§ Bill, as amended, considered.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)said, with a view to carry out the promise of the Government to provide that a warning should be given to newspapers before seizure, he would move to insert a new clause in lieu of Clause 27 (Newspapers containing treasonable or seditious matter, &c, forfeited to Her Majesty), providing that, in the case of any newspaper containing treasonable or seditious matter, the Lord Lieutenant may cause a notice, of which a form would be given in the Schedule, to be published in The Dublin Gazette, and to be served at or posted upon the house where such newspaper is published. If, after the publication and serving of such notice, the newspaper should contain similar treasonable or seditious matter, all printing presses, engines, machinery, types, implements, utensils, paper, and other plant and materials used or employed in printing or publishing such newspaper, or found in or about any premises where such newspaper is printed or published, and all copies of such newspaper, wherever found, would be forfeited to Her Majesty. As the clause originally stood, no notice was required. It had been a matter of grave consideration with the Government in what manner the notice should be given, and the conclusion 701 arrived at was that both public notice should be given in The Gazette, and particular notice to the publisher by service at the place of publication. Whether any or what time should be allowed between the service of the notice and the suppression of the newspaper might be matter for consideration.
§ Clause (Newspapers containing treasonable or seditious matters, &c. forfeited to Her Majesty,)—(Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland,)—brought up, and read the first and second time.
§ MR. BOUVERIEregarded this clause as a great improvement, coupled with the Amendment he saw on the Paper providing that the materials of the paper seized should be preserved in safe custody until any issue that might be raised had been tried, instead of their being destroyed in the first instance.
§ MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING, while approving the clause generally, thought the mode of giving notice inadequate. He proposed that the notice should be served personally on the registered proprietor or his servant at the place of publication; or if such service cannot be effected, then by posting the notice on some conspicuous part of the premises. He thought also there should be some limitation of the time for service.
§
Amendment proposed,
In line 10, to leave out the words "at or posted upon such house," in order to insert the words "shall ten days at least previously be served on the registered proprietor of any such newspaper, either personally or by leaving the same with the wife, child, servant, or other inmate aged sixteen years or upwards, at the residence of such registered proprietor, and also a true copy of such notice shall be served at the house or premises where any such newspaper was printed or published, or purported to be printed or published, by leaving the same with the servant, clerk, or other person therein employed or resident, being of the age of sixteen years or upwards; provided that if such service as last aforesaid cannot be effected, or admission into the said house or premises cannot be obtained, then by posting on some conspicuous part upon such house or premises a true copy of such notice, between the hours of eight o'clock a.m. and two o'clock p.m,"—(Mr. Downing,)
—instead thereof.
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)said, he was not disinclined to adopt a considerable 702 part of the Amendment, because there could be no desire on the part of the Government not to give ample notice. He would introduce an Amendment in regard to time. As to the question of serving the notice on a registered proprietor, there was no such thing now in Ireland, nor had there been since the passing of a recent Act. He would suggest the hours from eight in the morning to six in the evening, and that four days' notice should be given.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, that the weekly papers went to press on Wednesday, and were published on Friday. He would suggest seven days.
MR. GLADSTONEThe liberal proposition of the hon. and learned Solicitor General would allow in the case of daily papers four of those articles to be published before seizures. His hon. Friend (Mr. Callan) wished seven of them to be published.
§ MR. MAGUIREsaid, the Government, of course, desired to preserve the peace of the country; but the right hon. Gentleman surely would not maintain that such an amount of danger could arise within three days as to justify the Government in putting this extreme measure into force. If we were on the eve of a rebellion it might be desirable to suppress a seditious newspaper without the least delay; but in ordinary times to suppose that a newspaper article, or two or three following one another, would have any effect on the peace of the country, was to exaggerate their power most absurdly. Seven days was the very least time that ought to be given.
§ MR. CANDLISHthought the difficulty would be met by enacting that the limit should be two days in the case of a daily paper, and seven days in the case of a weekly.
§ SIR JOHN GRAYwas of opinion that a fixed number of days prior to the day of publication should be allowed to elapse.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)moved to insert the words—
When seven days have expired in the case of a weekly paper, or two clays in the case of a paper published at intervals of less than one week.
§ MR. MAGUIREpointed out that some newspapers in Ireland were published thrice and others twice a week. The provisions of the Bill might possibly be put in force in the most arbitrary and despotic manner, and two days' notice would practically amount to no notice whatever. Such papers as The Dublin Evening Mail and The Irish Times, for instance, which were now becoming "national," might be pounced down upon any day without anything like due warning. He hoped, therefore, the House would not act too precipitately in the matter. He thought four days should be allowed instead of two.
§ SIR JOHN GRAYthought two days' notice in the case of a daily paper was quite equivalent to seven days to a weekly paper.
§ MR. MAGUIREsaid, he should not press his view on the question in opposition to that of so high an authority as his hon. Friend.
§ Clause amended and agreed to.
§ Clause 2 (Limitation of Act).
§ MR. WHALLEYsuggested that the word "March" should be inserted instead of "August" in the second line, his object being to secure that the Act should expire on the 1st of March, 1871, instead of on the 1st of August in that year as proposed. It was of the utmost importance, he thought, seeing how stringent the provisions of the Bill were, especially as they affected the Press, and how strong the sympathy was which many hon. Members felt in the views which had been so ably expressed by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie), that the measure should bear on the face of it all the evidence which it could be made to contain of its exceptional character.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 11, to leave out the word "August," in order to insert the word "March,"—(Mr. Whalley,)—instead thereof.
§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEobjected to the proposed Amendment. He thought the 1st of March would be a most inconvenient time, should it be unhappily necessary to renew the Act, to bring in a Bill for the purpose, seeing that there was generally a great block of Public Business in the House in the months of March and May.
§ MR. MAGUIREthought the time suggested by the hon. Member for Peterborough was not altogether inconvenient, for the Members from Ireland would probably all be absent on the 1st of August. He thought the difficulty would be met by fixing the 1st of June.
MR. GLADSTONEpointed to the state of Public Business in the House of Commons in March and April. The House was then crowded with business; yet the hon. Gentleman wished to carve out another week in the very busiest time. If it should unfortunately become necessary to renew the Act, the Government would not, of course, wait for the end of August, but would bring forward any proposals which they might have to make on the subject in good time in the month of July.
§ MR. MAGUIREsaid, that most of the Irish Members would have left in July and August.
§ Question, "That the word 'August' stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)moved the following proviso to Clause 31, which was 29 in the old Bill:—
Provided always, that any chattels so seized shall be kept and detained until the determination of any action brought as hereinafter mentioned; and if such action shall be determined in favour of the plaintiff, being the owner of or entitled to the possession of such chattels, such chattels shall be restored to such plaintiff, and the jury shall take such restoration into consideration in mitigation of the damages to be awarded by them in such action.
§ Motion agreed to.
§ Clause 33 (Action in case of illegal search or seizure).
§ MR. BOUVERIEsaid, it was very properly provided that the warrant, a form of which was given in the Schedule, should state the grounds upon which the seizure was made, so that if a newspaper proprietor chose to dispute the justice of the seizure, he might know the grounds on which to go before a jury. But the clause contained an arbitrary provision enabling the Crown, in defending the action, to add to the proof any copies of the paper published before the seizure complained of. The Crown might, therefore, go back for any period of time, and in support of its case produce indiscriminately newspapers published six months or a year, or even 705 three or four years, before the seizure. Now, he thought the production of new evidence should be limited in point of time, and Parliament should not allow a paper to be seized for one thing and condemned for another. In France such a limit existed. If copies of the paper were to be produced in aid of the defence of the Government for the seizure, he thought that they should require the old copies to be limited to papers published after the passing of the Act—for otherwise the Act would be retrospective—and within fourteen days of the seizure. If some such provision were not adopted, there would be a considerable extension of the law of evidence, for he found in the text-books that, upon a trial for seditious libel, some doubt was felt by the Court whether the Crown was entitled to quote even a passage in the same newspaper which was not set forth in the indictment. With some hesitation Lord Ellenborough decided that this passage might be adduced. But we were now going a great deal further. As the clause now stood any copy of the same paper, without limitation as to time, though it might have been written under totally different circumstances, and might be susceptible of an innocent explanation, might be produced in aid of the proof of the Government. With a view to raise the question he moved the insertion of words limiting such production of newspapers to those published "as well after the passing of this Act as within fourteen days of the date of the said warrant."
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 14, line 2, after the words "complained of," to insert the words "and as well after the passing of this Act as within fourteen days of the date of the said warrant."—(Mr. Bouverie.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
§ DR. BALLsaid, he was not prepared to support the Amendment. It was necessary to bear in mind in what way publications other than those set forth in the indictment were given in evidence on a trial. The prosecution, the verdict, and the punishment must be based upon what was included in the indictment; but it was usual to give in evidence previously published numbers of the same newspapers—not for the purpose of establishing the specified offence, 706 but to support the charge of malicious intent, which forms one element of the offence. The indictments usually charged false, scandalous, and malicious libel, and in support of malice, in an action against an individual, you were at liberty to show that at other times, and on other occasions, the persons who wrote or published the particular matter complained of had exhibited a similar spirit; because motive was more fairly to be ascertained from a series of published writings than from an isolated act of indiscretion. It would tend to weaken the case of the Government if they were driven to rely merely upon the articles put in issue, and it would be said they had only been able to impugn one or two publications; but that line of defence would be anticipated if the Government could say—"We have brought forward one or two articles as constituting the matter upon which the verdict is to be found; but we show that these articles are the successors of a series of articles tending in the same direction, and all having the same character." The liberty to adduce such evidence involved no great danger that the powers conferred by the clause would be abused, for the Judges would always control not as matter of law, but by intimation of opinion, the exercise of the right; they would not permit the Crown to put in a paper a year old, or several months old, or of any remote date—they would require that they should be of such recent date as to constitute, as it were, a chain of evidence as to the habitual tone and tendency of the journal in question. He thought this was a matter which might be safely left to their discretion, and to the respect uniformly shown by Crown Counsel to their suggestions. He did not oppose the object aimed at by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock; but he opposed the laying down of a rule to limit the action of the Judge or of the public prosecutor.
§ MR. MAGUIREsaid, if he understood the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman nothing could be more fair. Absolution was to be given in respect of the past; there was to be no punishment of offences committed before the passing of the Act; but if publications antecedent to the passing of the Act were to be put in evidence to support the allegation of malice, the Act would still have a retrospective effect.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)said, the Government were willing to accept a portion of the Amendment, and to put in words limiting the power of the Crown to put in evidence only such articles as had appeared subsequently to the passing of the Act.
§ MR. M'MAHONsaid, it would be best to accept the statement of law and practice made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Dr. Ball), and strike out this part of the clause altogether.
§ SIR JOHN GRAYsaid, the concession offered did not meet the law of the case. When a journal was seized it was seized for a specific article published at a specific date. The proprietor of the journal was allowed to bring an action for the purpose of showing that the seizure, and consequent damage to his property, was unjustifiable; and surely there could be no justice in allowing the Crown, under such circumstances, to go back to an indefinite period in order to satisfy the jury, not that the particular article mentioned in the indictment was such as to justify the seizure of the journal; but that, at some previous period, other articles of a more or less seditious or objectionable character had appeared in its columns.
§ MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGsupported the Amendment. The Government were conceding nothing whatever, for by other sections the action of the Government was limited to papers published after the passing of the Act. It was obvious that, after the passing of the Act, it would be the duty of the Law Officers of the Crown to keep themselves acquainted with the contents of the Irish journals. If they found that a newspaper contained anything seditious they would give notice immediately; if they did not, they would abstain from doing so with a motive, and that motive would be that they might found a prosecution on five or six publications, which they could not found upon one. He maintained that immediately a paper appeared which contained a seditious or treasonable article notice ought to be given by the Government, under the terms of the Bill, and it would be unjust that they should be allowed to make up a case to go before a jury by dovetailing together any number of articles that 708 had appeared from time to time in the columns of the seized journal.
§ MR. SYNANsaid, the provision under discussion was one for extending the law of evidence; if it were not, according to what had been said by the right hon. and learned Member opposite (Dr. Ball), it might be struck out of the Bill. His argument told as much against the clause as against the Amendment.
§ DR. BREWERsaid, the difficulty arose from the reversal of the usual mode of proceeding; but as in this case the animus of the offence committed by a newspaper must be gathered from a series of acts, it was necessary that the power of accumulating evidence should be in the hands of the Government.
§ MR. GOLDNEYsaid, the newspaper seized might on the face of it appear to be quite free from the charge of sedition, while in relation to previous publications it might be proved to be seditious. He therefore hoped the clause, as it stood, would be allowed to remain part of the Bill.
§ MR. BOUVERIEobserved, that as half a loaf was better than no bread, he should accept the proposal of the Government.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)then moved the insertion after "complained of" of the words "after the passing of this Act." There was no intention on the part of the Government to produce any publications anterior in date to the newspaper seized as affirmative proof to support their defence. The newspaper seized was the only paper that would be tried. The proprietor would bring his action and the defendant would plead that the paper contained treasonable or seditious matter; but if there were allusions of a doubtful nature which were made as clear as light by the publication of the week before, such publication being after the passing of this Act, would be given in evidence, not for the purpose of being in itself a cause of complaint, but to throw light on doubtful matters.
§ MR. MAGUIREthought the Government ought not to put the Act in force, unless the article was so clear and distinct a violation of the law that there could be no doubt about it in the mind of any honest man. Nothing could be more unfair than that the Government should act in the way proposed. Let 709 them have a fair, manly, stand-up fight with the journalist; but do not let them take an expression out of one article and another expression out of another paper and throw them all before the jury, making a constructive crime of it.
§ MR. SYNANhoped the House would not allow the laws of evidence to be changed by a side-wind. If the laws of evidence permitted what was now proposed, there was no necessity for this provision; if they did not, let not the House change the laws of evidence for the purpose of assisting the Government with this Bill.
MR. GLADSTONEbegged hon. Gentlemen to observe that the object of the words proposed to be inserted was to amend the clause in the sense of the hon. Gentlemen who were now opposing it. They did not go so far as was wished; but the Amendment was substantially a limitation on the clause. He suggested, therefore, that it would be well to let the words be inserted.
§ MR. LOCKEsaid, he was at a loss to discover the use of the words proposed to be inserted. The evidence as to the nature of previous publications could be given for the purpose of showing that the particular publication in respect of which the seizure had been made was either treasonable or seditious; and this was similar to evidence which was now given in a number of cases to prove intent. He thought, therefore, the Government would do well to omit the words altogether from the section; because if they were contrary to the present law they ought not to be inserted; while if not contrary, they would be perfectly useless for the object the Government had in view.
§ DR. BALLsaid, there was no extension of the present law of evidence, and the object was to show animus, which it might not be as fair to infer from one number of the newspaper alone as from a series connected with the one seized. He thought the Government had made a very large concession, and there could be no doubt practically in the direction which hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway advocated.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. M'MAHONmoved the insertion after the last Amendment of the words "within fourteen days of the date of the said warrant"—restricting the production of evidence in previous publications 710 to a fortnight before the date of the warrant for the seizure of the newspaper.
§
Amendment proposed,
At the end of the lust Amendment, to insert the words "and within fourteen days of the date of the said warrant."—(Mr. M'Mahon.)
§ MR. SYNANreiterated that the present Bill would change the whole law of evidence. The Government ought to accept the compromise proposed by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for New Ross (Mr. M'Mahon); for, under the present law of evidence, previous publications would not be admissible at all.
§ SIR JOHN GRAYalso supported the Amendment, on the ground that the whole operation of the Act was based upon the impression produced upon the Lord Lieutenant's mind that there was on certain premises a newspaper which contained certain matter; and the person aggrieved took an action not for anything previously published or done, but for the paper seized.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. Dowse)said, his hon. Friends were, in fact, not discussing the Amendment before the House, but the policy of the legislation which Her Majesty's Government intended to bring into effect in the earlier part of the clause. The hon. and learned Member for New Ross was reproducing an Amendment similar to the latter portion of that proposed by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock and afterwards given up by him. Now, how would the Amendment work? Supposing a weekly paper containing treasonable or seditious matter was published on the 1st of the month, the Government must take some time to consider the effect of the publication before serving the notice. Supposing the notice served on the 3rd, the result would be that no action could be taken until seven days after the notice. Another paper would be published on the 8th, but the only paper the Government could seize would be the paper published on the 15th, and as it might not be seized until the 16th, the only paper which the Government could produce in support of their case would be the paper of the 8th, which might have contained nothing objectionable, and the paper of the 1st would be useless for their purpose, seeing that more than fourteen days had expired. The produc- 711 tion and reference to preceding publications would be necessary in many cases, for one publication might contain apparently innocent expressions, yet expressions that previous publications of the same paper might prove to be of the most seditious or treasonable nature.
§ Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
§ MR. M'MAHONfeared that under the definition of newspapers in the Bill all that himself and his hon. Friends had been struggling against might be done, and that any number of newspapers might be presented to the jury in confirmation of the views of the defendant.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. Dowse)replied that the proviso as to time would prevent that.
§ Clause amended and agreed to.
§ Clause 39 (Power to grand jury to present compensation to be paid in certain cases of murder or maiming).
§ MR. M'MAHONmoved to omit the words, "or otherwise injured in his person," his object being to confine the grand jury's power of giving compensation to cases of murdering and maiming, as under the existing law, whereas by this clause they were empowered to give compensation in cases of personal injury. Without such a restriction as he proposed shams and fanciful injuries, such as shocks to the nervous system, might be made the ground for unmercifully taxing the unfortunate ratepayers.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. Dowse)thought the hon. and learned Gentleman must know very little of Irish grand juries if he supposed they would show undue consideration for nervous disorders. A man might be so beaten and injured, without being maimed, as to be unable to do a day's work; and he did not see why a person so treated should not get compensation. For that reason he thought the words now in the clause ought to be retained.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, that he intimated the other evening, in consequence of the just criticisms of the noble Lord the Member for Tyrone, that the Government would agree 712 that this clause should be amended in respect to the power of the grand jury to present compensation in these cases, and the mode in which they proposed to do this he would explain in a few words. The changes and additions he proposed to make amounted to this—that the grand jury should be put in motion by application from the parties interested, or their representatives; or, in default of such applications, by a notice from the Crown Solicitor on behalf of the Crown. In the next place, they proposed that there should be an effectual appeal to the going Judge of Assize, who, having all the witnesses before him, would be able to say whether the grand jury were right or not in their opinion. The Judge would also have the power of giving costs. The Amendment, as he should now give it, was not exactly the same as that on the Paper, although to all intents and purposes it would have the same effect, with one important exception. The Amendment, as it stood, had the effect of creating a delay that would have been very objectionable, by making it impossible to have an appeal tried until the next Assizes. This the Government had now endeavoured to avoid, by requiring sufficient notice to be given before the first Assizes, so that all persons interested might be present in the grand jury room and see what was going on; and, as the discussion would thus occur during the progress of the fiscal business, and before the Judge arrived, the appeal could be proceeded with immediately upon his arrival, all the parties and witnesses being upon the spot. Various suggestians had been made, but no other course of action presented itself which was equally workable, expeditious, and unobjectionable; and it certainly was a course much less tedious, cumbrous, and expensive than summoning witnesses all the way to Dublin. The right hon. Gentleman then moved a series of provisions to carry out the proposal of the Government.
§ COLONEL FRENCHregarded the proposal just made by the Government, with a view of facilitating an immediate appeal, as one which would have the effect of saving both time and expense to the parties.
§ MR. BRUENstill thought that the grand jury was not the proper body to award the compensation; but he re- 713 garded the Amendment proposed by the Government as an improvement in the clause. One or two verbal Amendments would be desirable in the clause as amended.
§ MR. BRADYdid not think the appeal given by the proposed Amendment was in reality an appeal at all. He asked the Government to reconsider the matter.
SIR JOHN ESMONDEmoved that twenty-eight days' notice of appeal should be given, and that a copy of the notice should be published in a newspaper.
§ MR. STACPOOLEdid not see why exceptions should be made in the case of applications for compensation under this clause, which ought to go before presentment sessions, in the same manner as applications for compensation for malicious injuries. Even if the presentment sessions did not grant the compensation, the opportunity would still remain for the parties aggrieved to go before the grand jury.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)said, that everything that was reasonable had been done with respect to this clause, which had given more trouble to the Government than all the rest of the Bill put together. He would, however, yield to the suggestion that the notice of appeal should be published in a newspaper.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. SYNANmoved an Amendment, that it should be imperative that the notice should go to the grand jury presentment session.
§
Amendment proposed,
At the end of the last Amendment, to add the words "Provided that all such applications under this Act for any such presentment shall be first made and decided at presentment sessions, in the same manner in every respect as applications are now made under the authority of section one hundred and thirty-six of the said Act of the sixth and seventh years of the reign of his late Majesty King William the Fourth: Provided that the rejection or adoption of any such presentment by presentment sessions shall not prejudice the light of the grand jury from adopting or rejecting such presentment."—(Mr. Synan.)
§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEcould not accept the Amendment.
§ Question, "That those words be there added," put, and negatived.
§ Clause 40 (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. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEstated that, on re-considering the matter alluded to by the hon. Member for the county of Cork (Mr. M'Carthy Downing) last night respecting the charge on account of compensation, to persons injured, and for extra police, the Government had came to the conclusion that he was right in his opinion, and that there were objections almost insurmountable to levying the charge upon the value of dwelling-houses only in Ireland; he therefore moved the charge should be levied in the same way as the grand jury cess.
§ DR. BALLsaid, that now the Chief Secretary had stated there were difficulties in the way of the course he had advocated last evening not to be surmounted, he would assent.
§ MR. BAGWELLsupported the change.
§ MR. J. LOWTHERobjected to the course taken, considering how much time had been spent last evening by the Government in opposing the proposal.
§ MR. MOORE, as one living in the country, was quite satisfied the Government had acted with great consideration and good sense.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, he felt sure the general feeling of the House would go with him when he expressed a hope that, in consequence of the announcement which had been made by his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government on the previous evening, the Bill might be allowed to be read a third time that day. He need not detain the House by stating why the Government were anxious that it should be passed as speedily as possible, being of opinion that if it were to become law at all the sooner the better. They were, moreover, most anxious to begin on Monday night the important discussions in Committee on the Irish Land Bill, which would probably last a long time.
MR. BENTINCKwished to know from the right hon. Gentleman what the course of business was to be for next week. He understood it was intended to have Morning Sittings on Tuesday and Friday.
§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEreplied that the Committee on the Irish Land Bill would be the first Order taken on Monday. His right hon. Friend at the head of the Government would, on that evening, make a statement with respect to the future conduct of the business of the House.
§ MR. CANDLISHexpressed a hope that the privileges of private Members would not be unduly curtailed in the regulation of the order of business.
§ MR. MOOREsaid, he could not concur with his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland in the opinion that the sooner the Bill, under the consideration of the House, came into operation the better. Taking the Bill as it stood, if he could by any means, whether they might be termed factious or not factious, prevent or delay its becoming law, he should not have the slightest hesitation in adopting those means. He would add that whatever opposition he could give the measure out of the House he intended to give it. In the House, he did not see that any object was to be gained by walking into a particular Lobby; and, therefore, he should, on the present occasion, content himself with entering his solemn protest against such legislation as that proposed.
§ SIR JOHN GRAYsaid, that now that the Bill had practically become law, he would promise that, as far as he was concerned, he would use all the influence he possessed to prevent the Bill from coming into operation. The way, however, in which he should do that would be by advising his countrymen to keep altogether outside the scope of its provisions, and to submit themselves peaceably to the laws of the land.
§ Bill read the third time, and passed.
§ House adjourned at half after Four o'clock till Monday.