COMMITTEE.

HC Deb 24 March 1870 vol 200 cc576-635

Order for Committee read.

COLONEL STUART KNOX

said, that he had offered no opposition to the second reading of the Bill, in the hope that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government would have given some satisfactory explanation as to the condition into which he had got Ireland. But had he done so? Was not his speech a hopeless attempt to defend himself and his Colleagues when they were struggling for power? The effect of his various speeches and allusion to the Upas tree had been disastrous in Ireland, and had set Protestant against Catholic, and Catholic against Protestant. They were indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for an explanation of the word "felonious" used by the Foreign Secretary. Using that word in the same sense, and as understood by the right hon. Gentleman, and while, however, supporting this Bill as a necessity, he (Colonel Stuart Knox) declared that it had become necessary in consequence of the "felonious" conduct of Her Majesty's Government in Ireland. What greater crimes could be imputed to a Liberal Government than robbing the Church, stripping the landowner, and, lastly, gagging the Press? He congratulated the Government on having brought Ireland to such a state as to require the cousideration of two Coercion Bills in one night, the one for murderers, outlaws, and journalists; the other for landlords. He was not prepared to object to the Bill, nor did he say its powers were not ample, but would the Government put them in force? The rebel journalists who belonged to the national Press would get together and defy the Government, as they already did in anticipation; for The Nation, commenting on the Bill, said— We desire to be very explicit in dealing with this brutal threat. We tell the Minister that we defy and despise it. The world must see that we scorn and spit upon a tyranny so infamous if it be really attempted. And The Irishman, speaking of some hon. Members below the Gangway, declared that "by their inactivity they had betrayed their country." Would the Government run the risk of acting in a case where so much feeling would be excited by the prosecution of a newspaper? Would not the rebel journalists join together to defy them? With regard to the proposed Press law, he would say that it was very serious and objectionable, though one undoubtedly necessary under present circumstances. But, again, he asked, to whom did we owe the present state of Ireland? He would refer to an extract from a speech made during the existence of the late Government by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, and hoped that this quotation would not bring down upon him the vials of the right hon. Gentleman's wrath— It is confessed on all hands that Ireland is at present in a very peaceable condition, and free from those acts of outrage and violence that have been unfortunately of very frequent occurrence. Such was the description of the right hon. Gentleman two years ago. Why was Ireland not peaceable now under a Liberal Government? He would leave the House to answer that question. He agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Donegal (Mr. Conolly) that it would have been better to have suspended the Habeas Corpus Act, making the terror of the wicked the protection of the good. This opinion was fortified by the statement of the right hon. Member for Morpeth (Sir George Grey) in 1866, who said this power was required not so much for punishment as for prevention, as to which it would afford the most effectual, indeed, the only effectual check. The right hon. Member was in the House, and would, perhaps, now express his opinion to the same effect. He wished to say a word as to what had been said by his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General for Ireland. It was with deep regret he heard him make the remarks he did with regard to the Irish magistracy. Had the hon. and learned Gentleman given any advice on the subject to the Lord Chancellor? The hon. and learned Gentleman, in his recent speech, had thought pro- per to make an attack upon the Irish magistracy, which they could not forget, though he hoped they might be able to forgive; and the explanation of the hon. and learned Gentleman was even worse than the original statement, because he said that, as he was sitting on the Treasury Bench, he would not state his entire opinion on the subject.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)

I never said anything of the kind. What I did say was that I would not change my opinions because I was sitting on the Treasury Bench.

COLONEL STUART KNOX

said, that it was so stated in the report of The Times; but, of course, it was a mistake. However, he would remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that, if there were any faults in the Irish magistracy, the duty of correcting them rested with the Lord Chancellor and the Irish Law Officers of the Crown. He agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman when he said that it was not necessary for the welfare of Ireland that we should have a Conservative Government; and he trusted that we might have a change before long, so that we might see the hon. and learned Gentleman in the office of Lord Chancellor of Ireland, when, no doubt, he would use his talents to place the magistrates in a proper position. In the meantime he asserted that no fault could be found with them as a body, and they were ready to do their duty in spite of the slights and insults poured upon them by the Government.

SIR GEORGE GREY

I wish to say, in answer to the appeal made to me by the hon. and gallant Member, that, while the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act was the only effectual remedy for the state of things which existed in February, 1866, when it was my duty on the part of the Government to move its suspension, I think that remedy would be wholly inapplicable to the totally different state of circumstances which now exists. I entirely agree with what fell the other night from the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Dr. Ball), when he showed why a Bill containing provisions of this kind was applicable to the present state of Ireland, while the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act would have been totally inapplicable to it.

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clauses 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 5 (Construction of Act).

COLONEL FRENCH

took exception to the charging upon any one district of the cost of special police quartered upon it on account of an outrage committed by men who came from another district, and narrated the circumstances of an outrage in the county which he represented—that of Boscommon—which illustrated the hardship of which he complained. A body of several hundred men reinstated at night by force a tenant in the house from which he had been evicted, fired off some shots, and retired; they were followed several miles into the adjoining county, where they dispersed; not one of them was from the county of Roscommon; but an order came from Dublin Castle ordering the cost of six additional policemen to be borne by the county of Roscommon. The man who had been ejected was put upon his trial at the Assizes and acquitted. He had always objected to the principle upon which the Irish Government acted in setting aside the resident magistrates. If they trusted the local gentry and the people, outrages would cease; but the truth was, Government knew neither how to coerce or to conciliate There was no appeal against the allocation of expense in such a case as that he had mentioned, and he wished to know whether any opportunity would be afforded of avoiding the infliction of the penalty under similar circumstances?

MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE

said, he was unable to follow his right hon. and gallant Friend into the details of the case cited; but he must inform him that the powers proposed to be given by the Bill were additional to those given by the Peace Preservation Act, and it was not intended to do away with any of those powers. There were other Acts which gave the Lord Lieutenant the power to send bodies of police to the scene of any outrage, and to charge them upon the district; and this power was not touched by the Bill. The object of the Government was to act in such cases upon the best information within their reach, and, as a rule, they took into their counsel the magistrates of the district.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6 agreed to.

Clause 7 (Punishment for carrying or having arms in proclaimed district).

MR. MOORE

said, he thought that imprisonment for two years was too heavy a punishment for the offence, and he was perfectly certain that it would never be carried out. Half of those apprehended for carrying arms would be found to have carried them for no ill purpose, and the sentence would be continually remitted. He moved that "one year" be inserted for "two years."

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 12, to leave out the words "two years," in order to insert the words "one year."—(Mr. Moore.)

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)

observed, that it was left to the discretion of the Judge to sentence for any term not exceeding two years, according to the enormity of the offence; and if the House had any confidence in the administration of the law by the Judges, the clause had better remain unaltered, because there might be cases coming within the terms of the clause of a very aggravated character. It was now only asked to restore the law to the state in which it stood according to the original Peace Preservation Act.

MR. MOORE

said, that what he wanted was, that the sentence passed by the Judge should be adhered to when once pronounced, and anyone who knew Ireland must be aware that the punishment of two years' imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for merely carrying arms, would never be carried out.

MR. SYNAN

conceived that imprisonment for one year, with or without hard labour, was quite adequate to the offence. It would be better for the House to fix the amount of punishment, which, after all, the Judges were likely to award.

MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING

also considered that the penalty of one year's imprisonment would be quite sufficient, and said there was no necessity to make the Bill more aggressive than requisite. The punishment of two years' imprisonment was imposed by the original Act; but the term was afterwards reduced to one year in the last Peace Preservation Act, because the punishment previously enacted was deemed excessive.

MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE

said, that Ireland was not at present in the same satisfactory condition as at the period when the original Crime and Outrage Act was mitigated. It was true there might be cases where the possession of arms was a trivial offence; but the Judge was empowered to pass any sentence not exceeding two years' imprisonment. On the other hand, there were cases where the possession of arms, contrary to the known provisions of the law in proclaimed districts, was a very serious offence, especially when accompanied by circumstances showing that the persons carrying the arms carried them with a guilty intent. It was, therefore, desirable to have a large limit of punishment. He trusted that this clause would be allowed to remain as it was.

COLONEL FRENCH

said, he thought, as the Bill was only experimental and temporary, the change suggested by the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. Moore) might be made.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 333; Noes 31: Majority 302.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8 (15 & 16 Geo. 3. c. 21. and 1 & 2 Will. 4. c. 44. to apply to proclaimed districts).

MR. BAGWELL

asked what was the meaning of the reference to other Acts in this clause?

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)

said, this clause was intended to amend what was known as the Whiteboy Act, which had been rendered almost inoperative through a construction put upon it by some of the Irish Judges, who required, it to be proved to the satisfaction of a jury that the country was in a disturbed state before they would allow a conviction under its provisions. This clause required only that the district should have been proclaimed in order that the Act should apply; it also empowered the Court to extend the punishment for night offences from fine and imprisonment to seven years' penal servitude. He hoped the Committee would be of opinion that this was a wise change in the law, as these armed assemblages, which were such a curse to the country, ought to be put down by a determined hand.

MR. COGAN

deprecated the growing habit on the part of Members of the Government of making long speeches explanatory of any special provision in a Bill, he being of opinion that clauses should not merely state which parts of former Acts were retained and those that were repealed, but ought to enact clearly what the law was intended to be.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 9 (Repeal of 11 & 12 Viet. c. 2. s. 4.).

COLONEL FRENCH

asked for an explanation. By the Act proposed to be repealed, power was given to the Lord Lieutenant to send down an additional police force to any district, and to advance money out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the expense. It also enabled the Lord Lieutenant to name the portion or portions of a county by which such advance was to be repaid—a very objectionable power; but as the Bill re-enacted it, what was the object of repealing it?

MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE

intimated that the clause had nothing to do with the question raised by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 10 (Powers of persons acting under search warrants).

MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING

moved an Amendment in line 6, after "fit," insert "between the hours of sunrise and sunset." In former times, when powers were given to search for arms in Ireland at any hour, the demands for admittance to houses had been very vexatious and irritating to families. The hon. Member apologized for having in his Notice of Amendment transposed the words "sunrise" and "sunset," so that the Notice appeared in a form exactly opposite to what he intended.

MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE

said, he thoroughly understood the meaning of the hon. Member's Notice, as he knew from personal experience how one might unconsciously put the cart before the horse. Taking the words as they wore intended to be, he was not able to agree to the Amendment, because the object of the clause was to increase the powers of the police and local authorities upon a matter of the greatest importance when the House had it in view to put an end to crimes which wore prevalent in some parts of Ireland. The experience of those who were engaged in exercising the existing powers proved that the law, as it now stood, was totally insufficient to enable them to attain the desired object; as when the constabulary patrols or the troops passed at night through a disturbed district, which they now frequently had to do, they had no power to search the houses of those whom they might suspect to have been engaged in any outrage. The powers it was intended to give to the authorities would be exercised under a sense of the grave responsibility which attached to their use, and the House need not feel any fear that the houses of respectable persons would be violated by a search for weapons. The object of the Bill was to repress outrages, and to that point the attention of the House ought to be directed, rather than to the supposed stringency or violence of any enactment which carried out that intention.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11 (In proclaimed districts no dealer shall sell gunpowder but to a licenced dealer, or to a person licenced to keep arms).

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)

moved to omit the words "quantity of," as he thought it better that the clause should forbid the sale or delivery of any gunpowder; because it was quite possible that, on the clause as it stood, some learned Gentleman might raise the argument that the clause was intended to mean any large quantity of gunpowder. The omission of the words would prevent the possibility of any such argument.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 12 agreed to.

Clause 13 (In proclaimed districts where felony committed, Justices may summon persons suspected of being capable of giving evidence in relation to such offence, and punish persons refusing to give evidence).

MR. CALLAN

moved, in page 4, line 38, to leave out "proclaimed;" and after "district," insert "specially proclaimed." The Government, he thought, would have no difficulty in accepting the Amendment, which would simply limit the extraordinary powers of magistrates in such peaceable districts as the one of which he was a representative.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)

said, he thought that if the clause was amended at all, it ought to be by omitting the word "proclaimed." This clause, which was not intended to apply to any peaceable district, would not introduce any violent change in the law; but was so necessary, that when the Act expired it would be desirable to make this clause a part of the general law of the land. It gave no power which could not now be exercised in cases where in England a defendant was before the justices; but it proposed to extend existing powers to investigations in which no prisoner appeared. Nor was there anything unconstitutional in that proceeding; because coroners had hitherto possessed such powers when they held inquiries, which frequently resulted in the committal of a criminal.

SIR JOHN GRAY

thought the clause as it stood objectionable. He understood that this was not a temporary clause, but that it was intended to establish it as a principle of legislation, and to insert it in future Acts; and that any justice would have power to summon any person, without any exception whatever, who had received communications, perhaps under the seal of confession, and make him divulge that Communication, and imprison him if he did not answer the questions put to him. All this might be done in the absence of any defendant. He entirely objected to the clause.

MR. SYNAN

suggested that the time for discussing the question raised by the hon. Member for Dundalk (Mr. Callan) would be when an Amendment of which he (Mr. Synan) had given notice was before the Committee.

MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING

denied that a coroner had power to examine witnesses unless there was a body before him. There could be no inquest until the body was found, and no person could be compelled to give evidence unless there was a body to be viewed by the jury.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

believed that the Amendment of which the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan) had given notice was intended to improve the clause out of the Bill. He understood the law to be that if there was a defendant proceedings might be taken against him. If policemen had obtained information that persons could give evidence of crime committed they ought to be enabled to summon those persons before a magistrate in order that they might be examined, even if there was no defendant in the dock. He considered this one of the most important clauses of the Bill.

MR. WALPOLE

observed that the clause appeared to him to give power to examine a person who might have committed an offence, and he should like to know whether he would be bound to criminate himself?

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)

said, that the law of the land in that respect would not be interfered with; a man was not bound to answer any question that might tend to criminate himself: that being the law of the land, it was not necessary to put any provision with respect to that into the clause.

DR. BALL

observed, that this Bill was merely concerned with procedure, and did not in any way interfere with the law of evidence. He objected to the introduction of the Amendment.

SIR ROUNDELL PALMER

said, the latter part of the clause expressly provided that a person refusing to give evidence, when called upon, should be dealt with in the manner provided by an existing Act. Now, the existing Act therein referred to did not compel anyone to criminate himself. If it were desirable that crime should be detected, it must be desirable to get evidence with that view. The evidence acquired under the clause could not be used against any one in a court unless it was given in his presence. He could not see any objection to the clause being made a part of the law of the land. It seemed to him to be a wise and excellent provision, and he thought the only question that arose on the clause was whether it ought to be limited as regarded either time or place.

MR. BOUVERIE

remarked that the procurator fiscal did in Scotland what it was proposed by this clause the justices of the peace should do in proclaimed districts of Ireland.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, he hoped the same protection to life and property would be given in proclaimed districts as in specially-proclaimed districts.

MR. WHITWELL

suggested whether it might not be bettor to have the examinations under this section conducted by stipendiary magistrates rather than by justices of the peace.

Amendment negatived.

MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING

moved, inline 38, after "misdemeanour," insert "under this Act," for the purpose of confining the exercise of the exceptional powers given to the magistrates to misdemeanours under the Bill.

SIR ROUNDELL PALMER

said, that this Bill did not define misdemeanours, but took them as settled by law, and gave additional means of punishing them. He thought it would not be desirable to make such an Amendment.

MR. W. JOHNSTON

supported the Amendment. If there were not such a limitation as that proposed by the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Downing) the clause might, perhaps, be applied against a person who hung out a crimson flag from the cathedral of Deny. If the Government refused to accede to the Amendment, he must conclude that either they were going to confer an objectionable power on magistrates, or were going to aid him in his endeavour to repeal the Party Processions Act.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)

said, the hon. Member for Belfast (Mr. W. Johnston) need not be afraid that the parties to whom he had referred would come under the operation of the clause. They never hid their proceedings. He hoped the Amendment would not be pressed. If the words "under this Act" were inserted after "misdemeanour," there would be considerable difficulty in finding out what a misdemeanour under that Act was. Some might then think the clause referred only to those offences that were specially created misdemeanours under that Act; and he was afraid the effect of the Amendment would be that, in point of fact, the clause would apply to no misdemeanour whatever—a result which he was sure the proposer did not intend. If there was to be any such provision at all, it ought to be applicable to every misdemeanour in a proclaimed district.

Amendment negatived.

MR. WHITWELL

said, he thought, as the power conferred by the clause involved a principle new to the law, it would be better that it should be exercised by resident stipendiary magistrates than by justices of the peace. He proposed to insert "resident magistrates," instead of "justices of the peace."

DR. BALL

strongly opposed this Amendment, which, if adopted, would add to the many other discouragements that prevented magistrates from being active in the detection of crime. It was most desirable to hold out to every man of property and station who had undertaken the duty of a local magistrate that he was expected to discharge it, and not to evade it by casting the whole responsibility and danger upon a stipendiary magistrate.

SIR ROUNDELL PALMER

pointed out the wide difference between the office of a procurator fiscal in Scotland and that of a stipendiary magistrate in Ireland. The former was a public prosecutor, and the latter was not. He thought the clause should remain as it was.

MR. BOUVERIE

suggested that the difficulty might be solved by giving that power to two justices of the peace, instead of to one only. The House was usually a little jealous of giving power to a single justice, which might be exercised in his own room.

MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE

objected to the Amendment; because the clause introduced into the present law no new principle adverse to the witness or to anybody else, but merely proposed to give the justice of the peace precisely the same power, neither more nor less, of dealing with the witness, in the case of a crime being committed, whether there was a defendant actually charged with the offence or whether there was not. The power taken by the clause would make a serious difference to the administration of justice, but it would make no difference as against the witness himself.

MR. W. M. TORRENS

, as he read that clause, found in it a great deal that was new, because it clearly meant that they were about to do in Ireland what no hon. Member would agree to have done in any part of England. They were going, without there being any accusation against any person, to empower any single justice to call any person, of any age or sex, before him anywhere, and there to interrogate him or her about any matter or thing past, present, or, as he might suppose, to come, without any limitation whatever. That closely resembled the powers of what in old times was called the Holy Office or Inquisition. It was a proposal to search by a dragnet for evidence on any subject which any magistrate, sitting alone, might think required it; whereas the clear principle of law was that no man could be called to give evidence except against somebody who was confronted with him. Such a proposal would create suspicion of the worst possible kind—it would sow serpents' teeth, from which would spring up armed men. If they wanted justice to be administered on English constitutional principles, they should adhere to the rule that a man was to be summoned in public, and before two magistrates, if they were to be had, and, if not, before a stipendiary magistrate. The distinction drawn by the hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer) between a Scotch procurator fiscal and an Irish stipendiary magistrate was not substantially accurate; because, although the latter officer might not have the power of originating prosecutions, he was, or ought to be, in constant communication with the Executive Government, and under his advice the police were frequently moved about, and criminal proceedings were instituted at his suggestion. He believed that violent infractions of settled law were not nearly so dangerous, because they were not so insidious, nor so liable to be drawn into precedent, as what seemed to be slight and unimportant deviations from settled law; therefore, and looking upon this as one of those deviations which ought to be jealously guarded, he supported the Amendment before the Committee.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, that if any district in England found itself in the unfortunate position of a proclaimed district in Ireland, he was convinced the English Members would be the first to ask that some such provision as this should be extended to that district.

MR. O'REILLY

said, the practice in Ireland was to summon a witness to attend and give evidence at a petty sessions, and not before a magistrate at his private residence. Great alarm was felt in districts where the resident gentlemen were the magistrates, and, consequently, in districts where a felony or misdemeanour had been committed any magistrate might, under a panic, summon a witness without sworn information to his house and privately interrogate him. As a magistrate, he objected to such vague and general powers being given to that body, because he confessed it was likely to be abused in many ways. He would suggest that the power of summoning witnesses to give evidence in offences where no defendant was charged or present should be limited to sworn information that the witness was capable of giving important information. The best proposition was that made by the hon. Member for Kendal (Mr. Whitwell) fill-restricting the power of the stipendiary magistrate. The local magistracy were, in many cases, superior to the stipendiary body; but the latter were less liable to be alarmed by temporary local panics, and they were more directly responsible to the Government for any abuse of power.

MR. BRUEN

, as an Irish magistrate, speaking for his brother magistrates, said they were not at all anxious for those extraordinary powers; on the contrary, they would rather not have so disagreeable a duty to perform; but if the Government, in the exercise of their responsibility, thought fit to give them these powers, the magistrates would be quite ready, to the best of their ability, to discharge the duties imposed upon them. He objected to the proposal that there should be two justices, because he knew districts where it would, be difficult to get two justices together.

MR. COGAN

said, as he understood the Chief Secretary for Ireland, it was not the intention of Government to alter the existing law. At present a witness must be summoned to give evidence upon a sworn information in indictable offences at the petty sessions; and, therefore, to give one magistrate power to summon a witness to his private residence, and then interrogate him in private, would be a great departure from the present system. To give a magistrate power to ransack the county round for evidence would lead to acts of great hardship, and would prove injurious to the preservation of the peace of the district. The power should be limited to summoning witnesses on sworn information.

VISCOUNT BURY

said, there was a disposition on the part of English Members to leave the discussion of the de- tails of the Bill to Irish Members; but there were some points in connection with them on which English Members ought to express an opinion. It was beside the question to argue the provisions of this Bill as an ordinary measure to meet ordinary cases, because the scope and object of the Bill was to provide by special legislation for an exceptional state of things, and to enlist all those concerned in the administration of the law in vindication of the principles of justice; therefore, anything that might induce the magistrates in Ireland to devote themselves more to the vindication of the law ought to be supported. As to having two magistrates instead of one, he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not be impossible in many districts to get two justices together, especially in times of emergency, whereas one magistrate might act promptly, and thus put his hand on evidence which it would be desirable to obtain.

MR. STAVELEY HILL

said, he could not agree with those who thought this was a good mode of putting the law in motion. He suggested that the power should be limited in one particular. It would be a dangerous thing for a person to pour the tittle-tattle of a district into a magistrate's ear, and call upon him to act upon it. That would rather defeat the ends of justice. He would recommend to insert after the word "district," "upon sworn information before him that such felony or misdemeanour has been committed."

MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING

said, if the clause in its present shape passed people could be brought before a magistrate on the mere ipse dixit of a policeman alleging that a misdemeanour had been committed. There should be a sworn information in the first instance that a misdemeanour or felony had been committed, and that information should be the foundation upon which the magistrate should act. Let them not go back to times when a magistrate could summon people to his own house and adjudicate on his own case.

MR. G. B. GREGORY

said, he thought that some hon. Gentlemen who objected, to the clause could not have read it; because if they had done so, they would have found that the magistrate could only take cognizance of acts committed within his jurisdiction.

MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE

observed that it was the intention by this clause to give the same power of examining witnesses where no offender had been apprehended as was conferred by the present law in the case where the apprehension had been made. He was perfectly willing to introduce words into the clause, providing that the investigation contemplated should be made in petty sessions, so that it might be held in open court, and not in the magistrate's private house.

MR. BAGWELL

objected to their intrusting these odious powers to a stipendiary magistrate, to the exclusion of all the other magistrates who might be assembled in petty sessions.

MR. MOORE

likened the powers conferred by this clause to those formerly exercised by the Inquisition, and by the Inquisition alone; because under these provisions a magistrate was empowered to ask a man questions not respecting any particular offence or offender, but respecting anything or anybody he pleased.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

wished to know if the Government assented to the witnesses being examined in public at the petty sessions. [Mr. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE: Yes.] That would weaken the clause; because in many places in Ireland petty sessions were held once a week, and in others only once a month, and before two justices at least. It would be better to postpone the clause to enable the Government to bring up a new one.

DR. BALL

said, it would be quite sufficient to say the witness should be summoned to the court-house, and not to a particular session. That would obviate all objection to the possibility of the witness being summoned to the magistrate's private house, and sanction the publicity of the proceedings.

MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE

said, he could not but perceive that there was much force in the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman opposite; but by the insertion, of words requiring that the examination should be conducted in the place where the petty sessions were usually held, publicity would be secured without occasioning delay.

SIR JOHN GRAY

objected to these powers being intrusted to a single magistrate. There ought to be two, or he should be a stipendiary magistrate.

MR. HUNT

suggested that the introduction of the words that the witness should be summoned "to a place where petty sessions are usually held" would answer every purpose.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)

believed that the difficulty which some hon. Gentleman imagined would be found in the way of a satisfactory working of the clause was more imaginary than real. The clause was really intended to enact Clause 13 of the Petty Sessions Act, and apply all the powers contained in that clause to the case in which no offender was before the court. The Government were willing to make the clause substantially what the petty sessions clause was.

THE O'CONOR DON

said, he could have no objection to the clause if he believed that its effect would be to tranquillize the country; but he was opposed to it, because he did not believe it would have such an effect. He could conceive nothing less calculated to promote peace and tranquillity in a district than an attempt to extort by force evidence from unwilling witnesses. The Solicitor General for Ireland seemed to think that it was sufficient protection to the witness that he would be able to decline to answer any questions which might criminate himself. But, if that exception were largely acted upon, the main object of the clause would be defeated. His firm conviction was, that if magistrates sent men to prison for refusing to answer questions great discontent would be engendered. He had known a case where, under the existing law, magistrates had attempted to procure evidence after this fashion in a case of poaching, and the witnesses refusing to give evidence were committed to prison for a week. But so much excitement and discontent was created in the locality that the magistrates, on some excuse or other, were obliged to liberate those men at their very next meeting; for there could be no doubt that their re-commitment would have been attended with serious consequences to the peace of the district. Admitting that the clause proposed but a very slight extension of the existing law, yet, as that law was unsuited to the present circumstances of Ireland, he should give to the clausee very opposition in his power.

SIR JOHN GRAY

said, he had no objection that any justice should be em- powered to summon, provided he was not also to hear and decide.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)

said, he had no objection to strike out the word "has" in line 39 and insert the words "shall be made to appear to have," which would make the clause read in effect thus—"Where in any proclaimed district any felony should be made to appear to have been committed the justices should have power to summon him," &c.

Amendment withdrawn.

MR. SYNAN

said, he had next to propose an alteration which would strike at the principle embodied in the clause. That principle, if adopted, would change the whole character of the law in this country, under which, unless there was a prosecution actually proceeding or landing, no Judge or magistrate had the power of summoning witnesses before him to fish for evidence from them to support a prosecution. Magistrates were men like other men, with local prejudices, with political or social jealousies, possibly filled with local animosities—["Oh, oh!"]—and for their own sakes they ought not to be placed in a position in which, in certain events, they would have power to summon everybody for six miles round before them, and if they did not like their answers to commit them to prison. It had been suggested that a witness could escape from the difficulty by suggesting that his answers might criminate himself. But in what position would he be placed by giving such an answer? Why, it would at once imply that he was the guilty person. If the proposed law were carried out it would aggravate the state of things it was intended to remedy. There were in Ireland many magistrates that were really in a state of monomania, and would be liable to commit most outrageous acts under this clause. He therefore moved, in page 4, line 40, to leave out from "although" to "offence," line 41, both inclusive, and insert, "before whom anybody is charged with the commission of such offence."

Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 40, to leave out the words "although no person may be," in order to insert the words "before whom anybody is."—(Mr. Synan.)

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he thought his hon. Friend had not chosen the most convenient mode of raising this question, for his Amendment struck at the very essence of the clause, and he wished the Committee clearly to understand that their vote in this instance would be one upon the principle of the clause. It was desirable that the Committee should properly understand how the case stood. The difficulty as to publicity had been got rid of, and all the Government now asked was this—As impunity for crime was the great curse and plague of the disturbed districts of Ireland at the present moment, and as that impunity depended upon the difficulty of obtaining evidence, it was proposed to put any persons who might be able to give evidence to no other inconvenience than might result from rendering them liable to be examined before there was any defendant in the case, and in the same circumstances in which they would be liable to give evidence if there was a defendant. That was the sole distinction between the existing law and that which the Government proposed. He thought the majority of the House would consider, under the circumstances of Ireland, that if they wore to have a Bill of this kind at all, it was not an unreasonable demand to make. It went to the root of the mischief with which they were dealing. It had been largely discussed, and he hoped the vote they were about to give would be understood as decisive of the Bill.

MR. MOORE

said, he would very much like to hear whether there was to be any practical limit whatever to the inquisitorial power which the clause would place in the hands of the magistrates.

MR. GLADSTONE

replied in the affirmative. It must be made to appear that a felony and misdemeanour had been committed, and the subject-matter of the offence would form the limit to the inquiry.

MR. MOORE

said, he thought the answer was hardly satisfactory, for who was to determine what did or did not concern that subject-matter? In point of fact, the magistrate would have a right to inquire about every person and everything he chose.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)

remarked that if a magistrate were fit for anything he would know whether the questions he asked had reference to the subject before him.

MR. COGAN

, while thanking the Government for the concession they had made, thought that they should go further and enact that these investigations should be conducted before two resident magistrates.

DR. BALL

doubted whether that would be practicable in remote districts, and thought it would be better to leave the clause as it stood; because he felt certain that a county magistrate would always call in the aid of a stipendiary magistrate if he could, were it only to relieve himself from the odium which might fall upon him in the event of his conducting the inquiry alone.

SIR JOHN ESMONDE

suggested that the inquiry should be conducted either by two magistrates or by one resident magistrate.

MR. W. H. GREGORY

objected to such an alternative. He looked upon it as invidious to say that it required two Irish magistrates to sit in authority in cases where the jurisdiction of one was sufficient in England and Scotland. Many of them might retire altogether from active duty under such an imputation. He thought it a very fair proceeding that when a crime had been committed, an inquiry should take place, whether anyone were charged or not. For his own part, he could see no great reason to complain of the clause.

SIR PATRICK O'BRIEN

was of opinion that the resident magistrates ought to administer the law, as it would be better carried out by magistrates who possessed technical legal knowledge.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 161; Noes 16: Majority 145.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)

proposed to insert in the clause at line 41, after the word "summon"— To the place where the petty sessions for the district in which said felony or misdemeanour has been committed are usually held. The insertion of those words would, he thought, obviate the objection that the examination of a witness might be held in the magistrate's parlour.

MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING

asked whether the Solicitor General had any objection to say that the examination should be in open court?

MR. CHARLEY

suggested that an examination in open court might be perfectly useless.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)

thought it better to allow the Amendment to remain as it was. He thought the concession made by the insertion of these words was a fair one. The effect of it was not that the party should be summoned to the next petty sessions, but to the court-house where the petty sessions were usually held.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING

proposed to insert in line 42, after the word "who," "upon an information on oath and in writing," in order to prevent persons giving in the names of others as witnesses for the purpose of annoyance.

MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE

objected to the words as totally unnecessary. It was a mistake to suppose that witnesses required any more protection than they now had; for they were already subject, in cases where some one was in custody, to the conditions imposed upon them by this clause.

Amendment negatived.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 14 to 19, inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 20 (Power to arrest persons in district specially proclaimed found out at night under suspicious circumstances).

MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING

objected to the discretion given to the justices either to commit the suspected person to gaol or admit him to bail "as to such justice shall seem fit." That discretion might be exercised very much to the injury of the person apprehended, and if substantial bail were tendered there seemed to be no reason for rejecting it. He moved, in line 9, leave out "as to such justice shall seem fit," and insert "if sufficient and ample bail be offered."

MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE

regretted that he could not accept the Amendment, which would weaken the clause by taking from the magistrate the discretion it gave him. He did not think the magistrate should be com- pelled to take bail, and if the power contemplated by the clause were given at all, it should be an effectual power. The object of the clause was to leave discretion in the hands of the magistrate, and he might exercise it by not admitting to bail at all. The words "sufficient and ample bail" could refer only to the amount of the bail; but the clause would leave it to a magistrate whether a ease was one in which bail could be properly accepted. There was nothing new in the provision, which had worked for many years with good effect.

MR. M'MAHON

supported the Amendment. If ample bail were offered, there could be no reason for keeping a man in gaol.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)

said, as had been already observed, the object of the clause was to give discretion to the magistrates as to whether a man should be admitted to bail. There might be cases in which ample and sufficient bail would be offered, and where, in the event of the bail being forfeited, the bail might be indemnified from a fund raised for that purpose, so that the acceptance of bail might not be any security for the appearance of the person charged. He hoped that the Committee would maintain the clause as it stood, in order that the magistrates might have the power of exercising their discretion.

Amendment negatived.

MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING

moved, in lines 13 and 14, after "charge" leave out "and unless it is proved to their satisfaction," and insert "and if upon such hearing the justices shall believe;" line 14, after "was," insert "not;" line 15, leave out "his," and insert "some."

MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE

said, that having maturely considered the clauses of the Bill, the Government was desirous of passing them in their full force; but these Amendments appeared to him reasonable, and he would not refuse to adopt them.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 21 (Power to Lord Lieutenant by order to close public-houses in districts specially proclaimed).

MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE

proposed the omission from the description of the houses for the sale of liquors of the words "and to be drunk on the premises," explaining that in Ireland, as in England, there were houses licenced to sell drink not to be drunk on the premises, which it was desirable to bring within the operation of the Bill, so as to prevent evasion of the law.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause further amended, and agreed to.

Clause 22 (Power to arrest strangers in district specially proclaimed).

MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING

objected to the examination "on oath" of the person arrested as contrary to constitutional law, quite unnecessary, and exposing him to an indictment for perjury; and he moved the omission of the words "on oath."

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)

did not think the words open to the objections that were taken; but he would consent to the words being struck out.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. BOUVERIE

said, the clause gave strong powers for the arrest of persons who might have nothing to do with the disturbances in a proclaimed district, and such persons might be detained in prison because there was no one in the district who knew them to give security for them. He might be travelling in Ireland, might be suspected by an aspiring-police officer, might be dragged before a magistrate, who might not be satisfied with the account he gave of himself; he might then be sent to gaol, and his only chance of getting out would be that the Lord Lieutenant or the Chief Secretary would exercise a little more discretion than the magistrate, and upon the information forwarded to them would be disposed to let him out. He would suggest that a penalty should attach to the justice who did not forward a report to the Lord Lieutenant immediately, otherwise he might be arrested, and if the report was not sent up to Dublin immediately he might be kicking his heels in prison without the Government having the opportunity of considering his case.

MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE

assured his right hon. Friend that he underrated the chance of escape he would have under such circumstances. The Lord Lieutenant had the means of knowing most things; police reports reached the Castle of Dublin every morning, and where there was any doubt the Lord Lieutenant had power to make inquiry and ascertain what was going on. The point raised by his right hon. Friend had not attracted his attention, but he would consider it before the Report.

MR. STAVELEY HILL

remarked that by the clause it was provided that "it shall be lawful for any justice of the peace to arrest and bring before him a stranger," &c. There was an Irishism. How was it necessary to bring the person before the justice of the peace when the justice had arrested him, and he must already have been before him?

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)

If there be an Irishism in the clause it is taken out of an English Act of Parliament.

COLONEL FRENCH

said, he thought the power given by the clause ought to be granted in the case of a stranger appearing in any locality and not being able to give a satisfactory account of himself.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 23 and 24 agreed to.

Clause 25 (Any metropolitan police magistrate or stipendiary magistrate may act alone).

MR. BAGWELL

objected to the last part of the clause. He was sorry that the Chief Secretary was not in his place, as he found that Clause 13 had been amended in a manner he had not been led to expect. He understood, from the conversation he had with the Chief Secretary in the Lobby, that the cases under that clause would be heard by two magistrates in petty sessions courts; but it now appeared that one magistrate was to take upon himself the invidious and odious duty of examining a person privately; and having taken the evidence, the first gentlemen in the county were not to have any cognizance of it when they entered the petty sessions court.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)

said, he could not answer for what his hon. Friend the Member for Clonmel had understood from the Chief Secretary; but, so far as he was concerned, no arrangement had been come to that two magistrates should take the cases under Clause 13. It was a little irregular now to discuss that clause. There was no breach of faith. It would have defeated the whole intention of the clause for the Government to yield on the point. The summary proceedings under the 25th clause related only to breaches of the Whiteboy Act, the Arms Act, and illegal drilling and training to the use of arms. Power was conferred on justices at petty sessions to dispose of such cases summarily, instead of sending them to the assizes. It was required that at least two justices should be present, and that one of them should be a stipendiary magistrate; but there was no intention to cast any slur upon the local justices. He believed they generally discharged their duties properly and justly.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 26 (Venue may be changed on suggestion of Attorney General).

MR. M'MAHON

objected to the clause, on account of the extraordinary power it would give the Attorney General. The hon. and learned Gentleman could order a trial to be removed from Ireland to London. He suggested that in cases where the venue was changed provision should be made for payment of the defendant's expenses.

SIR JOHN GRAY

said, he objected to this power being given to the Attorney General. He was not to come and ask, or to show cause, but to command the Queen's Bench on his mere ipse dixit to remove a trial. What had the Court of Queen's Bench done to warrant such an insult?

MR. MOORE

moved to strike out from "the said Court," in line 15, to the word "upon," and insert "may, if the Court think fit."

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)

said, the Government were exceedingly anxious that no hardship should be imposed upon any prisoner in consequence of his being removed to another county for trial; and he promised that the suggestions which had been made should be considered by the Government before the Bill was passed. As an instance of the willingness of the Government to make such provision he mentioned that at the last trial which was held in the Court of Queen's Bench for Ireland, counsel for the prisoner asked the Lord Chief Justice to consider the expenses of his being tried in Dublin, and the Attorney General for Ireland at once consented to make pro- vision for those costs. His hon. Friends the Members for Kilkenny and Mayo scarcely understood the law as it was at present, or they would hardly have proposed to strike the clause out of the Bill, and to give the Court of Queen's Bench power which it already possessed. He (the Solicitor General) did not wish to take any power from that court, which was presided over by his Friend, Lord Chief Justice Whiteside, who had, in past years, delighted the House with his eloquence, and whose assistants wore not in any respect inferior to himself. That court could now entertain an application to remove a trial by certiorari from sessions or assizes into the Court of Queen's Bench, where it would be disposed of as a cause at Nisi Prius. If, however, the Attorney General wished to change the venue he should apply to the court on affidavits, as was done in the case of "Regina v. Barrett," stating that in the county in which the offence was committed an impartial trial could not be obtained in consequence of the state of public feeling there. He desired to state in an open and bold manner that the object of the Bill was to grapple with the condition of Ireland, leaving the law unchanged as far as possible, but, where it introduced changes, giving power to the Attorney General, who was amenable to Parliament and to public opinion. He, upon his own fiat, could ask the court to remove the trial into any other county that he might name, because the court had no materials on which to judge with respect to the county in which a trial should take place. A prisoner could then be tried according to the laws of Ireland by a jury who would be free from intimidation and insult, and thus the course of justice would not be stayed.

SIR JOHN GRAY

said, he did not know that the Court of Queen's Bench for Ireland had done anything for which its authority should be superseded, as it would be by the adoption of this clause, which gave the Attorney General power to direct the court to do that about which its discretion was now exercised. The court had never been accused of partiality or disaffection, and it ought to be allowed to determine as to the sufficiency of the evidence on which the application was based before it ordered a venue to be changed. By this clause the Executive Government would override the court, trample on its dignity, and command it to do as it was bidden, and to this he (Sir John Gray) objected.

MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING

said, the Attorney General for Ireland—for whom he entertained the highest respect—would, under this clause, merely have to send the Crown Solicitor into court with two lines, stating—"It is hereby directed by the Court that the issue above joined shall be tried by a jury of the county of—," and there upon a Kerry prisoner might be sent to Monaghan or Donegal, although in the county to which he was removed there was not an individual who could give him a character. At present a prisoner might not be able to resist the application to change the venue, but he might show good cause why his trial should not be held in a particular county. This clause would give power to the Attorney General to remove a prisoner to any county, and would revive a power which had only been exercised by the Crown in the darkest days of Irish history.

DR. BALL

said, it should be considered that the power which it was proposed to give the Attorney General might be used in prosecutions arising not out of agrarian or political disturbances, but out of party questions. Was the Attorney General in such a case to be permitted to choose his Judge and choose his venue? The objection appeared to him to have weight, and he could not see what objection there could be to leave the jurisdiction with the Court of Queen's Bench.

MR. CALLAN

remarked that the Judges of the Court of Queen's Bench were far less likely to be swayed by political motives than the Attorney General or any other political officer.

MR. MAGUIRE

said, he thought some case should be made out of failure of justice through the refusal of the Court of Queen's Bench to comply with the request of the Government before such an extraordinary proposal as this was adopted.

MR. BRADY

said, he hoped the Government would not press the clause.

MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE

said, he thought there was considerable force in some of the objections urged against this clause. They did not think they would be justified in surrendering the power which was claimed for the Attorney General, especially in regard to proclaimed districts, of removing a trial from a county. But they thought it would be an improvement to leave the decision as to the place to which it should be removed to the Court of Queen's Bench. It was of the utmost importance that a trial should be removed from a disturbed district, and that it should be known that it could without any doubt be removed. But with respect to the place where an accused person should be tried, this they were quite ready to leave the court to decide.

MR. MOORE

said, he would withdraw his Amendment.

On Motion of The SOLICITOR GENERAL for IRELAND, words inserted, giving power to the Court of Queen's Bench, to direct the issue to be tried in such county as the court shall name.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 27 (Newspapers containing treasonable or seditious matter, &c. forfeited to Her Majesty).

MR. BOUVERIE

confessed he viewed this clause with feelings of considerable repugnance, inasmuch as it placed restrictions upon the freedom of the Press, and would lead the Government to embark into a system of greater evil with regard to the Press than had existed for the last 200 years. It would, in fact, be creating afresh a kind of Star Chamber, because the Government would have absolutely the power of putting down the Press in Ireland. He thought the most they ought to do was to stop the issue of only those newspapers which should be published with seditious matter after the introduction of this Bill in the House of Commons on the 18th of March. He begged to move the insertion of the words "and published after the 18th of March of this present year."

DR. BALL

thought the Amendment unnecessary. An Act of Parliament was not retrospective unless it contained specific words to make it so.

MR. BOUVERIE

observed that in Clause 30 it was provided that— Any copy or copies of the said newspaper published before the search or seizure complained of may be given in evidence. Here there was no limit taken as to time.

THE SOLIOITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)

said, he thought the words of the clause as it now stood were sufficient to prevent any retrospective operation; but, if the right hon.

Gentleman (Mr. Bouverie) withdrew his Amendment, he would move the insertion of the words, "any newspaper printed in Ireland, or purporting to be printed in Ireland, after the passing of this Act." Those words would take the place of the words, "any newspaper printed in Ireland."

MR. BOUVERIE

said, he would withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment (the Solicitor General for Ireland) agreed to.

MR. SYNAN

rose to move, as an Amendment, the omission in page 10, line 5, of the words "treasonable or seditious" from the clause, on the ground that the Solicitor General for Ireland had stated that this Bill was not one intended to meet political, but social disorder in Ireland. That was to say, it was to provide against acts of felony, and not against acts of sedition. There was no necessary connection between treasonable or seditious writing and writing which incited to agrarian outrage. If, in this case, there was such connection, the onus of proving it was on the Government, but they had not done so. The writer who wished to bring about a treasonable or seditious movement, would defeat his own object if he incited to agrarian outrage. Political writing in Ireland ought to be under the same legal conditions as political writing in England, and what would the institutions of this country have been if the freedom of the political Press had been interfered with in the manner which it was proposed to interfere with it in Ireland under this clause? If the attempt were made to mix up two distinct and separate classes of offences, the effect would be to array against the Government all the intelligence, order, and property of the country. As the Bill stood, it appeared as if it were wished to pass enactments for the suppression of political agitation, under the pretence of checking the licentiousness of the Press. He protested against having one law for Ireland and another for England, which made the Union virtually one of parchment only. It should be left to the ordinary law of the highest tribunals in the country to decide what was treason and sedition, instead of to the judgment of an individual. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving the omission of the words "treasonable or seditious" from the clause.

MR. STAVELEY HILL

, in seconding the Amendment, thought the mixing up of legislation in regard to the Press with a measure brought in for the repression of agrarian outrages was a very questionable proceeding. They were asked to create a wholly novel jurisdiction with respect to treason and sedition, and although he condemned the articles which had been quoted the other night from certain Irish newspapers, yet he felt that he should be false to his profession if he did not view with extreme jealousy any interference with the freedom of the Press; for the Bar and the Press had always stood foremost in support of the liberty of the subject. What was the present state of the law in relation to treason and sedition? Any man might be indicted on information for any treasonable or seditious language; the matter went before a jury, whose function it was to say whether or not it amounted to sedition or treason. If the jury held that it did, then the defendant was subject to the penalty of fine or imprisonment, or both. He agreed with the Prime Minister in thinking that the punishment of imprisonment alone was unsatisfactory, because it might be easy for the proprietors or conductors of a newspaper to get some one to go to prison for them. It was proposed by Clause 27 and the subsequent clauses of that Bill that— Where any newspaper printed in Ireland contains any treasonable or seditious engraving, matter, or expressions, or any incitements to the committing of any felony, or any engraving, matter, or expressions having a tendency to foster, encourage or propagate treason or sedition. Then certain steps might be taken against it. Who was to be a judge of that? The Lord Lieutenant of Ireland or the other members of the Irish Executive, who, if they thought any newspaper article or engraving had "a tendency to foster sedition," might immediately order the seizure of the press and all the printing materials of the journal in question, and such seizure having been made, and the owner's property all taken away from him, he might defend himself if he could get enough money for the purpose. And how was he to do it? He might bring his action under the warrant of the Lord Lieutenant, the very authority who had ordered the seizure of his property and set the whole proceeding in motion against his journal.

And the man, too, must commence his action within the short space of fourteen days of the date of the seizure. That was a sample of the way in which the unfortunate printer was to be treated. Well, the Government would appear as the defendant in the action, and the only defence it need put in was that the newspaper did contain the engraving or expressions complained of; and, in the event of the jury finding that the newspaper did contain the engraving or expressions, the Government would be entitled to the verdict. Thus, the only question for the jury to inquire into was whether the words that appeared in the Lord Lieutenant's warrant really appeared in the journal; and if they did the jury must find a verdict for the defendant. It was for the Judge alone, under the Lord Lieutenant, to say whether the matter or the engraving was a seditious libel or not. Was not that one of the most gross interferences with the liberty of the subject ever attempted in our time? As the Government was to be a party to the suit, surely it should be careful, above all things, not to adopt any high-handed action. But the Government was to say to the printer—"You have committed an offence against us; we will send down an officer to judge between you." No doubt, that officer would be a Judge of high character; but, surely, a mode of proceeding so open to hostile comment ought to be avoided. The leading journal that day expressed a hope that some means would be devised for averting such an interference with the laws of this country, and he himself would venture to suggest that the Act of 20 & 21 Vict. c. 83, commonly known as Lord Campbell's Act, which was passed after most careful consideration by the highest authorities to prevent the sale and dissemination of obscene books and pictures, &c, might be made applicable to the present case by the insertion of two words—namely, "treasonable or seditious"—after the word "obscene" in the first section. The section in question empowered magistrates to authorize by special warrant the search of suspected premises for obscence publications, and if such publications were discovered they might be seized and brought before the magistrates, who would thereupon summon the owner to show cause within seven days why they should not be destroyed; and if the owner failed to appear, then the magistrate, on being satisfied that they were of a such a character and description that their publication would be a misdemeanour and proper to be prosecuted as such, should have authority to order them to be destroyed at the expiration of the time allowed for lodging an appeal. What did they do under that Act? They kept strictly within legal bounds. They did not allow the papers to be destroyed until the time for appeal had gone by. If the Court of Appeal should find that the papers were not of the character which the magistrates had found them to be, the whole of them were to be restored, the person who had seized them was to offer amends, and then no action could be brought. Could there be a more proper way of dealing with the subject than that? But under the present Bill books and pamphlets printed elsewhere would be freely circulated in Ireland, and in that case what would this Act be but simply an insult to the Irish Press? When The Confessional Unmasked—he had argued the case before the Queen's Bench—was seized, what was done? Did they go to the office of the Electoral Union and seize the property there? No; they were content with taking the book and stopping the circulation; and from that moment the book was no longer seen in the Strand and Trafalgar Square, where before it was publicly sold. He was reminded by the present proposal of one of the dialogues of Lucian, in which a countryman and Jupiter meeting together began to talk, and the countryman having said something which his godship did not approve, Jupiter threatened him with his thunder. "That proves, Jupiter," said the countryman, "that you are wrong; you are always wrong when you appeal to your thunder." Depend upon it the people of Ireland would say the same thing. Restraint always engendered resistance; but by appealing to the reason of the Irish people we should convince them that they were governed by true friends, in whom they might confide. By bringing in a Bill which should stop treason and sedition wherever it made its appearance, which should deal equally with the people of England and Ireland, Her Majesty's Government would take away the sting from all complaint of injustice by showing that what was law for Ireland was law for England also.

Amendment proposed, in page 10, line 5, to leave out the words "treasonable or seditious."—(Mr. Synan.)

THE O'DONOGHUE

said, he wished briefly to justify the vote he was about to give. It would be a waste of time to investigate the causes which had led to Irish discontent and to the unsettled state of Ireland. He entertained no doubt that both had been the result of misgovernment. Misgovernment it was that had detached the great body of the people from the State; that had made men of all classes, with the exception of a small domineering minority, at best only qualified supporters of the established order of things. Then, from an apprehension of going from bad to worse, they submitted to what appeared to them to be their inevitable fate. But it was not in human nature that they could loyally sustain a system which denied them the exercise of political rights, which was based upon intolerance, and which placed them not merely at the feet of a triumphant nation, but absolutely at the mercy of every local despot. He mentioned these circumstances not to revive memories that he hoped to see buried for ever, but in order to call the attention of the House to the character of the government that Irishmen formerly had to endure, to remind them of the treatment against which it was in those days that the spirit of Ireland rebelled, and to contrast the free and enlightened system founded by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister with one which, while powerful enough to suppress rebellion, rendered loyalty impossible. Irishmen were now living under a Government that had disestablished and disendowed the Irish Protestant Church, and inaugurated religious equality—under a Government that had brought in, and, he doubted not, would carry through, a measure of land reform, imposing penalties so heavy upon the exercise of arbitrary powers of ownership as to render eviction practically impossible—and under a Government which, having pledged itself to the adoption of the Ballot, had guaranteed the reign of political liberty, and thereby placed within the reach of his countrymen all the advantages that legislation could confer. Why, he main- tained, that if their ancestors were to revisit the scene of their sorrows they would nowhere be able to find the grievances which had pressed them to the earth. Under these circumstances he could not help asking himself what course it was his duty to take as a representative of the people, and as one who hoped, at all events, to place his name among the faithful servants of his country. Was he to advise his countrymen to turn away from a Government that was prepared to do for them all that any Government could possibly do, to scoff at the good that was proffered them, and to follow the advice of those who would bid them wade through a sea of blood, at the other side of which they would find—if, indeed, the passage could ever be made—a land of hopeless anarchy? Or was he not rather to tell them that their cause had triumphed; that ascendancy had fallen; that the land for which their fathers had struggled was to be enjoyed by them for ever, subject to only the conditions of industry and prudence; and that it was their destiny together with England and Scotland to form for ever an independent portion of a free, prosperous, and invincible Confederation? It had often been said in the history of Parliament, and often repeated in the course of these debates, that we had reached a crisis in the affairs of Ireland. He believed that much-used expression was never so applicable to the condition of affairs as at the present moment, because the Irish question had narrowed itself down to the simple issue for or against Union with England. Now, however, instead of ascendancy, they had equality; instead of political exclusiveness, the doors of the Constitution stood open to all. In the presence of that happy change it was the duty of all who loved their country to stand out boldly and stamp as false patriotism, as ruinous and as fatal to their country, the propagation of doctrines that would precipitate Ireland into a useless, because a causeless, struggle. As he understood the clause it was directed against such writings as were calculated to incite to agrarian outrage and the disruption of the Empire. He would ask, then, whether the liberty of the Press required that men should be allowed to instigate their readers to the overthrow of the State, in a condition of affairs the very reverse of that which had always been considered a justification of revolt against established authority? He maintained that if they desired to countenance and protect the description of writings to which he had alluded, they would withdraw this Bill; but if they wished to suppress them they would pass this measure and enforce its provisions. It had been shown that writings of this kind existed, and that the ordinary law was not only inadequate to meet the difficulty, but that it actually increased the evil which it was their object to destroy. That being so, he said that the Bill was necessary. He was not to be deterred from doing what he believed to be his duty by being told that he was aiding in passing an Act of Coercion. He would ask who it was that would be coerced? Certainly not the great body of the people, who were having rights conferred upon them which would render their position as firm as the land upon which they trod; not the Catholic clergy, who had been made equal with their Protestant brethren. All that the Bill would coerce would be a small knot of scribblers, who had arrogated, to themselves in the most unwarrantable manner, that they alone were endowed with the attributes of nationality; a class of scribblers whose policy it was to efface the teaching of O'Connell, to vilify the priesthood, and to change and pervert the confiding nature of the Irish people. According to his notions, Ireland fallen before the machinations of those men would cease to be Ireland; and in giving them every opposition in his power he felt that he was rendering an undoubted service to his country, and acting in the spirit of those traditions which he held to be sacred.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

Although I shall not use such flowing language as the hon. Member who has just sat down, yet I shall not hesitate to give my earnest and cordial support to the Government in reference to the clauses that are now before the Committee. I deeply regret that my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry (Mr. Staveley Hill), led away by an enthusiasm for the freedom of the Press—my ideas as to which concur with his—should have said, with respect to England and Ireland, that he wishes to put them on the same footing, evidently quite forgetting that this was a Bill due to the exceptional state of Ireland—a state into which, I trust, England will never be reduced—and was intended to endure for little more than a year. These clauses, I admit, are of an exceptional and of a very strong character; and the circumstances of the case require them. The hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan) has told us that treason and sedition had nothing to do with agrarian outrage. Why, really, I do not know whether the hon. Member is acquainted with the country in which he lives. All those connected with the Government of the country and of England must know that there is an association between these different crimes, and that those treasonable and seditious writings give the strongest encouragement to agrarian crime. These are written with the view of subverting the order of things in Ireland; and the agrarian system is part of that scheme for taking possession of the land, and driving those who are in possession, and in some cases those who are only in occupation, out of it. My hon. Friend has stated that this is a question between the Government, speaking of it as a temporary Government founded upon certain principles for the moment, and the newspapers. If I thought I was supporting a measure which would enable the Government to put down their political adversaries, no one would be more averse to such a scheme than myself. The papers which will come under these clauses, are not such papers as those which hon. Members are accustomed to read, newspapers in which questions are discussed, oftentimes, it is true, with fervour and even violence, but papers published with the studied and avowed purpose of overthrowing the Government, and of overthrowing all authority and social order throughout the country. Such newspapers encourage crime, because in speaking of it they palliate it; agrarian outrage they justify, because in referring to those who have become its victims they describe it as a punishment which has overtaken offenders by whom it was deserved, and treason and sedition they praise as the highest qualities. Those who are convicted they regard as patriots and martyrs, and of those in prison they speak as having rendered great service to their country. How would you deal with those papers? Prosecute them? Why that would give them a greater circulation and a higher importance than they would otherwise obtain. But we might trust the Government with those powers, for unless the circumstances were very strong indeed no Government would interfere with the Press. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry has said that the Government in suppressing a newspaper will only have to prove that the engraving or paragraph for which it is suppressed has really appeared in it; but my hon. Friend should remember that they will also have to prove that the engraving or paragraph is such as has been described in the Bill. And I am bound to say the time has now come when the Government has a right to have a fair jury trial, as the opponents of order and good government have so long had the benefit of an unfair one. As to Lord Campbell's Act, it is no doubt a very excellent law; but I wish to know whether those who are anxious for the freedom of the Press would desire to have that Act applied permanently to seditious or treasonable publications. Would that Act be more favourable to the liberty of the Press than this Bill with respect to the Press in Ireland? Suppose the Press were seized for political writings under Lord Campbell's Act, I should like to know how long that would last as a permanent institution in any country. Those newspapers which have been named by the Solicitor General for Ireland are of the basest and most degrading character. They are published by persons whom it would not be worth while to prosecute. There are persons, no doubt, who find the capital for such things, and therefore you must proceed in rem, and not against the person. I have thought it my duty to say, on the part of those with whom I act, that we are prepared, considering the exceptional state of Ireland, to give these stringent and exceptional powers to the Government, hoping that after they have been put in force the people will see that they must argue temperately if they wish to argue with effect; and that if they argue intemperately the Government has powers, conferred upon them by Parliament, which will easily put them down.

MR. MAGUIRE

said, he could not, with any respect to himself and those with whom he acted, remain silent after the speech which had been delivered by his hon. Friend the Member for Tralee, (The O'Donoghue). His hon. Friend had made a most eloquent and impressive speech, but one which would have been more appropriately delivered on the second reading of the Bill. No man in the House felt greater pain than he did at being called upon to discuss a question of this kind. Ever since the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister came into Office he had given him a hearty and unswerving support, not only in the House but in Ireland, at the risk of misrepresentation from the very men over whom he was now trying to cast a shield. Why had he done this? Because he believed in the power of Parliament to redress the grievances of Ireland; because he was in favour of constitutional modes of action; because he entertained the most profound faith that, in spite of all that was now said in Ireland, in some years to come she would be a quiet, a, tranquil, and an orderly country. But it was hardly fair of his hon. Friend to imply that those who, on this occasion, stood up to resist a violation of the liberties of the Press thereby were encouraging others to deeds of violence, or were seeking the disruption of the Empire. In this matter he occupied a peculiar position; but he would rather lose his life than in any way degrade or prove false to the institution with which he had the honour to be connected. For years, even at the time of the greatest danger in 1866 and 1867, it was known that his hand wrote the articles which day after day appeared in opposition to sedition and violence. He was but a wretched journalist, who imagined that violence of any kind could wield power for any time in this country, or that good could result from a resort to measures which were beyond the Constitution. Writings of such a tendency he would never encourage; on the contrary he would be the first to denounce them. But it was another thing to give the Government the powers they asked for. Never was there any Government in whose honesty of intention he had greater confidence; but the powers which they sought to obtain, if they did not themselves abuse, others might do who came after them. As one of the guardians of public liberty, he would not arm any Government with powers which, some time or other, might be turned to the most desperate purpose. He avowed that he wished to stand well with the House. He desired that the character which he had maintained for eighteen years before the House should not be tarnished, even by imputation. But he could not support the course proposed by the Government. The Solicitor General said that the Government did not prosecute because they could not get verdicts. Was that so? Had not Mr. Pigot and other proprietors of newspapers in Ireland been prosecuted before Irish Judges and found guilty by Irish juries? If the sentence was insufficient and the offence was repeated, the Government had the remedy in their own hands—let them prosecute again and again; but do not let the Government be armed with plenary powers of acting upon mere dislike or suspicion, let them not be prosecutor, Judge, jury, and executioner as well. The House had refused to the Solicitor General the power for which he asked of changing the venue at discretion, and thus of depriving men of all constitutional protection. Then why should they give to the Solicitor General, however good and kind he might be, the power of striking a blow at the liberty of the Press? With every honest man in Ireland he should be glad to see any offence against order, any disturbance of the public peace, and, above all, anything that excited to assassination punished, and he should like to see the man guilty of any such an offence brought before a jury, and the whole moral weight of guilt put upon him by the verdict of twelve men in the box. [Laughter.] This, perhaps, sounded like an anti-climax; but his meaning was clear. He referred to the condemnation of twelve men sworn to administer justice between the offender and the Crown. He and hon. Friends who had sat near him had allowed various provisions of the Bill to pass, believing that the hands of the Government required to be strengthened; but he would not put the are into their hands. He put aside the Lord Lieutenant, who always acted according to his Advisers; but he would not trust those Advisers. There was one amiable man on the Treasury Bench—[Laughter]—he meant one especially amiable man—whom he had known for a very long time, and who was, perhaps, one of the mildest and most amiable men in Ireland—he spoke of the Judge; Advocate General; but he would not intrust the exercise of these powers even to his hon. and learned Friend. He thanked the House for allowing him to vindicate his own character; he was sorry those remarks had been dragged from him, but he could not have remained silent after the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Tralee, which was distinctly a condemnation of those who did not act with him. The time, he believed, would come, even in Ireland, when a man's acts would vindicate his conduct and his motives; popularity was a fleeting tiling, and only knaves and fools sought after it. Of popularity he was an utter despiser; he tad faced his own countrymen whenever it was necessary to do so, and was prepared to do so again. But in honour and in conscience he could not surrender the constitutional protections enjoyed by the Press of his country even to a Government which enjoyed his entire support.

SIR ROUNDELL PALMER

said, it was hardly necessary for the hon. Member who had just sat down to vindicate his own personal conduct and character, and if all the Press of Ireland would follow the example of the journal with which he was connected the Committee would not be discussing these clauses. It was easy to sympathize with the chivalrous feelings which had led the hon. Member to stand up for a class of persons with which he was in some sense identified, but with which, he was sorry to say, those against whom the clauses of the Bill were directed were not, except in the estimation of the hon. Member himself, in the least identified. Having said this much, he must add that the speech of the hon. Member seemed to be rather addressed to the considerations which affected that small class of persons, than to those considerations which affected the community at large. It was a very grave occasion on which they were met. They all felt that it was necessary to reinforce the Government with extraordinary powers, in order that the proposed measures of relief, in themselves extraordinary, might have a fair chance of producing the desired effect. Unless law and order were maintained in Ireland it was worse than idle to expect any good to result from the Government's remedial measures. The next subject for inquiry was, whether law and order could be maintained in Ireland, if several sources of moral and political poison were allowed to exist uncontrolled, disseminating their noxious streams through the centres of intelligence in Ireland, and, indeed, throughout the country, and inciting the people to evil? It would be in the last degree inconsistent, it would be in the last degree unjust, it would be in the last degree cowardly, if, in deference to any conventional notions or to the influence or power of any portion of the Press of the United Kingdom, they were to determine to strike at the victims of the delusion created by the seditious Press all over Ireland by extraordinary means, and not to endeavour to stop and arrest the source of the delusion. That noxious, immoral, and unscrupulous Press was the active instrument in fomenting the delusion throughout Ireland, and it would be unworthy of the House to attack the ignorant and poor victims, and not attack the active and factious authors and originators of sedition. It should be remembered that it would not be necessary to put these powers in force if the papers would only abstain from disseminating treasonable and seditious matter. If they took warning they would not be touched; but if they did not, then everyone who had at heart the future welfare of Ireland, and claimed protection for the loyal people of that country, must desire to do his duty by accomplishing the objects aimed at by this Bill. The House must feel it to be due to them that those sources of evil should not be left unrepressed. He was now brought to the particular Amendment before the Committee. He confessed he could hardly understand the state of mind which would lead anyone to recommend that Government should have the power of seizing the material of a newspaper which incited to the commission of felony, but would not give power to seize a newspaper which contained treasonable or seditious matter. The incitements to felony with which the Bill concerned itself were almost inseparably connected with the publication of treasonable and seditious matter; those felonies were not ordinary crimes, but crimes which originated in political or semi-political ideas. Agrarian and seditious crimes so ran into one another that it was impossible to draw the line between them, and if they permitted the one they could not suppress the other. If the Committee was in earnest—if it really intended to stop those evils—it must retain the words struck at by the Amendment. He thought it would be best to take a division first on the word "treasonable," leaving the word "seditious" to be considered upon the Amendment of his right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie). With respect to the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Coventry (Mr. Staveley Hill) as to the extension of the principle of Lord Campbell's Act, he did not know whether he was of opinion that the liberty of the Press would be better protected by two justices of the peace or one stipendiary magistrate than it would be by the Lord Lieutenant. If this power were to be in the hands of anyone, it should be in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant, on whom the eyes of the country would be fixed, and who would act under a sense of extraordinary responsibility. The question resolved itself into this—whether they were in earnest or not. If they were in earnest, he would say let them go at once to the fountain-head, and rely upon the wisdom of Parliament to exercise that control which Parliament would most assuredly exercise in this case over any abuse, supposing it were to take place, of the powers it proposed to give to the Government of Ireland.

SIR JOHN GRAY

said, he hoped the hon. Member would withdraw his Amendment, and let the question be decided on the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock.

Question put, "That the word 'treasonable' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 330; Noes 15: Majority 315.

NOES.
Bagwell, J.	Matthews, H.
Brady, J.	Murphy, N. D.
Bright, J. (Manchester)	Whalley, G. H.
Callan, P.	White, hon. Captain C.
Charley, W. T.	White, J.
Dilke, Sir C. W.
Downing, M'C.	TELLERS.
Fawcett, H.	Moore, G. H.
Hill, A. S.	Synan, E. J.
Maguire, J. F.

Question proposed, "That the words 'or seditious' stand part of the Clause."

MR. BOUVERIE

said, he wished to state to the Committee the grounds on which he was about to lay before them the Amendment he was about to propose, and which he hoped they would consider more favourably than that which had just been rejected. There was a very wide distinction between treason and sedition. Treason was an offence which was definable, and which was understood by everybody. Such, however, was not the case with respect to sedition, and it seemed to him somewhat remarkable that one of the earliest measures which should be submitted to the present House of Commons, which was the first that had been elected under the most popular suffrage that had ever been known in the history of this country, should be one for imposing restrictions on the Press, such as in the most highflying times of Tory government had never been resorted to. There was another observation of a general kind which he wished to make. The House was asked to legislate with respect to newspapers, on the ground that they fomented discontent and agrarian outrage in particular sections in Ireland. But the House must recollect that agrarian outrages were limited to certain districts in that country, while those fountains of poison of which an hon. and learned Friend of his (Sir Roundell Palmer) had spoken circulated all over Ireland. Now, the present Parliament was inaugurated as one which was to do equal justice to Ireland, and place her on the same footing as England and Scotland, and he would submit to the Committee that if there were bursts of lawlessness in particular portions of England or Scotland, while they would, no doubt, be willing to strengthen the hands of the Government in every reasonable way in repressing that lawlessness, they would never dream of submitting the whole of either of those countries to the restrictions which were now about to be imposed on the whole Press of Ireland. To allow the Executive Government in Ireland, whatever its complexion might be, of its own behests, irresponsibly to subject the Press of Ireland to forfeiture was, in his opinion, to make them masters entirely of that Press. Now, there was not a newspaper in Ireland—he would not even exclude that of his hon. Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. Maguire)—which did not sometimes contain what in the eyes of a lawyer, might not be regarded as seditious. He would add that there was not a newspaper of Orange complexion in opposition to the present Government which, if he were the Law Adviser of the Castle—which he thanked God he was not—in which he could not pick out seditious matter. I If that, then, were the case with the Press generally which happened to criticize the policy of the Government, the Committee were landed in the difficulty that the entire Press of Ireland would be liable to have the clause under discussion put into operation against it, and if it were put in execution only against particular portions of it, the Government would be liable to the charge of favouritism. Now, he should like to know whether the Committee were aware of the definition of sedition which was given by lawyers. When hon. Members talked of sedition they had, no doubt, a faint general notion of what the word meant; but that was not the way in which the provisions of the Bill would be interpreted. It would be interpreted by astute lawyers sitting at the elbow of his noble Friend the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whose duty it would be to tell him what was sedition and what was not. He should wish, under those circumstances, to be allowed to inform the Committee what the definition of sedition was which was given by one of the greatest lawyers which this country had ever produced, and which must rule the opinions of the lawyers of our own day on the question. Lord Holt, in the case of a newspaper editor who was prosecuted in the reign of Queen Anne for sedition, laid down the law on the subject. He held in his hand an extract from the article for which the person to whom he referred was prosecuted, and in dealing with which Lord Holt gave the celebrated definition of sedition which was still set out in all modern law books as defining in what sedition really consisted. John Tutchin, as the information in the case set forth, was brought to trial— For that the defendant, being a seditious person, and a daily inventor and publisher of false news and horrible and false lies and seditious libels, &c. on the 12th of June, in the second year of the Queen, did write and publish, and cause to be written and published, another false, scandalous, and malicious libel, entitled The Observator. In which said libel (of and concerning the royal navy of the Kingdom and the government of the said navy) are (inter alia) contained as follows:— 'Take one time with another, the mismanagements of the navy (meaning the royal navy of this kingdom) have been a greater tax on the merchants than the duties raised by Parliament: we never had a better navy, but the wisdom of the managers thereof is like a bottomless pit, past finding out.' Now, he was not quite sure that the speech which had been delivered by his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Portsmouth (Sir James Elphinstone) the other evening with respect to the Navy of the present day was not very much more like sedition than Mr. Tutchin's article. What was more, any paper, whether in England or Ireland, which happened to publish the observations which had been made by his hon. and gallant Friend on that occasion would be liable to be prosecuted for sedition. Now, what did Lord Holt say in Tutchin's case? The following was the doctrine with respect to sedition which that eminent Judge laid down, and which his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Dowse) must undertake to apply when brought into contact with the exercise of those extraordinary powers with which the Government asked to be intrusted. Lord Holt said— This is a very strange doctrine, to say it is not a libel reflecting on the Government, endeavouring to possess the people that the Government is maladministered by corrupt persons that are employed in such and such stations either in the navy or army. To say that corrupt persons are appointed to administer affairs, is certainly a reflection on the Government. If people should not be called to account for possessing the people with an ill opinion of the Government no Government can subsist; for it is very necessary for all Government that the people should have a good opinion of it, and nothing can be worse to any Government than to endeavour to procure animosities as to the management of it; this has always been looked upon as a crime, and no Government can be safe without it be punished."—[State Trials, xiv. 1128.] Now, that was 160 or 170 years ago, and the law as laid down by Lord Holt was the law at the present day, and his definition was given in modern text-books as the leading authority as to what must be proved in case of an indictment for sedition. And it was only because Mr. Fox's Act, passed in the last century, allowed the jury to give a general verdict of not guilty in cases of libel, that newspapers had been protected in publishing what was now regarded as nothing more than fair criticism on the conduct of the Government of the day. Were we then, he would ask, going to destroy the safeguards of the Press which existed to meet an emergency? His right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. G. Hardy), indeed, said that the operation of the Bill was to be limited to a year; but he (Mr. Bouverie), for one, was not disposed to give the extraordinary powers asked for to a Government even for that time. The Committee was aware that such powers once conferred might lead to the necessity of their being continued. He believed it was the fact that the law relating to the Press in France, about which there had been so much complaint, and which had only recently been amended, was much less severe than that which was now proposed. Now, the law affecting the Press in France was originally imposed shortly after the Restoration of the Bourbons, merely for a year. No doubt it would be much easier to carry on the government of Ireland if these stringent powers were granted to the Government. The latter would then have the power of silencing their adversaries. How pleasant, to be able to enforce silence on your opponents! It would be a good thing, perhaps, if they could silence their adversaries in that House. And if the Government obtained this power there would then be no opposition to their policy, no criticism of their actions, and no charge could be brought against them for abuses or maladministration. It ought to be remembered, too, that the mere publication of a false bit of news was sedition—news it might be which the publisher did not know was false at the time he made use of it; and there was probably not a paper published throughout the United Kingdom which did not every week or every day, if it was a daily newspaper, publish statements which in the eye of the law were seditious. Upon this state of the law the Government asked the Committee to hand over all newspapers in Ireland containing seditious matter, false statements, or seditious speeches, to the absolute discretion of the Irish Executive. Such a power had not only never been asked for by any Government in this country even in the most high prerogative times, but if asked for here, however trying might be the times, Parliament would never dream of granting it. He was under the impression that we were now to treat Ireland upon the footing of equal justice and equal laws, and were not to apply to the sister country, even on primâ facie grounds of exceptional circumstances warranting such legislation, restrictive and penal laws which we should not be willing to adopt ourselves. He would ask English or Scotch Members whether if any district represented by them were afflicted by this criminal disease, they would be willing at the request of the Government to place the whole newspaper Press of their part of the United Kingdom under the absolute control of the Executive. There was not one English or Scotch Member who would not repudiate such a notion. But, then, as they were told, the Irish Government was responsible. How responsible? He had always understood that when public officers committed a breach of the law in this couutry, they were personally liable to be cast in damages, and in the face of this responsibility they took care not to break the law. Unlike our neighbours in France, every policeman, every magistrate in England acted under this sense of personal liability if they exceeded their jurisdiction. But it was now proposed beforehand to enact that, however much the Lord Lieutenant and his Chief Secretary might violate the law and outrage common sense and justice, however great the loss inflicted by them upon some innocent printer, the taxpayers of the United Kingdom were to reimburse the Irish Executive and save them from harm in case proceedings were instituted against them. Surely this was to lose sight of the old-fashioned notion that public officers were responsible at their own risk for the discharge of their duty. He was sure that his right hon. Friends did not ask for this power from any desire to use it improperly; but if they had been sitting on the other side of the House and the present Opposition had proposed to take such extraordinary powers as these, we should have heard a great deal more about the violation of principles than we did now. Such, however, was the way with Governments. All of them liked power, and loved to increase it; but it was the business of the House of Commons to object when there was danger as in the present instance. It was the duty of the House of Commons to see that the Government were not endowed with powers that were inconsistent with public liberty. No doubt this liberty was often abused, and had been grossly abused in Ireland of late years; but even this abuse was preferable to the evils that might arise if the Press of the country were once put under the absolute control of the Executive Government. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the omission of the words "or seditious."

MR. H. A. HERBERT

said, the best justification of the Bill was that both the Liberal and the Conservative Press were anxious to put a stop to seditious publications in Ireland. He should be sorry to see the liberty of the Press in any way curtailed; but his solemn opinion was that the papers which had gone on preaching sedition and rebellion all over the country had brought Ireland very much into her present condition. In England the working men had papers of every view, and heard and read both sides of a question; but in Ireland large classes of the people only saw papers of one view, and if these papers preached sedition year after year, and agitators did their best to second this teaching, how could we expect the country to be quiet? If the people of Ireland had fair play in this respect, he believed it would be a quiet country. A Petition would shortly be presented from farmers in his own county of Kerry, thanking the Government for the measure introduced. It was true they stated objections; but these objections were put forward in reasonable language. He was glad the Government had come forward to put a stop to the further publication of sedition in these newspapers, and would support the clause as it stood.

SIR ROUNDELL PALMER

said, he would give his reasons very briefly for differing from the sentiments of the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken. It was mere matter of opinion whether, if the circumstances were similar in England and Scotland to what they were in Ireland, the House of Commons would assent to similar legislation. His right hon. Friend said the House would not; but similar circumstances had never been known in England or Scotland within our own time, or for many years beyond it. We had never had newspapers openly and habitually preaching and teaching rebellion and sedition, and inciting to crime. We had not had the same class of newspapers at all, or the same class of crime, or the exceptional circumstances which rendered this exceptional and extraordinary legislation necessary in Ireland; and he owned it was a surprise to him that his right hon. Friend (Mr. Bouverie), who concurred with the majority of the House in thinking it necessary with regard to the land of Ireland to interfere with freedom of contract, and legislate between landlord and tenant in a manner unheard of in England, should oppose not a power which the Government wanted for their own purposes, but a power asked for in order to secure the peaceable and loyal subjects of the Crown, owners and occupiers of property, landlords and tenants, in the quiet enjoyment of the rights which the House was now proposing to regulate. Talk of security of property and security of tenure, and at the same time allow incentives to violence and crime, treason and insurrection to go broadcast over the land! It seemed unintelligible to him that a man of the authority and wisdom of his right hon. Friend should talk as though we were dealing in Ireland with a state of things of which we had any experience whatever in England or Scotland. As far as his (Sir Roundell Palmer's) individual judgment went, he fully believed that if such a state of things unhappily existed in any county of England or Scotland, and newspapers were published there inciting the people to violence, sedition, insurrection, and treason, and doing this unblushingly and openly, Parliament would almost unanimously agree to give such powers as these to the Executive. Now, what would be the effect of omitting from the clause the words "or seditious?" The clause would be rendered useless. These words bridged over the whole of the middle ground lying between that which was technically treason—a high class of crime well known to the law—and the lower category of offence known as inciting to felony. The whole mischief might, and probably would be done upon that middle ground, and the Committee might as well put the Bill into the fire as adopt the Amendment. And then his right hon. Friend attempted to justify the Amendment by quoting a great authority, Lord Holt, whose language, as far as it expressed a principle, might be, and was, referred to by lawyers of this day; but who was quoted by his right hon. Friend not for the principle of the law, but for the manner in which two centuries ago, that principle was applied in a political case. His right hon. Friend referred to the case of Tutchin, and actually spoke as if a man of his intelligence believed at this day that every news- paper, both in England and Ireland was, in the eye of the law, guilty of sedition on each day of publication. He agreed that the suggestion of the possibility of corruption would be a gross libel either on an individual or, it might be, on a Government, if there were no grounds for it; but, if there were, it would be no libel or sedition at all; and the right hon. Gentleman spoke as if he thought that criticism of the Admiralty, or of the War Department, or of any other Department of the Government, in a fret manner, to the extent of saying that there was maladministration—he spoke as if he thought that the facts of the case of Tutchin would, at this time of day, necessarily amount to sedition in a newspaper. This he denied; and, on the contrary, he affirmed that free criticism of the acts of the administration was not a liberty beyond the law which the Press enjoyed by the connivance of juries, but it was their lawful right, and the palladium of all our liberties. But that was something wholly different from sedition. Lord Holt was a high authority in his day; but there was at least as great an authority, Lord Hale, who in his Pleas of the Crown, referred upon this subject to the case of another great man, an ornament to that House in former days, who was one of the greatest defenders of our liberties, and who himself was a sufferer from a charge of sedition. In 1629 Selden was arrested under a warrant of the Privy Council, which charged him and others with sedition; he was bailed by the Judges. A question arose whether it was a bailable offence; it was argued on the part of the Crown that sedition was a particular form of treason; and the argument of Selden, on that occasion, contained more true and accurate bearing on the subject of sedition, than could perhaps anywhere else be found. Selden, suffering from the abuse of the Royal prerogative, and inquiring what sedition was, said— The use of the word 'sedition,' and the sense of it in our language, and in our laws, that received it out of that language, is to be examined. Out of which it will be easily concluded that the offence, as it is expressed in the return, although it be a great one, yet is only a trespass, and punishable by fine only, or imprisonment, or both of them. In Latin, that which is mutiny, raising of tumult, assembling of any armed power, or conventicles. —not conventicles in the ecclesiastical sense— or the like, is sedition. Whence it is that, in the civil law, seditio et tumultus are frequently joined; and concitatores seditionis and actores seditionis occur in the text of that law for such as stir up sedition.…… In the selfsame sense the word was received into our language,"—[State Trials, iii. 268.] He cited a number of Acts of Parliament in which the word was used, and concluded thus— It will be most plain that in all these places (except those old books of Bracton, Glanville, and Llengham, the interpretation of whom hath fittest place after the examination of the objections made to prove sedition to be treason), the words? 'sedition' and 'seditious' denoted in our language, and in the use of our laws, that received them thence, such an offence as was not punishable (without some special provision by Act of Parliament) otherwise than by fine and imprisonment at the utmost; and were reputed, singly, but as words or names designing tumults, unlawful assemblies, routs, factions, or rebellions, against any part of the established laws or public commands."—[Ibid. 269.] He ventured to say that this was just as true a definition of the legal meaning of the word "sedition" as any which could be found in any of our books, and, in this sense, we might depend upon it, any jury would be directed by a Judge; and if a Government, on the ground of sedition, exorcised this power against any newspaper for honest, bonâ fide criticism of the acts of the Administration, for the honest bonâ fide expression of any kind of critical opinion, there could be no doubt whatever that, under the direction of any Judge, any jury would give a verdict in favour of those who were sufferers by the exercise of the power; but if it were, indeed, an incitement to tumults, unlawful assemblies, or rebellions against the law, or to a practical and dangerous contempt of the law, then, and only then, it would be the duty of the Judge to direct the jury, and the duty of the jury to find, under the direction of the Judge, that the power of the Government had been rightfully exercised. It seemed to him that there was every conceivable safeguard against the abuse of this power, because it would be vested only in the highest executive authority of the Government, upon whom the eyes of the whole Empire were fixed, and any abuse of it would be looked upon with the utmost jealousy by this House, and would be visited with damages by a jury. When the right hon. Gentleman said we were invading the Constitution by taking responsibility from the individual officers of the Go- vernment and throwing it upon the nation at large, he forgot that the Act would necessarily throw upon the nation at large the responsibility of having authorized the Executive Government to exercise a discretion in this matter. It was only when an Act of Parliament gave no such discretion that the individual ought to he hold responsible; and if they, in the public interest of Ireland, in the interest of the loyal members of the population of Ireland, whom they believed to be an enormous majority, gave this power and this discretion, it would be irrational and absurd to throw the responsibility on any officer by whom it might, in good faith, be exercised. It was plain they ought to take, as they did propose to take, that responsibility upon themselves. But he had no doubt that the practical effect of this legislation would be prevention, not punishment. Grant these powers, and sedition would hide its head. The moment it was known the Executive Government was armed with effective means of prevention, the necessity for the use of those means would disappear. He hoped the Committee would decide this question with reference rather to the spirit than the letter of the Constitution; that they would bear in mind the great duty of protecting the people, of preventing crime, and of preventing incitement to crime, and not shrink from enabling the Government adequately to discharge that duty.

DR. BALL

said, he should support the clause as it stood, because if the word "sedition" were loft out, the clause would become totally useless and incapable of being enforced. The boundaries between treason and sedition in writing were very indistinct, and any lawyer would hesitate to advise the Government to seize a paper, because of the doubt as to whether his opinion would be afterwards supported by the jury. The mode of defence adopted when any question of the kind arose would be, the counsel for the prisoner would say to the jury—I grant that this is sedition, and a near approach to treason, but I ask you to find that it does not overstep the boundary. He remembered a prosecution for seditious writing, which was defended on the ground that it should have been considered treasonable, and, therefore, the man ought to have been hanged instead of being prosecuted for sedition.

MR. W. M. TORRENS

said, he was sorry to differ from the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Roundell Palmer); but he believed it was a notorious fact that there were hundreds of seditious publications in circulation in the large towns of England; if we destroyed the printing presses of sedition on the other side of the Channel, means would be found to establish them on this side; and as long as there was a market there would be a supply. He had voted for the clause, strong and exceptional as it was, regarding summary measures against treason; because treason was a definable, intelligible, and unmistakable offence, which it was difficult to conceive the editor of a newspaper committing, without being conscious and, therefore, responsible for what he did. But it was wholly otherwise respecting sedition. Nobody could be sure, nobody could ascertain, nobody could get a lawyer of eminence to say distinctly what was and what was not sedition. The dictum of Lord Holt had been quoted by his right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock, as a warning to the House how it created exceptional powers of punishment for the infraction of this undefinable offence. And what was the answer which had been given by the hon. and learned Member for Richmond? Instead of attempting to show that modern decisions or statutes had qualified or narrowed the criminal interpretation of the term sedition, they were asked to go up the stream of time, some half-century, and to rely on the pleadings of Selden, at a period when, as yet, constitutional freedom was not, and before any of the guarantees for political or judicial liberty had been achieved, on which, in this country, they laid so much store. But he (Mr. Torrens) would not ask them to go beyond the limit of their own recollections. He wished the House could stop these sources of mischief; but it could not do so without extending this measure to England and Scotland; and he supposed that no one contemplated the possibility of doing that. Within the memory of many who then heard him, two Members of that House, both of them men of mark and note, and both of them men to whom, for their public services, the highest meed of praise had been nationally given in their lifetime and since their death; both had engaged in political agitation about the same time, to bring about the change of existing laws; and both had rendered themselves thereby objects of fear and aversion to the Minister of the day. Who was the Minister, and who were the individuals to whom he referred? The Minister was no other than Sir Robert Peel; and the distinguished individuals who excited his distrust and reprehension, by their use of demagogic arts, were Mr. Cobden and Mr. O'Connell. Sir Robert Peel, and certain of his Colleagues who shared his confidence, took the advice of counsel, early in 1843, as to whether the leader of the Anti-Corn Law League might not be prosecuted for sedition; and it was within Ins (Mr. Torrens') personal knowledge that Mr. Cobden having obtained some inkling of the matter, desired to have the advice of friends well acquainted with the law, as to what constituted, and what did not constitute, sedition? It would be nothing to the purpose to say that the design went no further. The fact that a man so circumspect and wise as Sir Robert Peel should have harboured any doubt of the criminality of a man so pure and gentle as Richard Cobden—where political excitement severed them in opinion—sufficiently proved his case. But what happened in the very same year on the other side of the Channel? For breaking the law of what is called sedition, Mr. O'Connell and seven of his friends were brought to trial before the Court of Queen's Bench, and, after protracted inquiry, he and they were found guilty and condemned to a long term of imprisonment. An appeal was brought, not on the facts, which were admitted, but upon, the law of sedition, which was disputed, to the House of Lords; and by that supreme tribunal the legal version of sedition in the court below was set aside; judgment was reversed; and the man whom millions of his countrymen justly regarded with gratitude and honour, as their liberator from sectarian disabilities, was released from the gaol in which he had been incarcerated wrongfully by a mistaken reading of the law. Would they disregard such examples; or run the risk of making such deplorable mistakes again? The time was strangely unfitting for the perpetration of such blunders. While other nations, comparatively new to liberty, were learn- ing, by courageous experiment, that order and law might be maintained without a censorship of the Press, it was painful to think that a British Parliament should be invited to revert to arbitrary devices and oppressive powers. Was England to be asked to put on the cast-off clothes of French despotism? What else could be said throughout Christendom, if this summary mode of dealing with seditious journalism were to obtain the force of law? Now, he had a great deal of sympathy, concern, and care with those on this side of the Channel, who had suffered from the disaffection that prevailed in Ireland, and he would not be prevented from giving his support to any Bill, however severe, that he thought would be likely to succeed in putting down agrarian crimes. But he did not believe that this Bill would be successful, and the Government would believe it in twelve months. He remembered that, on one occasion, the Prime Minister and himself divided against a Bill supported by an overwhelming majority in that House—namely, the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill—he told the Minister of the day that it would prove an abortive attempt, and that the enactment would be trampled in the dust. Well, the result had been that the repeal of that Act, which no Government over enforced, and for voting against which he sacrificed his seat, was now about to be repealed. But he warned them that this enactment would be as abortive as the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill had proved. It would be evaded, defeated, and set at naught, and, at length, it would have to be abandoned with humiliation.

MR. NEWDEGATE

observed, that the First Lord of the Treasury had stated that it was impossible to incorporate in this Bill a provision for suspending the Habeas Corpus Act, as it had been incorporated in the Act of 1833, because there was no case of treason or sedition to which it might apply; and yet the clause they were now debating was for the prevention of treason and sedition. He agreed with the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) that the House ought to be very careful in agreeing to this novel species of a Coercion Bill; for they were called on to adopt something more than the cast-off clothes of the French Emperor, and yet the enactment, in his opinion, would be perfectly inefficacious. The hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer) said—"Pass these provisions and sedition will hide its head." So he thought; but it was also his belief that there was much greater danger from secret conspiracy than from those open manifestations against which the clause was directed; and if the House would adopt efficient means for the security of life and property in Ireland, such as the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, it would be better to allow the incitements to rebellion to come to the knowledge of the Government by means of seditious papers, unless it was to be presumed that the circumstances of Ireland were so peculiar that those who were loyal could not produce papers or make manifestations to meet the seditious publications. Was it not true that the Liberal party had endeavoured to crush what was termed the unseemly loyalty of the Orangemen? Was he not himself a witness to the continual discouragement offered to anything like old-fashioned loyalty in Ireland, and were they not aware that the mention of King William's name in that country had been decried? He looked upon the adoption in this clause of a foreign principle with apprehension, and he objected to the departure from the usual course of law, which was found advantageous in England and Scotland, where the feelings of loyalty were fostered and not repressed as in Ireland. It seemed that the legislation entered on pointed to the conclusion that Ireland was not to be treated as a free country, and in case Ireland was not fit to be governed on the same principles as England and Scotland she was not fit to be united with them. He objected to this Bill as an attempt to arm the Government with an arbitrary power of dealing with sedition. He was willing to give them every possible facility for dealing with treason; but sedition being so very elastic a term he felt himself called upon to vote against the Bill.

MR. M'MAHON

said, that there existed in Ireland ample means to punish treasonable and seditious publications, and therefore the argument of the hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer) was inapplicable to the question whether or not power should be given for taking possession, without trial, of printing materials which might be suspected of being used for seditious purposes. He defied the Law Officers of the Crown to give any definition of sedition less extensive than that of his right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie). Selden had been committed for seditious conduct as a Member of Parliament, and his argument went to show that he could not be committed by the Star Chamber for Ms conduct in that House. But what did the ordinary text-book, Archbold's Criminal Law, say, quoting Lord Ellen-borough, in the case of Mr. Cobbett? Why this—that, If a publication be calculated to alienate the affections of the people by bringing the Government into disesteem, whether by ridicule or obloquy, the writer is punishable, and the publication, if calculated to have that effect, is a seditious libel. It would, therefore, entirely depend on the judgment of the Law Officers of the Crown in Ireland whether any publication should be seized and the property connected with it confiscated, and that after the confiscation the only redress for the unfortunate proprietor would be to bring the issue before the jury, who must decide whether the paper did not contain seditious matter. This was a power which no previous Government had ever sought to exercise; it was an unnecessary power, because, under an existing law, if a person published anything like treason or treason-felony, the Government could seize the type and press of the offender.

MR. MOORE

moved that the Chairman report Progress.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would feel that this question had been ably—he might say fully—discussed on both sides. He did not speak of the whole of the Press clauses, but of that particular portion of them they had already considered. It would certainly be a great loss of time if they were now called on to divide on the question that the Chairman should report Progress. At the same time, he should not press the Committee to go on to any unreasonable hour; but after the division on the Motion of his right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock, he thought they ought to report Progress. But with the views which the Government took of the necessity and public policy of proceed- ing with promptitude, he felt that it would be their duty to propose that the House should be good enough to meet to-morrow, at two o'clock, in order to proceed with the Bill. He hoped those Gentlemen having Motions on Supply would consent to give way.

MR. BOUVERIE

said, he hoped the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. Moore) would not divide. If he wished to address the Committee, no doubt the Committee would hear him now; if not, as the same word "sedition" occurred again almost immediately after in the clause, another opportunity would occur fur stating his views.

SIR JOHN GRAY

expressed regret that no opinion had yet been expressed on the part of the Government in reference to the charter-toast of "Freedom to the Press," and hoped that the discussion might be continued on this question, which was one of the most vital that had been raised in the consideration of the measure, especially as there were many hon. Members representing Irish constituencies who were desirous to address the House on the subject.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Moore.)

The Committee divided:— Ayes 19; Noes 265: Majority 240.

MR. BRYAN

moved that the Chairman should leave the Chair.

MR. R. N. FOWLER

said, he wished, as an English Member, to say a few words respecting the state of business. Nearly the whole of the Session had been taken up with Irish matters, and he thought English Members had a right to complain that, after the Bill before the House had been ably debated by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie), on the one hand, and the hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer) on the other, and when the House was ready for a division, the whole business of the House was thrown back by a Motion to report Progress. He could not but contrast this conduct with the course pursued last Session by the Opposition, who, when a measure was before the House in which their feelings were deeply interested, did not offer anything but a fair, an open, and a candid opposition. He asked the House whether the opposition to this Bill had been of that charac- ter? An hon. Gentleman opposite said the majority must listen to the minority. He appealed to the House whether the majority had not listened to the minority with exemplary patience? He hoped the Government would resist the Motion, and press on the Bill. It was evidently the feeling of the House that time should not be frittered away by Motions for adjournment.

MR. GLADSTONE

Sir, I was hoping to have seen a disposition to withdraw this Motion. It is my own feeling, and I think it is the general sense of the House, that the power by the minority of intercepting the clear and manifest will of the immense majority of this Assembly, is a power that has been conceded for the purpose of preventing gross injustice, and meeting a case which is essentially exceptional; but if it were used in an unreasonable and inconsiderate way, it would become absolutely intolerable. Of course, we must all form our own opinion of the propriety and fitness of using it on any occasion; but it certainly is true that this is a question which has been very ably debated. It is a question which in itself is not of very great breadth, and it is one on which the Members of the Government are quite content to remain silent; because though, under general rules, it would have been the duty of some of them to address the House, we are perfectly content with the manner in which the question was left by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond and the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin. When the House has devoted itself to a great Irish purpose as its first and exclusive object; when everything has been made to yield to that object; when not only English interests, but also the interests of the Empire at large, all questions of foreign policy, all discussions on colonial matters, all questions which individual Members are anxious to bring before the House, have been postponed; and when I, on the part of the Government, have put everything in the way in order that Irish affairs might progress, with a view to what we think a great act of remedial legislation, it seems a little hard, that, when an extreme necessity has compelled us at the last moment—but we think the proper moment—to bring in a Bill of this nature, this method of opposition should be resorted to. I am afraid it would be very presumptuous of me to hope that any attempt at persuasion on my part would have any effect; but I cannot help registering my emphatic protest against departing from what I believe to be the fixed custom of the vast majority of this House, and I am perfectly convinced we shall be supported by opinion out-of-doors. I wish to give a distinct intimation that there is not the least intention or desire on the part of the Government to force the Committee forward during the present evening; but we shall take the opportunity of asking the House to have a Morning Sitting, which I think would be the most convenient opportunity for discussing the remaining clauses of the Bill. It would be idle to inflict punishment on ourselves without having an immediate object in view. [Cries of "Go on."] I am well aware of what is the issue of a conflict of this kind when once hon. Members are wound up. I therefore once more invite the hon. Member to listen, to yield to the arguments which have been adduced by the hon. Member opposite, and to withdraw his Motion.

MR. MOORE

recollected an occasion on which the right hon. Gentleman had been one of a small minority which had kept up this sort of contest for not one night, but for weeks.

MR. GLADSTONE

I do not think the hon. Member can quote a single instance of the kind to which I was a party.

MR. MOORE

said, that it was in the year 1850, upon the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, that twenty, thirty, or forty Motions of this kind had been made.

MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING

, as an Irish representative, disclaimed any intention to keep up a factious opposition. They were to meet at two o'clock, and they desired to have some rest to enable them to arrest, if possible, the further progress of the measure.

MR. BRYAN

said, he would withdraw his Motion.

SIR JOHN GRAY

moved that the Chairman report Progress.

Motion agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.