CONSIDERATION. [FIRST NIGHT.]

HC Deb 22 February 1881 vol 258 cc1530-98

Order for Consideration, as amended, read.

Bill, as amended, considered.

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

MR. W. E. FORSTER

rose to move the insertion after Clause 1 of the following new clause:—

(Grant of out-door relief.) The enactments contained in the third section of 'The Relief of Distress (Ireland) Act, 1880,' as amended by the ninth section of 'The Relief of Distress (Ireland) Amendment Act, 1880,' shall, so far as relates to the families of persons for the time being detained under this Act, continue in force during the continuance of this Act. When the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Metge) brought forward the question of out-door relief he had stated that the Government had no desire to do any injury to the families of persons who might he arrested. The Irish system of out-door relief was different from that in England, and made no provision for such families. The prima facie argument was more in favour of the English than the Irish system—not in regard to this particular case, but in regard to prisoners generally. At the same time, there were a number of persons exceedingly averse to encouraging out-door relief in Ireland, and he did not wish to do anything that would generally relax the restriction upon it; but, with out at all prejudging the question, he had come to the conclusion that in the present case the benefit of the doubt should be given to those to whom the operation of the Act might cause distress, especially as the head of a family might be detained in prison longer than any untried prisoner. The strongest reason adduced in support of the proposal of the hon. Member for Meath was the case of a small farmer, who might be sent to prison, while his family were sent to the workhouse. In that case, the farm would become unoccupied, and would lapse to the landlord. That would be a hard case. He did not think it was likely to occur; but still it was well to provide against it. The Amendment, as brought forward by the hon. Member for Meath, would not have met the case, because it would not have excluded from the usual operations of the Bill farmers who had a tenancy of about a quarter of an acre. However, in order that his (Mr. W. E. Forster's) proposal might not be made a precedent, he would merely add to the Bill one of the provisions of the Relief of Distress Act of last year, and make it applicable to the families of the persons in question. The 3rd section of that Act gave power to the Local Government Board to authorize the Guardians to grant out-door relief in certain cases; and his intention was that the Local Government Board should issue a General Order empowering them to use their discretion as to the special cases he had mentioned. He therefore begged to move the insertion of a clause embodying the 3rd section of the Relief of Distress (Ireland) Act.

Clause (Grant of out-door relief,) — (Mr.W. E. Forster,) —brought up, and read the first time.

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

MR. HEALY

said, that looking to the constitution of the Boards of Guardians in Ireland, and to the influence possessed by ex-officio Guardians who were magistrates and landlords, he was afraid that they would not give out-door relief in these cases if it were left to their discretion. He thought it would be desirable to provide that the families of detained persons should be regarded as by right entitled to out-door relief.

MR. METGE

said, that, having had some experience of parochial work, he was of opinion that the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman went quite far enough. The only difficulty would be as to the Circular or General Order of the Local Government Board.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

promised that the Circular should be issued at once from the passing of the Bill.

MR. A. MOORE

believed that much of the crime which existed in Ireland was due to the hardship inflicted upon the families of prisoners by relief being refused during the incarceration of the head of the family. He was, however, glad to hear that the Irish Poor Law system was to be in some degree assimilated to that of England. He believed that the Guardians had hitherto had very inadequate power of giving out-door relief. He was much indebted to the Government for the clause now brought forward amending this anomalous state of things.

MR. SEXTON

hoped that the Guardians would be empowered to grant relief for the whole period of the operation of the Act, and not only for the period, as at present limited, of two months.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he was not quite sure whether they could give relief for more than two months under the Acts; but if he found they could not, the power would be renewed, if necessary.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

feared that it would be difficult to overcome the inertness and the excessive love of economy that characterized the Boards of Guardians in Ireland. There could be no doubt that there was a strong prejudice amongst them against out-door relief; and he should be glad, therefore, if the Government could see their way to assimilate the Poor Law of Ireland to that of England.

Motion agreed to.

Clause added to the Bill.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

rose to move a new clause (List of persons detained to be submitted to Parliament), which stood in the name of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell).

MR. SPEAKER

It will not be regular for the hon. Member for Galway to move this clause. The House expects that an hon. Member giving Notice of a clause should propose it to the House himself. He cannot depute that duty to another Member. I may point out, however, that the substance of this Amendment might be moved when the House proceeds to the consideration of the Bill.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

rose to a point of Order. He wanted to know whether it would not be competent for him, or any Member of the House, to move on his own behalf any clause which was printed on the Paper?

MR. SPEAKER

I must remind the hon. Member that no clause can be received on the consideration of a Bill without Notice.

MR. CALLAN,

in moving the following new clause:—

(Warrant to issue only on sworn information.) No warrant of the Lord Lieutenant under this Act shall be issued until the grounds for suspecting the person against whom it is directed shall be set forth in an information to be sworn, and kept in such manner as the Lord Lieutenant shall direct, and which information shall be laid upon the Table of the House, if so ordered by Parliament on the Motion of any Member, said, that his object simply was that some record should be kept of the grounds upon which the warrant had been issued and a person arrested. If some one of his hon. Friends near him should hereafter become a Minister of the Crown, it might be alleged that he had been arrested under the Act for some treasonable crime, and he wished that there should be a record available to disprove that. A gentleman, who was afterwards a Member of the House, was arrested in 1848, not under the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act, but, fortunately for him, upon a specific charge, and detained in prison. He afterwards went to Australia, and there become Prime Minister and was honoured with knighthood by Her Majesty. He meant Sir Charles Gavan Duffy. If that gentleman had been arrested under the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, it might be alleged that he had been guilty of some dark crime. Some Members of that House, also, who might be arrested under that Act, might emigrate to foreign lands, and become distinguished Members of Colonial Legislatures. They ought to be able to show that there was no real stigma on their characters. What he desired was, to secure that there should in all cases be a tangible ground for an arrest. He desired that persons should not be arrested merely upon a private and irresponsible communication made by the Constabulary, or a resident magistrate to the Chief Secretary. Even for the protection of the right hon. Gentleman, it was desirable that if his conduct was hereafter impugned, he should be able to show the grounds on which he had acted. He could not see, if a magistrate or the police had good grounds for their suspicion, that they could have any objection to embodying the grounds of that suspicion on sworn information. It might not immediately be produced; but it would be available for production if the House should hereafter order. If they were not prepared to do so, then on the commonest principles of justice the person against whom their suspicions were directed should not be deprived of his liberty. As no prosecution for a crime was now allowed to be instituted except on sworn information, so the Irish Executive should not be allowed to exercise the extraordinary powers which it was now proposed to commit to them unless they had before them the sworn information of persons who were ready to affirm on their oaths that they had reasonable grounds for their suspicions.

New Clause (Warrant to issue only on sworn information,)—(Mr. Callan,) brought up, and read the first time.

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

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, that there was a Notice on the Paper of a Motion on this subject which he believed had been withdrawn. But, at all events, the principle of having to act upon sworn information had boon thoroughly debated, and by a large majority it was resolved to adhere to the provision that persons could be arrested upon reasonable suspicion. He could not accept the Amendment, as its adoption would tend to defeat the object of the Bill.

MR. LEAMY

urged that, in the Amendment referred to by the Chief Secretary, information would have been made public, and in that case the objection of the right hon. Gentleman would be easily understood. In the Motion before the Committee the hon. Member for Louth merely asked that the information should be kept in such a manner as the Lord Lieutenant might direct, and should be laid on the Table of the House only by order of Parliament. The information, therefore, would remain with the Lord Lieutenant, and no one would know anything about it unless Parliament directed its publication.

MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY

hoped the Chief Secretary would accede to this Amendment; and he would put it to him whether they should not preserve in some manner the information which led to a man's arrest, so that afterwards he might have an opportunity, if he thought he was aggrieved, of learning the grounds of his arrest. If the Chief Secretary decided not to accept the Amendment in its present form, he might, at least, give some assurance that there should be some sworn information which would prove a sort of record in the event of the case being afterwards investigated.

MR. SEXTON

pointed out that the Amendment differed materially from the Amendment alluded to by the Chief Secretary. The Government believed that the publication of the information would be attended with very great inconvenience, and, no doubt, it would be; but all that the present Amendment sought was that the information should be secretly taken and kept by the Government. He failed to see how any danger could accrue to any individual giving information by adopting this course, or on what ground the Government could refuse to take information on oath. Again, it was not proposed that the information should be made public except by a vote of Parliament; and surely the right hon. Gentleman did not think the House should be deprived of the opportunity of getting information should it think it necessary to do so. A person detained under this Act should have an opportunity of clearing his character against vague imputations cast upon it; and, therefore, he would strongly appeal to the Chief Secretary, who did not seem to have considered the difference between this Amendment and the one already rejected by the Committee, to accede to the request of the hon. Member for Louth. If the Bill remained as it stood, any man imprisoned under it would be subjected to vague and, perhaps, ruinous imputations of having committed a heinous offence. For this reason the Government ought to preserve a sworn record which, without involving anyone in danger, would enable the suspected person to clear his character at a future period.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

hoped some assurance would be given that no warrant should issue until information of the grounds, sworn or otherwise, had been filed in Dublin Castle. There ought to be something in the nature of a procés verbal, which would enable a man who was really innocent to clear away the imputation resting on his character.

MR. HEALY

thought the reply of the Chief Secretary was exactly the same as the one which a few nights ago he made to another Amendment quite different from the one in question. He would remind the House that imprisonments under this Bill would be very different from the imprisonments which had taken place in Ireland for Fenianism. The Fenians had been regarded as heroes and martyrs, whilst persons charged on suspicion with some such offence as an incendiary fire or maiming cattle would be liable, perhaps, to be disgraced. Persons ought not to be disgraced for life under vague charges with no chance of clearance as to the nature of the offence.

MR. FINIGAN

pointed out that the terms of the clause did not propose to render it necessary that the sworn information should be made public. What was intended was that the information should be kept as a State record by the Lord Lieutenant. It would be but fair, he contended, that the House should have an opportunity of reviewing the circumstances in cases where a warrant might be issued, not upon information grounded on reasonable suspicion, but upon information prompted by malice or vindictiveness. If this Amendment was adopted, it would contribute to the pacification of Ireland and the prevention of crime; some slight element of justice would also be imparted into the Bill, and this would be a better precedent for future statesmen to act upon than was the Bill in its present harshness.

MR. BARRY

observed, that the information could only be made public by a vote in the House, and it was simply an act of common justice that some record for reference should be kept of the reasons for arrests at Dublin Castle. He hoped the clause might be agreed to, as it would give innocent persons, if any were arrested, or persons arrested for some trivial offence, the means of removing the stigma under which they must otherwise remain in consequence of their incarceration.

MR. DALY

thought the Government would benefit themselves by accepting the Amendment, for it would show that a reasonable ground existed for the arrest of the person suspected. As far as he could see, there was no valid reason whatever for refusing the Amendment.

Question put.

The House divided: —Ayes 41; Noes 317: Majority 276.—(Div. List, No. 71.)

MR. LEAMY

proposed the insertion of the following Clause: —

(Any person detained under this Act, if defendant in action of ejectment, may appear in court.) Every defendant in an action of ejectment commenced either before or after the passing of this Act, who may he imprisoned under this Act shall be allowed to appear in person in court during the hearing of the said action. He hoped the Chief Secretary would see his way to accept the Amendment. He need scarcely point out to him that in every action of ejectment, especially where the defendant was entitled to claim compensation for disturbance, the defendant was nearly always an important and necessary witness. In fact, in many cases, the tenant had to prove certain improvements for which he would be entitled to receive compensation; and if, under these circumstances, an action of this hind were allowed to proceed in the absence of the defendant, very serious prejudice and harm would be done to the defendant. He was very much afraid that the extensive powers given to the Lord Lieutenant would not enable him to permit a person to appear in Court unless a special clause were introduced into the Act empowering him to do so.

Another Clause (Any person detained under this Act, if defendant in action of ejectment, may appear in Court,)—(Mr. Leamy,) —brought up, and read the first time.

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

was afraid he could not assent to the clause. It was no doubt inconvenient that the defendant in an action for ejectment should be detained in prison; but he saw no reason for making the distinction which this Amendment would establish between persons detained under the Bill and other prisoners. Moreover, such a clause was not necessary, as in every case where the attendance of a person imprisoned under this Bill might be necessary in Court, and not merely in cases of ejectment, the only thing requisite would be to apply to the Lord Lieutenant for his consent to an application to the Court of Queen's Bench, and that Court would order the attendance of the defendants at the hearing of any action.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

asked whether he was to understand from what the right hon. and learned Gentleman had said that the permission asked for would be granted as a matter of course, if a writ were issued by the Court of Queen's Bench?

MR. CALLAN

said, the right hon. and learned Gentleman's explanation would lead the House to believe that a writ could be issued by the Court of Queen's Bench for the appearance of the prisoner. He thought that the posed clause, like the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland's explanation, was rather clumsily drawn. The House could not pass the Amendment in the exact phraseology in which it was drawn; but it could relegate to the Queen's Bench the power to determine whether or not a witness was essential in an action, and he suggested that the proposed clause should read— That notwithstanding the provisions of this Act, or provided always that on the Court of Queen's Bench being satisfied that the defendant in an action of ejectment is a necessary and essential witness in the ease then pending, the Court should be at liberty to issue a writ in such case. That would meet all that they asked for, and would take out of the hands of the Irish Executive the power of injuring a poor man who might be very objectionable to them; but still ought not to be deprived of the rights given to him by the Constitution.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, what he had endeavoured to explain' was that the person who wished to be produced in Court as his own witness must get the consent of the Lord Lieutenant to apply for a writ; and this, in all proper cases, would be so obtained, as a matter of course.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

thought the Amendment was so reasonable that the House could not, for very shame, refuse to accept it. Many of them knew that an ejectment against an Irish farmer involved absolute ruin, and to refuse a man who might be arrested innocently the liberty of appearing in Court to state the reason why he should not be ejected from his holding appeared to be inflicting a double injury on an innocent man. If this Amendment were rejected, he should feel that the Government were determined to carry to the utmost extreme the arbitrary authority conferred by the Bill. He earnestly hoped the Government would re-consider their determination, as it appeared to him to be very unfair.

THE O'DONOGHUE

said, there could be no doubt that this was a vital Amendment; and he was of opinion that, unless the Government acceded to it, great injustice and irreparable injury might be inflicted on large numbers of persons in Ireland. They might assume that persons in custody would receive information that these proceedings had been taken against them; but what he wished to point out to the Government was that the person against whom the ejectment might be brought might be a very poor person, without the means of taking the necessary proceedings to enable him to appear in Court. He respectfully urged on the Government to take this into consideration, and to provide that poverty should be no impediment to the tenant in custody being enabled to assert his right.

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

said, the case had been put entirely on a false issue. The terms of the clause were to the effect that a person who was imprisoned should be allowed to appear as a witness in person in Court during the hearing of the action. That was exactly his position at present. If any person who was in custody under any circumstances were required as a witness, the ordinary course was to satisfy the Court of Queen's Bench that he was a necessary witness; and then he was brought up, as a matter of course, under a writ issued by that Court for the purpose. The only thing the Act did was to prevent an application being made to the Court of Queen's Bench with that object before the consent of the Lord Lieutenant had been obtained. If a certain witness was necessary, the application would be made in the ordinary way—first to the Lord Lieutenant for his consent, and then, that consent being-obtained, to the Queen's Bench Division for the usual writ; and the witness would be brought up as a matter of course.

THE O'DONOGHUE

Would his coming up entail any expense?

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

Under this Act he would be brought up in the custody of the gaoler and at the expense of the prison authorities, not at his own expense; therefore most ample justice was done.

MR. A. M. SULLIVAN

said, they were aware that a writ would bring a man out of any prison in the land; but what his hon. Friend aimed at was this —that the unfortunate prisoner would, unless the Amendment were agreed to, have to take an additional legal step, which meant additional expense. He argued that the Amendment was drawn in a way that was open to the objections urged against it; and he would suggest that some clause be inserted in the Bill empowering the issue of a writ in the case of ejectments.

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

said, he thought it would be much better to leave that to the Executive. It would be impossible to frame a clause now such as the hon. and learned Member suggested. The course he (the Solicitor General for Ireland) thought the Lord Lieutenant would be advised to take upon application being made to him was to direct his Law Adviser to be instructed to apply for a writ of Habeas Corpus if he considered it necessary.

MR. LEAMY

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman give that assurance?

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

Certainly.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. A. M. SULLIVAN

moved the insertion of the following new Clause:— No person discharged from detention under this Act shall he so discharged at a greater distance than five miles from the place whereat he was first arrested under the Act, unless he shall himself prefer to he discharged at a place nearer to the prison wherein he was last detained. The object of the clause was to prevent persons being discharged at such a distance from their homes that it made it a matter of great difficulty for them to get to their homes. It would be a gross injustice, for instance, to dicharge a person arrested in Sligo, or in any other part of the West of Ireland, in the streets of Dublin, after being liberated from Mountjoy Prison, without giving him the means of travelling home.

Clause (Discharge of Prisoner), — (Mr. A. M. Sullivan), —brought up, and read the first time.

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

MR. SEXTON

supported the Amendment, on the ground that it would be adding inhumanity to the punishment inflicted by the Bill not to give prisoners an opportunity of returning home without very great inconvenience.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW),

while partly concurring with hon. Members opposite, called attention to the fact that the hardship, which might in certain cases be very great, was met by the Prisons Act, which provided that persons discharged should receive each a sum not exceeding £2 to pay the expenses of their journey homo. That grant of money, however, was permissive, and not invariable.

MR. DALY

objected to the Governor of any prison having it in his power to say whether aid should be given or not. He thought it would be far better, if a person were assured he would have a certain sum, to take him to his home.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

thought that was a matter which might well be left to the Prisons Board.

MR. A. M. SULLIVAN

said, he quite saw the point, and felt it would be advisable that persons should receive 12s., 15s, or £1, as the case might be, to take them to their homes; but in the case of persons arrested on suspicion it should be made compulsory, and not permissive.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, taking the proposed clause in that light, he saw no objection to it, and would accept it— the clause to be introduced after subsection 4 of Clause 1.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause added to the Bill.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, that, in accordance with the arrangement that was come to in Committee, he begged to move an Amendment fixing September 30, 1880, as the day on which the Act should come into operation. The point having already been discussed at some length, he would not now repeat his arguments.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 6, to leave out the words "either before or after the passing of this Act," in order to insert the words "at any time since the thirtieth day of September, one thousand eight hundred and eighty."—(Mr. William Edward Forster.)

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

Question proposed, "That the words 'at any time since the thirtieth day of September one thousand eight hundred and eighty' be there inserted."

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, that not a single concession to mitigate the severity of the Bill or its retrospective action had been made by the right hon. Gentleman. Every Amendment with that object, whether coming from the Liberal or Conservative side of the House, had been met with the same relentless hostility. The responsibility for the Bill rested, therefore, with the right hon. Gentleman alone. If the right hon. Gentleman had shown the least desire to meet the views, even of Liberal Members, he would have gained for the Bill a certain amount of support from Members on both sides. The right hon. Gentleman now proposed to limit the retrospective action of the Bill to the 30th of September, 1880; but he might as well have gone back to 1848. The Government intended to make the measure so sweeping as to catch within its net every act done and word spoken during the Land League agitation. When the Chief Secretary rejected the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stansfeld), who for years sat side by side with him on the Treasury Bench and in Opposition, he would not be likely to pay any particular attention to proposals coming from those Benches. The right hon. Gentleman might as well be brought face to face with his own conscience at once. The right hon. Gentleman might say he only wanted to get at a certain number of "dissolute ruffians;" but he might as well take off the mask and tell the House that he meant to rise the Bill to the utmost, and for the next 18 months to establish a reign of terror over the Irish people. He had now got beyond the first stage of the Bill, when he thought it necessary to give those melodramatic pictures of the condition of Ireland, which bore the same relation to the state of things actually existing as a drama at one of the transpontine theatres to the realities of life. When the right hon. Gentleman said that he did not mean to confine the operation of the Bill to the future, he distinctly declared that he intended to make the measure not preventive, but punative and vindictive. ["Oh!"] Hon. Gentlemen might cry "Oh!" or laugh, as the Treasury Bench might direct them; but the fact remained that the Bill was necessarily punative and vindictive. He did not believe it was of any use for him to say more; but he felt it his duty to denounce the infamous, the criminal, and the unprecedented cruelty of the Bill.

MR. SEXTON

wished to give a brief example of what might happen if the retrospective action of the Bill were carried back as far as the end of last September. The editor of The Sligo Champion had been brought before the magistrates under the White boy Act, because a paragraph appeared in his paper recommending that a person should give up a farm from which another had been evicted, and it was attempted to show that that was an act of intimidation. The Crown Prosecutor brought the charge at the instance of the Attorney General for Ireland; but not only the mayor of the town and five unpaid magistrates, but the resident magistrate himself laughed the law of the Crown Prosecutor out of court. If this Bill were made to go so far back as last September it would be in the power of the right hon. Gentleman to console himself for the defeats he had experienced at the hands of the magistrates. The right hon. Gentleman had himself admitted that there had been a rapid decrease of crime in Ireland; in face, therefore, of the diminution of agrarian outrage his retention of the retrospective character of the Bill proved it to be vindictive. He appealed to the Government to let the Act run from the date of its introduction, or from the 6th of January, when the people of Ireland were informed by the Queen's Speech that it would be brought forward. Such a course would be candid and consistent, and would save the Bill from appearing to be vindictive.

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

said, he trusted the hon. Member who had just sat down was generally more accurate in his facts than those with which he had favoured the House on this occasion. He had been good enough to charge him himself with colluding with another Law Officer to bring about a prosecution which he knew to be unfounded. It was quite enough in that House to state that charge to vindicate himself.

MR. DALY

said, he did not think there was much good in addressing the House on this subject, as, notwithstanding the opposition the Government had received on certain points even from their own supporters, they had not altered the Bill in any one important point. He, however, still protested against the retrospective character of the Bill. It had also a longer prospective duration than any previous Coercion Bill. It was intended to last two years, being antedated from the end of September, 1880, and extending to September 31, 1882. The retrospective provisions of the Bill rendered it an engine of vindictive punishment. Crime in Ireland had greatly diminished; and he appealed to the Chief Secretary to accede to the wishes of hon. Gentlemen sitting on those Benches.

MR. SPEAKER

pointed out that the hon. Member was not speaking to the Amendment, which related to the duration of the Bill.

MR. DALY

said, a law could only be successfully administered when the people recognized its justice. The fact that, in addition to its stringency, it was retrospective conveyed the impression to the minds of the people that it was not a measure for the deterrence of crime, but for punishment for past deeds.

MR. T. D. SULLIVAN

thought the Government were bound, in acknowledgment of the improved condition of Ireland, to abandon the retrospective portion of the Bill, more especially as they were themselves largely responsible for its previously disturbed state, by their neglecting to put in force the ordinary law of the land.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

hoped the Government would forego the retrospective action of the Bill, which, as this clause stood, would only apply to the crimes of treason and treason-felony.

MR. T. C. THOMPSON

was of opinion that the Bill laid down a very dangerous principle—namely, that persons could be punished for offences committed before the existence of the Act. He did not object to the Bill solely in the interest of the people arrested, but in the interest of the great body of the people. They were often finding out that certain persons had been acting unjustly; and it was quite possible that during the next two or three days they might find out that a great many landlords in Ireland had been receiving rents very unjustly. If they carried the Amendment of the Chief Secretary they would be breaking through the good old maxim of English rule, that "Bygones should be bygones." The precedent they were attempting to create might be fraught with great danger— in fact, it might be said that even Members of the House were not safe from such dangers as that involved in the present legislation.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, the words "prescribed district" referred to a district prescribed at the time when the offence was committed. The Government for a long time appeared to have been unaware of the character of their own Bill. They had overlooked this point, and they only contemplated that they would have legal power under this Bill, when it became law, to arrest a man in a district which they proposed hereafter to prescribe for an act which was committed before that district was prescribed. He was sorry his hon. Friend had pointed out this blot on the Bill. He should have been very glad to see the Bill become law with the clause as it originally stood in it.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

said, he rose to Order. Was it proper for a Member of the Irish Party to propose to bring in another penal clause?

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, he was very sorry the hon. Member misunderstood his remark. He proposed to amend the Bill in this way—to leave out the words,"30th day of September, 1880,"and insert,"31st January, 1881."

Amendment proposed to said proposed Amendment, To leave out the words "thirtieth day of September one thousand eight hundred and eighty," in order to insert the words 'thirty-first day of January one thousand eight hundred and eighty-one.—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor,) —instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words 'thirtieth day of September one thousand eight hundred and eighty,' stand part of the proposed Amendment."

MR. LEAMY

remarked that until after the Bill passed there was no such thing as a prescribed district. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would agree to the compromise proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for Galway.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, some hon. Members seemed to suppose that it was the intention of the Government, in dealing with the retrospective portion of the Bill, to make it possible that it should only apply to treason and treason-felony, and not to agrarian offences; but that was not the intention of the measure, and he should propose, later, some lines dealing with the latter class of offences. With regard to the Amendment for the 31st of January, hon. Members must really not suppose that he was not paying attention to their arguments if he did not stay in the House to reply to them, because the question had been thoroughly debated. Certain hon. Gentlemen seemed inclined to throw the entire responsibility for this Bill on his shoulders; but the fact was it had been very carefully considered by his Colleagues, not only in general principle, but in detail; and, also, which was of very great importance, it had been assented to by a very large majority of the House after a long discussion of this very particular matter. Again, the argument had been brought forward that they had turned this Bill into a vindictive instead of a preventive proposal by making it retrospective. They sought also power of arrest, on reasonable suspicion, of those they believed to have done certain acts in past time. Why did they do that? Because it gave them the power to arrest those people, and prevent them committing similar acts again. He again apologized to the House for re-asserting what had been so much dwelt upon. In his speech the senior Member for Cork (Mr. Daly) said a good many of the men who had committed offences had gone. They would not have gone if the Bill had not been retrospective; and if the Committee of the House wore to change its mind and not make the Bill retrospective, he very much doubted whether these gentlemen would not come back again.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

asked whether a person could be arrested, under this measure, for a crime committed in a district subsequently proscribed, and at a time when the power to prescribe districts was not in existence?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

That matter has been discussed. I have not the least doubt myself that under the power conferred by this Bill a person may be arrested, if a district has been prescribed, for a crime committed before the district was prescribed.

Question put.

The House divided: —Ayes 1.64; Noes 41: Majority 123.—(Div. List, No. 72.)

Words inserted.

MR. PARNELL,

who had given Notice of an Amendment to leave out, in line 8, the words "treason-felony or treasonable practices," said, he would only move the first portion of his Amendment—to leave out "treason-felony." In explanation on the course he proposed to take in dividing his Amend- ment into two portions, he said he thought it probable that many hon. Members of the House might be prepared to support one portion who might not support the other. He had read with some interest the debate which took place on this question during the passage of the Bill through Committee. He had not yet been able to understand why the Government had included these words "treason-felony" in the Bill. He did not think that the Fenian conspiracy was at all more active at the present moment than it had been at any time during the last eight or nine years; and he was disposed to believe that the Government were acting under the influence of some panic originated by some false or erroneous information. There were, he was aware, a great number of reports and rumours of various kinds flying about with regard to the intentions of the Fenian Brotherhood in America, and also in Ireland. He had been told that the Government had received information as to an intended movement by the Fenians in Ireland or in this country; but, knowing as he did something of what was going on in England and Ireland among his fellow-countrymen, and of their feelings and sentiments, he was utterly at a loss to understand the reason why panic should have taken possession of the Government. He did not wish to say that the Fenian Brotherhood were opposed to the Land League movement. It was true that a section of them had openly, and in the public prints, expressed disapproval of the Land League movement, on the ground that it was a movement of a social character, calculated to draw the people away from their object of national independence, and to set up the idea that they were to become possessors of their own farms, instead of building up a nation in Ireland, which had been the object of the Fenian Association. But it was also true that individual members of that Association in America had given the Land League a full and independent support, not as a revolutionary movement, not because they supposed that the Land League at any time intended to resort to violent or revolutionary methods to attain its end, but because they looked upon landlordism as the chief English garrison in Ireland—as one of the pillars of English mis-rule in that country; and because they thought that, when the exceptional privileges and unjust rights of that class were taken away, one of the chief obstacles to attaining the separation of Ireland from England would be removed; but to say that the Fenians were active in Ireland, America, or England in support of a purely separative movement was to say that of which none of the evidence before them afforded them the slightest tangible ground whatever. On the contrary, he knew that many leaders of that Association had complained that the Land League movement was diverting funds, which would have been received for revolutionary purposes, into the coffers of the Land League. He supposed that at no time was the Fenian Association less active in Ireland than it was at the present moment. It had always been so; whenever the minds of the people wore diverted by a Constitutional movement and agitation they lost that desire to participate in secret organizations, to which the Irish people had been driven from time to time, in default of other outlets for their opinions. The Bill as it stood would empower the Lord Lieutenant to put into prison any person suspected of "high treason, treason-felony, or treasonable practices." He could only account for the introduction of those words by the supposition that the Chief Secretary desired to arrest men who had obviously committed no offence against the law of the land. Treason-felony was an occult offence, committed secretly in a secret organization, and of late it had not consisted of overt acts; and therefore it occurred to the Government to obtain power that, if there was any individual that they had a particular objection to, this power of arresting on reasonable suspicion of treason-felony would afford them a short cut for effecting their purpose. The late Government had to deal with the Fenian agitation; but they did not suspend the Habeas Corpus Act for the purpose of dealing with anything but a state of actual rebellion in the country; but there was no state of actual rebellion now. Never were the minds of the Irish people further removed from any desire to resort to violence against the established Government of the country, and he believed that this frame of mind extended not only to the Irish people in Ireland, but also in this country, and to the far more numerous, greater, and better nation that existed in the United States of America. He thought they were entitled to ask for some better reason for the retention of these words than the panic about Fenians got up during the last few days. Garrisons had been doubled, the rifles of Volunteers had been deprived of their locks, and immense precautions taken for the purpose of guarding against a Fenian attack in this country. The only reason for this panic was that a tin can containing dynamite was exploded at Salford; but the circumstances pointed to it being meant as a practical joke. He imagined that a Fenian conspiracy would not suppose that they could blow up the British Empire by means of a can of dynamite, or make war against the Government with a few pounds of gunpowder; but that was the only excuse for this panic. They had also been told, in the awe-inspiring tones of the Home Secretary, that Mr. James Stephens had arrived at Paris last week, although Paris was his place of residence; but last year Mr. Stephens had Simply gone to America in order to induce the Irish people not to support the Land League. He would ask the Government whether it was a dignified course to take to attach importance to matters of this kind? There was no evidence whatever of the existence of an extensive conspiracy, or one which was likely to break out in a way which would cope with the forces of the Government. He admitted that the Land League organization was a powerful one; and, if the Government desired to suppress it, they could not do better than propose to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act. He was confident, however, that their efforts to put down the Land League would fail; hut, as to the Fenian movement, he did not believe that at any time during the past seven or eight years it had been less powerful than it was at the present time. In conclusion, the hon. Member moved the omission of the word "treason-felony."

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 8, to leave out the words"treason-felony."—(Mr. Parnell.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'treason-felony' stand part of the Bill."

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, they had not had the advantage in their discussions in Committee, except for a very short time, of the presence of the hon. Member for the City of Cork. If the hon. Member had taken part in those discussions he hardly thought he would have thought it necessary to repeat, on the present occasion, arguments which were then used. The hon. Member had given an interesting account of the relations of the Land League to the Fenian body.

MR. PARNELL

Not to the Fenian body, but to individuals.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

To what the hon. Member described as Fenians generally. The Fenian Brotherhood, I think he said.

MR. PAENELL

No; I said individuals composing it.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, the hon. Member had given them interesting information; and he dared say, to a great extent, it was correct. He admitted there was very little in the published accounts of either one body or the other to cause the introduction of these words; but as he had stated, on introducing the Bill, and on other occasions, they were inserted not on the ground of anything that publicly had appeared, but on information which the Government were in possession of. He did not want the House to take an exaggerated view of that information. They did not believe there was danger of any dangerous rebellion, or any armed rising in Ireland or elsewhere, especially in Ireland, that would cause any real danger to the Empire; but they included in treason-felony and treasonable practices any attempts, more or less atrocious, which ought to be prevented. He was surprised at the manner in which the hon. Member had alluded to what occurred at Salford, when he described the explosion of a can of dynamite as a practical joke. That explosion had caused the death of a poor child, and might cause the death of another person. He did not form any interpretation with regard to that act; but he would state that it was an act which obliged the Government to look very carefully to see how it might have come to pass. He could not say there was proof; but, on the other hand, there was ground for suspicion, that it was connected with treasonable action with Irish objects. That was one, among other acts, to which the Government had to give their serious consideration.

MR. PARNELL

Will the right hon. Gentleman be kind enough to state on what ground?

MR. W. E. FORSTER

did not think the hon. Member could imagine for a moment that he would state the ground. If the hon. Member's remark had not been answered, it might have gone forth that the belief of the Government was that the affair at Salford was a mere practical joke. The hon. Member had made a strong charge against the Government. The charge made by the hon. Member was this—that an arrest might be made under cover of a reasonable suspicion which, after all, had no real existence in the minds of the authorities. Of course, if that was his opinion, he was entitled to hold it; but it was hardly an opinion which would obtain much credence in that House. If it did obtain much credence in that House, certainly neither he nor his Colleagues would remain in power for one day longer. The hon. Member had stated that if the Government wished to take action against the Land League, they could not have adopted a more effectual mode than by bringing in this Bill. He thought it might fail; but he thought it very possible that—

MR. PARNELL

Yes; I am sure it will fail.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

The certainty of failure came rather in contradiction to the success that had preceded in such matters. This, however, he would say-that in so far as that organization might be an organization for intimidation, and for attaining its object by intimidation and the help of outrages, this Bill would succeed. In so far as it was an organization for attaining a Constitutional change by Constitutional methods, this Bill was not intended to be directed against it; and if it was directed against it, it would fail.

MR. DAWSON

said, that no sufficient reason had been given in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman for retaining these conditions in the Bill.

MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY

thought that the reasons given by the right hon. Gentleman were very extraordinary, and differed considerably from the line of argument he had adopted on a former occasion. He (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) felt bound to vindicate the hon. Member for Cork City from the charge of having treated the Salford outrage as a practical joke. It did not occur until after the introduction of this Bill into Parliament, and therefore it could not be taken as an excuse for it. Besides, he did not see what an offence committed in England had to do with agrarian crime in Ireland.

MR. HEALY

held that sufficient grounds had not been laid before the House to justify them in giving the Government the power which it now sought for dealing with treason-felony under this Bill. If the Home Secretary was in possession of any secret information as to the existence of any danger from a Fenian conspiracy, he should remember that the persons from whom such information was obtained were generally men of a class who sought to make money out of the Government, and who did not scruple to earn their wages by the most unblushing falsehoods and perjuries. They were men of the type of the infamous Titus Oates.

MR. SPEAKER

requested the hon. Member to confine his remarks to the Amendment before the House.

MR. HEALY

observed that, if anything happened in England which did not admit of easy explanation on any ordinary hypothesis, it was at once put down to the Fenian conspiracy. The recent alleged outrage at Salford had been so represented, although there was nothing in its circumstances, as far as the published accounts of it went, which forbade the supposition that it might have originated in an accidental explosion of gas. However, a groundless panic had been created, and the Government had not attempted to check it, as it afforded them a convenient means of helping to carry this Bill.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down says the Government are dependent for their information upon informers, and that is the only ground on which it can be suggested that there is any danger to fear from Fenian conspiracy. I desire entirely to contradict that, and to say there is ground of a totally different character for believing that a Fenian conspiracy exists—that it professes the same treasonable and unlawful objects, and pursues them by the same detestable means, as Fenian conspiracies have done in the past. Nobody who is acquainted with the American Press can doubt for a moment that that conspiracy exists, and that in countries where it is safe to avow its objects these objects are avowed. A paper was sent to me a few days ago, belonging to a man who is perfectly well known—a man who was a Fenian convict, but who received the mercy of the Crown by being released before the expiry of his sentence. He was subsequently elected Member for an Irish constituency; but he was unable to take his seat, being a convict felon. I refer to O'Donovan Rossa. He has a paper called The United Irishman, a copy of which was sent to me the other day. That paper stated that the objects which were pursued by the Party to which the editor belonged were to overthrow the English Government by the sword, and by Constitutional agitation. Then there was a speech reported in that paper by a man well known in this country, a man who certainly received the grace of the Crown—John Devoy, who was a convict, and, unfortunately, allowed to go at liberty before the expiry of his sentence. The speech of Devoy was made on behalf of a body called the American Land League. I wish to say distinctly that I do not charge the Irish Land League with complicity with the American Land League, or that it is responsible for what is said. I am only stating facts. Speaking on behalf of the American Land League, Devoy said the time was come for action in Ireland; that there would probably be a collision, or something of the kind in Ireland between the authorities and the people, and that then he and his friends were prepared to reply to that by assassination. ["Oh!"] Hon. Members might be shocked; but this is the statement of the man himself, not that of an informant, but published in this paper by O'Donovan Rossa. He begun naturally with some interesting matters. He says he will assassinate a single Minister, and then he will assassinate the whole Cabinet. That is what they desire, and then he says he and his friends intend to accomplish a conflagration of the whole of London and other cities in England. Then he used a phrase which is very remarkable, no doubt, connected with practical jokes—that he would "have recourse to modern science." I think we know what the resources of modern science are connected with the conflagration of the towns. Do not let me be told that this is the perjured information of an informer. It is the object of a detestable conspiracy which, in places where it is safe, does not hide its object. Then the author of this statement goes on to say he is not advising anybody to follow this course who is not prepared to follow him, when the proper time comes, in Ireland. Would any Government, or any civilized society, not take precautions to protect themselves against the objects of such detestable violence as this? If Mr. O'Donovan Rossa and Mr. Devoy, and the people whom they subsidize, collect money for this object, do you mean to say the English Government is to disarm itself against projects such as these? Ought it not rather to arm itself to the teeth? Has the hon. Member never heard of "the Skirmishing Fund." That is a fund—

MR. HEALY

The Skirmishing Fund no longer exists. It has been displaced by a more reputable organization.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

The hon. Member seems to know something about the Skirmishing Fund. Will he, or some of his Friends, be good enough to tell me what O'Donovan Rossa means when he talks about the Skirmishing Fund, if it no longer exists? It is perfectly idle to say that there is no evidence except that of informants of these detestable plots. It is the duty of every Government and every society to protect itself against men whose principles are the principles of the Nihilists, and whoso practices are the practices of the Petroleurs.

MR. SEXTON

asked if the speech of Devoy was to be used as an argument for the suspension of the liberties of the people of Ireland? He had not had the advantage of seeing the paper to which the Home Secretary had referred; but he had for many years studied the writing in American papers, and he could assure the House that if the expressions of hostility to English rule in Ireland were to constitute a sufficient reason for the suspension of public liberty in that country, such an argument might have been found any day in the course of the last generation. The Irish people were not responsible for Mr. Devoy's sentiments. His object in rising, however, was to offer a few words of protest against the unfair manner in which the Chief Secretary for Ireland had criticized the remarks of his hon. Friend the Member for Cork City (Mr. Parnell). His hon. Friend deplored as much as any Member in the House the death that was occasioned by what took place in Salford. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of his (Mr. Sexton's) hon. Friend as if he knew that there were secret relations between the Land League and the Fenian Brotherhood. But his hon. Friend was not open to the charge that he knew of there being relations between them. The Land League was a political body, having no relations with any other body, open or secret. The Land League did not desire to carry out its objects by acts of intimidation; but it relied decidedly and entirely upon the action and sympathy of the people, and upon the public organization, for the bringing about a unity of sentiment to that end. He indignantly denied that the Land League was an intimidating body, or was in any manner connected with illegal or unconstitutional conspiracy. He had heard with satisfaction the declaration of the right hon. Gentleman that the provisions of the Bill would only be used against the Land League when it showed itself to be an intimidating association; because, in that case, he felt sure that the Land League, which rested upon the confidence of the people, would be re-established on a firmer footing than ever.

MR. CALLAN

ridiculed the fears that had been expressed by the Home Secretary of personal violence being offered to the Ministry. He himself had been threatened; and he had read in some American paper of a proposal to throw a ball containing some dreadfully explosive material upon the floor of that House, which should have the effect of destroying them all at a blow. However much he might deplore the extinction of that House collectively, he should still more deplore the extinction of himself individually by such a process. He considered that the Homo Secretary had taken an unfair advantage in referring to the ravings of the O'Donovan Rossa and the writings of the American Press as a justification for bringing treason-felony and treasonable practices within the scope of the Bill. The evident purpose of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was to arouse a hostile feeling against certain Irish Members. When the right hon. Gentleman told the House that there were other grounds than the information of spies and informers for believing that a treasonable conspiracy existed, he supposed he was about to detail some of the secrets of the Cabinet now which had lately been introduced into British statesmanship, and to lay bare some of the secrets of the dark chamber in the Post Office, where, under his warrant, the letters of Irishmen and Irish Members were opened. The principles enunciated by the O'Donovan Rossa, as the right hon. Gentleman had conveyed them to the House, were as abhorrent to the Representatives of Irish constituencies as would be any action on the part of the Communists of Paris.

THE O'DONOGHUE

expressed his regret that the Home Secretary was not in his place when the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) spoke, because he might have thought it necessary to withdraw a statement he had made a few days ago, when he evidently wanted the House to infer that Mr. Stephens had arrived in Paris for the purpose of having an interview with the hon. Member for the City of Cork. It now appeared that the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards Ireland was to be shaped by what took place in America; and they were to be held responsible for newspaper articles which they had never seen, and for suggestions to which Her Majesty's Government were quite as likely to agree as the Irish Members were. He could confirm the statement of the hon. Member for the City of Cork—that there never was a time when the Irish people looked so little to a violent solution of the Irish Question as they did at present. The Constitutional turn which the mind of the Irish people had taken was, however, solely owing to the Parliamentary policy of the hon. Member for the City of Cork, who had given them a faith in Parliamentary action that they never had before. The Chief Secretary had alluded to what he considered was the likelihood of this measure suppressing the Land League. It was true that it was the most oppressive measure of the kind that ever had been passed; but, notwithstanding that, he was perfectly confident that it would utterly fail to interfere with the action of the Land League; and that, on the contrary, it would arouse a spirit of indignation and a re-action which would give the Land League a fresh force and increased vitality.

MR. T. D. SULLIVAN

thought it was a curious coincidence that, just at the time when the Government chose to put in a Bill having reference to treason and treason-felony, a number of scares, to which a political and treasonable aspect was given, had been got up in the country. Great precautions were taken at various barracks, and the arms of Volunteers were put in places of safety just at the very time when it suited the Government to have excitement and alarm with regard to treasonable plots created in the minds of the British people. No sooner, however, was the second reading of the Bill reached than these scares entirely ceased. Of course, all Governments while they existed were perfectly innocent of having recourse to such artifices; but when their secret history came to be written years afterwards, it generally turned out that they had availed themselves of many discreditable stratagems to carry out their objects. If the Irish people were to be kept out of their liberties until Fenianism was at an end in America, they would have to wait a very long time. As long as the Fenian ranks in America were recruited by the sons of evicted tenants, and evicted tenants themselves, there would be such projects and such organizations. In times of excitement they would have writings and speeches made in America which were indefensible. The Irish Members had no responsibility for those things, and they protested against deprivation of the liberties of the whole Irish people because O'Donovan Rossa and Devoy published threatening letters and made threatening speeches in America.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, that his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) in restoring in Ireland faith in Constitutional and Parliamentary action, had conferred a great blessing upon the people; but he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) warned the Government against attempting legislation which was wholly unnecessary, and endeavouring to force such legislation through the House by resorting to tactics of the kind which had been so lately witnessed. The course now being followed could only tend to undo the good work which had been attempted by his hon. Friend the Member for Cork City, and on the heads of the Government would rest the respon- sibility if the Irish people were driven back into the vicious circles of secret societies, followed by conspiracy.

MR. SPEAKER

called the attention of the hon. Member to the fact that he was not keeping to the Amendment.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said he was endeavouring to reply as closely as possible to the observations which fell from the Chief Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the Bill would not affect the land movement so long as it was conducted in a Constitutional manner. There was, however, a want of clearness in the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. It was the duty of the right hon. Gentleman to tell the House what he meant. Irish Members objected to such ambiguous views, which were merely traps to seduce—

MR. SPEAKER

again pointed out that the hon. Member was travelling beyond the Question.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, he had no intention of doing so. The right hon. Gentleman said the Act would only interfere with proceedings likely to lead to violence and intimidation—a definition which might be accepted if it were only itself defined. He desired that the House should be called upon to admit the existence of conspiracy to a large extent in Ireland on the mere ipse dixit of the Chief Secretary, based solely upon quotations from American newspapers, and unsupported by any evidence which would be accepted in an English Court of Law. It had been said that this legislation was necessary in order to put down revolutionary ideas; but he contended that no legislation could possibly have that effect. The course of the Government was wholly unprecedented, in that it was based on no tangible evidence, and was unjustifiable, for the reason that the Bill was only intended to construct a legal net, the meshes of which should be sufficient to catch all sorts of people, whether they happened to be innocent or guilty of the crimes which the Executive chose to impute to them.

Question put.

The House divided: —Ayes 126; Noes 33: Majority 93.—(Div. List, No. 73.)

MR. A. M. SULLIVAN

moved the omission of the words "treasonable practices," which followed in the clause the words the subject of the last Amendment. He hoped the House would not agree to the retention of the words in question until they were interpreted in the Bill. No indictment had ever been prepared for treasonable practices, and he looked with suspicion upon words which were of so loose and novel a character. If there was a political offence committed in Ireland which was peculiarly displeasing to the authorities in Dublin Castle, and which was not treason-felony or inciting to commit an indictable offence, they would, no doubt, pick up the offender under the classification of having been guilty of treasonable practices. The retention of the words would increase the danger which every law-abiding citizen would run when the Bill became law. No one would be heard on behalf of a man who was accused and arrested under this measure, and therefore the Lord Lieutenant would be allowed to adjudge a man guilty of an offence which was unknown to the law. Possibly the phrase might be found within the limits of an Act of Parliament; but that was not the question. The point was whether any Judge had ever had the chance of saying that an indictment would or not lie for "treasonable practices." He moved the omission of the words.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 8, to leave out the words "or treasonable practices."— (Mr. A. M. Sullivan.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'or treasonable practices' stand part of the Bill."

MR. WARTON

was astonished to hear a Member of the same Profession as himself speak of the phrase as a novel one, as he did in the beginning of his speech. The hon. and learned Member afterwards admitted it was to be found in various statutes, perhaps because his hon. and learned Friend saw him referring to a big book of statutes. The truth was the phrase might have been made much more wide if precedent had been followed, for he found the words "treasonable and seditious practices and attempts." This expression occurred in 36 Geo. III., c. 7, made perpetual by 57 Geo. III. c. 6. The original Act, besides containing the phrase, gave a description of what was going on which was applicable to the present time. It spoke of the continued attempts of wicked and evil-disposed persona to dis- turb the tranquillity of the Kingdom, particularly by a multitude of seditious pamphlets, and speeches daily printed, published, and dispersed, with unremitting industry and with transcendent boldness, in contempt of His Majesty's Royal person and dignity, and tending to the overthrow of the laws and Government and happy Constitution of the Realm.

MR. LEAMY

said, the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) had quoted merely the Preamble of the Act, and not the enacting clauses; but he had not shown that a man could be arrested or imprisoned for treasonable practices. The other day, at Newcastle West, a man posted a cartoon from a Dublin paper outside his house. The police seized the cartoon, and took it to the constabulary barrack, where the owner recovered it. He put it up again, and again it was captured. He supposed the man would, under the Bill, be guilty of "treasonable practices." If the Government would insist on making a new offence, they ought, at least, to let it be defined.

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

said, that from 1794 down to the passing of the Treason-Felony Act, the terms used were "treason" and "treasonable practices," and since 1848 "treason-felony" had also been used. No Judge would allow an indictment for "treason" or "treason-felony;" the averments in the indictment must state the facts which constituted the offence. The evidence might fall short of proving treason or treason-felony, and yet might be sufficient to prove "treasonable practices," as, for instance, in the collection of ammunition, or the manufacture of torpedoes for purposes which could not be legally established in evidence, but of which there was no moral doubt. There must be words embracing the offence co-extensive with human ingenuity in devising the offence.

MR. FINIGAN

said, this Bill did not pretend to adduce any evidence or to give any proof whatever of treason, treason-felony, or treasonable practices, but merely required that the person should be reasonably suspected of having committed a crime. Therefore, it was the most absurd thing possible to compare the wording of this Bill with what would be stated before a jury in any real Court of Law; and to ask the House to pass these words was to ask it to stultify itself. They had been told that there were precedents for this and that with regard to certain parts of the Bill; but he contended that the Liberal Party ought to be guided by reasons and principles, and not by precedents. He maintained that under the present law the Executive had quite sufficient power to enable them to cope with the condition of affairs in Ireland without introducing words which, although technically legal, wore vague and illogical.

Question put.

The House divided: —Ayes 165; Noes 29: Majority 136.—(Div. List, No. 74.)

MR. HEALY

moved to omit in page 1, line 8, the words "wheresoever committed" and to insert "in Ireland," in order to limit the arrests to offences committed in Ireland. The object of this Amendment was to do away with the wide scope of the Bill as it stood. If the Amendment was not adopted, every emigrant coming to Ireland on a visit or on business would be liable to arrest under this Act, whether he came from America, from Hong Kong, or from India; and what means had the Government of knowing what individuals had said or done in these countries?

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 8, to leave out the words "whenever committed," in order to insert the words "in Ireland,"—(Mr. Healy,) —instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words 'whenever committed' stand part of the Bill."

MR. FINIGAN

hoped the Government would make no serious objection to this Amendment. Any American citizen who had said things which were not, perhaps, exactly correct in reference to the English Government, might be included under this Act when he came to Ireland; and as Americans were not subjects of Her Majesty, or amenable to the English Constitution, he did not see what injury could be done by leaving out the words.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, that this point had been previously debated for some time and decided, and therefore it could not be expected that he would repeat the arguments he had already used. He did not wish to express any complaint against hon. Members for their persistent opposition, because they felt deeply on the matter; but he must remind the House and those Members that it was not very usual on the Report to bring up precisely the same questions as had been disposed of in Committee, unless there was some probability of the House changing its opinion, which was not the case at present. The Bill was intended to be a preventive measure, and it appeared to him that nothing could be more preventive than to take the power, if a man planned treason or treasonable practices in England, or elsewhere out of Ireland, and then went to Ireland, to shut him up and prevent him from carrying those plans out.

MR. HEALY

said, that under those circumstances he would withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. W. E. FORSTER,

proposed in page 1, line 9, to insert after "committed," the words "at anytime since the thirtieth day of September, one thousand eight hundred and eighty."

Amendment agreed to.

MR. A. M. SULLIVAN

rose to move in page 1, line 12, after the word "order," the insertion of the words— Not being a publication in any newspaper, the printer or publisher of which may be prosecuted at common law or otherwise for such publication. The reason he proposed this Amendment was because the crimes and offences dealt with by this Bill were those of which the Chief Secretary said it was difficult to detect the perpetrators; but in the case of publications in a newspaper the very same resources of prosecution and punishment that wore at any time open to the Government would still be open to them. For such offences there could be no reason in the world for bringing in this Bill. A newspaper editor in any part of Ireland who published reprehensible articles was open to criminal prosecution, and the paper and the man were there to be found. There could be no pretence that the publication of a news paper was surreptitiously done, and that it was impossible to bring an offender of that character to justice.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 12, after the word "order," to insert the words "not being a publication in any newspaper, the printer or publisher of which may be prosecuted at common law or otherwise for such publication."—(Mr. A. M. Sullivan.)

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

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

supposed that the Government would have no objection to accept this Amendment. If there was anything of which they should be proud in this country it was the liberty of the Press. The whole object of the Bill was to enable them to detain suspected persons against whom they could not obtain evidence, and anything which went beyond that object could not commend itself to the House or to the friends of the British Constitution. Editors and publishers of newspapers could be made responsible for the articles appearing in? their publications.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

observed, that the effect of inserting this Amendment in the Bill would be to inform the editors of all newspapers that they had, in fact, letters of licence to incite to acts of violence or intimidation. He believed that there were very few newspapers—he hoped there were none in Ireland—that would do it; but he strongly suspected that if this Amendment were accepted there would be newspapers which would take the opportunity of inciting to acts of violence or intimidation. [Mr. A. M. SULLIVAN: They could be prosecuted.] Yes, they could be prosecuted; but the hon. and learned Member was fully aware that it was a notorious fact that it was difficult to get juries to do their duty.

MR. FINIGAN

thought it was a most unjust reflection on the Irish Press for the Irish Secretary to say than an Irish newspaper would incite to an act of violence. The argument of the right hon. Gentleman against the Amendment was weak and miserable. It was evident the Government were determined to strike at not only the freedom of the people, but to extinguish the sole voice that in Ireland could be heard after the passing of this Bill.

MR. HEALY

observed, that the Chief Secretary, by refusing to accept the Amendment, simply told the editors and writers for the Press in Ireland they were men not to be trusted with the ordinary Constitutional liberty enjoyed by nations over the whole world. He had thus conveyed an insult to the most intelligent people in Ireland. His argument was a most regrettable one, and calculated to cause much pain in Ireland. The Bill, they had been told, was to apply to village tyrants and dissolute ruffians; but now, when it was proposed that the Bill should not apply to newspaper editors, the Government, through the Chief Secretary, said that the Bill was to apply to them.

MR. SPEAKER

said, the hon. Member was not speaking to the Question.

MR. HEALY

said, he was simply anxious to show the class of persons to whom the Bill was intended to apply. No doubt, the Radicals opposite would vote for it, and then the Irish people would see who were the English champions of their liberty.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

challenged the right hon. Gentleman to mention a single ease in which an Irish editor brought before a Dublin jury by the Crown for an offence against the Crown had not been convicted. The hon. and learned Member for Meath (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) was brought before a Dublin jury, who, with a slavishness which characterized Dublin juries in past times, convicted him, though he had committed no offence, moral or legal. They had also convicted John Mitchel, Kevin O'Dogherty, and others. He was delighted that the Government declined to accept the Amendment, because their refusal showed that they desired to take away, not only liberty of the person and of meeting, but also even the liberty of the Press. How hypocritical was the action of the Government with regard to the Press of India! He understood that orders were sent to-day to India to revise the rules of the late Government with reference to the Vernacular Press of India. But this Liberal Government, who were so anxious about the Vernacular Press of a country thousands of miles away, were the very men who came down to the House to muzzle the Press of Ireland. He had never heard of such an act of political hypocrisy in his life. The Amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Meath was enough, if the Government intended to use this Bill honestly. As the Government came near the end of this Bill, they were throwing off all masks and pretences. This Bill struck even at the poor remnant of the liberty of the Press of Ireland.

MR. DALY

observed, that the people of Ireland would understand the refusal of the Government to accept this Amendment to mean that the English Cabinet, legislating for the conquered people, regarded them as a nation of perjurers, who, on their oath in the witness box, would not convict for any offence in Ireland. The Amendment simply provided that the question whether an offence had been committed should be submitted, as in England, to a jury of 12. The right hon. Gentleman wished, instead of that, to refer the case to the mercy of two men. He (Mr. Daly) objected to surrender one's liberties to two men, even though they were the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary for Ireland.

MR. O'DONNELL

said, the Liberal Party denounced oppression everywhere, provided it were only at a sufficient distance from Her Majesty's Dominions; but they did not know how to condescend, or to make a concession to weakness at home. He was not surprised to find that they were determined to add to the other Liberal institutions which they were about to confer upon Ireland a censorship of the Press, although the Press, he contended, would be the sole corrective of the numerous errors into which the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who was totally ignorant of the country, was likely to fall. At the same time, it should be remembered that the Liberal Party, out of power, were in favour of the Press being allowed to degenerate into licentiousness rather than that its freedom should be suppressed.

MR. ARCHDALE

said, that this was an exceptional Bill to meet exceptional circumstances. He would be sorry in ordinary times to restrict the freedom of the Press, for he was as great an advocate of freedom as any of those hon. Gentlemen who had just spoken could be; but, in the face of the fact that juries could not be found to convict in Ireland for political offences, he hoped the Chief Secretary would not assent to the Amendment.

MR. LEAMY

pointed out that upon every occasion for the last 42 years on which there had been a newspaper prosecution a conviction had followed, and contended that there was no fair reason to suppose that what had so frequently happened before would not occur again. He really thought that the Chief Secretary would have accepted this Amendment; but it now appeared that the right hon. Gentleman would not allow freedom of the Press, or, indeed, freedom in any form, in Ireland.

MR. CALLAN

did not see why Irish newspapers should be included in the Bill and English papers left out. There were a number of English publications which had had offensive cartoons on the subject of the Bill before the House. A. short time ago an Irish paper had issued a cartoon which represented the Chief Secretary for Ireland maintaining law and order. He was represented in martial array, keeping guard over poor Michael Davitt, while poor Davitt laboured for a happy Irish home. The cartoon brought home the entire facts to the Irish people. It was published by The Freeman's Journal, a paper owned and conducted in a masterly manner by a Member of that House. Were they to place that hon. Member's liberty at the discretion of Her Majesty's Liberal Chief Secretary for Ireland? He was not in accord with the Irish National Press. For many years he sincerely wished for the charity of silence. He enjoyed their writing, but still more their cartoons, because in their cartoons they displayed much more ability than in their writing; and if he got some assurance from the report of the Government now on the Treasury Bench that for those cartoons the editors of the National Press would not be put into prison a great deal of his objection would be withdrawn.

MR. PARNELL

said, he trusted that the Government would re-consider their refusal to accept this Amendment. The statement made by the Chief Secretary as to the reasons for bringing in the Bill was that they desired to put a stop to outrages in Ireland, which they believed to be the main support of the Land League. But this Amendment asked for what was practically the freedom of the Press; and he could not suppose the Government were serious in their determination to take powers under the Bill to take up any newspaper editor and put him into prison for 18 months for articles published in his newspaper. In Ireland, from time to time, they had had laws directed against the freedom of the Press. They had had provisions in Acts of Parliament of this kind—that after a certain number of warnings a newspaper might be summarily suppressed; but he thought they had never had the power to put an editor into prison until now under the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. Any editor, the conduct of whose journal offended the Government, was liable to be placed in prison under the Suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. Now, any speaker from a public platform whose speech offended the Government was also to be placed in prison, and kept there under the Suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. Well, now, was it fair that the Bill should have as wide a scope as that? Was it right that the whole of the Press of Ireland should be placed practically at the mercy of the Government? If the Government did not desire to put down public opinion in Ireland, and the free expression of public opinion, why did they refuse this Amendment? He did not believe in the pretext that the Bill was directed against outrages at all. He believed that the Bill had been brought in because the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant found that he had failed in his mission in Ireland, and he wanted to revenge upon the people of Ireland, and upon the leaders of public opinion in Ireland, that failure and that loss of reputation as a statesman. The right hon. Gentleman wanted to control public opinion; he wanted to control the Press. It was evident he wanted to control the Press. If he did not he would agree to this Amendment. Under the pretext of putting down agrarian offences, he sought, in reality, to obtain control over expression of any public opinion in Ireland that he did not approve of. He saw a movement which he knew was a national movement, and he could see no better way to control the movement than by controlling the expression of public opinion in Ireland. Now, he (Mr. Parnell) thought that the Amendments that had been from time to time attempted to be made in this Bill had effectually thrown aside the cloak which the Government attempted to put over their intentions and designs when first introducing it. They had a great deal of mock philanthropy and mock humanity with regard to the suffering of animals, and with regard to the Queen's Writ not running in Ire- land, and so on. But it was now evident that the real design of the Government had been to destroy public opinion and freedom of discussion in Ireland; for, as they saw, that was the result of the refusal to accept this Amendment, the object of which was to protect the liberty of the Irish Press.

MR. T. D. SULLIVAN

confessed that until the refusal of this Amendment he did not believe that the Government were contemplating, in an underhand manner, to strike at the freedom of the Press in Ireland. The Government had been, from time to time, asking the House to give them credit for good intentions in connection with this measure; but what they had learnt during its progress showed them that they should give the Government credit for the very worst intentions. The proprietors of the Irish newspapers were liable to the ordinary law of the land for what appeared in their columns; and it was most unfair and dishonest to attack them in that underhand and fraudulent manner. In England the fullest liberty was allowed the Press, pictorial and otherwise, and that was found to be the best plan to act upon. But, henceforward, they dare not touch their masters in Ireland. They dare not represent any of them in any attitude, except, perhaps, in the distribution of some benevolence. They should be careful as to their features; they should make them beauties even if nature did not intend them so. If the artist did not do justice to their features, the proprietor would find himself in Mountjoy Prison. Freedom of speech might be restricted, but freedom of thought would not; and freedom of action would result from it in one shape or another, and in a manner that might not be agreeable to those gentlemen who were now so tender of their persons and character.

MR. BARRY

said, that the Government, by their refusal to accept every proposition made, however reasonable it was, would be known hereafter as the Government of Coercion. There was not, he might state, a single instance on record, save one, within the last 40 years of a Press prosecution in Ireland failing. As they approached the close of that long and dreary discussion the scope of the Bill had gradually widened, and now newspaper editors were to be included within it; whereas a short time since they were told that it was meant to be directed only against dissolute ruffians. He was glad that the Government had shown themselves in their true colours, as they had now proved the utter hollowness of English Liberalism.

Question put.

The House divided: —Ayes 45; Noes 250: Majority 205.—(Div. List, No. 75.)

MR. SEXTON

moved to insert, in page 1, line 13, the following words:— Provided such person is in Ireland of his own free will, and has not been recently brought to Ireland in legal custody. The object of the Amendment was to make the operation of the Bill practical, as in form it was literal. It was possible that a man might be taken to Ireland from England or Scotland on some charge not connected in any way with the Act, on a charge, say, of bigamy, and after it had been shown that he was innocent of that crime, and he had been released from custody, it was competent under the clause that they should keep him in prison on reasonable suspicion. He did not think the Chief Secretary would be willing to assent to anything like that, and therefore he wished the right hon. Gentleman to make it plain that was not the intention of the Bill.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 13, after the word "Ireland," to insert the words "Provided, That such person is in Ireland of his own free will, and has not been recently brought to Ireland in legal custody."—(Mr. Sexton.)

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

MR. W. E. FORSTER

replied that it is not in the least likely that the police would take advantage of this bigamous man getting off, to arrest him under this Act. If the Lord Lieutenant and the Irish Government were likely to sanction such an arrest as that, they ought not to have this power; but he saw no reason why they should actually put in an Act of Parliament, that because a man happens to be lot out of custody in Ireland for some other crime and was suspected as one of the offenders under this Act, therefore he should get off.

MR. HEALY

supported the Amendment, and quoted the case of the murder of Lord Mountmorres. Persons might be apprehended in England on that charge, conveyed to Ireland and, being there released, be detained without having any opportunity of returning to the place where they were originally arrested. There might be other murders besides that of Lord Mountmorres. Murders under this Act would be very likely to occur. ["Oh!"] Persons would not be likely to see their friends put into gaol without trying to have some revenge. He maintained that the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman did not apply.

MR. BARRY

hoped the Government would give some assurance that any person taken into Ireland to answer a particular charge should not, when acquitted, be liable to be arrested, under the provisions of this Bill, upon an entirely different charge, and detained in custody for a period of 18 months. It would be terribly harsh and severe that a man taken against his will into Ireland, and tried and acquitted for' one offence, should then be arrested, under this Act, for another. He hoped the Government would give some assurance that nothing of that kind would be allowed to take place; but that a man, upon his acquittal under such circumstances, would be allowed to return to the place at which he was originally arrested.

MR. A. M. SULLIVAN

said, that when an hon. Member remarked that there had been some cases in Ireland in which the jury had refused to convict, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland called out "the City of Cork." He hoped he was not wronging the hon. and learned Gentleman. [The SOLICITOR GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. W. M. Johnson): I did not say so.] He (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) apologized for having attributed the expression to the hon. and learned Gentleman. Someone certainly made the remark. A case did actually occur at Cork in which a man was arrested and put on his trial for an offence which he had never committed. The jury returned a verdict of acquittal, on the ground that the wrong person was in the dock and that the real culprits were the stipendiary magistrate and the inspector of police. If this Act had been in force, although the jury acquitted the man of the offence with which he was charged, the Crown would have been able to say, "No doubt the jury have acquitted you; but we suspect you, and, therefore, in you go again." That really appeared to be what the Government wanted. They were sporting with a double-bar-relled gun, and if one of the barrels would not bring down the bird, the next might have a better chance. They, therefore, said, "You have already satisfied one tribunal of your innocence; but if we suspect you, down you must go." He was willing to admit that no responsible official in Dublin Castle would lend himself to any such transaction. He did not say this by way of compliment to the right hon, Gentleman the Chief Secretary; but he said it in common justice and fairplay towards the right hon. Gentleman. He did not think that any responsible official in Dublin Castle would lend himself to such an unworthy transaction, and would bring a man over from England for such a purpose. He did not believe that any Member of the Government would tolerate such a proceeding "as that of bringing a man over to Ireland from London, to trepan him in this way, and bring him under the Act; but, at the same time, he did believe that some of the subordinates of the Irish Government under them, and probably even unknown to them, would do things which they would not for one moment defend on the floor of that House. He was about to name a very discreditable transaction which actually occurred in Ireland, and he did so without having the slightest desire to fasten a slur upon the official who did it. He had no doubt that the hon. and learned Solicitor General was well acquainted with the case, and it was about one of the most exquisite bits of sharp practice he (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) had over heard of. An Irish Judge, in 1868, ordered Richard Pigott, who was under two indictments, to be removed from the custody of the Sheriff of the City of Dublin. The Sheriff accordingly released him with the right hand, but immediately arrested him with the other, on a second warrant, as Sheriff of the County of Dublin. It was a beautiful bit of sharp practice. He was ordered to release the man, and he did so as Sheriff of the City of Dublin; but he happened also to be Sheriff of the County of Dublin, and he held him in that capacity. This would show the House that in Ireland, if gentlemen filling the important position of Sheriff had such ideas of official duties that they would do things unknown to those who breathed the more wholesome atmosphere of English Constitutional official procedure—things entirely unknown and not dreamt of on this side of the Channel—even worse things might be expected from the more subordinate officials. He was afraid that his countrymen in that House opposed the Constitution of this country, as they were doing now in connection with this Amendment, because they really knew very little about it. Such things as they were deprecating here could not be done in England. He would, therefore, advise his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) to withdraw the Amendment, in order to add a Proviso, "That the Lord Lieutenant may, if he thinks fit, order the man to instant execution."

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

wished, before the Amendment was put, to submit a few observations to the attention of the Committee. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Meath (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) as he increased in years, seemed also to increase in the simplicity and ingenuousness of his character. His hon. and learned Friend stated that he did not think that any responsible official in Dublin Castle would bring a man over to Ireland on one charge, and keep him in prison on another. Now, he (Mr. O'Connor) was of opinion that the officials in Dublin Castle, and the officials on the Treasury Bench, were quite capable of arresting a man in England, taking him over to Ireland, bringing him to trial there, and, in the event of his being acquitted of the charge for which he was tried, arresting him under the provisions of the present measure, and imprisoning him for 18 months. ["Oh!"] Hon. Members opposite were accustomed to raise somewhat inarticulate objections to every statement they disliked, and, therefore, he was content in this instance to pass them by without further notice. Personally, he had very little doubt that subsequent events would show that the fear now entertained upon this matter was not exaggerated. He was afraid it would be found that many persons would be taken over to Ireland on trumpery charges who would never be brought up for trial in a Court of Justice; but Her Majesty's Government having got them over there in this tricky kind of way would immediately place them in prison under the present Bill. The thing had been done before. An hon. Member of that House was arrested in 1867 on a charge that was palpably false, and could not be supported by evidence. [Cries of "Name!"] The curiosity of hon. Members on the other side of the House for names appeared to have increased enormously since the Chief Secretary brought in this Bill. If he recollected rightly, the cries of "Name!" which were raised when the right hon. Gentleman quoted instances in support of his statement were met in every case with an indignant repudiation on the part of hon. Members opposite. In this instance he declined to mention the name. ["Oh!"] The name was well known to hon. Members. If the hon. Member were within the House, and he (Mr. O'Connor) had his permission, he would willingly give the name; but the case was very well known within the walls of that House, and he saw an hon. Member sitting opposite who was thoroughly acquainted with it. He (Mr. O'Connor) did not know what the precise nature of the charge against the hon. Member was—["Oh!"]—but he was arrested on a charge that was entirely false. Either he was never brought in Court to answer the charge, or, when brought up, the charge was of such a flimsy character that the authorities never proceeded with it; and the champions of freedom who now graced the Treasury Bench were the same who graced it when this despicable act of tyranny was committed. He was quite willing to judge the right hon. champions of freedom on the Treasury Bench upon their own indictment. If, under the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, they were guilty of the meanness of arresting a man on one charge, and not daring to bring it in open Court, they were, nevertheless, capable of keeping him in prison—a Government that would condescend to commit an act of such meanness were capable of any similar act of meanness again. There was no necessity for going back to what happened 10 or 14 years ago. Within the last few weeks two or three batches of prisoners were taken from this country on charges of crime to Ireland, The evidence against them was of so paltry a character that they were discharged; but when this Bill became law, Her Majesty's Government might take over batch after batch upon some charge, which, if brought against them in open Court, would utterly break down, because there was really no ease. But, having taken them over from this country, which did not suspend the liberties of the people, to another country, where the liberties of the people were suspended, Her Majesty's Government would take care that they were kept in prison. Under any miserable pretext they would take over obnoxious persons from this country with the sole object of bringing them under the operation of this Act. He hoped his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) would persevere with his Amendment. The conditions sought to be enforced by it would not accomplish much in the shape of changing the intentions of Her Majesty's Government; but the Amendment itself, and the discussion which had taken place upon it, would perform a very excellent part in exposing, in all their enormities, the harsh and tyrannical features of the measure now before the House.

MR. SPEAKER

then put the Question, "That those words be there inserted?" and declared that the "Noes" had it.

This decision having been challenged,

MR. SPEAKER

(in accordance with the New Rule) said: I must ask the "Ayes" to rise in their places.

The "Ayes did so, and being more than 20,

The House divided: —Ayes 45; Noes 244: Majority 199.—(Div. List, No. 76.)

MR. HEALY

moved, in page 1, line 1, to leave out the words "such person in Ireland as may from time to time be directed by the Lord Lieutenant," and insert the words "may be nearest to the place of arrest." He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would not object to this Amendment, which would simply provide that prisoners in custody under the Act should be detained in the local prison nearest to the place where they wore arrested, and would enable them to be visited by, and have communication with, their friends and relatives. He quite saw the force of the argument that some of these prisons might not be fit for the reception of such prisoners; but, on the other hand, wherever it was practicable, some opportunity should be afforded to these unfortunate persons of being able to give directions as to the conduct of their business while they were under arrest. This could be done if the place of detention were a local prison near at hand. But, as the clause was now worded, the Lord Lieutenant might send a man to a prison at Mallin Head, whose usual place of residence might be at Cape Clear. It was probably the intention of the Government to send the prisoners to Dublin as far as it was possible, that being the place where central prisons were provided with ample accommodation. But, in the event of all the prisoners being taken to Dublin, some of them might be 200 miles away from their friends. This would be a serious matter to a man engaged in business, who would find it difficult, if not impossible, to conduct his business transactions at a considerable distance from his usual place of residence. Under these circumstances, he trusted that the Chief Secretary would feel that there was really something in the proposition he made. If, however, the right hon. Gentleman could not accept the Amendment, he hoped he would give the House some guarantee or assurance that the matter would receive attention, and he (Mr. Healy) would be perfectly satisfied with such an assurance. It would be sufficient to promise that the Lord Lieutenant would use a wise discretion in the matter, and not insist rigidly on having every man sent to a prison in Dublin. The representations of the prisoner and of his friends ought to be listened to, and if they said that the nearest local prison was suitable, both from its proximity to the prisoner's place of residence and business and from other considerations of the same kind, then, in the event of the accommodation being of an adequate nature, that the man should be detained there instead of being sent to Dublin. If the right Gentleman would give such a promise, he would be quite satisfied and would not press the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 14, to leave out the words "in Ireland, as may from time to time be directed by the Lord Lieutenant," and insert the words "may be nearest to the place of arrest,"—(Mr. Healy,) —instead thereof.

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

MR. W. E. FORSTER

I do not imagine that the hon. Member means to press this Amendment. If it were passed the result would be that the prison nearest the place of arrest, whatever its want of accommodation or safety, must be the place in which the prisoner must be put. I had thought that in previous discussions hon. Members had expressed themselves content to have those prisoners confined in a central place. I trust that it will not be necessary to make these arrests in any large number, and I certainly think the best course will be to provide accommodation for them in some central prison in Dublin.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

believed that proper accommodation could be best provided in Dublin, and was in favour of every indulgence and consideration being paid to prisoners arrested under the Act that was compatible with their safe detention. He had no doubt that the question of proper accommodation had been carefully considered by Her Majesty's Government, and he therefore hoped that his hon. Friend would withdraw the Motion and not put the House to the trouble of a division upon it.

MR. PARNELL

trusted that the Chief Secretary would give the House some information as to the plan they proposed to pursue with regard to the detention of these prisoners—whether he proposed to imprison them in Dublin, or in various gaols throughout the country. It stood to reason that a man largely engaged in business in the country would find it exceedingly inconvenient and detrimental to his business if he was removed to a prison that was a considerable distance away from that business. Unfortunately, he was not present in the House when the previous discussion took place upon the subject; but it seemed to him, from what he had heard, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant had not formed much idea of what these regulations were to be, or where he was going to put the prisoners when they were arrested under the Bill. Were they to have one central prison in Dublin? This was really a point upon which he thought the House was entitled to some information. Did the right hon. Gentleman propose to confine the prisoners in their own counties, or in some central prison in Dublin? Was he going to put them into one prison, or into a number of prisons? It was a matter of considerable importance, and one upon which the Government ought to have decided before now. Were they going to bring the prisoners from all parts of Ireland up to Dublin and place them in one prison, or to set aside prisons in several parts of the country for their accommodation? His own view was that the prisoners who would be detained under the operation of this Bill were entitled to be near to their places of business, so that they might have an opportunity of communicating with the persons who would [have to manage their affairs during their absence. At any rate, they were entitled to have the chance of remaining as near as possible to their place of business. Otherwise, a large expense would be entailed upon the prisoners owing to the long journeys that would be necessary in order that there might be a communication between the prisoner and those who would have to manage his business. He hoped the Chief Secretary would give some indication to the House as to what his intention was in this matter. Did he intend to have one prison for all the prisoners, or to have several prisons in different parts of the country?

MR. O'DONNELL

did not think it was desirable for the Home Rule Members to push this Amendment to a division. He understood that it had only been brought forward simply for the purpose of affording the Government an opportunity of doing what he considered they might very well do, and, indeed, what they had already declared it was their intention to do—namely, act towards the prisoners with the utmost humanity compatible with their safe custody. For instance, Her Majesty's Government had engaged to frame rules for treating the prisoners more humanely than untried prisoners were treated under ordinary circumstances. They had engaged to grant fair facilities for visiting the prisoners; but it was quite clear that a poor man arrested in his native place at a considerable distance from Dublin, and kept in custody at some central prison 60 or 100 miles away from his usual residence, would have very few facilities granted to him by the Government for being visited. Such facilities as were promised by the Government would be of no use to these unfortunate men, because their friends and relatives would be too poor to travel 100 miles or more once a week or once a month to see them. He did not suppose that the Government merely intended to keep the promise to the ear and break it to the hope. It was quite clear that if a man was to be kept in some central gaol 100 miles from his friends, there would be no power of carrying out the promise they had made. There was no question of political principle involved upon which the Government might go wrong. It was a mere question of ordinary humanity, and if the promise was to be kept which Her Majesty's Government had already given, the argument with regard to the possibility that the local prison would not be a place of safe custody would not hold, because every one knew the solidity with which the gaols were built in Ireland. In point of fact, the gaols and the poor-houses wore the most palatial monuments of British rule in that country.

MR. A. M. SULLIVAN

said, the reason why he asked his hon. Friend the Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) not to press the Amendment was this. He thought the observation of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had great weight — that the prison nearest to the place of arrest might be unsuitable. It might be much too small; it might contain no provision for exercise; and it might be defective in many other important particulars. He had no doubt that in calling attention to the question his hon. Friend would have secured all the amelioration in the condition of the prisoners which he desired. If his hon. Friend would withdraw the Amendment, he (Mr. Sullivan) would then move, after the words "such person in Ireland as may from time to time be directed by the Lord Lieutenant," the insertion of the words and previously certified by him, by notice in the Dublin Gazette, as specially fitted and appointed for the detention of prisoners under this Act. He thought that a provision of this nature at the end of the clause would answer every purpose. It would be altogether a mistake to put the prisoners who might be arrested under the Act in the village Bride well. He would, therefore, ask his hon. Friend to accede to the request of the Chief Secretary and withdraw the Amendment.

MR. LEAMY

said, the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly right in taking care of the safety of the prisoners, but he would be glad to have some information as to whether it was the intention of the Government to confine persons arrested under the Act in one prison. For his part, he doubted that one prison would hold them all; but if it were the intention of Government to confine them in one or even two central gaols, it would be quite impossible for their friends living, say, in the North of Ireland, to come to Dublin for the purpose of seeing them. He therefore asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, whether the Government had made up its mind to confine persons to be arrested under this Act in one or two central gaols, or in prisons near the place where they might be arrested, taking into consideration, of course, the strength of the gaol?

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

wished to remind the Chief Secretary for Ireland that Dr. M'Donnell, whose Report he had quoted, had laid great stress in his remarks upon the condition of the Fenian prisoners, in the fact that many of them were imprisoned at such great distances from their friends as to render-it impossible for their friends to come to see them, and he added that the idea of seeing their friends for a quarter of an hour a day was, therefore, a perfect illusion. The right hon. Gentleman had promised to extend the existing rules so as to allow prisoners under this Act to see their friends for a much longer period than a quarter of an hour a day. But that rather increased than removed the difficulty complained of, for, although the hours were extended, it would still be impossible for the friends of arrested persons to visit them from long distances.

MR. HEALY

was ready, with the permission of the House, to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. A. M. SULLIVAN

said, the Amendment he was about to propose had for its object to provide that the Lord Lieutenant should name certain prisons as being fitted for the reception of prisoners under this Act,

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 15, after the word "Lieu" tenant, "to insert the words" and previously certified by him, "by notice in the Dublin Gazette, as specially fitted and appointed for the detention of prisoners under this Act."—(Mr. A. M. Sullivan.)

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

MR. W. E. FORSTER

could not understand what useful purpose the Amendment would serve. It would, if adopted, oblige the Government to certify a large number of prisons which would very likely have nobody in them, and thus create considerable inconvenience. He could not pledge himself as to what prisons persons arrested under the Act would be sent to, because he was as yet ignorant of the places where they would be arrested, and also of the number of persons who would be arrested. The feeling now expressed by hon. Members below the Gangway was rather in favour of local prisons, but the opinions expressed before were that there would be better accommodation in the central prisons. All he was able to say upon the subject was that the best would be done to prevent hardship and suffering to the prisoners consistently with their safe custody.

MR. NEWDEGATE

pointed out that the two last Amendments contravened the principle of the Bill, which was that the House should entrust to the Executive the arrest and safe-keeping, upon humane conditions, of certain persons.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, the hon. Member who had just spoken had extended the principle of the Bill. It was true that the Bill provided for the safe-keeping of prisoners, but there was nothing in it providing for their safe-keeping upon humane conditions. He was sure that every hon. Member must wish that in carrying out the Act in Ireland prisoners should receive humane treatment; but it was a fact that Irish political prisoners had never received humane treatment in prison. For that reason, Irish Members were endeavouring to have it inserted in this Bill that they should be so treated. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had said that expressions in favour of central prisons had, during the course of the debates, come from those Benches. That was perfectly accurate. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had ventured to suggest that he should put as many persons as possible into the Central Prison in Dublin, because the accommodation there was far superior than in the smaller towns. He still adhered to that opinion, and thought it would be far better that the majority of prisoners should be confined in Dublin than in local prisons, which were conducted on the most antiquated and inhuman principles, and which were under the supervision of a Visiting Committee of local landlordism. But an hon. Member had pointed out that if these persons were imprisoned in Dublin they would be deprived of the consolation of visits from their friends, and also of the power of carrying on their business which would be afforded them in a local prison. For that reason, he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) suggested that the right hon. Gentleman should give them the choice as to which prison they should be sent—that was to say, the choice between a local and a central prison. He himself might be placed in the disagreeable position of making such a choice, and, for his part, he should certainly prefer to be in Dublin than in the tumble-down structure belonging to his constituency, where he was sure the local landlords would wish to keep him as long as possible.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

thought it would be a perfectly new principle to give prisoners a choice of the prisons to which they should be sent; but in the very improbable event of his having anything to do with the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), in connection with the Act, he could assure him that he would do his best to secure his comfort.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

was much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman; but he would endeavour to prevent his having an opportunity of dealing with him.

MR. HEALY

understood, from the answer of the Chief Secretary, that the right hon. Gentleman was willing, in some degree, to entertain the local view of the case, and, therefore, suggested that his hon. Friend should withdraw his Amendment.

MR. PARNELL

asked if the right hon. Gentleman would extend to other persons the same consideration as he had promised to the hon. Member for Galway? If he was willing, as far as possible, to restrict the inconvenience of one person who might be detained under the operation of the Act, he could see no reason why he should not do so in all cases. This was a matter of considerable importance to all persons, many of whom might be detained in prison at a distance from the little trades which they carried on, and who, in consequence, would not be able to carry them on, nor communicate with the persons they had left in charge of them during their detention. He thought it was not too much to ask the Chief Secretary to say that he would, as far as possible, in choosing the prisons where such persons might be detained, see that no unnecessary inconvenience was inflicted upon them.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, the Government would, of course, consider how to cause the least suffering and hardship consistent with safety.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. SPEAKER

The next Amendment is in the name of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor); but as it is an Amendment upon a subsequent Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, it would be well to put it after that Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 18, after the word "shall," to insert the words "for the purposes of this Act."—(Mr. W. E. Forster.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

I have another Amendment to propose, which I promised to bring forward when we were in Committee—namely, at the end of sub-section 1, to insert an Amendment to provide that the warrant declaring anyone reasonably suspected of any crime other than high treason, treason -felony, or treasonable practices, shall state the character of such crime, and to provide that a copy of the warrant shall be given to every person arrested. The Amendment is the result of our long discussion as to the warrant. I stated, the House will remember, that the Government were quite willing—in fact, that we should be glad—to make it per- feetly clear, and that it had always been our intention to make it clear to the person arrested, what was the character of his crime. I stated that a copy of the warrant should be given to him to show whether his crime was murder, incendiary fire, firing into a dwelling, or anything else.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 21, at end of sub-section (1), to add the words"(2.) Every warrant whereby any person is declared to be reasonably suspected of any crime other than high treason, treason felony, or treasonable practices, shall state the character of such crime. A copy of the warrant of arrest shall he given to each person arrested under this Act on the occasion of his arrest."— (Mr. William Edward Forster.)

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

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, that, in obedience to the suggestion of Mr. Speaker, he was very glad not to press his Amendment, part of which was met by that of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. The Amendments in their entirety, however, were very different. His was as follows:— Clause 1, page 1, line 10, after "main prize," insert "and every warrant whereby any person is declared to be reasonably suspected of any crime or crimes other than high treason, treason felony, or treasonable practices, shall specify such crime or crimes, with particulars of time and place. The difference was, that the right hon. Gentleman confined the information of the warrant to the statement of the "character of such crime;" 'whereas he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) wished to add, after the word "crime," the words "with particulars of time and place." He would put it seriously to the Chief Secretary that he should accept this Amendment; and if the right hon. Gentleman would give him his attention for a moment, he would prove to him that his (Mr. T. P. O'Connor's) Amendment would be an improvement of the warrant. The great object of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment as to the "character" of the crime, was to really let the prisoner know something about what he was charged with. He supposed the reason the right hon. Gentleman would like to give the prisoner some information as to the character of his crime was to enable him in the tri-monthly revision, which the right hon. Gentleman's next Amendment provided for, to clear himself of the charge specified in the warrant. He took that to he what was running in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman when he consented to state the character of the crime in the warrant. Then the warrant, as the right hon. Gentleman by his Amendment would have it, would either state too much or too little. It stated too much in giving the "character" of the crime, if the object of the right hon. Gentleman were to give no clue whatever with regard to the source from which he got his information against the prisoner, because if the character of the crime with which a man were charged were made known to him, he would have a clue to the person who must have given information to the Government under which he could be suspected. Accordingly, the warrant stated too much; but it stated too little, if the right hon. Gentleman was willing to face that danger; because what was the use of telling a man that he was charged with committing a murder, an incendiary fire, or with firing into a dwelling, or anything like that, if they did not tell him also the time and place of the crime? If they told him the character of the crime, but did not tell him the time and place, they did not give him an opportunity of clearing himself of the crime. For instance, when a man was charged with an incendiary fire, he might say, "Why, to my knowledge there was only one incendiary fire during this period, and the person who committed it was So-and-so, and he has left the country since, because he was afraid of the operation of this Act;" but the Government might say, "There were two or three incendiary fires committed, and if you were not guilty of No. 1, you were guilty of No. 2; and if you wore not guilty of No. 2, why the probability is you were guilty of No. 3."But if they gave a man the particulars of time and place, he might be able to obtain the particulars of every incendiary fire, and, at the tri-monthly revision, satisfy the right hon. Gentleman that he was not guilty. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to accepting the Amendment, which was a very unpretending one, and he had submitted it, he hoped, in a very humble manner. He would give the right hon. Gentleman the opportunity of getting rid of the non possumus argument he had adopted.

Amendment proposed to said proposed Amendment, In line 3, after the word "crime," to insert the words "with particulars of time and place."—(Mr. T. P. O'Connor.)

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

MR. W. E. FORSTER

I really cannot accede to this Amendment, as the hon. Member calls it, the reasonableness of which he said he thought he should be able to convince me of in a few moments. He and other hon. Gentlemen have debated the question over and over again, and I could have stated his arguments before he uttered them; I have heard them so often. The House has fully considered the matter, and has come to a conclusion upon it by an overwhelming majority. No new facts have come up, and I should have to apologize to the House if I detained it any longer on such a subject.

MR. CALLAN

said, it was true the Committee had decided this point by a large majority, for all the majorities were large. Even the most reasonable propositions which had been made by the Irish Members had been rejected by largo majorities; and if the "overwhelming majority" was an argument at all, it was an argument in favour of the suggestion of the hon. Member for Newcastle that when a Bill was declared urgent they should go to a division on it at once, and that no Amendment should be tolerated. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary did not condescend to give to the House one single valid reason why, on Report, he should not accede to the proposed addition to the Bill. Backed by a large majority, he had refused to alter the Bill one iota, or one tittle, up to a certain stage; but then, convinced by arguments, either in the House, or outside of it—convinced, perhaps, by a growing feeling in the country that his conduct was too dictatorial to be endured by Liberals, he had made Amendments himself. ["Question!"] That was the Question—that the Chief Secretary should condescend to assign some reason, however trifling, for the rejection of the proposed Amendments. The right hon. Gentleman's addition was to the effect that the warrant should state the character of any crime other than treason; but that was by no means satisfactory, as it would not give the prisoner the information he required. He would suggest to his hon. Friend (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) to withdraw the words "with particulars of," and leave merely "time and place." He (Mr. Callan) had been to Ireland twice this year. He should go to Ireland again—["Hear, hear!"—and state what he had stated in this House. He heard a "Hear, hear!" from the right hon. Gentleman, and, in reply to it, he had to say he was very glad that the right hon. Gentleman had commenced the operation of the Act with his own advent to Ireland—and his own advent to that country was contemporaneous with the outbreak of crime there. ["Question!"] One and the other occurred at the same time. ["Question!"] This was the Question. He was in Ireland in October—["Question!"]—he begged that he might not be interrupted in making his arguments by cries which showed a contempt for law and order in that House—

MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Member must address himself to the Chair, and to the Question before the House.

MR. CALLAN

said, the question he wished to address himself to was as to the necessity of specifying "time and place" in the Act. He was personally interested in the question, for he was in Ireland in October and December, and should be there again towards the end of this week. He might, when he got there, be arrested for language he used in October or December; and he desired, if he were so arrested, that the warrant should state, not only the "character," but the "time and place" of his offence. It was essential that he should know the time and place, so that if he were charged with having used language calculated to bring about certain results, he could appeal to the persons amongst whom he mixed at the time, and to the words he used, to show that he was not inciting to the disturbance of law and order. In December last he delivered a speech in the presence of a policeman-reporter and a reporter of The Freeman's Journal. The Freeman's Journal published an accurate report, so far as it went; but it was not a third, or a fourth, of what he had said. If he were told he was arrested for what he had said to his constituents at a public meeting in December, he wished to see in the warrant the day on which he had used the language, so that he could appeal to the independent reporter, to show that he did not use the words attributed to him. Nothing could be more disregardful of law and order on the part of the right hon. Gentleman than to say that he would not condescend to declare when and where a person had offended, when he had ordered that person's arrest. Under the misguidance of the right hon. Gentleman, the House seemed dead to all justice fairness and argument.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

said, that in Committee his hon. Friends had urged on the right hon. Gentleman that he should, at least, furnish a man who was taken up on suspicion with a bill of particulars of the crime of which he was suspected; and he was merely expressing the feeling of those hon. Members who were then present, when he said that the Chief Secretary promised to comply with their request. He (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) had understood the right hon. Gentleman to that effect; and he further understood that the right hon. Gentleman now purported to give effect to whatever arrangements he entered into in Committee, which had put an end to the discussion for the time. Now, lot them examine what the Chief Secretary proposed to do. He proposed that the warrant of every person arrested should state the "character" of his crime. What could be more illusory than to give a man, when he asked for the particulars of the crime of the commission of which he was suspected, a statement as to the "character" of the crime? What was the meaning of the word "character?" He ventured to say that it had no legally determined meaning that was applicable in this case. "Character" meant something by which a thing could be characteriezd, however loosely or widely. Take the letters of the alphabet — each was different, yet each "letter" was a character. A man who was taken up on suspicion—who was deprived of his liberty under the warrant of the Lord Lieutenant—asked"for what is it that I am to be imprisoned under this special Act?" and he was informed "for violence." "Was not that nonsense? He had no sympathy with the crime on suspicion of which a man might be arrested, but he had great sympathy for the men who would certainly be arrested without real cause. He did not mean to say that there would not be some cause for suspicion in most cases; but, no doubt, many who were arrested would not be criminal. He knew something about the operation of these Acts in former years. A great number of people had been taken up without there being the slightest real ground for suspicion against them, and he know cases in which suspicion had been fostered by the very men who were most guilty. The real criminal, who went about hacking cattle, burning houses, and doing mischief all round, was always very anxious to escape justice. He was not only a criminal during the present exceptional period, but at all times; he was more active when crime was stirring and when public opinion was excited on some particular point. What he (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) wished to say was that this criminal was the man who, in numerous cases, would go to the police and point to somebody else loss criminal than himself, though not above suspicion, as the guilty party. ["No, no!"] Hon. Members must not say "No, no!" to him, because he was speaking about something he perfectly understood. He knew more about Ireland than did those who cried "No, no!" What he asked was that the Lord Lieutenant would not issue his warrant until there was placed in his possession—not by the informers, for they were persons of another class, but by the people, his informants, who gave the information—the particulars of the offence suspected to have been committed by the man whose liberty he was going to take away, and so that the the offence committed or suspected should not be stated in general terms. "Violence" would be quite sufficient to answer the conditions prescribed by the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment. So far as he was concerned, he did not wish any division to take place on this matter. He had no object to serve in stopping late at night in this way, but he did not want to let a point like this pass without bringing to bear on it all the animadversion he considered necessary. He wished to see the particulars of the crime a man was suspected of having committed given in the warrant, so that the prisoner could clear himself if it were possible.

MR. T. D. SULLIVAN

said, he would not interpose at that late hour to say a few words, only that he considered this a very important Amendment. A man was arrested on suspicion of having committed a crime. If there had only been a solitary offence of that kind committed in the district for a considerable period, then he might know, or might easily guess, the crime of which he was suspected and put into prison. But let them suppose a case that the Bill was alleged to be intended to meet, a case of a crime prevalent in a certain district. Suppose 10 or 20 crimes of a certain class had been committed in a limited district, then the man, in order to prove his innocence, would have to prove himself innocent of every one of them. That was surely requiring too much, and surely the way ought to be made easy for a man to prove himself innocent of an offence. It was only fair and reasonable that a guiltless man should have an opportunity of establishing his innocence. Though he put the matter briefly, still he thought there was great force in the argument; and if an innocent man was to have a chance at all, notwithstanding that the Chief Secretary had spoken on the subject before and the House had voted upon it, it was never too late to mend, and while the Bill was still before the House he could not consider that the case had been met that it was too late to mend it. The Chief Secretary had stated that arguments had been used so often that he was quite familiar with them, but they seemed to have produced no impression upon him; and as to the House having voted upon the Question, he believed the House would have voted equally readily for whatever the Government might have asked. What would they not have voted for? Late as it was, he urged the House to consider whether there was not force or reason in the argument that the innocent would get no chance so long as the nature of the offence, and the time and the place of the offence, were not specified in the warrant. If the Committee would accept the Amendment, a guilty man would not be able to acquit himself, while an innocent man would have a chance of doing so; but if they persisted in associating him with all the crimes of a district he would have no chance and must suffer, innocent as he might be. MAJOR NOLAN thought the Government were running a certain risk of imprisoning a number of men in order] to guard against a contingency that would very rarely occur. The only reason which the Chief Secretary had advanced against the Amendment was that witnesses might be intimidated in favour of an accused person. He admitted that in some cases that might be possible; but it was a very remote possibility in the general run of cases. By stating the time and place, they would only be giving a distant clue to the persons who had given information; witnesses would not necessarily be known, and only in rare cases could a connection be established between the man who gave the information and the statement of the time and place. Ho, therefore, thought the objection to acceding to the Amendment, or the objection to putting the time and place on the warrant, was really a very slight one. He did not say there was no ground for it; but, on the whole, it was very slight. He pointed out that it was not proposed by the Act to suspend the ordinary action of the law in Ireland, and, therefore, there would be witnesses coming forward in open Court during the operation of the Act. Why, therefore, in working one form of the law, under which a man would actually swear in open Court, should they, at the same time, take such extreme precautions for preventing any clue to informers? He thought the Government were jumping from one extreme to the other. They would have witnesses coming forward under the ordinary law, and yet they were permitting what would be a great injustice in an ordinary trial in order to prevent a clue to informers. He thought there were already too many precautions in favour of witnesses. It might easily happen that a man in course of conversation, or in a speech, said some things which could be misrepresented by the words or the sentences being misinterpreted or misplaced. If that man were arrested, he would never know with what particular act he was charged or for what particular speech he was arrested; but if the time and the place were stated, and the matter was brought before the Chief Secretary, it might turn out that there were circumstances which would lead the Chief Secretary to take a different view of the case. The Chief Secretary seemed to think that he would arrest no innocent man; but it was an acknowledged fact in Law Courts that a certain number of innocent men were imprisoned, and he might mention a well-known case, in which a man was arrested and convicted, and was only released through the accident of a notorious prisoner confessing two or three years afterwards that he had committed the offence. It was inevitable that a certain number of innocent persons, even under the ordinary law, would be punished; and he did not believe that, no matter what safeguards there were, while there was carelessness on the part of juries, and one Judge, perhaps, too much disposed to acquit, or another, perhaps, too much disposed to commit, that this could be avoided. When the Chief Secretary had to try men without safeguards, how many more innocent men would be likely to be convicted? If the Chief Secretary were sitting in open Court, and had all the opportunities of cross-examination and testing the character of witnesses, he still might occasionally convict an honest man; but the Chief Secretary was now proposing to deal with crime under every possible disadvantage, and how would he convince Irishmen that no innocent man would be imprisoned? At all events, he might give prisoners the one advantage of knowing the time and place, in order to enable these men, if they could, to prove an alibi, or to show that their accusers were not of a character to be relied upon, or that, even, if he was not entirely innocent, that there were still circumstances which the Chief Secretary would be glad to take into consideration. He thought the Government might grant that concession, and that there might be exceptional cases in which the time and place could not be given. He might give every possible opportunity to a prisoner of proving his innocence.

MR. A. M. SULLIVAN

said, this was the most important Amendment that had been proposed, in the sense that it involved the question whether an admittedly innocent person was to be punished. It was an Amendment the refusal of which would hereafter bring the most severe censure on the Government. Although the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act might be necessary, the Amendment did not touch in any way the grasping and the holding of a prisoner if he should be guilty. The Government had assented to an Amendment that the Lord Lieute- nant should, every three months, review the case of every man arrested. What would the Lord Lieutenant review? What was the object of review? The object of review was to test whether or not a mistake had been committed in a particular ease. How would the Lord Lieutenant give a man a chance of proving that he had been arrested under a mistake unless he afforded the unfortunate prisoner some clue to the specific thing which constituted his crime? The romance of criminal trials in this country afforded abundance of cases in which circumstantial evidence had confused the identity of one man with another, and it led to men being executed on the scaffold who were perfectly innocent; and yet in those cases the accused men knew the particular time and place, and had the advantage of a Judge and a jury. Nevertheless, mishaps had occurred; but how would that be if a man accused of murder were allowed no other particulars than the simple charge, "You committed a murder;" and when he asked for the time and place, he was told that he should not know? Would it not be a farce, even though he would still have the protection of his counsel to cross-examine witnesses, and a jury to hear the case? Would not that man be denied justice in a public Court who was refused information as to time and place? He would assume that the case in which this was most likely to occur was in regard to acts of intimidation committed in a county in Ireland. A man who was at home and in bed might be arrested under the Act. What was he arrested for? Because someone had been intimidated in the county. He would not be told what was the act—he would not be arrested on any charge of intimidation, but on suspicion of intimidation; but what the intimidation consisted of he would not be told; he would not be told who was intimidated, or where. It might turn out that the act of intimidation was that in some shop in the village of, say, Ballyhaun is, he had said—"I agree with John Bright that the landlords would be exterminated if Ireland were removed a few miles Westward." The village policeman might declare that the man had said that the landlords would be exterminated if Ireland had a chance. He would not be able to carry in his mind that the man was simply quoting someone else, and the man him- self would not have a chance of saying to the Lord Lieutenant that what he had said was purely a quotation from one of the inflammatory speeches of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. If he had a chance, he might bring the charge home to the real criminal; but he would get no chance. The Chief Secretary, in regard to this Bill, affected to be a Pope —infallible—when he sat in the chair in Dublin Castle. Infallible—ho could do no wrong. He credited the Chief Secretary with the best intentions; but he would ask the right hon. Gentleman to induce any of his Colleagues to state where, within the four corners of the Bill, was a prisoner, an innocent man, offered a single chance of satisfying the Lord Lieutenant, at the three-monthly examinations, that an error had been committed. It must be tedious to hon. Gentlemen to come clown there and sit silent. Nothing in the world was more trying to hon. Gentlemen than to come there and not speak, but simply to be docile voters; and he invited any of them to get up and defend the Government whom they followed in such docility, and point out where, in the Bill, there was an offer, or a chance, given to an innocent man to satisfy the Lord Lieutenant that the charge was unfounded. Was it in the Bill? What opportunity was given? He would never be heard; there would be no trial; he would not be brought to the Council Table at Dublin Castle. And he urged the Chief Secretary, not that he should give a man a chance of escaping if he was guilty, but that he should enable it to be pointed out irrefra gibly, and in a way that should satisfy his own judgment, that he had been misled, and that the original information upon which he acted was wrong. In refusing this Amendment, Her Majesty's Government showed that they were bent upon retaining the cruelty of the Bill. They wore planting a sting in the minds of the Irish people much worse than the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act; and long after the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act was forgotten it would be remembered with indignation and bitterness, that this small measure of justice to an innocent man was refused by a Government that claimed to be the advocates of liberty, freedom, and justice. He confessed himself to be accountable, in a small way, for the fact that right hon. Gentlemen opposite were sitting upon the Treasury Bench; but no act of his would fill him with more poignant shame, indignation, and sorrow, than that he should have had any act or part in placing them there in view of their refusal of this Amendment. While he should concede to a Ministry acting under a sense of their responsibility to the Crown the duty of holding fast bound men whom they suspected of crime, he could view with no feeling but that of shame the refusal of Her Majesty's Government to give to an innocent man the chance of proving to them—not to a Judge, and not to a jury —but to them, and even allowing them to be the sole judges in their own case that he was really innocent. Would they not allow an innocent man, who might be arrested by mistake, some slender chance of proving to the Lord Lieutenant that by erroneous information he had been led into a mistake? It was most regrettable that a great Party like that of the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite should refuse this small measure of simple justice. ["Oh!"] It was a great trial to him to speak closely, under the New Rules, to the subject before the Chair. It required a man to keep himself cool; but it required a very slight effort of intellect to say "Oh!" or to make any other interruption. If this Amendment would induce the Government to part with any of its hold upon a prisoner, he would not so strongly support it; but it was because he believed it was an entirely unnecessary act of cruelty to refuse the Amendment, and because he should regard its rejection with shame, sorrow, and indignation, that he so strongly urged upon Her Majesty's Government the propriety of acceding to it.

MR. O'DONNELL

said, he had endeavoured to arrive at an exact knowledge of the principles which governed Her Majesty's Advisors in refusing the Amendment which was now proposed; and he would ask the House with sincerity, whether they really accepted the role of justice and morality which was recommended to their acceptance by Her Majesty's Government? The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary refused to state in the warrant more than the character of the offence for which a man arrested under the Act was sus- pected. He refused to give the slightest clue by which the truth or falsehood of the suspicion could be proved. He would ask the House to look at the question from three points of view. In the first place, from a point of view which involved the necessities of the suspected man. The innocent man was to have no clue afforded to him of time or place by which he could disprove the suspicion that weighed upon him, that took him away from his family and friends, from life and its occupations, and shut him up in a prison cell for 18 months. This refusal to an innocent man could only be based upon this principle in the mind of the Chief Secretary, "Better that a hundred innocent men should suffer than that one possibly guilty man should escape." Looking next at the question from the point of view of the accuser. A man was falsely accused, and the information was so cunningly planned that even a man of the remarkable astuteness of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was led into error, and a warrant was signed in Dublin Castle which placed a falsely-accused man in gaol. Such conduct, on the part of the Chief Secretary, could only be justified on the principle, "Better have a hundred falsely accused men than that a single perjured informer should be discouraged in his official trade." Looking at the refusal of the Chief Secretary from the third and concluding point of view, the Chief Secretary had, in words, promised the House to place before it the means of controlling this highly irresponsible responsibility. Yet, the right hon. Gentleman deliberately declined to give the House any clue to enable them to ascertain whether he had exercised his responsibility in accordance with the facts of particular cases. He could only understand the refusal of the Chief Secretary to present no knowledge to that House of Parliament on the grounds upon which he acted, upon the principle, "Bettor that all notions of law and justice should be overridden and degraded in Ireland than that the in competency of the Chief Secretary should be exposed on the floor of this House."

MR. O'KELLY

moved the adjournment of the debate. He hoped that, at that hour (half-past 1), it was not an unreasonable proposal, and he trusted that the Government would accede to it.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. O'Kelly.)

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he certainly could not consent to the adjournment of the debate, and he hoped the House would not accede to the proposition. They were now very nearly at the end of the first sub-section, and after they had disposed of it it would be time enough to adjourn the further consideration of these Amendments.

MR. HEALY

said, that whether the Government agreed to the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for Eos-common (Mr. O'Kelly) or not, he wished to disabuse the mind, of the right hon. Gentleman and the Government of any idea that they had now reached the end of the first sub-section. He, himself, had an Amendment of very considerable importance to propose, and it would probably involve a discussion of some hours. He, therefore, asked the right hon. Gentleman not to go into the Lobby with the idea that the sub-section was likely to be summarily disposed of.

Question put.

The House divided: —Ayes 34; Noes 165: Majority 131.—(Div. List, No. 77.)

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

The House divided: —Ayes 32; Noes 164: Majority 132.—(Div. List, No. 78.)

Original Question again proposed.

MR. HEALY

rose to move an Amendment.

MR. SPEAKER

said, I have to point out to the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) that the Amendment placed in my hand is inadmissible, inasmuch as it is not consistent with the provisions of the Bill dealing with the same subject, which have been already passed.

MR. O'DONNELL

said, if the Chief Secretary would not grant even a general description of the treasonable Practices alleged, the warrant would simply be a sort of common form upon which informers would fall back when they had no case.

MR. T. C. THOMPSON

pointed out that there was a little obscurity about the Amendment. The words were "that a warrant should be given to a prisoner on the occasion of his arrest;" but there was no mention that the warrant was to be left with the prisoner. He had heard it stated that all papers were taken away from a prisoner during the time of arrest; and, if that were to happen in the present case, the warrant would be of very little use.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, the intention was that the warrant should be left with the prisoner.

Question put, and agreed to.

Words inserted.

Further Proceeding on Consideration, as amended, deferred till To-morrow.