HC Deb 25 March 1870 vol 200 cc682-700

(Mr. Chichester Fortescue, Mr. Secretary Bruce, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 28 (Power to Lord Lieutenant to issue warrant to search for and seize newspapers, printing presses, typos, &c.)

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)

moved, in line 20, to leave out the words "newspaper printed or circulated in Ireland," and insert "such newspaper as aforesaid."

Amendment agreed to.

MR. HENLEY

said, that as the Bill was drawn, it was not necessary that the person whose property was seized should have had any exact notice of what it was he was charged with. That section said there might be a warrant in the form annexed to the Act, or to the like effect; and the form so annexed said that either the matter complained of might be set out or a copy of the newspaper might be annexed. There might be two, three, or half a dozen newspapers in which the matter complained of was contained; and then by the later schedule, where the party might plead, he was allowed to plead what was set out in the warrant. Therefore, the man who had his property seized might have half a dozen newspapers tacked to the warrant, and out of that half-dozen newspapers he would have to pick out what it was the Government complained of. That was how he read that and the following section, together with the warrant and the defence under Schedule C. It was said, indeed, that the endorsement of particulars was to describe or state the matter or the engraving on account of which the seizure was made as in the warrant; but if the particulars wore not set out in the warrant and the newspapers only were annexed, he could not see how the man would be able to judge of what it was that he was accused. That, however, might easily be set right, and he now called the Solicitor General's attention to it.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)

said, that when they came to the Schedule the observations of the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be considered.

MR. HENLEY

I am not learned; don't call me names.

MR. MAGUIRE

said, he wished to know what was meant by applying the word "suspected" to the type, machinery, and materials employed?

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)

said, the only explanation the Government had to offer was, that it was part of the original design that the Lord Lieutenant should have power to issue his warrant for the seizure of matters suspected to be employed in the printing and publishing of the paper, and that the possession of such powers was deemed of importance by the Irish Executive. He might, however, say, that in carrying out the views of the hon. and learned Member for New Ross (Mr. M'Mahon) they proposed in another clause to give damages to the person whose materials had been seized, if it should appear that they had not been used or employed, or had not been reasonably suspected to have been used or employed in the printing of seditious publications. He would have no objection to insert the word "reasonably" before "suspected" in the clause, if his hon. Friend would move to that effect.

MR. MAGUIRE

said, it was almost a farce to do so.

MR. MOORE

said, that after what had occurred he thought the worse the clauses were the better. The only fur- ther protest the people of Ireland could make against the Bill was defiance.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)

said, the word "reasonably" would be inserted on the Report.

MR BAGWELL

said, the Solicitor General had stated he was only carrying out the original plan of the Government. It was the first time that word had been used, and he was obliged to his learned Friend for it. When his learned Friend had more experience he would hardly make such a frank and honourable admission. Ireland had been now legislated for—he said it with sorrow, but with sincerity—in a manner such as no Minister, however powerful and great, had ever before attempted.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 29 agreed to.

Clause 30 (Action in case of illegal search or seizure).

MR. M'MAHON

said, he thought that the time in which actions might be brought against the Government should be extended from fourteen days to two months. He begged to move, inline 23, to leave out "fourteen days," and insert "two calendar months."

Amendment agreed to.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)

moved an Amendment to omit the words "out of the Consolidated Fund," and insert "out of moneys to be provided for that purpose by Parliament."

MR. WHALLEY

said, he must confess that, as it appeared to him, the hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer) seemed last evening in his exposition of "verdicts" and "judgments," to have exhausted all his constitutional sympathies, and certainly his knowledge of common law, and he (Mr. Whalley) was compelled out of sheer agony of mind, to express his belief that this measure would not only fail in accomplishing the object they all had in view, but would, for the first time within his experience, give Irish agitators a real grievance. He desired, as an English Member, to know in what respect the Consolidated Fund would be rendered liable for the payment of these damages, and how far, under the operation of this clause, the Irish Executive would be excused from the ordinary results of excess of zeal and arbitrary conduct?

MR. GLADSTONE

said, that the effect of the Amendment just proposed by his hon. Friend the Solicitor General for Ireland was merely to establish the responsibility of the Government in its sharpest and most practical form. If the damages were to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund, the payment would be made as a matter of course, and nothing more would be heard of it; but under this arrangement, while there would be no delay, it would be brought under the notice of Parliament, and he did not envy the feelings of the Lord I Lieutenant or the Government through whose miscarriage of justice such damages had to be paid.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 31 (Forfeitures under this part of this Act to be in addition of other penalties).

MR. MAGUIRE

said, he objected to the clause, and would take the sense of the House upon it.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, the Government had satisfied themselves that they could safely do without this clause, and, therefore, they had no objection to its being omitted.

Clause struck out.

Clause 32 (Term "newspaper").

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)

said, he proposed in line 18, at end, to add the words— And shall also include any series of newspapers, whether printed on one day or on different days, and with one name or different names. The Lord Lieutenant had power to seize a newspaper; but he desired to provide against the possibility of a newspaper changing its name from day to day, and thereby evading the Act.

SIR JOHN GRAY

said, the proposed alteration involved both difficulty and injustice. The clause ought to contain some words which should make it necessary to identify the two newspapers as being published in the same office, or under the same direction, or it might happen that one man could be punished for what was done by another. He took the opportunity of referring again to the debate in which the late Sir Robert Peel and Mr. Cobden took part, and the observations which the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had made thereon, and disclaimed having had any intention of misleading the Committee by the statement which he made at the Morning Sitting.

Amendment agreed to.

Words added.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 33 agreed to.

Clause 34 (Gunpowder makers and dealers, within thirty days after commencement of Act, and afterwards monthly, shall return account of their stock to chief officer of police, and keep books with accounts of sales, &c, to be inspected and stock examined).

MR. HERMON

said, he would suggest the omission of the words, "maker or manufacturer." No contraband trade could be carried on by such persons. The powers of search given to the police might be extremely annoying to manufacturers, while the penalties were insufficient.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)

said, that the persons the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hermon) had in view would not be harassed or annoyed under this clause. Although the Bill had been before the country for some time, the Government had not received any remonstrance from such persons, of whom there were very few in Ireland. The clause might be a hardship on a large manufacturer; but such a man could not be excluded from a general clause, which was, however, intended to apply rather to men who made small quantities of gunpowder, and used a part of it themselves and sold the remainder. The hon. Member might rest assured that no respectable maker would receive any annoyance.

SIR JOHN GRAY

moved to insert words placing Greek fire under the same restrictions as gunpowder. Greek fire was easily made and was most dangerous.

MR. BRUEN

said, the object could be gained by striking out the words in Clause 3, "used for the explosion of fire-arms."

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)

said, he was afraid that if once they attempted to deal with explosives other than those used with fire-arms, they would open the great nitro-glycerine question, which would result in endless discussion.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 35 and 36 agreed to.

Clause 37 (Power to grand jury to present compensation to be paid in certain cases of murder or maiming).

MR. BRUEN

said, he would beg to move the postponement of the clause, in order that the Government might reconsider it. The Amendments of which notice had been given were numerous and important, and it would be far better that the Government should deal with the matter. The persons who ordinarily served on coroner's inquests in the country parts of Ireland were of that class who would have to pay compensation under this clause, and they would be very unwilling to return a verdict of murder against anyone when the effect would be to cause the imposition upon themselves of a fine by the grand jury. It was difficult at present to obtain verdicts in Ireland, and this clause would aggravate the evil. In too many cases a verdict of simple homicide would be found. In his opinion, the power proposed to be given to the grand juries would place them, if unsupported, in a very invidious position. He thought that the grand jury should be supported by some previous investigation; but the evidence must be much stronger than that adduced to prove the mere primâ facie case on which the grand jury at present returned their verdict; and, above all, it would be necessary that the coroner's jury should be brought from a district which would not be affected if compensation for the outrage was levied.

SIR FREDERICK W. HEYGATE

said, he would support the Amendment. He should infinitely prefer that the duty of awarding compensation devolved on the Judge rather than on the grand jury, an uncertain body depending on the nomination of the Sheriff. He knew his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland would say there was a precedent for the clause in 3 & 4 Vic. c. 116, which empowered the grand jury to give compensation in the case of persons killed or injured in consequence of the discharge of their duty as jurors, witnesses, or peace officers, but this power had been but rarely acted on. He thought that at least there ought to be an appeal from the grand jury to the Judge.

MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE

said, he would admit that, however important this clause might be, it was not easy to work it out in practice. His hon. Friend (Sir Frederick W. Heygate) was right in supposing that this clause was an enlargement of the power in the statute to which his hon. Friend referred, and which had been exercised very sparingly. He thought it would not be desirable to have the presentments under this class considered in the first instance by the presentment sessions, in the same way as compensation for malicious injury to property under the existing Act. Having regard to the manner in which presentment sessions were composed, the Government were not inclined to yield to that proposition. In the opinion of the Government it would not be safe in districts now in the state in which certain parts of the counties of Mayo and Meath were to leave the question of compensation to be decided by a class who were the most subject to that very terrorism and intimidation against which it was sought to provide. On the other hand, some Gentlemen of great weight thought that power should be left in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland solely. In his view it would be difficult for the Lord Lieutenant to exercise such a discretionary power. True, it might be said his Excellency had at present an analogous power in regard to sending down extra police to certain districts and charging the expense upon those districts; but that was in many respects a different case from the present one. Where a district required an additional police force it was but right that it should pay its cost; and, moreover, the cost of such extra police per man was a definite matter easily calculated in the Constabulary Office. But in this case, on the contrary, there was a wide discretion left to the authority, whatever it might be, to assess damages, which discretion, he thought, could not be most advantageously left in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant. For its proper exercise local knowledge would be required; and perhaps it would be necessary to hear evidence as to the state of the district and the extent of the area over which the compensation should be levied. That local knowledge the grand jury would either possess or be able to obtain, and they ought to be able to act firmly and wisely in the matter. On the other hand, being interested in the taxation of the county, the grand jury would not be likely to levy an extra tax without good reason. They had also the power of considering that, like other fiscal matters, in open court, of hearing evidence in the face of the public, and coming to a proper conclusion. He agreed with the hon. Baronet who spoke last that it would be well to add something more to the clause as it stood. Although he was strongly inclined to believe that the grand jury was the best authority to intrust in the first instance with that discretion, he was not for leaving them without some check upon them. It would be an improvement to introduce words into the clause—to be brought up on the Report—providing that any ratepayer might appeal from the decision of the grand jury to the going Judge of Assize, who should hear the case without a jury and decide it on his discretion and, if the decision went in favour of the ratepayer, the Judge should have power to award him costs.

COLONEL FRENCH

said, by an Act, 6 & 7 Will. IV., a power very much resembling this was given to the grand juries in Ireland to levy compensation from the county at large or the barony for personal injuries; and in some cases such compensation had been awarded to persons who had been maimed or killed in the discharge of their duty, so that the clause was to all intents and purposes already the law of the land. The local knowledge required for the proper exercise of such a power as that proposed would not be possessed by the Lord Lieutenant or Privy Council; the grand juries, who added to their local knowledge a deep interest in the maintenance of tranquillity in their counties—as well as the prudent exercise of this power— were the only bodies to whom it could prudently or safely be entrusted. He did not see any object that would be gained by the postponement of the clause.

MR. SYNAN

said, that the clause had been framed according to the Act 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 116, s. 106; but whilst that was limited the present clause extended to all presentments.

DR. BALL

said, it was quite plain, from the observations of the hon. Mem- ber for the county of Carlow (Mr. Bruen) and the hon. Baronet the Member for the county of Londonderry (Sir Frederick Heygate)—than whom he knew no two better representatives of the opinions of grand juries—that the proposition of the clause, giving this jurisdiction to the grand jury, did not find favour with many gentlemen of influence and station. There was, however, another difficulty. The process of proceeding by grand jury would be too slow. If an outrage were committed immediately after an Assize there could be nothing done about it until the next, and then, as the Act was to expire in August, 1871, it might happen that the tax could not be levied at all. Then there was another objection. If the tax were levied by the grand jury it would be levied as part of the county cess; and when the taxpayer was asked to pay it, how would he know that it was imposed by way of punishment for outrage committed in the district, and not for repairs of roads or other such purposes? Now, the proposition to which he wished to call the attention of the Committee and the Government was this—whether the power might not be intrusted to the Lord Lieutenant not individually, but in Council. The advantages of such a mode of levying the tax would be considerable. In the first place, there was in the Privy Council in Dublin, owing to the number of Judges who wore members of it, a machinery for investigation which might be carried on with as much accuracy as if it were a judicial proceeding. Up to this very moment the Privy Council had been repeatedly acting as a tribunal in closing burial-grounds, and in other cases of that character. And their action, too, could be prompt. If a tax of this kind was to be levied it should be immediate. Secondly, the proceeding should be conducted as much as possible in a judicial manner; and, thirdly, it should be in such a form as to convey to the mind of the person paying the tax a keen and acute perception that it was owing to an outrage in his neighbourhood. In fact, it should be punitive. If the proposal he had suggested were adopted, these several advantages of immediate action, judicial proceeding, and separate taxation, seemed to be all attained, while no embarrassment would arise from the temporary nature of the Act.

MR. HENLEY

said, he wished to ask the Solicitor General for Ireland whether, in the case of an aggravated manslaughter, the tribunal would have jurisdiction—because the words used were "murder" and "murdered?"

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)

said, he was of opinion that, as the words of the clause at present stood, aggravated manslaughter would not be included. The form of indictment for manslaughter was "feloniously to kill and slay," while for murder it was "feloniously to kill and murder." He would ask hon. Members to allow this clause to pass, and tomorrow the clause, in another and improved form, would be brought up on the Report.

COLONEL VANDELEUR

said, he thought that the same notices should be given with respect to the special presentments under this measure as were given with reference to the ordinary presentments. They should be exceedingly careful in taking the preliminary steps.

MR. M'MAHON

said, he hoped that the Government would, as far as possible, confine the scope of the clause within the existing line of the county law, so that compensation should only be given in cases of murder or maiming. A man might claim compensation for a shock to his system, and after he had obtained it be suddenly and miraculously cured.

COLONEL WILSON - PATTEN

said, that while it was generally felt that the object of the clause was a good one, it was also generally felt that these duties were ones which ought not to be confided to grand juries. It was a natural objection; because the grand jury might have to assess damages for persons with whom they were immediately connected, and thus a feeling might be created that they acted with partiality. The better policy, he thought, would be to postpone the clause for the present, to enable the Government to see whether they could not devise some other means of securing the same result.

MR. BRADY

said, he objected to this power of heavily fining a county or barony being placed in the hands of grand juries. It would be impossible for grand jurors to act in a judicial spirit in awarding compensation for agrarian outrages. Moreover, if this clause were carried into effect, bullets would be sent through men's coats—and any individual feigning nervousness and mental excitement would succeed in getting a medical certificate to the effect that his life was in danger, or his health seriously impaired. A large number of the cases at present disposed of by grand juries under the Act relating to malicious injuries were got up for the purpose of taking money from the ratepayers. Then as to the appeal to the Judges, he did not think that any cesspayer would go to the expense of appealing to a Judge. He should oppose the clause.

MR. W. R. ORMSBY-GORE

said, he would cordially support the clause. He believed that the levy of compensation would have a most salutary effect. He remembered a case which occurred in 1848, in Leitrim, and which very much strengthened this opinion. Captain M'Leod, a stipendiary magistrate, was shot by an assassin at his own gate. The grand jury made a presentment of £500, and ordered it to be levied on the barony, and the result was that a district where violence and disorder had previously been rife at once subsided into good order and obedience to the law. One practical example was worth 10,000 theoretical and hypothetical arguments; and he felt certain no hon. Member who really desired to quiet Ireland would object to the stringent and exceptional legislation now proposed by Her Majesty's Government.

MR. BAGWELL

said, he would support the clause; but he trusted such an alteration would be made in it as to secure that investigation should, in the first instance, be made near the spot at which the outrage happened to have been committed. He thought there should be first an inquiry before the baronial session in the locality of the outrage; then before the grand jury, with counsel on both sides; and afterwards, whenever any complication arose, by appeal before the Judge, also with the assistance of counsel. He hoped Dublin Castle would not be mixed up with these matters, because such a step would destroy the confidence of the people interested.

LORD CLAUD HAMILTON

said, he wished to hear from the Solicitor General for Ireland in what manner the necessary evidence was to be brought before the grand jury on which their decision was to be based. In criminal cases the grand jury only heard the evidence on one side—that of the prosecution; but in fiscal matters evidence was heard on both sides. It would be unjust that persons should be mulcted in a heavy penalty without having been furnished with ample notice, so that they might obtain the assistance of counsel if they desired it, with the view of setting up a rebutting case. He could not see that the clause, as it stood, provided the machinery requisite to secure that object; and without some such provision, it would operate neither justly nor efficiently. With regard to the proposal for referring the matter to the Lord Lieutenant in Council, he did not well see how any evidence could be brought forward except that of the police and the stipendiary magistrates.

MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING

said, that unless an inquiry were made on the spot there would be nobody to represent the ratepayers, by whom the penalty was to be paid. He concurred with his hon. Friend the Member for Clonmel (Mr. Bagwell) in the opinion that the presentment ought, in the first instance, to go before the presentment sessions, and then before the grand jury.

MR. COGAN

said, he also thought it would be objectionable that this matter should originate with the grand jury. He did not see why the same process as was adopted in the case of malicious injury to property should not be carried out in the case of malicious injuries to person.

MR. W. H. GREGORY

said, he had the strongest objection to that clause— an objection founded on his great experience as foreman of grand juries. It would be impossible to sift the evidence and conduct the inquiry satisfactorily in so tumultuary an assembly. Of all tribunals in the world the grand jury was the least fitted to take cognizance of matters of this description. The question should go before some other tribunal in the first instance; but there might be an appeal to the grand jury if that were thought desirable.

SIR JOHN ESMONDE

said, the assessment of damages would be an invidious office, and there would be difficulty in determining upon what districts or baronies the assessment should be levied. He hoped the Government would postpone the clause.

MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE

said, the discussion had been of a negative kind, and while it had shown the difficulties, it had done little to show the way out of them. Under these circumstances, the Committee would, perhaps, allow the clause to be passed as it was, and then the Government would consider the best mode of amending it upon the Report.

LORD CLAUD HAMILTON

said, he hoped the Government would also consider who was to prosecute and collect the evidence for the purposes of the inquiry.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 38 (Moneys levied as compensation under this Act, or 6 & 7 W. 4. c. 116. s. 106., or for extra police under Peace Preservation Act, to be paid by occupiers of houses).

MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING

said, he objected, in the strongest manner, to this imposition being made on houses alone. The rentals of the tenants of holdings on townlands might be £4 or £5 a year, and under this clause such tenants might have to pay an assessment of £10 each, while tenants valued at £50 or £100 could not pay more. Such a thing was not to be tolerated. What he proposed was, that this impost should be paid as the poor rate was paid, by the tenant in the first instance, and that he should deduct a moiety of the charge from his rent. He had no objection to say that the property of the landlord who had been murdered should be exempted. It was monstrous to think of levying this money upon the poor people who could hardly pay their rents. In conclusion, he begged to move to leave out from "applotted" to end of clause, and insert— Assessed and levied in the same manner and by the same means in all respects as grand jury cess is now by law levied: Provided always, That every tenant or occupier shall be entitled to deduct from the rent subsequently payable by him a moiety of such assessment or cess, as if the same was poor's rate, and no more, notwithstanding that the valuation of his holding may be under four pounds.

MR. H. A. HERBERT

said, that according to this Amendment, a landlord would not only have to be shot, but would have to pay for being shot.

MR. W. H. GREGORY

said, he could not agree with the hon. Member for the county of Cork (Mr. Downing) in con- demning this clause, which he believed to be an important and valuable provision. The great object of the Bill was to deter from the commission of crime. We all knew that outrages were committed with persons standing by who would not interfere to prevent them, and that there were others who could but would not aid in the detection of criminals. It was only fair that where there was a strong presumption that localities were implicated they should pay a penalty, and this was the only way in which they could be reached. The object could not be gained by levying the rate on the owner of the land, who might be absent; and, indeed, he was not the person who ought to be punished; punishment ought to fall on those who would not do what they could to prevent the commission of an offence, and who would not afterwards give information with a view of bringing the offenders to justice. For these reasons he would support the clause.

MR. SYNAN

said, that under this clause the tenant of a £40 holding would pay no more than the tenant of a £4 holding, if the difference were due to the quantities of land and not to the values of the houses; and surely this would be a gross injustice. He admitted that the charge ought to be paid by occupiers, and not by landlords; but occupiers of land ought to pay equally with occupiers of houses, and the tenant of a large holding ought to pay more than the tenant of a small holding.

MR. MAGUIRE

said, he should like to hear the case in support of the Amendment answered from the Treasury Bench.

In reply to Mr. M'CARTHY DOWNING,

THE CHAIRMAN

said, it was open to the hon. Member, with the assent of the Committee, to withdraw his Amendment and move another in place of it.

MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING

then said, he proposed to move simply that the charge should be paid by the occupier as grand jury cess was paid, according to the valuation of the holding, so that there would be no injustice whatever. He trusted the Solicitor General for Ireland would accept that Amendment.

MR. MOORE

said, that if no answer were offered to what had been said, he should move the adjournment of the House.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)

said, that the object of the clause was neither more nor less than that the occupiers of houses in the localities in which murders were committed should be made to pay. That intention was apparent upon the face of the clause; and he was really guilty of no discourtesy in not answering the question which had been addressed to him at that hour of the night, and after the long discussion which had been held. It was intended that the occupiers of houses should be made to feel by being made to pay for the offences committed in their neighbourhood, and past experience justified the hope that such a provision would have a good effect.

MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING

said, that the clause did not attain the professed object, because houses and land were valued separately. If the hon. and learned Gentleman would say "dwelling houses and the land thereto attached," there would be no difficulty.

MR. MOORE

said, that in his locality it would be impossible to levy the tax.

DR. BALL

said, he hoped the Government would not give way. The object of the clause was to take the penalty off the land and put it upon the houses, and he approved that object. It was a punitive clause, and its object would be defeated by relieving the class who screened a murderer.

MR. MOORE

said, he must again declare that in the county he represented it would be impossible to levy the tax in the way proposed. He was of opinion that parties ought to pay according to their means.

MR. BRADY

said, the clause, as it now stood, would bring the law into contempt.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, that he must adhere to the principle of this clause; but exceptional cases could be provided for in the clause just passed, which was to be amended on the Report.

MR. WHITWELL

said, he disapproved of the clause, because labourers would have to pay as much as farmers.

MR. BRUEN

said, the difference in the value of the houses very much followed the difference in the value of the farms, and he hoped the Amendment would be withdrawn.

MR. T. COLLINS

said, as the clause placed a penalty upon the aiders and abettors of secret crime, the Government had taken the only course to make it effective. If the tax was levied upon land as well as houses, the greater bulk of it would fall upon a small proportion of the population.

MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING

said, he would withdraw the proviso to his Amendment, and propose the Amendment in the following form:— Assessed and levied in the same manner and by the same means in all respects as the grand jury cess is now by law levied.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, In page 15, line 8, to leave out from the word "applotted," to end of Clause, in order to insert the words "assessed and levied in the same manner and by the same means in all respects as grand jury cess is now by law levied."—(Mr. Downing.)

THE O'CONOR DON

said, that it was a monstrous proposal that a man occupying twenty or thirty acres of land should pay no more than the man occupying three or four acres, because both happened to live in houses valued at the same amount. In the West of Ireland houses on small and large holdings were valued at about the same rate, and an attempt to enforce this clause in its present form would cause a general rebellion. He hoped the Government would accept the proposal to levy the tax upon occupiers of land as well as upon houses.

MR. W. H. GREGORY

said, he was prepared to support the Amendment in the form in which it was now proposed, because it would not be fair to levy the tax merely on the small owners, who were not so much the authors of the outrages as the larger farmers, who incited and hired others to commit them.

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

The Committee divided:—Ayes 143 Noes 34: Majority 109.

MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE

said, he proposed to omit the last paragraph of the clause, relating to the levy of the expenses of extra police sent down to a district. Those were not sent merely as a penalty but also as a measure of prevention, and therefore the ordinary arrangements for the levy of grand jury cess ought not to be disturbed.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 39 and 40 agreed to.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)

said, he proposed, after Clause 15, to insert the following clauses, to facilitate the proof of proclamations:—(Repeal of provisions of Peace Preservation Act as to posting proclamations, &c.); (Printed copies of every proclamation. &c, to be issued under Peace Preservation Act, to be posted on or near door of one place of public worship in every parish, &c, in district). Also to leave out Clause 17 and insert a new clause: (Printed copies of every special proclamation to be posted, &c).

Clauses agreed to.

MR. MAGUIRE

said, he rose to move the insertion of a clause providing that three notices should be given to a newspaper—such notices to be served upon them at intervals of not less than a week—before the powers of the Bill wore exercised. Three notices were usual in France, and the new Press law in this country ought not to be more stringent.

Clause (Notices to be given by Lord Lieutenant to newspaper proprietors,)— (Mr. Maguire.)—brought up, and read the first time.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)

said, that the Government would to-morrow state the terms of the Amendment they intended to introduce into the clause, providing that notice should be given; but he could not accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Maguire), as one notice would be quite sufficient for all practical purposes. No doubt three notices were given in France; but the circumstances of that country were very different. In the first place, those notices formed part of a general Press law; secondly, the offences for which newspapers were forfeited in that country were of a very different character from those contemplated by this Bill; and lastly, in France there wore no actions for damages against the Government. Under all these circumstances, he hoped they would hear no more of France.

MR. MAGUIRE

said, the action for damages was altogether illusory as a remedy; and in France newspaper proprietors, at least, were not subjected to this mockery. Besides, France was amending its Press laws; whereas we were retrograding.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause be now read a second time."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 18; Noes 105: Majority 87.

MR. G. B. GREGORY

said, he would beg to move the addition of a clause (Definition of the word "newspaper"), defining the word "newspaper" to mean a publication containing news or intelligence, and published in numbers or a series.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)

hoped the hon. Member would not press the clause.

Clause withdrawn.

Schedule A.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)

said, he would beg to move to omit the words "or annex a copy of a newspaper containing same," to carry out the views of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley).

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.

Remaining Schedules agreed to.

The Clerk Assistant informed the House that Mr. Speaker was unavoidably prevented by indisposition from resuming the Chair, during the present sitting of the House:—

Whereupon, Mr. Dodson, the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, took the Chair as Deputy Speaker.

House resumed.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow, at One of the clock, and to be printed. [Bill 88.]

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)

said, he would fix the consideration of the Report for to-morrow at one o'clock.

MR. GLADSTONE

Sir, as in all probability much time will not be occupied in the consideration of the Report to-morrow, perhaps it would be desirable that we should then also read the Bill a third time.

House adjourned at One o'clock.