and elsewhere. They ought to be sufficiently subsidized until they became self-supporting. It was stated in that debate that it was absurd to expect that people could be reformed by Acts of Parliament. He denied that. There were plenty of instances to the contrary. Men were compelled to be honest and to desist from outrage by Act of Parliament; and there was no reason why they should not be prevented from brutalizing themselves, and bringing those who depended on them to starvation by an Act of the Legislature, shutting up drink resorts during certain hours. The United States and British America afforded the most triumphant proof of the good accomplished by prohibitory Acts of Parliament. He had lately been nearly over the whole of the United States and the Dominion of Canada. In the former he saw many towns and large districts where total prohibition was successfully carried out with the most beneficial results. Over the greater part of the North-West Territory of Canada Local Option had been adopted; and so sensible were the people of the benefits it had conferred that the people of a part of the territory that it was proposed to pin on to Manitoba absolutely refused to be connected with the latter unless the inhabitants consented to abandon the sale and use of drink; and, at the time he was there, a part of Manitoba was about to do so. The hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Daly) had said that he had involuntarily heard him (Mr. Blake) say that he would close up public-houses all Saturday if he could. His hon. Friend was quite right; he had said so, and a great deal more, and that was that if he could he would close the mtotally every day in the week. Drink was the greatest curse to the community that existed; if it could only be abolished, what happiness, prosperity, and morality would ensue! He hoped, instead of applying such small remedies to meet this great and growing evil as Sunday and partial Saturday closing, that the Legislature would meet the strong demand that would soon be made on it to allow the majority of the people, if they thought well of doing so, to put an end to the greatest evil any country could suffer from.

DR. LYONS said, that on the part of his fellow-citizens in Dublin he felt VOL. CCLXI. [THIRD SERIES.]

bound to repudiate the exaggerated charges that had been brought against them. He thought such observations carried their own refutation with them, and they were simply an example of that kind of rhetorical flight of which they heard something recently in this House. He was thoroughly conversant with the condition of the City of Dublin, he might say, owing to his avocations, at all hours of the day and night. He regretted to say that the use of intoxicating liquors was too prevalent, but anything approaching the condition of things that had been spoken of could only be described as a wild exaggeration that had no foundation in fact. There was no such thing as corruption of the members of the community by drink to anything like the extent stated. It was a very rare thing indeed to see young persons of either sex indulging in drink. Unfortunately, this was too much the case with grown-up persons. He did not intend at this hour to enter on the many branches of this important question. He would merely say he was one of those who, while a most strenuous advocate of temperance, believed that the extension of temperance among any large mass of the community depended upon their being furnished with a number of conditions for rational recreation which now, unfortunately, they could not command. In his opinion, one of the things of most practical importance was the more general extension of paying wages on the day before Saturday. It was unfortunately the case that wages were to a largo extent paid on the Saturday, and the provisions for the Sunday had often to be purchased as late as half-past 11 or 12 o'clock at night. Until some practical remedy in that direction could be adopted, and until it became a general rule to pay wages on Friday, he did not think that much would be done in the way of improvement. Whether it might be desirable in a more advanced state of public opinion to restrict the hours of Saturday he did not say; but any attempt in the present condition of things in Ireland to force on an early system of closing would lead to the extension of what already existed to a great degree-the accumulation of drink at home and in quasi-clubs, indulged on the principle that stolen milk was the sweeter. But it was for the purpose of repudiating on the part of

2 L

MR. SEXTON said, he wished to make one or two remarks on the speech of the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Blake). He did not know why a discussion on the liquor traffic, any more than a discussion on any other subject, should generate an unfair and irrational habit of mind; but he had observed that when any discussion on the Irish liquor question arose, it was impossible that it should be conducted at any length without involving gross and offensive charges against the general body of the Irish people. He had lived for many years in the City of Dublin, and during those years had walked on every Saturday night through its streets, and any such statement as that drunkenness reigned supreme was as fantastical a calumny as could be conceived. There were drunken men there as there were in every other city, and when seen they were regarded with as much dislike by the general body of the people. But it was altogether misleading to pick a sentence out of the Report of a police magistrate, who, as likely as not, was a person of a sour and Pharisaical turn of mind, and to quote such a Report as if it had the inspiration and authority of Holy Writ was too much. Just as a policeman was inclined to regard every man as a possible criminal, so a police magistrate, nearly every day of whose life for many years was spent in contact with the degraded classes of the community, came to see society through distorted spectacles, and mistook the condition of a part of that society for the condition of the whole. He would not trouble himself to reply to the statement that there were parts of Dublin where every man was drunk on Saturday night. Whoever originated such a statement must have formed an extraordinary estimate of the credulity of his fellow-men.

MR. CALLAN said, he had known Dublin for many years, and he also knew the magistrate who had given the evidence referred to. He was one of those angular individuals, whose look, as they say, was enough to turn sweet milk sour. He was a pious magistrate, and was a fitting companion for Mr. Clifford Lloyd. With regard to the hon.

Dr. Lyons

"I have heard from the police that in cert parts of Dublin every man, woman, and chie are drunk."

And then he says

"I speak unpleasant truths. I have persona experience of almost every city in Ireland, and that statement is true."

He said the hon. Member for Waterford should not state that which he knew not to be correct

MR. A. M. SULLIVAN rose to Order, and wished to know if it was in Order to impute to an hon. Member that he had stated a thing which he knew not to be correct?

MR. SPEAKER said, the hon. Mezber had, no doubt, made the statement hastily, and would see the necessity of withdrawing it.

MR. CALLAN said, he would withdraw the statement that he knew it to be a calumny; but he ought not to make such a statement that he stated an un- . pleasant truth. It was not a fact with regard to any city of which he had knowledge, and he knew Dublin, Belfast, Drogheda, and Dundalk. With the exception of Limerick, and Cork, and Waterford, he knew the other cities of Ireland, and he knew that the charge was wholly incorrect. It was one which had no foundation in fact, and he hoped the people of Ireland, and the citizens of those towns, would see who it was that made the false and injurious charge with regard to the citizens of those towns. In the City of Dublin they had the evidence of the unpleasant Archbishop with regard to the Saturday and Sunday closing, and as to why he had changed his opinion from that of former years. He could quite understand the principle of some of his hon. Friends who wanted to close the houses in Dublin altogether; but he must enter his protest against hon. Members getting up in that House and quoting police evidence, and holding

men. The hon. Member for Dublin was very attentive in the discharge of his duty, and had supported the Government on every occasion-or with few exceptions and he was, therefore, glad to see the hon. Member in his place, and hoped he would give all the support in his power to the Bill, especially as the Solicitor General for Ireland seemed ready to go on with his Amendments. He (Mr. Callan) had carefully looked over the Paper; but, although the Bill had been printed a long time, he failed to see any Amendment to it in the name of the hon. and-he might say-learned Member for Dublin (Dr. Lyons). He thought it was incumbent on hon. Members who had the interests of Ireland at heart to go on with their Amendments, and not throw the Bill over until after the Whitsuntide Recess. He trusted the hon. Member for Carlow would proceed with the Bill.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON) said, the matter had been for some time under the consideration of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, and, with his concurrence, he (the Solicitor General for Ireland) had placed on the Paper some Amendments which, before he had put them down, he had submitted to one of the hon. Members who had charge of the Bill to see if he could suggest any acceptable modification or improvement of them. He was fully prepared to proceed with his Amendments; but he was not in charge of the Bill. It appeared to him, under the circumstances, that the suggestion of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. R. N. Fowler) was a reasonable one, and that the hon. Member for Carlow would do well to take a merely formal stage now. The object of the Bill was of great importance, the object being not a private, but a public one. The measure was one the principle of which was much required in several parts of Ireland.

Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,

House adjourned at half after One o'clock till Monday next.

HOUSE OF LORDS,

Monday, 23rd May, 1881.

MINUTES.]-SELECT COMMITTEE-Irish Jury

Laws, appointed.

PUBLIC BILLS - First Reading - Fugitive Of fenders (91).

Committee-Report-Local Government Pro sional Orders (Poor Law) (79); Bridges (South Wales) * (83). Third Reading-Elementary Education Provi sional Order Confirmation (Clay Lane) • (57 Inclosure Provisional Order (Scotton an. Ferry Common (64); Regulation Provi sional Order (Langbar Moor), now Commons Regulation Provisional Order (Langiar Moor) (63); Regulation Provisional Order (Beamsley Moor), now Commons Regulation Provisional Order (Beamsley Moor) (4: Metropolitan Commons Supplemental* (65) Inclosure Provisional Order (Wibsey Slack and Low Moor Commons) (71), and passed.

*

FUGITIVE OFFENDERS BILL.

BILL PRESENTED.

FIRST READING. THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in moving that the Bill be now read a first time, said, that in 1843 an Act was passed to furnish means of following fugitive offenders who had committed crimes against the law, either in the United Kingdom or in British possessions, to any place to which they might flee within British Dominions; but that Act was limited to treason and felony, and it also did not contain some provisions which experience had shown to be necessary for accomplishing the purposes it was intended to effect. This Bill was intended to provide more effectual means for arresting fugitive criminals, and returning them to the proper place of trial. It was not limited to treason and felony, and it contained a series of clauses applicable to the Colonies, which provided that criminals escaping from one British possession to another might be followed, and sent back to that from which they came. He would only add of careful consideration of the subject, that the present measure was the result both by the late and the present Government, after communication with the different Colonies; and he felt sure, when their Lordships saw its provisions, they would agree that it was a useful and necessary measure. The noble and learned Lord concluded by moving the first reading of the Bill,

Mr. Callan

Bill to amend the Law with respect to Fugitive Offenders in Her Majesty's Dominions; and for other purposes connected with the trial of offenders Presented (The LORD CHANCElLOR); read 1a. (No. 91.)

IRISH JURY LAWS.

MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.

that, scandalous as may be the deliberate suppression of evidence by those who are in a position to give it, and deplorable as is the failure of justice thus occasioned, the failure is more scandalous still, and the affront to justice more public, and therefore more mischievous, in those cases where evidence has been ob

"That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the operation of the Irish jury laws as regards trial by jury in criminal cases," said: My Lords, before I endeavour to state to your Lordships the reasons which have led me to believe that an inquiry into the Irish Jury Laws is not only desirable, but absolutely necessary, I wish to make one preliminary observation. I wish to disclaim the idea that I am here to induce your Lordships to affirm, or to affirm myself, that the system of trial by jury in Ireland has broken down in consequence of recent events. I wish to do no more than satisfy your Lordships that these events have shown that there is cause for an inquiry into the working of statutes of comparatively recent origin, statutes which were much discussed in this and the other House of Parliament, and which, as I shall be able to show, were not regarded by many of the highest authorities as affording a final settlement of this important question. I wish also at this stage of my observations to make an admission which may save trouble to many noble Lords who may follow me. I wish to admit at once that if there has been, as I shall show that there has been, a considerable failure of justice in Ireland, if, as was recently stated by the Prime Minister, out of every 33 persons guilty of agrarian crime in that country, one only is brought to justice, while 32 walk abroad unpunished, I wish, I say, to admit that this failure of justice, if we are to have regard to the number of cases in which it has occurred, is to be explained much more by the fact that it is often difficult or impossible to obtain evidence outside the Court than with reference to any proved delinquencies of the juries themselves. It is obvious that you may have 12 immaculate jurymen; but you will fail in obtaining a conviction if, owing to the state of public feeling, evidence as to the facts is not forthcoming. Upon this point, however, I will venture to observe

perversity of the jury, the criminal has escaped the punishment due to him. Recent legislation has dealt with those cases where evidence sufficient to secure a conviction is not to be obtained. The inquiry which I ask your Lordships to institute will determine whether there are not other cases in which some remedy is called for to deal, not with the impossibility of obtaining evidence, but with the miscarriage of justice-the returning of improper verdicts, or perhaps of no verdicts at all, owing to the character and surroundings of the persons who, under the present law, are admitted to the jury-box in Ireland. I will not attempt to discuss the origin of the jury system, or to trace its development. I will confine myself to what may be called its modern history in Ireland, which may be said to begin from a period dating back about 10 years. It was in the month of May, 1871, that the noble and learned Lord (Lord O'Hagan), whom I am glad to see in his place, brought this subject under the notice of your Lordships' House. He complained of the existing jury system, and he founded his complaint, in the main, upon two facts. First he complained of the procedure, and then he complained of the existing qualifications for service on the jury. The noble and learned Lord showed to your Lordships that the procedure under which juries were selected was open to objection, upon the ground that the selection was entirely in the hands of the sub-sheriff, and that there were reasons for believing that these officials had in some cases made an improper use of their discretion, with the result that public confidence in the institution of trial by jury had in particular districts been considerably shaken. With regard to the qualifications of the jury, the noble and learned Lord was able to show that the old qualification-a freehold and leasehold qualification-was an obsolete one, and that under it a very limited number of persons were liable to be called on to serve. The noble and