COMMITTEE. [FIRST NIGHT.]

HC Deb 07 March 1881 vol 259 cc433-524

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 1 (Prohibition on having or carrying arms in proclaimed district and search).

MAJOR NOLAN

said, he had an Amendment to move, in page 1, line 5, to leave out "a person," and insert— Any person, except he be a justice of the peace, a person in Her Majesty's Naval or Military Services, or in the Coast Guard Service, or in the service of the Revenue, or in the Police, or Royal Irish Constabulary, or a special constable, or juror, or clergyman. He had slightly altered the Amendment from the form in which it appeared on the Paper, but the change was merely a verbal one. The object of the Amendment was to restore the exceptions which were contained in former Coercion Acts. In the last Coercion Act, magistrates, Military and Naval officers, constables, and officers of the Revenue Department were expressly exempted from the operation of the Act; and the Amendment was taken out of former Coercion Acts, with the addition of words also exempting jurors and clergymen. He thought the most important exemption contained in the Amendment was that which applied to jurors; and, personally, he did not think, if the Amendment were conceded, with the omission of the word "juror," that he should feel inclined to accept it, because it would certainly do quite as much harm as good. It was unnecessary to point out to the Government that it was impossible to make a provision of this nature, prohibiting the carrying of arms, applicable to all classes of Her Majesty's subjects. It was necessary to exempt certain classes, and his proposal only amounted to an extension of the area of exemption. It was not necessary to argue in favour of magistrates and Military and Naval officers being allowed to carry arms. That privilege, under every Coercion Act, had always been conceded; but he thought that a Liberal Govern- ment might go a step further and include in the list of exemptions a large portion of the farmers of the country together with the respectable shopkeepers and commercial men of the towns. He believed that by inserting the word "juror," they would be able to exempt more of the most respectable people of any particular county or borough than by adopting any other designation. He had raised this question on a former stage of the Bill, but he fully admitted that his suggestion had not met with a very hearty approval. He now proposed, in the form of a distinct Amendment in the 1st clause, to allow every juror to carry arms. Jurors were most respectable men, and certainly it was most unlikely that either a murder or an attempt to murder had been committed by any man belonging to that class for a long series of years. The safety of the country, therefore, was not likely to be imperilled by allowing jurors to carry arms, and he had no objection to the Government adding some additional words to the clause restricting the persons included in his Amendment to the carrying of a gun. For instance, Her Majesty's Government might permit them to carry a gun, but prohibit them from carrying rifles. He knew that there was an overwhelming majority in the House in favour of the Bill, and his object was that the measure should be made to press as lightly as possible upon his constituents, and particularly upon the more respectable portion of them. He hoped the Government would accept the Amendment, and consent to relieve the larger and richer farmers of Ireland from the operation of the most stringent and galling provisions of the Bill. The farmers were at the present moment allowed by their landlords to shoot birds upon their holdings, and an Act passed last year gave them the right to kill hares and rabbits. All he asked now was that in Ireland they should have liberty to carry a gun. He had no objection to add to the Amendment a Proviso that the Lord Lieutenant should have power to prevent any particular magistrate or any particular juror or clergyman from carrying a gun.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 5, to leave out the words "a person," and insert the words "any person, except he be a justice of the peace, a person in Her Majesty's Naval or Military Services, or in the Coast Guard Service or in the service of the Revenue, or in the Police, or Royal Irish Constabulary, or a special constable, or a juror, or clergyman."—(Major Nolan.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'a person' stand part of the Clause."

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

Perhaps the Committee will allow me to state upon this Amendment what the object of the Government is in inserting the particular form which appears in the Bill. The plan of the Bill is really to leave to the Lord Lieutenant, in proclaiming a district, the responsibility of fixing the conditions on which licences to carry arms are to be added. It is quite true, as the hon. and gallant Member has stated, that in former Acts all these details were given—as, for instance, in the Act of 1847, which was continued down to 1870, then continued and modified in 1870, and again continued and modified in 1875. But, instead of attempting to make the present Bill a very long, voluminous, and complicated measure, it has been thought better to leave to the Lord Lieutenant, in proclaiming a district, a discretion in the matter of licences. What the hon. and gallant Member said was quite true—namely, that in all previous Acts, Justices of the Peace, persons in Her Majesty's Naval or Military Services, or in the Coast Guard Service, or in the service of the Revenue, or in the Police, or Royal Irish Constabulary, were exempted; and, of course, in this case, persons occupying similar positions will be so treated in the Lord Lieutenant's proclamations. Nobody can doubt that an exemption in such cases will be set forth in the proclamation, and that the exemptions contained in former Acts will be practically continued. The hon. and gallant Member, however, introduces into his Amendment two new classes—jurors and clergymen, who are now for the first time proposed to be exempted. I do not know what his object is in including jurors. Whether it is for the purpose of enabling them to challenge one another, I am unable to say. I certainly cannot understand upon what foundation jurors, simply as jurors, should be exempted. I could understand a proposal to exempt all people having the qualification of jurors, or persons having a certain specified qualification; but the hon. and gallant Member will see that, in some cases, a person having the qualification of a juror, and actually being a juror, may be precisely the person you may not wish to be armed. I have no doubt that there may be many individuals in this class of persons who might be fairly permitted to carry arms; but there may also be individuals among them whom it is most desirable to disarm. The object the Government have in framing the Bill as it now stands is to render the proclamation of the Lord Lieutenant perfectly flexible and plastic, and to enable the Lord Lieutenant himself to adopt it to the condition of things existing in the locality proclaimed. For instance, there may be a state of things existing in one locality which may render it desirable that the restrictions imposed in one locality should be much more stringent than those imposed in another. Then, again, in certain localities, the Lord Lieutenant, in the course of three months, six months, or eight months, may be able to relax the restrictions materially; and it would be most undesirable to have in every district the same stereotyped provisions, which would prevent the Lord Lieutenant from modifying the stringency of the Act in the event of a return being brought about to a better state of matters. If the Lord Lieutenant thinks that persons having the qualification of a juror may safely have licences to carry arms, no doubt he will include them in the proclamation, so that they might be exempted from the general regulations prohibiting the carrying of arms; but there ought to be a reservation which would enable the Lord Lieutenant to refuse licences to particular individuals. There is another class which the hon. and gallant Member proposes to arm, but about which he said nothing—the clergy. I do not know why he desires that the clergy should be armed. I should have thought that their experience in the use of these weapons would have made it a very dangerous provision, and I really do not know that it should be granted. But the main reason why I cannot agree to this Amendment is that it is really incompatible with the principles of the Bill, which is to leave the whole of the arrangements in regard to the proclamation and licences to the Lord Lieutenant. The Lord Lieutenant will have ample power to alter the conditions of the proclamation from time to time, as the exigencies of the public safety in any particular part of Ireland may from time to time demand. Under these circumstances, I think it is not necessary that I should enter into further details in regard to the Amendment moved by the hon. and gallant Member.

MR. DAWSON

was of opinion that the provisions of the Bill should strike every man within the proclaimed district with the same severity. He, therefore, felt the difficulty of supporting the Amendment of his hon. and gallant Friend. If the use of arms was to be prevented, let it be prevented to all alike; and, if the Lord Lieutenant was to have the power of making exceptions, the exceptions should be in favour of one person as well as of another. The only thing that would reconcile him to the Amendment was the point which had been urged by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary as a reason why it should not be accepted. He was of opinion that if jurors, as a class, were excluded from the operation of the provisions of the Bill, the edge would be taken off the severity and unfairness of the measure; but if that class were not included in the exemptions, he should certainly feel inclined to accept any exemptions whatever. His own impression was, that in carrying out the law there should be no distinction of persons, and that every man in Ireland should be made to suffer under the unwise provisions of the Act in the same proportion and in the same manner. He was, therefore, entirely opposed to the principle of exceptions unless the class of jurors was included.

MR. CALLAN

remarked, that if he had not been prevented by the Urgency Regulations, he had intended to move on the Motion that the Speaker leave the Chair, that it be an Instruction to the Committee that they should have power to extend the operation of the Act to England; and he was not without hopes that on the third reading the House might see the propriety, in fairness and in common justice, of extending it to England. With this view, not that he was specially in favour of exceptions, but in view of the possibility of extending the Act to the whole of the Three Kingdoms, he thought that the classes who were authorized to carry arms ex officio should be specified, because he knew the natural objection that would be entertained by English Members to leave these classes to the discretion of Ministers in the same position as the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. He certainly failed to see that any satisfactory reason had been assigned for departing from the precedent established by former Acts. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary seemed to be of opinion that until he became Home Secretary all Parliaments were unwise; that they knew not how to deal gently as well as firmly with the people, and particularly with the people of Ireland. In fact, the right lion. Gentleman looked upon himself as more Irish than the Irish Members, and much better qualified to judge of Irish matters than any Irishman. He yielded at once to the superior intelligence of the right hon. Gentleman; but, at the same time, he objected to have such an Act as this passed in a different form from that of every Act passed before, and he protested against the attempt which was made to introduce and pass a measure limiting and fettering the discretion of that House. He thought the House was fully as capable as the Lord Lieutenant of declaring what classes of persons should be exempted from the operation of the Act. The House know quite as much about Ireland as the Home Secretary or the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and he failed to see what superior wisdom constituted the Home Secretary sole arbiter in these matters, or why the right hon. Gentleman and Her Majesty's Government were better judges of what was necessary than any of the previous Governments which had sat on the Treasury Bench, whether Liberal, Whig, or Conservative. Now, if the classes included in the Amendment were to be exempted from the operation of the Bill, it would be easy to extend its application to England; and, in view of a proposition of that nature, he intended to support the Amendment. At the same time, he felt bound to enter a protest against the dictatorial tone assumed by the Home Secretary in dealing with the House. A dictatorial tone was assumed by the right hon. Gentleman in regard to the whole of the House. "Oh, its not for you to consider at all," said the Home Secretary; "it is a matter that will he much better vested in the discretion of the Lord Lieutenant than in the Members of this House." Now, who was the Lord Lieutenant? Far be it from him (Mr. Callan) to say a word against the Lord Lieutenant. He believed him to be honest and well-intentioned. He wished to God that the occupants of the Treasury Bench were as well-intentioned. No doubt, they were equally honest; but he wished they were as well-intentioned. It was not, however, the Lord Lieutenant who would be the authority in the matter. But the persons who would exercise the discretion would be neither the Lord Lieutenant, nor the Chief Secretary, nor the Under Secretary—not even the resident magistrates; but every Tom, Jack, and Harry, in the Royal Irish-Constabulary. Those were the men by whom the discretionary powers would be exercised; and if the Bill was allowed to stand as it now did, the dissatisfaction of the Irish people would be much increased. The Home Secretary objected to the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan) that it would fetter the discretion of the Lord Lieutenant, and that was the justification of the right hon. Gentleman for declining any longer to follow the precedents set by former Acts. This was a most dangerous doctrine, and he hoped it would not be accepted by the Committee. If he followed the precedents set by former Acts they could not go far wrong, and, in addition, he thought they would be really facilitating the progress of Public Business. A long Bill, following the precedents furnished by the Act of 1875, would be likely to pass much more rapidly through the House than a short measure framed in this spirit of domineering tyranny, and so insufferably unjust towards the Irish people. He would certainly support the Amendment proposed by the hon. and gallant Member, and he was sorry that the First Lord of the Treasury was not at that moment upon the Treasury Bench, because he believed the Amendment would stand a better chance of being accepted if some leading Minister, not so easily pushed aside as the Legal Advisers of the Government, were in his place. As he saw the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright) in his place, he would ask him if he was prepared to be set aside by the domineering spirit of the Home Secretary?—["Question!"] It was the Question, and a very important Question too. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he had read the Act of 1875, and also the Bill now before the House, and, if so, whether, with his own natural sense of justice and with his kindly disposition, he would not at once say that the Irish Members, who were not wanting in spirit, were much more likely to resist a Bill drawn on the lines of the present measure than they would be if the Government would withdraw it and substitute the wiser provisions of the Act passed some years ago under the auspices of the more liberal Administration of a Conservative Government?

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

said, he was sorry that Her Majesty's Government, in drawing up the present Bill, had disregarded all former precedents. The excesses they professed themselves anxious to remedy were committed by classes of disorderly persons. Yet, what did they do? They brought in a penal measure, and made it apply to all classes—orderly and disorderly alike. Those who had hitherto been perfectly qualified to carry arms, and against whose conduct no objection was raised, were to be disarmed and left at the mercy of the Lord Lieutenant, equally with the turbulent and disorderly classes. The Home Secretary said the Bill only differed from previous measures in point of form. He (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) thought the difference was a very important one, and he did not see how the Government could expect an Irish Member to vote for the punishment of one class of person for offences committed by another. He certainly did not see that any reason had been shown for taking a different course in regard to the present Bill from that which had been taken in former instances. It had been the custom to exempt particular classes. If precedent supported the proposal contained in the Bill he would have submitted to it, as doubtless other hon. Members would, on the ground that the persons who were subjected to the operation of the Act would only be passing through the ordinary ordeal assumed to be requisite in such cases. But precedents were not in favour of the proposal, and the complaint now made was that they were not only legislating for the present occasion, but that they were forming a precedent for the future, which he believed to be dangerous, and which would tend to centralize the power in Dublin Castle. He gave every credit to the right hon. and learned Gentleman who brought in the Bill that he was animated by the best intentions. ["Oh!"] His hon. Friends must allow him to give the right hon. and learned Gentleman credit for his good intentions. Remembering what was said to befall those who were animated by good intentions only, he thought his hon. Friends would not take exception to this expression. At the same time, while giving the right hon. and learned Gentleman full credit for his good intentions, he thought it was contrary to the spirit and to true policy for even the present Administration to subject the entire people of a country to harsh and stringent restrictions, and to impose penalties upon them which it had never been deemed necessary to include under similar circumstances in any previous legislation. He had no doubt that when the proclamations were issued they would supply the deficiencies of the Bill, and would exempt all the classes for whom exemption was now claimed, with the exception, probably, of the last two specified in the Amendment of his hon. and gallant Friend. But, at the same time, he thought it unwise to pass a law which should confer upon the Lord Lieutenant more power and authority in these matters than he had exercised under former Acts of Parliament. He could not see why the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary should refuse to make the measure similar in the stringency of its provisions to former measures. What was asked for by the Amendment was only a fair and proper concession to those classes who had always been orderly and well-conducted. It was only asked to exempt now those who had always been exempted before, with the addition of jurors and clergymen. He quite agreed that jurors constituted a large and wide class; but there was nothing in their condition or conduct in the past which could possibly disqualify them for carrying arms. By accepting the Amendment, they would establish the principle that the rateable value of a man's property should be some test of his respectability; and, in the second place, they would lay down the rule that it was injudicious to propose what must be at best a harsh and restrictive law with more stringent and oppressive conditions than had been in previous instances found sufficient.

MR. LEAMY

cordially supported the principle laid down in the Amendment, that jurors should be exempted from the operation of the Act, and he trusted that Her Majesty's Government would arrive at the conclusion that there was good ground for exempting them. The House had been told over and over again in the course of the discussions upon these Bills that jurors in Ireland, owing to the intimidation which existed in the country, were afraid to bring in verdicts according to the evidence before them. They had been constantly told by the Government that if juries did convict it was at their own personal risk; and, that being so, although he, for one, would not say that it was—if that were the fact, and the Government said it was—it was a most unreasonable thing to deprive the jurors of the means of protecting themselves. The House had further been told by the Government that the object of these Bills was to enable them to deal with midnight marauders and assassins. If that were the real object of the measure, they ought not to take away the means of protection from the very class who were likely to be attacked by these midnight marauders. He believed it would be found that men who possessed the qualification of jurors were those who were generally the victims of the outrages which had been so much complained of. It was necessary for a juror in Ireland to have a property qualification, and it was generally admitted that a property qualification, however small, made a man anxious to maintain law and order. Under these circumstances, he hoped the Committee would accept the Amendment proposed by the hon. and gallant Member for Galway.

SIR JOHN HAY

was certainly not inclined to support the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member opposite. Later on he intended to propose a clause, which he hoped the Government would accept, entitling any person who, within a month after the passing of the Act, lodged any arms or ammunition now in his possession at the nearest police station, to payment for the same. The reason why he alluded to that proposal now was this—the object of the Bill seemed to be to obtain a registration of arms. He would venture to point out to the Committee that at the present moment the sale of revolvers, both in this country and in Scotland, was most alarming. It was not confined to London and the large English towns; but he would give an instance of what had occurred in his own county in Scotland. He was sorry that none of the Law Officers of the Crown were present. If the Lord Advocate had been in his place, he would be able to confirm what he (Sir John Hay) was about to say; but he dare say that the facts were known to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary—namely, that in one Scotch landward parish there had been two murders, and one person left for dead, in 1880. In neither case had the offender been discovered. He happened to be a member of the sub-police committee, and, acting in conjunction with the Lord Lieutenant of the county and an hon. Gentleman, lately a Member of that House, he had made an inquiry into the matter. They were astonished at the large number of persons who were in the possession of revolvers, mostly peaceable citizens, who had no intention of breaking the law, but who had provided themselves with these implements owing to the alarm that prevailed, and with the idea of preserving their own lives. Some people had iron bars placed before their windows.

THE CHAIRMAN

I must call the attention of the right hon. and gallant Member to the fact that he is not speaking to the words of the Amendment.

SIR JOHN HAY

said, he was merely mentioning the fact that a large number of revolvers had been purchased by persons who were usually regarded as quiet and peaceable inhabitants, and he thought that some record should be kept of the possession of such implements. He did not object to the possession of revolvers under such circumstances, but he certainly thought that some record of the fact should be kept. Perhaps he might also be allowed to mention another fact. A friend of his in London had an establishment, which was not a very large one, in the neighbourhood of the recent burglaries in the Cromwell Road. His friend had only one man-servant, but he had provided himself with four revolvers. Indeed, the possession of a revolver was becoming to be regarded as a necessary and ordinary weapon for a man's protection. He had already intimated that he intended to oppose the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member. He should do so for this reason, that, in his opinion, what was really required was a record of the number of offensive weapons in the possession of the people. There ought to be a list of firearms as well as a tax upon firearms. The tax should be levied on every person who possessed a weapon of this kind, and every weapon itself should be duly recorded. It would not then be so necessary to grant licences to persons to carry offensive weapons under the exceptional circumstances of the present Bill.

MAJOR NOLAN

said, he had no objection to add at the end of the Amendment a Proviso requiring the person carrying arms to register them. He quite concurred in the propriety of the suggestion in that respect made by the right hon. and gallant Admiral (Sir John Hay).

THE CHAIRMAN

The words proposed to be added by the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan) cannot be added now, as the Question has already been put from the Chair.

MAJOR NOLAN

said, that, under those circumstances, he would simply explain that if the Amendment were agreed to, he would be willing to add the words he had suggested. He had no objection whatever to a registration of arms.

MR. BIGGAR

, in supporting the Amendment, remarked that the reasons adduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary against it were really reasons why it should be accepted. The principle suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, that the House of Commons should delegate its powers and authority to the Irish Executive, was a most pernicious one. He had always opposed it whenever it had been proposed. The House was fully competent to form its own opinions upon these matters, and it would be exceedingly improper to delegate their authority to any individuals, who, by possibility, might neglect their duty or misconduct themselves—whether it was the Lord Lieutenant, the Chief Secretary, or any subordinate official. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary said he wished to place discretionary powers in the hands of the Irish Executive as to whether particular districts should be more or less exempted. He hardly understood what the right hon. Gentleman meant; but he could easily see how the Act might be made use of as a Party and political engine, in restraining some persons who were looked upon as objectionable, and in giving full liberty to others. By this means, the scandal might be exhibited of exempting the supporters of a particular political Party from the operation of the Act; while persons belonging to another Party, who were equally respectable and well-conducted, but who professed different political and religious views, would be brought under it. These, he thought, were considerations which ought to weigh with Her Majesty's Government and the House. The Act ought to be administered with thorough impartiality, and no favouritism should be shown towards anyone. He hardly imagined that there was any occasion for the Bill at all; but if it became law, it was desirable that it should be carried out with some appearance of impartiality. He should like to say a word as to the exemption of clergymen. As far as he knew, the Roman Catholic clergy did not use firearms, and did not care to use them. What, however, was very odd, the only persons in Ireland who had recommended assassination were Protestant clergymen. One clergyman in the North of Ireland openly, on many platforms, recommended the assassination of Members of Parliament and Roman Catholic priests; and another strongly advocated the arming of persons of his own religious belief and political views. Now, he did not think it was at all desirable, if such an Act as this was to be enforced, that these gentlemen should be exempted from the operation of it. Whatever might be the fate of the Amendment, he thought any magistrate living in the neighbourhood of the reverend gentlemen he had referred to, would be justified in refusing them a licence to carry arms, if it was once decided that no improper person should be allowed to carry them. The arguments employed by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary in opposing the Amendment really went the other way; and as the right hon. Gentleman proposed to reserve to the Executive the power of acting partially and unfairly in the matter, he (Mr. Biggar) thought the House should take upon itself the right of deciding what persons should be exempted from the operation of the Act.

MR. FINIGAN

wished to make a few remarks before the Amendment was disposed of. In the first place, he entirely objected to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, that the Irish Members should entrust themselves and their liberties to the absolute and arbitrary power of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. Although they had latterly been subjected to measures of severe tyranny in that House, the Irish Members were not prepared to accept, unless it was forced upon them, the arbitrary power of the Lord Lieutenant and the arbitrary ruling of the Home Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman told them that the use of arms would be permitted to persons employed in the different Naval, Military, and other Services mentioned in the Amendment; but he (Mr. Finigan) took it that officers of the Army and Navy, of the Revenue, Police, and Royal Irish Constabulary, were only entitled to be armed when performing their proper duties. In moving from one part of Ireland to another, or, when off duty, roaming about the coasts or country, or in any of the prescribed districts, they were not entitled either to have or to carry arms about them. If they allowed the ruling of the Home Secretary to be law—and he (Mr. Finigan), for one, certainly did not hold that it was—they would be simply licensing a lot of men to carry arms who were directly interested in the affairs of the landlords. These men would go about the country fully armed, while the unfortunate tenants and the unfortunate citizens would be left without any means of defence whatever. The whole tendency of this Bill was to confer arbitrary powers upon the Executive; but nothing was so arbitrary, nothing so tyrannous as the doctrine laid down by the Home Secretary. If the House consented to allow it, they might as well give up at once any idea of liberty in Ireland. As the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved the Amendment agreed that every man should be compelled to register the possession of arms, and as he also included jurors among the exempted classes, the Committee might fairly accept the proposal on that understanding. Her Majesty's Government expressed their desire to obtain the ob- servance of law in Ireland; and as their chief complainant was that as matters now stood juries were prevented from giving a just or legitimate verdict, he could not see what objection the Government could have to the exclusion of jurors from the operation of the Bill. Most strange modes of procedure had been adopted by the Government. In one Bill the House were told that they must follow precedent; and now, in another, they were told they must abolish precedent. There was neither logic, reason, nor justice, in a single argument adduced by the Government. The object of the Bill was to place in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant complete power over the liberties of the Irish people. All he could say was that he hoped the Irish people would be preserved from another Liberal Administration. The only thing they could do now was to attempt to make the procedure under the Bill as reasonable as possible, and, as a step in that direction, he hoped the Committee would accept the Amendment of his hon. and gallant Friend, which included jurors and clergymen. As many clergymen, both Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Presbyterian, had mixed themselves up in the Land agitation in Ireland, he hoped they would be allowed to take measures of self defence against the ruffians who might be only too likely to go about Ireland creating disturbance and disorder.

MR. SEXTON

had expected that the Government would give something like a reply to the clear and forcible arguments which had been laid before the Committee. Special reference had been made to the class of jurors. The Committee were quite familiar with the arguments which had already been used in reference to jurors—namely, the difficulty of obtaining a verdict in consequence of the intimidation exercised against juries. If it were true that Irish jurors, in the performance of their duties, incurred serious danger, why did the Government refuse to allow them the opportunity of protecting themselves? It might be said that jurors would be less required now than they had been in the past; and, no doubt, many persons would be arrested under the Lord Lieutenant's warrant who would otherwise be brought before a jury. Put it would still be necessary to carry out the ordinary law to a certain extent, and it must be carried out by jurors; and if they were exposed to danger while engaged in the discharge of their public duties, the Government were bound to provide them with the means of self-protection. He thought that the Amendment of his hon. and gallant Friend proceeded upon a just and salutary principle; but it scarcely went far enough in the assertion and vindication of that principle. He (Mr. Sexton) supported it solely in consequence of the presence in it of the word "jurors;" but he complained that out of the ten classes enumerated by his hon. and gallant Friend, certainly the first eight would, under any circumstances, be well taken care of by the Government—namely, Justices of the Peace, persons in Her Majesty's Naval or Military Services, or in the Coastguard Service, or in the Service of the Revenue, or in the Police, or Royal Irish Constabulary, or special constables. It was abundantly apparent that all these eight classes would be allowed in Ireland to carry as many arms as they pleased. He objected to the Bill, because it contemplated the repulsive and detestable principle that the Lord Lieutenant, or even a clerk of the Lord Lieutenant, should supersede the function of the House of Commons. This, he contended, was a detestable principle, and the Irish Members were entitled to resist it with the utmost of their force. The principle propounded, on the other hand, by his hon. and gallant Friend was that certain classes of persons, who could not be held in any degree accountable for the state of affairs which rendered this legislation necessary, should be exempted from the operation of the Act. He thought there ought also to be included in the classes enumerated Parliamentary electors, Poor Law Guardians, members of Town Boards, and all persons holding public positions. These wore all of them respectable persons, whose course of life would protect them from any suspicion of complicity with outrage or connivance with disorder, and they ought to be exempted. If the principle of the Home Secretary were to be adopted, the condition of Ireland would be no better than that of a Turkish Pashalate. He hoped that his hon. and gallant Friend would enlarge his Amendment; but whether or not, he (Mr. Sexton) should cer- tainly support it for the sake of the jurors.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 293; Noes 28: Majority 265.—(Div. List, No. 110.)

MR. LALOR moved, in page 1, line 5, after "carry," leave out "or have any." The hon. Gentleman said, although it might be desirable that men should not carry arms outside their own lands, they ought, at least, to be allowed to keep them in their houses, if it were only for defence against bad characters in the night-time. It had been complained by the Government, he knew not with what truth, that Ireland was infested by men going about at night for the purpose of marauding; and if that were the case, it could not be right that honest men should be exposed to their midnight visits without the means of defending themselves. The Amendment he was about to propose was, therefore, very necessary. Under the provisions of the Bill, every policeman in the country would have power to enter the houses of the people in proclaimed districts during the day-time and ransack them in search of arms; and if, perhaps, they found even the lock or stock of a gun, the person in whose house they were found would be exposed to imprisonment for three months, or a fine of £20. He could only describe such a condition of affairs as monstrous, and, therefore, begged leave to move his Amendment.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

This Amendment is really opposed to the principle of the Bill. The words proposed to be left out of the clause have been in every Arms Act from 1847 to the present time, and it will be, I think, obvious to everyone that if a man not allowed to carry arms is permitted to have them in his house, he might select his own time to carry them out of his house. We had an explanation on a former occasion of the possible effect of this, when it was suggested that every man should have a rifle over his mantelpiece. The very object of the Bill is to prevent that state of things. It has been necessary, in former times, to forbid the possession of arms; and the words which it is proposed to leave out are just as necessary now as they were before. For these reasons, we cannot accede to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Queen's County, which would practically defeat the object of the Bill.

MR. MARUM

suggested, in view of the refusal of the Home Secretary to accede to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Queen's County, that the addition of the word "wilfully" would meet the case. The Bill seemed to him to delegate the functions of Parliament to another body, for although the 1st section declared that no one should have arms, the 2nd section provided that the right of carrying arms should be conferred by a certain body. That, he thought, was a singular mode of proceeding; and in voting on the division which had just taken place, he had done so with the object of protesting against the invasion of the legislative functions of Parliament. It was quite likely that a person might have arms in his possession without the slightest intention of using them improperly, and yet, as the Bill stood, he would be convicted. For that reason, he thought the addition of the word "wilfully" should be made.

MR. DAWSON

thought that persons having arms in their houses would be the least likely to use them in the way suggested by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who, in referring to the remarks of an hon. Member, had certainly not represented what he had intended to convey as his meaning. Supposing the circumstances referred to by his hon. Friend should occur, the arms that would be used in such a case would not be those hanging over the mantelpiece, but arms obtained elsewhere. The arms over the mantel-piece would, in his opinion, be used only in legitimate self-defence. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had alluded to marauding parties going about the country and terrorizing the inhabitants. But the prohibition of carrying arms was sufficient to put an end to the terrorism alleged to exist, without preventing persons having in their possession arms for their legitimate use and enjoyment. Although the Amendment would not assist in checking imaginary dangers, it would not interfere with the prevention of the real dangers which the Bill was intended to deal with.

COLONEL COLTHURST

could not support the Amendment in the form proposed; but thought that there would be a great advantage in adding the word "wilfully," as suggested by the hon. Member for Kilkenny County, because the intention of the Bill was not to prevent the keeping of arms in houses, but to prevent persons carrying and concealing arms. His own view was that there should be a general registration of arms under a heavy penalty. But, taking the Bill as it stood, he certainly thought that the words "or wilfully," or some words analogous thereto, should be agreed to. He would not vote for any Amendment to except any class of the community from the operation of the Bill; but the words suggested by the hon. Member for Kilkenny County seemed to him to be very useful.

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

said, the words "or wilfully" were unnecessary in point of law, for nobody could be convicted under the Statute without the mens rea. If arms were put into a man's Louse without his knowledge, he would not, under this Act, be held to possess them.

MR. GREGORY

pointed out that it was assumed that the clause was to prevent the carrying and possession of arms under all circumstances, whereas its object was that they should only be possessed upon certain conditions. For his own part, he should not be sorry to see some of the provisions of the Bill extended to England, so far as the carrying of arms was concerned.

DR. COMMINS

said, that unless the Statute prescribed "knowingly having arms contrary to the Statute," it would be the duty of the magistrate to find a person having them in his possession guilty. The Solicitor General for Ireland must be aware that there were many dozens of Acts of Parliament in which words similar to those in the clause were every day held to imply guilt on the part of the person coming within the purview of those Acts, without there being any guilty intention at all. For instance, there was a provision in the Licensing Act, under which a person might be convicted for permitting drunkenness upon his premises, although at the time the drunkenness took place he might have been 50 miles away. Again, there were the Acts relating to the adulteration of food, and the exposure of bad meat for sale, under which a person, although acting without any guilty intention, had no power of rebutting the charge that he was acting contrary to the law. Therefore, in view of the experience they had already gained in Ireland with regard to the application of such measures as this—where men made a trade of earning information money, and got a living by procuring the commission of criminal acts, or the semblance of their commission, he thought it would be wise to introduce some words which would have the effect of putting a check upon the manufacture of crime. The Amendment proposed would have but very little effect; but, small as it would be, he trusted the Government would agree to it.

MR. LEAMY

reminded the Home Secretary that an Act had already been passed which enabled the Lord Lieutenant to put the midnight marauders in gaol, and that this would probably be effected in the course of a fortnight from that time. Under the circumstances, he thought the people ought to be allowed to keep arms in their own houses. He considered, however, that his hon. Friend would act reasonably in consenting to add the words "and that the same should be registered" to his Amendment. He reminded the Committee that it was proposed to deprive the Irish people of the right to have arms for a period of five years, and urged that, if it was intended to establish the same laws for England and Scotland, the time to make a commencement had arrived. For his own part, he considered one Coercion Bill sufficient for one Session.

MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY

pointed out that even if some marauder did succeed in keeping one weapon in his house, he could not do it without its being known to the police. It was, he thought, rather hard upon the well-intentioned man, that he should not be allowed to have a gun, because marauders might make a bad use of them; and considering the extreme stringency of the law, and the fact that the magistrates might arrest almost anyone, even upon suspicion, of using weapons for wrong purposes, he thought that persons might safely be allowed to keep arms in their own possession. He supported the Amendment, and trusted the Government would allow it to pass.

Amendment negatived.

MR. LALOR

said, the Amendment he was now about to propose had for its object to give to any farmer for agricultural purposes the power of carrying a gun, at least on his own land, and having it on his own premises. It was scarcely necessary to state the obvious reasons in support of that demand. In England, Scotland, or any other country, it was impossible for a farmer to get on without a gun for the purpose of frightening birds, which in the summer season did an immense amount of injury to the crops. He, therefore, begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 6, after the words "arms or ammunition," to insert the words "outside of his own land."—(Mr. Lalor.)

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

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

The hon. Member for Queen's County must have misunderstood the object of the Bill, if he supposes that it is intended to prevent farmers having guns for agricultural purposes. It is only the proclaimed districts, such as are considered unsafe, that will come under the operation of the Act at all. Everywhere else things will remain as before. Those persons whom the authorities may allow to have arms will be in no difficulty whatever. But if this Amendment were passed, a man known to the magistrates as a notoriously dangerous character would be allowed to carry a rifle on his own land. That is really incompatible with the object of the Bill. Several hon. Members have spoken of the discretion allowed to the Lord Lieutenant in this matter as an extreme delegation of the authority of Parliament. But it is one which has been over and over again granted to the Executive, and the best illustration of this is, perhaps, the Foreign Jurisdiction Act, which in the case of countries like China and Japan delegated powers to the Executive by Order in Council. On the assumption that men who might be dangerous would be allowed to possess and carry arms upon their land, I am unable to agree to the Amendment of the hon. Member.

MR. DAWSON

said, if the Act were carried out in the spirit indicated by the right hon. Gentleman, no hardship would probably follow the rejection of the Amendment. But the magistrates in Ireland were entirely out of harmony with the bulk of the people, and would certainly not be inclined to grant any concession to them. On the contrary, he thought they would be glad to take advantage of any circumstance that would make the Act press upon the people more harshly. Without wishing to detain the Committee at length, he would merely point out to the right hon. Gentleman the desirability of not leaving solely to the magistrates, who were so antagonistic to the people, the power of recommending persons for licences to have arms. If the right hon. Gentleman would not agree to that suggestion, he hoped his hon. Friend would press his Amendment to a division.

DR. COMMINS

pointed out that the present Amendment, and several others to the same point, would have been quite unnecessary had the Home Secretary condescended to give the Committee a copy of the proclamation which it was proposed to use. The clause, as it stood, gave arbitrary power—limited only by his discretion, and by his desire so to limit it—to the Lord Lieutenant for the purposes of the Act. He could not recall any Act of Parliament which gave such unlimited discretion as that given by the present Bill. The Foreign Jurisdiction Act, cited by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, had not a single feature in common with it. That Act gave neither unlimited jurisdiction nor arbitrary power; it simply prescribed the manner in which certain provisions of the existing law should be carried out. It created no new offence. He took upon himself to deny that it did so. If, however, the Home Secretary would produce such an Order in Council as created a new offence, he should be convinced, but not before. The present Act proposed to give not only administrative powers to the Lord Lieutenant, but to furnish him with the power of creating a new offence. It was, of course, well known that the offence only existed where the proclamation existed, and that it was, in fact, the proclamation which made the offence. Therefore, it was clear that the power of creating a new offence was vested in the Lord Lieutenant by this Bill. To that power he (Dr. Commins) entirely objected. If a new offence were to be created, let it be created by that House, and let the House also settle the limit of the discretionary power of the Lord Lieutenant. As the Bill stood, it gave power to create a new offence by procla- mation, rendered persons liable to imprisonment for three months for its commission, without the House having the slightest idea of its nature. If the Solicitor General for Ireland, who would, no doubt, have to draw up the proclamation, would give some idea of what it would be, the necsesity for other questions on the subject would cease. The Amendment appeared to him to be a very reasonable one, and he trusted the Government would make some concession in the direction indicated.

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

said, there appeared to be some misapprehension as to the duty which would devolve on the Lord Lieutenant. The Bill provided that in a proclaimed district arms or ammunition should not be carried save as authorized by the conditions set forth in the proclamation thereinafter mentioned. The carrying of arms or ammunition was, therefore, the offence, and was created by the Statute. The relief to this would be created by the proclamation, which would set forth the conditions and regulations under which the carrying of arms or ammunition was to be authorized. With regard to the licences, the persons who would be appointed to grant them—usually in all probability the resident magistrates—would be utterly unconnected with the district, and would have but one duty to perform—namely, to act impartially in granting them to persons who were entitled to possess them, and to refuse them to those to whom they thought they should not be given. If unfettered power were given to the Lord Lieutenant, he would be responsible for its proper exercise in relaxing the stringency of the Bill; but if the Committee undertook to point out the way in which this should be done, it was clear that the Lord Lieutenant would be largely relieved from that responsibility, as well as from the trouble of carefully considering the cases in which the powers of the Bill might and ought to be relaxed. That being the duty of the Lord Lieutenant, he regarded it as an additional guarantee for the proper application of the Act, over and above those laid on the Table of the House, and could not but think the insertion of these and similar matters Would be imprudent.

COLONEL COLTHURST

said, that his objection to the Act would be very much diminished if the power of granting licences were reserved exclusively to the resident magistrates.

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

The hon. and gallant Member for Cork County seems to be under a misapprehension—

MR. CALLAN

I rise to Order. I think the Solicitor General for Ireland has already spoken on this subject; and I simply ask you, Mr. Chairman, to put the ordinary Rules in force as against the hon. and learned Gentleman.

THE CHAIRMAN

Until the Solicitor General for Ireland is ruled out of Order, he is in possession of the House. I understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to rise for the purpose of making an explanation, in which case he would have been in Order.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

had listened with some surprise to the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland. The arguments used by him in defending the power given to the Lord Lieutenant on the present occasion could be used in supporting any despotism in the world. The Solicitor General for Ireland argued that the full power ought to be retained in the Bill, because it placed on the Lord Lieutenant the responsibility of relaxing those extraordinary powers. Could more than this have been said by those who defended the mode of government applied by Russia or any other of the despotic Powers in Europe? He could understand that a great deal might be said in favour of limiting the power of any person to carry arms; but he objected that the innocent possession of arms should be constituted a crime by the Lord Lieutenant's omission to relax certain conditions.

MR. CALLAN

argued that if the Bill was passed, the Lord Lieutenant, when once a district had been proclaimed, would have no power to make exceptions in certain cases in favour of anyone carrying arms on his own land. The Solicitor General for Ireland said the Lord Lieutenant would have such power; but that was not so. If a district was once proclaimed, no person whatever could carry arms without having a licence. He was surprised that the junior Member for Cork County (Colonel Colthurst) had objected to the Bill because it did not vest the power of granting licenses exclusively with the resident magistrates, for he supposed the hon. and gallant Member had some knowledge of the magistrates of Ireland. He (Mr. Callan) knew a great deal of them, and, although he had no high opinion of the resident magistrates, he had a better opinion of them than of the stipendiary magistrates. He believed that the proper people to grant licences were the local magistrates, who knew the people, and not strangers from other places, knowing nothing of the people or their habits, and dependent upon the information of policemen or of spies and informers. It would be much better that the ordinary magistrates should have some voice in the matter, and he should have much more confidence in the Act if the local magistrates were associated on the Bench with the licensing authorities, for they would act as a check upon each other. He knew of a case in his own county in which the resident magistrate, Captain Keogh, had refused to grant a licence on the written request of two Roman Catholics magistrates—the only two Roman Catholic magistrates in the Petty Sessions district—although he would give a licence on the mere recommendation of any one of the Protestant magistrates. The resident magistrate was not a resident, for he resided 20 miles away. If he were confronted on the Bench with the local magistrates, more satisfaction would be obtained. He contended that a man should be enabled to carry arms—in the words of the Amendment—"on his own land." If a man preserving game was not allowed to carry arms on his own land, what became of the Game Bill of last year? It was merely giving with one hand and taking away with the other.

THE CHAIRMAN

I must point out to the Committee, that a good deal of discussion has arisen upon a question incidentally raised as to the authority to give the licence. The Amendment is strictly confined to the words "outside his own land."

MR. BIGGAR

thought the Amendment of the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Lalor) made the Bill beneficial from the point of view of the Government, for it proposed to give protection to a person on his own land, but did not prevent a man from using his gun for violence or intimidation against people outside his land. The position of the Government was illogical, and if they really wished people to be able to defend themselves they should accept the Amendment. The contention of the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Solicitor General for Ireland) was that it was undesirable to fetter the discretion of the Lord Lieutenant; but he did not see why that discretion should not be restrained as much as possible, for if every tenant farmer in Ireland who had a gun, and against whom no reasonable complaint could be made, had to apply to a resident magistrate, there would be an inducement to appoint a large number of resident magistrates. As to whether magistrates would act impartially in granting licences—he once applied to a magistrate for leave to carry a revolver, but leave was refused. The magistrate did not give any reason for the refusal; but after he became a Member of Parliament, the magistrate sent him a licence. He had not, however, bought a revolver, and he had never had one in his hand. That instance showed the uncertainty of the system. He thought it would be well to allow a large number of exemptions, for it would be impossible to settle all the cases separately, and the working of the Act would be greatly facilitated.

MAJOR NOLAN

dissented from the contention of the Home Secretary, for the administration of the Lord Lieutenant ought to be, and was fettered, and the Crown was also to a certain extent fettered. Therefore, the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman ought not to be allowed to weigh; but even if this unfettered Dower was to be given, at least the Committee ought to endeavour to impress their views upon the Lord Lieutenant, and he did not see how they could do that so well as by expressing their opinions in the House. That was reducing the functions of the House to a low level; but that seemed to be the only method of enlightening the Lord Lieutenant, and the discussion ought, therefore, to be continued. If they were to follow the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, they would have to abandon all their Amendments. He would remind the Government and hon. Members that this Bill would tell greatly at the future elections during the next five years. In his own county, at least 2,000 electors would feel the weight of the Bill.

MR. HERMON

expressed himself in favour of all the Amendments being gone on with, without the discussion being arbitrarily terminated; but he could not support this Amendment.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 29; Noes 217: Majority 188.—(Div. List, No. 111.)

MR. M'COAN moved, in page 1, line 6, after "authorized," to insert "by the magisterial certificates or." To explain the relevance of these words, he must allude to the sub-section which he would move later on. That sub-section would show the sense of these words, if it were accepted. The latter Amendment read thus— Certificates authorizing the having and carrying of arms and ammunition in proclaimed districts may be issued by a resident magistrate, or by two or more justices of the peace within such districts. His intention in moving this clause was that there might be an alternate means by which the right to carry arms could be obtained. Either permission could be had by magisterial certificates, or by the proclamation of the Lord Lieutenant. As the object of the Bill was not to impose obnoxious conditions upon respectable persons, but simply to ensure peace, order, and good conduct on the part of the population in proclaimed districts, he ventured to hope that there would be no difficulty in allowing such an alternative as he begged to propose. It could hardly be contended that justices of the peace or resident magistrates would not be trustworthy persons to have the granting of licences; therefore, he ventured to hope that the Home Secretary would see his way to increasing the facilities to that extent. The effect would not be to increase the carrying of arms at all. It might be that the Lord Lieutenant, in his proclamation, might give all the necessary facilities, but the reverse might also be the case; and he thought that law and order would be equally kept up by empowering the magistrates to make individual selections of persons who should be allowed to carry arms. Unless there were some such verbal interpollation, the clause, as it stood, might appear to negative the sub-section which he would propose further on. He, therefore, expressed a strong hope that the right hon. Gentleman would make a concession on a simple point like that, since it could not affect the working of the Bill in the least. He must in candour say that there was no justification for the argument used by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Roscommon (Dr. Commins), in replying to the right hon. Gentleman, to the effect that Orders in Council did not create offences. He had seen the working of Orders in Council in the Levant, in China, and in Japan, and they had not only created but formulated whole codes of Criminal Law. There was no occasion to strain the facts beyond what they would fairly bear. He strongly hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would see no difficulty in admitting the Amendment which he then begged to propose.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

Sir, I do not at all desire to exclude from the authorities who may grant licences the magistrates of Ireland; but I would remind hon. Members that the framework of these Acts from the year 1847 is so arranged as primarily to give to the Lord Lieutenant the power to appoint licensing officers. Of course, this Act will be worked in that manner. The Lord Lieutenant will appoint certain persons whose business it will be to grant these licences. He may appoint magistrates, or other officers, if he thinks those other officers would be more fitting. In considering the question of licences, there is always some little difficulty in making the local magistrates the licensing authorities, on account of the jealousy which sometimes exists. I do not think that it would be best for the authorities to choose for licensing purposes any particular set of persons. What the Bill proposes is to leave this Act as the Acts were before the one of 1875. Before that time the Lord Lieutenant had absolute discretion in selecting the licensing officers in the particular districts. This Bill proposes to give the Lord Lieutenant the same power; and, under the circumstances, I do not think it would be wise to alter it in any way. Therefore, I cannot see my way to accept the Amendment.

MR. LEAMY

said, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had just stated that prior to that Act—namely, the one of 1875, the power given to the Lord Lieutenant was the same as that now proposed; but there were no words that he saw in the present Bill which would confer any such power. The words would probably be included in the terms of the proclamation.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

The words of the Bill are sufficient to allow of a power to the Lord Lieutenant for that purpose.

MR. LEAMY

said, that the first point to which he would allude was that there seemed to be no obligation upon the Lord Lieutenant to issue any particular regulations. He might issue a proclamation which contained no conditions at As to a proscribed district, it was not obligatory on him to set forth any conditions; and, consequently, he need not appoint any person to carry out conditions which would not be inserted. That being so, he submitted that they had a right to expect that in this Act there would be the same wording as in the former Act. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had told them the other night that the Act was based on that of 1875. He firmly believed that everything that was good in the Act was obtained in the one of 1875; but there were many other things in it that certainly were not so, and one of the good things which it did not contain, and the former Act did contain, was that power of conferring on justices the right to grant licences. The Home Secretary had said that those magistrates were, perhaps, not the best men to grant licences.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

I said that there might be some jealousy if the power were given to the local magistrates.

MR. LEAMY

said, that, after all, if they wished to have inserted in the Act a similar power to that of 1875, he did not see any reason why the Home Secretary should refuse to grant their request. If the magistrates were slow in granting licences, that was all the more reason why they should have the power to grant them. He objected also to the Lord Lieutenant having the power of framing regulations. He might make one set of regulations for one district, and another for another. Under those circumstances, he hoped that the Amendment which had been suggested by his hon. Friend would be accepted by the Committee.

MR. SEXTON

said, there was not a material difference between the argument of the hon. Member for Cork County (Colonel Colthurst) and the Members sitting upon those Benches. With regard to the fitness of the resident magistrates to have the power under that Act of granting licences, the magistrates of Ireland were utterly unfit persons to exercise a jurisdiction of that character. At the same time, he felt disposed to point out to the Committee that, as they proceeded in Radicalism, they appeared to retrograde in regard to the Bills that were brought in that had reference to Ireland. In 1875, persons were appointed to grant licences to carry arms. That Act said— That such persons shall be bound to grant such licences provided that the person who seeks the licence shall produce a certificate that he is a fit and proper person to have such licence. It was evident that that Act gave power to grant licences under certain restriction, and that was, that any two magistrates might have the power to grant licences generally. He did not think that the magistrates would be likely to exercise any power under that Act in fervour of the people or in a popular spirit. In regard to the resident magistrates particularly he might say that. The Solicitor General had said that those resident magistrates were socially disconnected from the districts in which they had jurisdiction. It was well known that the magistrates, on the contrary, were intimately connected with the landlord classes of those districts in which they discharged their functions. He had strongly objected to the Lord Lieutenant having absolute power in regard to that matter. It was most revolting that a General Officer commanding the forces, and a couple of Judges sitting in the name of a Privy Council in Dublin, should have any such power, and he protested against it. Little confidence as he had in the magistrates of Ireland, he thought that the powers argued for by his hon. Friend (Mr. M'Coan) should be granted, because it was better that there should be no delusion with regard to absolutism, and that anything was better than sheer, absolute, and despotic power.

MR. BIGGAR

said, with regard to that particular Amendment he had not much to say; but as to the magistrates, there was a great difference between the resident and the unpaid magistracy. That difference between those two classes, in his opinion, was this. The resident magistrates were men who were amenable to public opinion—and when he said public opinion, he meant the opinion of that House—because when the Vote for Salary came on, it was within the power of Members from Ireland to criticize the conduct of those men. But with regard to the unpaid magistracy, they were entirely irresponsible. He thought that, under any circumstances, they should not be allowed to have the power that was proposed. He was entirely opposed to the present system of magistracy in Ireland, and if he could he would destroy that system at once. He was strongly of opinion that his Colleagues were wrong on that particular occasion; but, at the same time, he was disposed to vote with them, because he had sufficient veneration for Party government, and he thought that on such an occasion as the present they should suppress division of opinion.

MR. GIBSON

As well as I can understand the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman, he desires, as far as he can, to introduce one of the provisions contained in the Act of 1875 into the present Bill. In my opinion, he will not, by his present Amendment, accomplish that. I have been looking closely at it, and am pretty conversant with the Act of 1875, and I would suggest that this Amendment should not be introduced here at all. It is desirable, I think, to leave the whole matter to the draftsman who will draw up the proclamation of the Lord Lieutenant. I was much struck with a remark which fell from an hon. Member, that the power of the Lord Lieutenant to exempt might not be exercised. However, when I consider the provisions of other Acts of Parliament, I come to this extraordinary conclusion, that unless the proclamation of the Lord Lieutenant does, on its face, contain exemptions, and very wide ones, the police, soldiers, and others would not be able to bear arms at all. Therefore, when a district is proclaimed there must be exemptions in the proclamation of very numerous classes; and one thing is evident, that it will be impossible for the Executive to allege that they have not had the opportunity of considering the licensing authority. I have no doubt that when the Lord Lieutenant proceeds to consider the exemptions, he will also call into existence those licensing authorities that existed under the Act of 1875. Under the Act of 1875 there was no power given to any magistrate to grant licences. All that could be done was for two magistrates of a district to certify that an agricultural tenant appeared to be a fit and proper person to have arms, and then that the tenant, armed with the certificate, might compel the licensing authority to act. We cannot expect the Home Secretary to state at the present moment what the exact scope of the proclamation of the Lord Lieutenant will be. I think that, under the present circumstances, it would not be wise to press the Amendment.

MR. M'COAN

said, that, in deference to the general feeling of the Committee, he would withdraw his Amendment in order to substitute another which would carry into effect the provision of the Act of 1875.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. DAMSON

said, that if the provisions of the Act of 1875 were not to be inserted, the Amendment that he proposed would certainly commend itself to the Committee. It was this. That the licensing authority should be obliged to hold an open investigation. The refusals should not be done by hole-and-corner work. It frequently was the case that licences were refused under those Acts. He thought that the Government ought to provide that any licensing authority, to which the proclamation gave force, to hear applications for licences should hold their sittings in public, so that if they refused the refusal might be in public, and everyone might know the reason why the refusal was made. If that were so, no arbitrary power of the magistrate could well take place, and no man who knew that a charge could be brought against him would be likely to make application in a public assembly for the licence. He would remind the Committee that the refusal often implied a serious charge on character, and for that reason he hoped that a public investigation would be allowed.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 6, after the word "by," to insert the words "licence granted in open court, held for that purpose according to."—(Mr. Dawson.)

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

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

The hon. Member who has moved this Amendment seems hardly to contemplate the full operation of such Acts as these in Ireland. Hon. Members must remember that we are dealing with a system which has obtained in Ireland for 35 years, and I would appeal to them whether this system, which has been in existence during times of oppression, could be well carried out by an official investigation of particular instances? If the Amendment were agreed to it would introduce a state of things never before known, and would lead to a condition of affairs totally unmanageable. Unless there were some strong reason to the contrary, the licence would be granted in quiet districts and in tranquil times. An investigation would be utterly unnecessary. Under the circumstances, I certainly cannot see my way to accept the Amendment.

MR. SEXTON

said, that the mere fact of the system having been in force since 1847, was saying very little indeed in its favour. Many things had been in force besides that, which were not defensible in reason or justice. He did not think that his hon. Friend intended to include every case in his Amendment. The Amendment was inserted rather for the sake of a protection. In 99 cases out of 100 they would be satisfied to go to the magistrate in private, and leave the granting of the licence to his discretion; but in the 100th case it would be necessary, in the public interest, that the refusal to give the licence should be announced in open Court, in order that the reason of the refusal might be known, and the man's character cleared, if possible. The Amendment was only an exceptional measure of protection, and on that account he thought it might well be acceded to. He must add, that it was a well-known fact that the manner in which applicants for licences were treated by the magistrates was most brusque. They simply dismissed the case in a summary manner, and refused to give any reason why the licence had not been granted. In public, however, there would be the chance of putting the man's character on trial, and the magistrate could be called upon to give a reason for his refusal. Bills like those not only attacked public liberty, but private character. The bashaw whom the Government placed over a district might refuse a licence without giving any reason for it, and thus deprive a man of his character. He thought that the request of his hon. Friend was a most reasonable one, and he trusted that if the Government did not give way he would proceed to a division upon it.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 27; Noes 122: Majority 95.—(Div. List, No. 112.)

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member (Mr. Sexton) has an Amendment to leave out "Proclamation hereinafter mentioned," and to insert "Schedule appended to this Act;" but I would point out that there is no Schedule to the Bill, and no hon. Member has given Notice of his intention to move that one be added to the measure. The Amendment cannot be put unless such Notice is given.

MR. SEXTON

Can I give Notice now?

THE CHAIRMAN

If you place the Schedule before the Committee.

MR. SEXTON

Instantly?

THE CHAIRMAN

It is necessary to do so before the Committee can consider the Amendment.

MR. CALLAN

said, the hon. Member would, for the present, be perfectly in Order in moving to leave out "Proclamation hereinafter mentioned," and he could then state his intention to make the substitution referred to in his Notice. He would put it to the Chairman that the hon. Member would be in Order in following this course.

THE CHAIRMAN

If the hon. Member moves the omission of these words for the purpose of inserting others relating to a Schedule, that Schedule must be before the Committee. It is impossible to consider an Amendment referring to a Schedule of which the Committee know nothing.

MR. SEXTON

said, he would confine himself to moving the exclusion of the words "Proclamation hereinafter mentioned."

THE CHAIRMAN

That, as the hon. Member sees, would leave the clause in-complete. The clause would have no meaning if that were carried; therefore, the Amendment cannot be put.

MR. CALLAN

said, that before any other hon. Member rose, he himself would move to leave out the words "Proclamation hereinafter mentioned," and would bring up to the Chairman a Schedule to be appended to the Bill. He would leave it to the Committee to decide what modifications should be made in the Schedule when the Amendments came to be considered at a future stage. He would not be in Order in bringing up a form of a Schedule, leaving it to the Committee subsequently to specify the different classes to be put in it; but he would remind the Chairman that if he had given Notice of a Schedule, he would not be at liberty to discuss its details until the Committee had arrived at the consideration of his proposal. To his mind, it would be far better to state the "conditions" in a Schedule than to leave them to be announced in a proclamation, because in the former case they would be brought under the observation of the House. This would, in some degree, limit the extreme authority of the Lord Lieutenant, and the Irish Members were anxious to have that authority fettered as much as possible.

THE CHAIRMAN

It is impossible, as I have already stated, for the Committee to pass an Amendment making reference to a Schedule the precise conditions of which they are unacquainted with. The Schedule must be in the hands of the Committee before an Amendment can be moved making reference to it.

MR. W. J. CORBET

said, the clause stated that— Any person carrying or having any arms or ammunition, in contravention of this Act, may be arrested without warrant by any constable or peace officer, in order to his being dealt with according to law. In an Act they had already passed, they had given the Lord Lieutenant power to issue his warrant for the arrest of any person who might be suspected of treasonable intentions; but here, in this Bill, they absolutely proposed to give any constable of police authority to arrest any person with or without a warrant. He did not expect the Government would make any concession at all; but it certainly appeared to him a monstrous thing to empower a mere constable to arrest anyone he liked without a war- rant. He would propose that the words "without warrant" be left out.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

If the hon. Member carried his Amendment, he would not the least in the world advance the object he has in view, because the clause would be exactly the same without these words as with them; and I hope he will allow me, as a lawyer, to make that assertion—an assertion which, I venture to say, every lawyer in the House will confirm. Why the draftsman put in the words I do not know, because they do not make the slightest difference. If the hon. Member will look at the paragraph, he will see that there are two sections in it—the first giving power of arrest to any constable or peace officer, and the second giving any justice of the peace, constable, or peace officer power of search. Under the 2nd section a police constable could arrest without warrant, and no such alteration as that proposed, and no such words as those in the clause, are really necessary. Under the 10th section of the Act of 1847, it was enacted that it should be lawful for Any person or persons whomsoever to seize and apprehend any person who should be found carrying any gun; and so on. That was a much more extensive power than is contained in the present Bill, because it authorized "any person or persons whomsoever" to arrest, and did not confine the power to a constable or peace officer, as does this measure. The present Bill is much more restrictive than the Act of 1847, which, if I am not mistaken, was in operation down to 1875.

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

Yes, that is so.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

At any rate, the power now given is less extensive than that formerly granted. An arrest without any specification that a warrant is necessary, means practically an arrest without warrant; and you find when you come to a case where you do require a warrant, that it is provided that the arrest shall be made under warrant. I therefore hope the hon. Member will not insist on his Amendment, which, after all, would only make a verbal alteration, and would not affect the substance of the measure at all.

MR. LEAMY

said, if the right hon. Gentleman was correct in his law—and, no doubt, he was—why did he object to strike out the words? If the constable had power, by a subsequent part of the Bill, to arrest without warrant, why should the Home Secretary hesitate to accept the Amendment proposed?

MR. T. C. THOMPSON

said, he understood from the right hon. Gentleman that the words were to be struck out, as it was of no advantage to retain them. In all Acts of Parliament it was desirable to strike out all words which were superfluous.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

At some future stage I dare say I shall strike them out.

MR. BIGGAR

suggested that his hon. Friend should withdraw the Amendment, and substitute the word "with" for the word "without." If he understood the matter rightly, the object of the hon. Member was to prevent an arrest being made without some sort of written authority—to prevent a police constable from arresting a person simply on his own responsibility. As the Home Secretary had very properly pointed out, the Amendment would leave things very much where they were at present; but it would suit his hon. Friend's purpose to amend the Bill so as to provide that— Any person carrying or having any arms or ammunition in contravention of this Act may be arrested with warrant by any constable or police officer.

MR. W. J. CORBET

said, he would adopt the suggestion of his hon. Friend, and would ask leave to move to strike out the word "without," in order—

THE CHAIRMAN

Order! There is an Amendment before the Committee, and that must be decided upon unless it is by leave withdrawn.

MR. W. J. CORBET

I ask leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. W. J. CORBET

said, he would now move an Amendment to make the clause run as his hon. Friend (Mr. Biggar) had described.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 9, to leave out the word "without," in order to insert the words "with a,"—(Mr. W. J. Corbet,) —instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the word 'without' stand part of the Clause."

MR. BIGGAR

said, the Amendment had now been formally moved by his hon. Friend, and he would really press upon the Government the desirability of acceding to it. It would be an improper thing to give a police constable power to arrest a person without a warrant. If the Bill passed in its present form, and a person was unfortunate enough to do some little thing that was an infringement of the Act, he might be subjected to all the annoyances and indignities of being made a prisoner by a police officer in a most summary manner, and it might be found afterwards that he had subjected himself only to the very smallest amount of punishment. He would point out that the provisions of the Bill were of the very widest nature. A person would be guilty of an infringement of the Act if he had the smallest amount of powder or explosive substance about him, and if he had not only a firearm, but even the smallest part of a firearm, in his possession without a licence. It would be very hard and unreasonable for a man who had a few grains of powder in his pocket, or a piece of a weapon, to be arrested without warrant by a police constable, kept in confinement all night, and brought up before a magistrate in the morning to have his slight irregularity adjudicated upon. It seemed to him that in a matter of this kind, where the total amount of punishment that could be inflicted was not very heavy—for, after all, three months was not very much imprisonment—it was unreasonable to give a police constable power of summary arrest.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

This is a matter in which it would be impossible to do away with arrest without warrant. Take such a case as the horrible murder which occurred near Mullingar two or three days ago. Several men were walking along the road with revolvers. Suppose the police had seen them with these weapons in their hands, would it not have been necessary, in order to prevent mischief, for them to have arrested the men at once? How could they have waited to make the arrests until they had obtained warrants? If the police observe anything wrong, or have reason to suspect that the Act is being infringed, the proper course is for them to stop that infringement at once. The object of the Bill will be defeated if we require the police to delay making the arrest until they have procured a warrant. I conceive that the object of a power of this kind is that the police may interfere in a case where they see two or three or half-a-dozen men walking along the road with arms in their hands. I have often heard hon. Members below the Gangway opposite say that such a thing could be prevented by the present law; but if hon. Members know that that is the case, they know more than I do. I do not think it can be prevented unless you can prove that they mean to perpetrate some overt act with these arms. Under this Act the police will be able to go up to these men and say to them—"We should like to know whether you have got licences to carry these arms," and if they find that they have not, they can arrest them. As I have said, the whole object of the Bill would be defeated if they had to wait for warrants before making the arrests. Men may be found at night with arms in their possession, and surely it will be admitted that it must be impossible to obtain warrants in such cases.

MR. DAWSON

pointed out that under the Coercion Act if the police suspected that people had arms and were abroad on doubtful business, they had power to arrest them. The police were the judges as to whether people were suspiciously going about with arms or not—they were the masters of the situation. He thought that in the present case it would be a wholesome check upon the police to insert the word "with" in place of "without," so that a warrant might be required.

MR. LEAMY

said, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had spoken only of persons carrying arms; but the Act would give the police power to arrest without warrant persons having arms in their houses. He submitted there could not be the same reason for going into a man's house and taking him away to gaol as there might be for arresting a body of men found in a road with arms in their hands.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

The police could not go into a man's house without a warrant.

MR. LEAMY

said, that, no doubt, a warrant was necessary for the purpose of making a search in a person's house, but he did not know that such warrant gave the constable power of arrest. If the Bill were to pass in its present shape, however, the police constable would obtain a warrant to search, and the moment he found arms in the house he would be able to arrest their owner. If the constable found arms in the house he would know who to suspect of their possession, and it would therefore not be necessary to arrest him at once; he could summon him in the ordinary way for an offence against the Act. It was too hard that a peace officer should have power to go into a man's house and, if he found a little powder or the lock of a gun, to take the man into custody without more ado. If there was a provision in the Act requiring that such a person should be summoned before a justice of the peace to have his case tried, the objection would not be so great; but it certainly would be hard to lock a man up for perhaps a week—["No, no!"] Well, the Bill said, in Clause 5, that for the purposes of the Act, the Court of Jurisdiction elsewhere than in Dublin should be constituted of two or more Justices of the Peace sitting in Petty Sessions.

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

The offenders will be "dealt with according to law."

MR. LEAMY

apprehended that "according to law" was according to this Bill. The offenders would be brought up at the petty sessions, and, to his knowledge, there wore districts in Ireland where the petty sessions were only held every fortnight. That being so, he thought it only fair and reasonable that there should be some check on the power of making arrests—that men who might happen to contravene the Act by having arms in their houses should not be arrested without warrant.

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

said, there must be some mistake in the hon. Member's mind. The Bill provided that the person found contravening the Act should be arrested by a constable or police officer "in order to his being dealt with according to law." The Petty Sessions Act would require that these persons should be brought before a magistrate, and the magistrate would direct that they should be summoned to the petty sessions or be required to give bail for their appearance at the petty sessions to answer the charge preferred against them.

MR. BRADLAUGH

could not understand the point raised by the hon. Member opposite, as to the searching of a house and the finding of arms there giving a police constable authority to arrest a person elsewhere without warrant, because that person happened to be the occupier of such house. The Bill only said that persons should be arrested without warrant who were found with arms or ammunition upon them.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 116; Noes 32: Majority 84.—(Div. List, No. 113.)

MAJOR NOLAN moved, in page 1, line 11, after "Law," to insert— Unless such person can be identified, and unless there is no reasonable apprehension of such person making immediate and violent use of the arms carried. The Bill provided that any person carrying or having any arms or ammunition in his possession might be arrested without warrant by any constable or peace officer in order to his being dealt with according to law. The Amendment he had now to propose was really a very mild one. It simply gave a qualification to guard against the arrest of a man who was obviously doing no harm and who was well known to the Constabulary.

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

MAJOR NOLAN

resumed. The words of the clause as they stood were very strong, and gave power to any constable to arrest anyone carrying arms or ammunition without a warrant. His object in proposing the Amendment was to prevent the constable from making bad use of the powers placed in his hands through excess of zeal. He might think that in arresting some respectable inhabitant he was showing himself very zealous and ensuring promotion, and when he came to deal with the small farmer or the small tradesman he would be anxious, in order to get promotion, to distinguish himself by indulging in bullying. The Amendment would not interfere in any way with the carrying out of a warrant. It simply declared that where the constable had no reasonable apprehension that a man was likely to make immediate and violent use of the arms he carried, that he should not arrest him without a warrant. Of course, if he thought that the man was going to make immediate use of them he would arrest him. That point was put by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary when he said that if the constable saw a man with a revolver he ought to arrest him. That he (Major Nolan) fully allowed. But suppose a man well-known to the constable, and not a dangerous character, was seen carrying a blunderbuss, was he to be arrested by a constable without a warrant? He remembered the late Member for the county of Cork mentioning several instances in which respectable persons had been put to a great amount of trouble in consequence of the officiousness of over-zealous constables. He did not think that the constable, under the circumstances, should have power to arrest without a warrant. The Amendment only went to this extent—that if the constable did not know the man, and thought there was any danger, he could arrest him without a warrant, or if he could not identify him; but if he both knew the man and know there was no reasonable probability that he would make a bad use of arms—if, for instance, he saw a servant he knew personally carrying a gun through the street—it would not be his duty to arrest him. He thought that the insertion of some such Proviso would prevent the constable from unduly exercising his authority.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

I do not think that the first part of this Amendment can be defended, even upon the hon. and gallant Member's own showing, as he might know and be able to identify a man who is known to be a very dangerous character. The Amendment would not, therefore, meet the case at all. Then the hon. and gallant Member says— Unless there is no reasonable apprehension of such person making immediate and violent use of the arms carried. The hon. and gallant Member puts the case of an over-zealous constable. Now, an over-zealous constable would always entertain that apprehension, or otherwise he would not act. These would, therefore, be extremely dangerous words to introduce. By this Bill it is intended to give the police, if in the night-time they see persons going about armed with guns and revolvers, the power of stopping them and taking them before a justice of the peace, whether they are able to identify them or not, and whether they think the fire arms are going at once to be used for an illegal purpose, or at a more remote time. The object of the clause is to provide that if persons indulge in the habit of carrying fire-arms, they shall come within the operation of the Act. I cannot consent to except the case of a person who may be known and readily identified, and in regard to whom the police constable may speculate whether or not he is going to make a bad use of the arms he carries.

THE O'DONOGHUE

said, it appeared to him that the clause, as it stood, circumscribed the operation of the Act. It was not necessary that the police constable should have power only to arrest a man whom he perceived to be carrying arms. People might be going to a meeting without carrying arms in their hands; but as he understood the clause, it gave the constable power to make an arrest whether he saw arms in a man's hands, or whether his pockets happened to bulge out, and he was suspected of carrying them. In that case he might go to the man and insist on seeing what he was carrying. And thus every man attending a fair, a race, or a market, would be liable to be stopped and arrested. He looked upon this as the most oppressive section of this most oppressive Bill, and the most dangerous part of it, as it would inevitably give rise to a great deal of disturbance, seeing that the people were likely to resist the interference of the police in this way. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary pointed out that if the police saw a man going about at night armed, they would arrest him. No one would object to that; but the clause, as it stood, gave the constable power to make arrests at any moment and under any circumstance.

MR. FINIGAN

said, the Home Secretary had just told them that he objected to the Amendment of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Galway (Major Nolan) being accepted by the Committee, because in the case of a man of dangerous character going about armed, and being a person whom it would be desirable to arrest, he would escape arrest on the ground that he was well known, and could be easily identified. But if such a man were known to be a dangerous subject, he ought to be arrested under the Coercion Act, because, as a dangerous character, he must either be reasonably suspected of some crime or incitement to crime or outrage. A person in that position would be arrested at once, and not allowed to go round the country flourishing fire-arms, because the mere fact of his carrying arms would afford reasonable suspicion that he was guilty of treasonable practices. The Bill provided that any person carrying or having arms or ammunition in contravention of the Act might be arrested without a warrant. That was a very great power to begin with. But the clause did not say that he was to be arrested without a warrant and dealt with in some way that was not according to law; but it actually said "in order to his being dealt with according to law." Would it not be much more logical and much more reasonable that this man, who was not a well-known ruffian, and was not reasonably suspected of committing crime or inciting to crime, or on whose premises arms had been found—would it not be much more logical that as long as he was well-known, and could be easily identified, and unless there was a reasonable apprehension that he intended to make immediate and violent use of the arms he carried, he should have the full benefit of the spirit of the law—namely, that he should be found guilty before he was sent to a common prison? In this, which was the true spirit of the law, he hoped the Amendment would be accepted.

MR. HEALY

said, the wording of the Bill had been copied from the Act of 1875, at which time there was no Coercion Act in force, and the Home Secretary, in servilely adhering to the former wording, appeared to have forgotten that, at the time in question, there was no power of arresting persons on suspicion. The Government having just passed a Coercion Act for Ireland, under which they could arrest persons on suspicion, the words sought to be excluded from the present Bill were unnecessary. The Amendment before the Committee, therefore, appeared to him to be perfectly reasonable. But there was one point to which he desired to call particular attention. It was well known that the police in Ireland had the character of desiring to give everybody as much annoyance as possible. If a policeman had a grudge against any man in Ireland, he had a hundred ways, even under the ordinary law, of causing him annoyance; but under this Act his means of doing so would be multiplied a hundred-fold. As an instance of this, a man having a licence for arms might have left it at home, and one of these vigilant and intelligent officers might find this out, arrest the man, and subject him to fine and imprisonment. He might even imprison him while sending home for the licence. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would, therefore, do well to consider this Amendment, and endeavour to bring up on Report some compromise which would remove the difficulties complained of.

MR. O'DONNELL

said, he thought the Home Secretary had himself suggested the way in which the Bill ought to be amended. It would, however, be necessary that the Amendment should be introduced in a different place. He would therefore move an Amendment to an earlier line of the clause.

THE CHAIRMAN

The Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway is now before the Committee.

MAJOR NOLAN

I am willing to withdraw, to allow the hon. Member for Dungarvan to move his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. O'DONNELL

suggested that a man might be arrested without warrant by any constable or peace officer in the night time. This was the limitation suggested by the Home Secretary.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

As a matter of Order, the hon. Member cannot propose any Amendment except after the word "Law," in line 11.

MR. O'DONNELL

said, the Amendment he was about to move would allow a constable or peace officer to arrest without warrant any person, who for some inscrutable reason, might be wandering at night-time about the country. It was absolutely intolerable that in the day-time a police constable should have the power of arresting respectable persons, whether belonging to the class of landlords, or traders and shopkeepers in towns. But if the power to arrest without warrant were confined to the nighttime, the complaint that at present armed men could go about the country at night would be entirely removed, and, in fact, something would be done to take away that aspect of the Bill to which reference had been made at an earlier stage—namely, that it seemed more calculated for worrying and annoying respectable people during the daytime, than for dealing with malefactors at night. Without referring to the details in subsequent clauses, he observed that the powers of search under the Bill were only to be exercised during the day-time and, therefore, it would seem some provision should be made against marauders and dangerous persons during the night. He regretted not having called attention to this defect in the Bill before the hon. and gallant Member for Galway had moved his Amendment, which he had since withdrawn by leave of the Committee. However, he hoped the Home Secretary, having himself pointed out the defect, would now admit the remedy which it was sought to apply in conformity with his own suggestions. It was not in the-day time that dangerous persons went about the country with arms; those who did so would almost certainly be men for whose character some persons of fair respectability would be able to answer. In asking for this alteration, therefore, they were not applying to the Government for any illegitimate safeguard. The proposal he had to make would bring the Bill still more closely in keeping with the original intentions of Her Majesty's Government, and, therefore, he suggested the words "between sunset and sunrise." Of course, if the right hon. Gentleman preferred the words "in the night-time," he should be happy to accept that emendation.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 9, after the word "warrant," to insert the words "between sunset and sunrise."—(Mr. O'Donnell.)

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

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, the clause provided that— Any person carrying or having arms or ammunition in contravention of this Act may be arrested without warrant by any constable or peace officer, in order to his being dealt with according to law. He could not understand why that should not be done in the day-time as well as at night. To say that outrages and murders were not committed in the day-time was, as everybody knew, contrary to the circumstances reported from day to day, which showed that dangerous men were going about in Ireland with arms quite as much by day as by night. The object of the clause was to enable the police, when they saw persons carrying rifles and revolvers, to interfere, take their arms away, or arrest them. The Government could not, therefore, accede to the Amendment, which it was difficult to believe had been proposed seriously, for it must be obvious to everybody that it was impossible to identify and confuse two such different acts as entering a house in search of arms at night, and arresting a person for having them in his possession.

DR. COMMINS

said, the only way in which the people of Ireland could be protected from improper and mischievous interference on the part of the police was by preventing their arrest in the day-time. Under the present law, any persons carrying arms in the day-time to the terror of Her Majesty's subjects could be arrested. It was, therefore, the fault of the framers of the Bill that the words "any person openly carrying arms" had not been employed. Not having used them, they had thought it necessary to add to the powers of the existing law. If the peace of the country was to be preserved, and if this Act was not to be made an engine of oppression, he thought its operation ought to be restricted to the night-time, so far as the arrest of persons having arms or ammunition was concerned. In the first place, it was not likely that any person intending to commit an offence with arms, contrary to the peace or to the danger of another person, would carry them openly; nor was it likely that the police would have any means of ascertaining who it was that carried arms, and who did not. The arms would, of course, be carried secretly, and it was only by personal violation of the liberty of everyone on the highway that they could be discovered. But it was clear that the framers of the Act wished to subject the people of Ireland to as much indignity and outrage as they could. For it would be an indignity that policemen should stand upon the highway, and at the entrance to market towns, for the purpose of seizing by the throat every- one who had a weapon with him. The clause would be utterly futile for the prevention of crime in the day-time, although it might be of some use for the purpose at night. He thought that if the Government wished to have the means of reaching offenders, without in flitting injustice upon innocent persons and converting them into offenders, they should consent to the slight alteration proposed, which had for its object simply the prevention of abuse.

MR. HEALY

remarked, that the ignorance of the Home Secretary with regard to Irish affairs was, no doubt, the reason why he had so stubbornly resisted all Amendments. Were he (Mr. Healy) to hunt up the files of Irish newspapers which appeared during the operation of a former Act, he could produce many cases of men in the possession of licences for arms being stopped in the streets by policemen and put into gaol because they were simply possessed of arms. Within his own knowledge, men had been arrested on their way to a county town merely for the purpose of getting their arms cleaned. Moreover, a former Member of that House had his servant arrested, whom he had sent into Cork for the same purpose, without his licence. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, of course, knew nothing about these matters, and, therefore, maintained a dogged resistance to the proposed Amendment; but on the supposition that there were some Members of the Government who had a care for Ireland, he submitted to them that Amendments of this character, which did not contravene the spirit of the Bill, should be accepted, especially when they were designed to effect what was neither injurious or hurtful to any body of Her Majesty's subjects in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman had shown nothing to the contrary of this, and, therefore, the Amendment, which was a very reasonable one, should, in his opinion, be accepted. In view of the large majority ready to pass any Amendment which might be proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, and of the small numbers of Gentlemen who supported the views of the Irish Members under like circumstances, he urged upon the Government to consider the matter entirely upon its merits.

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

said, that if the constable had to go four or five miles to obtain a warrant for the arrest of a person as to whom certain information had been received, the contemplated crime, which was the subject of the information, might be committed before the warrant could be obtained. With reference to the point of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), where a man might omit to put his licence in his pocket, or send his servant without it, he would observe that those were difficulties of every day occurrence in shooting and salmon fishing, and a person who had not his licence with him would have to take the consequences. In the case of salmon fishing, a man was liable to have his rod taken away by the bailiff. He did not think it was enacting too much to provide that the person who had a licence should carry it with him, or take care that his servant had it in his keeping.

THE O'DONOGHUE

could not conceive that statements should be reiterated, which would lead the Committee to suppose that a licence would be any protection to persons carrying arms, when the fact was they could be interfered with at any moment. A person who had a bottle or a large pipe about him that caused an unusual development might attract the attention of the police, who could proceed to search him. He thought the clause must lead to collisions between the police and the people.

MR. DAWSON

, supporting the Amendment, objected to the presumption that every human being passing along a road should be liable to be stopped and searched for arms.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

thought the Solicitor General for Ireland had put a case which was a reductio ad absurdam. He seemed to think that if a man going along a road was suspected of carrying a revolver, and the policeman had to go and get a warrant before he could search him, when the policeman came back a murder might have been committed. It was, however, out of reason that a man having been seen with a revolver would within five minutes of that go and commit a murder. It was obvious that any person so seen, even if he contemplated a murder, would go home about his business, and abstain from his fell purpose. Under the Coercion Act, he understood there was power to arrest a man who was armed with a revolver obviously with a criminal purpose; and he would point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland that although it might not be the object of those who introduced the Bill, yet the necessary consequence of the clause under consideration would be that in several towns in Ireland life would be made intolerable by the swagger and impudence of the police. Already life bad become almost intolerable in his own constituency through those privileged breakers of the law, the magistrates and the sub-inspectors of police. The Home Secretary probably did not care how much discomfort the Act would cause in Ireland; but he appealed to the Solicitor General for Ireland whether it was his desire that the swaggering magistrates and impudent policemen should be able to make the daily life of the people intolerable owing to their interference. If any persons wished to commit murder in Ireland, in 9 cases out of 10, or in 999 out of 1,000, they would not select the day for the commission of the crime; and any person going about with a revolver in the daytime it might be assumed was a person who intended to commit no crime, or who, if he did intend to commit a crime, would abstain from doing so if he met a policeman. Therefore, unless the Government wished to increase the authority of the magistrates and policemen more than was necessary they might very well accept the Amendment.

MR. SEXTON

observed, that the Home Secretary seemed to be greatly pleased to learn that life was being made intolerable in Ireland; and he complimented the right hon. and learned Gentleman upon the spirit with which he was dealing with the Irish people. The right hon. and learned Gentleman argued that crimes were committed and people intimidated by day, and that the power of arresting any person in the daytime without a warrant ought to be given to the police; but the police had never at any time encountered the people committing crimes before the crimes were committed. In other words, people who committed crimes by day committed them so carefully and prudently that they never came within sight of the police. Therefore, no matter how well it might seem in theory to give this power of arresting by day to prevent crime, it would not have any practical effect, because if people had concealed themselves so successfully in the past they would be able to do so in the future, and this power would not affect the commission of crime. People who went about by day with visible weapons, or with some weapons concealed about them, would not be people who carried such weapons for the purpose of crime, but people who carried them for some lawful purpose, and who, if called to account, would be perfectly well able to answer for their conduct. Therefore, he contended, there was no necessity for giving the proposed power, first, because the people who committed crimes were not likely in the future to be seen before the commission of the crimes any more than they had been in the past; and, secondly, because persons carrying arms by day had no intention to commit crime, and would be willing to submit themselves to ordinary inquiry. He thought the Home Secretary might be satisfied that the power to arrest without warrant should be restricted to the night time. He had been surprised at the remarks of the Home Secretary as to the people being allowed to walk about carrying arms; but he admitted that if a body of men were met going about at night time carrying arms it would be the duty of the police to stop them. There was no occasion whatever for this power being exercised by day; and if it was limited to the night it would amply meet all the proper and legitimate purposes of the Bill.

MR. O'DONNELL

wished to say a few words in explanation, because the Home Secretary evidently quite misunderstood his observations. He wanted to prevent the danger of having any number of innocent and respectable people arrested—

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member can only speak strictly in explanation, and not in argument.

MR. O'DONNELL

was under the impression that Mr. Speaker had ruled that both in the House and in Committee, under the Rules of Urgency, the Member who moved a Motion had a right to reply.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is mistaken. An hon. Member who has moved an Amendment can speak in explanation of any errors that have been made with respect to his Amendment, but with no right of reply.

MR. O'DONNELL

said, he was not going beyond that. His Amendment was intended to prevent persons having arms from being wantonly arrested by any constables who might happen to meet them.

MR. BIGGAR

said, that if the Amendment was carried, a person who was seen carrying arms could be summoned in the usual way by the police; but if the Amendment was not carried, any person perfectly well known to the police, and not likely to abscond from the district, could be taken into custody and subjected to all the annoyance of personal arrest; and it seemed to him that unless the Government wished to make the Bill more troublesome to the people than it otherwise would be they should accept the proposal. The Solicitor General's case seemed to be that for dealing with cases of intimidation and with actual violence the Bill ought to stand as it was; but he had not understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that arms could be carried in Ireland for the purpose of intimidation in the daytime. They might be used for intimidation after dark; but it was unreasonable to suppose that men would go about with blackened faces and carrying arms in the light of day when everybody could see them. He thought the Amendment would make the Bill more consistent with itself than it was in its original form, and would not only do no harm, but would lessen the evils of the measure.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 35; Noes 161: Majority 126.—(Div. List, No. 114.)

MR. HEALY

proposed an Amendment, the object of which was to prevent the unnecessary detention of people arrested. He explained that his Amendment was intended to provide that any person who was arrested, and yet had a licence at home, should be at once taken before a magistrate, and not be detained for 24 hours; and also that if a servant had been sent into a town with his master's gun to have it cleaned, it should be sufficient answer that his master had a licence. A Bill of that kind, it seemed to him, always proceeded on the presumption that it did not matter how much inconvenience it caused Her Majesty's subjects; but he maintained that Her Majesty's subjects had as much right to be preserved from inconvenience as Her Majesty's Government. They who represented the people had a right to maintain that loyal and peaceable subjects should be preserved as far as possible by Act of Parliament from inconvenience; and although it might be said that inconvenience would be caused to the Executive, that was of no consequence—in fact, the more inconvenience they threw on the Executive the better they liked it, for what they wanted to do was to cause the Executive so much inconvenience that innocent persons should not be punished.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

The object which the Amendment of the hon. Member contemplates is already secured by the words in the Bill—"in order to his being dealt with according to law." It is the duty of every constable, on arresting a man, immediately to take him before a magistrate for having arms without a licence. He will have an opportunity of proving that he has or is entitled to a licence. Therefore, in point of fact, these words are unnecessary.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

said, the observations of the Home Secretary convinced him that there could be no possible objection to introducing the words of the Amendment, or some words to the same effect. The right hon. Gentleman, no doubt, intended that a man arrested under the Act should be instantly taken before a magistrate and dealt with according to law. It was not perfectly clear on the face of the Bill what "according to law" meant. On a cursory reading of the Bill, it apparently meant that the person arrested according to that particular law should be dealt with at once, with a view to his being punished for the illegal possession of arms; and that, at any rate, he should be detained for any time that was convenient to the authorities, in order that, under no circumstances, should a man who was possibly guilty escape. All that the Amendment of the hon. Member would effect was to put on the face of the Bill an instruction to those who would have the administration of the law that the rights of the individual subject should not be altogether left out of consideration. He did not in the slightest degree question what the Home Secretary had said, that what he meant by the words, "in order to his being dealt with according to law," was that every facility of proving that his arrest was needless should be left open to a man arrested; but he ventured to say that the constables and the magistrates would be much more inclined to give such a construction so favourable to the liberties of the subject if the proposed Amendment was inserted.

MR. SEXTON

considered the Amendment very reasonable, and was unable to feel satisfaction with the reply of the Home Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to assume that the words, "in order to his being dealt with according to law," amounted to the same thing as the Amendment, but he was not able to come to that conclusion; and he contended that if it was desirable that the Bill should be carried out in a considerate manner that should be provided for by explicit words. If the right hon. Gentleman had no objection to what the hon. Member proposed to insure, why should he object to the Amendment? Suppose a man was arrested, and he informed the police that he had a licence at home. His house might be a considerable distance away, and all that the hon. Member wished was that it should be incumbent on the police to take such a person before a magistrate at once in order to give him facilities for proving his innocence. His own experience of life in Ireland did not lead him to believe that in many cases the police were at all anxious to afford facilities to a man to prove his innocence. If the Bill was allowed to stand as at present, if a man were arrested at 4 o'clock in the evening, as it was extremely unlikely that they would proceed with the matter that same evening, he would be locked up in a strong room in, perhaps, the most remote police barrack in Ireland, subjected to the pain and indignity of suffering imprisonment for a whole night, and then, probably, be brought at the convenience of the police before the magistrate the next day. He saw nothing in the Bill which compelled the police to do anything with a man who was arrested for being in possession of arms other than that they had merely taken him before the petty sessions; and they had simply to place him in custody, and at their convenience proceed with the case. The Amendment of his hon. Friend was one which was founded in justice; and he thought it was the duty of the Government to accept the Amendment in order to prevent any person being treated in the manner which he had described.

DR. COMMINS

was not satisfied with the answer the Home Secretary had made to the Amendment proposed by his hon. Friend. The answer of the right hon. Gentleman argued a good deal of ignorance of how what was called "Petty Sessional practice" proceeded in this country still more in Ireland. In the majority of cases under this Act arrests took place under what were called "Petty Session Cases," and were cases of summary procedure. Now, they had many hundreds of Acts in England and Ireland which provided for the arrests of persons who were to be dealt with summarily. He doubted whether in a single one of those many hundred Acts—and if anyone doubted the existence of the number, they could easily find out that his statement was correct by reference to Stone's Manual—there was not a common form given under it to arrest, and the words of the Amendment followed those common forms. It was that the man should be forthwith taken before a magistrate to be dealt with according to law. But where was the word "forthwith?" It seemed to be left out from that Bill. What almost universal form was necessary in order to protect persons who might be liable to summary procedure and over-officiousness; and the omission of the word "forthwith" seemed to be a mistake altogether. He differed entirely from the Home Secretary in part of the speech which he had made; but he agreed with him in this—that notwithstanding the high authority against him it was highly necessary to prevent any obnoxious action under that Bill. How would the thing work? A charge under that Act was a bailable offence; the punishment was three months' imprisonment, or something of that kind. In every single case the man had a right to be brought forthwith to justice. There were a number of cases of a similar nature where a man was allowed to give bail, when arrested, if he could obtain it. The offender then came up at the next petty sessions to answer the charge. The reason of that was that there should be no unnecessary imprisonment before the man was found guilty; but in Ireland, and to some extent in England, such charges were heard at petty sessions only once a fortnight. A person might be arrested a day after the holding of the petty sessions, or even on the afternoon of the same day; and unless there was a special direction, such as was proposed by the Amendment, for the police officer to bring the man forthwith before the magistrate he might be detained during the whole of that period unnecessarily. The magistrate, on hearing the case, might be satisfied with the explanation offered. He might be assured that the case was a weak one; and yet, even in all those circumstances, the man might, as the Act stood, be detained in prison for an entire fortnight if the policeman was not under an obligation to bring him before the magistrate at once. He was quite sure the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary did not wish to subject a large number of persons to such hard treatment. He certainly thought it could not be out of the way to insert what was a common form in the statutes to which he had referred in that Act. No harm could come of it. The man would be dealt with according to law. Let them take the case of a man who was in a highly respectable position, against whom there was really no charge whatever. The magistrate, on being satisfied that that was the case, might instantly release him. The Amendment was in the spirit of all the summary legislation in England and Ireland, and they were perfectly justified in asking the right hon. Gentleman to accept it.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

I think there is something in what has fallen from the hon. Member who has just spoken that the words of the Act do not sufficiently carry out the object which is intended, and it appears that the word "forthwith" should be inserted. I will take care that some such provision shall be made. I do not think that the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) has used the best form of words; but hon. Members may take my assurance that, if necessary, words which would meet the case shall be included in the Act.

MR. HEALY

said, that after the recent remarks of the right hon. Gentle- man the Home Secretary he begged to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MAJOR NOLAN

said, that, in moving the Amendment which stood in his name, he would say that the remarks which had fallen from the Home Secretary to a certain extent met the object which he had in view.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. and gallant Member is now speaking on the Amendment to leave out the words "constable and peace officer."

MAJOR NOLAN

said, that that was not the case, that he was speaking on the prior Amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. and gallant Member asked leave to be allowed to withdraw the Amendment, and it was withdrawn. The hon. and gallant Member must now be speaking on the Amendment which refers to constables and peace officers.

MAJOR NOLAN

submitted to the Chair, as a point of Order, that, if he withdrew an Amendment in order to allow of a prior one being brought on, he did not thereby waive his right to move his Amendment thereafter. He had a right to do so, and he trusted that the Chairman would allow him to proceed.

THE CHAIRMAN

I understood that the hon. and gallant Member wished to withdraw his Amendment altogether. If he merely withdrew it in order to allow the prior Amendment to come on, he could, of course, move it now.

MAJOR NOLAN

then begged to withdraw the first Amendment which stood in his name. He would proceed to the following Amendment. An unusual power was given by that Act to search people. He would point out to the Committee that there was a similar power under the old Act of 1847. He maintained, however, that there was an essential difference between them. The way in which the Act of 1875 worked was as follows:—The constable looked at the Act of 1875, and in it he found a reference to previous Acts, and in previous Acts he found other references, and eventually got back to the Act of 1847. In that Act he found the power; but the Act of 1875 gave no power to search, except by previous Acts. The effect of that was that the power given under this Act was practically a new power. The Solicitor General for Ireland, in the remarks he had made, had referred to the previous statutes; and, no doubt, as regarded the law of the point, he was better up than he (Major Nolan) could pretend to be. But in a matter of practice, he contended, he was not better informed. A sub-constable did not know much about the provisions of Acts; and when he found that there was no actual power contained in the statute he would not proceed to refer to previous statutes to find such a power But if, in the Act which he had before him, an express power was contained to search a man or woman, he would have no hesitation in so doing. He strongly objected to any such power as that being given to an ordinary constable. The fault of the constables was that they were over-zealous; and sometimes, he was afraid, they were inclined to bully. Although, in some cases, the constables wore very estimable men, in other cases they were sometimes liable to abuse their power. Now they were going to put before them prominently, for the first time, this power; and in that respect the present Act was a worse one than that of 1875. He thought the power should be confined to superior officers. The hon. and gallant Gentleman concluded by moving, in page 1, line 11, to leave out "constable or peace officer," and insert "sub-inspector or other superior officer of constabulary."

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

The charge which the hon. and gallant Member brings against the clause is that it is too intelligible. According to the former Act, the clause was drawn in such a way that nobody could understand it. That seems to have been the merit of the Acts of 1875 and 1870. Legislation by reference to previous Acts always makes them unintelligible. In the original Act of 1847 there was a searching clause, and from that time the law has remained the same. The hon. and gallant Member said that previously to this Act the law had not been clear; but the object of this Bill was to make the law as intelligible as possible. We are merely stating the law as it was from 1847 to 1875. The hon. and gallant Member also says that this power should not be placed in the hands of an ordinary police officer; but, supposing a man should be suspected of having arms in his possession, he might, as the hon. and gallant Member says, be met with his pockets bulky, and the constable might assume that those pockets were filled with revolvers. But if the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member were accepted, it would be necessary to go to the sub-inspector—who might be miles off—in order to obtain the power to search him. We must allow the ordinary constable to search, otherwise the law would not work. I see that the Amendment leaves out all personages other than Justices of the Peace. I do not think that that is desirable either. I have followed the ancient form of the Statute of 1847. I am quite sure that the form is the necessary one, and I am sorry I cannot accept the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member.

MR. PARNELL

thought the Committee should understand that his hon. and gallant Friend, and, in fact, all the Irish Members, objected to that provision of the Bill. The reason why they objected was that the Bill proposed to give a power which was entirely a new one in the Criminal Judicature of the country. They had not, so far as he could learn anywhere, in any Act of Parliament the right given to a policeman or a magistrate to search a person. He understood that if a policeman reasonably suspected a person of having committed a felony, he could, under certain Statutes, arrest that person and take him to the police-station and search him, and then bring him before a magistrate, in order that the case might be heard; but, under the present Bill, they were going to give a policeman a power which no policeman had ever before possessed. That crime of carrying arms was, of course, a manufactured one. It was exceedingly probable that many persons in remote parts of Ireland, who had obtained weapons since the last Peace Preservation Act was allowed to elapse, would not be aware of the provisions of the Act; and they were going to give a power under that Bill to any policeman who met anyone, man or woman, whom he suspected of being in possession of arms, to expose that person to the indignity of a personal search on the spot. He should much have preferred it if they had adhered to the old lines of criminal jurisprudence. A power should be given to a policeman to arrest simply and to take to the station, in order that the searching might take place there, where they had facilities for so doing. Just let them consider what might happen. Supposing that there was a fair, and a policeman stationed himself at the entrance of a village or town and searched everybody that came along the road. He doubted really whether the Government desired to expose the people of Ireland to such ignominy as that. It was degrading enough to be deprived of arms, still more so to be exposed to search by any policeman on the spot. He did not suppose any magistrate could be found who would be mean enough to exercise that power; but they were going to give the power to any policeman to stop anybody in the road and see whether he was in possession of arms. He really thought that the effect of that Bill had not been sufficiently apprehended. The Government had a desire to make the Bill effective, and they had inserted that provision into it without due consideration. He would ask whether they could not reconsider the matter and rely upon the old methods? They had already a Peace Preservation Act in force in the suspension of the Habeas Corpus. Certainly they did not require the additional power to be given to search any person who might be suspected of carrying arms. It would be impossible to control, within proper limits, such a provision as that; and he trusted, therefore, that it would not remain in the Bill. It would inevitably lead to hostility between the police and the people, and it would be regretted that it had ever been inserted. He could not understand how it was that provision had ever crept into the Bill; and he thought that if the right hon. Gentleman in charge of it only gave the matter a little consideration, he must accede to the Amendment of his hon. and gallant Friend. The offence of carrying arms was a moral one only; and, under those circumstances, he considered that provision too stringent for the measure then before the Committee.

COLONEL MAKINS

said, that the hon. Member who had just sat down had stated that there was no law which gave a right to search; but under the Poaching Acts it was in the power of any policeman to stop anyone on the highway outside a town who was suspected of having game on him, or instruments of poaching, and to take them from him, if found in his possession, and this practice applied to women also. It was not, therefore, extaordinary that a similar power should be introduced into the present Bill.

MR. O'DONNELL

certainly hoped that the Committee was not going to be guided by a species of precedents drawn from the Poaching Acts. He was not going into a digression upon that matter; but the Poaching Acts of this country were a disgrace to civilization, and had stained the soil of England with blood in a hundred places. One of the reasons why they asked the Government to surround that right of search with some reasonable guarantees was in order to prevent crimes occurring all over the country. They had to deal with a people who were quick-spirited and soldierly; and now they were proposing to give to any constable, however rash, a right to stop any peasant or poor person on the roadside, and not merely to arrest him and bring him to the station, but there and then to subject him to the degradation and indignity of a personal search. That degradation in hundreds of cases would be too strong, and too great an insult not to be met with resistance. If the Government did not take the necessary precaution and submit the right of search to limitation, very heavy responsibility would rest upon them. Under the ordinary rules of the law in such cases, by a provision conformable thereto, their objection would be met, and the public peace sufficiently safeguarded. But to thrust such a power as was proposed into the hands of any constable who suspected any man, woman, or child, would be simply a provocation, and would inevitably lead to bloodshed. He was sure that no Irishman—and no Englishman—would submit tamely to such an insult, however legal it might be. The right to search poachers had been resisted to the death in scores and scores of cases; and the success of the poaching legislation had not been sufficiently great for its terms to be extended to other legislation either in this country or in Ireland. It must be remembered that the personal dignity of the meanest Englishman was surrounded in that House by a kind of respect. There was a certain amount of regard for the protest of the English Representatives, and the Irish Members could not close their eyes to the fact that the Representatives of public opinion in Ireland did not obtain the same respect as those English Representatives. If Her Majesty's Government wished to widen the gulf between the Irish people and the Representatives of law and order in Ireland, let them insist on granting this unlimited right of search—this provoking, and indecent, and insulting right contained in the Bill.

MR. MACDONALD

would press this on the attention of Her Majesty's Government—it was a well-known fact that the police were not immaculate; they were not all thoroughly honest men; and it would be well that the persons to be searched should be taken to the barracks before other people before that search was made. Take the case which had been adverted to by an hon. Member opposite—the case of a man coming from a fair. The man returning from a fair was slightly inebriated—[Laughter.]—Hon. Members laughed at the term he used; perhaps it would be more in keeping with their style if he used another term, which, however, he should refuse to do. The man coming home from a fair was in the condition of being unable properly to take care of himself. Any policeman who found him in that condition had power to put his hand in his pocket; and the officer, if he were dishonestly inclined, might rob the man of a considerable sum. ["Oh!"] An hon. Member called out "Oh!" but did not the records of the police courts from day to day in this, so-called, free and crimeless England, point to this sort of thing having occurred? Had they not heard of the punishment of English policemen for robbing the prisoners they had taken into custody? Was it not a fact that frequently they found in the general Press of the day accounts of inspectors of police, and even the chiefs, committing very serious crimes? How long was it since all London was in commotion in respect to the actions of Clarke, Meiklejohn, and Druscovitch? Under the circumstances, he considered that this was a terrible weapon against the people that the Government sought to put into the hands of the Irish police. What he had spoken chiefly about was of men. What if a single policeman had the power of stopping a woman on the street, on a lonely road, would it not be an out rage on the feelings of the woman? but what are the results it might lead to?—blackmailing, to an absolute certainy. Would they submit their own wives, their own daughters, to be so treated? If not, would they degrade the Irish people by such a power being in the hands of the police. Moreover, in the interest of the policemen themselves, this power should not be given, as it would prove a source of temptation to them, and might lead them into crime. If the examination and search took place before witnesses in the ordinary way there would not be this objection. He would put it, therefore, to Her Majesty's Government, both in the interest of the public and the police themselves, that the Bill should be amended so as to provide that a person should be taken to the police office before being searched.

MR. GIBSON

wished to make two or three very short observations on the Amendment now before the Committee. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary had correctly stated, this provision had been in practical operation for a very considerable number of years; and though it might is a very few instances have been abused, everybody connected with the country knew that, on the whole, it had been carried out without undue harshness or abuse. ["No, no!"] Well, he had had, at least, as good an opportunity of knowing how it had worked as any other hon. Member. Supposing that a police officer met a person whose appearance suggested that he might have some weapon concealed about him, the officer would search that person—no doubt it was an unpleasant necessity connected with this legislation that the police should have this power—but if it was found that suspicion was well founded, then the police officer had to arrest the person and bring him before a magistrate to be dealt with according to law. Of course, where it was found that the suspicion was unfounded it was to be regretted that the person had been searched, and he was at once released. What was the alternative suggested by the Amendment? He regretted that there was obliged to be such a clause in the Bill; but was now contrasting it with the Amendment before the Committee. The alternative would be vastly worse than the clause, because the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) suggested—and was supported by several other hon. Members—that it would be better not to give this power of immediate search, by which suspicion could be tested at once; and. that the person suspected of having arms should be taken from his home—it might be some considerable distance—before a magistrate or officer of constabulary, and searched to see if suspicion was well or ill-founded. Really, if they went to everyone in Ireland likely to be affected by this Bill, and asked them whether in the event of their being searched they would like to be searched according to the existing provisions of the measure, or would prefer to be subjected to the inconvenience of being taken before a magistrate or to the police office for search—which might in some country districts of Ireland involve a journey of 15 or 20 miles—he would venture to say the general reply would be—"I don't want to be searched at all; but if I am to be, do it now, so that I can go about my business." It might be well to give an alternative—that any person who objected to being searched by a police constable could have the privilege of being taken into custody, and waiting until all the machinery of the police office could be employed in searching him. He certainly thought that, even if the Amendment were agreed to, and were put upon the Statute Book, the provision would be one which would be very little put into operation.

MR. HEALY

said, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin had made a very plausible statement about a man who had to be searched, and had the choice given him of the mode of search, choosing immediate search, and saying, "For God's sake! search me at once, and let me go about my business—don't take me before the magistrates;" but it should be pointed out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that if a police constable had to take a man before a magistrate there would be less likelihood of people being searched unnecessarily. Policemen would not be inclined to interfere with a person where there was no case of reasonable suspicion; for if they did, they might get a severe dressing from the magistrate, not, perhaps, on account of the inconvenience occasioned to the unfortunate prisoner, but on account of the unnecessary bother and trouble given to the magistrate himself. The right hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to have forgotten this. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for South Essex (Colonel Makins) made what, no doubt, he considered a good point when he said the clause only contained a provision which was to be found in the Poaching Act. Surely that reason was not sufficient to recommend the clause to the intelligence of Radical Members opposite. The provision, by the way, was in the Night Poaching Act, and not in the Day Poaching Act; but even if it were in both it would be no argument in these times, for if the Poaching Acts were to be passed now, he ventured to think that they would be very different enactments to those on the Statute Book. What was done in a Poaching Bill 20 years ago was no argument for what should be done in a Peace Preservation Bill in 1881. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, in proposing the Bill, said that this provision was most reasonable; but to his (Mr. Healy's) mind this was the most odious proposal in the entire measure—this right of personal search. Let him remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that it did not only apply to men, but to women also; for, according to the Government proposal, women were not excluded from the operation of the measure. It was in human nature to err, and he did not suppose the policeman would be immaculate or would properly appreciate the objects of the Act. Whether or not, this House had always legislated on the assumption that they should not give a power which was likely to be abused; and it had been shown that the police in Ireland were driven—by the system which insisted on promotion being only given on account of the number of offences detected, and by a lot of unjustifiable provisions of that nature—into a position of antagonism with the people, and that they consequently abused their powers. Therefore, he declared that this odious provision, which enabled every one of the 10,000 police of Ireland to stand in the cross-roads and personally search every man, woman, and child who came in his way, was a provision which should not remain in the Bill. What would be said if the Corporation of London declared that policemen should stand on the bridges and collect a toll from every passer by, possessing power of personal search to levy a certain octroi? Would it not be objected to, notwithstanding that everyone in England was, in a certain sense, in sympathy with the police looking on them as protectors? In Ireland the state of things was very different. The police there were not looked on as the protectors of the people, but as the protectors of the landlords and the Government. The people repudiated them in every sense. There was another point—the provision in the Bill actually placed the policeman in the position, for the time being, of the magistrate, and permitted him to be the judge both of the law and the fact. Would the Government permit the police of Ireland, not only to prove the crime, but to try the man and dismiss him or not as they thought fit? The police might take it into their heads not to discharge a man they searched; they might take him to prison. Was it wise to put the police into this position? With regard to the right of search, it was well known that there had been cases before the Dublin magistrates in which the police had first "set" a crime—to use a phrase thoroughly understood in Ireland—that was to say, had first placed the materials of the crime on the person or in the house of the man he was at enmity with, and had then "discovered" the crime. What was to prevent a policeman who had a grudge against a person putting his hand into that person's pocket—his hand being full, say, of percussion caps, or gunpowder, or bullets—and then drawing it out and saying to a brother officer, "Oh! he has caps upon him?" And he declared that a single percussion cap being found in a man's possession had been sufficient, before now, to procure an arrest. The Irish Members in fighting this Bill were in a much worse position than formerly, because they could not, when they came to an odious provision of this sort, do as at one time they were able to do—namely, move to report Progress, and compel delay, in order to enable the Government to think about the matter. Instead of that, they were in the position of having Members coming in from the smoking-room—not that hon. Gentlemen had not a right to go there if they chose—and from the library when the bell rang, and, without having heard the arguments, blindly voting for the Government. In former times, by moving Motions for reporting Progress and for adjournment, they could cause delay, so as to give hon. Members an opportunity of informing their minds upon the question at issue. ["Question!"] He was speaking precisely to the Question. The more some of them spoke to the Question, the less it seemed to suit hon. Members opposite. What he was insisting on was that if the Irish Members had this power of insisting on divisions, hon. Members would have time to consider whether the Government ought to give this power of personal search to Irish policemen; but, as he had said, in matters of this sort hon. Members were in a worse position than formerly. Hon. Members seemed to think that the Bill before the Committee was only a renewal or a reproduction of former Acts; but if anyone would take the trouble to look at the Act of 1875, and would read through it, he would see that the provisions under the present Bill were much more stringent and severe than anything in the previous measure. Under the Act of 1875 he understood there was no right of search given, and yet the Government told them they only proposed to renew a power contained in that measure. Much as they hated the Tories in Ireland, he must confess they had always acted like gentlemen. They had never proposed needless provisions of a harassing character such as the Government were now insisting upon. The Tories were harsh at all times; but they had never proposed enactments of this character. The provision of which he complained was not an old one, but one evolved from the inner consciousness of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and he, for one, should give it his most strenuous opposition.

CAPTAIN O'SHEA

appealed to the Government to accept a compromise, for unless they did so, the power which would be given to policemen in the case of women would be very much too great. They should give a woman the option of saying whether she would submit to immediate search, or whether she would be taken to the police-station, where she would have protection against any abuse of power. The roads in the West of Ireland were very lonely. Considering that the proposal for a compromise had come from such an influential quarter as his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dublin University (Mr. Gibson), he really thought the Government ought to accept it.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

The case of women will come under a later Amendment.

MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY

remarked upon the extraordinary opportunity the clause offered for the exercise of officiousness or the indulgence of private malice. It said— A constable or peace officer may search any person whom he may reasonably suspect to be carrying or having arms or ammunition in contravention of this Act. And then a further clause defined what arms and ammunition were. It said— The expression 'arms' includes any cannon, gun, revolver, pistol, and any description of firearms, also any sword, cutlass, pike, and bayonet, also any part of any arms as so defined. With regard to ammunition, it said— The expression 'ammunition' includes bullets, gunpowder, nitro-glycerine, dynamite, gun-cotton, and every other explosive substance, whether fitted for use with any arms or otherwise. If it was only cannon that were to be searched for, the clause would not be very objectionable; but the clause included revolvers and "any part of any arms," and the carrying of such was an offence which, if suspected, would lay a person open to search. If a person had a percussion cap or a bullet in his or her pocket, or was suspected of having it, he or she—for women came under the provision—could be stopped and searched by a policeman. Well, any police officer might stop any man or woman if he were maliciously inclined, and subject him or her to a most thorough and indelicate examination to see if there was any bullet or portion of a pistol about his or her clothes. That was a power that ought not to be given to a policeman. The Home Secretary knew nothing about Ireland—probably was never in the country in his life. If the right hon. Gentleman knew anything of Ireland, he would be aware that police constables were not people who had such a very intelligent and delicate perception and appreciation of their duties that they could with impunity be intrusted with such powers as these. He had no doubt that the exercise of these powers would be the means of causing quarrels. The right hon. Gentleman knew how the Sicilian Vespers began; but without prophesying any event so terrible in Ireland, he would warn him that this clause, unless amended, was likely to give rise to considerable bitterness of feeling and serious village quarrels.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

I am desirous of meeting the wishes of the hon. Members as far as I can. I feel that there is a great objection to search by the police, and quite appreciate the strength of the objections of hon. Members opposite. At the same time it is quite evident that we must deal, not only with cases where arms are carried, but also with cases where there is a reasonable suspicion of carrying arms. I gather from what has fallen from hon. Members, and I confess it strikes me as desirable, that it would be far better to arrest in both cases and get rid of the search altogether. In a case where a man is suspected of carrying arms, or who is discovered carrying arms, if the Committee accept my proposal and insist that he shall be forthwith taken before a magistrate, you have the security of an investigation by a magistrate, and you get rid of an objectionable provision. I would propose to strike out the latter part of the paragraph which has reference to the search, and remodel the first part with reference to arrest in the spirit of the statement I have made.

MAJOR NOLAN

On that understanding I would beg to withdraw the Amendment.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

I would propose to leave out the words from the word "and" to the word "Act" at the end of the paragraph, it being understood that at a future stage shall remodel the clause.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 11, to strike out from the word "and" down to the word "Act" in line 13.

Amendment agreed to.

THE CHAIRMAN

The next Amendment is in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Meath (Mr. A. M. Sullivan); but I think the Committee will agree with me that it does not come within the provisions of this Bill. The effect of it is that where the people do not possess guns the police shall shoot down the small birds on their farms. The Amendment is not one that I can put in the form of an Amendment.

MR. A. M. SULLIVAN

said, if the Chairman would allow him to read the proposed Amendment to the Committee he should be content.

THE CHAIRMAN

I have stated that, in my opinion, it cannot be put as an Amendment. No doubt the hon. and learned Member can give Notice of it as a new clause.

MR. W. CORBET

said, he had next an Amendment to provide that arrests should only be made by stipendiary magistrates or members of the Royal Irish Constabulary Force.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 14, after the word. "person," to insert the words "being a stipendiary magisstrate or a member of the Royal Irish Constabulary force."—(Mr. W. Corbet.)

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

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

said, that the circumstances provided for by the clause could only take place under the power of a warrant; and it was desirable that that warrant should contain the name of the person by whom it was to be executed. It was desirable to have the clause in general terms, for the reason that if the Amendment were accepted, and only a stipendiary magistrate or member of the Royal Irish Constabulary Force could act, that would prevent the powers of the clause being carried out in Dublin or in Limerick, or any other large Provincial town where the Metropolitan Police or local peace officers or watchmen, not being members of the Royal Irish Constabulary, had authority.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

hoped the hon. Member would not insist on the Amendment, though, no doubt, his object in bringing it forward was to improve the Bill. There were many places where the proper persons to put the warrant in force would not be the stipendiary magistrate or a member of the Royal Irish Constabulary. He would rather intrust the liberties of the Irish people to the Lord Lieutenant than to the officials by whom he might be surrounded, or to the persons who, under the Bill, if so amended, might be empowered to carry out the Act—such, for instance, as a sub-inspector of constabulary, or even a member of the Constabulary Force. In his opinion, it was certainly too wide a provision, and he would rather leave the matter in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant than place it in the hands of miscellaneous members of the Constabulary.

MR. HEALY

thought the words "any person named in such warrant" should be struck out of the clause, and the matter left in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant, who, if he thought fit, might by warrant direct a search for arms to be made. At all events, he was of opinion that the Amendment was an improvement upon the clause as it stood, and he would therefore support it, although he confessed that he did not see much in the matter, either one way or the other.

MR. DAWSON

believed that his Amendment, which would come next, would throw some light upon the matter. He intended to propose that the search should only take place in the presence of a magistrate. No search ought to be made unless there were circumstances of strong suspicion. Any honest and reputable person possessing a gun and displaying it openly would not be a person likely to be proceeded against under the Bill; but its provisions were directed against evil-minded persons who were suspected of concealing arms. The search might be made at any time between sunrise and sunset. This would include very unseasonable hours and times; and therefore he thought it would be necessary that the persons making the search should be accompanied by a magistrate, so that any improper invasion of a man's rights and liberties might be prevented. Under the Bill premises might be broken open and beds and bedding searched. It was, therefore, absolutely necessary that there should be some really responsible person, such as a magistrate, present, in order to see that the rules of propriety and decency were duly observed. The search, consistently with the proper enforcement of the law, should be carried out in a manner that would not hurt the feelings of delicacy of any person concerned. He would therefore suggest the omission of the words "any person," and the substitution of the words "any responsible magistrate." There would be no difficulty, in the isolated cases that would occur, in securing the attendance of a magistrate at any contemplated invasion under the Act of the rights of domestic privacy, or the inviolability of the homes and hearths of Her Majesty's subjects. He was satisfied that the Government would not wish that any dwelling-house should be searched unless there were strong suspicions that arms were concealed in it. If the Government would consent to allow the search to be made only in the presence of a magistrate, he thought the chief difficulty would be removed.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. SEXTON

begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name to the 3rd paragraph of Clause 1. That section of the clause directed that— The Lord Lieutenant may by warrant direct any person named in such warrant to search in houses, buildings, and places situated in a proclaimed district and specified in the warrant, for any arms or ammunition suspected to be therein in contravention of this Act. He proposed to add, after the word "places," in line 15, the words—"Not being places of religious worship, nor houses occupied by religious communities." He did not think the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would say that there was, in the remotest degree, any possibility that arms would be concealed in places of worship, or in any of the houses occupied by religious communities. He asserted, without fear of contradiction, that the influence of the Irish clergy, and of all persons connected with religious orders in Ireland, had always been exercised on the side of public peace and order, and in favour of the due observance of the law, even when the law was most oppressive. He was the more encouraged to proceed with this Amendment by the fact that the right hon. Gentleman had shown a disposition to meet, to some extent, the views of the Irish Members, and to prevent the operation of the Act from unduly exasperating the public feeling. There could be no doubt that, however discreetly this Act was enforced, it would, to some extent, exasperate public feeling; but it was not necessary that there should be any needless exasperation. Under these circumstances, and with some confidence, he submitted this Amendment. He believed that the propriety of it was self-evident; and he would not, therefore, enter into any further argument in support of it.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 15, after "places," insert "not being places of religious worship nor houses occupied by religious communities."—(Mr. Sexton.)

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

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

I quite agree with the hon. Member that this Act should be worked with as little exasperation as possible, and I also agree entirely with all he has said about the ministers of religion and members of religious communities in Ireland. I believe that, to whatever denomination they belong, they do exercise their influence on the side of peace, law, and order. But, at the same time, I think that no exceptions of this kind ought to be made. There are no exceptions in England; but the Queen's writ or order to search affects a church just as much as it would affect a house or a barn. And, although I do not believe that it is within the range of probability that this power will be exercised at all in the case of buildings for religious worship or houses occupied by religious communities, I can see great objection to making any exception from the operation of the Act. The power now asked for in this clause has already existed for 23 years; and the Members who come from Ireland, and who know the districts of country which have been affected better than I do, will be able to say whether the Act has ever been used for the purposes contemplated in this clause in connection with places for religious worship or houses occupied by religious communities. I certainly conceive that it has not been so used. I do not think that any case of the kind has occurred. The only conceivable circumstances under which the provisions of the Act could be put in force would be where persons, unknown to those who had the charge of a religious building, had temporarily made it a place for the deposit of arms. In such a case I do not think the law ought to be deprived of the right of search which it would have in this country in the case of a Protestant church. I certainly see great objections against the laying down of exceptions which do not exist in regard to the law in England, and I know of no evil that can arise from allowing the clause to remain as it is.

MR. O'DONNELL

quite concurred in the spirit of the observations of the right Gentleman. He thought that the Bill was altogether unnecessary in Ireland, and he had opposed its introduction to the utmost of his ability. But, whatever injustice might be committed by the Act, he hoped that the religious com- munities of Ireland would be quite as open to learn the sweets and bitters provided for them by Her Majesty's Administration as any other class of persons. He was sure they would be acting contrary to the wishes of the clergy of Ireland, he hoped of all denominations, if they were prepared in any way to separate their lot from the lot of the Irish people at large. Let every insult and every outrage that could be perpetrated under the Bill be perpetrated just as freely within the houses of religious communities as in the houses of the humblest laymen. On principle he was totally opposed to laws which contained exceptions of this character; and, therefore, he hoped that his hon. Friend would not persist in his Amendment. If any excesses were committed in the exercise of the right of search in connection with the churches and religious communities of Ireland the Irish people, who were awaiting their own good time to pay off one score against Her Majesty's Liberal Administration, would doubtless find an opportunity of paying off this score also.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

hoped the Irish people would have no score to pay off in respect to the search of places of worship and the houses of the religious communities; and he thought his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) would act wisely if he refrained from pressing the Amendment. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary had pointed out that these places of worship might be abused, not by those who were properly in charge of them, but by lawless individuals who might obtain access to them on the pretext of prayer and devotion, but who might make use of them for improper objects.

MR. SEXTON

thanked the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department for the tone of his remarks, and accepted the general assurance given by the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the places mentioned in the Amendment would not be unnecessarily subjected to the right of search.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. SEXTON moved in page 1, line 16, to leave out "and," and insert "each such house, building, or place being." The clause said that— The Lord Lieutenant may by warrant direct any person named in such warrant to search in houses, buildings, and places situate in a proclaimed district, and specified in the warrant, for any arms or ammunition suspected to be therein in contravention of this Act. He proposed after "a proclaimed district" the words "and each such house, building, or place being specified in the warrant." If these words were not inserted in the clause it would be competent for the Lord Lieutenant to issue a warrant enabling persons to search a whole town, or a whole barony, or a whole county. The Act consequently might be used as an instrument of extreme annoyance and terror to the inhabitants of a district, and would not afford any additional security for the preservation of peace. The class of persons intrusted with the execution of the warrant might be common policemen, or men of no education or social position, He did not think it would be right to confide to such persons the right of searching the whole of a town. Such a proceeding would excite a great deal of animosity among every class of people, and would probably lead to hostile conflicts between the people and the police. He thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman would see that it would be most unwise to place in the hands of the police powers which might be used for the purpose of creating terror or annoyance. If the Lord Lieutenant or anybody in Dublin Castle had reason to suspect that arms were concealed in any particular house or building it would be easy to issue a warrant in reference to that house or building; and he hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not deem it necessary or proper, in order to search any particular building or place, to issue a warrant which would involve the search of every house throughout the whole of a town.

Amendment proposed in page 1, line 16, to leave out "and," and insert "each such house, building, or place being."—(Mr. Sexton.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'and' stand part of the Clause."

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

My reason for objecting to this Amendment is that the clause as it stands really does carry out what the hon. Member desires, because it says that the Lord Lieutenant may direct the search of such houses, buildings, and places situate in a proclaimed district as may be "specified in the warrant." I understand from that that it would be necessary to specify the houses that are to be searched, although there is no limitation as to the number of houses to be specified. For instance, the warrant might specify certain houses—Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, in a particular street. The same thing might be done under the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman. The says that each house, building, or place, should be specified, and there would be no limitation unless the clause were to declare that only one house or building should be specified as liable to be searched. Therefore, I think the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman is already provided for in the Bill. We could not say that each building or place should be specified. For instance, in the case of a farm-house it would not be necessary to say "the cow-house, the pigstye, and the stable;" but it would be sufficient to say "such farm-house and places belonging to the farm-house." That would carry with it all the buildings appertaining to the farm-house. Therefore, there is no necessity for the Amendment of the hon. Member, which is already provided for in the Bill.

MR. PARNELL

said, it seemed to him that the desire of his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) in this case was that the ordinary law with regard to the granting of search warrants should be observed in this case. He (Mr. Parnell) spoke, of course, subject to the correction of the right hon. and learned Gentleman; but, as far as he knew, the practice in the ordinary law in cases where it was desirable to institute a search of any premises in order to obtain evidence in regard to the commission of crime was that the premises it was considered desirable to search should be named in the search warrant. Why should that not be done under the provisions of this Bill? [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT: It is done.] He thought not; but, of course, he said this subject to the better knowledge of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. It appeared to him that the warrant in this case should specify all the houses in a particular town it was proposed to search. It would be quite sufficient if the warrant gave a power to search all the houses or buildings in a particular town or district, to enable the officers named in the warrant legally to search all such houses and buildings, under the Bill. Of course, if they were told on the authority of the Irish Law Officers of the Crown that this was not so, they would be perfectly satisfied; but they did think that when they had constituted what was not previously an offence to be an offence that they ought to rely on the ordinary provisions of the law with regard to search warrants, for the purpose of obtaining evidence in regard to the commission of an offence. Surely if it was sufficient where a burglary or a felony had been committed to issue a search warrant, authorizing a particular house or particular premises to be searched—surely, in the present instance, it would be sufficient to take the same course. The police would have abundant evidence as to the houses in which arms were likely to be concealed; and in every case where they thought it necessary to obtain a search warrant, they would have no difficulty in obtaining one specifying the houses they considered it necessary to search, in order to detect the offence which they suspected to have been committed.

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

said, the provision made in the Bill specified exactly what a search warrant should contain. The premises to be searched would be specified as they should be specified in every search warrant.

MR. PARNELL

Will the names of the owners be given?

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

The search warrant requires that in every case the premises must be specified; but the owner's name may not be known.

MR. PARNELL

And the district?

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

The district must be proclaimed before any action can take place under this Bill. When a district has been proclaimed a search warrant may be issued, and such search warrant must specify the premises that are to be subjected to search, and the persons must be named in it by whom the search is to be conducted.

MR. PARNELL

The premises will be identified in the warrant?

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

Yes.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. DAWSON moved, in page 1, line 18, after the words "with such constables," to insert "with a magistrate and such other persons as he shall call to his assistance." The object of this Amendment was to secure that the person directed to make the search should always be accompanied by a magistrate. He presumed that a search would only be made in cases of aggravated suspicion; but as it might be conducted between sunrise and sunset, it might be carried out at unseasonable times and hours. It was, therefore, desirable that a magistrate should be present. There were 40 or 50 magistrates in every Irish county, and as it was not at all preposterous to presume that steps involving so great an infraction of public liberty would be taken on light or trivial grounds, it should not be left open to any person or policeman to knock up people at unseasonable hours, and insist upon searching their houses, unless a magistrate was present to see that the search was properly conducted. In some cases information might have been lodged and the search directed from motives of mean personal revenge; and, therefore, where in any case of suspicion a search was ordered, it should be conducted, not by a common constable, but on the responsibility and in the presence of a magistrate. These gentlemen were very numerous, and very readily at hand in Ireland. They might be suspected of acting from partizan motives, and of being influenced by personal bias in some matters; but as regarded anything that might be construed into an outrage upon decency, he was perfectly sure that the magistrates of Ireland would make such an occurrence quite impossible. If, therefore, it was found necessary to inflict this Act upon the Irish people, they ought to give them the protection which the presence of a gentleman in the position of a magistrate would afford, against any outrage upon decency and propriety. He was satisfied that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would see nothing preposterous in the Amendment, and that it would not interfere with the object which the Government had in view.

Amendment proposed, after the word "with," in page 1, line 18, to insert "a magistrate and."—(Mr. Dawson.)

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

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

I really thought that we had decided this point upon the previous Amendment in another paragraph which proposed that the warrant should only be directed to a magistrate or to a member of the Royal Irish Constabulary Force. I thought the Committee had disposed of the present Amendment in the discussion which took place then. If you allow the Lord Lieutenant to give this warrant to "any person," surely he will decide that the person to whom the warrant is given is a fitting person to execute it. The hon. Member suggests that motives of private spite or malice may induce a constable to go and search a house improperly. But we have taken precautions against that, because he cannot go unless the Lord Lieutenant gives him a warrant. Unless the Lord Lieutenant thinks there is sufficient grounds for the issue of a search warrant, he would not be influenced by the private malice of any member of the Constabulary Force. It seems to me that the proper person to execute the warrant is the person to whom the Lord Lieutenant gives it; and the whole question has, in reality, been disposed of in a previous part of the clause.

MR. HEALY

thought there was a good deal in what the right hon. and learned Gentleman had stated; but the contention of his hon. Friend the Member for Carlow (Mr. Dawson) was, that the person to whom the warrant was directed might bring with him a score of other persons to assist him in executing the warrant. He might be induced to bring half of the village to see the fun. He (Mr. Healy) did not suppose that such a thing was likely, and he was not arguing in favour of the Amendment, but in favour of the position taken up by his hon. Friend in that sense. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman would tell the Committee that the warrant would only be executed by the person named in it and a force sufficient to meet any resistance to the execution of the warrant, he would be quite satisfied.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

That really would be so. The person to execute the warrant would be the person to whom it was directed; and as to the persons by whom he might be accompanied, I may, perhaps, be allowed to add one word in order to dispose of the point mentioned by the hon. Member. It is the general law that a constable engaged in the execution of a warrant should have the right of calling upon all the Queen's subjects to assist him if he is resisted. There is nothing more in this particular warrant than the ordinary law sanctions. The ordinary law calls on everybody to assist Her Majesty's officers, and there is nothing more in these words than the carrying out of the regular law. What I understand the hon. Member is now proposing is, that the person named in the warrant should not be the only person to execute the warrant, but that in every case he should be accompanied by a magistrate. I think that without such a provision ample care is taken that the warrant shall be properly executed.

MR. DAWSON

had no objection to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. SEXTON

said, the Bill had caused a great deal of animosity between classes in Ireland; and he feared that the local police, in conformity with the clause under discussion, might allow the bailiff or other retainer of the landlord to accompany them into the houses of tenants in their search for arms. If that were permitted, be believed the power would be used for purposes other than those contemplated by the Act. Again, a magistrate might accompany the police in order to pry into the domestic affairs of the tenant, for the purpose, perhaps, of ascertaining how far his furniture would satisfy a distraint for rent, or the power might be used by a landlord to get together evidence as to how far this Act might be made useful for getting in arrears. For these reasons, it was, in his opinion, not advisable to allow bailiffs to accompany the police into the houses of tenants in their search for arms, for it was well known how a vulgar man might move the feelings of the people on an occasion of that kind. He trusted the right hon. and learned Gentleman would give some general assurance that instructions would be given to those who executed warrants under the Act that they should be accompanied only by those persons strictly necessary for the purpose. Having explained the object of his proposal, he would now formally move the Amendment standing in his name—namely, in page 1, lines 18 and 19, to leave out "and other persons."

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

I have no objection to give the assurance asked for by the hon. Member for Sligo. These words are not intended to be applied except in cases where the assistance of persons is necessary to execute the law.

MR. HEALY

expressed his satisfaction at the excellent spirit shown by the right hon. and learned Gentleman in accepting this and other Amendments.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. SEXTON

trusted, the Home Secretary would also extend his favourable consideration to the Amendment he was about to propose. The clause ran thus— The person named in such warrant, with such constables and other persons as he calls to his assistance, may, within twenty-one days next after the date of the warrant,! execute the warrant. Now, a warrant issued from Dublin Castle would reach any part of Ireland in a day or a day and a-half. Why, then, should the person charged with the execution of a warrant keep it in his pocket for 21 days? The effect of this would be most prejudicial, for the fact that the warrant had been received would soon become known to the towns people. The warrant might relate to a considerable number of houses, and influence a large number of persons in the locality, and therefore he thought the Government should allow as much time as would be reasonable for its execution, and no more. He could not understand why the sub-inspector should hold this instrument of terror over persons for three weeks, and keep a whole town, perhaps, in a state of excitement and suspense while he made up his mind as to when he should execute his warrant. In the hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would make a little further concession, he begged to move the Amendment standing in his name—namely, in page 1, line 19, to leave out "twenty-one," and insert "seven."

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

I have received so much encouragement from the hon. Members for Wexford and Sligo, that I am tempted to split the difference between us, and agree to 10 days instead of 21, as the time within which the warrant is to be executed.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 19, to leave out the words "twenty-one," and insert the word "ten."—(Sir William Harcourt.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. SEXTON

drew attention to the consequences of a person proceeding to execute a warrant immediately after the proclamation of a district. The proclamation might be posted on a certain day in any district in Ireland, and the person authorized to execute a warrant might do so on the following day. It would follow from this that the person affected would receive no warning whatever, and could not possibly know, especially at night, by what right it was sought to execute the warrant. In sustaining the Amendment he was about to propose, he would refer to the Peace Preservation Act of 1875, which provided that persons in search of arms should state their business, and then wait a reasonable time before entering a house. Had he seen the clause in this Act before he placed his Amendment on the Paper, he would have adopted the language therein employed; but, practically, the wording he had used would secure the same result, and he had simply to ask the Home Secretary to allow the person executing a warrant under the Act—first, to state his authority; secondly, the nature of his business; and, thirdly, after entering a house, whether by force or otherwise, to exhibit his warrant before making his search.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 23, after the word "warrant," to add "Provided that, previous to forcing an entry, the person engaged upon the execution of the warrant shall, if required to do so by any person in occupation or care of the house, building, or place which he seeks to enter, proclaim his authority and the nature of his business, and shall, if so desired to do, exhibit his warrant before proceeding to make the search."—(Mr. Sexton.)

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

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

The wording of the Act of 1875, to which the hon. Member has just referred, has been supplied in this clause by the words "if need be, by force." Her Majesty's Government have endeavoured to make the present Act as short as possible. The objection I have to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sligo is that it would give to persons likely to resist, possibly by armed force, time to prepare for such resistance—in point of fact, time to load their rifles or revolvers and fire a volley. That, I think, would not be desirable. I believe the hon. Member will find, on consideration, that everything he can desire, so far as this matter is concerned, is contained in the words "if need be."

MR. DAWSON

suggested that some person should be present at the execution of a warrant who was a competent judge of the need to enter by force. If the right hon. Gentleman did not agree to that, he thought the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo should be accepted. Certainly, if the interpretation of the words "if need be" were left to the judgment and responsibility of indiscreet people, serious consequences would very frequently follow, and, therefore, there was great reason in asking that the person executing the warrant should state his authority and exhibit his warrant after entering the house.

MR. MOLLOY

pointed out that if the clause remained as it was, any person could enter a house without exhibiting a warrant at all, and proceed to search it, merely stating that he came under the authority of the Lord Lieutenant.

MR. BIGGAR

said the right hon. Gentleman had advanced a case as an argument against the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sligo which had never occurred, and which, in all probability, never would occur—namely, that of persons in a house attempting by force of arms to set the authority of the law and the police at defiance. The right hon. Gentleman, in rejecting the Amendment, had refused the very reasonable request that parties asked to admit the police should be told what their object was. As the Bill stood, the police must have a warrant, and the only difficulty appeared to be as to whether they should exhibit it to the people of the house. Of course, the parties concerned would be justified in keeping their doors closed unless they were told that the police had authority to force their way in. But if they were told that the police had a warrant, they would be bound to open the door, or else it would be broken open; and, therefore, it appeared to him that the right hon. Gentleman was encouraging illegal proceedings in allow- ing the door to be forced without giving the inmates any reason to suppose that the police had any authority to enter. Again, the warrant might be in the hands of policemen in uniform or in plain clothes, or it might also be in the hands of persons who were not police at all. How, then, were the parties in the house to know what to do without the exhibition of the warrant? Under the circumstances, it was clear to him that the Government had taken up a thoroughly unreasonable and untenable position with regard to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sligo, which he thought they ought to agree to.

MR. SERJEANT SIMON

thought that the Amendment of the hon. Member was reasonable. The Bill provided that the search should be made in pursuance of a warrant issued by the Lord Lieutenant. What then was the good of that warrant if it were to be kept in the pocket of the person making the search? In the so-called Coercion Bill which had lately passed that House, it was stated that the grounds on which any person might be arrested should be stated in the warrant of arrest, and a copy of it given to the person arrested. The present Bill proposed that there should be a search under a warrant. But he maintained that the warrant in this case would be a dead letter, unless it were shown to the person whose premises were to be searched. If houses were to be entered, the person entering might make a false representation; he might go there for a criminal purpose, ascertaining the condition of the house, while the inmates would have no means of preventing him, for they would not know whether he had authority to search. Therefore, it appeared to him that in granting such extraordinary powers, Parliament ought to accompany them, as far as possible, with such safeguards as would protect innocent and respectable persons against abuse. He thought it was but an act of justice and reason, that when a man entered the house of another in pursuance of an Act of this character, he should be able to show the authority under which he entered, and that the people of the house should have the right to demand his warrant. Under those circumstances, he hoped his right hon. Friend would re-consider the position, and not make a stand against what appeared to him to be a reasonable and necessary proposal.

MR. R. T. REID

said, he understood the objection of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the Amendment to be that if the officer proclaimed his authority and exhibited his warrant, time would be given in case resistance should be intended to load rifles and revolvers and fire a volley. But if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would look at the words of the Amendment, he would find that nothing more was proposed before entering the premises than that the officer should proclaim his authority and state his business. Whether the warrant was exhibited or not, the whole proceeding would not occupy more than about three seconds of time.

MR. GIBSON

thought it would be well if the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would say that before Report he would consider whether there was any objection to introduce the words of the Act of 1875 into the present Bill, because, as the clause stood, a house might be broken into without warning or summons. For that reason, he thought that notice should be given before a house was broken into in pursuance of the Act, and that the case would be met by adopting the words of the Act of 1875.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

I shall be happy to adopt the words of the Act of 1875.

MR. LEAMY

pointed out that the Act in question did not provide for the exhibition of the warrant. He would ask the Home Secretary what harm there could be in accepting the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo, which simply bound the police officer to state who he was, and with what object he came, and required him to produce his warrant before proceeding to search the house? He said that before a policeman proceeded to upset any house, the least he should do would be to exhibit his warrant, which was of no use whatever unless it was shown. He was surprised the right hon. Gentleman hesitated for a single moment in assenting to the Amendment before the Committee.

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

said, that his right hon. Friend would do anything for a quiet life in this matter. The warrant would be executed in just the same way as any search-warrant, and the law in England and Ireland was that the owner of a house had a right to keep a constable out until he produced his warrant to enter. That was the case when the door was open; much more was it the case when the door was closed. The officer, therefore, would be bound to produce his warrant and notify his business before the door was opened. His right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was willing to introduce into the clause the terms of the Act of 1875; and in order to satisfy the hon. Member for Waterford, he would add to them that the constable should, if required, produce his warrant.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. HEALY moved an Amendment to the effect that all arms and ammunition voluntarily delivered up to the authorities should, after the lapse of six months, be valued by some competent person, and the value thereof paid by the Grand Jury of the county to the owners of the same. The wording had been taken from the South African Act, without alteration, except that in order to place the cost upon the local rates, he had used the words "shall be paid by the Grand Jury," although he felt sure that if the Government accepted the Amendment, this would be made an Imperial charge. It was well known that a police-station was not the best place in which to store arms, which, if a little wet got into them, would be very seriously damaged. It was reasonable to suppose that in the course of five years some deterioration would take place in the arms, and he thought the Government should deal with the Irish people as they had dealt with the Blacks in Africa, and give compensation for the arms. An appraisement of the arms should be made at the time of the delivery. With regard to ammunition, that was not so necessary; but some person who was not open to suspicion ought to be appointed to value the guns. Owing to the Coercion Act, Ireland would, no doubt, become a land flowing with milk and honey, and then there would be no necessity for renewing this Act. The people would then be entitled to receive their arms back, and it would not be fair that, having been deprived of their guns for five years, they should have them back in bad condition. The Bill proposed confiscation for a limited period. What would the publicans say if it was proposed to shut up their houses for some days a-week? They would ask for compensation. And he maintained that people would be much more likely to give up their arms if they got reasonable value for them. He, therefore, urged the right hon. Gentleman to give the Amendment his attention.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

I desire, as soon as possible and as short as possible, to state what the Government are prepared to do in this matter. As the Bill stands, arms improperly held are declared to be forfeited. As the hon. Member said, it is quite true that that would not be a great encouragement to people to voluntarily surrender their arms, and I think there ought to be a special provision made for cases where voluntary surrender is made. Of course, the provision will still remain for arms carried or found, and not voluntarily surrendered, and they will be forfeited; but in reference to arms voluntarily surrendered, what I propose to do and to secure by provision in the Bill is that which has practically been done under all preceding Arms Acts down to the beginning of last year. That is, that all arms voluntarily surrendered are deposited with the Government, and the Government are supposed to be in charge of them and to return them to the people to whom they belong. I am informed by those who are conversant with the manner in which this has been practically worked, that there has been a great deal of confusion about these arms, and that when a man came to recover his arms he could not get them. Under those circumstances money was paid for the arms, and I think that was fair and proper. I do not propose to go into anything like the details of the Amendment as to the deposit of the arms, and as to how they are to be taken care of, and what is to be done with them. That, I desire, like all other details, to leave to the Lord Lieutenant—to state where the arms are to be deposited, where they are to be registered, and what is to be done in the way of taking charge of them. What I should propose at the end of this clause is to put in a Proviso— That when any arms or ammunition are voluntarily surrendered in accordance with the provisions of the proclamation, such arms or ammunition, or the value thereof at the time of the surrender, shall be returned to the owner when the proclamation relating thereto shall cease to be in force. That will give to the authorities the right to have their arms returned, or to have the value of such arms at the time of surrender. The other proposal of buying the arms outright, the Government think cannot be acceded to; but this Proviso will give parties who voluntarily surrender their arms a right to have them properly taken care of and restored, or to have the value of them. I hope that that may be considered a satisfactory manner of meeting the requirements of the case, and that will dispose, I think, of a good many of the Amendments on the subject on the Paper.

MR. SEXTON

regarded the proposal of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, so far as it went, as fair and reasonable. There had been a great deal of confusion, and the general impression in Ireland was that they might as well throw their arms into the sea as give them up to the Government. He had no doubt the Act would be very energetically administered for two or three weeks, or for a month, after it became law; and he wished to point out that there were a good many people who would be subject to the operation of the Act who were illiterate, and would not be able to read the proclamation. Policemen would visit many houses, the occupants of which had had no opportunity of seeing the proclamation, and in that way there would be many cases in which owners of arms who had no intention of wilfully contravening the Act would be arrested. He, therefore, submitted that the right hon. and learned Gentleman might, from the point of view of good feeling, usefully supplement his already large concession by providing that in certain cases, where it might appear to the magistrate or local authorities that the occupant of a house was not holding arms in wilful contravention of the Act, he might receive compensation. Such a man might be ignorant of the Act, and would have just as much claim to compensation as people who understood the proclamation.

MR. MACFARLANE

did not quite understand the period when the right hon. and learned Gentleman proposed to pay the value of arms. He had an Amendment on the Paper which proposed that payment should be made at the time the arms were received; but if the right hon. and learned Gentleman proposed to postpone payment until the end of the period during which the man might be deprived of his arms, that would be hard treatment. If a person had paid £5 or £10 for a gun before the introduction of the Bill, it would be hard that he should be deprived of that money until the expiry of the Act. He, therefore, urged that the payment should be made at once, on the delivery of arms, leaving the Government then to deal with the arms as they chose. That would make the Act very much less obnoxious than it promised to be.

MR. DAWSON

said, the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman had suggested to him an important point. There was a large number of people in Ireland who were Irish-speaking people; there were 800,000 who spoke only Irish. They were mostly located in Connaught, and that part of the country, and it would be a humane provision that those people should be informed through the only avenue that would approach their intelligence—through an Irish proclamation—that the Act was in force; otherwise, it would be found that many people did not understand the proclamation. He urged the Home Secretary, who had shown a disposition which the Irish Members were so happy to appreciate, to see that care was taken in Galway, in Connaught, and in Kerry, that the proclamation was communicated in Irish. He thought he had only to throw out the suggestion to the Home Secretary to ensure its being adopted.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

Clearly the greatest possible encouragement ought to be given to people to bring in arms voluntarily; and, therefore, the Government would desire that the Lord Lieutenant should take every means of informing the people. With reference to the point raised by the hon. Member who moved the Amendment (Mr. Healy), that the Proviso should apply not only to persons voluntarily surrendering their arms, but to persons who can show that they have not withheld them, I think there is force in that, and if hon. Members desire that, I will keep back the Proviso I have suggested, instead of moving it now, in order to consider whether that might also be included in the Bill; or I will move the Proviso as it stands at present, if the other Amendments are withdrawn. I beg now to move this Proviso as I read it to the Committee. I am asked whether the term is to be five years. That is not so. The proclamation of a district might be only for six months, or for a year; then would arrive the time for the return of the arms, or the payment of their value. Whenever a district should be considered to be in such a condition as no longer to require the exigencies of the law, then the tune would arrive for the return of the arms to the people of that district. If the arms were not forthcoming, the people would get compensation.

MR. BIGGAR

said, the case put by the right hon. and learned Gentleman seemed at first sight very favourable; but in the event of a proclamation not terminating in a year, the settlement of claims would be postponed, and the owners of the arms would get neither their arms nor the value of them. He thought the fairest plan would be to pay the value of the arms to their owner when he gave them up, and let the arms then be the property of the Government. Then there was another point. As he understood the right hon and learned Gentleman, if the particular arms required could be found, even if they were damaged by having been kept by the Government, the owners would have no remedy, but would be bound to take them without the option of money. He would suggest that payment should be made at the time when the arms were given up; or, that at the end of the term, the owners of the arms should have the option of being paid in cash, or of taking the arms back again. That would be only fair, and he urged the Government to accept one or the other of those suggestions.

MR. GIBSON

was very glad that the Home Secretary had seen his way to making the concession he had announced, and to deal in some way with the question of payment. It should be remembered, he observed, that since the expiry of the Peace Preservation Act in June last, there had been nothing to tell the people—who had in the meantime purchased arms—that they were doing anything illegal, or that their possession of arms would be afterwards interfered with. The Act having expired they were free to buy arms, and to avoid the danger of their position being abused, he had, by a question some days since, suggested the insertion of a clause in the Bill providing that all arms surrendered would be paid for. Care must be taken that the provision of the Home Secretary was one which would really be a working provision. It seemed to him that the concession was reasonable and very valuable, and that the right hon. Gentleman had met the Amendments in a very fair spirit; but he would suggest that before the Report he might deal further with the matter. It was true the proclamation might only last for a year, or for a few months; but it might last for five years, and if the Act was renewed the proclamation might last for 10 years. Therefore, he thought a reasonable alteration would be, that if the proclamation lasted for more than 12 months after the passing of the Bill, persons depositing arms should have the option of receiving their arms back, or the payment of reasonable value for them.

SIR JOHN HAY

said, that to a certain extent he agreed with the Home Secretary, and, therefore, would not propose the Amendment standing in his name in the same sense and for the same object. But he was not quite certain that the Amendment suggested by the right hon. and learned Gentleman would fully carry out what he thought desirable. There were three classes of persons who would be likely to have arms. Those—the smallest number—having arms for illegal purposes; a certain number having arms for protection against those having arms for illegal purposes; and others who legitimately had arms for sporting and other purposes. His Amendment proposed that persons improperly holding arms should have certain compensation if they gave up their arms immediately. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment would carry out that object he should be entirely satisfied, and would not press his Amendment.

MR. LALOR

said, it was well known to any man who had any dealings with fire-arms that if they were kept in a damp place, in 12 months they became perfectly useless, and would not be worth anything. It was not unlikely that many guns worth £5 or £10 would be seized, and if a man was deprived of such a gun for five years, or even one year, what would be the value of it at the end of that time? The value might not be more than £1, or, perhaps, 10s.; and it would be a downright injustice to treat any man in that way. He pressed the Home Secretary for an assurance that a person giving up his arms should have a receipt at the time stating the value of the gun or guns, and that when the proclamation terminated he should have the choice of taking either the guns or the value of them when surrendered.

MR. HEALY

, in asking leave to withdraw the Amendment, said, he thought it might be better to propose such an Amendment on Report. With regard to the point of voluntary surrender in the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, he observed that that might mean a surrender while the Bill was going through the House, and that a surrender the day after the passing of the Act would not be regarded as a voluntary surrender. He would suggest that the period for voluntary surrender should be one month from the date of the Lord Lieutenant's proclamation.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

I think, that on the whole, the suggestion of the hon. Member is the best, and that this Proviso, instead of being now put on the Paper, should be moved in another form on Report.

THE CHAIRMAN

I understand that the hon. Member does not propose the Amendment?

MR. O'DONNELL

We are also to understand that it is not the Chief Secretary for Ireland who will continue the conduct of this Bill on Report?

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 1, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 172; Noes 28: Majority 144.—(Div. List, No. 115.)

Clause 2 (Power as to proclamation in respect to arms and ammunition).

MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY

I beg to move, Mr. Chairman, that you report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

I suppose the Committee will be somewhat tired. I am sure I am; and, therefore, I do not oppose the Motion.

Motion agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.