measure is awaited with so much anxiety | Egypt, he had seen the report of a speech by great numbers of farmers. ADULTERATION ACTS-LARD CHEESE. MR. WILBRAHAM EGERTON asked the President of the Board of Trade a Question of which he had given him private Notice-namely, Whether, in an answer given on Monday last, he had not attributed to Lord Vernon language which had really been used by the President of the Royal Agricultural Society? MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Sir, I have MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Sir, I have had the advantage of a conversation with Lord Vernon, and I am glad of an opportunity of correcting a mistake which seems to have caused Lord Vernon some little annoyance. It appears that the words which I quoted as having been spoken by Lord Vernon at a meeting of the Royal Agricultural Society were really spoken by the President, Mr. Dent. The mistake arose in this way. The Report from which I derived my information put these remarks down to the President, having previously spoken of Lord Vernon as Chairman, and hence my mistake. These remarks were to the effect that the introduction of lard or oleomargarine would enable dairy companies to work up their skim milk into a wholesome article of food; that the Council should be careful before writing to request the interference of the Board of Trade, as it was a question whether the public were not benefited by such forms of cheap and wholesome food. I am very glad to have the opinion of so eminent an authority as the President of the Royal Agricultural Society on this subject; and I may say that, from all the information I have been able to get, I am inclined to agree entirely with his view. These remarks were made by the President before Dr. Voelcker's Report, but after a statement by Dr. Voelcker, which his subsequent Report confirmed, that these cheeses were perfectly wholesome food. The letter from the Royal Agricultural Society was received on the 9th of June. EGYPT (POLITICAL AFFAIRS)-THE ITALIAN GOVERNMENT. MR. G. W. ELLIOT gave Notice that, on Monday next, he would ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, as he had stated that anarchy would not be allowed to continue in Mr. Chaplin made by the Italian Foreign Minister, to the effect that Italy would not consent to the armed intervention of certain Powers, and whether that referred to England and France? shall not be able to answer the Question SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, I more fully on Monday than I can answer it now. that the Italian Government is acting I can assure the hon. Member jesty's Government in the steps that completely in concert with Her Maare being taken at Constantinople. I think it only courteous to add that the Government always declines to discuss what is said by foreign Ministers in foreign Assemblies. SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT: I should like to ask the hon. Baronet a Question already put to him by the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. O'Kelly), but which he did not answer-namely, Whether a requisition has been made by the Khedive or Dervish Pasha that 18,000 Turkish troops should at once be sent to Alexandria from Constantinople? If that is the case, it would take some and I should like to know, in the present days before those troops could arrive; position of affairs, whether, supposing an outbreak, which is said to be imminent at any moment, should occur, and supposing the Egyptian troops should also rise against the European inhabi tants, what steps Her Majesty's Government have ordered to be taken in that event? SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The ber for Roscommon was that I did not reason I did not answer the hon. Memhear his Question. asked it twice. MR. HEALY: The hon. Member SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I assure the hon. Member I did not hear the tion just put, a portion of it I am unable terms of it. With regard to the Ques to answer. I believe Dervish has on several occasions asked for troops, but I cannot state precisely the number of Turkish troops that have been applied for. It is not in my power to answer the other portion of the Question. SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: Are we to understand that Dervish Pasha has asked for Turkish troops, and the European Powers have concurred? SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I really cannot give any answer. There are still measures being taken by the European | "What a miserable hound that Lord Powers at Constantinople in reference to the steps to be taken in Egypt. I cannot answer further. SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT: May we not get some assurance from the Government that some steps will, at any rate, be taken to protect the European population in Alexandria? SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I have already stated that there is a large force of men-of-war at Alexandria, and that Sir Beauchamp Seymour has a large force, which he is empowered to land. No doubt, instructions have been given to some of the foreign admirals to a like effect. It is also probable that seamen and marines will also be landed. Besides the Squadron at Alexandria, five ships, the Minotaur, the Achilles, the Agincourt, the Northumberland, and the Sultan, left Gibraltar for Malta at 7 o'clock this morning under Sir Beauchamp Seymour's orders. MR. CHAPLIN: Are we to understand distinctly from the Government that in the event of there being any fear of further massacres at Alexandria sailors and marines will be landed? SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The measures upon which Sir Beauchamp Seymour and Sir Edward Malet may agree will be carried into effect; but I cannot anticipate them. Those on the spot are far better able to judge of the steps to be taken than we can be. SIR JOHN HAY: Is it not the fact that even the five ships to be added to the Fleet at Alexandria will not make them capable of landing 1,000 men? Is it not the case, also, that those ships are of too great draught to enter the harbour at Alexandria? SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: We have already refused to go into detail on those matters; but I believe it is the fact that considerably more than 1,000 men might be landed. PARLIAMENT-PRIVILEGE-UN-PAR LIAMENTARY LANGUAGE. MR. MACARTNEY: I regret to have to rise, Sir, to bring a matter of Privilege before the House. After the Vice President of the Council had answered a Question asked by the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow), the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor), sitting below me, said aloud, George Hamilton is!" I instantly said, "That is very improper language to use, and especially in the hearing of other Members." Upon this the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. O'Kelly) said, "He is an eavesdropper." The remark was made in so loud a tone, that I think it must have been heerd by Members sitting behind and around. I said, "That remark is equally improper". MR. CALLAN: I rise to Order. I wish to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether this is really a question of Privilege. MR. SPEAKER: I understand that the hon. Member was pointing out the state of disorder which lately arose in the House. MR. MACARTNEY: No, Sir; I was calling attention to the remarks I heard. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member, no doubt, should properly have taken notice of those remarks at the time. I believe the hon. Gentleman did rise, but I did not call upon him. If that is so, I think he is quite entitled to call the attention of the House to the matter. LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I rise simply to make an appeal to my hon. Friend the Member for Tyrone (Mr. Macartney), and to ask him whether it is conducive to the dignity of the House that such a matter as this should be discussed? If one hon. Member in conversation chooses to apply opprobrious language to another, so much the worse for him. MR. MACARTNEY: I regret that I should have annoyed my noble Friend the Member for Middlesex, but I thought the language was so unjustifiable that it ought to be taken notice of. Not only was that language used, but when I complained the hon. Member for Roscommon told me that I was an eavesdropper. I wish to ask you, Sir, whether we who sit here in a mixed Party-[A laugh]— very much mixed, I think-should be subjected to have these kind of remarks made out aloud in our hearing? MR. SPEAKER: I think the House may desire to know from the hon. Members, whose language has been called in question, whether that language has been properly attributed to them. MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: In a private conversation addressed to an hon. Friend sitting two places from me, I made use of certain observations. These were not addressed to the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Macartney), and when he wished to discuss with me those observations I declined; and then he, apparently much irritated, threatened to appeal to you, Sir. I told him he was at liberty to do so. When the hon. MR. O'KELLY: Member for Tyrone interfered in a conversation which was not directed to him, and with which he had practically nothing at all to do, threatening to call the attention of the House to the matter, I did say to him that he was acting the part of an eavesdropper, because I considered that the conversation, not being addressed to him, he had no reason to intervene. MR. SPEAKER: I think the House will expect the hon. Members to express regret, because, although these observations were not made openly, still they were made in this House, where hon. Members are accustomed to speak of one another with respect. I am persuaded that the hon. Members, when they come to reflect upon the matter, will think it right to withdraw their observations. MR. O'KELLY: So far as I am concerned, I will express my regret to the House for having made use of the obser vations. PART II. OFFENCES AGAINST THIS ACT. Clause 7 (Illegal meetings). Amendment again proposed, In page 4, line 15, to leave out from the word "which," to the word "safety," in line 16, both inclusive, in order to insert the words "convened for an unlawful purpose, or with an intent to carry out a lawful object riotously and tumultuously.”—(Mr. Labouchere.) Question proposed, "That the words which he has reason to believe' stand part of the Clause." MR. LABOUCHERE said, he entertained a hope that the Government would accept this reasonable Amendment. Should they not do so, he did not think it was necessary to expend a very long time in discussing the matter. The Prime Minister had said that if there were Members in that House who considered that evictions were crimesand there certainly were persons in that House who considered evictions to be crimes-the proper time for bringing forward a provision for putting a stop to such evictions would be during the Committee on this Bill. He confessed that he entertained a hope that before long they would come to some clause which would, at any rate, justify some action in that direction on the part of the Committee. In regard to this clause, the Chief Secretary for Ireland had stated that the Bill would give no fresh powers to the Lord Lieutenant, and that the Lord Lieutenant at present could proclaim any meeting; but it was a very serious question whether the Lord Lieu MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I shall not have the least hesitation in withdrawing any expression I have made use of, and which may be considered to be improper. But I may be allowed to say that the account given of the observations by the hon. Member was not altogether correct. However, whatever the expressions were which hon. Mem-tenant in Ireland, or whether the Execubers sitting around me reasonably think they have a right to complain of, I willingly withdraw them. tive in England, should have a right to intervene in a legally constituted public meeting. The Lord Lieutenant had assumed that right; but it was very doubtful whether he himself, and the police who acted in consequence of a proclamation of that kind, would not be liable to an action. But, be that as it made a distinction. According to this might, he contended that the Bill itself Bill, not only might the Lord Lieutenant proclaim a meeting which he had reason to think dangerous to the safety of the public, but he might punish, under the provisions of the Bill, anyone who attended that meeting. Now, that was a power which he did not possess at present, and it seemed to him a fair and reasonable thing that when anyone | duty of the Executive to have a sufficient was arrested and brought before a magis force in the town to preserve the peace, trate for attending a public meeting, he and that the fact of a large procession should have the right to raise the ques- going through the town drawing togetion whether the meeting was convened ther a considerable number of persons, for an unlawful purpose, or for the pur- if its object was peaceable, had a legal pose of carrying out a lawful object right to hold that meeting. The Judges, riotously and tumultuously. That was therefore, quashed the conviction; and the simple object of his Amendment. he gathered that the law of England, MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD said, he in consequence of that decision, was that gathered from the expressions made use a lawful meeting could be held for a of by the hon. Member that he intended lawful purpose, and that if it were so to persevere with this Amendment. Per-interfered with by any other persons it sonally, he thought the Amendment unnecessary, because it sought to limit the power the Lord Lieutenant at present had by law. He objected very much to the clause as it stood in the Bill, and he should have been prepared to vote for an Amendment upon it in regard to the punishment; but he objected to the proposal of his hon. Friend, on the ground of the restriction it placed on the power of the Lord Lieutenant. He certainly thought that the power possessed by the Lord Lieutenant in reference to the prohibition of public meetings at the present moment was sufficient; but as the Amendment restricted that power he was unable to support it. MR. MARUM said, the law as to public meetings was the same both in England and Ireland, and it had been recently held by English Judges in the case of the Salvation Army riots at Weston-super-Mare that if a meeting held for a lawful purpose were interfered with by other persons, it was for the Government to prevent that interference. In the case in question, certain persons attended a meeting of the Salvation Army, and met another army in the same town. There was a free fight, and they overpowered the constables. The matter was brought before the local magistrates, who issued a circular in the nature of a proclamation, prohibiting another meeting of the Salvation Army in consequence of the previous fight which had taken place, anticipating that a similar occurrence might happen again. The question was submitted to a Superior Court whether, under the circumstances of the case, the magistrates were justified in issuing that prohibition, and Mr. Justice Field and Mr. Justice Cave gave a lucid Judgment, in which they held the magistrates were not justified under the circumstances in the action they took, but that it was the VOL. CCLXX. [THIRD SERIES.] was the duty of the Government to prevent the interference. In his opinion, it was an extremely doubtful matter whether, in Ireland, the Lord Lieutenant, or the Executive, were justified in the proclamations they had issued hitherto; and there was no wonder, under these circumstances, that it had been thought necessary to bring forward a specific clause to enable the Lord Lieutenant to prohibit public as well as private meetings. It seemed to have been forgotten that under the previous sections of this Bill very large powers had been conferred. Any person who took part in an unlawful assembly was liable to the penalties of the Act; and not only that, but any person, by act or words spoken, would fall within the provisions of the 4th section, so that an influence of a very potent character would be exercised upon any person who desired to attend a public meeting. If a man went to a meeting quite innocently, and it turned out to be an unlawful one, or if words were spoken or acts done of a certain character, he would have rendered himself liable to very serious penalties. These were matters that should be taken into consideration when they had to consider that the Lord Lieutenant, of his own caprice, without any control, was to be able to stop any public meeting in Ireland. Yesterday, in discussing the question, it seemed to have been forgotten that they had already passed the 4th and 5th sections of the Bill, and that they would be in full force and effect. He asked why it was necessary that the arbitrary powers conferred by this clause should be vested in the Lord Lieutenant? He knew that they must bow to the inevitable, and that the section would pass, and his observations were hardly directed against a refusal of this power, because, as he said, it was inevitable that it would be given. But [Twelfth Night.] 2 T the object of his Amendment was to restrict the powers of the Lord Lieutenant. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) had very properly brought forward the fact that under the section "The Lord Lieutenant may from time to time, by order in writing to be published in the prescribed manner, prohibit any meeting which he has reason to believe to be dangerous to the public peace or the public safety.' In the decision he (Mr. Marum) had alluded to at the commencement of his observations namely, the Westonsuper-Mare case-it was distinctly laid down by the Judges that although in the opinion of the magistrates the public safety and the public peace were in danger, nevertheless the magistrates were not authorized to issue a proclamation prohibiting a contemplated meeting, so that they might prevent similar riots. It was, therefore, established that an apprehension in regard to the public safety, or of the commission of a breach of the peace, was not sufficient in Common Law to authorize the issue of a proclamation of this kind. He did not know whether it was intended by the words "public safety" to include any thing beyond the public peace. The section said "the public peace or the public safety;" but it was not questioned whether public safety meant anything more than public peace. His remarks on the present Amendment would render unnecessary any lengthened observations on the next Amendment which stood in his name, which was to the effect that no proclamation should take effect except on a sworn information in writing. MR. P. MARTIN said, that in considering the Amendment they ought to have regard to what the exact state of the law was. At the present moment, under the existing law, the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was, as had been stated by the Attorney General, empowered to prohibit a meeting; but he (Mr. P. Martin) submitted that under the existing law, if the Lord Lieutenant prohibited a meeting, it was competent for any person who had attended that meeting, if indicted in a Court of Justice, to question the legality of the proclamation issued by the Lord Lieutenant. No doubt, it was the duty of every subject of the Queen, when he came to the meeting and found such a proclamation had been issued, to leave Mr. Marum the meeting at once; but he was still at liberty to question, if prosecuted, the legality of the proclamation. The learned Attorney General for England (Sir Henry James) might recollect that in the celebrated case of the prosecution against Mr. O'Connell the legality of what was known as the celebrated proclamation of Clontarf had been strongly questioned. The Act of 1833 had been referred to by the Secretary of State for the Home Department. The framers of the Act of 1833 knew that the law was as he (Mr. P. Martin) had stated it; and on referring to the 2nd section of that Act, it would be found that when, for the first time, power was given to the Lord Lieutenant, by Statute, to make this proclamation, it was prescribed that persons attending a proclaimed meeting should be guilty of a statutable misdemeanour, and indictable at Common Law only after notice given and knowledge. It was only in that way, even under the Act of 1833, stringent as that Act was, that punishment was inflicted upon any person who was present at a meeting which had been proclaimed by the Lord Lieutenant. What was proposed to be done by this Bill, if it passed into an Act, was totally and entirely different. What was stated in this section was that "The Lord Lieutenant may from time to time, by order in writing to be published in the prescribed manner, prohibit any meeting which he has reason to believe to be dangerous to the public peace or the public safety." Therefore, it would be incompetent for anyone to question anything except the fact that the meeting was proclaimed, and that it took place. The section went on to say that "Any person who is present at a meeting prohibited in pursuance of this Act shall be guilty of an offence against this Act." Under that clause, the Lord Lieutenant had power to prohibit a meeting that was perfectly legal and justifiable; but a person attending it would be liable to six months' imprisonment. It would apply even to a meeting that took place in a vestry of a chapel in Ireland. Suppose such a meeting was called for 4 o'clock in the afternoon, and the Lord Lieutenant proclaimed it at 10 minutes past 4, any person who was present at the meeting, whether he knew of the proclamation or not, was at once, under |