sympathy with the 40 political prisoners | during the coming winter there would still in miserable confinement. Last certainly both here and in Ireland be Sunday London had witnessed a great great gatherings of people brought and orderly gathering in Hyde Park, together with the object of stimulating called together to petition for this am- and claiming the clemency of the Crown. nesty. For his own part, he had declined He thought it most unwise in the preto attend that demonstration on Sunday, sent tranquil condition of affairs to give not because he thought it wrong to take unnecessary occasion for these huge part in works of mercy on that day, demonstrations. The Irish had intense but because he knew that in this country domestic sympathies, and deeply felt for these meetings on Sunday were objec- those who had for seven long years tionable to great numbers of our fellow- languished in jail, and whose families countrymen. Still the object of that mourned for them in their affectionate meeting had his heartfelt sympathy, and hearts as they would mourn for the dead. he wished now to put it to the Govern- Was any good object to be accomment, to the House of Commons, and to plished by a further exhibition of imthe country whether the time had not placability on the part of this country? arrived when all such meetings should The might of England had put down be rendered unnecessary by the exercise with ease the rising of Fenianism; it of the clemency of the Crown. He knew had inflicted great, even appalling, punwell that nearly all the political prisoners ishment, on those who had participated now in suffering were military prisoners, in it. Was vengeance never to cease, and he at once admitted that such pri- and a time of mercy never to arrive? soners must naturally expect to be judged He would make but one further obserby a harsher standard than civilians. If vation, and he prayed that the Governsoldiers violated the pledges under which ment might be guided by a true spirit of they enlisted and took part in insurrec-wisdom and statesmanship in the advice tion, they were, if that insurrection was he would give to the Crown. There successful, at once raised by historians was-and he thought it a sad and solemn into the highest ranks of chivalry; but thing-a widespread belief in Ireland if the movement was abortive, then they that the Administration itself was not must expect a severer judgment, and be averse to mercy, but that its hand was prepared to pay a heavier penalty. Let stayed and its arm shortened by the the House, however, consider for one military authorities. Such a feature he moment what the Fenian rising was. It looked upon as disastrous, and he was was really the outcome of the disband- most desirous to prevent any further ment of the great American armies in spread of it. There was no jewel in the War of Secession, and for his part the Crown of Her Majesty so resplendent he had always wondered that the dis- as the attribute of mercy and forgivesolution of so large a military host, ness, and to that tender spot in the composed as it was of all sorts and con-heart of the Sovereign he appealed to ditions of men, should have brought in its trail so small an amount of disturbance to Europe. The Irish insurrection was formidable; but what would it have been, if the great mass of the farmers and people of Ireland had taken part in it? No one could predict the desolation and misery that it might have entailed. But it was put down without extraordinary difficulty, and undoubtedly there was now no active trace of it. But let the House realize to itself what was being done by the prolonged imprisonment of these 40 men? Throughout Ireland, and in many circles in this country also, those who utterly condemned and abhorred the Fenian insurrection were beginning to feel very intensely the sufferings that were inflicted on them, and say "Justice is satisfied-go in peace -sin no more." MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY, in supporting the appeal of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry), said, it had frequently been asserted that the feeling of sympathy which existed for these prisoners was confined to those who were favourable to Fenianism, but the proceedings at the O'Connell celebration yesterday showed that another idea predominated even over the feeling of respect for the memory of Mr. O'Connell, and that was the desire for an amnesty. It could not now be doubted that amnesty was the wish of the entire Irish nation; and when that was the case, surely the British House of Commons would not refuse to pay MR. EDWARD JENKINS said, there was a growing feeling that something should be done to allay the aggravated excitement occasioned in Ireland by the continued confinement of persons who had been imprisoned mostly for political offences. He hoped the House would take the matter into kindly consideration, and carefully consider whether mercy might not be extended to most, if not all, of those who were now confined. He ought to say he could not altogether sympathize with his hon. Friend the Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) in the terms in which he had brought the question before the House. The House ought not to be influenced by menaces of agitation. Last Sunday he took the trouble to go to the meeting at Trafalgar Square, and to examine the ranks as they passed through Piccadilly, for the purpose of ascertaining what the classes were who took part in the demonstration. He was impressed with the orderly and resolved aspect of the people, who were, however, not of the better classes. He knew that in his own borough not only Roman Catholics of position, but also many who were Protestants were anxious to see this question in some way or other satisfactorily settled. But though crowds and demonstrations might be very effective as far as concerned their influence some attention to that demand. With in near £2,000,000 a-year for police, regard to the prisoners being military about £1,000,000 for their educational prisoners, he would point out to the purposes, and to bring discredit on the House that there were many countries administration of the laws by the Peace where less stable Governments had had Preservation Act. to deal with such men. Sometimes they had been executed; but, since 1848, there had been many occasions where countries had been far more disturbed than this country or Ireland had been, and yet the prisoners had been released from imprisonment. Surely it was not too much to ask this country, which was remarkable for its stability, to follow the example of the countries which had no stability, when the men in question had already suffered a considerable punishment. It might be said that any concession made to these men was a concession to Fenianism, and should, therefore, be refused. Well, he could not say at that moment Fenianism existed as a secret society in Ireland. The aspect of the organization had changed recently. It had ceased to be a secret society, and had now assumed the form of a democracy, and now took part in the constitutional struggles of this country, such as elections, in that shape. He would ask the Government to take that view of it, and to come forward and meet this constitutional spirit and grant what the people of Ireland most desired, and give a pardon to the few unhappy men who still remained in prison. All the Irish people had gained this Session was a Coercion Act-of mitigated character, it was true, but of increased length. But even if they had an improved Landlord Bill, a system of University Education, remedying the defects of the present system, and the Poor Laws rectified, he believed that the Irish people, even if conscious of practical legislation of this character, would not remain satisfied so long as these men were allowed to be in chains. He was of opinion that the exercise of clemency towards the Fenian prisoners would lead to a renewal of kindly feelings, and would effectually remove the difficulties which now existed against such a renewal. MR. WHALLEY expressed his regret that these men should be punished, while the chief actors in their conspiracy, though well known to the Government to be the Romish priesthood, were not only unpunished and unexposed, but, while carrying out their "veiled rebellion," were allowed to tax the public on the popular mind, he did not think they ought to be allowed to interfere with the policy of the Government. Apart from that, he thought there was a strong case indeed. The point was simply this, was the Government, by continuing to confine these persons in prison, really doing anything to effect the object they had in view-namely, to deter people from committing similar offences in the future? He thought that when that question came up, it ought to be fairly met and fairly answered by the Government; because, whatever might be the opinion of the military authorities as to the probable consequence of allowing these men, most of whom were military offenders, to be set free, they all knew that it was not the military authorities who dictated public policy. If it were, sions of the noble Lord on the conduct of Her Majesty's Ministers. MR. MÜNDELLA said, he did not take the same view of the matter; but, leaving that question, he was anxious that the House should arrive at some practical conclusion. He was one of those who for some years opposed any release of the military political prisoners; but two years ago he thought the time had come when they might with grace and advantage, and with a view to conciliation to Ireland, release the prisoners, and he had signed a memorial to that effect. He believed there was scarcely ever a time in the history of the country when the Irish people were, as a whole, more prosperous, more generally loyal, or more obedient to the laws, and when there was a fairer prospect of a future for Ireland than the present. He would not counsel the Government to yield to clamour; but in order to prevent an agitation that might become embarrassing, seeing the growing feeling of sympathy for these men, he thought they would do well at once to wipe out what was really the last personal grievance which the Irish people had on this question. There was no doubt that the sym that policy would be narrow and disingenuous. The question to consider was, whether these men had suffered sufficiently and efficiently, and whether it was not time that the Government should show that in its wrath it could remember mercy. He thought that the time had come when it would be wise to extend leniency to the prisoners. He thought the effect of it would be that in Ireland itself it would be felt, if granted now before greater agitation went on, to be a generous concession not wrung by demonstration from the Government. He thought it would be politic that the Government should endeavour to forecast the future-the time when these demonstrations might assume such importance that it would be considered that the Government had only given way because the concession was forced from them by popular demonstrations. While on his legs, he might be allowed to say that it had been his intention at this time to have called attention to the duel which took place last night between the Leaders of the two front benches, for the purpose of saying that he-and he believed many others besides himself on that side of the House below the Gangwaydid not entirely concur in the conclu-pathy of the Irish people was centring sions of either right hon. Gentlemen. They were not prepared to concur in all the criticisms of the noble Marquess upon the different measures of the Government on the one hand, and, on the other hand, they could not altogether accept, as accurate, some of the strange explanations of the First Minister. They desired it to be understood in the country that as long as the front Opposition bench continued to be, as it was, an unfaithful representative of the opinions of the whole rank and file of the Liberal Party, a divided leadership and an undecided one, it could scarcely expect to receive the support of the country, or be able effectively to oppose, or even to assist the Government in carrying wholesome measures through the House. But, as usual, when important matters were under discussion, the front Opposition bench happened to be empty. It would not, therefore, be proper that, in their absence, he should continue these remarks. He would simply say that he wished it to be understood that there were many hon. Members below the Gangway on that side of the House who did not concur in all the animadver around these men, who had already suffered so many years' imprisonment. Before that sympathy became too deeply seated, he would urge the Government, in their wisdom and consideration, to extend the hand of mercy to these men, and release them from their confinement. MR. HOPWOOD, in joining, as an English Member, in the appeal on behalf of the political prisoners, said, he had, as a rule, abstained from taking part in these Home Rule debates; but, at the early part of last year, he became convinced that the time had arrived when these prisoners ought to be released. The year which had passed since then had only tended to intensify his desire for their release, and to demonstrate the propriety on the part of the Government of doing this act of grace and mercy, for he admitted it would be an act of mercy to release these men. We had admitted by legislation that less extreme measures in Ireland were now required, and yet we were allowing these prisoners to languish in their gaol. We had had order vindicated in Ireland. The bulk of the people were loyal to the Queen. It was admitted that they were contented with the English Crown, and with the Queen; and if that were so, he saw no reason for refusing this prayer for an act of mercy. He considered the Government would do well to yield to the prayer at once. The sooner it was done, the more effective would it be in its results upon the affections of the Irish people. Bill considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time upon Monday. REMISSION OF PENALTIES BILL. taken under the statute of George III., which enabled, as was represented to the Government, private informers to obtain an advantage and put money in their pockets by enforcing a law which everyone condemned. This Bill was therefore introduced, and as it was originally framed it contained a provision that no such actions were in future to be brought without the permission and fiat of the Attorney General; and then, with a strange amount of inconsequence, there was another provision that the Crown should have power to remit every penalty which should be recovered by any common informer, not under this, (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson, Mr. Secretary Cross.) but any other Act. Now, what was [BILL 267.] CONSIDERATION. THIRD READING. Bill, as amended, considered. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."--(Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.) SIR HENRY JAMES said, this was a very important Bill, and, as affecting the rights and rational liberties of the people, ought not to be allowed to pass unnoticed. When its provisions were explained, it would be found that it did no justice to any person subjected to it; but, on the contrary, it absolutely encouraged and asked people to break the law, and to ignore statutes which remained upon our Statute Book. The previous stages of the Bill had been passed so hurriedly that very little attention had been called to them, and certainly attention had not been called to the course of the Government in altering the provisions of the measure. The Bill was avowedly introduced to meet a scandal which existed, and was regarded by the majority of the people, as one which applied to places which they resorted to on a Sunday-places which were perfectly harmless in their character, but for the opening of which, under the existing laws, penalties must be imposed. The Government themselves were so desirous to decide the law that they took the unusual course of directing an action to be brought, in order to discover whether it was illegal or not to keep these places open, and it was determined that it was against the law that they should be open. Now, it was either right or wrong that this statute should remain in force. The case was good in the Bill was the power of stopping these actions being brought, and what was bad was the provision which allowed the penalties to be remitted. out the clause which prevented actions The Government, however, had struck being brought, and had retained the clause giving power to remit the penalties. What then was the result? Under this sanction, the proprietors of the Brighton Aquarium were told to continue to open their building on Sundays, which, in other words, meant that they were told to break the law, because it had been decided that it was illegal that the place should be open. If the statute was a wrong statute, let it be repealed; and, if it was a right one, they ought not to encourage parties to break it, neither ought they to remit the penalties; but the excuse was there was not time for further legislation. That might be an excuse for not legislating rightly; but it was no excuse for legislating wrongly. They were now doing that which had never been done before. They were encouraging those who had been convicted of having broken the law to continue to break the law. If that was not the intention of the Bill, why was it presented to the House? If the Aquarium was not to be opened, why did they want the Bill? and if it was to be opened, they told the proprietors to break the law. In fact, they told the proprietors of the Aquarium to pay no respect to an Act of Parliament, because, if they were convicted under the Act, the Home Secretary would remit the penalties. But it seemed to him if such a course as this were to be followed, the action ought to be taken before the proceedings at law were commenced. Why did they tell the common informers to | in which the Government were placed in bring actions, and then, when the case regard to it? The attention of the Gowas decided, say-"We will remit the vernment was first directed to the subpenalty?" If the penalty ought not to ject by the action Terry v. the Brighton be enforced, surely the action ought not Aquarium Company. That action reto be brought, and, therefore, he con- suscitated an Act which had been for tended that they ought to begin by many years in complete abeyance. Up stopping the action. He also wished to to that time common sense, if he might point out that the Bill made no provision so call it, had regulated the conducting as to costs, and the informer would, of places of the kind; but suddenly, in therefore, still be entitled to his costs, the middle of the Session, an Act was because he would have enforced a proper resuscitated under which not only the remedy, while they had not the courage Brighton Aquarium would be classed as to stop him before he commenced his a disorderly place, but it was strongly action. It was notorious that the Go- insisted that the Act extended far beyond vernment first believed it was proper to even that, and that places where no stop the action. Why had they not had money was given at the door would come the courage of their opinions? Why under its operation. He had in his poshad they not proceeded in the course of session at that moment, a writ issued recent legislation-as, for instance, the and proposed to be tried against such Sunday Trading Bill of 1871 ? The places as the Botanical Gardens, a place present was a similar action for the non-where members friends were admitted observance of the Sabbath, and why did on Sundays by tickets, and where no they not give the same power of veto? entertainment was provided. To quote Though the Bill had been brought in an extreme case the piers at the different for the relief of the Brighton Aquarium, watering-places might be included, althe proprietors would not dare to open though in some cases the persons going it after the Bill was passed. They could on these piers did not pay money. [Sir not submit themselves to penalties day HENRY JAMES: No.] The hon. and by day in order to trust to the discretion learned Gentleman appeared to differ of the Home Secretary to remit the on the point, but there could be no penalties. One other objection he had question that it was a matter of great was, that the Bill must be temporary doubt, and, further than that, it was a and fragmentary, and he considered they question whether railway companies, ought to strike at the evil at once, which supposing they advertized to run to they were not doing by simply allowing places of amusement, were liable to pethese charges to be brought and then nalties. All those points were placed remitting the penalties. If the law were before Her Majesty's Government, and to be altered, surely it should be left to it was evident that if the law were put Parliament and not to the Home Secre- in force in those extreme cases, a state tary to say how far penalties should be of things would be introduced which enforced. He did not know if he was the House would not be disposed to sanctoo late; but, if not, he should like to tion. The Brighton Aquarium in conmove that the Bill should not extend sequence of music and refreshment being beyond a year, or, at any rate, he hoped provided came within the Act, and a an assurance would be given that it desire existed to test the question, wheshould be worked upon simply as a tem-ther without these attractions the Act porary measure, and be limited to a repeal of the Act of George III., giving penalties to the informer. SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON | there it was decided that, notwithstandsaid, he was sorry the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Sir Henry James) had not taken an earlier opportunity of raising the question, because he (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) quite admitted the subject was one which ought very justly to be fully discussed, and which might lead to considerable debate in that House; but what was the position applied. The result was that the case was tried as a friendly suit before Baron Pollock, in the middle of June, and ing all additional entertainment was withdrawn, the place was still within the Act. It therefore became a question whether under those circumstances they would amend the Act or repeal it. He knew there were many hon. Members in the House who were prepared to repeal the Act; but neither the Home Secretary nor himself, on the part of the Govern |