COMMITTEE. [Progress 4th May.] (Hansard, 6 May 1875)

§ LORD ROBERT MONTAGU
proposed to leave out the clause, which re-enacted the Westmeath Act. He contended that as this Bill applied to the whole of Ireland it was unnecessary to have a special Act for three of the counties, placing them on a different footing from the rest of Ireland. The powers given under the clauses already agreed to, and the re-enactment of the Unlawful Oaths Act, were amply sufficient to repress any amount of Ribbonism or disaffection in Ireland without adding any further coercive clauses. The 5th clause provided that the Protection of Life and Property Act should continue for two years—which was equivalent to saying that any person who was suspected—and a whisper from a magistrate, a policeman, or a personal 180 enemy was a sufficient cause of suspicion—of being guilty of misdemeanour, of being accessory to a felony, or of being a Ribbonman, might be arrested and sent to prison; and when in prison not even a Judge could bail that suspected person out, because the Habeas Corpus Act was suspended. At no previous time since the days of Runnymede had the Habeas Corpus Act been suspended for a longer period than one year, and he trusted that the Committee would not again sanction its being suspended for a period of two years. The noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Hartington) announced in 1871 that it was unconstitutional to pass such an Act as that applied to Westmeath unless it was justified by necessity; and he now called upon the noble Lord to vote against the 5th clause on the ground that the Chief Secretary for Ireland had denied its necessity, and had challenged the Committee to be very careful how they should re-enact the Westmeath Act. If Ribbonism existed, the Chief Secretary said it was sleeping, and, in the words of the adage, he (Lord Robert Montagu) said, "Let the sleeping dog lie." He had been assured by persons of the highest authority that the Ribbon conspiracy did not exist, except in the imagination of policemen and magistrates who desired to magnify their office. Bishops and priests, who had nothing to gain one way or the other, asserted its non-existence. If it did exist, then there was a curious fact—Why did the Government release Captain Duffy, the man who was said to have organized it? This man was released because he was powerless, as there was no Ribbon conspiracy. From a Return issued that morning he found that only 16 persons had been arrested under the Westmeath Act, and unless there was a necessity proved and shown for its continuance, they had no right to renew such an unconstitutional measure. He called upon the noble Marquess to abide by the principle he enunciated in 1871, and again in 1873, and to assist him in negativing the 5th clause, the omission of which he now moved.

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
trusted the Committee would pardon him if he did not enter at length into 181 the arguments of the noble Lord the Member for Westmeath, who had told them that he believed the provisions of this Bill with regard to the restrictions on the possession of arms, and the renewal of the Unlawful Oaths Act for five years, were sufficient to deal with the Ribbon conspiracy. He (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) could only say that those restrictions and that Act existed in 1871, when they proved to be utterly inefficient to deal with the Ribbon conspiracy, and it was found necessary to ask the House to give the power which it was now sought to renew. Not only did the restrictions on the possession of arms then exist, but far stronger provisions were contained in the law at that time relating to the arrest of persons suspected of being mixed up with agrarian crime. The Government proposed to renew the Westmeath Act, because it had been found an instrument efficient for its purpose. It did not hurt anyone who did not properly fall within the scope of its provisions, and no orderly person in Westmeath or King's County was or had been in the slightest degree affected by the existence of the Act, which was a terror only to evil-doers. The noble Lord had more than once accused him of having stated to the House that the Ribbon conspiracy no longer existed. He (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) denied ever having made such a statement. It was usual, when words were attributed to a Member of that House, and when he denied having used those words, that the Member who charged him with having used them should take that denial as truth. What he said in his opening speech on this Bill was this—that it might be argued by the noble Lord and others who held the same opinions that the Ribbon conspiracy no longer existed, because there were no outward signs of it, and he proceeded to show the reasons which would justify the House in considering that it did still exist, but that it was dormant, and was kept so by the operation of those provisions which the Committee were now asked to renew.

§ LORD ROBERT MONTAGU
said, he quoted the Chief Secretary's own words, which he took down at the time, to the effect that "the Ribbon conspiracy was dormant."

§ MR. P. J. SMYTH
confirmed all that had been said by the noble Lord opposite 182 (Lord Robert Montagu), and repeated the protest which he entered against a continuance of this Act on the second reading of the Bill.

§ MR. BUTT
observed, that this was by far the most important part of the Bill. He thought that the renewal of the Westmeath Act ought never to have been proposed, for it was, in truth, reviving in another form the practice, which they had protested against last year, of passing important measures in one general continuing Bill. He complained that the Chief Secretary, in introducing this Bill, had stated that the Government had confidentially consulted the magistrates of Westmeath and the adjacent districts, but had not given that information to the House. At a meeting of the clergy and people, presided over by the Roman Catholic Bishop of the district, a resolution was unanimously carried, declaring that, after careful inquiry and mature deliberation, they came to the conclusion that Ribbon organization did not exist in their country. That, at least, was as strong and reliable information as the unproduced and secret information of police officers. That, in point of fact, was all the Government had. The great majority of the Irish Members came forward and protested against this Westmeath Act, and did the Government suppose for one moment that on their part there would be any complicity with assassins? The two Members for Westmeath themselves protested against the measure, and declared it to be altogether unnecessary. It was to the representations of the Members sent to Parliament, and not to the reports of police officers, that the Government ought to seek for information. Under the Act no less than 16 men had been arrested, and were, untried, sent to gaol for long periods of imprisonment, but not the slightest particle of information was elicited as to the existence of a Ribbon conspiracy. If there were any such confederacy, it existed in defiance of the Act, which was not likely to be operative in future. The Chief Secretary for Ireland told them that murder was only in abeyance by reason of the operation of this Act. Police officers had written to Dublin Castle to that effect. Well, if the information were correct, why were not the intended murderers arrested, and the supposed victims warned of their 183 presumably pre-arranged fate? It was obviously the duty of the Government to have the man arrested. What reliance was there to be placed on the reports of police officers under the circumstances which required them to be supplied? There was no Ribbon conspirator now in gaol; but Captain Duffy walked abroad, and in the opinion of the Roman Catholic Bishops and clergy he was released from prison on the memorial of certain magistrates, who desired to use him for their own protection, when they intended their own tenants should be evicted. Was it right, he would ask, that on a system of reports made behind men's backs the liberties of Ireland should be taken away? This part of the Bill was a novelty even in coercion, for it was not only the first time that the Habeas Corpus Act had been suspended for more than one year, but the suspension had never before been applied to persons who were not accused of treason. A more objectionable mode of legislation was never adopted than that which proposed to revive such an Act as the Westmeath Act at the end of a Bill without repealing any of its clauses. However careful the right hon. Gentleman might be in the administration of the law, he (Mr. Butt) objected to trusting him. It was not the principle of the Constitution to ask for extraordinary powers, and then to say that no person would be imprisoned who did not deserve to be so dealt with. He should certainly support the Amendment of the noble Lord, and he hoped the clause would be omitted from the Bill.

§ SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA
entered his protest against the law which this Bill intended to re-enact. That law was founded on the evidence obtained in 1871, and was passed under a sense of panic. He had known Westmeath for the last 25 years, and he could speak as to the state of the county with the confidence of one who had property there, and was in the habit of collecting his own rents. He was as convinced as he was of his own existence that there was no vestige of Ribbonism active in Westmeath, or merely held in abeyance there by the fear of this Act. The Captain Duffy—who, by the way, was no Captain at all—of whom they had heard so much, conspired, no doubt, if it be possible for a man to conspire, with himself alone. Like any other ruffian who was roaming 184 about at the time, he was made use of occasionally to carry out some indefensible design. They had no satisfactory statement of the circumstances' under which Duffy had been released from durance. He believed the Westmeath Committee had been grossly imposed upon by their credence in the printed paper, which purported to set forth the Ribbon oath, but as he had already dealt with that subject, he would not now go into it.

§ MR. CONOLLY
objected to the Amendment. It was quite evident that if these powers were entrusted to the Government the parties suspected would be under the necessity of obeying the law. He did not concede that there was any reasonable ground for excluding from the operation of the Bill either Meath or Westmeath. He did not wish that any man should be in gaol, and it was quite right that every portion of this Bill should be strictly examined; but he did not think these restrictive measures could at present be dispensed with. There was one person particularly connected with journals in Ireland who had vilified him for his conduct in this House. Now, he was always ready to answer any Gentleman who might call him in question for any expression he might have used in the course of debate; but he thought it hardly manly that one having a seat in the House should take advantage of his journal in Ireland to vilify him.

THE CHAIRMAN
reminded the hon. Member that he was not addressing himself to the question before the Committee.

§ MR. CONOLLY
merely wished to add that but for that vilification it would not have been necessary for him to have taken such an active part in favour of the Bill. As to the statement made by Dr. Nulty, the Catholic Bishop, that Ribbonism did not exist in Westmeath, he knew that excellent Bishop well. He was a most amiable man, and believed that the fact was so; but the Committee had the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland to the contrary; and on that account he saw no reason why the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Westmeath should be adopted.

§ MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING
said, that by the Amendment it was not intended to exclude Westmeath from parts of the Act, but merely to repeal the 185 old Act passed in reference to that county, and to leave that county to the same law as was applicable to the whole of Ireland. The Bill was avowedly one for the purpose of putting down agrarian crime in Westmeath; but it was admitted that there was no crime of that kind in that county. Still, they were asked, without any reasons being given, to pass the measure, and to leave to the responsibility of the Government the mode of carrying it out.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, that this was not a clause relating to that ordinary coercion which they had debated day after day, but one of a severely stringent and unconstitutional nature, for it gave to the Lord Lieutenant power to imprison for a certain time any man whom the police might say was suspected of being a member of a Ribbon society, but how was the Lord Lieutenant to know whether the suspicions of the police were well founded? He was firmly convinced that no Ribbonism existed in Westmeath, and for that reason it was not fair to apply an Act to it involving the suspension of the habeas corpus. The hon. Member for Donegal (Mr. Conolly) seemed indignant at the assertion being made that such was the case; but they had the evidence of the highest authorities that Ribbonism did not exist.

§ MR. FAY
contended that the arguments of the Chief Secretary for Ireland were inconsistent, for one day he relied upon the statements of the magistrates in Ireland and the next day he said that he did not. He (Mr. Fay) believed that upwards of 30,000 Irish were in the Infantry of the British Army, so that if the assertions made with regard to the existence of Ribbonism were true it found its way even there. He did not believe it, and should therefore support the Amendment.

§ MR GOLDNEY
would take the liberty of reminding hon. Gentlemen, Members from Ireland, that the Act itself directed that Returns of the number of arrests made, specifying the circumstances, should be laid before the House within 14 days, so that if anything irregular occurred they would always have an opportunity of calling attention to it.

§ MR. WHITWELL
pointed out that this clause would enlarge the area of those persons who would be subject to the operation of the Act, for it would 186 embrace all those who were suspected through living in a proscribed district in 1871.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, the habeas corpus was proposed to be suspended in Westmeath, on the ground that Ribbonism existed there; but having carefully read the evidence given before the Committee, he could see no ground for such an assumption. There was not a person in gaol, and therefore there was no pretence for passing this Bill.

§ MR. RONAYNE,
in answer to what had been said by hon. Gentlemen opposite about Returns of persons arrested being laid before the House, said, that cases had occurred in Ireland where persons had been arrested under a warrant signed by the Lord Lieutenant, and imprisoned no one knew where. In many other cases their friends were denied access to them. A man was arrested as having been accessory before a murder—a case not of suspicion, but, as stated in the Returns, of fact. Now, that man ought to have been tried, or else brought up by habeas corpus; but instead of taking either process, he was imprisoned and allowed to remain so.

§ CAPTAIN NOLAN
proposed the following clause:— (Possession of fowling-pieces.) Provided always, anything in the original or amending Acts to the contrary notwithstanding, it shall be lawful for any barrister-at-law, for any surgeon or doctor of medicine, or any attorney or solicitor, or any clergyman in orders belonging to any denomination, or any person who pays county cess or poor rates on an annual valuation of not less than twelve pounds, to keep and to use, by himself or through his servant, one double or single barrelled fowling-piece; this, however, not to save such person from any prosecution on the part of the Excise for not having taken out a game licence or for not having paid gun tax. All the large proprietors in Ireland were allowed the possession of such arms; and he thought that those occupiers who paid county cess or poor rates on an annual valuation of £12 should be privileged to keep a fowling-piece. He did not bind himself to a payment of county cess or poor rates on a valuation of £12, and he had no objection to the sum being larger; but he thought it was not right that the privilege to possess such arms 187 should be conceded to the upper classes only, and withheld from the class he had named. He, therefore, hoped the Committee would adopt the clause.

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
said, the Committee had already decided that licences must be taken out for fowling-pieces as for other arms. The Committee had also acceded, on his own proposal and on the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt), to certain alterations which would tend materially to facilitate the possession of fowling-pieces. He had, therefore, hoped that the hon. and gallant Gentleman would not think it necessary to move this clause. The exemptions from the necessity of obtaining licences were confined to magistrates and to other officials, such as members of the Coastguard or the Constabulary, or persons engaged in military service whose duty required them to carry arms. The proposal of the hon. and gallant Gentleman would make an invidious distinction.

§ MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY,
in supporting the Motion of his hon. and gallant Friend, said, he always went back to the principle which the right hon. Baronet and the Solicitor General laid down—namely, that the Bill should be tempered with mercy in cases where no need of coercion was alleged to exist. The object of his hon. and gallant Friend was that the middle classes, who were known not to be mixed up with any unlawful societies, should be exempted from the stringency of the proposed Act, and he thought it came within the principle on which he relied.

§ MR. CALLAN
said, that there were hon. Members in that House who would not have the power of carrying arms as the Bill stood; and surely the Government could not think that such persons were disentitled to the privilege.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, he thought the Government could only be making a reasonable concession if they assented to the Amendment as it stood.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER
said, that if the Government helped to reject the clause, they would declare that not only had they no faith in the loyalty of the lower classes, but that they also distrusted the upper classes.

§ MR. MELDON,
as a professional man, did not ask to be treated differently from the lower order of his countrymen, and would now vote against the new clause, were it not that the Government had itself made an exception in favour of the magistrates. He did not see why, if magistrates were allowed to carry arms, a barrister should not also be allowed to do so. Indeed, such at the present moment was the horror of the Irish people at agrarian crimes, that it became necessary that the counsel who undertook to defend those accused of it should carry arms in self-defence.

§ MR. BULWER
said, he could not see why the clause should fix the qualification at a rating of £12 rather than £6, or why a person living in lodgings should be excluded under the clause. He could not see how the Government could accept it.

§ MR. FAY
said, he did not like to see exclusive privileges granted to professional men. He thought that farmers with moderate holdings might be regarded as men having, in his sense of the word, strong "Conservative" instincts, and as being men not forward to violate the law.

MR. SULLIVAN
said, he hoped that farmers would not be seized for carrying croquet-boxes. He knew an instance of an hon. Gentleman who was seized for carrying a croquet-box because it was so like a gun-box.

§ CAPTAIN NOLAN
then moved the insertion of the following clause:— Any occupier of land in Ireland may apply by Petition of Eight to be indemnified for any damage done to his crops by wild birds, hares, or rabbits, provided he proves such damage has accrued by reason of the operation of this Act, and all the provisions of the Statutes in force in Ireland in respect to the said Petition, and the procedure thereon, and the granting of costs of the Petition, shall extend and be applicable to any Petition so presented by such occupier. If he were addressing a committee of English farmers they would not hesitate to insert in the Bill a provision such as he submitted for the consideration of the Committee. The damage done might, in most instances, be small; but the Com- 189 mittee should remember that the small margin of, say 5 per cent, was all the farmer had to live upon. It might be said that they might use poison to get rid of hares and rabbits; but it was clear that the extensive use of poison might lead to the occurrence of serious accidents, and poison, if used to keep down rabbits or birds, might also be used to kill foxes. The Bill contained a precedent for the granting of compensation, and there existed the further precedent of compensation to farmers for the injury done to crops by reason of the movement of troops over cultivated land. If it were found that the amount of compensation to be paid for damage really arising from a want of guns in a particular district was unduly large, steps would be taken to relax the stringency of the rule to suit the necessities of the case.

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
could not adopt a clause which appeared to be based on a principle on all fours with one which would give manufacturers compensation for losses which accrued from the operation of the Factory Acts. If a farmer had the right of destroying these animals on his farm, he could do so in other ways than by shooting them. Hares were very few in Ireland, and rabbits could be snared, so that there was no necessity for farmers to have guns in order to protect themselves against them, and therefore no necessity for them to be compensated for losses which would not be consequent upon their being deprived of guns.

§ MR. BIGGAR
pointed out that wild birds could not be easily snared.

§ MR. BUTT
said, he thought that there was nothing unreasonable in the proposal of the hon. and gallant Member; but he asked him to withdraw his clause on the ground that not only the Committee, but public opinion also, was not quite ripe for doing strict justice in the matter.

§ MR. MELDON
moved to insert the following clause:— (Number of divisions for holding sessions for trying offences under this Act not to be reduced.) During the continuance of this Act, or any Act or part of an Act hereby continued, the number of divisions or districts for the holding of sessions in any county or riding now existing 190 for the transaction of any criminal business recognisable or determinable at any general or quarter sessions of the peace shall not be reduced, but all criminal business shall continue to be transacted in the division or district where such criminal business is now transacted. The hon. Member explained that steps were now being taken to have all the criminal and civil business of quarter sessions transacted in one town for each county. It would work injustice if men, arrested for trifling offences under this Act, were taken out of the district in which they were known and tried in a place where they were not known.

§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PLUNKET)
said, that, in the event of there being any change in the mode of conducting criminal business, it would be a change made generally, and for the convenience of the counties, and would not have special reference to this Act. He hoped that the Amendment would not be pressed.

§ MR. BUTT
moved the repeal of the 13th section of the Peace Preservation (Ireland) Act, 1870, which enabled magistrates to hold inquiries into charges against suspected persons in their absence and in private, but he declined to press it to a division. He next moved the repeal of section 14, which gave power to magistrates to arrest witnesses supposed to be about to abscond at refusal to bail without the assent of the committing magistrate.

§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PLUNKET)
said, he could not assent to the Amendment.

§ MR. BUTT
then moved an Amendment, the object of which was to repeal a provision enabling a magistrate, whenever a person was suspected of sending a threatening letter, to issue his warrant authorizing a search to be made of that person's house, and of all his private papers, in order to find evidence to convict him of that offence. That was a most odious power, and one entirely inconsistent with English law. It was, moreover, very liable to be abused, and in one instance of that kind a remedy was given in the shape of damages in an action, but only on the ground of some technical informality. He might have to 191 take the sense of the Committee on that provision on the Report; but he hoped that in the meantime the Chief Secretary would seriously consider whether it might not be safely dispensed with. He acknowledged that the right hon. Baronet had made most important concessions, both in bringing in the Bill and also during its progress. He valued the latter class of concessions most, because they had been made without fear of any taunt that the Government had yielded to pressure. The right hon. Baronet, he was sure, was not influenced by any such unworthy feeling, the only pressure to which he yielded being that of reason and argument. Threatening letters were often ludicrous, and he had himself received several at which he only laughed.

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
said, it was not without very careful consideration that the Government had proposed to re-enact that clause. Threatening letters really deserving the name, and which were too often followed by outrages that created terror, still continued in Ireland. The police had reported that three times as many threatening letters had been sent this year as in 1866, but far less than in 1870, when the clause was introduced. There still appeared to be sufficient grounds for retaining that provision, the operation of which was very carefully guarded. Cases had been brought under his notice where the power conferred by the clause had proved most valuable; and in no instance but the one to which the hon. and learned Member had referred, and in which there had been a legal remedy, had the Government any knowledge of its having been abused.

§ MR. RONAYNE,
as an employer of labour, had frequently received anonymous threatening letters, but had always thrown them into the waste-paper basket and taken no further notice of them. He believed that one-half of the persons who received such letters acted under a feeling of cowardice in making reports respecting them to the police. He mentioned that, as regarded experts in questions of handwriting, an instance occurred at a trial of a Mr. O'Brien, at Cork, in which the handwriting was a written receipt, and certain bankers and their clerks swore that the handwriting was that of O'Brien, and he was sentenced to be hanged, and two years after the Crown required a jury to find that 192 the same receipt was written by a Captain Mackay. So that after the conviction of one man the Crown produced the same receipt, and tried to hang another upon it. He thought, therefore, no reliance could be placed on the evidence of experts given in secret, and upon which the police acted.

§ LORD ROBERT MONTAGU
moved to add to line 19 the following words, which had been rendered necessary by the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt), and to which, he understood, the Government offered no opposition— And whereas various persons have, by reason of neglect or otherwise, not complied with the provisions of the said Acts.

§ MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING (in the absence of Mr. BUTT)
said, before the duties of the Committee were discharged he must acknowledge the fair consideration which the Irish Members generally had received from both sides of the House; that in the discussion of national and constitutional questions of great importance, the English and Scotch Members had given them a large support, and, on the whole, he thought the majority of the Irish Members would be satisfied with the manner in which they had been met by the Government with regard to the proposals they had brought forward.

§ MR. HERMON
said, the Members on that side of the House—the Government side—had given a consistent support to the Government in the discussions on this measure, knowing it was as distasteful to them to bring it forward as it was to the hon. Gentlemen opposite. Nothing but a stern sense of duty had induced them to bring it forward, and therefore he felt bound to support them. He was very glad to hear what had fallen from the hon. Member (Mr. Downing), and he hoped the hon. Gentleman would convey those sentiments to his friends in Ireland.

§ MR. RONAYNE
objected to the conduct of the hon. Gentlemen on the other side on the ground that they had not discussed this Bill, and had thrown all the burden of discussion on Members on his own side. He hoped and believed that the hearts and sentiments of hon. Members opposite were not with this 193 Bill, and that they simply acted on the responsibility of the Chief Secretary for Ireland; but he thought they ought not to have done so merely on the authority of secret letters written by police officers to Dublin Castle, without requiring that proof which would have given satisfaction.

§ MR. MITCHELL HENRY
appealed to the Government to have the Bill reprinted before the Report was brought up. Being a highly penal measure it should be made as clear as possible. Various concessions, as the Government thought, had been made, whilst many others had been refused, and it would add to a clear understanding of the subject if the Bill could be reprinted. He would undertake to assure the Government that no advantage would be taken of it if that course were adopted.

THE CHAIRMAN
pointed out that the Amendment had been proposed by the noble Lord the Member for Westmeath, and that a general discussion on the Bill would be more appropriate on the third reading.

§ SIR EARDLEY WILMOT
wished to bear testimony to the patience and forbearance shown by Her Majesty's Government to everybody in that House during the discussions on this Bill, and also to the courage, honourable resolution, and ability evinced by the Irish Members on both sides of the House in the defence of what they no doubt conscientiously considered to be an unjust interference with the liberties of their country. He never felt greater pain and sorrow than in being obliged to assent to a restriction of the liberties of any portion of his countrymen. He should have been glad to limit the operation of the Bill to two years instead of five. He was one of those Members who had left the House when the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) proposed his Amendment, and he would explain why he did so—

THE CHAIRMAN
The Question before the Committee is that this be the Preamble of the Bill. That Question raised all the general points embodied in the Bill; but the hon. Baronet appeared to be making a personal explanation instead of discussing the Bill.

§ SIR EARDLEY WILMOT
said, that what he was proposing to do was to show that Clause 5 of the Bill was not in accordance with his feelings, and he wished to tell the Committee why he objected to it. ["Oh, oh!"] He would undertake to show on another occasion, why he objected to a person being arbitrarily imprisoned for more than 12 months.

§ MR. CHARLEY
congratulated the Chief Secretary for Ireland on the repeal of the odious Press Laws, imposed upon Ireland by Lord Carlingford. He protested against the imposition of those laws in 1871; his voice was drowned in clamour; but he had the satisfaction of recording his vote with the small minority, who opposed them. The nation which was denied the freedom of the Press, was denied the first rudiments of Constitutional Government. Freedom of the Press was as essential to Constitutional Government as the air we breathe was to our existence.

§ MR. BUTT
suggested that the Bill, with the many Amendments which had been made, should now be thrown into a clear, intelligible, and definite shape, so as to form one body of consistent legislation. It could easily be done; and no advantage—he could promise—would be taken of its altered form to re-discuss any portion of the measure.

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
said, the Amendments made in the Bill had not been numerous. As a matter of course, the Bill would be reprinted with the Amendments; but the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member went a good deal further. It would necessitate the re-committal of the Bill, and was certainly not in accordance with the ordinary practice of the House. He had to thank the Committee for the fair and candid manner in which a protracted discussion had been conducted. He had not complained—and did not now complain—of the mode in which the Irish Members had thought it their duty, as it was their undoubted right, to discuss the provisions of a Bill to which many of them naturally objected. The task which it had been his duty to perform had not only been wearisome, but painful in the extreme, and he fervently trusted that he would never be called upon to repeat it. He had endeavoured to treat every hon. Member who had any Amendment to move with courtesy and 195 attention, and to deal with the subject in a fair and straightforward manner.

§ MR. BUTT
said, he thought at the end of the Committee he ought to remark that the Irish Members had nothing whatever to complain of as to the manner in which the Chief Secretary had conducted it. He had met them often with great fairness, although at times they might have considered the points he was sustaining were too severe. They had nothing to complain of in the way they had been received by the House, and the manner in which their objections had been met would have some effect in mitigating the effect these coercive measures would have upon the minds of the Irish people. He hoped the House would not take objection to the manner in which the opposition had been conducted. The Bill was unconstitutional, it vitally affected the liberties of the people, and its provisions were multifarious, and had it been applied to England it would not have passed with even so little discussion. He, however, believed it had been discussed fairly, and much as they regretted the re-enactment of these laws it could not be said an ample opportunity had not been given for the consideration of the question.

§ MR. DISRAELI
I merely, Sir, rise to say that I think this is the best Message of Peace which we have had for a long period.

§ MR. RONAYNE
I, for one, will not be any party to accept from the English Government chains, however gilded, or however accompanied by courtesy, politeness, or good manners.

§ MR. BIGGAR
This is not, in my judgment, an occasion on which we ought to bandy compliments. I am not going to blame the House for the want of courtesy shown to myself; but I must protest against a Bill being forced on us unsupported by reason, argument, or common sense.

§ MR. MITCHELL HENRY
said, he did not think that was a proper occasion for bandying compliments. He thought the question was really too serious. He intimated that the Bill would be strongly opposed on the third reading.

§ MR. BUTT
asked when the Government proposed to take the Report?

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
said, the Bill should be printed with the Amendments without delay, and the Report would be taken on Monday next.

§ MR. BUTT
intimated that on the Report he should certainly raise again some of the questions which had been decided against him in Committee.