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- MR. HEALY observed, that it was Question put. The House divided:-Ayes 352; Noes 176: Majority 176. AYES. Acland, Sir T. D. Anderson, G. Armitage, B. Barclay, J. W. Baxter, rt. hon. W. E. Blennerhassett, Sir R. Birkbeck, E. Blackburne, Col. J. I. J. F. Fremantle, hon. T. F. Galway, Viscount Gardner, R. Richard son Garnier, J. C. Gore-Langton, W. S. Gregory, G. B. Hamilton, Lord C. J. Hay, rt. hon. Admiral Loder, R. Long, W. H. Plunket, rt. hon. D. R. Winn, R. Puleston, J. H. Wolff, Sir H. D. Wortley, C. B. StuartWroughton, P. Wyndham, hon. P. Yorke, J. R. TELLERS. Elcho, Lord Tottenham, A. L. Main Question put, and agreed to. Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday next. LONDON CITY LANDS (THAMES EMBANK MENT) BILL. Select Committee nominated on London City Lands (Thames Embankment) Bill:- Mr. BOURKE, Mr. BRAND, Mr. CUBITT, Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE, Sir JOHN LUBBOCK, Mr. M'COAN, Sir HENRY PEEK, Mr. RENDEL, Mr. RYLANDS, and Mr. SCHREIBER.-(Lord Frederick Cavendish.) CHURCH PATRONAGE (NO. 2) BILL. On Motion of Mr. STANHOPE, Bill to amend the Laws relating to patronage, simony, and exchange of Benefices in the Church of England, ordered to be brought in by Mr. STANHOPE, Mr. STUART-WORTLEY, Mr. JOHN TALBOT, Mr. ALBERT GREY, and Mr. STANLEY LEIGHTON. Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 175.] House adjourned at half after HOUSE OF LORDS, Friday, 20th May, 1881. 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). ARMY ORGANIZATION-THE NEW OBSERVATIONS. QUESTION. LORD WAVENEY said, their Lordships were aware that among the other changes of uniform which under a General Order were directed to be made was that the uniform of the Militia Artillery was to be assimilated to the uniform of the Royal Artillery. Another change which the Militia had to make was in the embroidery, which was to be gold, instead of silver, as hitherto. The Militia was a Force which had its own objects and its own duties, and he did not think that the attempts at assimilating it with the Regular Army were well devised. The change from silver to gold was not popular with the Militia officers; but the point to which he wished to draw attention was the uncertainty in which commanding officers were at present left as to uniforms. The equipment of a soldier, like his pay, was a part of his covenant, and he should have it. He proaching training season? THE EARL OF LONGFORD observed, that others besides Militia officers were affected by capricious changes of uniform. He knew of one general officer who, being uncertain as to the uniform which he was at present expected to wear at Court, sent his own to an Army tailor, who made the necessary alterations for five guineas; but it cost another officer 30 guineas to have his rendered conformable to the most recent requirements. If changes in uniform were necessary and well considered for the advantage of the Service, by all means let them be carried out; but if those changes were introduced without absolute necessity, it was hardly fair to impose on officers the expense which such alterations must always involve. VISCOUNT HARDINGE asked, Whether the Under Secretary of State for War could state how soon after the 1st of July officers of territorial regiments. would be required to provide themselves with new uniforms? He believed that a certain amount of compensation would be paid to the officers of those regiments; but as the amount must vary according to circumstances, he supposed the Under Secretary could not say what it would amount to. THE EARL OF MORLEY said, that the instructions on the subject of the noble Viscount's Question would be found in paragraphs 15 and 16 of the General Order. Where officers already in a regiment had to provide an entire change of uniform, they would have until the 1st of April, 1882, to do so, except in the case of the 73rd, which would adopt its new uniform on July 1 of this year. Officers joining any of these regiments in the interval would only be requested to appear in undress uniform. As regards facings and badges, the changes would come into operation on the 1st of July next; officers joining on and after that date must adopt the new uniform. Officers now in the regiments would only have to get new uniforms as required to replace their old ones. His right hon. Friend |