combination preserved to English working men by the Act of 1875. He (Mr. O'Connor) would observe, then, that the whole question of combination-including such combination as was dealt with in the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Christchurch would have to be considered on the Saving Clause of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He would suggest that they should approach the consideration of this Saving Clause with a Committee unpledged as to the whole question. SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT said, the hon. Member must have misunderstood him. What he had said was, that he would save the Act of 1875, so that it would not be in any way overriden by this Bill. The clause he would introduce would be the ordinary Saving Clause -"Nothing in this Act shall contravene anything in the Act of," &c. the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Christchurch did not meet their views, therefore the Committee should be allowed to dispose of that Amendment. When that Amendment was disposed of they could then bring forward Amendments that would meet their views. MR. O'DONNELL said, it would facilitate matters very much if it were ruled that the hon. Member for Wexford could bring in his Amendment, even though the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Christchurch were disposed of that evening. He would point out that the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Christchurch was not merely that hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment as it stood, but his Amendment coupled with that of another hon. Member. It would be seen, then, that these two Amendments, taken together, were very different indeed-the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wexford and that before the Committee. The Chairman could, without difficulty, rule that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wexford was substantially different to that of the hon. and learned Member for Christ THE CHAIRMAN: It is not a question of my ruling, but of the decision of the Committee. If the Committee should decide that MR. I. P. O'CONNOR said, he had evidently misunderstood the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and they were not in as good a position as he had thought they were. What the right hon. and learned Gentleman had said just now only confirmed the reasonableness of the demand of the Irish Mem-church. bers-namely, that the question should be left open until they were able to discuss it as a whole. The difficulty they were under was plain. The hon. and learned Member for Christchurch (Mr. Horace Davey) wished to discuss an Amendment, the hon. Member for Wexford wanted to propose one, and other hon. Members might wish to do the same, all these Amendments dealing with the question, a portion of which only was raised by the Amendment now before the Committee. Was it fair, then, to ask the Committee, at half-past 1 in the morning, to pledge itself beforehand by a division on a matter which was to be fully discussed at another Sitting? SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT said, as he understood the matter, the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) wished to raise a larger question than was raised by the hon. and learned Member for Christchurch (Mr. Horace Davey). If that was so, clearly he would be entitled to raise the question on Monday, if it was not the identical question to that before the Committee. Hon. Members opposite, unless he (Sir William Harcourt) was mistaken, said "The refusal by any person to deal with another in the way of the trade, business, or employment of either, shall not of itself be deemed to be intimidation," the hon. Member could not afterwards move that "No refusal by any person to deal with another in the way of the trade, business, or employment of either," &c., " shall of itself be deemed to be intimidation." MR. HORACE DAVEY said, he thought there was some justice in the remarks of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) as to the way in which he (Mr. Horace Davey) had moved this Amendment; and although he might not be prepared to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wexford, he thought he ought not to stand in the way of the hon. Member having an opportunity of proposing the Amendment. He, perhaps, might have misled the hon. Member for Wexford by adopting the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Lincoln (Mr. Hinde Palmer); and, as the last thing he desired was to give the slightest ground for saying that he had misled any hon. Member, he would withdraw his Amendment. Motion, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," by leave, withdrawn. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. At the end of the Clause, to add the words "Provided, That no refusal by any person to deal with another in the way of the trade, business, or employment of either; and no declaration of intention not so to deal, and no re sort to the practice of what is commonly known as exclusive dealing, shall of itself be deemed to be intimidation."-(Mr. Healy.) Question proposed, "That those words be there added." Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again." MR. GOSCHEN said, before the Committee reported Progress, he wished to submit a few observations to the Committee and to the Government with regard to the position in which the Committee found itself. His observations did not refer to the last three or four hours of the debate in Committee, but to the general course of the Bill since the House went into Committee upon it. The Committee entered upon this particular clause on Tuesday last; they debated it on Wednesday; they debated it again on Thursday; they had debated it again to-day; and it was not yet concluded. He did not at all deny the gravity and great importance of this clause, and he did not wish to cast reflections on any single Member with regard to the course he had adopted respecting any of the Amendments; but he thought any Member who had been present throughout these debates would admit that there had been a constant repetition of the same arguments; that issues almost identical had been submitted to the Committee several times; and that, although a majority had decided upon certain principles connected with this clause, nevertheless the case against the clause had been put into a different form and again submitted to the Committee. As fast as Amendments were disposed of further Amendments crowded the Notice Paper; and he thought the time had come when the Committee should consider what action should be taken with Mr. Horace Davey a view to progress in this matter. If it had taken all this time to deal with Clauses 1, 2 and 3, and part of Clause 4, he put it to the Committee to consider when they were likely to arrive at the end of this Bill? Meanwhile, he asked the Committee what was going on in Ireland? Hon. Members opposite, and some hon. Members on this (the Liberal) side of the House, wished to stop evictions; and they were aware that the Government was making an endeavour, in the Arrears of Rent Bill, to stop the causes of evictions. Was it right, in the interests of Ireland itself, by these protracted debates, to delay beyond "the actual requirements of the case the completion of this present Bill? Were there not other matters in Ireland which Could any Member of the House have urgently required to be dealt with? heard the Chief Secretary read that formidable list of offences and of outrages which had been committed? [Mr.LABOUCHERE: Evictions!] Surely the House desired to stop evictions and outrages; and he hoped the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) would endeavour to strengthen the hand of the Executive.in dealing with that fearful state of things, which was bringing disgrace upon Ireland. The Committee were acquainted with the clauses in the Bill which followed this particular clause. The Irish Government had asked for those clauses; and he put it to the Committee whether they could afford to go on week after week, as slowly they had proceeded so far, and whether it was not likely that if they proceeded at their present rate, it would be six weeks, at least, before this Bill could be concluded? Was it right that they should proceed in that manner? He believed he expressed the feelings of the vast majority of the House in saying they would be prepared to make any sacrifice of time and patience in regard to this measure, and he thought hon. Members opposite would admit that the Committee had shown much patience. They had not complained, and if it was necessary to continue the debate at this late hour, he hoped Her Majesty's Government would consider whether there were not means, even by more continuous Sittings than the present, of hastening the measure. The debates would have been much more protracted if hon. Members who desired to support the Government had not frequently remained silent because they did not wish to lengthen the debates. He hoped their silence would not be taken as indicating any lukewarmness with regard to the action of the Government, and that it would be understood that they did not object to the action of the Government, although they had thought it better to remain silent. They wished this Bill to be passed, and as speedily as possible. The blood that was being shed in Ireland was not only Saxon blood, but Irish blood. The Executive asked for such powers as were necessary to stop that bloodshed, and if this Bill did not suffice to stop it they must ask for further powers; for neither the Government nor the House would endure a continuation of these outrages. The Government must be armed with the powers they asked for; and he hoped that before Monday the Government would consider whether any further steps could be taken to expedite the progress of the Bill. MR. HEALY said, it was evident that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon had not been present during the debates on the Land Bill last year; for if he had, he would have found that the Tory Party delayed the Government no less than four days on the first three lines of the Bill, whereas the Irish Members on this occasion had only delayed the Government six days on one whole clause. The Bill now before the House affected the rights of the people of Ireland; but the Bill before the House last year only affected the interests of a few landlords; and hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway on the Tory Benches did not scruple to waste the time of the House and prevent the Bill being passed, although evictions were then taking place. He did not hesitate to say that there had been more pain, more misery, more loss inflicted on the Irish tenantry in one year than there had been inflicted on the landlords by outrages in 100 years. The right hon. Gentleman opposite was very solicitous, as they all were, when individuals incurred loss and suffering in Ireland; but he must remember that the people for whom he appeared to evince most sympathy were the aristocrats-the people of his own class-at all events, the monied class. The Irish Members represented the poor; and certainly, if they had no sympathy VOL. CCLXX. [THIRD SERIES.] for the class from which most of them sprung, and if they did not understand the feelings of the poor, he should like to know by what title any hon. Member could claim to represent anybody in that House? They felt as much for the people they represented as the right hon. Gentleman could feel for his class; and he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that, although he complained that so much time had been spent over this Bill, the Government had now practically got the pith and core of the Bill-the abolition of trial by jury and of "Boycotting." The remaining portions of the Bill did not, in the opinion of the Government, constitute the major part of the Bill; so that in about a week they had practically got the core and the marrow of their proposals. What was the conduct of hon. Members last year? They kept the House of Commons 50 nights on the proposal to limit the rights of Irish landlords; but the Irish Members had now kept the House six nights altogether on proposals to limit the rights of the people of Ireland for three years, and yet the right hon. Gentleman said they were wasting time. He would remind the Government, who claimed to be a Liberal Government, that there were a number of hon. Members on these (the Irish) Benches who were quite as Liberal as any hon. Member opposite, and that their support and sympathy might be required by the Liberal Party when the right hon. Member should be on these Benches. If the Government wished to come to a closure with the Irish Party, they would have a tough Party to tackle. That Party was not afraid to oppose any proposals the Government might bring forward, and the Government would have to consider whether time would be saved by following the advice of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goschen). The right hon. Gentleman had given the Committee the benefit of his absence on this clause, for which they could not be too grateful; but, having waited till 2 o'clock, he came down to give the Government the benefit of his advice. He would remind the Government that whenever they were in a difficulty they were assailed behind the back by hon. Gentlemen of the peculiar temperament of the right hon. Member for Ripon. He did not believe that the following of the right hon. Gentleman, all told, would amount to half-a-dozen [Eighth Night.] 2 C MR. PLUNKET said, he had no desire to enter into a controversy as between the interests of landlords and tenants; but he would mention, in regard to the hon. Member's remarks as to this Bill being carried in the interest of the landlords, that of the five attempts to murder reported that day, one was eommitted upon a landlord, one was upon an unfortunate soldier, and the other three were attempts to murder poor farmers. Members in that House; while the Irish | in the morning when they might pretty Members numbered 30 or 40, and repre- well consent to this Motion, and not ensented some 5,000,000 of men. Making ter into debate in a heated spirit. With that contrast between the right hon. Gen- reference to what the right hon. Gentletleman and this Party, he would leave man (Mr. Goschen) had said, the Gothe Government to form their own con- vernment were fully impressed with clusion. the extreme necessity of proceeding as rapidly as possible, consistently with full and fair discussion, with this measure. They felt that the present circumstances of Ireland made it more than ever necessary that this Bill should pass into law without unnecessary delay. At the same time, as the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) had said, it was true that the early clauses of the Bill were among the most important portions of the Bill. If he were asked his opinion, he should say he thought the debate upon this clause might have been more condensed than it had been, and some time might have been economized; but he had perceived, during this evening, a disposition to forward the discussions, and not to unduly delay them; and the Committee having passed this clause, which had been one of great difficulty and complexity, he hoped they would make more rapid progress with those portions of the Bill which had still to be dealt with. MR. T. D. SULLIVAN, referring to the advice of the right hon. Member opposite (Mr. Goschen) to hurry this Bill because outrages were being committed, evictions were taking place, and blood was flowing, said, the contention of the Irish Members was that this Bill would do no good in Ireland, but a great deal of harm. That being their belief, they were bound to resist it to the utmost within their legal rights and abilities. The right hon. Gentleman had said the Arrears of Rent Bill was waiting on this measure; but when the Arrears of Rent Bill should come before the House hon. Members above the Gangway on the Opposition side of the House would take good care that it did not make progress. They would fall upon that Bill and strangle it, if they could; and if they could not do it, that would be done for them "elsewhere." Here, then, was the situation. The Committee were appealed to to hurry through this coercive measure, which would not improve the condition of things in Ireland, but would rather make confusion worse confounded; while the remedial measure which was promised after this Bill was a mockery, a delusion, and a snare. He believed it would never be passed into law; it would be opposed by hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway in a most protracted and determined manner, and would receive a coup de grace elsewhere." Therefore, the Irish Members stood on their rights in opposing this cruel measure, which they believed would produce, not peace and order, but anarchy in Ireland. SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT said, the Committee had arrived at an hour Mr. Healy Motion agreed to. Committee report Progress, to sit again upon Monday next. COUNTY COURTS [SALARIES AND EXPENSES (In the Committee.) repeal of so much of section two of "The Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the County Courts Act, 1866," as limits the Salaries and Expenses of the persons by whom the Accounts are to be Examined. Resolution to be reported upon Monday next. MOTION. 1606 PUBLIC OFFICES SITE BILL SELECT COMMITTEE. Ordered, That the Report and Minutes of Evidence of the Select Committee on Public referred to the Select Committee on the Public Offices and Buildings (Metropolis) 1877, be Offices Site Bill.-(Mr. Shaw Lefevre.) House adjourned at Two o'clock till Monday next. HOUSE OF LORDS, Monday, 12th June, 1882. MINUTES.]-SELECT COMMITTEE - Report Claims of Peerage, &c. [No. 128]. PUBLIC BILLS-First Reading-Public Health (Fruit-Pickers Lodgings) (127); Interments (Felo de se) (130); Land Drainage Provisional Order (131); Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2)* (132); Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 3)* (133); Local Government Pro visional Orders (No. 2)* (134); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6)* (135); Local Government Provisional Order (No. 10)* (136). Second Reading Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister (75), negatived; Local Government Provisional Orders (106); Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law)* (107). Committee-Boiler Explosions* (85-129). states that Mr. Cookson is convalescent, and his injuries are not serious. Sir Edward Malet has telegraphed that the Khedive has sent an aide-de-camp to Alexandria, and the latest telegram received this morning from Mr. Calvert is of a more re-assuring character. The natives, the English authorities, and Dervish Pasha advise that men should not be landed. Sir Beauchamp Seymour has power to land sailors and marines should he think it necessary; but he has telegraphed that the disturbance is of a non-political character, and was suppressed by Egyptian troops. EARL DE LA WARR: I wish to ask the noble Earl, If the consent of the Sultan has been given to the proposed European Conference with reference to the affairs of Egypt? EARL GRANVILLE: All the Powers have pressed the Porte to consent to a Conference. The Sultan has stated his Third Reading—Arklow Harbour (98), and opinion that it is unnecessary, and in passed. EGYPT (POLITICAL AFFAIRS) — RIOTS AT ALEXANDRIA.-QUESTIONS. THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I wish to ask the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he has any further news which he desires to communicate to the House with reference to the state of things in Egypt; and, also, if he will inform the House whether Her Majesty's Government intend to take any measures, or whether measures are so far advanced that the Government can inform the House of their nature? EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, in reply to the noble Marquess's Question, I will read the telegrams which have been received at the Foreign Office from Alexandria. The first is from Vice Consul Calvert, dated 10.40 last night, and states that a serious riot had taken place in the afternoon between Arabs and Europeans, and that Mr. Pibworth, an engineer of Her Majesty's ship Superb, was killed, and many wounded, among whom were, I regret to state, Mr. Cookson, Her Majesty's Consul, and three constables of the Consulate. A further telegram from Mr. Calvert, dated 10.25 this morning, states that the women and children, who sought refuge in the Consulate, have been transferred to the ships, and that the military are maintaining order. I am glad to say that Mr. Calvert some ways objectionable; but His Majesty has made no refusal to the proposals of the Powers. MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S Order of the Day for the Second Reading read. THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said: Your Lordships are already acquainted with this Bill. It has been several times before Parliament. It has passed through all its stages in "another place" no less than seven times; and, although your Lordships have not yet seen fit to allow it to pass the second reading, you have, except on two occasions, regarded it with steadily-increasing favour each time it has come before you. Thirty years ago, when the House divided on the second reading, the "Contents" were only 16; in 1879 they were 81; in 1880 the number increased to 90; and on the last occasion the second reading was only lost by the small majority of 11. Judging by the tone of the recent debates in this House, it is evident that the passing or the rejection of this Bill now turns on the social aspect of the question-that is to say, on the question whether it is, or is not, for the general advantage of the community that the |