irish representatives the discussion of such an extraordinary state of things as existed in Ireland at the present moment. The nigger and the painted savage in Uganda got consideration, but the Irish Members only got the plank bed and "skilly." He wished to enter his protest against the action as the Prime Minister, and they would do their best to make things hot for the Government.

said that after listening to the debate he had been led to ask himself the fundamental question, what did the House of Commons exist for? He objected to the whole Motion before the House, and he wished to ask the Prime Minister to go back to his earlier days in regard to this matter. The right hon. Gentleman made a speech a good many years ago, when he was in a position of greater freedom and less responsibility, in which he said that the House of Commons was not to be judged by its output, or as a machine upon which a Minister could take a handle and throw an important part out of gear, but it was an assembly to consider the wants and wishes and aspirations of the people. He saw a notice in one of the papers to the effect that this Motion would be the first matter before the House, but the width, breadth, and extent of this proposal had hardly been appreciated. The Prime Minister had refrained from quoting any precedent for this Motion, and the precedent of 1893 was not at all connected with the question before the House. Could they fancy such a state of things in the old times? Could they imagine any Leader of the House refusing a day's debate on the state of Ireland in the condition in which that country was at the present moment?

I have not refused it.

said they came to the House of Commons to discuss affairs of the greatest importance to their constituents. If anything of this kind was occurring in the counties of England, and if any request of this nature was made by any representative for a county division, such a request would be granted at once. A Motion like this, and, above all, the exclusion of any opportunity to Irish Members to bring their grievances before the House, was a derogation of one of the most sacred duties of this mother of Parliaments.

said that earlier in the afternoon Mr. Speaker read two letters announcing that two Members of this House were under arrest, and undergoing hard labour in one of the prisons of Ireland. Mr. Speaker was then reminded that these were not the only eases, and that seven other Irish Members had been arrested, and no notification had been sent to the authorities of this House They all recognised that Irish Members did not stand on a par with other hon. Members of this House, for the authorities in Ireland had given them an example that such was the case, If any English, Scotch, or Welsh Members were arrested, would anybody say that the authorities would not communicate with this House? They happened to be Irish Members, and that was the reason. They had another object lesson in the way the First Lord of the Treasury had treated the Motion made by the hon. Member for the City of Cork. He said that he did not see what ground his hon. friend had for that Motion, and he asked what had occurred in Ireland to justify such a Motion. What did the right hon. Gentleman want to occur in Ireland? Did he want them to go back to the old system of outrage? The Prime Minister himself was in charge of this Coercion Act when it was introduced and passed through the House of Commons, and if any Coercion Act should be reviewed in this House it was the Act of the right hon. Gentleman, which was a perpetual one, and not in the same category as other Coercion Acts. Upon other occasions the Minister in charge proved that exceptional crime existed in the country, but now they had little or no crime in Ireland; and because Ireland was not turbulent, and Irish representatives asked for an opportunity for discussing Irish administration, their request was refused. It was idle for the Prime Minister to say that he had not deprived them of this opportunity. He should like to know what opportunity a Motion for the adjournment of the House gave for discussing matters of that description. In dealing with the way in which coercion was administered they could go into details, but on a Motion for the adjournment of the House that was impossible. The First Lord of the Treasury had in previous sessions given specimens of the way in which he regarded the Irish Members. When they were labelled in the Press and two gentlemen were brought to the bar of the House, Jus action indicated the amount of respect he had for the representatives of Ireland. The hon. Member ventured to say that the action of the right hon. Gentleman this evening was a new proof that there was one law and rule for the Irish Members and other laws and rules for other Members. Even from the right hon. Gentleman's own point of view the attitude he had taken up this evening would not facilitate matters in that House. Was it not enough that the constitution should be suspended throughout the whole country where crime did not exist? Members returned by that country to state the case in the House of Commons, and to show that coercion win aimed not at crime and criminals in the ordinary sense, but at political opponents and organisations, were refused a hearing. He had never been more amazed than by the action of the Government in this matter. Honourable men were sent to prison to herd with garrotters and pickpockets, because they endeavoured to defend the interests of the people. The mouthpiece of the Government had stated that the Government were unable to settle the land question. That was only another illustration of the incompetence of the British Government to manage Irish affairs in accordance with Irish opinion. He firmly believed that the lesson given to the Irish people tonight would not be lost on them.

said he desired to say only a few words in support of the Amendment and against the proposal of the Prime Minister to take the whole time of the House for Government business during the remainder of the session. He did so apart from the fact that he was convinced the state of Ireland was such as to warrant some part of their time being devoted to its consideration. There were many subjects of vital importance to the working classes of this country, which hon. Members had not had an opportunity of raising during the recent session, and which during the present session they ought to have an opportunity of discussing. They had been given to understand that the Education Bill was to occupy the greatest part of the time of the House. The education question, he admitted——

Order, order! That does not arise on the Amendment.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, but could I not extend that to apply not only to the grievances of Ireland but to other grievances also?

said that could not be done.

said he would not intervene in the debate were it not that he desired to place before the House certain information which he had acquired as a magistrate, and which strengthened the demand made for a day to discuss the condition of affairs in Ireland. He was well known at home to be an uncompromising foe of British rule in Ireland. He believed the Prime Minister had contributed to no small extent to the promotion of their views in Ireland by his attitude to the Irish representatives this evening, and his refusal to give a day for the discussion of the state of affairs in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that the request would have been conceded if it had been made by a British representative. That was an object lesson which would burn into the hearts of the Irish people. The administration of the Coercion Act in Ireland at present was cowardly and unmanly. The principal reason why he asked a day for the discussion of Irish affairs was that he had personal knowledge of what his friends were enduring day by day in His Majesty's prisons under the Coercion Act. He was Visiting Justice of one of the jails where day after day his friends were subjected to indignities by being compelled, while wearing prison clothes, to pick oakum, to work in wash-houses and stone-yards. The Irish Members wished to have the opportunity of placing before the Members of this House the facts in regard to the alleged offences for which these men had been sent to prison. He believed in his soul that if it could be brought home to the minds of hon. Members that respectable men in Ireland were sent to prison for what were really not offences at all, they would not follow the Prime Minister and the Chief Secretary into the lobby. Never was there an occasion when they had a more absolute right to demand a day for the discussion of the affairs of their country than the present. There were hundreds of Members of this House, on both sides, who knew nothing whatever of the conditions prevailing in Ireland. Ireland was practically on the verge of revolt at present. The Chief Secretary had acknowledged that neither he nor the Government could settle the question in dispute between the landlords' combination and the tenants' combination. There was no crime or outrage in the country. The judges' charges proved that. Criminal statistics, or rather the want of criminal statistics, proved that day by day. Respectable men were being sent to jail because they held opinions contrary to the landlord class in that country. If their request for a day to discuss that state of affairs were not granted now, they would get it yet, whether the Government would or not. They did not ask it as a favour. If the Government refused to grant it, on their heads be the responsibility. The Irish Members were prepared to take theirs.

rose to continue the debate.

I beg to move that the Question be now put.

proceeded to put the Question, "That the Question be now put."

remained standing in his place, amid cheers from the Irish Members, and cries of "Gag," "Cowardly," and "Fair Play." The cries of "Order" and the noise throughout, the House prevented the words of the hon. Member for South Mayo being heard. He moved nearer the Speaker, and endeavoured to address the House while standing in the second row behind the Front Opposition Bench, but the prevailing noise rendered any report impossible. When the hubbub had partially subsided—

said: The hon. Member is not in order in addressing the House, and I hope he will not persist.

declined to resume his seat, and Mr. SPEAKER named him for disregarding the authority of the Chair. Speaking amid considerable tumult, the hon. Member cried, "It is not enough for the Prime Minister and Chief Secretary to put me into jail for six months, but they are now trying to gag me." Mr. O'DONNELL then crossed the floor of the House, and standing near Mr. A. J. Balfour, between the Table and the Treasury Bench, addressed the right hon. Gentleman individually, but the words did not reach the reporters' gallery. When going back to his place, the hon. Member turned round and shouted "I despise you, I despise you."†

at this stage gave an instruction to the Sergeant-at-Arms, to open the doors, which had been closed for the division on the Closure.

The Question is, that Mr. John O'Donnell be suspended from the service of the House.

What has became of the Closure Motion?

On a point of order, I wish to ask, Mr. Speaker, whether it is in order for you to put that Motion when there is already a division proceeding on another Motion.

Yes. If disorder intervenes, requiring the action of the Chair, it is in the power of the Chair to interrupt the division and order the doors to be opened.

On another point of order, Mr. Speaker, I want to know whether, when we come back from the division lobbies, we will be entitled to take the same position with reference to the action of the Prime Minister, that the hon. Member for South Mayo has taken.

That is not a point of order at all.