PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) BILL— [BILL 79.]

HC Deb 17 February 1881 vol 258 cc1094-194

(Mr. W. E. Forster, Mr. Gladstone, Sir William Harcourt.)

COMMITTEE. [Progress 16th February.]

[SIXTH NIGHT.]

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 1 (Power of Lord Lieutenant to arrest and detain).

Amendment again proposed, In page 1, line 24, at end of sub-section (2), to add the words "Each person detained under this Act shall be permitted to be visited by one or more persons at the same time for one hour on any week day during- such hours as may from time to time be appointed, and, unless for some special reason, the presence of an officer of the prison shall be dispensed with during such visit."—(Mr.O'Shaughnessy.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

MR. BIGGAR

observed, that in regard to the proposed Amendment he did not know whether Her Majesty's Government were prepared to accept it, or whether, paying no attention to any of the arguments used, they intended to oppose every Amendment reasonable or unreasonable. Personally, he failed to see how any reasonable objection could be taken to the Amendment. It would be noted that the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) had introduced into it the words "unless for some special reason," which would guard against any abuse of the privilege. Those words meant, he presumed, to provide for a case in which the Government might have reason to believe that a prisoner was contemplating an escape or using the liberty accorded to him for some improper purpose. The insertion of these words took away every objection the Government might otherwise entertain to the Amendment; and as the Government professed that they had no intention of punishing a suspected person, but simply of detaining him in safe custody and preventing him from committing any of the offences specified in the Bill, he thought the Amendment might, with safety, be acceded to. It must be perfectly well known to the Government that it would be an exceedingly heavy punishment to men who had been accustomed to the ordinary social intercourse of life to find themselves shut up in a cell for the greater part of every day without having an opportunity of being visited by their former friends and acquaintances. It would be an exceptionally heavy punishment to business men, who would be deprived of the opportunity of making their business arrangements. Under these circumstances, he thought the Government ought to agree to the Amendment, and not refuse, as had hitherto been the case, to listen to either reason, argument, or common sense. He was afraid they were now acting towards the Irish Members in a manner which, sooner or later, they would repent. Perhaps, however, it was as well that they should throw off the mask in regard to this Amendment, as they had already done in other cases.

MR. DALY

could see neither reason nor justice in aggravating the punishment of possibly innocent men by unnecessary harsh restrictions. The proposed Amendment was only permissive, but it would relax the stringency of the prison rules by allowing a man detained on mere suspicion for 18 months to have some sort of reasonable intercourse with those whom he desired to see. The Chief Secretary knew as well as he did that the gentlemen who composed the local Visiting Committee were persons who would be in direct antagonism with the individuals likely to be incarcerated under this Act; and when the Government proposed a measure of this kind, which he certainly regarded as an outrage upon the liberties of his country, it would be monstrous that a man untried should be detained for 18 or 20 months, and the only intercourse he was allowed to have with his relatives and friends should be by the permission or at the will of the members of the Visiting Committee. The Amendment was carefully drawn. It said that each person detained under the Act should be permitted to be visited by one or more persons at the same time for one hour on any week-day during such hours as might from time to time be appointed, and, unless for some special reason, the presence of an officer of the prison should be dispensed with during such visit. It was not just or fair that under the circumstances of the case the intercourse proposed by the Amendment should be at the will and under the supervision of the local Visiting Committee; but he was afraid, from the temper which Her Majesty's Government displayed, that the unfortunate prisoners had very little to expect in the way of indulgence.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

I am unable to accept this Amendment in regard to the treatment of prisoners under the Bill; but I wish to make an allusion to the closing remarks of the senior Member for Cork City (Mr. Daly.) They certainly deserve the attention of the Government. The hon. Member has a very strong objection to this Bill, which he has stated over and over again with great clearness, and, I admit, with fairness. He objects to the regulations applied to untried prisoners being applied to persons arrested under this measure, because they are under the control of the Visiting Committee.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

I rise to Order. I ask your opinion, Sir, whether the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman are within the four corners of the Amendment now before the Committee?

THE CHAIRMAN

I understood that the right hon. Gentleman was about to explain to what extent the prison regulations now in force would apply to prisoners under the Bill.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee that I should be allowed to make an explanation, and I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman himself would wish that I should state on behalf of the Government what they are prepared to do. If, Sir, you think I should be in Order, I will now state what it is that we propose to do in regard to this matter.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

I ask, again, whether the right hon. Gentleman is not altogether out of Order?

THE CHAIRMAN

It is entirely for the pleasure and convenience of the Committee to say whether the right hon. Gentleman can be allowed to go beyond the four corners of the Amendment. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he intended to confine himself to questions of prison discipline, and to be desirous of explaining the intentions of the Government.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

You say, Sir, that it will be at the pleasure of the Committee whether the right hon. Gentleman is allowed to make an explanation or not. As I understand the Rule, it is not competent for the Committee at its pleasure to make any exception to the Rule.

THE CHAIRMAN

It has been at all times the custom for this House and for Committees to extend indulgence to a Minister of the Crown who is desirous of making an explanation with a view of facilitating the progress of Business. It is a matter which is only in the power of the Committee to grant.

MR. FNIGAN

I rise to Order. I want to know if we are not now governed by a specific Rule, under a specific code of regulations? If so, I think it is both unjust and disingenuous to ask the Committee to decide what is really by the Rules left to you, Sir.

THE CHAIRMAN

I have already stated that if the Committee will not grant its indulgence to the right hon. Gentleman, he must keep himself strictly within the Amendment.

MR. HEALY

I rise to Order.

THE CHAIRMAN

The point of Order is now settled.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

Then I will follow the suggestion of the hon. Member, and will not make the explanation I was about to make. I will simply state that the Government cannot accept the Amendment, nor any of the Amendments very similar to it, which are upon the Paper, with regard to the visiting of prisoners. I have road the regulations with regard to untried prisoners, and I find that they give such prisoners power to see their friends for a quarter of an hour every day, and for a longer time if the Visiting Committee think fit so to direct. I think it would be unwise to bind the Visiting Committee to any general rule such as the Amendment proposes to lay down, and I do not think that Parliament should make special rules upon such a question of mere detail as this. I will put off the statement I intended to make as to the general treatment of persons arrested under the Bill until some other opportunity.

MR. FINIGAN

could not understand upon what principle the Government were now acting. They told the Committee pointedly that prisoners under this Act would be treated as untried prisoners, but there was no word in any part of the Bill which placed that on record; and it was perfectly absurd to ask the Committee to accept mere statements, when they had a perfectly legal and Constitutional right to demand, instead of vague promises, that the Government should put down their proposals in black and white. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had already told them that he would not bind himself to examine into any of the cases that came under the operation of the Act. Under those circumstances, the Amendment was most reasonable and just. If the object of the Bill was prevention, and not punishment, he did not see what was to prevent the system, now in vogue in Ireland for the treatment of untried prisoners, being applied to men arrested on what was called "reasonable suspicion" only, who would never have any trial whatever. The Government had declined to have any of the warrants of the Lord Lieutenant even revised, and there was no regulation whatever for the treatment of untried prisoners under the present measure. He urged that the Government wore bound to say that the prisoners under the Act should not be treated as untried prisoners, or to introduce some clause or schedule by which a regular course of treatment should be laid down in so many words, in order that the Irish Members might be pre-vented from unnecessarily taking up time in the future in discussing the treatment of these prisoners. He knew of no provision which could be more just than the Amendment which had been proposed by the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy). It simply provided that prisoners detained under the Act could be visited by one or more persons at the same time. The whole of these matters would still be left to the Irish Executive, whose administration was not tempered with justice, but with severity. The probability was that the Irish Executive would not translate the Amendment in favour of the prisoner, but rather in favour of the Government. It was very well known that the exercise enjoyed by a prisoner was very limited; and it must be specially borne in mind that whoever might be unfortunate enough to be locked up under the Act, would be condemned to that cellular system of imprisonment, which had been found to be so injurious to the physical as well as the moral well-being of those who were subjected to it. He therefore hoped that Her Majesty's Government would accede to the Amendment, and would not continue to display that acrimony in debate which had distinguished them since the Bill was first introduced. The Government, although professing outwardly that they had no such intention, appeared to be determined that the Bill should not see the stage of Report. In taking that step they were, no doubt, influenced by the knowledge that the longer the Bill was before the House, and the longer it was before the people of England, the more clear would it become that it was punishment that was aimed at, and not prevention.

THE CHAIRMAN

I must call the attention of the hon. Member to the fact that he is now travelling beyond the Amendment.

MR. FINIGAN

said, he willingly abided by the ruling of the Chair; but he must say that it was excessively difficult to understand what was in Order under the New Rules. If he had wandered he had certainly done so unwittingly. He was most anxious not to do anything that would transgress the four corners of the Amendment, or bring about the hostility with which he had been menaced. ["Order !"] He simply asked that some principle of justice should be acted upon by the Ministry, and put into words in the Bill, because, as the matter now stood, when they came to examine the wording of the measure they would discover that the professions of the Ministry wore altogether worthless. He urged that unless the Government placed in the Bill the regulations they intended to enforce in regard to the treatment of the unfortunate prisoners, all their declarations and assurances would amount to nothing'. They could not expect that the Irish Members would accept a mere statement unless they were allowed to see in the Bill the actual words which would give the prisoners a legal right to be treated with greater leniency than the rules for the treatment of untried prisoners at present provided. He hoped the Government would see their way to be just and generous as well as severe and legal; and if they would manifest such a disposition, they would have very little cause to complain of the spirit in which they would be mot by the Irish Members.

DR. COMMINS

would press upon the Government that 'if they were not prepared to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy), they would, at least, take seriously into consideration one evil that the Amendment would guard against. In England a gaol was easily accessible from every part of a county. A person residing in any particular county could reach any other part of the same county in half an hour, owing to the existence of railways and other means of conveyance. But in Ireland there were places which were neither accessible by railway or by a public conveyance of any kind. For instance, in the county which he represented (Roscommon) there were parts —? and they were the portions which had most to apprehend from the operation of this Act—which wore 30 miles away from the county gaol. In many cases there was neither railway, coach, nor public car, and persons who were likely to be arrested in those parts of the county would be removed from their friends to such a distance as would make it necessary, if they were to be visited by their friends and relatives, that such friends or relatives should undergo a day's journey, perhaps on foot. Surely it would be extremely hard if, after a wife or child had travelled perhaps 35 miles to see their imprisoned relative, they were only allowed to have an interview of a quarter of an hour with him. He asked the Government seriously to consider this point, and say whether such a limited interview was not altogether inadequate in such a case. Then in regard to the other relaxations proposed in the Amendment, he thought there were ample reasons for recommending them to the favourable consideration of the Government and the House. Untried prisoners and prisoners awaiting trial were not allowed intercourse with any person whatever, except in the presence of a prison official. They were not even allowed to see their counsel without a prison official being present when the interview took place. It was said that in practice these prison officials had neither eyes to see nor ears to hear; but if that was the rule in England, it would not be the case in Ireland. It was suggested that the presence of a prison official was necessary in order to prevent any attempt to escape, or to prevent the handing in of improper articles such as whisky or implements for breaking out of gaol, and that no attention was paid to any conversation that passed. He was afraid that it would be very different in Ireland; and the suspicion that a different state of things would exist in Ireland should be a ground for removing the prison official, or, at any rate, for having him placed in a different room from that in which the interview took place. His presence would, at the very least, be a cause of irritation—almost a standing insult to the prisoner—-and there was no reason why the friend or relative should not be in one room with the prisoner, while the prison official was outside the door in another. In the case of persons incarcerated under the Act there would not be much danger of an attempt to escape. It would not be as in the case of prisoners awaiting trial with an apprehension as to the result of the trial, and there was no special reason which would operate upon them in inducing them to make an effort to escape. In the same way there would be no danger of the concoction of evidence, or the manufacture of other offences which the presence of a prison official would prevent. There was, consequently, no substantial reason why the prison official should be present. Therefore, apart from the mere humanity of the thing— and he was willing to admit that the Government would be as humane as they possibly could in the exercise of the extraordinary powers conferred on them by the Act — the prison official would be a listener of the most sacred and confidential communications between members of the same family. It was, therefore, incumbent on Her Majesty's Government to give the House some assurance that, if they were unwilling to adopt the actual terms of the Amendment, means would be taken to remove this unnecessary and painful infliction and this unnecessary annoyance, and also to extend the length of the interview, which, at present, was miserably short, especially when it was remembered that some of the visitors would have to travel 30 or 35 miles, often on foot, in order to have the interview.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

remarked, that hon. Members opposite talked of humanity to the prisoners. He certainly should have thought that the most certain way of ensuring humane treatment for prisoners under the Act would have been to have allowed the Government to make their statement as to the alterations they proposed to make in the rules for regulating the detention of unconvicted prisoners. He therefore wished, in the interests of the prisoners, and being altogether unable to understand the policy of the objection to allow the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to make his statement, to ask the Attorney General or the Solicitor General whether it was the intention of the Government to supplement the printed rules which at present applied to unconvicted prisoners, and under which the prisoners under the present Bill were to be treated by additional rules or regulations to ensure humane treatment? If that was the case he would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, if he was not permitted to make that statement to the House, whether he would put on the Paper that night such modifications as the Government intend to introduce in the rules?

MR. HEALY

said, that at the time he rose to Order, but was not heard, he intended to put it to the Committee that the right hon. Gentleman should be heard as an act of indulgence. It would tend to save an unnecessary discussion if the right hon. Gentleman could be heard, and for his (Mr. Healy's) part he should be glad to hear him.

MR. T. D. SULLIVAN

wished to say, in reference to the remarks which had fallen from the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry), that if there was any inconvenience in the matter the fault rested with those who had made these restrictive rules. No doubt, it was inconvenient; but let them have one law and one rule all round. He hoped he was not transgressing in making those remarks; but he could not fail to notice in the course of these discussions that hon. Members who put forward certain arguments and pursued a certain line wore listened to, while others, who rose to make comments in reply, were ruled to be out of Order. He supposed that this was quite right; but it was very inconvenient. Personally, he would do his best to observe the regulations which had been laid before the House. One word as to the Amendment. There was a special reason why he supported that portion of it which recommended that the presence of an officer of the prison should be dispensed with at the interview between the prisoner and his friends. A man detained under this Bill was not in the position of an untried prisoner. An untried prisoner was a man against whom the Government believed they had sufficient evidence to justify their bringing him to trial and to warrant a conviction. The man who was arrested under this Act would be in prison upon a very different footing. He would be a man concerning whom the Government believed they had not sufficient evidence to bring him to trial. That made a substantial distinction between the two classes of prisoners; and, therefore, the men arrested under the provisions of this Act would have a right, both in equity and justice, to better treatment than was provided by the bye-laws which regulated the treatment of men awaiting their trial, and against whom the Government thought they had sufficient evidence to justify a trial and conviction. Men might be confined under the provisions of the Act for as long a term as 18 months, and in the meantime their business would be suffering material injury. Their families, also, might be very materially suffering, and in reference to business matters they might have very important and private communications to make to their relatives and friends. A question of solvency or bankruptcy might have to be discussed in the prison cell. Was it right that the prison warder should be present at those confidential conversations? The warder would not be pledged to secrecy, and what guarantee would there be that the substance of the conversations would not be noised and spread about to the utter ruin of the unfortunate prisoner? He wished, therefore, to impress upon the Government and the Committee the importance of that part of the Amendment which asked that an opportunity should be given to a prisoner to confer confidentially with his friends and relatives without the presence of a prison warder. He would respectfully ask the consideration of the Government for the points he had put forward. He did not put them forward for the purpose of interrupting the discussion or of delaying the progress of the Bill. He believed they were important, and he asked that they should be fairly considered. It was most important to the men who might be im- prisoned under the Act that they should be afforded some opportunities for private and confidential communications with their relatives and friends in regard to their family affairs and their private business.

MR. RYLANDS

said, the discussion which had taken place showed the serious inconvenience of the refusal on the part of hon. Members opposite to hear the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. [Mr. A. M. SULLIVAN: No one has refused to hoar him.] It appeared to him that, instead of dealing with the question by a series of Amendments involving a number of details, it was extremely desirable that, in regard to all matters connected with the detention of these prisoners, who, no doubt, would occupy a very special and peculiar position, the Government should frame regulations having reference to this special class of prisoners. He hoped to hear from the Chief Secretary some statement of that kind. So far as he was concerned, he was not prepared to support the Amendment; but he would trust entirely to the action of the Government, being convinced that they would fairly meet the case.

MR. LEAMY

said, the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) stated that it would be very convenient to hear what the Chief Secretary had to say about the new regulations. He would remind the hon. Gentleman that yesterday the only rules they had were those to be found in the Prison Book, and they were deemed quite satisfactory by the Chief Secretary; and if it had not been for the Amendment, the Chief Secretary would not have found out what the Irish Members wanted. Unless they could feel absolutely certain that all the different Amendments they had put down would be considered, it would probably be found that the Chief Secretary's rules wore of very little use. In reference to this particular case, as far as he could learn from the rules, untried prisoners or prisoners awaiting their trial had to spend 22 hours out of 24 in their cells, and they all knew what effect this solitary confinement in the prison cells had produced upon prisoners formerly. It had driven several of them mad. That being so, it became a matter of great importance that when these men were confined to their cells they should have some opportunity for that social intercourse which would probably prevent that malady from coming upon them. The idea of giving men who were engaged largely in business a quarter of an hour for consultation in regard to their business, in the presence of a prison warder, was simply absurd, and those against whom it would work most hardly were innocent men. A man who had committed various outrages, and who found himself in gaol, would feel that he had done something to deserve this treatment; but the innocent man who found himself in gaol, believing that he had been placed there through the spite or hatred of some of his enemies, knowing his entire innocence, knowing, also, that all the time he was in prison his family and his business were going to ruin, would, for these reasons, find imprisonment doubly bitter. If the Government desired to detain these persons, the least they could do was to afford them every facility for carrying on their business. It was said that facilities would be given to men for carrying on their ordinary employments. But take the case of a man in business. He could not work his business in gaol, he must give certain orders; it would be necessary that he should receive certain correspondence, and it would be impossible to dictate a correspondence in reply in a quarter of an hour. And it should be borne in mind that many of those men might be wholly innocent, and that if it were not for this exceptional, tyrannical, and unjust law they would not be in prison at all. Under these circumstances, he would certainly support the Amendment.

MR. M'COAN

felt sure that the Chief Secretary would have had an opportunity of being heard if it had not been for hon. Members opposite. Personally, he regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had not been afforded an opportunity of making his statement, and for this reason—he had himself an Amendment on the Paper which would probably have been met by the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, and he would have been spared the necessity of trespassing on the Committee with that Amendment. He, therefore, again expressed his individual regret that the right hon. Gentleman had not been heard.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

remarked, that when the second reading of the Bill was carried, the power of the Govern- ment to detain these persons in prison was conceded. They were now merely battling for the removal of restrictions that were opposed to humanity. He believed that one-half of the men who would be arrested under the Act would be completely innocent. In order to get at the guilty men, they must take up everyone who was suspected of being concerned in a particular crime; and, therefore, a large number of the persons who would be detained in gaol would be innocent men. A man wholly innocent of any offence would be brought under the suspicion of the Government officials, a suspicion produced, probably, in many cases, by information given by the men who had themselves committed the crime. That was one of the dangers which hung over the whole of this legislation—namely, that the men who had committed the crime had a direct premium offered to them to fasten suspicion upon somebody else, because they would fear that otherwise the suspicion would ultimately fall on themselves, and they would be arrested and convicted. For instance, a man who was guilty of an offence would know the man who would be able to give the evidence likely to convict him, and he would have a direct interest in anticipating the information of that man by securing his arrest. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, as a man, was proverbially and actually a humane man; but he had now to consider this case— that owing to the exigences of the State it was deemed necessary to empower the Government to lock up men who might be innocent, and to keep these men in a prison cell for 22 hours a-day, in what was practically solitary confinement. Now, such men, as long as they were detained, could do no injury outside. He therefore wished the right hon. Gentleman to give the House a pledge —and, if he did so, he (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) was sure he would keep it— that the mind of the Government would be applied to the framing of rules which should give as much freedom and liberty to the persons in custody as was consistent with their safe detention. Primâ facie, the Government had a right to believe that all persons arrested under the Act were innocent, and that they would not be taken up except on suspicion. The number of innocent persons arrested would be very large in compari- son with the number of the guilty. No crime was over committed in regard to which for the one guilty man there were not at least 10 suspected. Over and over again, men had been suspected who were not only innocent, but who had been denounced because they had been the men who had attempted to prevent the wrongful act from being done. He wished again to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary the importance and necessity of framing a humane code of regulations. The Bill, and the law enacted under it, would be a scandal, and a disgrace, and a burning shame if the great and Constitutional Charter of the liberties of the people was not guarded by every principle and law of humanity.

MR. A. M. SULLIVAN

rose to a point of Order. He wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland could, with the indulgence of the Committee, make any statement with regard to the treatment of prisoners?

THE CHAIRMAN

The right hon. Gentleman cannot make any such statement.

MR. A. M. SULLIVAN

observed, that there seemed to be a misapprehension existing in the mind of his hon. Friend the Member for Wicklow County, who seemed to think that some hon. Members below the Gangway had prevented the Chief Secretary making this statement to the House. But the right hon. Gentleman had been prevented from doing this by the Rules of the House, for which he and his hon. Friends were not accountable. For their part, they greatly desired that the right hon. Gentleman should get up and make the statement if the Committee wished for it; but it seemed that he could only do that at the time which the Rules made by his Colleagues permitted. The Amendment before the Committee asked that certain safeguards should be introduced into the Bill with regard to prison rules which should not be allowed to depend upon the favour of the prison officials. The hon. Member for Galway County, who had just spoken, said that the most useful course would be, in his opinion, to allow the Government to make a statement as to what they intended to do; but that had not been permitted. The hon. Member for the county of Galway seemed to think that they might trust to the benevolent intentions of the Government and of officials—

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

rose to Order. The hon. and learned Member for Meath was entirely misrepresenting him.

THE CHAIRMAN

pointed out to the hon. Member for Galway County that this was not a point of Order.

MR. A. M. SULLIVAN

reminded the hon. Member that he must take care, or he would get suspended. He had simply contradicted a statement. Now, as it was contended that the Committee should trust to the benevolent intentions of the Government in the way of prison rules, he must refer to the disgraceful things which had occurred under former Coercion Bills, and these would serve to enlighten the hon. Member for Galway County. Dr. M'Donnell, one of the medical officers at Mountjoy Prison—

MR. MORGAN LLOYD

I rise to Order. Is the reference of the hon. and learned Member to this Report in Order?

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. and learned Member, no doubt, knows that the Amendment before the Committee relates to the admission of visitors to prisons.

MR. A. M. SULLIVAN

said, he also wished to know whether there was to be any punishment for disorderly interruption?

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. and learned Member must keep strictly to the Amendment before the Committee.

MR. A. M. SULLIVAN

was keeping strictly to the Question before the Committee, He was about to quote from the Report of Dr. M'Donnell when he was interrupted by a Welsh Member, and he should now proceed to read the extracts at greater length, he feared, than he had originally intended, He should now read the statements of Dr. M'Donnell with regard to prisoners arrested in circumstances similar to those which would arise under the present Bill, showing their sufferings in consequence of the want of protection of the kind proposed by the present Amendment. "Thomas Burke," the Medical Report stated, "is showing undoubted symptoms of insanity." Why insanity? "Brought on by the cellular system, 24 hours a-day locked up in a stone-floor cell." Again, "Sweeny is very un- settled in his mind." What had happened to Sweeny? "Discharged, unfit for cellular discipline." Even a Welsh Member might understand the meaning of that. The Report proceeded— Barry lately discharged, considered unfit, from his mental state, to go away from the prison without someone in charge of him."— ["Question!"] Let no hon. Member imagine that by crying out "Order!" and "Question!" he would choke off these disclosures. The Report went on to say— I have no doubt that the prolonged confinement and severe discipline are the chief causes of all this, and repeat, from considerations of humanity, it will be a very grave matter if any of these untried prisoners commit suicide. Now, the evil against which this humane medical man was protesting was that those men were not allowed society; and he also protested that they wore not allowed the use of tobacco, which, he thought, might in some respect mitigate the evil. And these things happened while there was a Chief Secretary for Ireland as humane as the present occupant of the Office. He hold that Lord Mayo, upon any fact that came within his knowledge with regard to the administration of prison rules, was upright and humane. These things had happened before under the administration of a humane Chief Secretary, and would possibly occur again under any Chief Secretary who did not necessarily know everything. There was also confined in the prison, under an Act similar to this, a young gentleman named Casey, who, being a person of literary tastes, would have been benefited by a visit from him (Mr. A. M. Sullivan), and other friends. But he had been refused this. His relatives lived 120 miles away and could not visit him, so he (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) sent him some monthly numbers of the history of Ireland then appearing. Would it be believed that the officials excluded Nos. 1 and 2, which brought clown the history to the battle of Clontarf, on the ground that they were seditious publications. They must, therefore, not trust the Government officials in this matter, but make the Bill precise and clear. They might appear benevolent persons outside; but when they entered the prison they were changed men, their feelings became cramped, and their only anxiety was how to keep the prisoners in their custody. The Government proposed that prisoners arrested under this Bill would be allowed to pursue their ordinary avocations within the prisons. Now, he would take the case of an Irish solicitor arrested under this Bill. Suppose he was engaged in defending an action against the Government, was the Government warder to listen to all the confidential communications he would have to make to his clerk as to how the case would have to be conducted against the Government? Why, it was absurd. He was at one time one of the Visitors of an Irish prison, and he was 100 days a prisoner himself, and he could give the measurements of the stone floor of the cell—they were 12 feet by 10 feet.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Gentleman must be aware that the size of the cell has already been discussed.

MR. A. M. SULLIVAN

would ask the Chief Secretary to inquire of the Governors how many men committed suicide under that system. The admission of friends being restricted to members of the family—he appealed to the Committee not to be led away by a side road. This meant the wife, or a man's immediate relatives, who would have to come from a distance of, perhaps, 200 miles to Dublin; and he said that this was but the pretence of a concession without the reality. The Committee had, therefore, to choose between keeping men, as it were, hermetically sealed up in cells of the dimensions he had named, and allowing reasonable access to any friends who might wish to see them. Let the Government, within the limits of possible security, guard against the mental strain and eventual damage to the men arrested by accepting the Amendment of his hon. Friend; but let them not mock the Irish people by the pretence of a concession hedged round by the caprice of officials whom he could not trust.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

said, the Committee would bear him out in his statement that he never said this Amendment should go by the board. He said if hon. Gentlemen would allow the Chief Secretary for Ireland to ex-plain the new regulations, the Committee would be in a better position to understand the Amendment and those which followed it.

MR. DAWSON

asked, whether, as the Committee were now discussing on what condition persons should be allowed to visit prisoners, it would not be in Order for the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland to make a statement on the subject?

THE CHAIRMAN

I have already informed the right hon. Gentleman that, with the sanction of the Committee, he could make a general explanation, although it might not be strictly within the four corners of the Amendment. But, after the expression of feeling in the Committee, the right hon. Gentleman has not thought it right to do this.

Mr. DAWSON

pointed out that the necessity for the present procedure was the inevitable result of the course adopted by the Government. They had simply introduced a skeleton measure, and it was well known that when people wanted to take extraordinary powers they acted on the principle that the less rules they had the better. If the right hon. Gentleman did submit rules—

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Gentleman is now speaking of general rules, which is not the Question before the Committee.

MR. DAWSON

was quite aware of that, but, with great respect, he asked to be permitted to finish his sentence.

THE CHAIRMAN

repeated that the hon. Gentleman could not now discuss general rules.

MR. DAWSON

rejoined that he was not discussing general rules, but was dealing with the question of visits to a prisoner, their duration, and the persons who should make them—points which, he thought, came within the scope of the Amendment; and he contended that if a rule was laid done on that subject which tended to prevent those unfortunate men from becoming lunatics, it would not be due to the initiative of the Chief Secretary, but to the action of the Irish Members. ["Question!"] The House should remember that the constitution of Visiting Committees in Ireland was of a peculiar character. In England those Committees were composed of visiting justices, but those in Ireland were nominees of the Crown.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

I rise to Order. The hon. Gentleman is going into the question, of the Visiting Committee, and, as I myself have been previously precluded from making a state- ment affecting that question, the hon. Member can hardly now be in Order.

THE CHAIRMAN

So far as I understand the hon. Member's line of argument, I think he will very quickly be out of Order.

MR. DAWSON

asked if a prisoner, under this Bill, was to be allowed visitors? If so, he was in Order in discussing the power which would dispense that liberty. The power which, in England, allowed a prisoner to have intercourse with his friends was a Justices' Committee— that was to say, it was composed mainly of magistrates chosen by corporations. But the magistrates in Dublin were not elected by the corporation, they were nominated by the Crown; and therefore he contended that, instead of this power being left to the option of these nominees, it should be in the Schedule and in the Bill. He knew there were Committees who had sympathy with unfortunate prisoners. On one occasion a prisoner was going to make a statement in the presence of a Committee, of grievances under which he was suffering, when the Governor stopped him and said, "I'll make you pay for this tomorrow;" and as the Committee were leaving, one of them had the courage to say, "Sir, you are wrong in saying that." He contended that every rule on the point of prison visiting should be inserted in the Bill, to show that the credit of introducing this humane principle was due to Irish Members, and not to the right, hon. Gentleman.

THE CHAIRMAN

proceeded to put the Question, when—

Mr. W. J. CORBET

rose to address the Committee.

Mr. H. R. BRAND

wished to know whether the hon. Member was in Order in rising after the Question was put?

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR,

also rising to Order, pointed out that the hon. Member for Wicklow (Mr.W. J. Corbet) had risen after the "Ayes" had given their voices, but before the "Noes" wore invited to give theirs.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, it was very unusual to interrupt the Chair when the Question had been put so far; but the hon. Member for Wicklow was within his right, as the Question had not been completely decided by the Committee.

MR. W. J. CORBET

said, it was of the last importance that the Amendment should be conceded by the Government. The privilege of visiting persona in durance was conceded even to the friends of the insane.

Question put.

The Committee divided: —Ayes 42; Noes 294: Majority 252.—(Div. List, No. 51.)

MR. W. E. FORSTER

I rise to move an Amendment. The hon. and learned Member for Meath (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) has said that the Government have determined neither to move nor allow any Amendment, in order to avoid the stage of Report. Undoubtedly, if we had been enabled rightly, and with a fair consideration for the proper discussion of this question, to save the time of the Committee, we should have been very glad to have done so; and, I suppose, that is the feeling of the Committee generally. But there are already four matters upon which the Government have undertaken to bring in Amendments, and I do not think it would be in accordance with precedent that more than four Amendments should be moved without the stage of Report. Therefore, I shall make the stage of Report a necessity, if the Committee agree to this Amendment. With regard to the treatment of prisoners, that is a matter which the Government have had under careful consideration. I do not expect, judging from what hon. Members on the ether side of the House have said, that they will believe that we wished to have as careful treatment of prisoners as is consistent with the object of the Bill. Nevertheless, that is the fact. The question is, What treatment should be given to these prisoners? And I admit that we ought to take into consideration the fact that they have not been found in a Court of Law to be guilty of offence; and it may he the case—I hope it will not be the case -that they may be imprisoned for 18 months, and, therefore, for a longer time than untried prisoners are kept in prison. That is another reason why consideration should be shown to them. Allusions have been made to what happened in 1866. That was a time when there were cither no rules with regard to untried prisoners, or there were, at any rate, not the present rules; and when, I think, there was no stipulation that the arrested persons should be treated as untried prisoners. The hon. and learned Member for Meath and other hon. Members have stated that a great deal of hardship happened in 1866. I do not know to what extent that was really the case; but I am willing to admit that, without the intention of magistrates or of the Government there might have been hardship. I think, however, it is only duo to the Government, which had a great deal to do with the working of the Act, and also to that Government of which, probably, some of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite wore Members, that I should state what was done in 1866, as the matter has been alluded to, and to show what was done in 1867 in consequence of what happened in 1866. The hon. and learned Member for Meath has asked how many persons had committed suicide in consequence of the hardships which they endured in 1866. I doubt if any persons committed suicide. They may have suffered very seriously from the treatment of 1866; but the matter was brought before the Government at that time— and here is what Dr. M'Donnell, an eminent physician in Dublin, and Superintendent of the Mountjoy Convict Prison, reported, and what the Government did in consequence of that Report. I read it first, because it is fair to the past Government that it should be stated, and also because I want the Committee to understand that it is upon the experience then gained that we are now intending to act. Hon. Members will find it in Hansard, vol. 186, page 1934. Dr. M'Donnell says— With reference to the health of the untried political prisoners at present confined at this prison, I can report favourably. I have stated in my annual Report for 1866, 'that all serious eases of illness among prisoners of this class were reported to the Government, and have been discharged from prison upon it being understood that confinement was likely to aggravate their disease.' There is at present not a single ease requiring' treatment in the hospital. With reference to the dietary of these prisoners they are permitted to obtain their own food from without if they please, but for those who do not do so the scale of prison dietary is tolerably liberal and varied, and during the cold weather additional blankets were distributed at my suggestion, so that I met with no complaints of cold from insufficient clothing. The prisoners are now daily in association with each other during their hours of exercise, and are permitted to smoke—a privilege greatly valued. Considering the construction of this prison, and the kind of discipline which is in some degree inseparable from that, prisoners of this class cannot be associated except when at exercise. As the days get longer and the weather milder, I would suggest that all those who desire it should be allowed two periods of exercise (in the forenoon and afternoon) during which time they would be in association with each other. The untried prisoners are allowed hooks as well from the library of the prison as sent by their friends. Those of them therefore who are capable of enjoying it have intellectual occupation. The date of the Report was April 26th, 1867, and the letter was addressed to Lord Naas. It is upon that information that we are wishing to act now. Soon after the Westmeath Act was passed, rules wore made by the Lord Lieutenant to carry out those recommendations; and I believe that no complaint was made of harsh treatment under the Westmeath Act. [An hon. MEMBER: Patrick Casey.] I think the complaint with regard to Patrick Casey was that he ought not to have been arrested at all; but, at all events, there was no considerable complaint with regard to the treatment of prisoners. A man would not, of course, like to be imprisoned; but what I wish to say is, that the rules made under the Westmeath Act were, I believe, favourable to the prisoners. Then, the question is, What should we do now? We carefully looked at the Westmeath Act, and also at the rules for the treatment of untried prisoners, and we came to the conclusion that the rules for untried prisoners were, on the whole, more favourable to prisoners than the Westmeath rules; and, also, that the rules for untried prisoners, which came into operation some years after 1860, were more favourable to prisoners than the rules for first-class misdemeanants. The proposal to treat them as first-class misdemeanants has not been made. The rules provided that the prisoners should be allowed to have books and a liberal dietary. [An hon. MEMBER: They paid for it.] Yes, they paid for it; but the prison scale was also liberal, and the rules with regard to prisoners wore very much modified and more considerate than they were in 1866. Now, there is one objection taken to the course which we have taken. The actual rules provide that in a particular case, such as we have been discussing, a prisoner shall be allowed to see his friends for a quarter of an hour daily, and also for a longer period if the Visiting Committee permit it. They also give a good deal of discretion to the Visiting Committee for allowing intercourse with friends and relaxation. I fully believe the Visiting Committee would give that; and in the proposition I am going to make, it must be understood that I do not make it because I have any want of confidence in the humanity and discretion of the Visiting Committee. Hon. Members opposite seem to suppose that these prisoners will be placed in almost any part of Ireland, and in places which they describe as having very little accommodation. I can only say that I do not think that will be the case. The Committee cannot expect me to say where they will be confined. I cannot yet say how many it will be necessary to arrest. The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Daly) said that the people would leave the country; and I hope that the number to be arrested will be considerably diminished. We hope that arrangements will be made for the prisons to be fitted for their reception; and although I cannot commit myself with regard to boarded floors and the degree of temperature, I shall be disappointed and surprised if we are not able to put most of the prisoners in places with boarded floors and of proper temperature. But there is an objection to leaving this in the hands of the Visiting Committee; and there is another objection. According to the Prisons Act, as it stands, the rules for untried prisoners are the most favourable rules yet introduced with regard to prisoners; but the Visiting Committee have also power to increase the accommodation for prisoners. Fresh, rules, however, can only be made by the Prisons Board with the sanction of the Lord Lieutenant; and such rules have to be laid on the Table of the House for 40 days before they can come into operation. That means that the Lord Lieutenant could not take the initiative, and there would be a delay of 40 days. Therefore, what I am going to propose is that these prisoners shall be treated as untried prisoners, with power in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant to make modifications of the rules if it seems desirable to do so, and that such modifications shall be laid on the Table of the House within 14 days of the making of the same if Parliament be sitting; and if Parliament be not sitting, then within 14 days of the next meeting of Parliament. That was the provision of the Westmeath Act, and upon which the Westmeath rules were made. I really do not see how we can do more. We take the best rules we can find—the rules with regard to untried prisoners which were decided upon after a long discussion in this House. We think it possible that these rules may require some modification in favour of prisoners; and, at all events, we think it desirable that we should ensure that they shall be so carried out as the Visiting Committee might carry them out, and as the Government believe the Committee would have acted.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 24, at end of sub-section (2), after the word "prisoner," to insert the words "subject to the special rules for the time being in force with respect to prisoners awaiting trial: Provided, That the Lord Lieutenant may from time to time, if he shall think fit, make regulations modifying such special rules, so far as they relate to persons detained under the Act. Any regulations made by the Lord Lieutenant under this provision shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament within fourteen days after the making of the same if Parliament be then sitting, and, if not, then within fourteen days after the next meeting of Parliament."—(Mr. William Edward Forster.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL,

having taken part in the discussion on the previous day, expressed great gratification at the concession which the Chief Secretary had made. No doubt, what the right hon. Gentleman had quoted from the letter of Dr. M'Donnell to Lord Naas would guide the Lord Lieutenant in making modifications; and he thought a great many Members of the Committee might feel confident that the treatment of the prisoners would be better than that of ordinary untried prisoners, and as favourable as was consistent with their safety in prison. But if the Chief Secretary had found himself in a position to make those observations in the course of the previous day, several hours of discussion would have been saved.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

said, he had an Amendment with reference to boarded floors; but he was exceedingly glad to find that he should not be obliged to trouble the Committee with that Amendment, because he knew perfectly well that the right hon. Gentleman would be better than his word, and would personally take care that prisoners wore treated in such a manner as the House wished. He desired, however, to point out that, although it was perfectly true that Dr. M'Donnell had made the Report which the right hon. Gentleman had quoted, yet, several years before that time, Dr. M'Donnell had protested against the barbarities in the treatment of prisoners. That Report was made after numerous remonstrances had been unattended to, and the House would be interested to know that that action of Dr. M'Donnell was followed by his dismissal by the Government. He had had too much experience of these matters to take anything less than distinct and positive declarations as to what would be done with prisoners. Prisoners, under the new Act, would, he believed, be treated in the most humane manner possible to persons who were prisoners at all, and he was delighted that the Government had given way.

MR. J. COWEN

said, he was glad the Government had at last resolved to make some concession to the repeated demands that had been addressed to them with respect to the treatment of prisoners. He wished to say, however, that a great deal of time and temper would have been saved if this concession had been made at an earlier period. What the hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, himself, and a few others near him, had been contending for was, that inasmuch as men arrested on suspicion when the Habeas Corpus had been previously suspended were treated with great severity, they were anxious not merely to have the general assurance of the Ministry, but undeniable and positive guarantees, that the men who were to be taken up within the next few weeks or months should, not be treated with the same harshness as their countrymen had been before. If the Government had agreed in principle to that demand, a full sitting of the House might have been saved. Having yielded to it at that hour, they justified the resistance that the Irish Members had made. Many severe things had been said, both in the House and out of it, as to the persistent demand for more favourable treatment for these expected prisoners; but the submitting by the Government of the Amendment which was now being proposed removed the slightest grounds for the accusation of obstruction or unnecessary discussion. The point that struck him as requiring most consideration was the portion of the clause that referred to the control of the Visiting Committees. Visiting Committees in England might fairly be trusted in all matters of prison discipline. They were composed of country gentlemen amenable to all the courtesies and good feelings of life. In Ireland it was different. The men who constituted the magistrates belonged to one class of the community—namely, the landlord class. They were in absolute hostility, and even often war, with the other classes—the tenant farmers and peasantry generally. At this moment the landlords were embittered against the peasantry; and if they had the power to regulate the conditions under which any of the latter were detained in prison, it was likely that they would use that power in a vindictive and oppressive spirit. They would have got their unfortunate opponents under their control, and they would punish them for their real or supposed offences. He would rather that the management of the prisons under the new regulations were in the control of any other body in the country than the magistracy. Judging from the simple reading of the Amendment, that struck him as being one of the strongest objections to it. Moreover, be did not quite see the necessity for the 14 days during which the now rules were to lie on the Table.

MR. W. E. FORSTER,

in explanation, said, the reason why he proposed tin's Amendment was not that, in its absence, a different course would have followed, but because he noticed there were certain hon. Members who would not vest power in the Visiting Committee. As to the 14 days, he ought to say that the now rules would come into operation the moment they were framed. It was necessary, however, that some time should be specified during which they must be laid on the Table.

MR. J. COWEN,

continuing, said, hon. Gentlemen could not appreciate the intensity of the feeling of Irish Members upon this subject; but, it they knew the facts, they would understand how they thought and spoke so warmly on it. He would cite an instance which came within his own knowledge. One fact was worth more than a bushel of speculation, and the fact he was going to state was one of many that could be adduced by hon. Members opposite. He knew an Irish workman in the North of England who was no more a Fenian than the Irish Secretary was, but who was arrested under the last Coercion Act. This unfortunate man had had some relations in Ireland, and he knew that they were mixed up with the Fenian movement. He collected all the money he could and went to Ireland, with the view of assisting his friends to leave the country. When he got there he was himself arrested on suspicion. He was put into prison, and kept there for eight months, although no charge was ever made against him. The cell he was confined in had a stone floor, and the wet came through the floor and stood in drops on the flags. It trickled down the walls in streams, so that he could scrape it off with his hands. During all the time he was in prison he was 22½ hours out of the 24 confined in this damp, unwholesome cell, although he had never been guilty of any offence, and the Government never charged him with any. When released he was ill, and, in the course of a short time, he died; and it was no stretch of facts to say that he died, in consequence of his treatment in that prison. His family had since gone to America, and his sons were now active leaders of the Fenian organization in the United States. They knew the history of their father's treatment, and they became enemies of England through it. It was instances of this kind that led to the embittered feeling amongst Irishmen abroad towards England. What he and the hon. Gentlemen near him wanted was that the treatment of these unfortunate men in gaol, if they were to be sent to gaol, should be of so considerate a character that it would not leave behind it the memory of the sufferings and hardships that arose out of such a case as he had just cited. He was glad, however, that the Government had made a concession, slight though it was.

MR. A. MOORE

was exceedingly glad that the Government had taken Visiting Committees under their control, for those Visiting Committees wore the most exclusive and objectionable bodies in Ireland. There were many counties in which there was not one single Roman Catholic gentleman on the Committees. What, he asked, -would he the position of a prisoner sent to a convict prison where there was no Visiting Committee? The regulations which applied to untried prisoners had no effect when a man entered a convict prison; and he would like to know whether the regulations which the Lord Lieutenant would make would only supersede the regulations of the Visiting Committee, or would also apply in convict prisons? It was all very well to say that prisoners were allowed as liberal a diet as they liked to have if they paid for it; but he thought provision should be made for a liberal dietary for such of those persons as would not be able to pay for such things. He expressed the opinion that the concession made by the Government absolutely justified the discussion that had been raised.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

was very glad to hear the tone of the Committee with regard to the question under discussion, and to find that the Chief Secretary was now alive to the vast disrepute that attached to the official management of prisons, and the acrimonious feelings which had been created by the treatment of prisoners in the past. The Chief Secretary had evidently paid a considerable amount of attention to this subject since the House last met; but what he wanted to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman was that he should be able to measure accurately the depth of the feeling upon this subject on the part of the Irish people, in order to regulate the power of the Lord Lieutenant. In order to understand this subject, the right hon. Gentleman should thoroughly grasp the fact that, in the opinion of a large number of Irish constituencies, the cases in which persons had been prematurely sent to their graves by prison treatment were numberless. The right hon. Gentleman had quoted from the Circular giving the Report of Dr. M'Donnell—

MR. W. E. FORSTER

No; I quoted from Hansard.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

had thought it was from the Circular sent to the House by Mr. Alfred Webb.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

I have seen that Circular.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, he had telegraphed to Mr. Webb for further particulars, and had obtained from him the following list, which would show the necessity for new regulations:— Died in prison or from the effects of prison treatment:—John Lynch, E. J. Stowell, John Fottrell, W. Harbron, W. Kennedy, James Smyth, James Steenson, Sergeant McCarthy, William Speedy, Daniel Darragh, Patrick Riordan, Jerome O'Keeffe, John Stapleton, John Kelly, Patrick O'Shaughnessy, Edward Duffy, John Hogan, J. McGough, W. Kelly, W. Meagher, John Daniel, James Rooney, James Bourke, John Dalton, Luke Fulham, J. K. Casey, James Mountaine, Terence Byrne, and Patrick Walsh. Insane or paralyzed:—J. J. Joyce, M. MacFeeley, James MacPhilan, and Daniel Reddin. There was hero a list of 29 persons who had died in prison, or from the effects of prison treatment, since 1867— a terrible thing to contemplate; but, in addition to that, there was a list of four persons who had been either driven mad or paralyzed by that treatment; and Dr. M'Donnell had a list of five persons who had been driven insane. He was sorry the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland was unable to attend, just now, to the facts that were being brought before him. They were very important, and his attention to them was very necessary. Long before he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had entered into public life, a friend of his—a person who had been confined in Portland Convict Prison for a political offence— had told him that a fellow-prisoner used to go round the island gathering snails, and, so hungry was he, that he swallowed the snails, shells and all.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

He was not an untried prisoner—a person arrested under such an Act as this.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, this unfortunate man, reduced by slow starvation, ended in a suicide's grave in the Liffey.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

Is the hon. Member referring to a case under the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act?

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

admitted that this was not the case of an untried prisoner, but the case of a convict; but he mentioned it to show why the Irish people entertained such bitter feelings on the subject of the treatment of political prisoners. The description he had given of this unfortunate man at Portland was greeted with incredulous laughter from hon. Gentlemen opposite; but he would pledge his own credit for that of the gentleman who had given him the information. The circumstance was repeated to him in ordinary private conversation, long before he had had the opportunity of giving such statements publicity; and the fact that a prisoner was starved into devouring snails and driven into committing suicide, and many facts of a like nature, excused the bitterness of feeling entertained by the Irish people and the steadiness of the opposition the Irish Members had given to the Bill.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

I thought at first the hon. Gentleman was alluding to what happened under a similar Act to this before we had these rules; but now, it seems, he is referring to what happened in a convict prison.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, he was endeavouring to show why the Irish Members felt it their duty to insist on a proper discussion of this question of prison treatment. ["Question!"] He was speaking to the Question. He would advise the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Charles Lewis) to watch more closely the interests of his constituents; it was scarcely decent for an Englishman, who represented an Irish constituency, to interrupt in this manner. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman who was Home Secretary at the time these atrocities to which he referred were committed would not have permitted them had he been aware of them. The Chief Secretary would not permit them in the future if he could help it; but if the right hon. Gentleman were ten times as humane as he was—and he was willing to give him credit for the greatest humanity—he would be powerless to prevent them, and the Irish Representatives would not be satisfied with anything short of provisions in the Bill to render them impossible. In 1860, while the atrocities complained of by Dr. Robert M'Donnell were being committed on the prisoners in Mountjoy Prison, the subordinates of the present First Lord of the Treasury were declaring in the House that the prisoners would be treated with indulgence. On the 16th of March, 1860, these words were used— Untried prisoners ought not to be subjected to any undue or improper restrictions, or to any stringency not absolutely necessary for their safe custody. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) nodded his head, and, no doubt, he heard these words used. They were uttered at the very time the atrocities wore being practised, and the person who uttered them was the Gentleman who was now the right hon. Mr. Justice Lawson; and the occupants of the Treasury Bench ought not to be surprised if the Irish Members were a little sceptical as to general promises, even from men whoso honesty they trusted, when, side by side with such promises, there was going on in Mountjoy Prison that which would have done credit to the dungeon in which Silvio Pellico was confined. If the right hon. Gentleman would allow him, he would offer an alternative proposal to that before the Committee—a proposal the discussion of which, he was sure, would not occupy more time than the Government were disposed to allow. He would suggest that they should put in the Bill, in the form of a Schedule, a general Code of Regulations—he presumed he would be in Order in alluding to the general features of his proposal as a counter-proposition to that of the right hon. Gentleman, for that right hon. Gentleman's consideration. His proposal could be agreed upon in the course of half-an-hour, or an hour's consideration, by men who were willing to give and take and facilitate Business —and he thought he could answer for hon. Gentlemen sitting round him—that if the Government were willing to meet them in anything like a fair spirit on this question they would be willing to curtail the discussion within the narrowest limits, in justice to themselves and their constituents. What he would propose would be this. In the first place, he would establish a new Visiting Committee; and, in order to show that he did not wish to be in any way unfair, he would have it composed mainly, if not entirely, of gentlemen who had no sympathy with him and his Friends. For instance, he would propose a man like the right hon. Mr. Justice Barry as chief, and, side by side with him, he would put Dr. Robert M'Donnell, John O'Hagan, Q.O.—a Dublin lawyer of great eminence, who, however, did not share the opinions of Irish Members sitting on those Benches — and Dr. Neilson, a medical gentleman who, last year, was employed to inquire into the condition of Mayo. He would be disposed to leave to this Committee the amendment of prison regulations for the treatment of prisoners confined under the Act, although, if the right hon. Gentleman would permit him, he would prefer to lay down these 10 general rules—

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is now discussing an Amendment which comes considerably lower down on the Paper.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, he wished not to go into the Amendment lower down on the Paper, which he knew he would not be in Order in discussing; but to sketch out a counter-proposal to that of the right hon. Gentleman. In doing this he did not think he would be travelling beyond the bounds of legitimate criticism.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is not out of Order so far as he has gone; but he would be going too much into detail were he to read these 10 new rules.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, he would not read the new rules after this warning; but would content himself with shadowing them forth. He wished to place political prisoners to be arrested under this Bill in a category of persons entitled to better treatment than any other class of untried prisoners. As to the proposal to give the Lord Lieutenant power to make such modifications as were desirable, he was disposed to accept the concession; but he would point out that it really did not help them very far, for they must remember there was a Lord Lieutenant at the time Dr. M'Donnell made his recommendations, and there was a House of Commons to report to; but of what avail were they? Of what avail was freedom of discussion in the House of Commons?—a freedom far greater than that now enjoyed, for these new Rules restraining the action of hon. Members had not been passed. He did not feel that he and his hon. Friends would be justified in accepting the proposal of the Chief Secretary as affording a sufficient guarantee that political prisoners under the Act would not be subjected to such disgraceful cruelties as had been perpetrated in the past, and which had created such a bitter feeling in Ireland. He would appeal to the generosity of the right hon. Gentleman. There was no lesson that had been more clearly taught by history than that anything like cruelty or want of generosity to poli- tical prisoners brought a Nemesis to those who practised it. He would go to a neighbouring country, and declare that the strength of the revolutionary element now to be found in the streets of Paris was largely duo to the opinion many people entertained that Now Caledonia had been the theatre of great horrors and cruelty in the past. He would urge the Government to avoid the sowing of a new harvest of discontent amongst the Irish people, and a stronger desire for the separation of the two countries.

MR. GIBSON

considered that the Chief Secretary had been very wise and prudent in moving the Amendment, for the Bill would have left the persons who would be arrested under the Act subject solely to the rules and regulations of the Prison Board. If it was reasonable that powers should be given to the Lord Lieutenant to arrest suspected persons on his own discretion, the same high person should, under the same Act of Parliament, be allowed an equal discretion to regulate and control the treatment of the persons he himself caused to be arrested. It was wise on the part of the House to trust this discretion to the Irish Executive, and to arm them with the fullest power to provide that the persons arrested should not suffer unreasonably in the slightest degree. The power was contained, not exactly in the same words, but entirely in the same substance, in the Westmeath Act of 1871; and if the provision contained in that Act had been introduced into this Bill it would have saved a great deal of time yesterday and to-day. He did not wish to discuss the 10 rules the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had hinted at, or attempted to shadow forth, although he should like to refer to a couple of points that hon. Member had referred to. The hon. Member had given a long list of names of persons whom he had said had died in prison, or in consequence of prison treatment. The last statement was obviously a very general one and rather vague, and the list given did not appear to rest on anything like a very certain authority; but he would not now question its accuracy, He (Mr. Gibson) was familiar with the case of one of the persons on the list, Sergeant M'Carthy, with whoso name the House was familar. He was not arrested under any Act analogous to this; but was taken up on a specific charge, tried, and sentenced to penal servitude; and this ease, with several others in the list, no doubt, was entirely outside the analogy of imprisonment such as prisoners arrested under this Bill would be subjected to.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, he had only quoted the case as showing the grounds for the bitterness of feeling in Ireland with regard to the treatment of political prisoners.

MR. GIBSON

said, no doubt people who had undergone penal servitude entertained bitter feelings against it; but it was well that the Committee should bear in mind that the long list the hon. Member had read out—and 29 cases of persons who had died in gaol, or from the effects of imprisonment, appeared to him a long list—was not altogether composed of persons who had suffered through imprisonment in the slightest degree analogous to that to which people arrested under this Bill would be subjected. The cases of hardship and suggested grave inconvenience to persons subjected to this kind of legislation, and to which reference had been made, had all occurred under the Act of 1866. Imprisonment took place under that Act; but there was no such a clause in it as that contained in the present Bill providing that the arrested persons should be treated as untried prisoners. This made a clear and distinct difference, and any attempt at a contrast must, therefore, fail, He was glad that justice had been done by a recent speaker to the memory of the noble Lord who was Chief Secretary for Ireland during the latter part of 1866— namely, the late Lord Mayo. At that time he (Mr. Gibson) was not very well conversant with public life; but he believed the noble Lord entered the Office some time in August, 1866.

MR. GLADSTONE

In June—at the time of the change of Government.

MR. GIBSON

said, the noble Lord entered the Office about the middle of 1866, and had only a short time wherein to apply himself to its duties before April, 1867. It appeared, however, that within six months he had so completely investigated all the charges brought under his notice that he had practically satisfied Dr. M'Donnell that no further real cause for complaint existed. He should be glad if the Committee understood clearly that even in 1867, under the then legislation, which contained no provision for the treatment of arrested persons as untried prisoners, the grievances pointed out were examined into by the Executive as fully as possible; and the late Lord Mayo conducted himself in a way to merit the words which had been spoken of him in the House during that debate.

COLONEL COLTHURST

wished to impress upon the Government the necessity for proceeding with great caution in this matter. Dr. M'Donnell's Report was made in April, 1867, and in the course of that year a person whom he (Colonel Colthurst) only saw yesterday was arrested on suspicion and confined in Kilmainham Prison, where he suffered hardships certainly far greater than those to which the prisoners then in Mountjoy Prison were subjected. After Dr. M'Donnell's Report Kilmainham Prison, of course, was under the control of the Visiting Committee. The person of whom he spoke was in solitary confinement for 22 hours out of the 24, and had only two meals a day, and these were insufficient in quantity. The man, after a time, was transferred to Mount-joy Prison, and there he reaped the benefits of the change recommended by Dr. M'Donnell and carried out by Lord Mayo. At Mountjoy he suffered no hardships except those inseparable from his position. What he wished to point out was that in spite of Dr. M'Donnell's representation, and the humanity and energy of Lord Mayo, it was possible, long after reforms were carried out at Mountjoy, for hardships to exist at Kilmainham. The Committee would, therefore, see how necessary it was to restrict the powers of the existing Visiting Committees, and leave nothing whatever to their discretion.

MR. DALY

wished to ask a question as to how the dietary system would practically work. It was understood that a liberal dietary was allowed to untried prisoners when they were in a position to pay for it; but the majority of persons who would be arrested on suspicion of "high treason, treason-felony, or treasonable practices" would not be able to find the necessary funds. They would be mostly clerks; men of very fair-education, but whoso earnings had never amounted to much, and who, as they had wives and families, had never been able to put by much for a rainy day. They would be accustomed at home to a fairly liberal dietary; but when arrested neither they nor their wives would have a pound in their pockets, and their incomes would be stopped on account of their inability to attend to their ordinary employment. What use would it be to concede to such men permission to have a liberal dietary on paying for it? The Government took most arbitrary power for arresting people; and why, therefore, should they not improve the condition of detention? If they considered the emergency so grave that they were bound to override the ordinary laws of the country and invade the Constitution in their manner of arrest, it would not be a very great stretch of authority for them to invade the prison rules, and to extend the concession to the class of persons he spoke of, allowing a liberal dietary to those who were accustomed to it, but who were unable to pay for it during their enforced idleness. They would be doing a great injustice if, merely upon suspicion of crime, they deprived men of their ordinary conditions of air and exercise, and took away from them also their accustomed dietary. He was glad to see that there was some idea dawning upon the mind of Her Majesty's Government that the resistance the Irish Members had felt it their duty to offer to the Bill had not been so unreasonable as they at first supposed. He had failed to catch the right hon. Gentleman's meaning as to the 14 days within which the regulations must be laid before Parliament.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

I believe it will be on the Table of the House within 14 days.

MR. DALY

said, he had had in his employ men arrested on a charge of treason and treasonable practices, who were in receipt of salaries of from £150 to £200 a-year. They had been accustomed to a good diet all their lives, and he was quite sure that imprisonment such as was contemplated under this Bill would be fatal to persons of that class.

MR. GRAY

said, he should, under other circumstances, be perfectly ready to accept the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, and content himself with the belief that by-and-bye satisfactory rules would be framed by the Lord Lieutenant which would meet the justice of the case. But he did not see how he and his hon. Friend could accept any assurance of the kind in the present case, because the right hon. Gentleman was bound to remember that they were acting in the House of Commons as trustees for others; and, no matter what might be the philanthropy of the right hon. Gentleman and the Lord Lieutenant, they could not give up their individual belief that rules of a satisfactory character should be embodied in the Bill. Very little time need be spent over the matter, as the regulations could be very rapidly drafted. But the right hon. Gentleman feared they would give rise to a long discussion; but did not want to bring up rules which required to be discussed at great length. If the right hon. Gentleman would consent to embody these modifications of prison rules in the Schedule of the Bill, he would not find himself mistaken in relying on the assurance that they should not be made the subject of unnecessary discussion. The right hon. Gentleman did not appear to think their assumption that one-half the persons taken up would be innocent was a correct one; but he was bound to remember that the assumption upon which they wore all strictly entitled to be treated was that they were all innocent. For the purposes of arrest he might assume their guilt; but with regard to their treatment afterwards he was bound to assume that they were innocent; for the suspicion against any person arrested under this Act would not be equal to the amount of suspicion which would justify his arrest for purposes of trial; and, therefore he should be better treated than prisoners awaiting trial. It came to this. The right hon. Gentleman did not recognize this in the Bill, although he recognized it personally. He (Mr. Gray) asked whether, in their representative capacity, they were to leave all that which concerned the Irish people in this matter to others? Were they justified in merely contenting themselves with giving to the Lord Lieutenant not a direction, but a permissive power to frame these rules? They were bound to press the Government to embody them in the Schedule of the Bill; and he believed if the right hon. Gentleman consented to that he would not lose by the arrangement, because he could rely that the rules would not be made the subject of dilatory discussion. If he did not consent to that, would he place the Committee in possession of the rules drafted under the Westmeath Act? because he proposed to adopt a procedure similar to them. [Mr. W. E. FORSTER: I alluded to those rules yesterday.] They would certainly require some investigation. If they were to have a Bill so vague as this, and if the Government would not consent to embody the rules in the Schedule of the Bill, it was imperative that they should proceed with their Amendments. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Mr. Gibson) seemed to think the treatment of untried prisoners was by no means as had as the treatment of convicts. It was clear, therefore, that he had not read the Report of Dr. M'Donnell, dated January, 1867, six months after Lord Mayo took Office, and who, therefore, could not he absolved from responsibility for the treatment of prisoners named therein. Dr. M'Donnell stated that— These men were subjected to cellular discipline more severe, in some respects, than a convict undergoes, under sentence of 18 months' imprisonment. He also reported that numbers of men were driven to madness, and that there was a great probability of their committing suicide in consequence of this treatment. The result of these Reports was to secure the dismissal of Dr. M'Donnell, and to bring about modifications in the system of medical attendance in prisons in Ireland, which provided that medical men should in future be resident in the prison—that was to say, they should be nothing more than prison officials, dependent on their salary, and in such a position that they dare not make Reports of the kind made by Dr. M'Donnell. Under these circumstances, to ask that the Amendment should be withdrawn simply in view of rules to be submitted was taking up an unreasonable position.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

The rules already allow the attendance of medical men.

MR. GRAY

was under the impression that those rides, so far as permission was concerned, were subject to the sanction of the Governor, who could refuse to grant it, and were also subject to modification by the Visiting Committee. If the right hon. Gentleman would read rule 15 he would see that— If any prisoners out of health should desire the attendance of a medical man, the Visiting Committee, if they believe the application is bona fide, may permit him to be visited by such medical man at his own expense. In Dublin such a request would not be refused; but in the country places, where the Visiting Committee would probably all be magistrates and landlords, there would he a tendency to refuse the permission, and he was not content to leave the point in doubt. Nor was he content to leave it subject to the permission of the Lord Lieutenant; but thought that the Bill should provide that prisoners had a right to be visited by their own medical attendant, who would be able to give an independent Report. He therefore put it to the right hon. Gentleman, if he wished to meet the justice of the case and enable the Amendment to be withdrawn, that he should undertake to bring up a Schedule of the rules and embody them in the Act.

MAJOR NOLAN

pointed out that the Rules of the House were changing from day to day with such rapidity that it might happen that hon. Members would have no opportunity of discussing the rules which the Chief Secretary had promised to lay on the Table in 14 days. The only value of laying Papers on the Table of the House was that it gave power to discuss them, otherwise they might as well be published in the newspapers; and therefore he thought that, before the debate closed, Her Majesty's Government should fix a day for discussing the rules after they were laid upon the Table. He hoped, also, some modification of the prison rules would be introduced in favour of men unable to pay the full amount for their diet. The present rule for first class misdemeanants allowed them to supplement the prison diet with extra articles, and the modification was necessary, because he was told that some men likely to be arrested would be unable to find the whole of their own diet.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, the existing rules affecting untried prisoners had been taken as a basis by the Government, with powers to modify them. Her Majesty's Government thought there ought to be better diet, even for those who could not pay; and, for his own part, he had always contemplated that this should be carried out. Hon. Mem- bers, however, wished to be assured that the Lord Lieutenant would take care that this was done; but he submitted it would be a long and tedious business to do what had never boon done before— namely, to make exact rules of this kind and schedule them with the Bill. He believed that a satisfactory settlement would be arrived at by the Government, who would take the rules for untried prisoners and the "Westmeath" rules as a basis. He had no objection to state his wish to get the best information possible upon this subject, and the first person whom he should consult would be Dr. M'Donnell. With all these materials to aid them, he believed that a good set of rules would be framed; but he was unable, in reply to the hon. Member for Galway, to say that a day would be given for their discussion.

MR. M'COAN

had no desire to minimize the value of the concession of the right hon. Gentleman; but he felt forced to point out to the Committee that it was no concession at all. Subsection 2 provided that any person arrested in pursuance of the Act should be treated as a "person accused," and not as a prisoner; but the words in the Westmeath Act and in the prison regulations related to "untried prisoners," and, so far as he knew, a person "accused" of crime had no statutable existence. When he drafted his Amendment, he had not had an opportunity of comparing the prison rules, as for untried prisoners and first-class misdemeanants, and was under the impression that the latter were the best extended to any person in prison. Since then he had compared the rules in question, and his examination of them entirely confirmed the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, that untried prisoners were bettor treated than first-class misdemeanants. He therefore gratefully accepted the substitution of one set of rules for the other. He presumed to express his own opinion only in saying that he recognized an honest intention on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to carry out the Act in a spirit of humanity. This Bill, however, he had regarded, and should continue to regard, as odious; but if it passed into law the right hon. Gentleman was entitled to the admission that an improvement had been made that would rob the measure of half its terrors. He should, therefore, not vote against the Amend- ment of the right hon. Gentleman, and would withdraw the Amendment standing in his name.

Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,

DR. COMMINS

said, it was with great pleasure that he saw one improvement, at all events, as they progressed, and that was in the temper of the debate. He was sorry to say that hitherto the suggestions which had proceeded from that side of the House had not been received in a spirit of concession. He was glad to find that that temper was now altered, and that there seemed to be a disposition on the part of the Treasury Bench, not only to listen to the suggestions that were made by the Irish Members in the exercise of their duty, but to admit that there might be something in them after all. He was very glad to see this change of tone and temper; but still he was sorry that the amount of concession which had been made so far was not sufficient to satisfy the Irish Members, or to induce them to refrain from pressing further Amendments in the Bill. The concession made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary amounted simply to this—it was an addition to the sub - section granting power to the Lord Lieutenant and to the Chief Secretary, if they should think fit, to make some alteration in the rules prescribed for the treatment of prisoners accused of crime and not yet convicted; but unfortunately—and he had listened with great care to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman— there had not been the slightest promise given as to when such an alteration in the rules would be made, or, in fact, whether it would be made at all. It was all very well to take power to make these alterations; and he had not the slightest doubt if the right hon. Gentleman would only pledge himself to make them within a given time that the promise would be given in a good spirit, that the alterations would be made, and that they would be advantageous as far as they went; but the right hon. Gentleman had guardedly avoided saying a single word, and had drawn his Amendment so as not to say a single word, that would pledge the Lord Lieutenant and the Government of Ireland to the making of any alteration whatever. Now, unless there was some pledge given that all the alterations contemplated would be made, and that they would be made contemporaneously with the passing of the Act, or within some proscribed time, the Committee must look at the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman as entirely illusory; not that he believed for a moment there was any intention on the part of the Chief Secretary, or those who advised him, to throw off further opposition to the Bill by an Amendment which would promise everything to the ear, but keep nothing to the hope; but because in the interests of Ireland he was obliged to canvass the details of this Bill, and to make it as little mischievous as possible, exacting the highest amount of security from the Government that it would be as little mischievous as possible. Unfortunately, the mischief which this Bill must do was quite certain, while the good it might effect was very problematical. Every ground for it was rapidly vanishing and disappearing from under the feet of the Ministry; but the mischief that would result from it was a matter that would certainly follow, and could be calculated from previous experience. He was unable to say whether 600 or 5,000 persons would be incarcerated under the Bill. He did not doubt there would be a largo number, and all that the right hon. Gentleman said on the point was that he hoped the number would be as few as possible. They all shared in that hope, and an attempt had been made to get some expression of opinion from the right hon. Gentleman as to the number likely to be incarcerated. All they knew at present was that the number would be very considerable; but whether 400, or 500, or 1,000, or 5,000, they were unable to ascertain. In 1867 more than 1,000 persons were imprisoned without being afforded the opportunity of clearing themselves by trial. If a similar number were arrested and detained for 18 months, an immense amount of evil must be inflicted upon the community, not only upon the 1,000 individuals arrested, but upon an immense circle connected with them by family ties and business relations. Therefore, the evils were certain and must be very great; but the good was very problematical. There might be a certain amount of good in arresting some disorderly per- sons and cheeking outrages which they all deplored; but the evil was certain to be very much greater than the good, and it was the duty of the House of Commons to minimize that evil by carefully examining the rules and regulations that would apply to the imprisonment of these people. Already the Irish Members had made a considerable number of suggestions; but, except in regard to the flooring of the cells, not one had been accepted by Her Majesty's Government. They had still a number of suggestions to make; and if the right hon. Gentleman wished the Irish people to have any confidence in his good intentions—and he (Dr. Commins) was bound to say that he had very little confidence in the right hon. Gentleman at present—the Government would display a (letter disposition, and receive the suggestions that were made to them in a better spirit. Not only had 90 per cent of the Irish people no confidence in the right hon. Gentleman's good intentions, but they absolutely and entirely distrusted them. That being so, he pressed upon the right hon. Gentleman the desirability of showing that his intentions were good; and this he could do by signifying what the improvements were which would be introduced, instead of making mere vague promises. At present they had no guarantee whatever that any improvements at all would be made. Even if the Committee had a promise from the Chief Secretary that the new rules should be prepared with the greatest possible haste and be framed as soon as the Bill passed, judging from past experience, a long time must elapse before they could be put into force. The Prisons Act came into operation in 1877; but the new rules introduced, under that Act were dated some 11 months later, on the 22nd March, 1878. Supposing that the same amount of speed was displayed in this instance—and he was not sanguine enough to hope that, in a more matter of humanity of this kind, the Executive would be induced to push forward—still 8 or 10 months would elapse before they would be likely to have real working-rules framed under this new power such as the necessities of the case would require. In running his eye clown the prison rules, as they now existed, he saw they were of such a character that they would necessitate entire revision before any alteration could be intro- duced. It would be impossible to construct special rules without revising the whole of the existing rules, and seeing how far they would be consistent with the rules in force. In fact, it would be necessary to produce a new Code. Therefore, while giving the Government every credit for the best possible intentions in hastening the matter, he ventured to say that they could not produce their new rules sooner than six months. If they were not produced before six months it would not be in the power of the House to discuss them, no matter how far they might not satisfy the object of the Amendment now proposed in the Bill. He was sorry to say that a good many hon. Members, in the course of the debate, had manifested a spirit which went far to show that nothing could be too severe to satisfy them. No matter how severe or how harsh the rules for carrying out the Act might be, they would still fall short of the desires of some hon. Members. Therefore, all that might follow from placing the new rules on the Table might be that some hon. Gentleman might object to them if they provided the slightest mitigation of the severity with which it was thought these unfortunate persons ought to be treated. Under those circumstances, he should certainly expect from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary something more tangible than the promise he had made in regard to the new rules. If the right hon. Gentleman would not adopt the suggestion made by the hon. Member for the City of Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), he might certainly do a great deal towards obviating the necessity for further discussion upon these rules. There was one suggestion which he would throw out for the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman. In all the gaols in Ireland—certainly in every county gaol—there was a debtor's quarter and a debtor's department. Under the new law imprisonment for debt, except under County Court process, was, practically, abolished, and the quarters set aside for debtors were lying idle. He believed they would provide ample accommodation for all the persons likely to be arrested under this Act, and with a slight alteration the accommodation afforded in the debtors' quarters would, he thought, enable the right hon. Gentleman to consult his own instincts of humanity, and mitigate, to a large extent, the prospective horrors of a prison to these unfortunate people. There might, in this case, be a large common room provided, as had been customary in the debtors' gaols, whore the prisoners might meet for several hours during the day and amuse themselves with rational conversation. His suggestion would avoid the 22 hours of solitary confinement which would be necessary if the prisoners were detained in the criminal portion of the gaols, where they must be in small cells without any comfort. Prisoners awaiting trial were allowed intercourse with each other, and so the innocent were contaminated by the guilty. If those prisoners to be arrested under the new Act were sent to the civil side they could have larger rooms and better accommodation, and there would be no necessity for solitary confinement, followed by injury to health, and possibly insanity. Thus one of the great objections to the existing rules for untried prisoners would be removed; and he pressed the Chief Secretary, acting on the spirit he had displayed to-night, to assent to the making of new rules, and to promise to lay them on the Table within a certain time. He also suggested that the word "shall" should be substituted for the word "may," which would not have the same force as "shall." It was said that the new Act was to dispense with the ordinary Courts of Law; and, although, according to a decision in "The Queen and the Justices of Oxford," "may" would be imperative on the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary, it was of enormous importance to satisfy the public mind. More confidence would be felt if the Amendment was altered to that extent, and the opposition to the Amendment would be withdrawn.

MR. FINIGAN

would be happy to accept the Amendment if he could persuade himself that the people coming under the Act would be treated according to the intentions of the Chief Secretary; but he was painfully aware that the Act would not be read as the right hon. Gentleman intended. It would be road according to the exact letter; and, therefore, in whatever way the Act was to take effect it should be a complete and full document before it left the House. It was contrary to the spirit of ordinary law, against the spirit of justice, and against all the liberal professions of the Government that any promises should be accepted which were not committed to paper. The Chief Secretary had, very kindly—very kindly in a political sense only—considered that the prisoners under the Act should he subjected to the rules for prisoners awaiting trial, and that those rules should be somewhat modified in favour of the unfortunate prisoners arrested under the Act. He should be very happy to agree to that if the right hon. Gentleman would use his influence, which, ought to be, and which was, paramount in Dublin, to cause the Lord Lieutenant to submit to him, and through him to the House, a copy of rules which could be scheduled when the Bill came up on Report, or on the third reading. When urgency had been voted, and when the Committee was actuated by that urgency, it was neither a good excuse or plea that the Lord Lieutenant could not then consider the Schedule: and he failed to see why the Chief Secretary should ask them to leave it to be considered by the Lord Lieutenant afterwards. What would be the use? The Lord Lieutenant might consider it in this way. He might modify one or two of the rules under existing Acts, and might consider that quite sufficient; and when the copy of those rules so modified came before the House it would simply come as a dead record, and the Irish Members would have no opportunity of raising any special debate upon it or of altering it. They were asked to give their assent to a mere copy being evidence; but they would have no opportunity of altering the rules, or rendering the treatment of prisoners more humane. According to the rules under which it was proposed to place the prisoners they would be kept apart from each other; but as the object of the Bill was prevention, and not punishment, there ought to be no need of such a provision. The Government ought to see that that provision in the existing Act was taken away, and to give some definite written pledge that that would be the case. Then there was another matter. The Chief Secretary had gone a very long way to meet it; but they wanted to know whether, if a poor man was arrested, his food would be of a nature to enable him to live, not as an ordinary prisoner, but as a person detained under reasonable suspicion only. Then he did not find anything about exercise; but he did find that prisoners would be confined in cells—he could not call them rooms, for some of them were of a very antique fashion, and were not built when even modern and advanced ideas of the type put forth by the Chief Secretary were in vogue — and he wanted to know what exercise those men would have? He did not wish that to depend on the whim of any Governor of a prison in Ireland, but laid clown in a distinct provision approved by the Committee. The people in Ireland much preferred to be ruled, even in the matter of imprisonment, by the feeling of the House of Commons rather than by officials in Ireland. He would sooner intrust the case of a political prisoner in Ireland to the House than to Irish officials in Ireland; for they were bound by what they called precedents, and what they called system, and by the maintenance of what they called law, and what they called order. He wished the House to have a full and complete view of the whole system by which the Lord Lieutenant was to modify the rules, and that could not be unless the rides were laid before the House. On the ground of justice, it was absurd to ask Irish Members to intrust a man, who might be arrested, to the ideas of the Lord Lieutenant or the whim of Irish officials. If the rules were clearly and explicitly brought before the House, he was quite sure some justice would be obtained, and clauses would be introduced which would be, at all events, humane and comparatively just under the circumstances. With regard to the question of food, he believed, the Chief Secretary intended to give way entirely; but he thought that, even from a legal point of view, the Chief Secretary's intentions would appear bettor, and inspire more confidence if they were formally put before the House, and passed into actual law by the House. It appeared also that prisoners, under the present rules, were allowed paper and books, provided they were not of an objectionable kind. What the arrangement in that respect was he did not know; but he considered that the House ought to know what books would be allowed. He should like to see Lord Macaulay's works allowed, and he should not object to the reading of Voltaire, or to anything philosophical; but Irish officials ought not to have the selection of the literature to be allowed. Then, as to visiting, he thought it should be distinctly laid down whether prisoners might receive visitors every day, or only on one day a week. The quarter of an hour allowed for a visit was absurd; it was no time for talking over business, or whatever else might be allowed to be discussed. He found, further, that prisoners were to be subject to the general rules for the time being in force for the government of prisons, except in so far as they were inconsistent with the special rules. It would be inconsistent for the Irish Members to trust to what the Lord Lieutenant might do in regard to such prisoners, oven in the face of that very statement. They ought to know what were the special rules relating to such prisoners, so that they might know whether they were inconsistent with the existing rules or not. The Government, in point of fact, seemed to have made up its mind, in the first instance, to stick to the original Bill; but they ought to do something to make the condition of the prisoners perfectly compatible with justice, and, at the same time, with the principles of that humanity which had distinguished—or the enunciation of which had distinguished— the speeches of Ministers when speaking on kindred questions outside the Bill. It was absurd to ask Irish Members to accept promises and intentions; they could only accept what was forced upon them by the Committee; and it was only just that they should have the full Bill, with all the details with which it was to be carried out, placed before them, when they were asked to give their confidence and trust to that officialism which had always been against the prisoner, and had destroyed all confidence in Judges and law in Ireland.

MR. CALLAN

thought the Irish Members had some reason to complain of the Advisers of the Chief Secretary for not having placed the Amendment on the Notice Paper. The Bill had been before the House for a considerable time; and the question of discipline, which had now arisen, had been long enough before the House for the Attorney General and Solicitor General to have made up their minds whether or not they would advise that the Amendment should be placed before the House. If it had been placed on the Notice Paper yesterday, Members would have had time to consider it. When it was first proposed he thought it was fair, and gave them much of what they were contending for; but, on further examination, he found that was not so. It proposed that the Lord Lieutenant might, from time to time, subject to the special rules for the time being in force, make modifications of the rules in existence. But no intimation had been given as to what the nature of the rules would be. Yesterday the Government had opposed an Amendment which would have given prisoners boarded floors and secured them against the cold of a rigorous winter; and having done that, of course they would not, under the new rules, take any special means to insure that comfort to the prisoners. Although he was an Irishman, he was glad to say that the prison rules in Ireland seemed to be drawn up by what he would call an Irishman, or, perhaps, by another name more applicable in this country. They were very misleading. There were four special rules providing for food, clothing, and bedding; but in none of them was a bed mentioned, and it was necessary to make a special rule on the subject. Dr. M'Donnell had said— When visiting the punishment cells I found a prisoner in one of them looking very miserable. He was stooping- forward, his extremities were cold, he shivered, and his teeth chattered. He had the appearance of a man under serious illness; indeed, the hues of his face looked like Asiatic cholera. He had been left on the floor without bed or bed-clothes, except a rug weighing 4 lbs., during a month when the cold was several degrees below freezing-point. Mr. Brown, who was then chief warder, stated in a letter to Dr. M'Donnell that he had himself seen water freeze in a prisoner's cell at Mountjoy. Here were rules which had no reference to bedding, and yet the Chief Secretary had opposed giving the prisoners boarded floors and suitable temperature. Would he promise that those things should be given? Would he undertake that the temperature should certainly not be below freezing-point? Then there was another matter. The Chief Secretary had stated that the Bill was only to apply to ruffians and village tyrants; but there was no doubt whatever that it was meant to apply to persons occupying a far different sphere. There was a rule providing for visits to, and communications with, prisoners. In 1879, a member of his Circuit in Ireland—the North-Eastern Circuit —was arrested and imprisoned in Sligo gaol as an accused person. He placed himself in communication with that gentleman on matters which it was desirable should not become known to other parties; but he found that his letter had been opened and initialed by the Governor; and the reply, which was of an essentially private nature, was initialed on each page. The Governor had expressed his regret, but explained that he was obliged by the special rules to open letters. Though a political prisoner, the Governor said he was bound to read the letters coming to him, and the letters he sent out. Had they any promise that the matter would be attended to in the special rules? Then, as to exorcise, there was not the slightest reference to it, although it was one of the matters to which attention was drawn by Dr. M'Donnell; and, with regard to photographing, so far as he could see, there was no exception made in the case of prisoners under this Bill—seemingly, copies of their photographs would have to be sent to Mr. Howard Vincent of Scotland Yard, and to Dublin Castle. Would any promise bo made that this indignity would not be put on the prisoners? For as they did not belong to the criminal classes, there could be no such necessity as there was in ordinary eases for copies of their photographs to be circulated on their going in and going out of gaol. Then, would any pledge be given as to the places in which persons arrested under the Act would be imprisoned? Would they be sent to local prisons or to Mountjoy; and, in the event of their being sent to the former, would such prisons be visited by Visiting Committees, or would any individual from outside be allowed to go in to inspect them? Under the prison regulations there was provision made for the inspection of local prisons; but would there be any officials in Mountjoy Prison to interest themselves on behalf of the prisoners? One gentleman in that prison had taken some interest in the treatment of the prisoners, and what was the treatment he received? It was Dr. M'Donnell; he made a representation as to the condition of the prisoners, which representation was suppressed, whilst he himself was dismissed from the post of visiting physician to the gaol. He held in his hand another charge against Mountjoy—namely, that although during the 10 years Dr. M'Donnell was the visiting physician, there was never a charge made that any prisoner died from neglect, the resident medical officer who succeeded him had not been installed many weeks, when a coroner's jury empanelled to pronounce upon the death of a prisoner accompanied their verdict with a censure upon the medical officer. Was that medical officer dismissed? No; he still flourished at Mountjoy Prison. Dr. M'Donnell, who complained of the conduct pursued towards these prisoners, was dismissed; and what did this gentleman himself say about it? Why, that his differences with his superiors arose not from want of any attention on his part to the sick, but because, in the honest discharge of his duty, he loaned, perhaps, too much to the side of humanity. There was no danger that anyone tin Mountjoy now would "lean, perhaps, too much to the side of humanity." Deference had been made to the regime under which the occurrences reported on by Dr. M'Donnell had occurred. The complaints arose during the administration of a Conservative Government. But what did the Governor of the prison say in his Deport to Lord Mayo? He said— Will respect to the severe treatment of untried political prisoners, I need not remind your Lordship that you have found a system in force, which had been approved of by the Earl of Kimberley, the Whig Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. The Conservative Government Lad only administered the same harsh and cruel rules that had been approved by Lord Kimberley—a Member of the Administration under whom the present Act was to be put into operation. The Committee had a promise—no, not a promise, but a vague intimation—that if they trusted to the Government, the Government would do something for them, or take the power to do something for them. But how could they trust the Government? They were not satisfied as to the intention of the Government to carry out their promises. It was said that a great deal of time would be lost by going into detail on this matter in the Bill; but he did not agree with that. The Law Officers of the Crown could retire, and draw up a set of rules; and if those rules were found to carry out the pledges held forth, he would promise for himself and those with whom he usually acted that they would not move any Amendments—that they would even accept them without a division. At present the Government were holding out promises which they knew very well their officers of prisons in Ireland would not carry out, and that the treatment of prisoners would be the same as it had always Leon. They would be taking persons from local prisons, where there was a Visiting Committee, to a prison where there was none; and, however much his hon. Friends might object to the local magistracy, he knew too much about them not to feel sure that they would not be parties to the infamous treatment which had boon referred to. The magistrates might certainly view these prisoners with disfavour; but they would not treat thorn with cruelty. It was in Mountjoy where this kind of treatment might be adopted—in a prison from which they had dismissed the only official who ever leaned to the side of humanity, and into which no outside individual would be admitted for the purpose of inspection. Unless the Government would inform them what the character of the rules would be, he hoped his hon. Friends around him would insist upon a division.

MR. GREGORY

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant had made a conciliatory proposal in a speech of conciliation, and what had been the result? The Committee had been engaged in this discussion for throe hours, and no progress had been made. Looking at the spirit in which the Amendment had been received, if he might tender a word of advice to the Government, he would recommend them to withdraw the proposal. To insist upon it would only be to give rise to further Obstruction, and—

MR. FINIGAN

rose to Order. He wished to know whether the hon. Gentleman was in Order in attributing Obstruction to hon. Members.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Gentleman alluded to a policy of Obstruction, and that is a Parliamentary term, and is specially punishable by a distinct Rule of the House. He is quite in Order in his allusion to it, for he did not assert that particular Members were engaged in it.

MR. CALLAN

also rose to a point of Order. Obstruction was a Parliamentary offence for which an hon. Member could be named and suspended; and he wished, therefore, to know whether the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gregory) was in Order in charging a Member or Members of the House with a crime so punishable?

THE CHAIRMAN,

without responding, called upon the hon. Member for East Sussex to proceed.

MR. GREGORY

said, he had concluded his observations on the point of Obstruction. He would remind the Committee that they had passed all the material portions of the measure which was now sufficient for the protection of life and property in Ireland. It gave all the necessary powers to the Lord Lieutenant to preserve law and order, and what they had now to deal with were merely the qualifying clauses. He ventured to think it might be expedient for the Government to drop those further provisions and to let the Bill rest whore it stood. All that was required to make the measure efficient was the mere definition of the word "prescribed district," which was contained in a subsequent section. That might be added—

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Gentleman is not, at present, speaking to the Amendment.

MR. GREGORY

said, he would confine himself to this—to the suggestion that the Government should drop the Amendment and bring the discussion to a close, allowing the Bill to stand in its present form.

MR. HEALY

said, the Committee had been going on smoothly enough—["No, no!"]—hon. Members who were not present might traverse his statement; but he considered the Committee was going on smoothly enough until the hon. Member who had just sat down struck a note of discord. So far as he was concerned, he would rather not take anyone's word for the treatment of the prisoners; and the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gregory), who had a large practice in conveyancing, would probably be the last man to take anyone's word without seeing it in black and white. The right hon. Gentleman had make a concession as to boarded floors and the warming of cells, which was a relief to the minds of the Irish Members, and they thanked him for it; but then, with a certain amount of effusion, the Chief Secretary had gone on to propose an Amendment which really meant nothing at all. The Amendment said— Provided, that the Lord Lieutenant may from time to time, if he shall think fit, make regulations modifying such special rules, so far as they relate to persons detained under the Act; but the Lord Lieutenant, if he did not think fit, would not make those regulations. This was a case in which the Lord Lieutenant, most probably, would not think fit. The right hon. Gentleman had placed the Lord Lieutenant in the place of the Visiting Committee, because, as he had said, the Irish Members viewed the Visiting Committee with suspicion; but from whom would the Lord Lieutenant get his information? He would get it from the Visiting Committees; therefore, the concession was no concession at all, for these Committees would tell him "Everything is right and lovely!" just as they told the noble Lord's Predecessor in 1866 and 1867. If the right hon. Gentleman would make some real bond fide concession he would find that it would very materially save time and shorten the labours of the Committee. The Irish Members had found that there was something to be gained by pegging away at the Government. It was not a pleasure for them to act as they were doing, although hon. Members opposite seemed to think that they enjoyed this sort of game. He, for one, did not enjoy it; and if the right hon. Gentleman would make them some material concession, he, for his part, would be willing to let the Bill go through without further criticism. The Amendment also said— Any regulations made by the Lord Lieutenant under this provision shall he laid before both Houses of Parliament within 14 days after the making of the same if Parliament be then sitting, and, if not, then within 14 days after the next meeting of Parliament. That seemed fair and bond fide until the right hon. Gentleman was asked whether hon. Members would have an opportunity of discussing these rules, and his reply was, "You shall not discuss them."["No, no !"] At any rate, he said he would not guarantee that they would have an opportunity of discussing them. He would not undertake to give them facilities. They knew what kind of work the Government were carrying on now, and that they would got no facilities. True, the right hon. Gentleman had said, in the course of his remarks, that if it was found that general dissatisfaction was felt with the rules they should have a discussion; but how was "general dissatisfaction" to be made manifest? The right hon. Gentleman did not read the Irish papers. Perhaps he read The Irish World; but that was an American paper, and it was not likely that general dissatisfaction with those rules could be judged from its columns. The right hon. Gentleman had told the people the Bill would deal with "dissolute ruffians" and mauvais sujets; how, then, could it be expected that Earl Cowper would be very careful about the well-being of such characters? He would not be careful about their well-being. He (Mr. Healy) should, however, be happy to call some of the persons who would go to prison under the Act his friends; some of them, indeed, might be near and dear to him, and he did not wish to see them treated as "dissolute ruffians" and mauvais sujets. He wished to have the regulations in black and white, for the Lord Lieutenant would not know these people, and would not know how they were treated. To show what sort of treatment these prisoners were likely to got, the Governor of Kilmainham, in 1867, who was very well known, and who was spoken of amongst the prisoners as "Old Gorilla"—he did not know whether he was still alive, and, although he would not say he hoped he was not, he would say he hoped he had been sent to some other duty—used, it was said, to give the prisoners under his charge for their daily food "a piece of brick and a pint of Liffey water." The "brick," he imagined, would be a kind of bread, and as for the Lilfey water, anyone who knew the river in question would know the water from it—a water containing any amount of animalcules, and other interesting specimens. It was from such characters as this "Old Gorilla" that the Lord Lieutenant would obtain his information. He would have to rely upon his officials; and the entire information he received would be filtered through such characters as this. Another reason he wished to have the prison rules in black and white was this. Persons would be sent to prison under various degrees of criminality; and the right hon. Gentleman and his friends the Visiting Committees—the magistrates — might, if they got hold of a particularly "dissolute ruffian," be inclined to treat him worse than the other prisoners. Undue harshness might be shown to some, and undue favour to others, unless they had the regulations printed in the Bill in black and white; and he would, therefore, urge on the right hon. Gentleman, if he wished to inspire confidence in those who had been criticizing the Bill up to the present, to agree to some more satisfactory Amendment than that which he had proposed. There was another thing which would show how entirely the right hon. Gentleman was in the hands of the prison officials. It had been said that Dr. M'Donnell, on making a certain representation, was discharged. [An hon. MEMBER: No; made to retire.] The Government prevented Dr. M'Donnell from preparing any further Reports by making him retire, and appointing in his place a resident surgeon; and no guarantee had been given that prisoners under the Act would be allowed independent medical attendance. The Chief Secretary had rather twitted the hon. Member for Carlow with the fact that he was unacquainted with the prison rules, and had said that each person could have his own doctor if the Visiting Committee permitted it. Yes; but the Irish Members did not believe in the decisions of these Committees as to the treatment of prisoners. In 18G7 a man died in prison in consequence of the treatment he had received — a man arrested under the Coercion Act—and a coroner's inquest was held on him. There wore two coroners in Dublin at that time, one of whom was known to be independent, while the other was equally well known to be a Government tool. They used to take duty week and week about, and the week the man died the Government tool happened to be off duty. The independent coroner ought to have held the inquest; but he—Dr. Whyte, whom he was happy to say was still doing duty in Dublin—was not sent for. They sent for the Government tool—his namesake, another Mr. White — well knowing that he would obtain a verdict in favour of the officials, which he did. That was the sort of thing that would be done again if the regulations were not down in the Bill in black and white. It was "A far cry to Loch Awe;" but it was a farther cry from Richmond Prison to the Lord Lieutenant at Dublin Castle. It would be a longtime—if over it happened at all during his Lord Lieutenancy—before Earl Cowper would hear of the complaints of the prisoners from the muffled Reports of the prison officials. The Chief Secretary said there would be no time to discuss these rules if they were placed in a Schedule; but the Irish Members were in no hurry, and if the right hon. Gentleman was not, surely the question of the life and death of these unfortunate prisoners was a matter worth spending an hour or two over in that House. If 29 people had been killed and five driven to suicide or into insanity by imprisonment of this kind in the past, the right hon. Gentleman should be ashamed now to urge this plea of want of time. Time could be found for the discussion of far more trivial matters; and on a matter of this sort, which might concern hundreds of people, to say that the House of Commons would not find time was to say that the House of Commons was unfit to perform its functions. If the House of Commons would not do its duty it was time for the Government to allow them to manage their own affairs at homo. It was said that, in all probability, prisoners would not be confined in local prisons; but he did not think it was a concession to compel a person's relatives and friends to travel 200 or 300 miles to the prison in which he might be confined. Let the Government give an assurance that prisoners would be confined in their own localities, and that they would be provided there with suitable gaol accommodation. The Irish Members had the interests of their constituents at heart; and, besides that, they might all be in gaol themselves before long, therefore they urged on the Chief Secretary to come forward and make some substantial offer on these matters.

MR. A. M. SULLIVAN

thought it would be desirable to shorten the discussion; therefore, he would make a suggestion to help the right hon. Gentleman—and he saw the Chief Secretary smile, incredulous that he (Mr. Sullivan) would do anything to help him; but, perhaps, after the proposal had been stated, the right hon. Gentleman would see that some good might come from such a quarter. The Irish Members, on these occasions, held that seeing was believing. They did not like "a leap in the dark," to quote a phrase once used by a Prime Minister; they wanted to have an assurance what the rules would be. Therefore, if he would be in Order, he would move an Amend- ment enabling the Lord Lieutenant to make regulations within 14 days of the passing of the Act and thereafter. He thought 14 days after the passing of the Act would be a reasonable time in which to prepare the amended rules. If the intentions of the Treasury Bench shadowed forth that night could be put in shape—if they could have the rules placed before them in this way, a great deal of the objection which had been raised would disappear. He would ash the right hon. Gentleman to assent to the Amendment, and to say that within 14 days from the passing of the Act the amended rules should be laid before Parliament. There was no reason why the Lord Lieutenant might not tomorrow begin to prepare the rules, as the Government knew very well and could determine when they would pass the measure.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, After the words "Lord Lieutenant," to insert the words "shall within fourteen days from the passing of this Act, and hereafter."—(Mr. A. M. Sullivan.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. T. D. SULLIVAN

wished to know, in reference to this Amendment, whether the proposed or suggested rules and regulations to be made by the Lord Lieutenant would be in favour of the prisoner at all? He wanted to know what guarantee they had that the rules would not amount to another Coercion Act? They were aware of this fact— that the character of eminent politicians, ashumane men, was rapidly deteriorating among them; and they had no guarantee whatever as to what the nature of these new regulations would be when they emanated from the Lord Lieutenant. In the first place, they had no guarantee that the Lord Lieutenant would frame them at all; and in the next, that if he did so, they would be any improvement upon the present state of things. Only a few months ago there were hundreds and thousands of men in Ireland and England who would not have believed it if anybody had told them that the present Government would now be passing a Coercion Bill for Ireland. ["Question !"] That was the Question. He wanted something in print and writing to assure thorn that these new suggested rules and regulations would not be a new Coercion Act for the prisoners.

MR. BRADLAUGH

was extremely sorry to hear the speech which had just been delivered. The guarantee they had that the new Regulations could not be in the way of coercion was that they were to be based on the Prison Regulations of 1877; and, therefore, they could not be any more coercive than the latter were. In the next place, they had a distinct statement from the Government that it was intended that any Amendment should be in the nature of amelioration, and that such amelioration should be especially directed to avoid any recurrence of the evils pointed out by Dr. M'Donnell. He could not help saying that he was utterly opposed to this Bill, and had given it his opposition all through. He trusted, however, that he had given it an opposition which had been much more effective than that which had been offered by some hon. Members on the other side of the House. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland said that he intended to meet the case of those prisoners who had no means by providing them with the same facilities which prisoners who had means would enjoy; and he (Mr. Bradlaugh) must ask hon. Gentlemen on the other side to remember that, although it was their duty to defend the interests of Irishmen, it was also their duty to try and defend these interests in the best possible way, and not, in mere repetition, to occupy nearly three hours and a-half of valuable time, which they had just been doing quite unnecessarily. They drove Members who intended well to think harshly of them. All his hopes and desires were to make this Bill less coercive than it was; but he could not help saying that he had walked into the Lobby again and again contra son gre in consequence of the conduct of hon. Members opposite.

MR. BIGGAR

said, the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) had attempted to fasten upon the Members who sat on that Bench the waste of time which had taken place with regard to the Amendment now before the Committee. That Amendment had reference to the treatment of prisoners in gaol; but it must be borne in mind that the Rules wore to be applied to men against whom no charge was made, and who had not been proved to be guilty of any crime. The entire responsibility of the delay in disposing of the Amendment rested with Her Majesty's Government. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had undoubtedly proposed an Amendment; but he (Mr. Biggar) found that Amendment was exceedingly unsatisfactory, and he would point out why. The Government did not propose this Amendment until after a discussion, lasting many hours, had taken place upon that particular question. If the Government really wished to save time, they would have proposed their Amendment before any of the other Amendments which had been proposed came on for discussion; and if the Government had been really seriously anxious to curtail the discussion on this particular question they might have supplied a Schedule of a satisfactory nature, and not have submitted a proposition which must, in the nature of things, prove most unsatisfactory. He would briefly state why an Amendment of this description was necessarily unsatisfactory. He had had personal experience of a similar clause in two other Bills. The first was the Irish Judicature Bill. It was provided by that Bill that certain Offices which were not required in the Four Courts of Dublin should be abolished.

THE CHAIRMAN

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can be permitted to go so far outside the Amendment as he is now doing.

MR. BIGGAR

said, the provision of the Bill now before the Committee was that authority should be given to the Lord Lieutenant to frame certain prison rules. Now, that was a principle to which he objected; and he wished to give two illustrations to show the reason why he objected. He only intended to give two; and, without going into details, he would simply state what they were and what was the result. The two Bills to which he referred were two Irish Bills passed in the last Parliament by the late Government, and in one of these Bills—the Judicature Bill—it was proposed to give similar authority to the Executive which was proposed to he given in the present Bill. ["Order!"1 The Judicature Bill proposed to abolish certain Offices.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Gentleman is aware that he is now giving an illustration altogether outside the Amendment, which is itself wide enough.

MR. BIGGAR

did not intend to go into details. All he wished to say was that the provisions of that Bill were rendered absolutely inoperative, because the Executive never carried into operation the power they were authorized to exercise. Now, this was all the detail he wished to go into. He had no desire to waste the time of the Committee; but only to prove that the principle involved in the proposition of Her Majesty's Government was entirely untenable. It was certainly one to which he would never willingly agree. The second Bill was the Irish County Court Bill. ["Order !"] By that Bill power was given to frame and settle the fees; but, instead of diminishing the fees, the result was that they were increased to an enormous extent, and they became very much higher than the Irish Members would willingly agree to if the matter had been brought before them.

THE CHAIRMAN

I have already pointed out to the hon. Member that he is entirely out of Order.

MR. BIGGAR

said, he had said enough upon that subject, and would, therefore, not pursue it further. He had shown the disastrous result to the Irish people of giving authority to the Executive to make particular changes. All he would say now was that the Government could very easily, if they chose, between now and to-morrow, supply the House with a Schedule of new rules with regard to the treatment of prisoners. It had been pointed out by the hon. Member for Roscommon (Dr. Commins) that it would be exceedingly difficult, under the terms of the Bill, to frame a new basis for the rules—that it would be a very tedious business unless an entire Code of Rules were set forth in the Schedule, founded, of course, upon the present prison rules. The present prison rules were subject to the modification of the Visiting Committee, and any new rules proposed to be introduced under this Bill must be of a very complicated and confused character. It was well known that the people of Ireland had not the slightest confidence in the Visiting Committee in any part of the country. ["Oh!"] He spoke for himself only; he had no confidence either in the Visiting Committee, or in the present Government, or in any other British Government; and, therefore, he required to have any concession that was made clearly stated in the Bill. Very great difficulty was found in keeping Her Majesty's Ministers to the exact meaning of the words they used in their speeches; and, therefore, the most satisfactory course would be to place all the details, as far as possible, in the body of the measure. He would, therefore, suggest that these new rules should be framed and prepared to-morrow, so that they might be submitted at the next Sitting of the House, and the Irish Members would then be afforded an opportunity of seeing them, and of stating whether they approved of them. If they allowed Her Majesty's Government to frame Rules on their own responsibility, without giving this opportunity to the House, it was impossible to say whether the rules prepared would be any improvement upon those now in existence or not; and, after all, the question was not so much one for any section of the House as it was for the whole House, because the House of Commons should never consent to delegate its authority in such matters, or, indeed, upon any subject to the Executive. That was a most disastrous principle, and one to which he would never willingly agree.

MR. DILLON

remarked that the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Brad-laugh), in his somewhat peculiar speech, said that the rules which the Lord Lieutenant might be empowered to make by the Amendment would be based upon the Prison Act of 187 7, and, therefore, could not be more coercive than the rules now existing. He (Mr. Dillon) would not say anything with regard to the speech of the hon. Member for Northampton further than that if the opposition to this Bill had been conducted according to the hon. Member's advice the Bill would have been law a month ago. The hon. Member stated, as a recommendation to the House to accept this concession, as it was called, although he (Mr. Dillon) was not able to see what it conceded, that the rules were to be based upon the Prison Act of 1877. Now, that was what the Irish Members complained of. The original clause in the Bill stated that the prisoners were to be treated according to the rules for untried prisoners under the Act of 1877. They had heard something of these rules already; and he would ask the Committee to consider what these rules were, and what was at present being done under them. By one of these rules all prisoners were required to be kept asunder, and wore not permitted to communicate with each other. He believed the argument in defence of this rule was that it was enforced in order to prevent the morals of a prisoner from being contaminated by associating with pickpockets. Now, any man who knew anything of what prison life was, especially when a man was subjected to solitary confinement, would know that the unfortunate prisoner would rather associate with a pickpocket than nobody. The Irish Members had prepared a rough Schedule of general directions, which they had intended to submit to the House, and which would have pre-vented, if possible, the enforcement of the most obnoxious of the present regulations; but the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland was doing what he (Mr. Dillon) never recollected to have been done before in any Committee of that House, and had used his position as a Minister of the Crown to forestall the Amendments already on the Paper, and of which Notice had been given for several days. By those means the right hon. Gentleman had robbed the Irish Members of their right to bring forward the Amendments of which they had given Notice. That, he submitted, was a course of action which might be described, to use the mildest term, as being exceedingly unfair. A strong feeling was manifested in the House last night in favour of the modification of the existing rules, and it had been the desire of the Irish Members to raise the whole question, openly and fairly, in the House; but, instead of meeting the Irish Members in that way, the right hon. Gentleman brought forward an Amendment, of which he had not given Notice, and most unfairly availed himself of the privilege, which the Chairman had decided was a privilege enjoyed by a Minister of the Crown, to put his Amendment in front of those of which Notice had been given by the Irish Members; and, more than that, the right hon. Gentleman had so drawn his Amendment that it would place the whole of the Amendments of the Irish Members out of Order, and prevent them from being brought forward. The right hon. Gentleman submitted his proposition as a concession to the public feeling which had been growing upon this question, both inside and outside of the House. Now, what was the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman? He said, speaking of the special rules for the time being in force in regard to prisoners awaiting trial, that the Lord Lieutenant might, from time to time, if he should think fit, make regulations for the treatment of prisoners detained under the Act. That was really no concession at all; and, for his part, he (Mr. Dillon) should certainly vote against the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment. In the first place, the Lord Lieutenant might not think fit to do anything of the kind; and, in the second, the Lord Lieutenant had not given them any assurance that rules would be made to meet a great many other objections which were equally important. Further than that, the right hon. Gentleman had simply declined to give them any assurance that if they allowed this Bill to pass into law they should have no opportunity of raising the question again. The real truth was that now, for the last time, could they have any certainty of having an opportunity of bringing the question under the notice of the House. They had no security, if they allowed this opportunity to pass, that this most terrific of all punishments—namely, solitary confinement—would not be inflicted upon all the prisoners who might be confined under the Act. He now came to another matter which was equally objectionable. It was said that arrangements would be made for allowing prisoners to follow their regular trade and employment, such prisoners receiving their earnings after deducting the cost of maintenance. Now, some of the prisoners might be journalists and others earning respectable incomes, and this rule would place it within the power of the Visiting Committee entirely to debar them from the opportunity of earning anything, or, what would have the same effect, would enable them to impose whatever restrictions they thought fit on the exercise of their professional duties. In regard to this, the rule provided that the whole cost of maintenance should be taken out of the earnings acquired by a man in following his trade or profession. This might be a very just provision in the case of a man who was about to be brought up for trial—

THE CHAIRMAN

I must draw the attention of the hon. Member to the fact that at present the Committee is engaged in considering an Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Member for Meath (Mr. A. M. Sullivan); and the hon. Member is discussing an Amendment moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, and not that of the hon. and learned Member for Meath.

MR. DILLON

asked if he was to understand that he was not to refer to the proposition of the Chief Secretary?

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

wished to know, as a point of Order, whether, in addressing the Committee on the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Meath, the hon. Member would not be also entitled to address the Committee on the original Amendment subsequently?

THE CHAIRMAN

Certainly.

MR. DILLON

By addressing the Committee now I shall not lose my right to address it again on the original Amendment?

THE CHAIRMAN

I simply called the attention of the hon. Member to the fact that he was not addressing himself to the Amendment now before the Committee, but to the original Amendment.

MR. DILLON

If I sit down now, shall I have lost the right to speak on the original Amendment?

THE CHAIRMAN

No; the hon. Member will be able to address the Committee upon this Amendment when it is really before the Committee.

MR. DILLON

Then, if I clearly understand that I can speak on the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman when that of the hon. and learned Member for Meath is disposed of, I will not pursue my observations now.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, he was indisposed to agree to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Meath, and for this reason—ho did not think that it could possibly be necessary to take so long a time as was supposed in order to draw up all the rules that might be required for regulating the treatment of prisoners. They saw how quickly new Rules could be manufactured for the House of Commons; and he did not think it would take a longer time for the manufacture of new rules for the treatment of these unfortunate men who had committed no crime whatever, but were only to be detained under suspicion. He would, therefore, respectfully urge upon the hon. and learned Member that he should withdraw his Amendment, because it proposed to allow the Bill to pass the House of Commons before hon. Members would have an opportunity of seeing what were the Rules which wore to be introduced. They were told that they might trust the promises and good intentions of Her Majesty's Government; but he failed to see any ground on which Irishmen might be led to trust the promises of any British Government. He did not remember any promise which had been given by the British Government, upon an Irish question, which had ever been kept. He recollected very well, during the last Session of Parliament, that Her Majesty's present Advisers declared— ["Question !"]—if some hon. Member on the other side of the House did not see the relevancy of those remarks he was certain that the Chairman did. He was giving the reason why he declined to trust Her Majesty's Government, and why he had not the faith in them which the hon. and learned Member seemed to have. On a previous occasion they had received an assurance which was not kept. They received an assurance that if any measure of coercion were introduced into that House it would be accompanied by a measure of relief. They had now before them a measure of coercion; but they had no measure of relief. He, therefore, declined to trust Her Majesty's Government on the present occasion. He would reserve any further remarks he had to offer until the original Amendment was before the Committee.

Question put, and negatived.

Original Question again proposed.

MR. DILLON

said, it was a sham concession which was being offered by the right hon. Gentleman. If it were accepted, it would entirely withdraw from the control of the House the subject of the treatment of prisoners. The Lord Lieutenant might afterwards make some alterations, or he might make no alterations at all; but the House would be practically without the power of making any improvements in the treatment of prisoners, except the Lord Lieutenant chose to take the ini- tiative. Untried persons confined in prisons in Ireland were treated in a way which amounted to very severe punishment indeed. A case had recently occurred under his own notice, and which, when "Urgency" had passed away, he hoped to bring before the House, of some prisoners in gaol awaiting trial. These persons had been kept from 9 o'clock in the morning without any food whatsoever, and the next morning they were informed they would get no breakfast unless they worked for it. Having refused to work they were kept fasting for 15 hours, after which some food was sent to them by the townspeople. They were locked up 23 hours out of 24; and during the hour of exercise they were forbidden to speak to each other, or exchange any sign of recognition, on pain of being sent to the "black hole" and solitary confinement. That being the condition of untried prisoners under the present rules, it amounted to punishment sufficient, in some cases, to drive men mad, and was a matter worthy the attention of the Committee. But, then, hon. Members believed these things would be looked after by the House. He thought he was giving a sufficient answer to that in saying that the House would not pay the smallest attention to the matter. What proof had they that, when more men were imprisoned, the House would pay any more attention to their treatment when they had loosed their hold of the Bill and the question of prison discipline? He had read an article on the debate in that House last night. The Daily News said that no man in England, whether Tory, Whig, or Liberal, desired that those people imprisoned under the Act should be punished, but only that they should be detained to prevent their doing further mischief. If that were true, he could not see what objection the Government could have to accepting a Code of Rules which would be consistent with the safekeeping of the prisoners, and which would save them from being punished under this Act. There could not be the smallest doubt that, under the present Code of Rules, not only would prisoners be punished, but that they would be severely punished. He and his Colleagues desired to submit to the Committee a Code of Rules which they had prepared, which would satisfy them on the question of the treatment of pri- soners, and which would put to the test the question as to whether there were in that House hon. Members who desired to punish men detained under the Act. The Chief Secretary had said, although they might frame a set of rules which would be satisfactory to themselves, it would not satisfy every Member of the House. But he contended it ought to do so, unless they wanted to punish the persons detained. The Code to which he referred would not afford to prisoners the smallest chance of escape, or of continuing in the work they had been doing outside the prison. Still, he was bound to confess that it would grant a considerable degree of liberty within the prison, and would remedy a great deal of the suffering experienced in prison life. They had lately heard a great deal of improvements in the discipline of prisons, and the milder treatment of political prisoners during late years. But he would now quote a precedent from the case of political prisoners —not untried men, but prisoners found guilty of a serious offence and sentenced to many years' imprisonment. When Mr. O'Connell and his associates were sentenced they wore imprisoned in Richmond Bridewell; and it was recorded that members of his family came to live with him in prison; that persons came every day, bringing fish and fruit; that after a little time the prison was turned into something like a pleasant country house; there was no restriction to his friends visiting him, and a number of them dined with him every day; a pavilion was erected in one of the gardens for dining in the open air. His object in quoting this was to show the state of a man in prison who had been tried and found guilty of a serious offence, and imprisoned as a convicted man with his associates, under what was a very much more severe Code of prison discipline than the present. Let the Committee consider what had been done for him on the ground that he was a political prisoner. It would be seen from this that a moderate relaxation of discipline had not in the past been considered inconsistent with the safe keeping of a prisoner and the prevention of his doing any further mischief. If that was the treatment of a convicted man in 1845, he could not see why a man not convicted of any offence should not have a similar treatment accorded to him. Therefore, he thought he had established a clear case for demanding that a special prison should be set apart for the accommodation of the men arrested under this Act; that the prison should be fitted up with some regard to their comfort; that there should be no restriction upon their intercourse with friends whatsoever; and that they should have free access to books, newspapers, and writing materials. With regard to their safe keeping, he was perfectly willing that every precaution should be taken against escape, and that the Government should send a whole regiment of soldiers to guard them. If Her Majesty's Government were honest in declaring their desire to alleviate the sufferings of these men in prison, the course he had suggested appeared to him the only really practicable course. Therefore, they considered it of importance that a Visiting Committee should be appointed before the Bill was allowed to pass, on which there should be the names of men in whom they placed confidence. He was convinced, if the Government entered upon this in a fair way, they would find the names proposed were such as would be satisfactory, and to which it would be impossible to object. He had drawn up a list of the Committee to which they would be willing to agree. It contained the names of Dr. M'Donnell, Dr. O'Hagan, Chief Justice Barry, and two other gentlemen of Dublin. Those were men to whom the Government could make no objection, and in whose kindly feeling and impartiality he and his supporters had the most implicit confidence. The Government complained of waste of time—

SIR JOHN LUBBOCK

rose to Order, and asked whether the hon. Member was speaking to the Question before the Committee?

THE CHAIRMAN

said, he had not been able to hear the hon. Member for some minutes, and could not say whether or not he was in Order. The Committee, however, would feel that the subject was being discussed at very great length.

MR. DILLON

believed that neither the hon. Member who had just sat down, nor any other hon. Member at a distance of six feet from him, could hear what he was saying owing to the interruptions that were offered. The Go- vernment had no right to complain of waste of time, seeing that they had allowed the question to be debated for two hours the previous day without coming forward with any proposal.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

I stated that I should have been glad to bring it forward; but I was not allowed to do so.

MR. GLADSTONE

I do not rise for purpose of speaking to a point of Order; neither do I rise for the purpose of bringing forward an accusation against anyone. But I desire to call the attention of the Committee, if I may do so in the state of weariness and exhaustion that has been reached, and if it can give me its attention, while I describe the position in which we now stand, and the position of practical helplessness to which we are reduced. We have now been engaged for two days in considering the particular treatment which those persons who may be imprisoned upon reasonable suspicion of the commission of offences should receive; and what has happened may, I think, be described thus. It appeared yesterday that the Committee, in its generous anxiety for the good treatment of such persons, felt a desire that some special security should be taken, over and above the securities in the Bill, and the general knowledge that the persons to whom it applies will be treated as untried prisoners. My right hon. Friend, upon perceiving that anxiety, declined to discuss points of detail, believing that it was absurd and impossible for the House to enter into the question in all its details. Nevertheless, and although declining that method of approaching the subject, and while declaring himself quite ready to propose another method, several hours were spent in the discussion of the question of stone floors; and it was not until they came to the adjournment on Wednesday that the Committee had been able to dispose of it. My right hon. Friend found great difficulty in making known to the Committee the proposal we have to make; and even objection was taken to his making known that proposal on a point of Order, when it would have been greatly to the convenience of the Committee that it should have been made known. However, not from the same person, but the same quarter where these difficulties wore interposed, we now hear that it is the Government who have been delaying the progress of the Bill. I may remind the Committee that the general rule observed by the House under all circumstances, even circumstances not of peculiar pressure, has been to leave the details of these prison rules to the management of subordinate authorities, and that was the footing upon which it was at first proposed to leave them by my right hon. Friend. But, desirous of deferring to everything like reasonable scruples in the Committee, he proposed to take this matter, important undoubtedly, out of the hands of those subordinate authorities, and to commit it to the highest Representatives of the Executive Government. He did that, knowing, of course, that the Viceroy and the Irish Government would be liable to challenge, first of all, if they did not exorcise the power where occasionally it could be shown it should be made use of; and, secondly, for the manner in which, if they did exorcise the power, they might be found to employ it. In this manner my right hon. Friend gave to the Committee the highest securities and the best assurance, by taking this matter out of the hands of subordinates and giving it to an authority not subordinate, but the highest known to the Executive Government. That was his proposal; but how has that proposal been met? It was made known to the Committee many hours ago, notwithstanding the delays interposed; but it has been met by every kind of objection in detail, and by a counter-Amendment, which would serve the purpose—I do not say, and I do not believe, it was intended to do so— of drawing forth some support, and a great deal of objection, from the same quarter of the House. But when it had answered the great end of what, to us, was its most important effect—namely, the useless waste and consumption of the time of the Committee—the counter-Amendment was withdrawn, the Mover of it not challenging the vote of the Committee. I have described the proposal of my right hon. Friend. What is proposed against it appears to be twofold in form. There are some Gentlemen who say—"Let us proceed to appoint, for the first time, a particular body of persons named to form a Committee, who will be the framers of these prison rules," thus departing from every precedent and every rule of procedure that good sense, when not turned aside by prejudice and Party purposes, has suggested on all occasions to the Legislature. That is one plan.; and, of course, we should have an indefinite amount of discussion, if it were conceded, on the merits and demerits of the persons named, and an interminable number of persons would be proposed, perhaps only in order to be withdrawn, the great effect of which would certainly be to waste a considerable portion of the time of the Committee. Another proposal which I think still less reasonable than that to which I have referred, and, possibly, for aught I know, intended to be combined with it, is that this Committee itself should test and confirm the prison rules. That is to say, that we, who have been occupied for something like a quarter of the Session upon the discussion of this Bill, should hold our hands, practically, in order that these Gentlemen, if they are inclined to undertake the task, may frame and present to the Committee a set of prison rules. So that we are to come down from our functions of general legislation for the first time, in order to involve ourselves in a multitude of indirect details of which we have no practical experience, and upon which we are to get lost once more in interminable discussion. That has been the effect produced by the proposal of my right hon. Friend; and I will appeal to the reason and judgment of the Committee as to whether it is a fair and right method of meeting a proposal so framed as his; whether it does not justify the conclusion that we ought to come to the end of this debate; and whether it does not show that we must, and that without any great delay, consider in what other manner it is possible for us to expedite the matter we have in hand, so that we may show ourselves to be not wholly incapable of transacting the Business of the House?

MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY

said, he could not understand what the right hon. Gentleman complained of. He had spoken of the time consumed in discussing that matter; but was it reasonable to discuss, in a highly practical way, the regulation of those prisons to which they understood so many of their people were in a short space of time to be consigned? The right hon. Gentleman reviewed the course of the discussion, and expressed a doubt whether the Committee, in its exhausted condition, could follow his exposition of the case. He (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) was sorry that the Committee should be exhausted; but it was occasionally unavoidable that discussion should be carried on to a considerable length, even if hon. Members who did not care anything about the question should find the time long. But he contended that the question was of sufficient importance to justify all that had taken place to-night and yesterday, and to save Irish Members from severe strictures. The right hon. Gentleman said Amendment after Amendment was proposed; and he complained that one Amendment had occupied the time of the House, and had then been withdrawn; but if they had divided upon it they would have been charged with wasting time. It was withdrawn because they thought reason had been shown for withdrawing it. Then the right hon. Gentleman complained that the suggestion of his right hon. Friend was not accepted immediately. That was probably because some hon. Members did not agree with the recommendation. Was it to be supposed that the moment a Member of the Government made a suggestion they were to adopt it without debate, and that if they objected to and discussed it they were to be accused by the Prime Minister of deliberately wasting the time of the House? He maintained that there had been no waste of the time of the House, and that they were not bound at once to take the assurance of the Chief Secretary, or any Member of the Government, upon a matter of such importance.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, the Prime Minister had complained that the Chief Secretary had been interrupted and caused to resume his seat on a mere question of form. The language of the Prime Minister had been most extraordinary; but what was made a question of Order and rigidly enforced against the Irish Members, was, in regard to the right hon. Gentleman, a matter of form. But— That in the captain's hut a choleric word Which in the soldier is flat blasphemy.

Original Question put.

The Committee divided—Ayes 284; Noes 20: Majority 264.—(Div. List, No. 52.)

MR. R. POWER

proposed to move, on behalf of the hon. and learned Member for Meath (Mr. A. M. Sullivan), an Amendment enabling any Member of Parliament to visit a prisoner for one hour during such hours as might be appointed.

THIS CHAIRMAN

The words now added introduce into the Bill the existing special rules for untried prisoners, and give to the Lord Lieutenant power to modify those rules. It is, therefore, not compatible with the decision of the Committee to make new rules under the Amendment proposed. The next Amendment in Order is that of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Metge), and it relates to out-door relief for the families of prisoners. With regard to the proposed Amendment, I ought to say that, in the case of an ordinary Bill, I should certainly rule that it was out of Order, as being outside the scope of the Bill; but, considering that the Bill creates a new class of prisoners, I think it is a matter of doubt, and, therefore, I do not rule it out of Order.

MR. METGE

said, he had asked the Chief Secretary a question on the subject of the Amendment he was about to propose; and the right hon. Gentleman's answer showed that he had not any regard for the treatment of the people of Ireland. He asked the Chief Secretary whether it was not the case in England that out-door relief could be granted to the families of persons confined in gaol, while that was not the case in Ireland; and asked him to make an alteration in that respect. His answer was that he could not grant any exceptional legislation. In Ireland they exonerated the Chief Secretary from any knowledge of the real case; he did not know how common a practice it was in Ireland to tell respectable people to go to the poor-house. He believed that, in many instances, people would rather go to prison than to the poor-house, for in Ireland law had never been associated with justice; the administration of law had never been associated with impartiality. Therefore, that disgrace did not attach to commitment to gaol in Ireland which attached to the acceptance of charity under the Government. It was hard enough for an innocent man to have to suffer all the penalties of crime, which, no doubt, numbers would under the new Act; but it was still harder that his wife and family should also suffer. The Coercion Act might deal with some thousands of people; but for every one of those they might calculate that at least five more would suffer by reason of his imprisonment. Some of the prisoners might follow their particular trades, and so be able to help to support their families; but the great majority of the men who would suffer wore of the labouring class, or wore shopkeepers' assistants. They had no actual trade by which they could maintain themselves—much less their families. Then, again, he would remind the Committee of the harrowing feelings which must be experienced by a man in prison when he knew that all who were most dear to him must choose between disgrace and destitution. The Chief Secretary had said he did not see the necessity of introducing any exceptional legislation with regard to Ireland in this respect. He was prepared to prove that it would not bo exceptional legislation. In the Act 12 & 13 Vict. there was a clause enumerating the persons who should receive out-door relief, and there appeared in that clause the 'words—"Any such person as shall be confined in gaol or other place of safe custody." In Ireland it was provided that out-door relief should only be given to persons who were permanently disabled from labour by mental or bodily infirmity. No relief could, therefore, be given to the family of any person in gaol. Therefore, a largo section of the people might be excluded from relief unless his Amendment was introduced; and he really could not think, unless there was the same spirit of vindictiveness as was seen in the whole Bill, that the Government could oppose his Amendment, especially when it was remembered that the family of a man who was imprisoned had not participated in his crime. It was possible that they might have been opposed to his crime; and yet they would suffer punishment quite equal to, if not greater than, his. Coercive legislation had always borne its fruit in Ireland, and the reason was that it had always been embittered to the Irish people by some such cruel thing as that to which he was referring. If crime was not to be increased in Ireland, and the Bill was to be one for prevention and not for punishment, it was absolutely necessary to introduce his Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 24, at end, add "And the family, if any, of any such person so detained shall not he thereby incapacitated from receiving out-relief if otherwise qualified to receive it, hut shall in all cases he dealt with by the hoard of guardians of their respective unions in the same manner as if the person arrested in pursuance of a warrant under this Act had been suffering from mental or bodily infirmity."—(Mr. Metge.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

MR. FINIGAN

thought the Committee had adopted the main principle of the Amendment, and they should agree to it without any debate upon it.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

I had thought that, probably, this Amendment could not be put, as it appears to me to imply an amendment of the Poor Law. Why we cannot assent to it, and why outdoor relief cannot be given to the families of persons arrested under this measure, is because the regulations with regard to out-door relief in Ireland are different from the regulations in England. The position of a person arrested under this Act will be the same as that of untried prisoners; and if we were to make a relaxation in the one case I do not see how we could refuse to make it in the other. I do not see how the hon. Member could make a distinction. In the eye of the law untried prisoners are innocent until they are found guilty; and in the same way these persons, though reasonably suspected and arrested, may be regarded, in a sense, as innocent.

MR. LEAMY

said, the right hon. Gentleman said the Amendment should not be put, because it would necessitate the amendment of the Poor Law; but it should be remembered that the change in the Poor Law, which would be effected if the Amendment of his hon. Friend should be accepted, would only be temporary. The right hon. Gentleman said, also, that if they relieved the families of persons arrested under this Act they must also relieve the families of untried prisoners; but there need be no such obligation on the Government, as the words of the Amendment were entirely confined to the former class of prisoners. He had sound reason for supporting the Amendment; and he wished to invite the attention of the Attorney General for a moment to a point he was about to put. The House was aware that, under the Act of 1870, tenants were entitled to claim compensation for disturbance if they were evicted, unless there was rent due, and in certain other cases. What, then, would be the effect of the present Bill passing without this Amendment? Suppose a poor farmer were arrested on the warrant of the Lord Lieutenant and were thrown into prison, and while he was there half a year's rent became due to the landlord. The family—the head being gone— would be unable to maintain their position on the farm, and would be compelled, if out-door relief were refused, to go into the poor-house, and in that case the farm would become deserted. He wished to know whether, under these circumstances, the landlord would be entitled to go to the magistrate in petty sessions?—["Question !"]—he was merely saying that if they wished to act fairly towards the families of persons arrested, opportunities should be given to Boards of Guardians to grant out-door relief in cases where it might be required; because he was very much afraid that if the head of the family were thrown into gaol and the farm deserted, increased facilities would be given to the landlord for obtaining possession of the land without paying compensation for disturbance.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Gentleman is travelling much beyond the Amendment.

MR. LEAMY

was very much afraid that, owing to the interruptions of hon. Members who sat behind Her Majesty's Ministers, the Chairman had not heard the line of argument he was following.

THE CHAIRMAN

I perfectly heard the hon. Gentleman's words, and I consider he was travelling beyond the Amendment.

MR. LEAMY

said, the Amendment said— And the family, if any, of any such person so detained shall not he thereby incapacitated from receiving out-relief if otherwise qualified to receive it, but shall in all cases be dealt with by the board of guardians of their respective unions in the same manner as if the person arrested in pursuance of a warrant under this Act had been suffering from mental or bodily infirmity. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the families of persons detained under this Bill would be treated like the families of prisoners awaiting trial who might possibly be innocent. But in the case of those for whose families he was pleading, they might not only be possibly innocent, but it might be well known in their own localities that they were innocent. ["No, no!"] Would anyone who defended the Bill stand up, and take it on himself to say that not a single innocent person would be sent to gaol under the warrant of the Lord Lieutenant? He would put it in this way. Had they not a right to give assistance to the families of those poor people? Was it not enough to punish an innocent man; but must they also inflict punishment on his family? When they arrested a farmer, they might leave three or four children and a wife behind, who would lose the farm they were on— the family would lose the advantage of the Act passed here for the purpose of conferring a right on them. Poor men, earning 9s. or 10s. a-week, might have their homes broken up. That, no doubt, seemed little or nothing to some hon. Members. They were only the homes of poor Irish peasants. Hon. Members did not know, as Irish Members know, how the Irish peasantry clung to their homes, how they loved them—

THE CHAIRMAN

I must again mention the fact that the hon. Member is travelling beyond the Amendment.

MR. LEAMY

said, he would not trouble the Committee; but he hoped the Chairman would put as much blame upon the interruptions to which he had been subjected as upon him.

MR. DALY

said, he did not wish to occupy the attention of the Committee for any length of time. The Chief Secretary had said that if the relief were given to the families of persons arrested under this Bill, it would be expected to apply to all untried prisoners; but the English Act, in which exceptions were made, did not specify whether the person in prison, whoso family was to be relieved, was to be a criminal or an untried prisoner. He was justified in assuming that the exception as stated in the English Act applied equally to untried prisoners and prisoners undergoing imprisonment for crime; and he would point out that the Amendment was in no sense mandatory. The Government were altering the law of Ireland, and depriving the people of that country of their Constitutional liberties; and it was, therefore, not too much to ask them to make provision in the Act for granting out-door relief, or to give the Guardians power to grant it. It would be dependent on the judgment of the Guardians whether the persons who applied were fit subjects for relief. A majority of the Guardians would have to decide upon each case; and he would further point out that if this relief were given it would cost the Government nothing, as the charge would fall upon the funds of the Union. The Guardians would know that the arrests were made on suspicion, and would, therefore, be aware that many of the prisoners were innocent, and would, out of sympathy, vote relief from their own pockets, they, of course, being contributors to the rates. The tax would simply be on the locality, and surely the Committee would not refuse to the families of men arrested on mere suspicion what was already given to the families of criminals. It was not a pleasure to him to stand up to occupy the time of the Committee; but he was bound to declare that, whatever the opposition to other Amendments might have been, the opposition to this was indefensible.

MR. H. SAMUELSON

thought the Amendment could not be objected to on the ground of unreasonableness; and if hon. Members pressed it to a division he should vote for it. The Chief Secretary's objection to it was, that if he agreed to it, it would be necessary to provide for the families of all persons who were in prison awaiting trial; but there was no parity between the case of an ordinary prisoner awaiting trial and a prisoner who would be confined under this Bill. The former, as a rule, would not be confined in prison without trial for any considerable period, whereas the latter might be imprisoned for 18 months. The Chief Secretary had said —and they all believed that he meant what he said—that the Act was not intended to punish, but to deter persons from committing crime. It would be a hard thing that because a father—the head of a family—was arrested on suspicion of having committed acts of violence, or any other of the offences mentioned in the Bill, therefore his wife and children, and all those depending on him, should be reduced to the very last extremity of poverty. He only wished that all the Amendments that came from the opposite side of the House were as reasonable as this one, which he should have much pleasure in supporting.

MR. O'SULLIVAN

thought this a most fair and humane Amendment, and considered the reason given by the Chief Secretary for opposing it a remarkably poor one. He said the regulation, if applied to prisoners under the Bill, would have to be applied to all untried prisoners. Well, suppose it were applied to all untried prisoners. The right hon. Gentleman had admitted that the law of Ireland was rather imperfect, and that they ought to have the same law in Ireland that they had in England in the matter of out-door relief. This difference exposed in the strongest manner the inequality of the laws of the two countries. Some hon. Members said they had the same laws in Ireland as in England; but in England out-door relief could be given to the family of a prisoner from the time he was taken away until the time of his return, and this was not the case in Ireland. The Act was one of an exceptional character, and, that being so, exceptional provisions might be inserted in it. It would not militate against or injure the Act if the Amendment were accepted, neither would it cripple the power of the Lord Lieutenant or the Chief Secretary. It was a humane, a just, and a right Amendment, and ought to be embodied in the measure.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

I should like to make an explanation. I do not wish the families of the prisoners to suffer, and I admit that the men will be detained a longer time than untried prisoners; but the difficulty is this. There is a great difference between the Poor Law of England and Ireland. I do not know that my own sentiment would be in favour of the Irish mode; but I know there is a strong argument for it from the fact that it would have an evil effect to allow out-door relief to crop in. It would be very difficult, if the Amendment were accepted, to confine the arrangement to the families of prisoners arrested under the Act, and not to extend it to the families of untried prisoners. I do not mean' to say that by accepting the Amendment we should be giving out-door relief to the families of untried prisoners; but it would be difficult for us not to make the change. I would ask the hon. Member to withdraw the Amendment, and I will un- dertake to obtain information on the point before the Report. I make no pledge in the matter; but I should like to have a little longer time to consider the matter. The reason I am not prepared with information, as I otherwise should have been, is that I thought such an Amendment was outside the scope of the Bill, and could not be put.

MR. METGE

Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that we can discuss the matter again on Report?

MR. W. E. FORSTER

Yes; certainly.

MR. METGE

Then I withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. BRADLAUGH

said, he had an Amendment on the Paper; but he trusted it would not be necessary to trouble the Committee with any arguments in support of it, because they were now at a stage that gave great objection to protracted controversy, and he did not know whether it might not be possible for the Government, especially after what had fallen from them during the debate on the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld), to make some sort of Amendment themselves which would meet the case more efficiently. The difficulty was that hon. Members would want to know whether a man was arrested on a grave charge or on a trivial one, and the technical "ground stated for his arrest" might not convey that to them. He would move his Amendment, but would not press it, if the Government would give him any sort of assurance that the object he had in view would be met in some other way.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 27, after "and," insert "with details and particulars."—(Mr. Bradlaugh.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. W. E. FORSTER

I should rather have thought that this point was settled by the division taken on subsection 1, when I stated that upon Report I would introduce words to provide that the nature of the crime should be shown on the arrest, but not the "grounds" for the arrest. That is to say, if the crime is incendiary fire, "incendiary fire" would be stated on the warrant.

MR. BRADLAUGH

That would be quite satisfactory to me, and I therefore withdraw the Amendment.

MR. LEAMY

I rise to Order. I wish to know whether the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton has been formally withdrawn by leave of the Committee? I did not hear the Question put, and I do not think anyone else did.

THE CHAIRMAN

Did the hon. Member move the Amendment?

MR. LEAMY

Oh, yes; he did.

THE CHAIRMAN

Then I did not hear it, and did not put it from the Chair. I now put it, and ask if it be your pleasure that the Amendment be withdrawn?

MR. W. E. FORSTER

If there is likely to be a discussion on the Amendment, I would put it whether the point has not been decided by the division on sub-section 1?

THE CHAIRMAN

What was decided, under the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Halifax, was in regard to the warrant—the statement in the warrant of "time and place." In the present case the statement is to be placed before Parliament. The warrant is not in question at all; therefore, I decided the Amendment could be put. Is it your pleasure that the Amendment should be withdrawn?

MR. DAWSON

said, he would address his observations to the hon. Member for Northampton, to whom, for the manner in which he had conducted himself in regard to this Bill, the Irish Members wore very much indebted. The hon. Member wished to have "details and particulars" of the ground of arrest stated to Parliament. He (Mr. Dawson) held in his hand a book—although be did not intend to read from it —which showed many cases of persons, under similar Acts, though guiltless, having been subjected to long terms of imprisonment, in consequence of flimsy and untruthful charges having boon brought against them. If there were reports giving "details and particulars," and informers were obliged to supply them, they would be deterred from bringing flimsy and untrue charges in order to got people imprisoned for 18 months. If the name of the crime, such as "incendiary fire," "maiming cattle," were put in the Report made to Parliament, and informers wore told that they would have to give minute particulars capable of being sifted afterwards, they would be cautious of making accusations that, on a future occasion, they would be unable to sustain. He would, therefore, urge the hon. Member for Northampton to ask a full explanation on this point from the Chief Secretary.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. HEALY

rose to move, in page 2, line 2, at end of sub-section (3) to add— Such list shall show the date of arrest, the period of detention, the residence of each such person, with the rateable value of his house, if a householder, and his profession or calling, and shall be accompanied by a copy of the informations upon which the warrant for his arrest was issued.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member will only be entitled to move the first part of the Amendment, and not the latter.

MR. HEALY

said, he would move it as far as he was allowed, and be presumed that would be down to the word "calling?"

THE CHAIRMAN

Yes.

MR. HEALY

said, his object in moving the Amendment was to provide that when the warrant was laid upon the Table the particulars specified should be in the possession of the House. The Bill enacted that— A list of all the persons for time being detained in prison under this Act, with a statement opposite each person's name of the prison in which he is detained for the time being, and of the ground stated for his arrest in the warrant under which he is detained, shall be laid before each House of Parliament within the first seven days of every month during which Parliament is sitting. It was desirable, he thought, for the information of Members of the House, that there should be added to the list the date of the arrest, the period of detention, with the residence of the person arrested, and his profession or calling. It was most desirable that they should have the date of the arrest, for this reason—if the date was not given when the copy of the warrant was laid upon the Table the House would be quite in the dark. Of course, if the date of the arrest were given, the period of detention would follow as a matter of course. The Government could have no objection to give the period of detention, and he presumed there would be no difficulty in giving the date of the arrest. The rent of the house occupied by the person ar- rested would show his respectability and position, and it would also be desirable to give his profession or calling. It was quite a matter of detail, and he did not think there would be any objection to give these particulars.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 2, after the word "sitting," to insert the words "such list shall show the date of arrest, the period of detention, the residence of each such person, with the rateable value of [his house if a householder, and his profession or calling."—(Mr. Healy.)

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: —Ayes 41; Noes, 261: Majority 220.— (Div. List, No. 53.)

MR. GRAY

said, the Amendment he had to move was not of the same importance as it would have been if it had been conceded that the House should have some further information in regard to details. What he intended to propose was, in page 2, line 2, at the end of the sub-section, to insert the words— If Parliament is not sitting such list shall be published in the Dublin Gazette' on the first day of every month. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would not treat this Amendment as he had treated the last, and allow a division to be taken upon it without the slightest discussion. If he anticipated that the right hon. Gentleman would take such a course, he would certainly feel inclined to enter into explanations at a much greater length.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 2, at end of sub-section (3), to add the words "if Parliament is not sitting-such list shall be published in the 'Dublin Gazette' on the first day of every month."— Mr. Gray.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, it would be necessary to preface the Amendment with the insertion of the word "and." If the hon. Member would do that, there would be no objection on the part of the Government to accept the Amendment.

MR. GRAY

moved to amend the Amendment by inserting the word "and" at the beginning of it.

Amendment proposed to proposed Amendment, "That the word 'and' be there inserted."

Amendment agreed to.

Question proposed, "That those words, as amended; be there added."

MR. HEALY

expressed his gratification at the course taken by the Chief Secretary, and thought that the right hon. Gentleman might have dealt with the previous Amendment in the same way. ["Question !"] He had avoided debate of every kind, and had simply contented himself with moving the Amendment. He could only say that if the right hon. Gentleman had met the Amendment in the same way that he had met that which had just been moved by the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray) matters would have been very much facilitated.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

THE O'DONOGHUE

moved in page 2, line 2, at the end of the sub-section, to add— A list of complaints made by persons for the time being detained in prison under this Act shall be laid before each House of Parliament within the first seven days of every month during which Parliament is sitting. The effect of this Amendment would be to insure that the rules drawn up for the treatment of the prisoners were rigidly adhered to, and it would also prevent any manifestations of political feeling on the part of prison officials, who on previous occasions had not unfrequently indulged in such manifestations. He believed there were Members of that House who had been detained for political offences, who would be able to state the nature of the treatment they received, and the kind of feeling which was manifested by the prison officials, beyond the mere carrying out of the prison rules. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would accept the insertion of these words.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 2, after the word "sitting" to insert the words "A list of complaints made by persons for the time being detained in prison under this Act shall be laid before each House of Parliament within the first seven days of every month during which Parliament is sitting."—(The O'Donoghue.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. W. E. FORSTER

I am sorry that I cannot agree to this Amendment. No one can doubt that the persons who will be arrested under this Bill will not be in the want of friends in Parliament, and that they will be ready to make complaints if there are good grounds for them. The insertion of these words would be really to invite complaints, and would very likely result in the bringing of the most frivolous complaints before this House, and the unnecessary waste of time.

MR. FINIGAN

really hoped that, the Government would see their way to the adoption of the Amendment. It contained a principle of prevention, and would remedy an evil which had been a source of much complaint and dissatisfaction in the past. The Lord Lieutenant was to draw up certain defined rules for the treatment of these prisoners; and if the Governors of Irish prisons carried them out in the spirit intended by the Chief Secretary there would be no need of any list of complaints whatever. But it might so happen that some of the Irish prison Governors would neither carry out strictly nor justly any Code of Regulations laid down by the Lord Lieutenant. He certainly could see no harm, but, on the contrary, he could see very much advantage, in laying before Parliament a list of any complaints that were made of the ill-treatment of any of the prisoners, and any infringement of the regulations laid down in the proposed Code. He thought if the Chief Secretary would re-consider the matter he would see that there was no objection in principle to the Amendment; but that, in the interests of justice, it would be advantageous to agree to it; or to some modified form of it. He did not believe that the prison rules, as they had hitherto been carried out, were framed either on the principles of humanity or justice. An Irish official would fear more the displeasure of the House of Commons than any recommendations from the Lord Lieutenant, or any of his advisers in Dublin Castle. It was hardly necessary to remind the Committee that in Ireland the prison officials had not won from the Irish people the same respect which the good conduct and honesty of the English prison officials had obtained for them. It was for this reason that he asked that the conduct of the Irish officials, if they exceeded their duties, might be brought under the notice of the House and be discussed in a proper manner.

Question put.

The Committee divided: —Ayes 33; Noes 242: Majority 209.—(Div. List, No. 54.)

MR. LEAMY

proposed, by the Amendment he was about to move, to alter the clause by vesting the power of proscribing a district solely in the Lord Lieutenant. The 1st section of the Bill conferred the power upon the Lord Lieutenant to arrest and detain a person upon reasonable suspicion of having committed a certain offence. It was only reasonable, therefore, that the Lord Lieutenant himself should declare in what district that power should be exercised. The Privy Council in Ireland was composed of many men in whom he had no confidence, and who had made themselves singularly prominent in their hostility to Irish views and aspirations; and, under the circumstances, it appeared to him that the power in question should be vested in the Lord Lieutenant alone.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 5, to leave out from the word "by," to the word "Ireland," in line6, both inclusive.— (Mr. Leamy.)

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

MR. W. E. FORSTER

was rather surprised that the hon. Member for Waterford should have moved this Amendment. The hon Member, in wishing to strike out the words "by and with the advice of the Privy Council in Ireland," seemed to suppose that their retention removed the responsibility, in some measure, from the Lord Lieutenant and the Executive, and put it upon the Privy Council. But that was not so. Any hon. Member who was acquainted with the machinery of the Administration must be aware of the reason why the words were inserted; and he should have thought the hon. Member would have preferred them to remain. He did not think the Government ought to depart from all past precedent in striking them out.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, the right hon. Gentleman had alluded to the machinery of the Privy Council in Ireland; but the fact was the Privy Council was a mere form. The right hon. Gentlemen attending the Council were summoned merely as a kind of form to give their names to documents; but no discussion ever took place at the Privy Council, and no responsibility was ever supposed to lie upon any Member of it. It was a great misfortune that no real Privy Council existed to give their advice to the Government. The effect of the Amendment, under the present condition of affairs, would be nothing at all.

MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY

thought it was a fortunate circumstance that there was in the House at least one Member who had been behind the scenes in Ireland; and he did not think the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary could have been serious when he recommended the intervention of the Privy Council. He pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman that what was wanted in this matter was not formality, but security, that the powers of the Bill would be properly used. The main reason in support of the Amendment was that the Privy Council in Ireland consisted largely of the Irish Judicial Bench. He thought it was unfitting that the Judges of Ireland, who ought to be simply the exponents of law and justice, should exercise the important function of the Executive in proscribing districts under the Bill.

MR. GRAY

said, it was probably true, as the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock said, that the Privy Council was, to a great extent, a sham; but it struck him it was also a mischievous sham. The Amendment was aimed at fixing upon the Lord Lieutenant the entire and personal responsibility for the carrying out of this Act. It also aimed at preventing his being able to shelter himself behind this sham of the Privy Council, and was precisely the reverse of what the Chief Secretary seemed to think. He granted that, were this an ordinary Bill, it would be very desirable that the Lord Lieutenant should issue his warrant surrounded by all the usual formalities by and with the assent of the Privy Council. But the principle of this Bill was exceptional, and he wanted the personal responsibility to be fixed upon the individual, and that all justification for the Lord Lieutenant or the Chief Secretary being able to shield themselves afterwards by association with the Privy Council should be removed. There was no doubt that the machinery in Ireland, as regarded the exercise of the Executive functions of Government, was exceedingly defective, and that was one of the causes why the Administration of Dublin Castle was looked upon with such suspicion, as was the case by the general body of the Irish people. He had just looked at the constitution of the Irish Privy Council, and found that it was not calculated to inspire confidence amongst the people. The first name he found was that of the Lord Primate Beresford. He did not think the antecedents of this family were of a character that entitled them to be regarded with very high favour in Ireland.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is certainly travelling beyond the very simple limits of the Amendment. Because a constituted body is objected to, there is no right conferred to discuss the character and fitness of its individual Members. If this were admitted, on discussing the Irish Constabulary you might claim the right to discuss every policeman.

MR. GRAY

The clause provided that this Act should be carried into operation by the Privy Council; and he respectfully submitted that he was justified in the arguments he was applying to it. He felt so strongly upon the point that, until he was distinctly ruled out of Order, he should continue his argument. The next name he found was that of the Archbishop of Dublin.

THE CHAIRMAN

It is certainly not within the limits of the Amendment that the hon. Member should discuss the character of each Member of the Privy Council.

MR. GRAY,

while admitting that under the new Rules if he was silenced he must submit, contended, with all respect, that he was entitled to continue his argument.

THE CHAIRMAN

I do not rule that the hon. Member is not to be heard if he speak with relevancy to the Amendment; but I rule that what he has said is irrevelant.

MR. GRAY

said, the ruling of the Chair must be either one thing or the other; and if he—

THE CHAIRMAN

Since the hon. Member wishes my decision, I rule that he discontinue his speech if he intend to continue the same line of discussion.

MR. A. M. SULLIVAN

said, the present Amendment raised the point as to whether the Privy Council ought to be associated with the Lord Lieutenant in certain acts in administering this Bill; and unless hon. Members were allowed to show the reason why the Privy Council ought not to be associated with him they could not discuss the Amendment. The Privy Council did not consist of an individual; and if they were to discuss the qualifications for the Privy Council sharing in these acts of administration they must discuss the competency of its component parts. Even under the new Rules, he believed it might be contended that the whole was made up of its parts. When it was assumed by the right hon. Gentleman that the Privy Council would be recommended to the confidence of Irish Members, and the Irish people, as eminently fit and well qualified to carry out this Act, surely Irish Members might point out to the Government and the Committee that one of the reasons why the Privy Council ought not to be intrusted with any share of this responsibility was because of the preponderance of certain persons on that Council who, for reasons that could be assigned in debate, were not fit to be so intrusted. He understood that the majority of the Privy Council, if any vote was given at all, was to assist the Lord Lieutenant in this matter; and, assuming that the Privy Council was not a sham, and that there was genuine debate, then they might also assume that the Lord Lieutenant might take the advice of the majority of the Council. One reason why he urged that the Privy Council ought not to be consulted was that the majority of its Members were eminently unqualified. How, then, could he show that unless he went through the list of the Privy Council? Without going into the case of individual Members of the Privy Council, he would take them by classes, and would begin with the Judges. In 1867, the Privy Council in Ireland executed an Act like this, and issued a Proclamation under the hand of the Lord Lieutenant, and signed by Members of the Privy Council, declaring illegal certain funeral processions. To that Proclamation were appended the names of Judges before whom, as he believed, the question of legality came for trial. Was not that a serious disqualification for one class of Members of the Privy Council being intrusted with the pretence of responsi- bility under this Act? The responsibility of the Privy Council, according to the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock, who knew all about it, was only a pretence. The result of Judges having this responsibility would be that the law would be discredited in the eyes of the people, when they saw appended to these Proclamations the names of the Judges before whom the legality of such Proclamations might be contested. There were others belonging to this sham Privy Council, who, as a class—and he only put it as a class—had forfeited all right to be regarded in Ireland as any safeguard of the liberty of the subject. He submitted to the Committee that the Privy Council constituted no solid and substantial check upon the exercise of power by the Lord Lieutenant, and said that the advantage to public policy was entirely in favour of concentrating in the Lord Lieutenant responsibility for acts which would be in reality his own. The Government might say that that was not the usual and judicial mode of proceeding in connection with Proclamations. But it was not so serious a departure from judicial procedure as the Bill proposed for the whole of Ireland; and it was preposterous to say that they had to acquiesce in that shadowy body, that mischievous body the Privy Council, so far as it had any reality. It was only a sham—it was a mockery to speak of the Privy Council in connection with an Act like that. If the Lord Lieutenant was to be made a despot lot him stand as a despot. If they would not have the administration of the Act surrounded by the Constitutional safeguards of Judge and jury, let them not have the mockery and hypocrisy of a sparing of responsibility by the Privy Council, which was a sham. On that ground, he emphatically supported the Amendment, and trusted that his hon. Friend would press it to a division.

MR. GLADSTONE

I cannot bow to the authority of the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill). All who have been cognizant of the working of the Administration know that the passing of an Order in Council does not, in the slightest degree, diminish the responsibility of the Government. The Privy Council is not peculiar to Ireland. It exists also in England. What is the meaning of the provision in thousands of cases which provides that such and suck things shall be done by Order in Council? It does not imply that any responsibility is taken off those upon whom it should lie. The simple object of Parliament in these enactments, and I would even say the known object, is to give the greatest solemnity and gravity to the act, and thereby mark and fasten in a special manner responsibility on the Advisors of the Queen. That is the real meaning of the enactments which are found in Acts of Parliament that such and such things shall be done by Order in Council. Take any case in England. A Council is not attended always—very commonly it is not attended—by Ministers who have done the particular acts ratified by the Council. Their attendance is a form; but it is a form to mark and fasten on the Government responsibility. That I beg the hon. Member to believe. But, surely, it cannot bo disputed for a moment, whatever may be said of the particular constitution of the Irish Privy Council and its modes and usages, that the meeting of the Council in Ireland or England detracts in the slightest degree from the responsibility, which, I agree with hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House, ought to be placed in the most marked manner on the Advisers of the Queen.

MR. DILLON

said, the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock had described the Privy Council as merely a sham, and the reason why he (Mr. Dillon) would support the Amendment was that he was afraid under that Act it would arise from its long slumber and resume its activity. The Privy Council was composed of a sham body, who had publicly proclaimed their anxiety for the passing of the Coercion Bill—men who had demanded coercion, and denounced Irish Members and Irish people for disturbing the peace. No matter how quiescent they might have been, if the Lord Lieutenant consulted the Privy Council he might be urged to apply the Act much more stringently than he would from his own judgment. He would rather leave the liberty of his countrymen in the hands of Lord Cowper than in the Privy Council; and he would support the Amendment, because he believed that in regard to the Act the Council would cease to be a sham, and become exceedingly active, and would attend in full force, and use all their in- fluence to urge the Lord Lieutenant to carry out the Act in the most stringent possible way. The Irish Members had been reduced to silence; but he could not see why they should be debarred from naming men who had made themselves notorious in Ireland. Chief Justice May was one of thorn—

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. and learned Member for Meath was within Order, because he spoke of a class generally; but the hon. Member now speaking is disobeying the ruling of the Chair, that it was out of Order to discuss the individual characters of members of the Privy Council.

MR. DILLON

concluded by saying that more than one-half of the Council were Irish landlords.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, the noble Lord had described the Privy Council as a sham, and the First Lord of the Treasury said it was a solemnity. He would take it either way; but the objection to the Council remained the same. If it was a solemnity, so much the more ought the Judges of the land to be prevented from giving consent to Proclamations under which they would afterwards pronounce judgments. The more solemn the functions of the Privy Council, the deeper and profounder reason was there to preserve such purity as remained on the Judicial Bench of Ireland—and that was very little—from being soiled and destroyed by taking part in the Council. He did not think the Council was a sham, and he did not think it was a solemnity; but if a Proclamation with regard to a prescribed district was brought before the Council, surely its terms would be discussed by the members of the Council [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Certainly not.] The noble Lord had been behind the scenes, and, no doubt, knew; but it appeared to him an extraordinary thing to say that the Judges met in solemn conclave and put their names and seals to Proclamations without hearing the terms of the Proclamations. If they had never hoard the terms of the Proclamations they were taking part in a mockery; but he did not think that that took place at all. When the Lord Lieutenant wanted to do anything like that, hie consulted not only the Law Officers of the Crown, but also the Lord Chancellor and the Judges as to the state of the country. He might not go officially; but did any- one in his senses believe that the Chief Secretary, for instance—and he challenged contradiction from the right hon. Gentleman—when he wanted to know the state of the country in order to regulate his legislative proposals for Ireland, did not go the Judges and ask their opinion?

MR. W. E. FORSTER

If I consult the Judges, I consult them in their private capacity as members of society, and not in their official capacity as Judges.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

was extremely obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the explanation, for it made his argument much more clear, which was that the Chief Secretary consulted those Judges as persons of eminence as to the state of the country, and as persons of eminence he would also consult them as to the means of pacifying the country. As eminent persons they would also be consulted by him as to the parts of the country which required to be proscribed, and accordingly, as persons of eminence, they would be consulted as to matters upon which, as persons with judicial capacity, they would have to decide. He was not going to allow the Government any longer to drag the Judicial Bench of Ireland through the mire of Party politics. He would not mention the name of any member of the Council, but he would divide them into classes. There were ex-Whigs, ex-Tory officials, one or two Protestant ecclesiastics, Tory landlords, and Whig and Tory Judges, who were worse than the worst Tory landlords. Did anybody think that the Government were to be allowed, without a protest, to put the liberties of the country in the hands of these hereditary antagonists of the Irish people? The right hon. Gentleman had repeated constantly that they would shirk no responsibility; but was not the Lord Lieutenant, if he took the advice of the Council, shirking responsibility? It was very well for the First Lord of the Treasury to say that the Council did not relieve the Government of responsibility; but if there were three or four men, the general public attached to each of these three or four men a portion of the responsibility. If they were going to have despotism worse than any despotism in Russia or France—

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is going altogether wide of the Amendment.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

would not pursue that part of the argument; but he repeated, that if the Bill was passed it would be far better for the country to have the Lord Lieutenant solely responsible, than to have anti-Irish Irishmen, who were worse than the Tory landlords.

MR. CALLAN

said, he found in the Dublin Gazette that the Government, since the advent of the Chief Secretary, were themselves the parties who had set aside and spurned the assistance of the Privy Council. Every Proclamation issued since the advent of the Chief Secretary was issued by him in the name of the Lord Lieutenant, and not by or with the advice of the Privy Council. The Government had thus sot a precedent which the Irish Members were now trying to follow. He had another objection to the Privy Council—namely, that it contained another and still more objectionable class than any other in Ireland, and the very mention of which, as attached to the Privy Council, would be sufficient to deprive it of any remnant that would remain of respect for a body which had the reputation of being a sham —he meant the Commmanders of the Forces. Three of their Martial Governors were among the Privy Councillors, and in times of emergency they would certainly be the most active. One of them, who advised that the Sepoys should be blown from the mouth of a gun, might propose to blow the Irish people from the mouth of a gun in the same way; and if the Government wished their Proclamation to have any respect, they should leave it to be issued by the Lord Lieutenant himself, for whom, however much they might distrust him, they had more respect than for the great majority of the Council.

MAJOR NOLAN

believed that the Lord Lieutenant and the Privy Council were not the persons who would put the Act into action, but that it was the Chief Secretary who would do it; and he believed the people of Ireland would rather have responsible a man whom they could regard with some respect. He would sooner have one sham than two shams, and he would, therefore, like to strike out the Lord Lieutenant from the Act. It was all nonsense to say the Privy Council would have no influence; and although the Lord Lieutenant would not lean entirely on them, the Privy Council would go for some- thing with the public. The Council in Ireland was very different from the Council in London. Society in Dublin was rather small, and the Council absorbed a large portion of it; and he believed it did exercise some influence on the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary. He thought it would be better to bring the responsibility over hero.

MR. T. D. SULLIVAN

bore testimony to the extreme distrust with which the Judges, as Privy Councillors, were regarded in Ireland. Those gentlemen attended the meetings of the Council, and there they got crammed with all the whispers sent up by the police from all parts of the country. Their minds were filled with those stories, and when they went down to Assizes they addressed charges to the jurors which were generally supposed to be founded upon information given them in their judicial capacity. But that was not so; they tried men, and the country—

THE CHAIRMAN

I do not see how the remarks of the hon. Gentleman are relevant to the Question.

MR. T. D. SULLIVAN

said, as to the other classes in the Privy Council, he would say nothing; but as to the Judges, their presence at the Privy Council was regarded as a grievance by the Irish people. Therefore, he was in favour of the Amendment.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

I rise to make an explanation. Nothing can be a more complete mistake than to suppose that the introduction of these words takes away the slightest responsibility from the Executive Government. The responsibility rests, not only on myself, but on the Government generally. There has been some talk of resignations; Lord Cowper and I, myself, would resign tomorrow, if we supposed that any gentlemen, however influential or however much respected they might be—and I am sorry that there were remarks which I think were very uncalled for—

MR. CALLAN

rose to Order, and asked whether such an observation as "remarks being uncalled for" was explanation?

THE CHAIRMAN

I think the right hon. Gentleman is going beyond the point of explanation.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

Lord Cowper and myself would resign if, after these acts for which we shall be responsible to Parliament and the country, we were obliged to abide by the votes of any gentlemen not in the Government—not our Colleagues in the Government.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

put it to the Prime Minister, whether there was any solid objection to the Amendment? The Privy Council must stand or fall upon its own merits. Hero was a Bill for conferring extraordinary powers on the Government, and what they wanted was that that power should be conferred in an unmixed fashion on the Lord Lieutenant; and if it would be more satisfactory to the majority of the Irish Members that those words should be struck out of the clause, what earthly objection would there be to it?

MR. H. SAMUELSON

said, that before they went to a division on the Amendment, he wished to put a Question to the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench (Sir Stafford Northcote)—namely, Whether he agreed with the opinion expressed by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), that the Privy Council in Ireland, during the time the right hon. Gentleman held Office, was a "nonentity" and a "sham;" that it never met in Dublin for any other purpose than that of registering forgone conclusions without discussion; and that it never held a meeting to transact real business? He supposed that the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock was entitled to speak with a great deal of knowledge on this subject, and the Liberal Members had a right, in their innocence, to be informed whether, when the Conservatives wore in power, the Privy Council was a nonentity, and never entered into discussions, merely contenting themselves with signing their names?

Mr. JOHN BRIGHT

I am not about to break the Rules of the Committee, and yet I cannot say that I am about to discuss the Question before the Committee. It is now more than half-past 1, and I do not know whether or not hon. Members wish to sit until daylight. The discussion has taken a very wide turn. Attacks have been made upon the Irish Privy Council, and a great deal has been said that I think even Irish Members will, to-morrow, be disposed to regret. Attacks of a formidable character have been made on gentlemen in Ireland, with many of whom we are acquainted—gentlemen of very high position. All this was unnecessary in discussing the question whether the Privy Council should have its name on the Proclamations that may be issued in consequence of the passing of this Act. I rise, therefore, for the purpose of suggesting to hon. Gentlemen that they should, at this hour of the morning, allow us to divide on the Question, and that then Progress should be reported. The Irish Members themselves, and all hon. Members I am sure, would be glad to adopt this arrangement.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes 203; Noes 34: Majority 169.—(Div. List, No. 55.)

MR. GLADSTONE

I rise to move that you do report Progress, Mr. Lyon Play-fair, and I think it would be to the convenience of the Committee that, before it breaks up, I should refer to a Notice which I gave to-day, with regard to which I wish to say a word. My observations will be strictly connected with the procedure in Committee upon this Bill. Notwithstanding the unfavourable appearance of the Notice Paper, I believe it is not beyond hope that, by a natural process, we may reach the termination of the discussion of this Bill in Committee to-morrow night. It is not unreasonable, and I cannot be surprised to find, that hon. Gentlemen, who will only have the recent Rule of the Speaker in their hands to-morrow, would rather not be called on to make an application of it on the very day it comes before them. I, therefore, wish to say that I shall not bring forward the Motion, of which I have given Notice for to-morrow, until Monday. ["Hear, hear!"]I see this announcement is received with some satisfaction by hon. Members opposite. It is quite right for me to state that if on Monday there appears to be any occasion for such a Motion—that is to say, if the Committee is not closed—it will be my duty to press it on the House. Not myself only, but many Members of the Government, feel that a very serious responsibility rests upon us in this matter, and that having brought forward this measure, it is a matter of public interest and necessity that we should carry it to a conclusion as early as possible.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. W. E. Gladstone.)

MR. GRAY

regretted to hear the announcement with which the Prime Minister had closed his observations, for to him, and those who had taken a similar action to himself in connection with the Bill, it made the situation somewhat embarrassing. They had anticipated—anyone who had examined the Notice Paper had anticipated—from what the Amendments really meant, that the Committee would naturally terminate to-morrow. That was what they expected, long before the Prime Minister had given his Notice of Motion in an early part of the day. The statement the right hon. Gentleman had made had come upon him with a considerable amount of surprise. Had he simply withdrawn the Motion, declaring that he did not wish to press it under the circumstances, the Committee would have terminated to-morrow. For himself, he saw no reason why it should not terminate to-morrow; but he feared that the threat with which the withdrawal of the Motion had been accompanied would not at all facilitate the transaction of Business to-morrow. [Laughter.] Hon. Members might laugh at that; but, as a matter of fact, it would not facilitate the transaction of Business to-morrow, and the Rule might just as well have been applied to-morrow, as later on. If the discussion did not conclude to-morrow, it would be in consequence of the Notice given by the right hon. Gentleman.

MR. CALLAN

said, the right hon. Gentleman had concluded with a throat to renew, on Monday, a Motion which would largely affect the privileges of Members of the House, not merely Irish, but all other Members. Therefore, he would give Notice that if that Motion was proceeded with, and if the Rules of the House permitted, he should move that before it was put there should be a call of the House.

MR. O'DONNELL

thought that, with a little extra economy of time, so far as the Irish Members wore concerned, the Bill, under ordinary circumstances, might have got through Committee to-morrow; but in face of the threat that unless that stage was concluded to-morrow, the right hon. Gentleman's Resolution to terminate the proceedings would be proposed on Monday, the begged to give Notice to the Government that he would see, without a particle of regret, those events take place which would render it necessary to put the latest New Rule in operation on Monday. If Her Majesty's Government were prepared to bring matters to that issue, the Irish Members were prepared for the consequences. If they insisted on treating Irish Members in this way, the British Constitution would be the greatest loser.

MR. HEALY

We have to thank the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford North-cote) for not having had this gagging Motion insisted on for to-morrow.

MR. BIGGAR

hoped the Government would bring forward the Motion on Monday and would carry it, because he trusted that, within a limited number of years, to see some real, substantial, and bond fide Reform proposed in the House by the minority, when the majority was very different from that sitting on the opposite side, and then—

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is going beyond the Question before the Committee.

MR. BIGGAR

Then we shall have a prospect of being able to close the mouths of the minority.

THE CHAIRMAN

I tell the hon. Member he is going beyond the Question before the Committee.

MR. A. M. SULLIVAN

had hoped the Committee would terminate tomorrow, and, so far as he was concerned, he would still advise hon. Friends sitting round him, notwithstanding the irritating threat which had been uttered by the Prime Minister, to allow it to close at the time they had deemed it desirable. He should avail himself of any opportunity he might have between this and to-morrow, of expressing his opinion on this point to his Colleagues without endeavouring to gag them. There were sufficient gaggers without him. As to the first part of the Prime Minister's observations in withdrawing his Motion, the right hon. Gentle-man had evaded an unpleasant duty. It would have been exceedingly embarrassing if, on the very first day such a Rule was wanted, it was found upon the Table, having been framed by the Speaker immediately before its application. For a Minister to have applied a Rule on the very day it was given to the House, would have been damaging to the reputation of both the Prime Minister and the Speaker.

Motion agreed, to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.