Bill, as it stood, did not fulfil the as- | Friend the Member for the County of pirations of the Irish people. The same Cork, and asked him upon what grounds thing might be said of the present Bill. he had recommended the Bill to the Did it fulfil the aspirations of the Irish Irish people? Would it not have been people? more fitting in the hon. Member to have first asked that question of the large minority of his own supporters who had wished to support the Bill, and had voted against his proposition for abstention ? Whatever might be said in that

"You may pass it into law," said Mr. Bryan; "but do not deceive yourselves. It will entirely fail to satisfy the country."

The same warning was applicable to the present measure. Would the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ire-House, he believed that the vast maland venture to tell the House that the Bill now before it would satisfy the country and quiet the disaffection which now existed? Mr. Bryan added

"It is because I am of opinion that if the Bill should pass in its present shape, litigation and consequent ill-feeling would be perpetuated between the two classes of the community which, beyond all others, ought to live in concord and unity; and, also, because I feel that the just demands of the Irish people must be met, that I oppose the Bill."—[3 Hansard, excix. 1376-7.]

He (Mr. Callan) and a small minority of Irish Members supported Mr. Bryan on that occasion; and on the present occasion he believed that three times the number of Irish Members would take a similar course. At the risk of interruption and of wearying the patience of the House, he had considered it necessary to make these remarks rather than give a silent vote. He had never, since he had the honour of a seat in the House, shirked a vote or given a vote which he thought he ought not to have given. At any rate, he had had the courage of his convictions, and he could not at the present moment endorse the Bill as accepted by the Irish people.

jority of moderate men-from Archbishops down to tenant farmers-were, with Amendments, in favour of the Bill; and he would say that hon. Gentlemen opposite did not perform their duty and their promise to their constituents by refusing to support a Bill embodying the principles upon which they were elected, and thereby weakening its chance of becoming law. They had heard that evening that under the Act of 1870 the average amount of money obtained as compensation by the tenants in Ireland was only £27 each; and the hon. Member for the City of Cork had omitted to state that the Act was passed, not for the purpose of levying damages, but for the purpose of preventing eviction. He had, however, totally ignored the thousands of cases of eviction that were prevented by the Act of 1870. He (Sir Patrick O'Brien) heard a rumour that over 30 Tenant Right Representatives were about to abstain from voting on that night. If it were so, he would be indeed surprised. For the abstention of some he did not find it difficult to suggest a reason. They had to decide between the interests of the Irish tenant farmers and the commands of The Irish World, who would stop the supplies if the Bill were supported; and he supposed, in face of such an eventuality, they would abstain from voting. But there was in Ireland the Land League organization; and though there were many villages and country towns which derived no benefit from the money reBe-ceived from America, the local leaders of cause it did recognize the principles the movement had become petty kings and known by the soubriquet of the "three dictators, and created a sense of importF's," to support which not only himself ance which caused men in their neighand those who acted with him were bourhood to fear them in the exalted poelected, but also the large majority of the sition which they occupied. The occupaGentlemen opposite who now recognized tion of these gentlemen would be gone if the lead of the hon. Gentleman the they had no money to keep up this orMember for the City of Cork. That ganization, and they would resume their hon. Member, in the speech which they old appellations of Paddy, Jim, or Mike, had so lately heard, addressed his hon., and be relegated to their former unim

SIR PATRICK O'BRIEN said, in the year 1870 he voted against the Bill introduced by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) because, useful as it was, it did not embrace the principles to support which he was elected to that House. Now, in 1881, he was there to say he would support the Bill then under consideration; and why?

[Eighth Night.]

portant and humble positions. Again, | Bill would fail to stop agitation in Ire-
he had heard the organization defended land, because it was the interest of some
upon public platforms on the ground hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway that
that it was to wipe out the old confis- it should continue, and the sore remain
cations in Ireland-Williamite, Crom- unhealed.
wellian, and Elizabethian--if any such
latter now existed. To assert this was
too amusing; the more especially when
they recollected that only the other day,
in the North of Ireland, when address-
ing an Orange meeting, the hon. Mem-
ber for the City of Cork boasted that
he was the descendant of one who had
crossed the Boyne with that William III.,
whom he (Sir Patrick O'Brien) supposed
the hon. Member for Cork City would
call the "Great Deliverer." As re-
garded the labourers, he found that at
public meetings their claims were alluded
to at the tail of the proceedings with
a bald resolution, like the toast of the
"Press" at a public dinner; but no
proposition was made in their favour,
nor any plan suggested by which their
cruel case should be dealt with. For
himself, at that hour of the morning, he
could not go through the many pro-
posals of the Bill. In Committee, he
had reason to hope, many Amendments
would be carried out. Leaseholders,
for instance, should not be forgotten.
But as a Bill embodying in the spirit
the great principle of the "three F's,"
to which he had pledged hinself before
his constituents, it should receive his
hearty and cordial support.

MR. HEALY observed, that it was
gratifying that, at any rate, one Con-
servative Member had risen to protest
against a system which, on the occasion
of great debates, allowed the Whips to
arrange amongst themselves when the
division was to take place, and allowed
a number of Gentlemen who came down
to the House on those occasions to shout
down those who got up to speak at a
late hour. For his own part, he thought
the course which hon. Members below
the Gangway ought to pursue who felt
themselves aggrieved by the conduct of
hon. Members opposite in this respect,
would be to move the adjournment of
the debate. He pointed out that when
hon. Members who sat on that side of
the House rose to speak, no matter how
great the question and important the
arguments they adduced, they were not
listened to. On the other hand, when
hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench
or on other Benches that were not in the
cold shade of Opposition rose to speak,
it was supposed that their contributions
to the discussion were so important that
they ought to be listened to without the
slightest interruption. He expressed a
hope that no hon. Gentleman below the
Gangway would be a party to any ar-
MR. STORER said, that, notwith-rangement of the kind he had referred
standing the lateness of the hour, he to, but would at all times, when neces-
could not sit quietly without saying one sary, exercise his right of speaking.
word of explanation in answer to the
speech of the noble Lord opposite, who
had so wrongfully accused the Conser-
vative Party with regard to the course
they had taken in opposing the Bill.
He wished to say that the Bill was op
posed by those who sat near him en-
tirely upon principle. They considered
that the principles contained in it were
not in accordance with political economy
or the rights of property, and that the
Bill would entirely fail in obtaining the
object intended. Further, he desired to
reply to the allegations made against
the Conservative Party that they were
responsible, in some degree, for the
agitation in Ireland, by saying that
those allegations were totally unfounded,
as was proved by the admission of the
Prime Minister himself in his Mid
Lothian campaign. In his opinion, the
Sir Patrick O'Brien

Question put.

The House divided:-Ayes 352; Noes 176: Majority 176.

AYES.

Acland, Sir T. D.
Agar-Robartes,hn.T.C.
Agnew, W.
Allen, H. G.
Ainsworth, D.
Allen, W. S.
Allman, R. L.
Amory, Sir J. H.

Anderson, G.
Archdale, W. H.

Armitage, B.
Armitstead, G.
Arnold, A.
Ashley, hon. E. M.
Baldwin, E.
Balfour, J. B.
Balfour, Sir G.
Balfour, J. S.

Barclay, J. W.
Baring, Viscount
Barnes, A.
Barran, J.
Bass, H.

Baxter, rt. hon. W. E.
Bellingham, A. H.
Beresford, G. de la P.
Biddulph, M.
Blake, J. A.

Blennerhassett, Sir R.
Blennerhassett, R. P.
Bolton, J. C.
Borlase, W. C.
Brand, II. R.
Brassey, H. A.
Brassey, T.
Brett, R. B.

I begged to ask the Under Secretary of State for War (1). When the dress regulations for officers of Militia would be issued, and what uniforms were to be worn in the interim; and (2). When the Military equipment of the Militia was to be completed by the issue of MINUTES.]-PUBLIC BILLS-First Reading-helmets, regard being had to the apLocal Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 2)* (88).