ing the passing of the Land Law (Ire- | received the money at conacre was land) Bill through the Houses of Par- manured land? liament?

the fact of his being kept in prison | answer as to the grounds on which the would disable him from doing so, and county was proclaimed. there was reason to believe that that was the motive for putting him in gaol. It was most objectionable that the Queen's County should have been proclaimed, as it was one of the most peaceful districts in the Kingdom. It was believed that this had been done, not to put down outrages, but to enable the landlords to eject their tenantry and collect their rents. He begged to move the adjournment of the House.

had been only one or two slight outrages in the Queen's County recently, and these did not at all justify the proclamation.

MR. BIGGAR said, that the right hon. Gentleman had a very good memory for some things and a very bad one on others, as suited his convenience. He could tell that Lalor had sub-let part of his lands for more rent than he paid the head landlord for the whole holding; but he could not tell whether it had been so sub-let as conacre and as manured land. In those cases between landlord and tenant the right hon. Gentleman MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR, in was always inclined to take the side seconding the Motion, said, that James of the strong party against the weak, Lalor had the misfortune to be the and no reply that he gave to those tenant of a man who, besides being a Questions was entitled to much consilandlord, was a magistrate of well-deration from the Irish Members. There known proclivities. It was a matter of perfect notoriety that that landlord would crush and ruin that man if he possibly could. He understood that this magistrate had on four successive occasions MR. HEALY said, he was glad his taken proceedings against tenants, and hon. Friend had moved the adjournment having lost his case he entertained vin- of the House, and he thought the Irish dictive feelings towards them. Queen's Party ought to come down and move the County was conspicuous in Ireland for adjournment of the House on every ocits freedom from everything like crime and casion of this kind. He thought the outrage; and it was a matter of common Irish Party were to blame for not having report that that particular landlord had acted with sufficient firmness in this dibeen peculiarly instrumental in causing rection. He thought the adjournment that county to be proclaimed. They of the House ought to be moved on Gohad a right, therefore, to ask the Go-vernment nights as well as on other vernment for some declaration of the grounds on which Queen's County had been proclaimed. He challenged the Chief Secretary to deny that during a large portion of last year the police were not required at all in Queen's County. In the month of April he believed that in that county there was only one offence of a serious agrarian kind, and another of a very mild description.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."(Mr. Lalor.)

MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, I would only state that James Lalor was not arrested, nor was Queen's County proclaimed, on account of the representation of the landlord to whom hon. Members had alluded. Having had no reason to expect that the question of the proclamation of Queen's County would come up this evening, I can only now say that I have a very different opinion on the subject from that of the hon. Member; but if the Question is repeated on Monday or Tuesday I will give an

Mr. Lalor

nights to raise the question of these proclamations and arrests. It was only by action in the House of Commons that they could retaliate on the Government. They had been told that Dr. Jacob had not moved in the matter of the proclamation of the Queen's County; but if Dr. Jacob had any dirty work to do he would get someone else to do it. It would be easy for him or his agents to prime the Government with information which they might use as a means of getting the county proclaimed; and he ventured to say that what information they possessed came from such statements. Owing to the state of the Grand Jury Laws in Ireland, when a man's house or haystack was burned accidentally, he had the temptation to plead that it was malicious; and then, with the present cry about agrarian outrages, if he prerented for £200 or £300, the Grand Jurors, who were landlords, were only too happy to mulet the district where the act was committed. He had known cases of this kind where, in place of punishing the really guilty parties-namely, the

landlords, the unfortunate tenants were punished.

MR. LEAMY stated that very few of the tenant farmers of Ireland insured their stocks. If, unfortunately, a burning took place, and if there was no evidence as to how it occurred, the first thing that a farmer did was to rush off to the police barracks and give the requisite notices in order to apply for compensation. There was the strongest possible temptation for a farmer who had not insured to prove that the burning was malicious, because that was the only way of securing compensation. Now, he understood that a burning had recently taken place where this man had been arrested; and he thought they had a right to know on what grounds the man was arrested, and whether the burning for which he was arrested was the one in connection with which there was a claim before the Presentment Sessions for compensation.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY wished to enter his protest against the calumnies which had been heaped upon the farmers of Ireland by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. The hon. Member had stated in his place in the House of Commons that it was a usual thing for Irish farmers, whenever a fire occurred on their premises, to go off to the police and make false oaths and statements. ["Oh!"]

MR. LEAMY denied that he had made any such charge. [Cries of "Order!"]

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Galway County (Mr. Mitchell Henry) is in possession of the House, and he is entitled to proceed to the end of his address; if at the end of it the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Leamy) desires to make any explanation, no doubt the House will afford him an opportunity.

as perjurers, or in any way to reflect upon their characters. What he did say was, that an Irish farmer did not, as a rule, insure his stock, and that, when any of his stock was burned, there was the strongest temptation, in cases where there was no evidence as to how the fire occurred, to endeavour to prove that it was malicious, as it was the only way in which he could get compensation in the present state of the law.

MR. DAWSON said, the perception of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry), in mistaking the remarks of his hon. Friend (Mr. Leamy), must not be very keen. The Irish farmers would be well able to judge between the two hon. Members, and decide who was most likely to brand the Irish character. His hon. Friend (Mr. Leamy) had merely stated what the history of Ireland had proved to be a fact. The temptation was so strong in these matters that the wonder was that there were not many more compelled to make claims for compensation; and what his hon. Friend contended was that that temptation ought to be removed out of their way by an alteration of the law. He was not utter ing a calumny against his fellow-countrymen, but rather wishing to deprive them of this temptation.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

PARLIAMENTARY OATH (MR. BRAD-
LAUGH).

NOTICE OF MOTION (SIR WILFRID
LAWSON).

MR. LABOUCHERE said, he rose to make an appeal to his hon Friend the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson); and, in doing so, with a view to expedite Business which was set down for that evening, he should be under the MR. MITCHELL HENRY said, he necessity of following the example of the must protest against the statement of hon. Member opposite (Mr. Lalor), and the hon. Member, for it was one of the would conclude with a Motion. His hon. greatest calumnies ever uttered. He Friend the Member for Carlisle had given knew as a fact that the farmers of Ire- Notice of a Resolution which he now saw land were not guilty of this conduct; and on the Paper. When the Speaker was he never would be a party to branding asked whether that Notice would have poor people as perjurers and perpetra-precedence over all others as a question tors of crime, even when the accusation came from that side of the House, which assumed to be guardians and champions of the tenant farmers.

MR. LEAMY said, he had not attempted to brand the farmers of Ireland

of Privilege, he stated that this question could not be put in its present form, but that, in order to have precedence, it would be necessary that the hon. Baronet should specifically move a Resolution rescinding one on the subject of Mr. Bradlaugh

MR. SPEAKER: I must point out that I understood the hon. Member to rise to make an appeal to the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle; but no question has been put to the hon. Baronet. No doubt the hon. Member is entitled to make any remarks necessary to make his question plain to the House, but he is going beyond that concession.

which was passed some time ago by the it concerned the constituency which he House. The view held on that side of (Mr. Labouchere) had the honour to the House was that the Resolution was represent. That constituency was natu illegal in the sense that it was contrary rally anxious that it should have full to the statutory law and the statutory representation in that House. Mr. rights of Mr. Bradlaugh. Into that he Bradlaugh himself was naturally anxious did not wish to enter. As a matter of that he should not sit at the further side fact, his hon. Friend the Member for of that door for ever like a Peri at the Carlisle would not be able to put this gates of Paradise. Resolution in its present form before the House; he would be obliged to move a Resolution rescinding the previous Resolution; and he confessed that he did not for himself think that the bringing of such a Resolution before the House would in any way tend towards Mr. Bradlaugh taking his seat there. Since the Resolution of last month had been carried the Government had asked leave to bring in a Bill to enable Mr. Brad- MR. LABOUCHERE said, of course laugh to affirm instead of taking the he should follow that direction. He was Oath. [Ironical cheers.] Hon. Gentle- arriving at his Question to his hon. men opposite thought it very funny Friend the Member for Carlisle, and when he mentioned Mr. Bradlaugh; but was trying to clear the ground, and to they knew very well that, although the explain to him what the position was Bill was a general one, it was specifi- before the Question was put. As he cally stated that it was brought in in had said, the constituency of Northamp order to meet a particular difficulty. ton felt deeply grateful to the First [Renewed cheers.] He was astonished Lord of the Treasury and to his Colhon. Members should cheer that state- leagues for what they had done, for ment. It was well known that that was the efforts they had made to secure to the reason why it was brought forward that constituency their Constitutional at the present moment. Objection was rights. At the same time, that constitaken, when leave was asked to bring in tuency, he was happy to say, was a tho the Bill, to a Morning Sitting being roughly Radical constituency, and did taken; and hon. Gentlemen stated not wish to impede the progress of the that they were prepared to sit up all Land Bill. He would, therefore, vennight in order to prevent it. ["No!"]ture, in order to clear the matter for the It was within the recollection of the hon. Member for Carlisle, to ask the House that hon. Members declared that Prime Minister to be good enough to they would contest the matter during tell the House, if possible, what course the whole night. ["No, no!"] They the Government intended to pursue. thought it more simple to pass the night His constituents were quite willing to objecting to a Morning Sitting than to wait patiently. But he would venture sit the next morning for three or four to ask the Government when the Oaths hours. However, it appeared very evi- Bill would be brought in. He would dent that the Morning Sitting would be venture to suggest that it should not be of very little use, because they would brought in until the Land Bill passed. then have been favoured with very valu-He presumed that after the second readable observations from several Gentlemen, and at 7 o'clock have been very much in the same position, so far as that Bill was concerned. Hon. Gentlemen opposite bore him out that they intended to use the Forms of the House to prevent that Bill being brought in, Under these circumstances, he would ask the Prime Minister what he intended to do with regard to the Parliamentary

ing they would soon be in Committee. He hoped the Bill would be passed in a reasonable time. The Parliamentary Oaths Bill was a Government Bill, and he hoped that the influence of the hon. Member for Carlisle with the Prime Mi nister would give some expectation that the Bill would soon be submitted to the House, when the House might decide whether to accept or reject it. If he He need not say in conse- might be allowed to make a suggestion quence of Mr. Bradlaugh only, because to hon. Members opposite-["No, no!"]

Oaths Act.

Mr. Labouchere

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman may make suggestions to the House; but he may not address any particular Members of the House.

COLONEL MAKINS: I rise to Order. The hon. Member for Northampton, at the commencement of his remarks, stated that he would conclude with a Motion. If he does so, I presume he will be in Order? I wish to ask if that is not the case?

-he would ask to be allowed to say this., that nobody else took the matter up, and
Hon. Gentlemen opposite were not actu- then on the Wednesday he gave Notice
ated by any personal feeling against Mr. of the Motion which stood in his name in
Bradlaugh-
the Order Book. Now, that letter of
Mr. Bradlaugh was a very important
one. There was an important statement
in it that the House had done something
in absolute defiance of the statute-had,
by actual physical force, prevented him
from doing the duty imposed upon him
by the express words of the statute. Mr.
Bradlaugh had requested that the letter
should be communicated to the House,
and the Speaker had done so. When
such a letter came from a Gentleman
representing a large constituency, it
ought to be dealt with in the House in
some way or other. It was a grave
charge, a serious charge, and he hoped
the House would discuss it in a spirit
totally free from bias. There was a
real and grave Constitutional ques-
tion-

MR. LABOUCHERE said, he did not
wish to detain the House; but he ap-
pealed to the hon. Member for Carlisle
and to hon. Gentlemen opposite whether
they were actuated by any personal or
malevolent feelings towards Mr. Brad-
laugh. ["No, no!"] He asked them
not to say "No, no!" in a hurry, but
to think over the matter; and it was
possible that if he was to bring in an
Indemnity Bill for Mr. Bradlaugh, and
considering that Mr. Bradlaugh was a
poor man, as everybody knew-[ Cries
of "Question!" and "Order!"]-and
had incurred considerable expense-
[Renewed cries of "Order!"]-

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentle-
man is quite out of Order.

MR. LABOUCHERE: Then he would ask his hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle to withdraw his Motion, and formally begged to move the adjournment

of the House.

Mr. SPEAKER: I must point out to the hon. Baronet that it is not regular on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House to discuss a Motion which is on the Paper.

SIR WILFRID LAWSON said, that the last thing he wished to do was to run counter to the Rules of the House; but he understood that this was a ques-. tion of Privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: It is not.

SIR WILFRID LAWSON said, that being the case, he would simply state what he intended to do. He had intended to move a Resolution declaring the Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) illegal, because he believed it was illegal; but the Speaker had stated that the most regular course would be to move the rescission of that Resolution. He should have been very glad to have done that that evening; but he thought it would not be quite courteous either to friends or foes to bring that Motion on without due Notice; and it would be very like taking the House by surprise. [Cries of "No, no!" and "Go on "] Some Members said "No, no!" but that was his humble opinion. But he would tell the House what he would do. He proposed, on some day of which he would give due Notice, to move his Resolution as a matter of Privilege. ["No, no!"] Mr. Speaker had told him that he was in Order. ["No, no!"] Very well, if that was not so, the Speaker

SIR WILFRID LAWSON said, he begged to second that Motion, as that was the most orderly course to pursue, and would enable him to state the position in which he and the House stood with regard to the Motion. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman would make a statement adverse to the Bill of the hon. Member for Northampton. With that he had nothing to do. He merely wished to explain why he gave Notice of what he intended to do. The Speaker had read a letter from Mr. Bradlaugh at 12 o'clock on Wednesday, when there was hardly anybody in the House. He asked the Speaker whether the question of Privilege might be brought forward at half-past 4 o'clock, and the Speaker had said that it might. But he thought it better not to do so at once, but to give one or two days' Notice. He waited all that afternoon and found

VOL. CCLXI. [THIRD SERIES.]

P