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

HC Deb 21 February 1881 vol 258 cc1392-474

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

COMMITTEE. [Progress 18th February.]

[EIGHTH NIGHT.]

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 3 (Continuance of Act).

MR. ERRINGTON

moved, in page 2, line 28, to leave out the words "thirtieth day of September," and insert the words "thirty first day of March." The Amendment, he said, went more to the root of the question than any yet brought forward. They had already disposed of the action of the Bill, so far as it was retrospective, and the present Amendment dealt prospectively with the period at which the Act was to terminate. As the Bill now stood, it would continue in operation until the end of the month of September, 1882—that was to say, until about one clear month after the expiration of the next Session of Parliament. In place of that date, the Amendment proposed that it should cease to be in operation on the 31st of March, 1882, or about two months after the commencement of the next Session of Parliament. The Committee would see at once that this Amendment was likely to affect the opinion and action of classes far outside those against which it was primarily directed. By some it was held that the present state of Ireland should be settled, and law and order completely restored, before remedial measures were introduced; but, on the other hand, it was urged that the very state of things against which the Bill was directed was that which afforded the opportunity for the introduction of remedial measures. No one recognized more than he did the lamentable state of things which now existed in Ireland, and nobody deplored it more than be did. But, as he had said, he could not shut his eyes to the fact that it was owing to this unfortunate state of things that an opportunity was afforded for remedial legislation. Even in regard to the combination or association of which they bad heard so much— the Land League— contemptible and nefarious as its objects were, and composed almost entirely of pot-house conspirators, it might be said that, though "like the toad, ugly and venomous," it wore "a precious jewel in its bead." The "precious jewel" was the occasion afforded for the final pacification of Ireland, and there had been brought about a more immediate prospect of Land Reform than they had ever had before. He admitted that Her Majesty's Government were bound to introduce some measure dealing with the condition of the country and the state of things now prevailing; but it was very questionable how far it was wise to interfere with the balance of circumstances which now, for the first time, gave them a hope of ultimately settling the Land Question. They had also to deal with the classes represented by hon. Gentlemen opposite, who, though not opposed to a settlement, had neither the wisdom to recognize nor the generosity to make the necessary sacrifices. Therefore, if they could not be appealed to on the ground of high motives, they must be appealed to on the more ignoble motive of self-interest. The want of generosity and wisdom had to be made up by personal pressure; and though order and peace must be preserved, it was a question bow far they must by artificial security entirely remove that pressure to which they were obliged to appeal. In order properly to understand to what extent it was right to diminish this pressure, be thought the Committee ought to consider some of the contingencies with which it would be necessary to deal. If, as he hoped would be the case, this Bill was followed by a really good and effective Land Bill, there would be no necessity for continuing the measure in operation beyond the 31st of March, 1882. He was convinced that under such circumstances the Bill might be safely allowed to expire on the 31st of March, 1882. But it might be said that there were other contingencies. The Land Bill in its progress through Parliament might be emasculated in "another place," or it might not pass at all. If that were so, it would be of no use to continue the Bill until the month of October in next year. They would have to re-enact it, not only for the period proposed by the Government, but probably for years. In that case, what advantage would be gained by continuing the Act for six months? All they would gain would be that they would have the whole Session, instead of only two months, in which to re-enact it. This could be only regarded as a difference of convenience; but surely the House was not going to suspend for six months, perhaps unnecessarily, the liberties of the people in a large part of Her Majesty's Dominions, on a mere matter of convenience. He would probably be told that although the precedents which existed in the last live or six cases in which the Habeas Corpus Act bad been suspended established the principle of suspending the Act from Session to Session only, yet that recently a spirit of delay and obstruction had been manifested which made it undesirable to have the question brought under the discussion of the House more frequently than was absolutely necessary. He protested most indignantly against such a view. He believed there never was a time when the House of Commons was more capable and more determined to perform its duties, and to put down and arrest anything like obstruction. That feeling had been fully displayed during the last few days. Under these circumstances, it was perfectly clear that nothing could be gained by continuing the Bill beyond the month of March next year. If the Bill was required at all beyond the 31st of March, it would be required beyond the 30th of September; and, therefore, they would have to re-enact it. But let them consider for a moment the evil that would be produced by prolonging the continuance of the Act. It would unquestionably have the effect of rendering much more difficult the passage of any reforming measure. That was made plainly apparent by what he had already stated as to the motives which would actuate a particular class in opposing any Reform Bill. They would be removing one of the strongest inducements and motives they could work upon in order to persuade the opponents of Land Reform to accept a fair and reasonable measure. There was one further consideration, and that was the position into which hon. Members on that side of the House had been led. The vast majority on the Liberal side of the House had been induced to take up a position which was most trying and distressing to them. Instead of being called upon to remove the evils, and remedy the grievances, of Ireland by a fair and honest measure of Land Reform, they had been compelled, against their will, to acquiesce in a most anti-Liberal system of coercion. He did not blame them for that. They were perfectly right, he thought, in loyally supporting their Leaders. No greater calamity could occur to this country, and especially no greater calamity could occur to Ireland, than anything that could weaken or appear to disunite the Government who were at present upon the Treasury Benches. That being so, hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House, though they had supported this measure of coercion for Ireland, had acted as they ought to do as Members of the Liberal Party; but the loyalty they had shown towards the Front Ministerial Bench justified them now in appealing to that Bench for some reciprocal sympathy. He thought they had a fair claim to be met when they made a demand that the measure of coercion should be limited as far as possible. He certainly hoped that in the division he should feel bound to take he would have the support of hon. Gentlemen on that side. He believed that even supposing he succeeded in carrying this Amendment against Her Majesty's Government, that they would not really be inflicting a defeat upon the Government; but, on the contrary, they would be defending the Government against itself upon a matter of detail in the Bill. The Government would be the first to admit, if this Amendment were carried, that the Amendment itself had facilitated and helped them, and strengthened their hands, when they came to deal with those measures which they all looked to fertile pacification of Ireland. The Liberal Party, by acting in the way they had, and by the loyalty they had displayed, had acquired a twofold right and incurred a twofold duty. The first of these rights and duties was to insist that, as they had been true to their Leaders in supporting them in this most unpalatable measure, they should show the same determination to carry the Land Bill through Parliament, and not allow the voice of the vast majority of the country to be overridden by a minority either in that House or "elsewhere." The second point was that, as they had accepted this Coercion Bill, not as a measure of coercion, but as a bonafide and integral portion of that Land Reform to which alone they looked for the pacification of Ireland, the Liberal Party should not allow even necessary measures of coercion to overshadow or render more difficult the Reforms for which they were looking for the substantial benefit of the country. On these terms alone could the present action of the Liberal Party be reconciled with Liberal principles. He appealed fearlessly to his hon. Friends around him to support his Amendment, and, if necessary, to defend the Liberal Government against itself.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 28, to leave out the words "thirtieth day of September," and insert the words "thirty-first day of March,"—(Mr. Errington,) —instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words' thirtieth day of September' stand part of the Clause."

MR. W. HOLMS

remarked, that, in common with many hon. Members on that side of the House, he had felt very great reluctance in supporting the Government measure. It was, undoubtedly, one of the first duties of Her Majesty's Government to maintain law and order, and to protect life and property; and the ordinary law having proved ineffectual in Ireland, Parliament now found itself placed under the necessity of granting to the Government great and exceptional powers. He ventured to think that the principle on which they should be guided in granting these powers was that coercion ought not to be resorted to to any greater extent, nor for any longer period, than was absolutely necessary to vindicate the authority of the Crown and re-establish the ordinary law of the land. The Bill they had been considering went further in several respects than any previous Act that had been passed since the beginning of the present century for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. It embraced a greater number and a greater variety of crimes. In this respect, however, he thought the Government had been fully justified in the course they had taken. The Bill, how-over, was not only more sweeping in its character, but it proposed to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act for a longer period than on any previous occasion. He had taken some trouble to ascertain the number of these Acts and their character, and he found that there had been in all 1G. He left out the Westmeath Act of 1871, because it was local in its character, and was applied to only one particular class of outrages. If the Committee would bear with him, he would briefly refer to the various Coercion Acts which had been passed within the period he mentioned. The first Act was passed on the 24th of March, 1801, and it terminated on the 4th of June, 1801, having been in force for a period of three months only. That Act was followed by another passed on the 29th of July, 1803; and in December, 1803, an Act was passed which was to determine in six months after the termination of the next Session of Parliament. The Session did not begin until January, 1805, so that the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act in that case amounted to 14 months. An Act was passed in February, 1805, to last for six months. There was another Act passed on the 1st of March, 1817, for four months, which was continued on the 30th of June for 18 months. Then followed nine Acts, all applicable to Ireland:—In 1822, for 6 mouths; in 1824, for 13 months; in 1848, for 7 months; in 1849, for 7 months; in 1856, for 6 months; in 1866, for 6 months; in 1867, for 3 months; in 1868, for 9 months; and again in 1869. If the Committee accepted the proposal of Her Majesty's Government that the present Bill should determine on the 30th of September, 1882, they would suspend the Habeas Corpus Act for one year and seven months. Even if they accepted the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Longford, they would suspend it for 13½ months, or for a longer period than by any other Act during the present century. A great Constitutional authority—the late Earl Russell —said that "Liberty was a flower of tender growth, and must be carefully guarded." He feared, however, that there were circumstances which might induce them at the present time to guard those Constitutional liberties with less than usual care. The forbearance which had been displayed by Her Majesty's Government, combined with the feeling that lawlessness existed in Ireland, and an absolute reign of terror, made the country acquiesce in any wish the Government might suggest, and they were ready to place any power in the hands of the Government that might be asked for. A feeling of irritation had been produced by the obstruction and delay which had been interposed to prevent the progress of the Bill. It had been rendered necessary, in order to conduct the Business of the House at all, to enforce very stringent Rules; and probably that fact might induce many hon. Members to agree to the clause as it stood, and the more readily, because more than one Member of the present Government was known for the deep interest he took in the welfare of Ireland, and in that fact there was an assurance that the Government would not continue to exercise these arbitrary powers one moment longer than they were really required. Unhappily, it had never been a difficult thing for any Government, whether Tory or Liberal, to pass a Coercion Bill. But coercion was not a remedy. It was simply an easy way of dealing with the difficulty. If they were to pass the clause as it stood, he ventured to say that it would form a dangerous precedent for the liberties of the country. But, while he admitted there were circumstances which might induce the House to pass the Bill, he might add that there was one consideration which ought to prevent Her Majesty's Government from asking for so long a term for the continuance of the Act—namely, that although there had been numerous Coercion Bills during the last 80 years, on no one occasion had the Minister in charge of a Bill been able to rise in his place and say that it would be followed by remedial measures. One reason why hon. Members were induced to vote for a Coercion Bill now was the assurance which had been given by Her Majesty's Government that remedial legislation would follow, and an effort be made to allay the discontent which the passing of the Bill could not fail to create. Within the last few days the country had been assured by a Cabinet Minister that the measure to be brought forward by the Government was such as he believed would satisfy all reasonable Irishmen. If the measure to be proposed was of such a broad and comprehensive character, it would, in all probability, settle the much-vexed Land Question, and restore peace to Ireland. If the Government themselves had faith in its efficiency, he would urge upon them to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Longford, and to rest satisfied with obtaining powers more ample and for a longer period of time than had boon given to any Government for upwards of three-quarters of a century.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

I am sorry that I am unable to accept this Motion. I wish to look at the matter practically as it stands. We think that this measure is necessary, and the majority of the House think that it is necessary. What is now happening in Ireland shows two things—the necessity for such a measure, and how likely it is to be a real remedy for the evils which it has been brought in to remove I hope and expect that by this time next year it may have produced good results; and I should be personally disappointed if I did not find that by this time next year it will be in the power of the Crown to intimate such a pacific condition of things in Ireland as would warrant the intimation that it would not be necessary to renew the Act. But I cannot say that any Member of the Government is at present able to say that we shall be able to do without this Act throughout next year, or for any of the time which has been specified. There can be no doubt that the social system in Ireland has been very deeply shaken, and that strong remedies are required to cure the present evils. Although I look forward with very great hope to remedial measures, yet we must remember that the state of things with which the Government has to deal is very bad, and that if it were not for that bad state of things we should not have been justified in bringing in this Bill at all. In regard to the question of precedents, my hon. Friend who has just sat down (Mr. W. Holms) has gone over the previous Coercion Acts of the present century; and I think that, practically, the precedent is in favour of even a longer time than 18 months, because I find that invariably, or almost invariably, the Acts passed originally for a short term have been continued so as to make their total duration much longer than 18 months. My hon. Friend must be aware of the time it would take to renew the Act if a renewal were found necessary. I should not be candid if I did not state my belief that we have been a much longer time in passing this Bill than we ought to have been; but it must be borne in mind that the time has gone by when such measures can be either passed or renewed in a day. I am glad that that is so. I do not think that Acts of this sort ought to be passed in a day, and we must look forward to very considerable discussion when a proposition is made either to pass or renew such a measure. That was not looked forward to in past times. All that was necessary was to say that the Government thought such a measure ought to be passed or renewed, and it was not a very difficult tiling in those days to carry out legislation of this kind. But there have been Acts passed for a longer period than 18 months. In 1795, an Act was passed for England, and it was renewed from time to time for three years. I believe that the same Act applied to Ireland, and the reason why the Act was only passed for three months in the first year of the Union was that it was part of an Imperial Act, and that it finished the three years for which the Irish Act had been passed. Then, in 1823, there was an Act passed which lasted 18 months or more, upon renewal. In 1817, an Act was passed which was renewed once, and which lasted two years or more; and on the 14th of February, 1822, there was another passed, which also lasted for 18 months or more. [Mr. W. HOLMS: That was renewed in June.] In 1866, the period fixed was 18 months. My hon. Friend says that he will not take the Westmeath Act as a precedent. Now, the Westmeath Act is more of a precedent than any of the Acts we have had to deal with, because it was directed against that evil which is the main evil we have to contend with now. It was directed against agrarian outrages; and though in this Bill we have found it necessary to include treasonable practices, yet I would not for a moment conceal from the House that it is principally to deal with agrarian offences that this measure is wanted. It is true that the Westmeath Act was confined to one county only, and to part of another; but it was passed in order to enable the Government to deal with agrarian outrages. It was passed by the House of Commons in 1872, and it was originally fixed for two years— not for 18 months, but for two years. It was renewed at the end of that time for another two years, and our Predecessors in Office renewed it again for two years. The late Government, however, renewed it under circumstances in which I do not think we should have renewed it, because at the time they did so there was not a single prisoner in custody under the Act. Will the Committee look forward with any degree of comfort to our putting ourselves in a position which would require us to spend three weeks or a month at the beginning of next Session in the renewal of the Act? I do not think they will. On the other hand, we have fixed the period for the termination of the Act at the end of next Session, because we do not wish to be allowed to go on further than the Parliament of next Session. We do not want to take any power which will last longer than next Session; and, by the course we have proposed, we have put ourselves in a position in which it will be possible to renew the Act, if necessary, although I do not expect that it will be, next Session. We shall know better what the prospect will be when Parliament meets next Session. We cannot legislate now with absolute certainty, and we do not want to put ourselves in a possible position that we shall be obliged to take away from next Session any of the early part of the Session that ought to be devoted to Imperial legislation. There can be no doubt that with Parliament sitting all our proceedings will be carefully watched. If we were asking for the continuance of this measure longer than the next Session of Parlia- ment, I can easily understand that there might to be a strong objection; but, as we are only asking for it up to the end of the Session, I think the House will consider that no practical object will be gained by adopting the Amendment of the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Errington).

MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY

thought that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had not taken a fair view of the proposal of the hon. Member for Longford. Of late the graver kinds of agrarian outrages in Ireland had ceased. [Mr. W. E. FORSTER: That is not true.] The fact might be taken from the Press. He knew very well that threatening letters were still sent, and that some kinds of minor offences that were called outrages were committed. But the graver outrages had certainly ceased. If they had not ceased altogether, they had certainly ceased substantially, and that fact ought to be borne in mind in considering the duration of the Act. Another fact ought also to be borne in mind, and that was that they were promised remedial legislation. It had been frequently stated on that side of the House that if remedial legislation had preceded coercive legislation, there would have been no necessity for this Bill; and he still thought that, although remedial legislation would lose much of its force as a means of pacification and conciliation, owing to this coercive legislation, yet that such disturbance as might still be alleged to exist in Ireland would be minimized if a real remedial measure received the sanction of Parliament. He thought these two points were considerations which ought to be borne in mind by the House before it consented to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act, for a longer period than the Legislature had ever thought it right to do before, at one blow. In the instances mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary there was not a single case in which the Habeas Corpus Act had been suspended at one blow for as long a period as the present Bill proposed. [Mr. W. E. FORSTER: There is the Westmeath Act. He had not referred to the Westmeath Act. That Act was not a suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. He must say that he objected to interruptions from a right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench, especially when those interruptions took the ex- traordinary form of a statement—"That is not true." He thought he was entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman to adopt some other mode of objecting to his remarks, and to reserve any further observations he had to make for a more fitting opportunity. It was certainly the first time he (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) had heard so blunt a contradiction in that House. The principle adopted by the House hitherto in passing a measure of coercion had been to give Parliament an opportunity, at an early period, of saying how it would continue to deal with the matter. In every instance the Act had been passed for a shorter period than was proposed by the right hon. Gentleman in the present Bill. Why should that principle be departed from now? It was admitted that the out rages were not as numerous or as serious as they had been on many occasions when the Habeas Corpus Act had been suspended before. Moreover, the Government proposed by legislation which they were about to introduce to remedy the grievance of which the Irish people complained. Was this a time, then, for proposing a suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act in Ireland until the end of next September twelvemonths? In The Statist of February 19, an accurate statement was given of the dates at which the various Acts for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act were passed and the dates at which they expired; and, without attempting for a moment to read the article, he would extract a few of the figures which showed that in no case of the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act had the course now taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary been followed. In no instance had it been proposed, at a single blow, to suspend the Act for so long a period as is months. The first Act that was passed was passed in the year 1801, and it was passed for three months only. The second was passed in the year 1803, and it was to remain in force for six weeks only after the commencement of the next Session of Parliament with the special object of allowing Parliament in that Session to discover whether there were any circumstances which justified the continuance of the Act. In 1803 another Act was passed, and in 180, a similar one, both of which were to continue for six months only after the commencement of the next Session. There were several precedents running upon precisely the same lines and embodying the same principle—namely, that Parliament, at the earliest moment, should have an opportunity of considering whether there was any necessity for a further continuance of the Act suspending the Habeas Corpus Act. Another Act was passed in the year 1822, and it was provided that it should continue only from February 11th until August 1st. There the principle evidently was that the Government calculated on the Session ending with the beginning of the month of August, and they gave themselves the opportunity of renewing the Act if the necessity arose. Then, again, in 1848, the Habeas Corpus Act was again suspended, and the suspension was to last until March 1st, 1849. The Act was, however, renewed on the 27th of February until the 1st of September in the same year. There, again, the principle of submitting the matter to the consideration of Parliament was fully admitted; and would the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for a moment argue that the "state of Ireland at this moment was anything like what it was in 1848? Yet, in order to justify the course the right hon. Gentleman was now taking, he should show not only that there was some similarity between the circumstances of Ireland at the two periods, but that the state of things was, in point of fact, worse now than it was in 1848. Then, again, another Act was passed on the 13th of February, 1866, for suspending the Habeas Corpus Act until the 1st of September in the same year. On the 10th of August, 1866, that Act was renewed, but the old principle was reverted to, and the now Act was made to last only until 21 days from the commencement of the following Session. Another Act followed in 1867, which was to last from the 26th of February until the mouth of June following; and the same Act was renewed from the 31st of May, 1867, until the 1st of March, 1868. The last Act was passed on the 28th of February, 1868, to last until the 25th of March, 1869, or 21 days after the commencement of the following Session. Now, for the first time, and under a Liberal Ministry, they had introduced a Coercion Act suspending the Habeas Corpus Act in Ireland for more than 12 months, and taking it out of the power of the Parliament then sitting to consider whether there were any cir-stances which justified its renewal for a longer period. And this was done, although outrages had almost disappeared from the country. It was done, although they were told they were on the eve of the introduction of a Land Act which would bring contentment to the people. In his opinion a more gratuitous suspension of the rights of the people was never proposed by any Minister of the Crown. He trusted, although he had little doubt that Her Majesty's Government would carry the Bill as it now stood, that the English liberal Members, looking at the justifiability of the discontent in Ireland, the present absence of serious crime, the way in which the demands of the people for justice had hitherto been rejected year after year, and taking into consideration the natural warmth of the feelings of the Irish people, he did trust that by their votes hon. Members on the Liberal Benches would make a strong protest against this unjustifiable aggression upon the rights of the Irish people.

MR. ASHTON DILKE

said, that at the time the Amendment was placed upon the Paper he had intended himself to submit an Amendment to the same effect. The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) also gave Notice of a similar Amendment; but in the interval which had since elapsed the Amendment of the noble Lord had vanished from the Paper, and, consequently, the support which the Amendment received from the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Eriington) and the Irish Liberal Members, from the English Radical Members, and from the Party led by the noble Lord, was now weakened to the extent of one-third. He presumed that the noble Lord had deliberately made up his mind to pursue his career without being associated with any other body of Members in that House, and remaining an Arch Ministerialist even at the expense of Party discipline. There was one point which had not been touched upon by hon. Members who had hitherto spoken upon the Amendment. The Amendment now under consideration was an Amendment which differed in principle from all those before proposed in the Bill. Hitherto, the line he had taken was that of supporting Her Majesty's Government in the rejection of the various Amendments which had been suggested. The view he had taken was this. Having read the Bill a second time, it was not for them to criticize the details of the proposal brought forward by the Government. Having supported the Government and thrown the responsibility upon the Government, they were bound to look upon the measure, more or less, as a whole, and to vote for it accordingly. Therefore, in all the Amendments which interfered with the mode suggested by the Government for carrying the measure into effect, he had supported the Government, because he knew that the Government had sources of information which no private Member could have. Rut on the Question now submitted to the Committee, every hon. Member had as perfect a right of judgment, and was as fully competent to exercise that judgment, as any Member of Her Majesty's Government. It was a case, also, in which the Radical Members of the House were fully entitled to vote against the Government, seeing that it related to the future operation of the Bill, and that they possessed as good data for judging as to the time necessary for restoring law and order in Ireland as Her Majesty's Government themselves. The chief argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary appeared to be this. He appealed to the feeling of the House—and he (Mr. Dilke) did not wonder that the feeling of the House was strong after what had happened during the last month or six weeks—the right hon. Gentleman appealed to the House whether they would consent to have all this trouble over again at the beginning of next Session. That was entirely a matter for the judgment of the supporters of the Amendment, and it was precisely because they did wish to have all this trouble over again next year that the Amendment had been proposed. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, that the discussion which had occurred this year had had one exceedingly valuable result. It showed that no Coercion Bill could be passed in future between a Saturday afternoon and a Monday morning. He contended that if they had only secured that result, the time had not been wasted. It was highly essential, he thought, that in the event of a suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, Parliament should be put in possession of all the facts of the case as soon as the Session commenced, and that it should then rest with Parliament whether the suspension should be continued or not, or whether they should say—"The operation of the Act has been successful; it has accomplished every object for which it was enacted, and it is not necessary to renew it further." It was argued that in other instances it had almost invariably been found necessary to renew the Act: but there was a distinct reason for that. Previous measures had always proceeded upon the policy of coercion, pure and simple, and none of them had been accompanied by the promise of remedial measures. They had now a remedial measure promised and about to be introduced; and he would tell hon. Members opposite that he, for one, would not have been found voting in the Government Lobby if he had not had a distinct pledge that these remedies were coming. Therefore, as they were now going to have remedial measures, previous precedents did not apply, because every precedent that had been quoted was founded on the ordinary, steady-going, hum-drum, eternal round of coercion, year after year. This Bill, however, was founded on an entirely different principle; and yet the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary came down to the House and asked for a longer term than they had ever previously been in the habit of voting for a Coercion Bill. Assuming the right hon. Gentleman to be correct, and that the House would not like to go through all this trouble again next year, he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that it would not be absolutely necessary to do so, because the New Rules would probably be in operation next year, and they would make a considerable difference in the event of a renewal of the Act being found desirable. With regard to the actual time fixed for terminating the operation of the Bill, there was one point which was worth considering. He had always understood that the danger of outrages was greater and more imminent in the winter time of the year—with the long dark nights the danger was supposed to increase; but he did not think the right hon. Gentleman had paid any attention to the fact that the Bill would cease to operate just as the winter season commenced, and that although the people would be under coercion all the summer, yet, when the most dangerous period of the year arrived, the coercion would be removed. Although they were content to place their trust in the Government for the introduction of a good Land Bill, they did not wish to give up to the Government all the powers they now held in their hands. He ventured to think that if Parliament passed the Bill for 18 months, that period of 18 months would be found a very long day. The landlords in Ireland might be ready to say—"This is our last chance, and we must do all we can while this last chance remains." What was the course pursued last year? What happened then ought to be a ground why the Government should not continue this measure in operation longer than was absolutely necessary. Last year, the landlords of England and Ireland were told that they had the remedy in their own hands, and that if they wished discontent and disloyalty to disappear in Ireland they would pass the Compensation for Disturbance Bill. Yet the landlords in "another place" refused to pass it. That measure only touched the pockets of the landlords. But this Bill touched the principles of the Radical Members, and they were asked to put aside those principles and pin their faith in full loyalty and honesty to the Government, and do that which the landlords refused last year. What security had they that the Government would not turn the other cheek to the smiter?—and the smiter in this case appeared to be the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords. A leading Member of the Government had been almost "Boycotted" for expressing, in strong language, no doubt, his feelings in regard to the conduct of the House of Lords in reference to the Compensation for Disturbance Bill last year. He sincerely hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would re-consider the determination he had expressed not to accept this Amendment, but to take the advice of hon. Members who sat below the Gangway on the same side of the House. The course the right hon. Gentleman was about to take was an exceedingly dangerous one, for it amounted practically to giving the Irish landlords a chance of doing what they liked for the next 18 mouths. The House had already been told that what they were carrying out was the "rod and sugarstick policy"—that they were giving a rod with one hand and a sugar stick with the other. He would take another illustration out of the nursery. They were giving a child a dose of medicine, and a very nasty close of medicine too; but they gave the child the sugar first and the dose of medicine afterwards. He did not know whether much reliance was to be placed either upon children or upon landlords, and whether the medicine would even be swallowed at all was a matter for the serious consideration of the Liberal Party.

MR. CHARLES LEWIS

said, the hon. Member for Newcastle-on-Tyne (Mr. A. Dilke) had, no doubt, gratified the extreme Radicals on the other side of the House by telling them that they had been engaged all along in putting aside all their long-cherished principles. The hon. Member said he verily believed, notwithstanding he had been voting for "urgency," and doing all he could to put a rope around the necks of the Irish Members, yet that all the time that had been occupied was well spent, if it had only resulted in demonstrating that a Coercion Bill could not be passed in 24 or 48 hours. The genus Radical appeared to require some "Westminster Confession" of faith, in order that it might be elaborately stated what it was they were to expect from an extreme Radical. For his own part, he (Mr. Lewis) thought that when they heard from the other side of the House that remedial measures were to allay all excitement and discontent, they had better reflect on what had taken place in Ireland within the last 36 hours, and the encouragement which the speech of a prominent Member of Parliament afforded to the hopes of the hon. Member for Newcastle.

MR. M'COAN

rose to Order, and asked if the remarks of the hon. Member for Londonderry were relevant to the Question before the Committee?

THE CHAIRMAN

I do not see anything in the remarks of the hon. Member that is out of Order.

MR. CHARLES LEWIS

said, he had been referring to the matter as an argument for allowing the Bill to remain in operation for 18 months. The promise of remedial measures by the Govern-ment appeared to have provoked further outrages instead of conciliation. If the speech of the hon. Member for Cork City (Mr. Parnell) were correctly reported, the hon. Member had made one of the most outrageous suggestions ever offered to the public. So far from the action of the Government being stayed by any indications of bettor conduct on the part of those who had been the misleaders of the Irish Party, and of the Irish people during the last six months, there was the strongest reason why the hands of the Government should be strengthened, and why they should give the Government every instrument and every power necessary for restoring Ireland to its proper state. The Report contained that morning in the chief newspaper of the Kingdom of the speech of the hon. Member was either true or false. If false, it would be denied; but, if true, the hon. Member suggested that, no matter what remedy Her Majesty's Government gave with unsparing hand, they were determined to repudiate it, and throw it back into the faces of the Government; and they were asked by the hon. Member to accompany their repudiation with conduct that he could only describe as diabolical. Personally, he (Mr. Lewis) had no hesitation in voting for the continuance of the Act for 18 months. No one with the slightest knowledge of the antecedents, the principles, and the character, of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary could possibly suppose that whether the Act was to last for 12 months, eight months, or three months, that he would ever make use of its provisions, designedly or advisedly, in a case that did not imperatively call for their use. Such an idea was opposed to all their knowledge of the principles of the right hon. Gentleman. He (Mr. Lewis) spoke as a political opponent of the right hon. Gentleman; but he knew that his career had always been distinguished for honesty and conscientiousness, and integrity of purpose. If for no other reason, he had no hesitation in giving his vote for the proposition of the Government; but having regard to what had been said and done in Ireland in face of the promises of remedial measures, as they were called, and seeing the way in which those very promises had been treated, the House would be foolish indeed if, under the inspiration of an extreme Radical like the hon. Member for Newcastle-on-Tyne (Mr. Cowen) it invited a repetition of the disgraceful scones which had lately occurred.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

was much surprised to find that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had referred to certain facts in justification of his opposition to the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Errington), because upon the rational construction which those facts bore was a reason why the Act should end on the 31st of March rather than be continued until the 30th of September. The right hon. Gentleman congratulated himself that it would not be possible on any future occasion to pass a Bill to restrain the personal liberty of any portion of Her Majesty's subjects, or to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act in 24 hours. Nevertheless, while congratulating himself upon that fact, the right hon. Gentleman was persisting in passing a measure of coercion which was to last through the whole of next Session without giving Parliament an opportunity of re-considering the matter. "What the right hon. Gentleman now proposed meant in effect—"I will do all in my power, in framing this Bill, to take it out of the power of Parliament to review it next Session. "Now, it appeared to him (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) that the difficulty of renewing the Bill next Session, if it were necessary, would be very small indeed, provided the right hon. Gentleman could point to a state of things which would justify its renewal, as compared with the difficulty of passing a new Act. A very short Act would only be necessary for the renewal, and the right hon. Gentleman need only refer to the continuation of the outrages, with which it was intended to deal, to justify its prolongation. The Government would have no right to apprehend from Parliament any serious objection whatever to the renewal; but in face of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman acknowledged that Parliament, Session after Session, was more indisposed to accept legislation of this kind, he nevertheless proposed to take the present measure for a longer period than usual. That was a confession of extreme weakness and great indecision in regard to the measures which were about to be introduced as remedial legislation. Although the Chair had liberally permitted reference to be made to statements which had been made in other quarters, it was impossible for the House to come to any conclusion as to the probable operation of the promised Bill until they had the measure itself before them. If, however, the Amendment were agreed to, it would still be within the power of Parliament, within a fortnight after the opening of next Session, to decide whether a continuance of coercive legislation was called for or not. There need be no fear that Parliament would allow the Act to expire, or that they would repeal it next Session, if the circumstances of the case justified the continuance of it. Under no circumstances were the Government justified in carrying out a stronger, fiercer, and more severe measure for the coercion of the people of Ireland than was absolutely necessary. All would be interested that when the law was passed it should have a good effect; and he, for one, having done his best to prevent the measure from being passed at all, would do his best, when it came into operation, to make the people as reconciled as the circumstances would permit with the law as it stood; but as a well-wisher of the British Government, and with a heartfelt desire for peace and tranquillity in every part of Her Majesty's dominions, apart from Party politics, he desired to see every effort made by the Government to minimize the effect of the operation of the Act. What harm could possibly be done if the period of the duration of the Bill were reduced to the date proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for Longford (Mr. Errington)? It would be in operation for at least six weeks after the ordinary period for the assembling of Parliament, and that interval would be amply sufficient for any purpose desired by the Government. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary said that outrages had not ceased; but his hon. Friend the Member for Limerick (Mr.O'Shaughnessy) relied upon the fact that the outrages had ceased as an argument why this provision of the Bill should be modified. He (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) took no such ground as that. If there was any reason for supposing that outrages had not ceased, was there any reason for supposing that they would not cease before the expiration of 12 months? The right hon. Gentleman himself confessed that it was his belief and hope that when Parliament met next Session, no person would be found in confinement under the Bill. If that were the right hon. Gentleman's hope, why did he ask Parliament to confer on him powers which would act as a premium upon the inaction of the Government during the whole of next year? The Bill could not be taken apart from the promise of remedial legislation. It was the promise of remedial legislation, and the ruined hopes which the unfulfilment of that promise produced, that gave the first impulse to the outrages which had been so strongly condemned. The outrages would soon cease when remedial measures were passed. Reference had been made to a speech reported in the newspapers that morning, and delivered by the hon. Member for Cork City (Mr. Parnell). He had not read the speech; but the purport of it had been communicated to him. He did not see why hon. Members should be so much astonished at that speech. He had heard speeches much stronger delivered in the immediate vicinity of the county of Westmeath by a Gentleman who was at the time a candidate for the suffrages of the electors of Athlone, who reminded the people that the time was coming when the long moonlight nights were coming on. He had lived to see the Gentleman who delivered that speech become Attorney General, and be afterwards raised to the Bench. He was not surprised in an Assembly like that to hear very strong Radical opinions expressed; and he confessed that he should not be surprised some day to find that the hon. Member who made the speech which had been alluded to a Member of Her Majesty's Government. At the same time, he did not imagine that the hon. Gentleman was working with any such intention. He was simply working honestly, as he believed, for the well-being of the Irish people. He did not think that the hon. Member was right upon all occasions, and when he had differed from him he (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) had had the courage to express that difference; but he was bound to admit that no policy upon the Land Question would have succeeded in Ireland until the hon. Member brought forward his. An old and valued Friend—Mr. Isaac Butt— with great energy, and with an ability which commended itself to the good feeling of the House of Commons, had previously brought forward a policy on the Land Question, and they all knew with what want of success. He trusted that upon the present occasion the Government would not commit the mistake of rejecting the Amendment, and that they would bear in mind the fact that it came from their own side of the House. It was a very moderate Amendment, and was supported not only by men of moderate views, but by a sincere Radical such as the hon. Member for Newcastle-on-Tyne (Mr. Ashton Dilke).

MR. SERJEANT SIMON

was obliged to express his disappointment at the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. The objection of the Chief Secretary to continuing the Bill in force for a shorter period than 18 months amounted to this— that it would be a matter of great inconvenience to the House that some weeks of its time should be spent in discussion upon the continuance of the measure next Session; and therefore he thought it necessary that the Bill should be passed now for a period of 18 months. With all respect to the right hon. Gentleman, he regretted to say that he did not consider that a sufficient reason to induce the Committee to pass a measure to suspend the liberties of a considerable portion of Her Majesty's subjects for the longer period. In giving his support to Her Majesty's Government in introducing this measure, he had done so with the greatest reluctance, and only under the deep conviction that it was necessary. He had supported the Government, also, because of the pledge given early in the Session, that immediately after this measure passed into law a remedial measure would be introduced, for the purpose of redressing those grievances and evils which had driven the people of Ireland to desperation, and had, unfortunately, rendered this measure necessary. He reminded hon. Members that the Prime Minister, at an early stage of his Government, had promised to introduce a Land Bill, and upon that understanding only, he and others on that side of the House had given support to the Government in the introduction of this measure. He did not believe in coercive legislation as a means of curing disaffection. He looked rather to remedial measures which would remove the the causes of that disaffection. When, however, a state of things arose in Ire- land by which the ordinary course of law was suspended, lie felt it his duty to sustain the authority of the Crown by enabling the Government to preserve law and order by some other means. The measure being necessary, having pledged himself to the principles of the Government, and having faith in the men who composed it, he had still thought, if it were possible by any moans to mitigate the severity of the Bill, it was their bounden duty to do so. So far as the inconvenience attendant upon the continuance of the measure next Session was concerned, he would rather that inconvenience should exceed the expectation of the right hon. Gentleman, than that the freedom of the people of Ireland should be suspended for the long period mentioned in the Bill. He had always expected that some reason would be given why the Government had proposed this period; hut no such reason had been forthcoming. Her Majesty's Government should, in his opinion, bring forward the measure again next Session for discussion; and if it were found that any attempt was being made to trifle with the patience of the House by needlessly prolonging discussion, the House would not be likely patiently to submit to it. Another reason why he thought the period named in the Bill should be shortened was, that the hands of the Government would be weakened by placing this power in the Executive for the period proposed. It had been said that a period of 12 months would not be sufficient for the restoration of law and order in Ireland; but surely, he contended, with a just and proper remedial measure, order would be restored in that time. But if that should fail, the Government would have a strong case when they came to the House to ask for an extension of the Bill. When, under the stern necessities of the situation in Ireland, the liberties of the people were taken away, he held that the Government ought, Session by Session, to come to Parliament if they considered the period of suspension should be extended, rather than prolong the operation of the Bill for a longer period than might be necessary. For these reasons he could not agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and should support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Longford County.

MR. MORGAN LLOYD

could not agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down, that the Government should, if necessary, come to the House once a year to ask for another measure of this kind for Ireland; for supposing the necessity should arise next year, or the year after, three or four weeks of every Session would be taken up with the question of a Bill for the protection of life and property. He thought if the Government were right in bringing in this Bill at all, they were right in asking that it should remain in force for a year and a-half. The question was, whether that House and the law of the country were to protect the people of Ireland and govern them, or whether Ireland was to be governed by a small section of agitators in that country; and therefore he regarded the measure as one for the benefit of the people of Ireland quite as much as it was for the benefit of England. Therefore, he thought that if the Government were to be trusted at all in this matter, they ought to be trusted entirely, when they said it was necessary, in order to maintain security to life and property in Ireland, first that the Bill should be passed, and then that it should continue in operation for 18 and not for 12 months. The hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury had also said that the hands of the Government would be weakened if they took powers to preserve law and order in Ireland for the former period. But he (Mr. Morgan Lloyd) urged that the Government knew best whether that would weaken or strengthen their hands; and he repeated they must trust them with regard to the period during which the Act should continue in force as well as the necessity for the Bill. Again, the hon. and learned Member had argued that 12 months would be sufficient, seeing that the Land Bill to be introduced by Her Majesty's Government would be in operation before the end of that period. But even if that Bill could be passed in July or August this year, it must take some time before the people of Ireland would understand its provisions; and it could not, therefore, have the effect expected from it as soon as the hon. and learned Member supposed. For these reasons he should certainly support the Bill as it stood.

MR. DALY

said, they were now face to face with the Government opposition to the Amendment, and Irish Members had to regret the fact that not only was a Bill most stringent in its provisions being imposed, but that its operation was to be continued for a much longer period than was necessary. He felt they bad a right to complain of the way in which this Amendment had been met by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who had deliberately ignored the fact that all previous measures of coercion for Ireland had been enacted from Session to Session. Anything which came from the right hon. Gentleman was of great importance, considering his position in the Ministry; and he did not think it was a fair way of meeting the proposal of the hon. Member for Longford to ignore the fact that all these measures of coercion had extended only from one Session to another. One of the reasons of the right hon. Gentleman for not agreeing to the Amendment was that there would be no certainty that 12 months hence the measure would be unnecessary. But the Committee would remember that he had alluded to the fact that the very threat of introducing it had induced a great number of persons to leave the country. Again, why should the right hon. Gentleman despair of having this measure re-enacted on the 31st of March next? He did not wish to say anything severe; but was obliged to remark that it had been introduced altogether upon false pretences. The right hon. Gentleman had based the Bill, at its first introduction, upon the amount of agrarian crime alleged to exist in Ireland; but subsequently he asked hon. Members to believe that he was in possession of certain information of danger to the State that rendered it necessary. The right hon. Gentleman made so many statements with regard to the Bill that he forgot and contradicted some of them. He had also obtained the assent of the House to this terrible measure of coercion, by inducing hon. Members to believe that it would be accompanied by a remedial measure. But was the right hon. Gentleman quite sure that a remedial measure would be passed, or was he afraid that if it did not pass he would not be able to depend on his majority, when the 31st of March arrived, to sanction another Bill? Or was it that the Government feared that if they had to appeal to the country they might not then be sitting on the Ministerial Benches? For his part, he believed that if the Government were unable to pass their remedial measure through "another place" the majority which now followed them into the Lobby would steadily dwindle down. He recalled the words of the right hon. Gentleman, because he did not think that throughout the whole of the debate which had occurred anyone had made more contradictory statements; and he complained greatly of the manner in which English people had been influenced by those statements during the progress of the measure. The right hon. Gentleman stated that the main object of the Bill was to contend with agrarian outrage. What, then, was the meaning of the Government making so great a display of military force in Ireland, where in almost every place a small army was to be seen which looked just as if they were going to war? The object of that was to impress upon the English people that there were grounds for believing the mysterious information given to the House when the Bill was proposed. If it were true that the motive for introducing a Coercion Bill was agrarian, all that parade of warlike force would be unnecessary. He believed that a great deal of the feeling evoked in that House had been got up by the Government by their operations outside, and thought that, owing to those tactics, many lovers of fair play had been influenced to believe that they were, so to speak, on the brink of a volcano. With regard to the statements of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, he would pledge himself to produce in three hours five or six statements made by him that had been contradicted by as many others.

MR. RYLANDS

could not agree with the reasons given by the right hon. Gentleman for rejecting the Amendment. He had supported Her Majesty's Government on almost all the divisions taken upon the Bill; but, now that the period of its duration had been reached, he found it utterly impossible to vote for the Bill in its present form. He could not but remember that the Chief Secretary closed one of his speeches on the Bill by a peroration, in which he said that the Government looked to remedial measures far more than to the Coercion Bill to restore law and order in Ireland. But if the Government passed important remedial measures, then he thought the Committee had a right to suppose there would be no necessity for the prolongation of the powers of the Bill. It might be, perhaps, that in consequence of difficulties they would be unable to do so; but, if so, he said the House ought to keep in its hands the power of reviewing the provisions of the Bill. An hon. Friend of his, in alluding to a speech made the other day, had taken the opportunity of saying that so long as there were agitators inflaming the passions of the people it was no use to contemplate remedial legislation. He (Mr. Rylands) supposed that the power of agitators in Ireland rested on the discontent of the people, caused by unjust legislation in past times, and that remedial measures were the only means of getting rid of them. And he had always been afraid that if it were possible to prevent the expression of public opinion in Ireland that the passing of remedial measures would be rendered more difficult. He felt sure that remedial legislation would be the best way of creating peace and contentment in Ireland, and was unwilling to lend powers to the Government to extend for so long a period as 18 months an Act interfering with the Constitutional rights of the people, when he believed that the measure that was about to be introduced would prove to be effective in restoring order in Ireland. For those reasons he should vote for the Amendment. At the same time, he thought it a matter of disappointment that Her Majesty's Government had not seen their way to agree to it, and that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had entirely failed in giving any sufficient reason for the course they had adopted.

MR. LEAMY

remarked that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had given as one of the reasons why he could not consent to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Longford County (Mr. Errington) the length of the discussion which had already taken place on this Bill. He had said that he was quite aware that a Coercion Bill could not be passed in a day, and that if next Session the Government were to come to Parliament for another Bill, three weeks or a month would be consumed in discussing it. But was it for a Liberal Government to tell the Com- mittee that three weeks was too much for the discussion of a Bill of such a character as the measure before the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman wanted the Bill to last for a year and a-half, although he said at this time twelve months he believed there would be very few people in gaol. Moreover, he said he knew the people who committed the outrages, and that the more threat of introducing this Bill was producing the good effect of driving them away. The question was, did the right hon. Gentleman mean to arrest any persons or not? If he did, the Committee must not forget the fact that all the arrests under the Act would cease during the next few months. Perhaps there was another reason why he had not accepted the Amendment. In the face of the statement that he believed the outrages in Ireland wore due to the evil of the land system, it was clear that the right hon. Gentleman trusted to coercion alone, and had no belief in the remedial legislation of the Government.

MR. GRAY

said, it was evident that, in the opinion of the Committee, it was tolerably clear that this discussion had lasted long enough. That being the case, he did not intend to delay the Committee with any remarks of his. He was glad, however, to see the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain) in his place, and he was sure he would say a few words on the subject. Their time was so very limited, it would enable them to got on with the other Amendments; and he therefore trusted the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to give his views on the subject.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, he had still some hope in the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. He had observed, at the commencement of the Committee stage on this Bill, that he was disinclined to accept any Amendments. Since then, however, he had accepted one or two; and he believed that, with a fair exercise of his own judgment, he would be ready to agree to the Amendment before the Committee, which was one of great importance. In every previous case in which the Habeas Corpus Act had been suspended, the suspension was sanctioned for as short a period as possible, and not beyond three weeks after the Session of Parliament succeeding the Session in which the Bill had been introduced. It was well-known that in 1866–7 Ireland was in a state of almost open rebellion, there being then a strong ease for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. In February of that year, a Bill was brought in to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act, which was to continue to the 1st of September; and on the 10th of August it was extended until the expiration of 21 days after the commencement of the next Session of Parliament. Sir George Grey, in bringing in the Bill, said— We propose to limit the operation of the Bill to six months, ending on the 1st of September, a period which we hope will be sufficient to accomplish the object in view; and Parliament will have an opportunity before it separates to consider whether it is necessary—which, I trust, it will not be—to leave that power in the hands of the Government for a longer period."— [3 Hansard, clxxxi. 681.] That was to say, that Parliament thought it might happen that the necessity for the Act would cease, and therefore limited the operation of the Bill to six months. In the course of the year the Ministry changed, and a Conservative Government came into office, in 1867 a Continuation Bill being brought in to extend the Bill, which lapsed on the 21st day of the Sitting of Parliament. On that occasion Lord Naas, who was subsequently Lord Mayo, said the Government did not demand this power for a longer time than necessary, and, in order to give Parliament an opportunity of deciding for what period the Act was necessary, they did not propose that it should be continued for a longer period than three months, which would give Parliament an opportunity of again deciding what course should be taken if the Government thought it necessary to ask for a further continuance of the powers. In reply to this, Sir George Grey agreed on the importance of limiting the period to three months; and the Bill was continued for that time. At the end of the time it was deemed necessary to continue the Bill. [Mr. WARTON: Hear, hear!] His hon. and learned Friend said "Hear, hear;" that was exactly his point, and it was deemed necessary to continue the Bill from three months to three months. Again, in the House of Lords, Lord Derby said the Government felt it their imperative duty to propose the continuance of the Act for the shortest possible time, during which Parliament would be able to judge whether it would be necessary to continue it for a further period. The point was that the Bill was continued from three months to three months; and he was showing the views of eminent men upon the subject when a previous proposal was made to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act, and when Ireland was in a state of almost open rebellion, He asked the right hon. Gentleman to tell the Committee to what he objected in the proposal to continue the Bill to the commencement of next Session. As to its being inconvenient to do this, as the right, hon. Gentleman had stated, it might be convenient to pass the Mutiny Bill, or the Estimates for two Sessions; but the House thought one year was a sufficiently long period for which they should legislate on these matters. The Chief Secretary for Ireland brought in the Bill with the object of being successful. Those ruffians of whom they had heard so much were now disappearing. The right hon. Gentleman said the greater part of them had fled before the Bill came into operation. But were the Committee to understand that 12 months hence those village ruffians would be again at work, and that it would be necessary then to extend the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. If that were so, he could come to the House of Commons with another Bill, which would, no doubt, find some Members to oppose it; and he (Mr. Labouchere) would regret to see the time when the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act was so easy that any Minister could come down and pass it in less than three weeks. The right hon. Gentleman knocked the bottom out of his own argument when he said that if he asked Parliament next Session for a Continuation Bill it would take some time to pass it. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to look the matter fairly in the face; as he said in the commencement, let him exercise his own judgment. The right hon. Gentleman had been a Liberal for a long time, and he hoped he had not wandered away from the paths of Liberalism. They recognized the right hon. Gentleman as one of their Leaders. They had the highest personal opinion of him, and he hoped that he would now listen to their appeal from that side of the House to limit the operation of the Bill.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

thought it would be monstrous on the part of Irish Members if they allowed so important an Amendment as that proposed by the hon. Member for Longford to pass without the fullest discussion; and he believed the right hon. Gentleman, in refusing to accept it, had done perhaps the most foolish act he had committed in the passage of the Bill. The refusal of the Chief Secretary meant that he wanted to abrogate, not only the rights of the Irish people, but the rights of the English Parliament, because he proposed to take away from that House the power of revising his decision for two Sessions. The right hon. Gentleman, no doubt, thought it would be rather difficult to pass another Coercion Bill through the House; and he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) was inclined to believe that this was the last of its kind. He thought Irish Members might congratulate themselves, although they had not prevented the passing of this Act, upon the fact that they had rendered future Coercion Bills impossible. The hon. Member who had just spoken had clearly pointed out that the action of the right hon. Gentleman was contrary to all precedents on the subject, sot not only by Liberal, but also by Conservative statesmen. Even in the worst days of Conservative re-action, no Minister had had the audacity to stand up in that House and propose that Parliament should for two Sessions abrogate its right of revising coercive legislation. He would renew the appeal of his hon. Friend the Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray) to the President of the Board of Trade, that he would give the Committee the satisfaction of hearing his opinion upon this important Amendment. No doubt, the right hon. Gentleman would especially enlighten them with regard to it; because, while he might be ready to swallow a measure objectionable to him, he would naturally desire to make it as little nauseous as possible. The Chief Secretary, in refusing to assent to the Amendment, was supporting the strictures pronounced upon the Bill by its most violent opponents. If the right hon. Gentleman believed in the remedial measures of the Government, he must think that it would be unnecessary next year to continue this measure; if not, they were already condemned out of his own mouth. For these reasons he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see the necessity of yielding to the appeals that had been publicly made to him from that side of the House, and that had been privately made, he had no doubt, by the President of the Board of Trade.

MR. SEXTON

complained that the Government had given no reply to the speech of the senior Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). That was a very important speech, fortified by numerous Constitutional precedents, entitled to the highest respect from both sides of the House. The hon. Gentleman had plainly shown that oven in very recent times, with reference to Bills of this nature, and at periods when Ireland was in a more dangerous condition than at present, it had been the invariable practice of Ministers of the Crown to limit the operation of measures of this description to periods of the shortest duration. The most eminent statesmen had laid it down that these Bills should be so limited that the Representatives of the people should have an opportunity from time to time of passing them in review. He was puzzled to account for the indisposition of the Government to adopt that principle on the present occasion in a measure dealing with the liberties of the people. It was of the highest importance that an undue discretion should not be given to the Ministers of the Crown or the Executive; but, on the contrary, at the earliest possible period the Representatives of the people should be enabled to criticize for themselves the changed condition of affairs, and consider how far the improved condition of the country might have rendered necessary the continuation of coercive measures. Notwithstanding the series of shocks which they had received in recent weeks, he confessed he was somewhat shocked at the reason given by the right hon. Gentleman for refusing the Amendment proposed in so meek a manner by the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Errington), one of the followers of the Government. He admitted in terms that the period ending in March next year would be sufficiently long for the duration of the measure if he could count upon the possibility of renewing the Coercion Bill then in a Sitting or two. It was because this possibility had disappeared for ever that the right hon. Gentleman was unwilling to submit to any Constitutional ordeal in connection with the renewal of this Bill. But he desired to point out that the instances cited by the hon. Member for Northampton made it abundantly clear that former Ministers of the Crown did not recognize that as a reason; but they recognized the principle that the Representatives of the people should be enabled as often as possible to criticize Bills of that hind. He objected to the position of a right hon. Gentleman allied not only with Liberalism, but with Radicalism, who stood up and asked for a Bill for an unnecessary period, because if he were to limit it to the necessary period he would not be able afterwards to renew it without discussion. The hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) had pointed out that grave outrages had practically ceased in Ireland. The statement was contradicted by the right hon. Gentleman in a brusque tone; but the fact remained that grave outrages had ceased in Ireland, and that had been made abundantly clear by the Papers laid upon the Table in January. Now, if the Government had given a Return for the first fortnight in February, it would have been shown clearly that there was no sufficient reason for the passing of the Bill. With regard to the arrests and convictions, it had been shown in the course of the debates upon the Bill that the Irish juries had performed their duties in these trying times as well as English juries did under ordinary circumstances. He thought the Government should give some reply to the hon. Member for Northampton, and vindicate the position taken up by the Chief Secretary—namety, that this Coercion Bill must be enacted for a period of 18 months, because they were unwilling to meet the Representatives of the people next year, and because they did not think the renewal of the measure could be effected in the twinkling of an eye.

Question put.

The Committee divided: —Ayes 211; Noes G8: Majority 113.—(Div. List, No. 63.)

MR. HEALY

rose to address the Committee.

THE CHAIRMAN

Does the hon. Member rise to move the Amendment which stands in the name of Mr. Parnell?

MR. HEALY

said, he did. He begged to move, in page 2, line 29, to leave out "two," and insert "one." He had not much hope that that Amendment would be carried, and, unfortunately, a division had been taken already upon the subject of the limits of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had used an argument in which he said that the reason for the Government not consenting to any alteration of the time proposed for the Bill was because of the Parliamentary exigencies of the case; and that, he considered, was sufficient reason why the Bill should run for 18 months. He wished to say, with regard to that, that it was a complete surrender of the entire case of the Government. It amounted to this—that the liberties of the people of his country were to be made subject to Parliamentary exigencies. If that was the principle upon which the Government proceeded, he thought it bore out the contention he and his Friends had so unavailingly repeated—namely, that the whole position which the Irish Party had taken up in dealing with legislation for that country in that House was the right one. They had contended that that House was not fit to deal with legislation for Ireland; and yet the Government wore not prepared to face the bare possibility of that Bill being ended next Session, and had, therefore, resolved to sacrifice the liberties of the country. There was one other matter to which he wished to refer. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had stated at an earlier period of that debate that he had great hopes as to the effect of remedial legislation; but in resisting the Amendment to reduce the lengthened period of the operation of that Bill, the right hon. Gentleman admitted that the Act which the Government were about to bring in was practically of no value as a remedial one. He presumed that the advantage of a remedial measure lay in what the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had once said was "a great plaster to a great sore." It would be nothing of the kind; and the Government practically admitted that it was one in which they could not place a hope that the Irish would be satisfied. He would only say further that the arguments of the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Errington) had not been answered by the Government. The Government had certainly made an answer; but had not answered sufficiently well, nor had they replied to the arguments of the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. W. Holms), who had quoted the cases of former Acts, and who stated that no Government had asked for a Bill to be extended for the same period as the Government now asked for that one. If the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary were a bena fide one, let him accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) that this Bill should be proceeded with as a continuous Bill at a subsequent date. They would see what action the right hon. Gentleman would take when that Amendment came on for discussion. On the whole, the Government had very little ground to stand upon; and he hoped that they would accept the Amendment which he then bogged to move.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 29, to leave out the words "one thousand eight hundred and eighty-two," and insert the words "one thousand eight hundred and eighty-one,"—(Mr. Healy.) —instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words 'one thousand eight hundred and eighty-two' stand part of the Clause."

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, he did not intend to support the Amendment upon its merits; but he understood that the subsequent Amendment which stood in his name, upon which he had laid great store, could not be put if that one were carried. Therefore, it was necessary for him to support the present one. He did not wish to limit the duration of any Bill of that kind; but, on the contrary, he had a particular objection to its being a temporary measure. He would much rather have proposed a more moderate Bill, and one which should be more permanent in its character; but that being a strong Bill, he would accept it for the period for which it might be considered necessary. If he were sure that, in reality, the Government had the power, as they certainly had the will, to pass a good, strong Land Bill, it would be another matter; but he believed that he had grounds for saying that there was grave reason to fear that such a Bill would not become the law of the land during the present Session of Parliament. It was probable that there was a section of that side of the House who would earnestly resist a Bill of that kind, as must be remembered regarding a somewhat similar measure last year. He had the utmost confidence in the Government bringing in a good Bill; but they must bear in mind that, oven if it passed that House, in "another place" it might be rejected. In that case, the Government were not in a position to enforce the passing of it, by abolishing the House of Lords, unless they appealed to the country, which would cause a great deal of delay. There was a time when, whatever the feeling of the Whig Party in that House was, the Irish landlords wore inclined to meet the proposals of the Government in a fair spirit; but the Irish landlords at the present time—

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is not keeping strictly to the Amendment, which is whether the Bill should terminate or not in September, 1881.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, that if they had not an assurance that another Bill would pass Parliament, he would rather limit this one to 1881. It would be useless to continue it if nothing was to follow. The action of the Irish landlords lately put him in mind of an old and popular proverb— When the devil was sick, the devil a saint would he; But when the devil got well, the devil a saint was he. Now that the Coercion Bill was to be passed they were eager to get their rents.

THE CHAIRMAN

I have already told the hon. Member that he is travelling beyond the Amendment.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, that, under those circumstances, he would have very little more to say. If that Bill were to extend to 1882, there were strong reasons why other measures should immediately follow it. He should veto in favour of the Amendment, because, by that time, they would see whether or no another Bill was passed.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

I really cannot follow the argument of my hon. Friend in regard to what he said as to the Land Bill. The hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) doubted our will to bring forward that Bill. Now my hon. Friend doubts our power to carry it. For myself, I am tolerably confident about both our will and our power. What we have to consider is what is a necessary limit for a Bill whose object is to protect persons and property. If it were necessary to pass such a Bill at all, we could hardly make a compromise as to its duration. We cannot say that we will protect life and property up to a certain point, and leave it unprotected beyond that. I hope that we shall not go to a division upon the Amendment— it really was included in the last one. The question then before the Committee was whether the time should be 12 or 18 months, and the Committee decided in favour of 18 months. The hon. Member now proposes that the limit should be six. Another argument lies in this. I have very great hopes that at this time next year the Bill will be practically a dead letter. I cannot say certainly; but we ought to be able to do without it in the following September. It must be remembered that we have already spent some six or seven weeks upon the Bill this year; and, if the Amendment be carried, we shall have to spend another month at the end of the Session in renewing it. My hon. Friend cannot seriously contemplate that, surely. There is a curious forgetfulness this evening in talking of precedents. The precedent of the Westmeath Act has been referred to. That Act was originally brought forward for two years, and then renewed for another two. I think that the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) said that that Act did not contain a suspension of the Habeas Corpus. It did so just as much as this one. This Bill is, so far as regards the Habeas Corpus, precisely the same. I am surprised that hon. Members should have quoted this and other precedents, because, if they look back to the different suspensions of the Habeas Corpus, they will find that, generally speaking, the Bills have run much longer than the time we are now asking for.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, that he had risen after the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) in order to remind the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, before he addressed the Committee, of some words used by him, not long ago, the effect of which was that he knew well that the present state of things could not exist but for the existence of the land system. He had just told them that he was perfectly confident, before the present Session was over, that system would be altered. If that be so, that which was now the cause and source of the disturbance would be put an end to and removed by the remedial measures. If those causes should disappear before the end of the present Session, what excuse could there be for the proposal to extend coercive legislation to September of next year? If the right hon. Gentleman was sincere in what he stated, why did he ask for such an extension of the Bill as that? The right hon. Gentleman also said that the Bill was to protect life and property in Ireland; but he forgot altogether the manner of that protection. It really was a Bill to suspend all law in Ireland. There would be no law in that country except the arbitrary will of the Lord Lieutenant. There would be no liberty of the person. Men and women at any time might be arrested on suspicion of having committed crime, or of having aroused the suspicion of the authorities at Dublin Castle and their spies. There would be no liberty of speech, for no speaker could tell what interpretation would be placed upon his words by some irresponsible person. The right hon. Gentleman had treated the matter as if that Bill were an ordinary measure; but it was a complete suspension of everything like Constitutional rights. The argument of the right hon. Gentleman, he thought, was quite untenable.

MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY

said, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had referred to the precedent of the Westmeath Act. He did not think that that Act did extend for a longer time than that which was proposed for this one. He wished to point out that there was a great distinction between that Act and the present one. In the first place, the Westmeath Act was passed in regard to one county, and some small portions of two others, he believed. The House consented to have the rights of the people suspended there, but they took into their deliberation the actual state of those counties; and the result of that was that the Act was passed after a careful consideration of those disturbances. The Bill now proposed was totally different in principle. Some portions of the country were said to be in a disturbed condition, and others were not oven alleged to be disturbed. That Bill did not propose to deal with any particular part. It lay practically with one man to say what parts were disturbed, and what parts wore not. That, he thought, made a great distinction between the two Bills. Another difference was one which he trusted the House would not fail to take notice of. The Westmeath Act was passed because murders were rife there; offences against the person and property were notoriously rife; outrage in its worst form was going on. No such allegation had been made with regard to the whole of Ireland now. If the allegation had been made with regard to particular districts, the state of things was admittedly very much mitigated. The outrages had, in fact, almost ceased. Under the circumstances, he did not think the Westmeath Act was any precedent whatever for the present one.

MR. O'SULLIVAN

wished to support the Amendment of his hon. Friend. He thought that it was quite long enough, for the Bill to run to September next. There was already no use for the Bill for the last three months. There was scarcely any crime, or, at any rate, not more than there was in the same area in England. There was absolutely no difference between the amounts of crime in the two countries during that period. Ireland had never been so free as she was now from crime, notwithstanding that they were pressing on that Bill with such haste, and which was to extend over a period of two years. It was true that many crimes had been committed, but nothing serious had occurred in any part of Ireland; and yet they were asked to pass a special Bill which was to suspend the liberties of the people all over the country. That Bill was based upon the Returns, which were incorrect, given by the police in November and December. The actual state of crime was not different from that in England or in Scotland. If they wished to put a stop to the crimes which were sometimes committed, let them give to the people a Land Bill which would settle the question for ever. Coercion was a complete failure, and the Government had done nothing as yet to pacify the people. The Irish Members were, he was sure, only doing their duty in opposing the Bill in every possible way.

MR. CALLAN

wished to make a remark with regard to the observation of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, that the state of things during the Westmeath Act was the same as under this one. If the right hon. Gentleman maintained that argument he must have a misapprehension of what the principle was. He found that that Bill was practically a suspension of the Habeas Corpus for Ireland. The Westmeath Act, on the contrary, was the suspension of the Habeas Corpus in a particular district; and, further, it said— Anyone being reasonably suspected of being a member of the Ribbon Society who shall reside or sojourn in any place which shall be in-eluded in the proscribed district. It was a suspension of the Habeas Corpus for Ribbonism in Westmeath only, and a portion of the two counties near. The present Bill was for the whole of Ireland, and any person might be suspected and arrested for almost any offence whatever. It would have been better if the right hon. Gentleman had taken the trouble to compare the two Bills before he came forward and told hon. Members that they were identical. There was no excuse for the right hon. Gentleman having made such an inaccurate statement.

MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY

saw no logical result in the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, unless that Bill was to be passed for perpetuity. Even if the Land Bill be passed—and the right hon. Gentleman said that they had both the power and the will to pass it—still, he said, there would be a necessity for keeping on this Bill for a time. That necessity could not possibly exist. The disturbances could not exist, because their causes would have been removed. The argument of the right hon. Gentleman was, in fact, in favour of a permanent Bill. They were, he was afraid, establishing a grave precedent, along with others, just at the present time. The question was one of the utmost importance, for everyone who knew the first principle of the Liberal creed must hope that the most stringent limitations would be placed upon a Bill which gave power to the Government to suspend the Habeas Corpus. The greater the limit placed upon the Bill, the better for both Parliament and the country, and for the traditions of Liberalism. In the present instance the Government were going to maintain coercion without a precedent. The hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell) had shown al- ready that that Bill bore no resemblance whatever to the Westmeath Act, which was a strictly local measure. The present Bill was to apply not only to ordinary offences, but even constructive and imaginary offences, and was to extend the scope of the powers of the authorities to an extent never known in our Constitution before, and, further, for a time which he contended was utterly unnecessary. Three or six months was quite enough for that Act to run, and then the Government could come and apply for a renewal if necessary. He should oppose an extension for more than three or six months with all the strength that he could bring to bear. One of the most serious dangers which they had before them was that, night after night, they were departing from old principles and establishing new precedents.

MR. DAWSON

agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for the County of Limerick (Mr. O'Sullivan) that it was their duty to try and mitigate that measure as much as possible before it was passed. They really had given their constituents a promise that, until the final passage of that Bill through the House, they would oppose it in every particular, and attempt to mitigate its terms. He wished to say that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, and the Prime Minister, had laid great stress on the fact that the approach of a Coercion Bill had done its work, and that crime was receding before it. He should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what would be the case if crime were increasing instead of diminishing? Would not that be a strong argument in favour of the views of the Government instead of the present state of circumstances? He had been somewhat struck by a remark made in reference to the Westmeath Act. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright) stated in a former debate that he had never voted for a Coercion Bill, and the only reason why he had not voted against such a measure was that it was a measure brought in for the mitigation of a political and social evil. If it had been simply a measure introduced for any other purpose it would have received the right hon. Gentleman's most strenuous opposition. Now, he (Mr. Dawson) had not seen any document laid on the Table to convince the House that there was a political cause that required this strong remedy; and, therefore, upon that ground the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster ought to vote with those who opposed it, seeing that no political danger existed in Ireland which required so stringent a remedy. He had endeavoured to test the opinion of the people of England generally upon the question, and he thought they had arrived at the conclusion that the reasons for the Bill were very slight indeed. It was disingenuous for hon. Members opposite always to take refuge in the assumption —a pure assumption, which they did not support with a pretence of argument— that the bill of indictment was of considerable magnitude, and that the Government had succeeded in making out a very strong case. He denied that they had done so. The error had even crept in of assuming that crime was exceptionally great in the months of October, November, and December.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member must confine himself strictly to the Amendment, which does not relate to the general state of crime in Ireland, but is simply whether the Act should end in the month of September, 1881. He is irregular in entering into general arguments for or against the Bill.

MR. DAWSON

would bow to the ruling of the Chair, He had only intended to show that crime in the months of October, November, and December was not exceptionally great; and that the Bill had been recommended to the House upon statements and arguments that were entirely fallacious. If the Government could satisfactorily prove that crime was advancing in Ireland, and that outrages were increasing, the House would readily agree with them that a full measure, a long measure, and a severe measure of coercive repression was necessary. But it was a strange proceeding to attempt to justify legislation of this character upon a state of comparative peace and quiet, with rapidly decreasing crime. He hoped the attempt to rivet this measure upon Ireland for many months, when calm, and peace, and quiet were prevailing, would be effectually resisted by the Committee.

MR. T. D. SULLIVAN

wished to support the Amendment, because he thought that the shorter the period could be made within which the Bill was to operate the better it would be. He would prefer that the Bill should last for 12 months rather than 18, for six months rather than 12, and for one mouth rather than six. In point of fact, he believed that no necessity existed for coercion at all.

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

MR. T. D. SULLIVAN

resumed. He had been remarking when the count took place, that the shorter the duration given to the Act the better it would be, and he was about to comment upon the fact that all the foundation and necessity for the Bill had absolutely died out. There was no exceptional crime in Ireland at the present time. That was fully admitted. They were told that that was on account of the impending of this Coercion Bill, and because it was known in Ireland that a Coercion Bill would shortly be passed into law. Now, that was not his view of the case. He had always contended that the little outbreak of turbulence that took place in Ireland some months ago was a tiling that would pass away of itself—that it was a state of things not destined to last. He had always stated in that House, and so had several other Irish Members who knew something of the condition and character of the Irish people, that it was only a temporary outbreak, which was destined rapidly to pass away, and that the country would very shortly assume its normal condition. He believed that that was the true explanation of the orderly and peaceable condition of the country at the present moment; and he contended that no argument in favour of this cruel, severe, and tyrannical measure could be drawn from the present quietude of the Irish people. Another fact he wished to call attention to was this. The Bill was an assumption that the ordinary law was insufficient to put down the disturbances which had taken place, and to cope with the turbulence of the people. Now, only quite recently they had seen very extraordinary things done under the ordinary law of the land. The country had been absolutely terrorized before the Coercion Bill could be brought into force at all. Arrests were being made, people were being dragged from their homes on the most frivolous pretences; they were being put in gaol, and bail was refused to them. Quite recently, in one of the midland counties of Ireland, 50 or 60 persons were arrested on an alleged charge of riotous proceedings, and were dragged to gaol. Some of these men had to sleep on the bare floor.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member must be aware that he is not speaking to the Amendment, which is simply that the Act shall end in September, 1881.

MR. T. D. SULLIVAN

said, he had intended to direct his remarks towards the duration of the Bill. He was about to show that the shorter period was sufficient for its operation, and that if the period was shorter still, that that shorter period would be sufficient. He was proceeding to show that without the Bill at all the ordinary law was terrorizing the country at the present moment. He wished to know why, if these things could be done now, they were not done months ago; and why the Government had allowed themselves, as it were, to create a case for coercion? Why was not some measure of repression adopted some months ago, such as was being now carried out in Ireland? He was anxious to show that the duration of the Bill should be as short as possible, because under its provisions the people of Ireland were liable to be treated with severe and cruel tyranny. Surely 12 months, with the country in its present quiet and orderly state, ought to be enough for the Government; or even six months, without demanding from Parliament so long a period for the existence of the measure as 18 months. He thought he was quite in Order and speaking to the purpose when he sought to bring to the minds of the Committee the cruelties that would be inflicted under the Bill. It would facilitate evictions in Ireland. It would cause the break up of Irish families. It would drive many young men into exile; many into the poorhouse; many to bankruptcy; and it would cause all the misery which a harsh and tyrannical measure was calculated to bring about. Talking about driving the young men of Ireland into exile reminded him of an observation that was frequently made. It was said that the guilty parties were rapidly clearing 'out of the country, through terror of the effects of this measure of coercion. He was not prepared to take as an absolute fact, and as a perfectly true representation of the existing state of things, every statement that was made in the course of these discussions from the Treasury Bench. He was not at all sure that it was not a great exaggeration of the facts to say that there was a considerable exodus going on now; but even if it were so, he should be prepared to deny that the young men who were leaving the country had been guilty of excesses. If any of these young men were leaving the country it was because—

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is going into details upon matters which are not included in the Amendment now before the Committee. That Amendment simply raises the question whether the Bill shall last until September, 1882, or whether that period is an excessive one.

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

MR. T. D. SULLIVAN

continued his speech. If his remarks were out of Order he would at once desist; but he wished the Committee clearly to understand what his views upon the matter were. He thought that if he could show the hardships that were likely to arise from the operation of the measure, it would be a good argument why the Act should only last until September, 1881, rather than until September, 1882. He thought that was a very fair argument; but if the Chair was of opinion that that view was out of Order he would immediately desist. His sole argument was that the Bill had better be made to terminate in September, 1881, rather than in September, 1882, because its operation would bring about great hardships, and great cruelties, and great injustice, to the people of Ireland. He would not, however, dwell further upon the point. He hoped that he would not be considered out of Order if he were to allude now to a matter which had been referred to by several hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House. Allusion had been made to the forthcoming Land Bill, and the chances which that Bill would have of being passed in "another place." It was contended that by giving this Coercion Act the long stretch it was proposed to give might act as an encouragement to that "other place" to throw out the Land Bill, because they would have a long period before them for tyrannizing over the tenants and resisting the anger and disappointment of the Irish people. It would therefore be much better to let this measure last only for six months, and allow the responsibility to be on those whom it might concern to pass the good Land Act which the Irish people had been led to expect. One word more. He had heard the right hon. Gentleman, the Chief Secretary say that he would never consent to cease protecting life and property in Ireland in September, 1881. Were they really to be told that in September, 1882, the Government would ceease to protect life and property in Ireland if this measure were not in operation? Surely no such thing could happen. Then why should they not have candour, fair play, and truthfulness in the arguments brought forward in support of this measure by right hon. Gentlemen of such eminence as those who occupied the Front Bench on the other side of the House? Life and property had been protected, and could be protected without that Act at all. Life and property could be protected at this moment by the ordinary law; and that being so, he considered it most unjust and unfair, and as well calculated to excite feelings of indignation and resentment among the people of Ireland, to have such terms as those put forward in support of a measure so drastic and tyrannical as that before the Committee.

MR. O'DONNELL

said, he had followed the course of the Ministerial argument in support of the Bill, and the only argument he could make out was that by insuring that the Bill should last for 18 months they would save themselves trouble in case it should be necessary to ask Parliament, under other circumstances, to re-enact the measure next year. The Government were not ashamed to place on record that they proposed to suspend the liberties of Ireland unnecessarily for an additional 12 months to save themselves the trouble which might attend the attempt to re-enact the Act next year if that should be necessary. He did not think any proposal more monstrous had ever been submitted to any Assembly. The Liberal Government asked the House, in order to save themselves a certain amount of trouble, perhaps, next year, to suspend the liberties of between 5,000,000 and 6,000,000 of Her Majesty's subjects for an unnecessary 12 months. He hoped, however, that would be taken note of by the Irish people, and that they would bear in mind the little store the Liberal Administration set upon their Constitutional liberties. It ought not to be forgotten by Members of the House that in Committee the Government had not proved the necessity for the Bill at all; and that they had carefully prevented, by the form in which they had pushed the measure through the House, the details being dealt with. He was fairly entitled to ask the Committee to give the Irish people the benefit of the doubt which arose from that fact; and he would remind the Committee of what was the consequence of the ruling of two clays ago, which he did not intend to contest, but which had an important bearing on the discussion of the Bill. The Speaker had, very properly, no doubt, ruled that the examination of the Government case, county by county, constituency by constituency, 'would be out of keeping with the scope of the Bill. The Speaker was perfectly correct; but the Committee could at the same time perceive that when the Irish Members were precluded from examining the case of the Government in that way by local knowledge, by the way in which the Government had navigated the Bill, they wore prevented from meeting the case of the Prime Minister; and the Committee ought to bear that in mind, and give the Irish people the benefit of the doubt, and not consider that Ministerial assertions were proved, when there had been no opportunity of meeting them in detail county by county and constituency by constituency. The Irish Members were prepared to meet the Bill in detail; but the Government were obliged to shut out the discussion of it in that way. Though that was perfectly legitimate according to the Rules of the House, it was a practical wrong of the first magnitude to the Irish people. A very strong reason for limiting the duration of the Act was the fact, which should be patent to both sides of the House, that owing to the difficulty of passing a remedial measure adequate to the needs of Ireland, the Committee ought to be very carfeul as to tying down the Irish people in any way which would prevent Constitutional agitation and resistance to existing evils, which the Government said only awaited an opportunity for the application of a remedy. If the House passed the Bill and made it effective until September twelvemonths, during the whole of that time a heavy weight would be pressing on the energy of the Irish people, and the class in Ireland who were most hostile to the liberties of the people would have that additional time to suppress Constitutional agitation and worry them to resistance. The Government might very well adopt the Amendment, which would insure that the Act should last sufficiently long to tide the Government and the country over the period required for the formation and passing of remedial measures, but not long enough to tempt the enemies of the Irish people to throw obstacles in the way of remedial measures, confident that a period of 12 months of unrestricted coercion was before them. It was by no means unprecedented for a Government to make coercive legislation depend on remedial legislation; and he would, in illustration of that, remind the Committee of what took place at the time of the passing of the Emancipation Act. That measure was accompanied by a coercive measure—namely, the Bill for dissolving Catholic Associations. The English Government took care that the Royal Assent should not be given to the coercive measure until they had received a guarantee from the Sovereign that no obstacle would be put in the way of the measure which accompanied that—namely, the Emancipation Bill. Her Majesty's Government, half a century after the passing of Catholic Emancipation, was proving itself more re-actionary, and more opposed to the interests of the Irish people, than the Government of two generations ago. When Irish Members asked the Government to be satisfied with the duration of the Coercion Act until September next, they asked the Government to be satisfied during a period of transition, and to abandon further coercion in favour of the operation of remedial measures. If the Government were obstinate in maintaining that excessive duration of coercion, what conclusion would be forced upon the Irish Members and the Irish people? That the Government doubted the efficacy of their remedial measures. They might either doubt whether remedial measures were now capable of dealing with the evils of Ireland, and if so, they had simply gone over, bag-and-baggage, to the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench. But if they doubted the sufficiency of remedial measures, because they knew that remedial measures would not satisfy the people, then the Irish people must look on the Coercion Bill with additional hostility through the proposal to give it longer duration. Not only did the Government say they were going to give the benefit of the doubt against the people, and to impose excessive duration of coercion in order to save themselves further trouble, but that from their knowledge of the insufficiency of their remedial measures they were prepared to place Irishmen under the heel of coercion, so as to prevent their agitating against the uncertainty and insufficiency of the miserable remedial measures in preparation behind the scenes. Did the Government doubt that in a future Session their followers would be less obedient and obsequious than now? Did they think that the Speaker of the House would show less devotion to the exigencies of Ministerial Business than now? Did they doubt that measures which could be applied against Irish Representatives would be less abundant? They would be able to adopt the plea of urgency and those other patent Mid Lothian muzzles which were placed on the Irish Representatives. In the face of that, where was their excuse for the astounding plea that they were prepared to impose coercion unnecessarily on the Irish people in order to save themselves Night Sittings and late Day Sittings next Session. The plea that in order to save trouble, either to the Government or to Parliament, 5,500,000 subjects should be kept unnecessarily under unconstitutional government, was a most flagrant piece of political effrontery ever perpetrated by a Government, however servile.

MR. FINIGAN

declared that from the introduction of the Bill the only object of the Government had been to refuse to listen to every reason of justice, and every argument in favour of what they had stated. When the Bill was introduced, the Government said it was simply for the punishment of certain persons who were well known to the police for their violence and their sus- pected incitement to crime. But as the Bill had been forced through the House, the Chief Secretary had constantly changed his ground; and now it turned out that the measure was not merely for the punishment of those people, or the prevention of further outrage, but that it was really and truly a coercive measure to intimidate and terrorize people, and in favour of a class of men who had, by their unjust conduct, brought about whatever outrages had been committed. That was a very unjust principle upon which to base the Bill. If a Conservative Government had done that, the Irish Members would not have been much thunderstruck; but the Liberals, after boasting of themselves as the champions of Liberal government in Ireland, had fallen back on the old principle of what was called the policy of the "base, bloody, and brutal Whigs."

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is not in the least keeping to the Motion before the Committee.

MR. FINIGAN

merely wished to show that the policy of the Government was a base policy, that it was a bloody policy, that it was a brutal policy, and was not carrying out the principles enunciated by the Government when they introduced the Bill.

THE CHAIRMAN

That is not the Question before the Committee. The Question is as to the limitation of the date of the duration of the Act, and the hon. Member must keep strictly to that.

MR. FINIGAN,

continuing, said, that to leave such arbitrary power in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant for 18 months was to adopt a step which was unwarrantable tyranny, and totally opposed to the whole spirit of the arguments upon which the Bill had been introduced and forced through the different stages. If the Government wished to set class against class in Ireland, they could not do more to that end than to introduce such a hostile, ungenerous, and illiberal policy as that the Act should be continued for 18 months. If the Government wished the Irish people to believe that they were anxious to do justice to Ireland, they would keep to their word, and make the Bill a measure of prevention, and not of vindictiveness. Either the Government did know that it was acquainted with the different authors of crimes and outrages when it introduced the Bill, or they did not; and he argued that the Government, by its present display of vindictiveness to the Irish people, was showing that they did not know, but had trusted to mere political chance to play a deep-laid game against Irish tenants. He was indifferent whether the Amendment was carried or not, because the Government had made up its mind to listen to no argument or reason, and was bent on carrying out the worst policy in Ireland that was ever initiated by a self-styled Liberal Government.

MR. A. M. SULLIVAN

wished to know on what ground the Government would be ready to drop the Bill in 1882. Would they let it drop on the ground that the country was then peaceable— supposing that was possible? No; judging from past experience, they would say—"Will you take out of our hands a measure which has tranquillized Ireland? See how tranquil Ireland is. Therefore, let us have the Bill for another two years." That had been the excuse in regard to past coercive Acts. But suppose the country was not peaceable in 1882; suppose there were crimes, would not the Government then be able to say—"See how disturbed Ireland is, notwithstanding the Coercion Bill. Will you take out of our hands the Coercion Bill?" They would have the pretext that the Bill must be continued because it had secured peace, or because it had not. But the Government said they did not want the trouble of seven weeks' debate in passing a Coercion Bill again; but they did grievous injustice to the new Rules if they thought they could not under those Rules pass a Coercion Bill in a week. That excuse would not bear a moment's examination, because, by concentrated power for the facilitation of the Business of the House, there was no reason why under properly amended Rules a Coercion Bill could not be passed in a day. But suppose that in September, 1882, the Governments hould honestly contemplate dropping the Act; then, if the conditions should be the same in September of the present year, why should they hesitate any more to act on the conditions of peacefulness in September, 1881, than on the conditions of peacefulness in September, 1882? No; the Government would hold to September, 1882; and, although he should be sorry to become their apologist, he was not sure that they did not deserve some praise for their enormous moderation in not making the period extend to 1892, because, with their majority—and with their benevolent intentions in the shape of coercion —they might have extended the Act till 1892. The Government would carry their clause, and all their Amendments, and so would secure the proud reputation of having carried the most severe and most protracted Coercion Bill ever laid like a lash on the back of Ireland.

Question put.

The Committee divided: —Ayes 162; Noes 48: Majority 114.—(Div. List, No. 64.)

THE CHAIRMAN

The next Amendment is in the name of the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray). Its object is to prevent Parliament from continuing or amending the Act at any future time. Such a proposal would put a restriction upon the future action and power of Parliament, and therefore cannot be put.

Question proposed, "That Clause 3 stand part of the Bill."

MR. GRAY

regretted the Chairman had ruled that his Amendment could not be put, because he considered it a perfectly reasonable proposal. The Bill said that the Act should continue in force for such and such a time, and no longer; and he wished to make sure that when that time had expired the measure should not be renewed by a "Continuance or Amendment Act." He was sorry that the Front Opposition Bench was not full, because it would be in the recollection of some right hon. Gentlemen who formerly occupied the Treasury Bench that when the Peace Preservation Act was last renewed there was a very solemn and distinct pledge given to the then Leader of the Irish Party (Mr. Butt) that no Coercion Bill for Ireland would again be passed by way of a Continuance Bill. The whole House concurred in that assurance, and he was quite certain the Prime Minister would recollect it. He (Mr. Gray) was anxious, before this Bill passed, that the right hon. Gentleman or the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant should give the Committee a similar assurance, especially as the limited time proposed in the Bill had been virtually assented to. There could be no ground of excuse for refusing to give this assurance, which was given by a Conservative Government. He was glad to see the late Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Gibson) in his place; and he would appeal to him whether this assurance was not given by the late Government to Mr. Butt in 1877, when the Peace Preservation Act was passed. That assurance was acquiesced in, not only by the Conservative, but the Liberal Party; and it was understood that if any measure similar to the Peace Preservation Act were thought necessary at any future time it should be brought in and fairly discussed as an original Bill. If, at the expiration of 18 months, the Government wished to continue the suspension of the liberties of the Irish people, would they do it by a specific enactment, and not by a Continuance Bill? As the late Attorney General for Ireland was the only Member of the late Government he saw in his place who was likely to have any recollection of the facts, he would again appeal to him to state whether such an assurance as he had described was not given in a full House?

MR. GIBSON

said, that at the time referred to he was not the Irish Law Officer; but he believed that in 1874, when the Conservative Government came into power, it became necessary to include in a Laws Continuance Bill the expiring Peace Preservation Act. On that occasion there was a conversation, in which the late Mr. Butt took part, and in which the Chief Secretary said that, in the event of his having to come again to Parliament, he would present the Bill separately, with modifications, and not include it in a Continuance Bill.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

I should not have mentioned it if the hon. Member had not brought the subject before the Committee; but it was a matter of public notoriety that my Predecessor, the Eight Hon. James Lowther, put into my hands a Bill for continuance of the Peace Preservation Act. I do not know whether the continuation of that Act had received the sanction of the late Cabinet; but that measure was spoken of by my Predecessor as the one that, in all probability, would have been brought in by the Conservative Government had it remained in Office.

MR. CALLAN

said, the Chief Secretary knew very well he was not answer- ing the question put to him by the hon. Member for Carlow. Mr. James Lowther—who, in a short time, he had no doubt, he would be able to call the right hon. Member for East Cumberland —would be very welcome in that House, if only to set right the Chief Secretary. He (Mr. Callan) had a distinct recollection of the conversation referred to—a conversation across the Table of the House. It was on record—and what had fallen from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the late Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Gibson) fully bore out the statement—that, though the measure might be identical with the one last agreed to, it would have been brought in separately, and not embodied in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. The pledge which had been made was that there would be no attempt to renew the Peace Preservation Bill by means of a Continuance Bill. As the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant could not, by the Rules of the House, address the Committee on the subject again, he had no doubt the Attorney General for England would be happy to answer for him on receiving his instructions; but, first, his attention should be drawn to the fact that the measure handed over to the Chief Secretary by Mr. Lowther was not one to be included in a Continuance Bill, but one to be brought forward and passed through all its stages like any ordinary Bill. There was a great distinction between a measure contained in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill and a Bill re-enacting even every word of a former measure. Would the right hon. Gentleman make a similar pledge to that made by the late Government — one binding them not to attempt hereafter to renew this Habeas Corpus Suspension Bill by a Continuance Bill? If they wished to renew, would they bring it in as a new measure abinitio?

MR. PARNELL

thought the Chief Secretary had not quite apprehended the drift of the question put by the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray). What he asked was whether the Government would give the same pledge that the Conservative Government had given with regard to a Coercion Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had replied that the Bill, which was put into his hands by Mr. Lowther, the late Chief Secretary, was in the form of a Continuance Bill. But the point involved was this— that it was not in the form of an ordinary Continuance Bill, as was that of 1874. He was not himself then in Parliament; but he recollected perfectly that the late Mr. Butt objected to the Bill being brought in in the form of an Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. The Coercion Bill of 1874 was included in that measure. ["No!"] He understood that it was, and that the late Mr. Butt objected very strongly, and took part in several divisions on the question to report Progress when the Committee stage of the Bill was reached; and that that Gentleman received a pledge that when the Bill was about to expire they would not renew it in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

I am glad the hon. Member has put it in that way, and, by the leave of the Committee, I will explain. We should never have thought of deviating from the course adopted by the late Government, and I am certainly prepared to give a pledge that we will not. If it should become necessary—which I do not in the slightest degree expect—to renew this Bill at the end of the Session next year, we should not think of doing so by inserting it in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. It would be brought in as a separate Continuance Bill.

Question put.

The Committee divided. —Ayes 199 Noes 47: Majority 152.—(Div. List, No. 65.)

MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY

said, the object of the clause he was about to move was not to prevent re-imprisonment for any act committed after the release of a person from prison, but to save him from further imprisonment for any act done before his imprisonment. In the case of a person arrested under former Acts, it was provided that under certain circumstances "he shall be entitled to receive a certificate of dismissal." But those words were only applicable where a person had been brought up before some judicial authority, and where the charge against him had been dismissed. In the present case he assumed that the man had been held guilty by the authorities, and that he had been accordingly imprisoned. The word "dismissal," therefore, was not a proper word in this case; and he ventured to suggest, if the clause were adopted, that the words "certificate of liberation" would be correctly used. There was a very analogous precedent for the proposal he had to make in the Peace Preservation Act of 1870, which provided that summary proceedings might take place in certain cases, and allowed Justices of the Peace to punish persons charged with the commission of certain offences. The same in the Peace Preservation Act of 1875. Both these Acts provided that if the magistrates did not find the charge proved they should make out and deliver to the person charged a certificate, under their hands, stating the fact of dismissal. Again, a sub-section to the 26th clause of the Act of 1870 laid it down that every person convicted under the Act should be released from all further criminal proceedings for the same acts. That, of course, did not release the person convicted from further proceedings for any other acts. It was quite true that he proposed to lay down a rule which might entitle a man to receive a certificate of liberation, although he might have committed an act which was not in the eye of the authorities. But there was a good reason for this. What was the intention of the present Bill? It was that a man might be taken up, say on the 1st of May, and without knowing any of the circumstances alleged to have been connected with the offence, and without knowing the persons against whom he had offended, he could be imprisoned without the name of the crime being given. It was not, he thought, asking too much, that when the Executive exercised that power of imprisoning a man for some act not confined to any particular date, they should be restricted in their subsequent operations against that individual after they had liberated him. The Bill, as it stood, gave indefinite power to the Executive; and, unless the clause proposed by him was added, it would be possible for them to go back on portions of a man's life and punish him again under the Act. If, therefore, the Act was not to be abused, a man ought not to be imprisoned a second time, unless, in the opinion of the Executive, he had done some act since his liberation deserving of punishment. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving, in page 2, after Clause 1, to insert the following Clause:—

(Certificate of dismissal on liberation from custody.) Any person who may have been arrested under this Act, on being liberated from custody, shall be entitled to receive a certificate of dismissal, containing the date of such dismissal, which certificate shall be a bar to any subsequent arrest of such person for any offence under this Act committed before the date of such certificate.

New Clause (Certificate of dismissal on liberation from custody,) — (Mr. O'Shaughnessy,)—brought up, and read the first time.

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

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)

regretted that it was utterly impossible) to accept this clause. The precedents which his hon. and learned Friend had cited had no application whatever to the Amendment. They all knew that there was a common principle of law that where a person was once acquitted or convicted of a particular offence he could not be again imperilled for the same offence. But the object of this Amendment was that if a person was imprisoned on a reasonable suspicion of having committed any of the offences with which it dealt—for instance, treason-felony and treasonable practices— and was discharged, he could not be re-arrested when it became known that there was reasonable ground for suspecting he had really committed any other of those offences which it was not suspected he had committed when first arrested. It was obvious that the Government could not consent to that.

MAJOR NOLAN

said, if the suspected offender had committed some other offence, such as treason, it would be perfectly open for the Government to pro-coed against him in the ordinary Law Courts. The Amendment, therefore, did not in any way preclude the Government from punishing an offender for any real offence that could be proved against him. Without going into the legal question matters would stand thus. A man would be arrested under the Act, perhaps on very slight suspicion, or on the fancy of a particular magistrate or farmer; after a lapse of time his friends would, possibly, be able to convince the Government that the man had injured no one, and that the suspicions of the Government were quite unfounded, and he would be set at liberty. Now, when he returned to his parish, if the Amendment were accepted, he would feel himself perfectly safe; but if not he would always be tortured with the belief that the people who had directed suspicion against him might do so again. Another argument in favour of the clause was that under it a man's knowledge that he could not be again arrested unless he did something wrong would be a very strong reason for his not doing anything that would give room for suspicion in future; while if it were rejected it would make people suppose the Government were playing with the suspected person as a cat does with a mouse. This would lead to a most unsettled state of things in country towns when people very frequently quarrelled about elections to local offices and kindred matters, and where, consequently, a man desirous of getting elected would, perhaps, feel that his political enemies might get him locked up again. If the sbject of the Government was to make this a practicable Bill he thought the clause should be accepted. It seemed to him that those in charge of the Bill, being taken up with general ideas as to how it would work, had overlooked the state of society in Ireland—that was to say, they had taken no notice of the petty quarrels between one class of the people and another. It was in those petty quarrels that the Bill would be used as a lever; and the Government, in his opinion, ought to do everything in their power to prevent it being applied in that way.

MR. A. M. SULLIVAN

pointed out that there was a difficulty with regard to this Amendment, inasmuch as nobody could tell for what offence a man had been arrested in the first instance; and therefore a man arrested for the third time would not know for what he had been arrested. There would be no indication given to anybody as to the reason why he was arrested, and consequently a person on being re-arrested could make no defence whatever, because he was not allowed any clue as to when and where he committed the act for which he had been previously arrested. His hon. and learned Friend (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) clearly considered the Bill less severe than it really was and it had thereby done great injustice to the character of the measure and of the Government who introduced it.

Question put.

The Committee divided: —Ayes 46; Noes 259: Majority 213.—(Div. List, No. 66.)

THE CHAIRMAN

The next clause stands in the name of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). This proposed new clause, and the two following clauses, are irrelevant to the subject-matter of the Bill. I must remind the Committee that last Session it had been originally proposed to introduce clauses of a like character into the Relief of Distress (Ireland) Bill, to which they bore a closer relation than they do to the present Bill. After full consideration it was held that such clauses could not be introduced without an Instruction from the House. Not only were they beyond the scope of the Bill, but they amended the Irish Land Act, 1870, an object which had not been contemplated when the Bill was introduced. They were, therefore, brought in as a separate Bill. The same objections apply still more strongly in the present case; and I must rule that the proposed clause, and the two which follow it, cannot be brought up. The next clause is in the name of Mr. O'Sullivan. It refers only to a prison rule, and the Committee have already decided that prison rules cannot be further discussed

MR. O'SULLIVAN

I am quite satisfied to withdraw it.

THE CHAIRMAN

The next Amendment is in the name of Dr. Commins. For the same reason as I gave in the case of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton, it cannot be brought up. This is a Bill which is limited to actions of a criminal character, while this clause interferes with civil process. The next Amendment is by the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray). With regard to this I have to observe that the Bill before the Committee is temporary, and exceptional in its operation. The clause now offered repeals certain permanent Acts of the Criminal Law of the country, forming parts of the general law of the land. Such an enactment would be beyond the scope and objects of the present Bill. It cannot be entertained by the Committee. The next Amendment is in the name of Mr. Healy. A similar Amendment was brought in by the hon. Member for Galway and negatived; and therefore it cannot be put. The next Amendment is by Mr. Blake. This also is simply a question of prison rules, and has already been dealt with in a sub-section. The next Amendment is in the name of Mr. Callan. It has been substantially discussed by the Committee, and negatived three times.

MR. CALLAN

I rise to Order. [Loud cries of "Order!"]

THE CHAIRMAN

Twice in the case of warrants, and twice in the case of information to be laid before Parliament, and having been substantially negatived it cannot now be put.

MR. CALLAN

said, he wished respectfully to ask the ruling of the Chair upon this ground. The clause objected to had regard to sworn informations by two people. The others were that those informations should be furnished to the parties. His clause was that no warrant should be effective except on sworn information. He would leave the matter to the Committee, and ask them to reconsider whether it was substantially the same, or whether it was not different from the former Amendments.

THE CHAIRMAN

I have already ruled that substantially it has been dealt with already, and negatived three times. It cannot be put. The next Amendment is in the name of Mr. Callan, and is in Order.

MR. CALLAN

said, that the Resolu-which stood next in his name was his, according to priority on the Paper; but he would waive his right to speak in favour of the hon. Member for Limerick.

MR. O'SULLIVAN,

in rising to propose the following Clause: —

(Person making arrest must be possessed of warrant.) That no arrest shall take place in any part of Ireland under this Act, unless the warrant of the Lord Lieutenant is first had and obtained, and in the possession of the party making the said arrest, said, that in moving that clause he felt bound to do so because of its importance. Its object was, that a person making an arrest of a prisoner should have authority from the Lord Lieutenant, by way of warrant, before he could make it. In 1867, over the greater part of the country hundreds of persons were arrested. There was no authority whatever for it. The authority was afterwards sent from Dublin Castle some six or eight days after the arrest. It was most improper. No matter whether the prisoner were guilty or not, provided the arrest was ordered by a magistrate, he was taken into custody. The magistrate or police officer was liable to a civil action for wrongful arrest, under the ordinary law; but under former Bills, even where there was not a scintilla of evidence against a prisoner, in order to save the police officer or magistrate from such action, a warrant was got down from Dublin Castle. He himself had been arrested without any authority, and carried 20 miles on a winter's night to Limerick, and charged and brought before a police officer. The police officer committed him to prison, and eight days after that a warrant was obtained for his detention. He put it to the Committee, was it fair to allow that power in the hands of magistrates and constables, to arrest whoever they pleased, and then appeal to Dublin Castle to save themselves from civil action? He thought that the Amendment was reasonable and fair, and did not interfere with the Bill. It would do no harm to the power of the Lord Lieutenant or the Chief Secretary. His only object was to take power out of the hands of the tyrants of the different villages.

New Clause (Person making arrest must be possessed of warrant,)—(Mr. O'Sullivan,)—brought up, and read the first time.

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

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOB IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)

This matter is already provided for. It would be entirely illegal to arrest without a warrant. The hon. Member asks that it should be inserted in the Act that no arrest shall take place in any part of Ireland, unless the warrant of the Lord Lieutenant be first obtained. I would remind him that no arrest can be made unless the Lord Lieutenant first issues his warrant in the form provided as required by the Act. That matter, therefore, has already been provided for by the Committee. The clause proposes also that the warrant should be in the possession of the party making the ar- rest. The Committee have provided that a copy of the warrant for arrest shall be given to the person on the occasion of his arrest. I hope that my hon. Friend will be satisfied with that.

MR. LEAMY

was surprised that the Committee had arranged to give a copy of the warrant to the person arrested. The copy was to be filed in certain offices, he understood. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that it was to be given to the person arrested.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

It will be filed in the proper offices.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)

Two things are necessary at the time the arrest is made. The Committee have provided that a copy of the warrant shall be given to the person, and, in addition, there is the provision that a copy shall be filed with the Clerk of the Crown of the County of the City of Dublin, and that another copy shall be filed with the Clerk of the Crown of the County in which may be the place where the person arrested last had his place of abode.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

My hon. and learned Friend is quite right as to the arrangements which have been made. One of the Amendments promised by me on Report is to the effect that a copy of the warrant shall be given to each person on the occasion of his arrest.

MR. O'SULLIVAN

said, that as the Amendment then stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was almost the same as his own, he begged leave to withdraw the Amendment then before the Committee.

THE O'DONOGHUE

said, that, at any rate, the discussion that they had had had not been in vain. It was quite evident that a different view was entertained by certain magistrates through the country. He wished to recall to the Government a statement made by a resident magistrate, a few days ago, that— He did not want to threaten; but he would allow no man to go through the country while he was in charge of it. He was evidently alluding to this Bill, for he said— Any man who, in future, attempts to address any meeting, I will at once have arrested. Then, let him bring on his action against me in the Court of Queen's Bench, and get out if lie can, He was glad to find that no magistrate would now be able to do that.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

THE CHAIRMAN

The next two Amendments are in the name of Mr. Healy. The first clause proposed is inconsistent in two important points with clauses which have been already agreed to by the Committee. It proposes to limit the area in which a person can be arrested to the evidence of being seen within two miles of the place were the crime was committed; whereas Clause 1 puts no limit of space to certain classes of crimes, and limits another class to a prescribed district, the size of which is to be determined by the Lord Lieutenant. This clause, as well as the following one, requires the intervention of a magistrate before execution of the warrant, and in this respect is inconsistent with the power already given to the Lord Lieutenant. It cannot be put. The next Amendment is quite in Order.

MR. HEALY

begged to move the following new clause: —

(Threats by Government Officials.) That any policeman, magistrate, or Government official, seeking- to deter any person from doing anything which ire is by law entitled to do, by threatening him with pains or penalties, or any pain or penalty, under this Act shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and he liable upon conviction to any penalty not less than six months' imprisonment, at the discretion of the judge before whom such offence shall be tried. That Amendment, he thought, should be adopted, to prevent the illegal action taken by the Government under that Bill. The Bill provided for the detention for 18 months of anyone alleged to have committed a crime. What they apprehended was that this Act would be used by the territorial class in Ireland to prevent persons from doing things which, by law, they wore entitled to do, but which were distasteful to that class; therefore, he had put down the Amendment, and he should feel obliged if they would take that power out of the hands of the policeman and the magistrate. The Government must provide proper protection. These magistrates were always landlords, and acted unfairly towards the people of the district. They had got up a state of panic in the country, and then induced the Government to bring-in that Bill. What they were afraid of was that anyone who should venture to place himself in opposition to the aristocrats of the country would be at once threatened with pains and penalties under that Act. He had known of instances such as those to which he was alluding on the estate of the father of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington). Before the land agitation the understrappers of the Duke of Devonshire went about from one person to another and told them that the local farmers' club was obnoxious to his Grace. The father of the noble Marquess was an excellent landlord. On his estate there had been no cases of eviction. He treated his tenants very fairly; and the only cases in recent years where evictions had taken place were those in which they were perfectly justifiable. He should not be doing himself justice if he did not say that, with regard to the noble Duke, he had nothing to say to his discredit; but, on the contrary, everything to his credit. His point was this—that when a harmless institution, such as a local farmers' club, was instituted, it ought not to be broken up simply by the meddling of the understrappers of landlords. If the Act stood in its present state, without that Amendment, such persons as the understrappers of the landlords would be able deliberately to intimidate the people. He had not much experience in drafting Resolutions and clauses, and if the Amendment were not in a proper form he should be glad to have it modified, so as to meet the views of hon. Members. As a rule, hon. Members in that House did not understand the circumstances of the localities in Ireland. There were isolated villages 50 miles away from any railway station, where a stranger was never seen, nor a newspaper, and where the bashaw was the local head constable, the great man of the district, whose word was law. In those villages the constables ruled with uncontrolled sway, and the people, threatened as they would be under that Act, could not be persuaded that no harm was meant to them. They were practically at the mercy of the local magistrates, and, therefore, the Amendment ought to be accepted. The Government had refused to change in any degree the character of the magistracy. They were always members of the territorial classes, and often decided on cases in which they were more or less directly interested. In many cases which occurred with regard to the land there was no defendant. The defendant was, in fact, sitting on the bench. He would give one instance. A magistrate named Barrett was the agent of Lord Kenmare. He had, in many cases, confiscated the property of the tenant, and in this particular case to which he now alluded, he had turned a poor woman out of her home, and, with the aid of the police, had got up a fictitious charge against her; and as she did not know a word of English, she was entirely at the mercy of that man and the local Court. Under that Bill, on the most frivolous charge, such a person might be put in gaol for almost an indefinite period, and it was to prevent such action as that that he was induced to move the Amendment.

New Clause (Threats by Government officials,)—[Mr. Healy,) —brought up, and read the first time.

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

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)

I really must it put to the Committee whether it is a fair and reasonable thing to attack an absent man in the way which the hon. Member has done. He has referred to a particular Nobleman. I happen to have spent my early days in the neighbourhood of part of that Nobleman's property, and neither he nor his predecessor could be considered an absentee landlord. I think that if anything were said with regard to the noble Duke it should have been to his credit, and not to his disparagement; but, as I understood the speech of the hon. Member, it was quite the reverse. With reference to the other magistrate, I know but little about him; but I certainly think it is going too far to assert that any magistrate would get up a fictitious case and decide it himself upon the Bench. In the absence of what may be stated on the other side, I must ask the Committee to withhold their judgment upon any assertion of that kind. Coming to the Amendment the hon. Member proposes, I entirely concur in the object he has in proposing it; but it appears to me that that object ought to be segregated from the imputation he seeks to convey. With reference to magistrates, it must be un- derstood that there is no magistrate in Ireland who is a Government official. If any magistrate was guilty of an offence such as that alluded to, he would be liable to criminal proceeedings as well as an action. Therefore, we can eliminate magistrates from the clause. The hon. Member also proposes that no Government official should be allowed to deter any person from doing anything by threatening him with pains and penalties under this Act. That is already provided for by the Act 38 & 39 Vict., c. 86, s. 7. It is there provided that any person who shall be guilty of such an act shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding £20, or imprisonment not exceeding three months, with or without hard labour. Therefore, so far as that part of the clause is concerned, it is already provided for by statute. I do not think that the Amendment can be accepted.

MR. HEALY

said, he rose to make a personal explanation with regard to what he had stated about the Duke of Devonshire. He would state that he had never uttered a word against him; everything that he had said was in terms of the highest praise. He had carefully avoided saying a single syllable of discredit with regard to the noble Duke.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)

Perhaps I shall be permitted to say that I cannot accurately have caught what fell from the hon. Member, and I beg to be allowed to withdraw what I said, having said it under a misapprehension.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

thought that the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down was one of the most irrational addresses that he had ever heard. When he withdrew the charge he had made against his hon. Friend, it was a pity he had not withdrawn the whole of his speech. The hon. and learned Gentleman had wasted a good deal of the small amount of time still left to the Committee for the consideration of the Amendments, or still left to those hon. Members who wished to discuss the measure with the seriousness which it required. The Solicitor General for Ireland had said that this clause should be segregated from the rest of the Bill—

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (MR. W. M. JOHNSON)

I said nothing of the kind.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

must ask the protection of the Chairman. He had understood the Solicitor General for Ireland to say that the clause should be "segregated" from the rest of the Bill, although he (Mr. O'Connor') did not profess to know what the hon. and learned Gentleman meant by "segregated." Whether it were segregated or not, he would be able to show, to the satisfaction of the Committee, that the clause was necessary, in spite of what was in the Bill. As the Bill at present stood, any person who was supposed to be reasonably suspected of being guilty of intimidation was liable to imprisonment; "and," said the hon. and learned Gentleman, with a tone of Nisi Priustriumph," the measure has already provided for what the hon. Member proposes."["No, no!"] If his hon. Friends around him would allow him to argue his case his own way he, perhaps, might be able to take care of his own argument. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said that the Bill dealt with cases of intimidation already. [The SOLICITOR GENERAL fur IRELAND: No, no!] If the hon. and learned Gentleman did not say that he was not sufficiently acquainted with the terms of the Bill, because the measure did deal with An act of violence or intimidation, or the inciting to an act of violence or intimidation, and tending to interfere with or disturb the maintenance of law and order. The hon. and learned Gentleman, if he had argued the case as well, perhaps, as he (Mr. O'Connor) would have argued it for him, might have said—"As this Bill already provides against intimidation, where is the necessity for the new clause proposed?" He might have said—"If you can give a man 18 months for an act of intimidation, what is the use of proposing an Amendment to give a man six months' imprisonment?" That he took to be the first objection to the Amendment, and the next was that the ordinary law, apart from the extraordinary law of the Bill, already dealt with cases of this kind. "Because," said the hon. and and learned Member, "there is a statute which inflicted a penalty of £20 or three months' imprisonment upon anyone who intimidated or hindered anyone in the discharge of his proper duty." ["Question!"] If his remarks wore allowed to reach the Chairman's ears, it would be found that he was adhering with extraordinary fidelity to the subject before the Committee. His answer to the argument the hon. and learned Gentleman used, or might have used, was this—that the ordinary law which provided for an act of intimidation only a penalty of £20 or three months' imprisonment was insufficient to meet such a gross case as that mentioned by his hon. Friend. £20 or three months' imprisonment was not enough punishment for any— Policeman, magistrate, or Government official seeking to deter any person from doing anything which he is by law entitled to do. Even six months' imprisonment would be too little for any policeman, magistrate, or Government official who used the coercive measures placed into his hands by this Bill in order to prevent honest people from obtaining their rights against the Government and the landlords. "Oh, but," said the hon. and learned Gentleman, "the magistrates are already dealt with, because no magistrate is a Government official." He had been called to Order a few minutes ago for saying the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman was irrational; but what could the Committee think of a speech in which it was stated that the magistrates were not Government officials, and that in the face of the large number of stipendiary magistrates in Ireland? Every stipendiary magistrate in Ireland was a Government official; what, therefore, could the hon. and learned Gentleman mean? Some of these resident magistrates were the worst of all magistrates. It was one of these whose conduct had been brought before the House, and over whom the Chief Secretary had thrown the radius of his protecting wing by taking up his contradiction which had appeared in the newspapers. In place of none of the magistrates in Ireland being Government officials, many were such, and it was essential that the people should be protected against them. A Representative of the Government had spoken feelingly about attacks on absent men; but the Irish Members could not forget the attacks made by the Chief Secretary against a certain class of absent men— against the priesthood of Ireland, and still less the attack he had made upon the women of Ireland, in the shape of his refusal to accept the Amendment to exclude women from the operations of the Bill. He (Mr. O'Connor) had at least caught the observations of the Solicitor General for Ireland sufficiently to know that he had said nothing about policemen. Did he mean to deny that a good many of those officials would seek to levy black mail upon the honest and law-abiding people in the towns? Did he mean to deny that the police and the magistrates would endeavour to make use of the Act for purposes of their own? Already the magistrates, not having the patience to wait for the passing of the Act, were riding rough shod over the people, and were saying that, now they had got the Government on the side of the landlords, the Land Leaguers must take care, or else they would be imprisoned. The reason his hon. Friend had brought forward this proposal he took to be this. They all knew that a crime committed, the crime which was committed by an ordinary individual not very grave in its character, became far more heinous when committed by an officer of the law, who was the natural guardian and protector of the law. A burglary committed by a policeman was far more heinous than a burglary committed by an ordinary individual, and in the same way a threat used by a magistrate or a policeman was far more serious than one uttered by an ordinary individual, hence the necessity for bringing the conduct of these officials under the ordinary law, so that the ordinary law might be able to deal with it. He had laid before the Committee most of the arguments that occurred to his mind at this moment. There were several others he might use, but he was anxious to save the time of the Committee, and enable the right hon. Gentleman opposite, whom he knew would not occupy too many of their precious moments, to reply, and, by accepting the Amendment, give them something like a rainbow of peace with which to conclude the proceedings.

MR. CALLAN

said he had heard with great surprise from a Representative of the Government that the magistrates in Ireland were independent of the Crown. That was a statement that would not go down in Ireland, however it might be received by the Committee. At Droghoda within the past few days, a resident magistrate had stated most distinctly to the local magistrates that he was not acting on his own responsi- bility, but under the direction of the Irish Executive. Was that independence? He was acting not as a magistrate in the exercise of his own discretion, but as a representative of the Crown. Everybody knew that the resident magistrates were the tools and slaves of the Government, and the more unscrupulous tools and willing slaves they were the more chance they had of advancing to a higher grade. The clause was one which only within the last few minutes had struck him very forcibly as being a most important one. It said that any magistrate who threatened a person— With pains or penalties, or any pain or penalty, under this Act shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and be liable upon conviction to any penalty not less than six months' imprisonment, at the discretion of the judge before whom such offence shall be tried. Well, a short time ago the resident magistrate of Dundalk stated that he would arrest any man who delivered a speech at a Land League meeting, and that he would refuse bail to anyone so arrested. Within the last few minutes he (Mr. Callan) had received a telegram which placed him in a very awkward position, and which would show the Committee the absolute necessity for some such clause as the one proposed, which would punish a policeman, magistrate, or Government official, for seeking to deter any person from doing anything which he was by law entitled to do. This telegram was sent from Dundalk, the capital of the county he represented, at 11 minutes past 10 to-night. It was addressed to him, and said— The Committee of the Dundalk Branch of the Land League, acting on the advice of Mr. Parnell, have called a county demonstration for Sunday next at Dundalk, and urgently request the honour of your attendance. A reply will oblige. Mr. Clifford Lloyd, the magistrate of that district, who had declared that he would arrest anyone who spoke at a Land League meeting and refuse bail, must be in an awful state. Was it not necessary that well-intentioned people who attended these meetings, and people of common prudence, should be protected against arrest by Mr. Clifford Lloyd. If he (Mr. Callan) went to Dundalk next Sunday and addressed the Land League meeting, he might be arrested and detained without bail, and he therefore wanted this clause passed to protect himself. [A laugh.] The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland laughed at this, and no doubt would think it a joke if he (Mr. Callan) were arrested; but it could hardly please the hon. and learned Gentleman, although it might be a source of gratification to Mr. Clifford Lloyd. ["Question!"] This was the Question. No argument in favour of the clause could be stronger than the telegram which had just been placed in his hands. He should regard it as an encouragement to Mr. Clifford Lloyd to continue in his present course if the Government refused to accept the Amendment. At any rate, if there was anything which could bring him to undertake the journey of 400 miles between London and Dundalk, it would be that he might show his defiance of the Coercion Act.

MR. DALY

thought there was more in the Amendment than appeared at the first blush. No one could deny that amongst Irish magistrates like himself, there would be an undue tendency to make a violent use of the powers intrusted to them under this Act. With the subject dealt with by the Solicitor General for Ireland in his closing observations he had nothing to do; but it was a matter of history, and a matter of well-known history amongst persons who resided in his county, that the magistrates were not always disposed to make a proper use of their powers. When the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) was brought before the magistrates in a case with which, to say the least of it, Mr. Barrett had a very important connection, it was on record in the public prints that Mr. Barrett was asked once, twice, three times to come off the Bench, and not adjudicate upon the question. That, he thought, was a fair reason for arguing that there was a little bias amongst magistrates in troublous times. The hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland made a statement which he took leave, from his own experience, to contravene. He had denied that it was the practice of the police to intimidate people; but it was the fact that if the hon. Member for Carlow had appeared in the City of Cork with a square-toed boot and an American cut of beard in 1867 he would not have been safe. The police exercised the most arbitrary powers, and if this Act was to preserve law and order in Ireland, why should not the clause be inserted to protect people against them, and against the magistrates and other Government officials? Was there any reason why magistrates should be exempted from the operations of the Bill? His recollection of law and order during the time of the former Coercion Bill was, that a perfectly innocent man might be taken off the streets and brought be-fore the magistrates, and the policeman had only to say that he wore a pair of American boots and had his beard trimmed in a certain way to obtain a remand for eight days. The Amendment could do no harm to anybody, and would be a protection to the classes on whom this coercive law would press most severely.

MR. FINIGAN

was surprised that the Solicitor General for Ireland should have asked the Committee to pay any attention whatever to that part of the Amendment which dealt with offences under the Common Law. He should have thought that no Member of the Government would have dared to have introduced, at this stage, any consideration bearing upon the ordinary law, because, since the introduction of this Bill, the Government had totally given up the ordinary law, and had replaced it by a measure of arbitrary power and tyranny. He was surprised that any Member of the Government should have adduced legal reasons for what he must term an illegal measure. But he was also very much surprised to hear a Member of the Government state that magistrates were not Government officials. Why, the whole system of the Irish magistracy was based on officialism of the very worst kind possible, and the Irish magistrates, to a very largo extent, were but a reflex of Dublin Castle, which, in its turn, was but a reflex of an old, effete despotic policy. In the very county with which he was connected he was sorry to say that, whilst there wore two or three landlord magistrates whom he knew would not use any power which they possessed as magistrates to coerce their own tenantry or to lend themselves to the coercion of any people whatever, there were several others whom he could name, but would not, who were now carrying out evictions on a very large scale, believing, as they did, that under the terror of this Coercion Bill their action would be allowed to go unchallenged. He would ask the Committee whether it was going, with its eyes open, to allow men, who held the position of magistrates, and who were well known to he unjust men, to escape this slight penalty — this punishment for misdemeanour of which their unjust conduct ought to render them guilty? The Government, if they would accept the Amendment, would be conforming to the most ordinary law under a most extraordinary Act; they would give the people of Ireland some confidence in the administration of a very unjust measure. He did not wish the Government to accept the Amendment now, but to bring it upon Report; and he trusted hon. Members on both sides of the House would impress on the Chief Secretary the desirability of recognizing its principle.

MR. A. M. SULLIVAN

said, the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) raised a much more serious question for the Committee than many Members seemed to suppose, because it brought distinctly under notice, on the occasion of the passing of this Bill, the system of terrorism which undoubtedly did prevail at a time like the p>resent, on the part of the police in Ireland. This system of police terrorism, for the purpose of suppressing legitimate public effort and agitation in the country, would be bad enough with the ordinary protection of law afforded to the people of Ireland; but that system of terrorism would be insufferable if it were to be allowed to continue at a time when all Constitutional protection was taken away. For his part, he would say on this occasion, as he had said upon others, that, having an anxiety that the people should remain upon the open platform of political agitation, he viewed with the most serious apprehension the conduct of the police during the existence of this Act. The police would only have the idea of suppressing public utterances. Public action, to them, would seem very inconvenient. Their conduct would have the effect—which short-sighted officials like the police would not perceive—of banishing expressions of political feeling from the public street and public platform, and driving the people into secret discussion and conspiracy. Unfortunately, they were not left to specu- lation as to what was likely to occur with respect to them. He received a letter last week from the capital of the county he represented, in which complaint was made by two respectable residents of the town that already, on the presumption of the passing of the Bill, two police officials in the town of Trim had been going round the town and menacing individuals, and threatening them they would soon have them under lock and key. It was bad enough that the people of Ireland were to be prevented from public and legitimate political movements when the Act took effect; but it was intolerable that village policemen should forestall the Act of the Sovereign and put it into operation, as they had done in Trim. Ten days ago he had received a letter from a Roman Catholic clergyman in London, complaining that already, by the Irish trains and boats, there were arriving in London numbers of innocent, well-conducted, and harmless young men, who had been scared and driven from their homes by the visits and threats of the police. If policemen must visit the homes of people, let them do it when they had the Bill in their pockets as law. But it was unbearable that the Bill should be forestalled by the tyrannical action of policemen in the Irish villages. Policemen were exercising terrorism; and if that was to be allowed before the Bill became law, what would they not do when they had the Act in their pockets? There was not an intelligent young man in a village in Ireland who was not obnoxious to the authorities. They would be subjected to the terrorism of the police; and, it might be, this terrorism would be more meanly exercised upon his parents, who would be visited and threatened. He would give an instance of that, in which a publican holding a licence in Ireland had been threatened as to the renewal of his licence, because of the conduct of his son. One of the pieces of evidence given by the Solicitor General for Ireland at the trial was that one of the speakers had said at a public meeting that many a good father reared a bad son. That might be; but it would be a monstrous thing if policemen were to be allowed to threaten and intimidate fathers and mothers because of the conduct of their sons, He could only say that if the Committee would look a little ahead as to what might be the effect of scaring people away from public and legitimate agitation, they might even yet pause a little. Hon. Members might ask what effect the new clause would have. It was already, under some Acts, supposed to be an offence to threaten any person in order to deter him from what he was entitled to do, or to induce him to do something else; and he urged that in this Bill, so exceptional in its character, which was stripping the people of all protection, there should be one clause or one line that would be an additional assurance, even if they had some assurance of protection already. He would point out another reason why police terrorism, which was aimed at in the Bill, ought to be stopped by some expression of the mind of the House on the Bill. If the Government were in earnest in some of their measures foreshadowed as likely to be introduced in the coming Session, they would need the support and sustainment of honestly expressed public opinion in Ireland as well as in England. He warned the Government that they would be playing into the hands of the enemies of their own measures if, instead of encouraging the people in honest agitation, they thus did their utmost to strangle all public life in Ireland. They would not succeed—he hoped that would be in despite of the Bill, and not because of it—without some such clause as that which his hon. Friend proposed. He would point out to the Government, in the cases he had named, and by the experience of past years in Ireland, that no benevolent intention in Dublin Castle could prevent the intimidation that would be put forth on the peasantry of the Western counties by the Pashas, in the name of magistrates, who ruled them, and the myrmidons that dogged them in the guise of policemen. He would not, however, make that reflection on the police without guarding himself to this extent—as a body, the Irish police deserved no such character, and he at once conceded that, as a body, they were a most respectable and trustworthy force, and discharged duties of a painful, difficult, and often absolute character with, on the whole, great moderation; but a sufficient majority differed in that character, and justified him in saying that he would not allow a Bill like that to pass without urging the insertion of some clause that would secure his constituents against policemen who threatened them with soon putting them under lock and key. He had seen two conspiracies in the short period of his public life in Ireland; it had been his fate to incur unpopularity and personal danger in resisting them, and he had a good right to speak as he had spoken. His hon. Friends knew that he had some right to feel hotly and warmly with regard to a Bill which, he believed, would drive the people back into the conspiracies from which he had laboured so hard to save them.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

said, he understood from the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland that he considered the acts complained of should be guarded against by the Government; but that already the object of the Amendment was met in the Bill. If that was the case he had no doubt the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland had given proper consideration to the subject before he made an answer of that kind, which appeared to be, in the main, quite satisfactory. That was to say, it was fairly an answer to the clause before the House; but what he wished to impress upon the Government as necessary was that it should give authority, in some form, to the local authorities to prevent the Bill being anticipated by the action of zealous policemen or magistrates. He himself was a magistrate, although, perhaps, not as efficient a magistrate as he should be owing, to the many other occupations he had; but he knew there were in remote districts in Ireland gentlemen, otherwise most estimable, who believed that law and order could be best carried out by showing great efficiency in the police. He was not one of those who would stand up for the local Land League; but he considered it would be the greatest possible injury to the peace of Ireland if any unjust measures were countenanced by the Government in order to put a stop to the Land League. He would say, let them stand by the law and abide by the Act. If the clause wore pressed to a division he should vote for it; but he thought it would be altogether unnecessary if instructions were given from Dublin Castle that the Government would expect every man to do no more than his duty. There was no doubt that every official would do his duty in vindication of the law, particularly when he got the mot d'ordre of the new Act. But what he wished was that strong instructions should be issued that any official going beyond the Act would not meet with reward, but rather with punishment.

MR. O'DONNELL

believed that if the Government would accept the proposed Amendment, or would frame, or would promise to frame, a clause of their own dealing with the evil in question it would do a great deal to neutralize the effects of the coercive measure. The Government assured the House that the Bill was necessary for the preservation of law and order, and the Irish Members would be more ready to give some credence to that statement if, along with the measures which they thought necessary for preventing disorder by dissolute and disorderly classes, there should be some distinct and definite means adopted to prevent terrorism by the official opponents of terrorism. Her Majesty's Government—and he would say, in a special sense, the English portion of Her Majesty's Government—ought to be particularly careful to provide safeguards against such a misuse of the powers of the Bill. The Irish supporters of the Government in their present policy would be quite prepared to take odium so long as they could enjoy the advantages of coercion. But long after the satisfaction of the supporters of the Government had died away, the mischief of English rule would remain, and every act of cowardly oppression and technical tyranny committed under the Bill would redound to the discredit and injury of the English in Ireland. For that general reason he hoped some voice would be raised from the Liberal Benches opposite in favour of a strict tying up of the hands which would be armed with enormous powers under the Bill. The proposed clause dealt very fairly with threats of three kinds—threats by policemen, threats by magistrates, and threats by officials. He believed that the danger of an improper use of the Bill by the regular official class was the least portion of the terrorism. The officials, as distinct from magistrates and policemen, were not so much under temptation; they had their work in the ordinary Government routine, and they had nothing to gain by misusing the powers they would have. But though he would yield to no man in speaking of the respectable character of the police as a body, his experience confirmed him in the view that the Police Force ought not, in the first place, to be subjected to temptation under the Bill, and then that the Government which subjected the policemen to such temptation should help them to bear the burden of their duties by placing them under sufficient safeguards and protection in order that they might discharge their duty in an efficient manner. The Committee ought to know that there were no safeguards in Ireland against the exercise of excessive power by the police, because the police were not a local force. They were an Irish force; but in each district or county the resident Police Force was carefully selected from elsewhere. In consequence of that, and he would ask the attention of the Chief Secretary, who was probably unacquainted with the fact, the police was carefully separated from home tendencies, and were under none of the checks of home influence to moderate their exercise of excessive powers. In England the police exercised their power among their friends and relatives, and it might be taken for granted that in few cases would they exercise their power unduly; but in Ireland—in the county Galway, for instance —the local Police Force, which would exercise powers under the Act, and who might be tempted to push their powers to the length of terrorism, wore gathered from the North or from the East. It was part of the policy of Her Majesty's Administration in Ireland to place, for instance, in every Catholic county, a force of police gathered from a Protestant county. Under ordinary circumstances, and for the purpose of preventing ordinary crime, he should not object to that; but when it was a political question, and when the police were tempted to act on their political bias, and were tempted by rewards—for they knew that rewards were given after the Fenian agitation—they would be under a stimulus to use their power, and, in the interests of what they considered law and order, to do what in the minds of the people would be to terrorize and to make their lives miserable if they ventured to show in any respect manly independence or to act as Englishmen would. He objected to the clause to this extent—that he believed the punishment ought to be much more severe than was proposed, for if they were to adopt the theory of the Government, the more severe and the more crushing the penalties that were passed against the undue exorcise of power by the officials the more probable it would be that the police would take care not to bring themselves within the most distant reach of such penalties. Every petty act by an official might create an evil comparatively trifling in itself; but when the evil was referred to the Government, who were responsible for all, it would become a lever of great magnitude, because it affected the whole system of government in Ireland. In regard to the third class, the terrorism of the magistrates, he would say that he by no means joined in the outcry against the Irish magistrates generally, for a large number of them were upright and honest men, but in a case of this kind the system should be decided by the worst and the weakest; and as they knew the Government were not contemplating a wholesale suspension of magisterial power, there was a clanger of their power being exercised in a wrongful way. What guarantee was there that the power of threatening and of arbitrary arrest would not be held over the heads of poor tenantry to compel them to pay exorbitant rents? He knew the Government would regret very deeply such an exercise of power as that; but the Government must receive the words of magistrates; and, unless strong penalties and a prospect of severe punishment against the abuse of power were put in the Act, the magistrates would be able to abuse that power. They would have an enormous power of threatening under the head of suspicion of treasonable practices. The Committee had, at a former stage, refused to define what treasonable practices were; they left them as vague as possible; and he maintained, when it was asked that an indefinite body like the magistrates should be empowered to exercise such powers, the Committee, by virtue of its concession to the Government, was bound to make a concession to the Irish people. The Committee trusted in the Government; but the Committee declined to impose the slightest limitation on the Government. The Committee had given full powers to the magistrates to charge any man on a vague suspicion of trea- sonable practices, and the magistrates ought to be bound over under severe penalties not to abuse that power. He ventured to submit that the Amendment of his hon. Friend ought to be accepted by the Government.

And it being Twelve of the clock, the Chairman, in pursuance of the Order of the House, put the Question:—

The Committee divided:—Ayes 43; Noes 392: Majority 349.—(Div. List, No. 67.)

THE CHAIRMAN

The next Amendment is in the name of Mr. Healy.

Mr. HEALY

did not respond.

THE CHAIRMAN

The next Amendment is in the name of Mr. O'Sullivan. The hon. Member proposes two clauses in reference to the prison rules; but they are irrelevant to the object of the Bill, and I rule them to be out of Order. The next Amendment is a clause in the name of Mr. Moore, and that comes under the same ruling as that which applied to the case of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). I have now gone through all the clauses on the Paper of which Notice has been given, according to the Order of the House. The Question is, that I report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 377; Noes 47: Majority 330.—(Div. List, No. 68.)

Question put, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 324; Noes 32: Majority 292.—(Div. List, No. 69.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be taken into Consideration To-morrow."—{Mr. William Edward Forster.)

MR. PARNELL

I do not know whether I shall be in Order in moving, as an Amendment, that the Bill be considered on Monday next. If I am in Order, I shall do so, as I think the interval too short to allow Members time to consider the Bill in its altered shape. I therefore beg to move, as an Amendment, that the Bill be considered on Monday.

MR. A. M. SULLIVAN

seconded the Amendment. He thought that after the protracted discussion which had taken place, both the majority and the minority would be very well pleased to have some rest before they proceeded further with the Bill.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "To-morrow," and insert the words "Monday next,"—(Mr. Parnell,)—instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words 'To-morrow' stand part of the Question."

MR. HEALY

concurred with the hon. Member for Cork City that the next stage of the Bill should not then be proceeded with until Monday next.

MR. LEAMY

thought the request of the hon. Member for Cork City by no means unreasonable. Some time was certainly necessary to consider what further Amendments were necessary.

MR. CALLAN

said, as it was 1 o'clock, it appeared to him to be asking too much that they should enter into consideration of the Bill reported to the House.

MR. MONK

rose to Order. He wished to know whether the hon. Member, having seconded the Motion, was in Order in speaking?

MR. CALLAN

said, the Motion had been seconded by an hon. Member behind him. Even if he (Mr. Callan) had taken off his hat when Mr. Speaker asked if anyone seconded the Motion, he did not know that that would preclude him from speaking. The time being occupied then was necessarily so; but interruptions were purely a waste of time. He hoped the Government would accede to the request that the Report be taken on Thursday; if so, the Bill would leave the House sooner than if the Report were taken that day. He felt bound to support the Motion of the hon. Member for Cork City (Mr. Parnell).

MR. GRAY

thought that the Amendment of the hon. Member for the City of Cork was reasonable, inasmuch as if it were passed the House would have nothing else to occupy it between to-morrow and Monday except the second Coercion Bill, which had not been brought in, and in regard to which it was rumoured that the Chief Secretary had thought better of his intention to introduce it. [Mr. W. E. FORSTER: No.] At any rate, it was reasonable that they should have a little time to consider the Amendments which the right hon. Gentleman had said he would propose. It was now asked by the Government that the House should proceed to consider the Bill without even having seen those Amendments. He submitted that that was not a reasonable course, nor consonant with the Rules of the House. ["Agreed, agreed!"] He supposed some hon. Members thought it consonant with their dignity to pass Amendments without considering them at all. The reality of freedom of debate was gone; but let them have the appearance of it at any rate. They were proceeding with such haste, that it was confessed on both sides that the House scarcely knew what it was doing. Under these circumstances, he thought some time, at least, should be given before the Report on the Bill was taken.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

I beg to say that the Amendments will be upon the Notice Paper to-morrow. I do not believe that they will give any information to the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray), or any other hon. Member who takes an interest in the Bill, because I have already described their effect. I trust that the House will see that there is no necessity for the delay asked for.

MR. PARNELL

rose, and was received with loud cries of "Spoken!"

MR. SPEAKER

If the hon. Member desires to make any statement or explanation, the House will allow him to do so; but he will not be in Order in speaking again.

MR. PARNELL

only wished to say that he should be willing to substitute "Thursday" for "Monday" in his Amendment. ["No."]

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 287; Noes 33: Majority 254.—(Div. List, No. 70.)

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Bill to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 90.]