CONSIDERATION.

HC Deb 10 March 1881 vol 259 cc741-74

Bill, as amended, considered.

MR. CALLAN

, in moving the following New Clause:— (Power of appeal.) Every person who is convicted under this Act and sentenced to a term of imprisonment, or to pay any fine or penalty, may appeal against such conviction; every such appeal shall be brought in the manner and shall be subject to the provisions prescribed by and contained in section twenty-four of 'The Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851,' with respect to appeals in the cases therein stated, reminded the House that in 1875, when the Conservative Party was in power, the then Chief Secretary for Ireland (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) consented to the insertion of a clause in the Coercion Bill giving a person charged with the offences under that Act the right to appeal. In the present Bill that power was taken away, and no option whatever was given to the person charged with the offence. The present Chief Secretary, who was then in Opposition, took upon himself to reply to the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), and contended that such a right of appeal ought to be given. There was then great liberality of sentiment among the Liberal Opposition Members, two of the most prominent figures in the division being the present Attorney General for Ireland and the Attorney General for England. There was much more reason why this right should be conferred in the Bill now before the House, because power of appeal would give the accused greater security, and prevent the magistrates from using their powers capriciously.

New Clause (Power of appeal,)—Mr. Callan,)—brought up, and read the first time.

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

MR. DAWSON

said, no doubt the Chief Secretary for Ireland felt flattered by the encomium passed upon him by the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan) with reference to his liberal action of 1875. Three months' imprisonment was a very serious thing to the character of a man, and would act harshly on poor men who would not be provided for whilst in prison. In supporting the adoption of this clause he would appeal to the sense of fairness, justice, and consistency of the Treasury Bench.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

was sure that the hon. Member would not think him obstinate when he felt bound to adhere to what he had already said on this matter. The provisions of this Bill were in substance the provisions of the Act of 1875. The provisions of the Act of 1851, too, applied to this Bill, and wherever the sentence of imprisonment was above a month, or the fine above 20s., in that case there would be an appeal. The present Bill was in no respect more severe than the Bill of 1875. They could not put this Bill upon an exceptional footing in respect of offences which would compare with others which were punishable by summary conviction. The moment that was done the people of Ireland would be taught to regard convictions under this Act as a less serious breach of the law than any other conviction, and that would be a very mischievous condition of things. It would encourage the people to think that this law could be violated with impunity, and, therefore, he could not assent to this clause.

MR. HEALY

asked, what the Government would do in the case of half-a-dozen pistols being found in a man's house, and the magistrate gave him a month's imprisonment for each of the illegal articles found in his possession?

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, it would be his duty, as Home Secretary, to see that no injustice was committed by the magistrates.

MR. FINIGAN

asked, with reference to the Act of 1875, if it was not provided that anyone arrested under the Act had the option of at once asking for a trial by jury, whereas under this Bill no such option was given.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, it was so under this Bill. It was so under the Act of 1875, but not under the Act of 1870.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, he would be satisfied with the Home Secretary's answer, if, as he understood it, it meant that although the Bill did not give the right of appeal, it was given under another Act.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, that was so.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

If the right of appeal was given by another Act, why had not the right hon. Gentleman stated it a little sooner? His whole statement previously had been that it was not safe to give the right of appeal, because juries were not found to convict.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

The appeal is to Quarter Sessions.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, he found he did not understand the answer. The right of appeal was not to a jury, but to Quarter Sessions.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

That is what the Amendment asks.

MR. LEAMY

did not think the Home Secretary could reasonably refuse the right of appeal under this Bill, because he created an exceptional kind of offence which ought to give the person convicted a right which he did not possess under other Acts.

MR. DAWSON

asked the Solicitor General for Ireland why, if the ordinary Petty Sessions Act gave the right of appeal, there was a special provision for that purpose made in the Act of 1875?

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

said, he could not tell. It was wholly unnecessary.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. CALLAN

, in rising to move the following new Clause:—

(Licences to be granted on production of certificate of two justices of the peace.)

"Every person appointed under this Act to grant licences to have or carry arms, in any district, shall be bound to grant to any occupier of one or more agricultural holdings a licence to have arms, or to have and carry arms upon any specified lands, or a licence to have and carry arms generally, who shall produce to him a certificate signed by two justices of the peace for the county, residing within the same petty sessions district as the person producing such certificate, that he is a fit and proper person to have such licence respectively,"

said, that before 1875 the resident magistrates were the only persons empowered to give licences, but much dissatisfaction prevailed in consequence of the partial manner in which these officials acted. He believed, however, that a change was made in 1875 as to the mode of granting licences. The object of this Act, as put before the country by the Home Secretary, was to take arms from the dissolute ruffians and village tyrants who wore likely to use them for criminal purposes, and the object of this clause was to provide a safeguard for the respectable members of society. He asked the Government to repose the same trust in the local magistracy as the Conservative Administration reposed in them under the Act of 1875. It would be absurd to confine the issue of licences to the resident magistrate, because in most cases he lived 30 miles away from portions of his district, and knew nothing about the character of the applicants for licences. To take an instance, in his own district there were two magistrates who were the largest proprietors in the district. They were Catholics, and both lived amongst the people. There were two others who were Protestants, who were equally respectable, and who, he must say, were almost as well liked. These four gentlemen had not the power to give a certificate; but this non-resident stipendiary magistrate could override their decision. In Dundalk it was in evidence that the resident magistrate expressly stated—" I will not give you the licence, because people would say you are shooting the hares." If he had said—" Because people would say you are shooting the landlords." it would, perhaps, be a valid excuse. If the local magistrates were not fit to give a certificate upon which a licence should be granted, surely they were not fit to sit upon the Bench. If this concession were not granted by the Government it would show that they were actuated by a Cromwellian spirit.

New Clause (Licences to be granted on production of certificate of two justices of the peace,)—Mr. Callan,)—brought up, and read the first time.

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

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

assured the hon. Member that the Government were not actuated by any such spirit. Practically, he did not differ much from the hon. Member as to the magistrates being proper persons to give this power to. But the Bill was drawn in the most general terms, and, as he had stated over and over again, it was thought better to leave it to the Lord Lieutenant to accommodate the Act to the circumstances of particular places and times. He had no doubt that whoever had the power of issuing licences would be directed to consult the magistrates; but it would not be consistent with the manner in which the Bill was drawn to enter into details with regard to the matter.

MR. CALLAN

said, the right hon. Gentleman must be labouring under a misapprehension. He did not wish to restrict the power of the Lord Lieutenant. What he proposed was that the licensing authority, whoever he might be, should be entitled to give licences to any farmer on the production of a recommendation from two local magistrates residing in the same petty sessions district.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he quite understood that; but in Acts of Parliament the expressio unius very often involved the exclusio alterius, and it was thought better that the Lord Lieutenant should have the largest discretion, both with regard to appointing the licensing authority and to the recommendations upon which that authority should act.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, that the explanation of the Home Secretary was most unsatisfactory, and he would not have ventured to make it if he had the smallest acquaintance with Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that the Bill would enable the Lord Lieutenant to allow persons in different places—say Cavan, Cork, Galway—to carry arms on different terms. Such a proposal was never made before in an Act of Parliament, as that these regulations were to vary with the whim of the Lord Lieutenant or his underlings. If there was one thing more than another—and here he took issue with the hon. Member (Mr. Callan)—that watt considered a fault in the Peace Preservation Act of 1875, it was the provision which compelled the resident magistrate to give a licence for arms on the certificate of two local magistrates. That provision did not work well, for persons who ought not to have arms would go to two local magistrates who did not know much about them and get a recommendation. That the Lord Lieutenant would make such regulations as the Home Secretary suggested was absurd and ridiculous; it was just as likely that he should do so, as that he should become Lord Lieutenant in the moon. The Bill was objectionable in not defining, as the Act of 1875 did, the exact powers which the Lord Lieutenant was to have; and it was a remarkable fact that it was left to a Liberal Government to propose a Coercion Bill of the most unlimited character, perhaps, that had ever been introduced into Parliament—a Bill giving power to the Lord Lieutenant to make any regulations he pleased in respect of the carrying, or the possession, or the searching for arms.

MAJOR NOLAN

observed, that the action of the Lord Lieutenant would very much depend on the way the Home Secretary corrected his speech as reported in Hansard. In one part of his speech he said that probably the Lord Lieutenant would do a certain thing; and, of course, it would be very unlikely, if not impossible, that a Lord Lieutenant should go against the express declaration of a Cabinet Minister. But, again, the right hon. Gentleman said that the Lord Lieutenant might do what he pleased, and if that were reported in Hansard the Lord Lieutenant would naturally consider that his discretion in this matter was unlimited. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman was far from satisfactory, and some further explanation on the subject was required. It was an absurd contention of the Government that they were to give to the Lord Lieutenant complete power. The Home Secretary seemed to think that they doubted the Lord Lieutenant's honour and ability, but that was not so. He did not think Lord Cowper really cared for the power it was sought to place in his hands; besides which, the Home Secretary had not shown them that it was the Lord Lieutenant who would make the rules. In his (Major Nolan's) opinion, it would be the Chief Secretary, if that right hon. Gentleman did not delegate the power to someone else. If the right hon. Gentleman were to make the rules, he must by this time know enough of Ireland to convince him of the trouble and vexation which would be occasioned by the application of one rule to one district, and the application of a different rule to another district. He could not conceive what reasonable objection could be raised to this Amendment. The Conservative Government accepted the clause when it was brought in by Mr. Butt, and the then Chief Secretary for Ireland (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) said he was glad to see that Irish Members were disposed to place some confidence in Irish magistrates. What change had there been since 1875? Was it that a Liberal Government was going to be more restrictive than a Conservative Government? A year ago the licensing authority was practically obliged to give a licence for the carrying of a fowling-piece to anyone who was recommended by one magistrate, because if two recommendations were obtained the licence must be granted. Without this clause, the Bill would make the resident magistrate complete master of the situation. He trusted, therefore, the Government would assent to the proposal of the hon. Member for Louth, and that one uniform rule as to the licensing of arms would be adopted for the whole of Ireland. There would be the greatest difficulty if different rules were made for different districts, and their operation could not be freed from invidiousness.

MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY

remarked, that during the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman one question kept pressing on his mind—namely, what was the reason for the great waste of time there had been over this Bill? Why not bring in a Bill of a single clause, declaring that during the continuance of this measure the Lord Lieutenant should be authorized to take whatever steps he might think fit for the preservation of peace? They were travelling very fast at present. First they had suspended the Habeas Corpus in Ireland; next they had curtailed in no small degree Parliamentary liberties; and now under this Bill trial by jury would be abolished for five years for certain offences. In fact, they were going on so fast and so far that he was inclined to agree in the justice of an observation of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) that the Government should give over all pretence of Constitutional rule and convert Ireland into a Crown Colony. He (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) did not feel very enthusiastic with respect to the present Amendment; but as it tended to limit the power of the Lord Lieutenant, and impose something like Constitutional rule in the place of the arbitrary will of one man, and extended the power to respectable people to carry arms, he would be glad to support it.

MR. LITTON

considered the clause a very reasonable one. It would considerably lessen the objection felt to this Bill, which certainly was not viewed with approbation by a large class of persons in Ireland. He was bound to admit that he was convinced by the arguments offered by the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan) that it would be a right and reasonable course to take in working out the provisions of this Bill to give to two justices the power of recommending the granting of licences. Let them consider the manner in which the Bill would otherwise work. There was very little doubt that the licensing authority would be the stipendiary magistrate resident in the district. Stipendiary magistrates were gentlemen who were well known, and of high respectability; but they seldom officiated in the districts with which they were, best acquainted, and consequently know little or nothing of the people who would apply for liberty to have and carry arms. The result, therefore, must be that it was impossible for them to exercise the authority to grant licences except they exercised it capriciously, or by having recourse to the information and guidance of persons who would come in their way. These persons would be of two classes, either the county inspector or the justice of the peace of the district. If they applied to justices they would get, no doubt, proper and fair advice. But he submitted to the Government that it would be far more desirable, and that the Act would be worked with far greater justice and more elasticity, if the licensing authority were to act upon a certificate from the justices instead of acting upon verbal information communicated to them, perhaps, after dinner or over a glass of wine. He was glad to perceive the confidence which hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway placed in the justices of Ireland in this matter. The magistrates of Ireland were thoroughly well acquainted with the character of persons in their districts who would be desirous of carrying arms for the protection of their holdings, and they would be the natural persons to apply to in such matters. He could conceive that in certain cases great injustice and injury would be done if certain classes of persons were deprived of the use of arms. How, for instance, would farmers be able to protect their sheep from dogs? He knew a case within the last month in which a man had lost eight sheep through their being attacked by dogs. The Act would work far more easily and gracefully with the clause than without it, and the clause would free the Lord Lieutenant from a responsibility of which he ought to be glad to be relieved.

MR. O'DONNELL

said, that this provision in the Bill was a singularly vexatious one. On the other hand, he believed the magistrates of many districts in Ireland could not be trusted to grant licences with any degree of impartiality or with an unbiased judgment. They all knew that there had been in the North of Ireland a great stir amongst the Orangemen; and as a large proportion of the Irish magistracy possessed strong Orange proclivities, what guarantee had the House that the Orange magistracy would not arm the Orangemen in their districts wholesale, and that there would not be repetitions of the one-sided riots which had been so frequently witnessed in the North of Ireland, in which the Orange rioters would have the advantage of bullet and buckshot, and the Catholic rioters would have to trust to such weapons as nature provided them? Even in the South and West, he believed, there would be four persons obtaining licences from untrustworthy magistrates for one respectable person who would be really entitled to and would receive a licence. The overwhelming majority of the Irish justices were persons who ought not to be on the Bench at all. The Bill was a bad, Bashi-Bazouk Bill, a mere Algerine Act of a despotic Administration, and cursed with despotic Liberalism from beginning to end. He sympathized with the motive of his hon. Friend the Member for Louth in proposing the clause; but he had not sufficient faith in the magistrates to give them the power it would confer on them. If it were passed, it would be absolutely necessary for the preservation of law and order that a considerable number of the population should conceal arms for the purpose of defending themselves against the armed nominees of untrustworthy magistrates.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

observed, that the duty of granting licences had always, in cases like the present, been intrusted to the resident magistrates; but it was sometimes found that among that numerous body there were unreasonable persons who refused to give licences to those who were entitled to them. He had himself brought under the notice of the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India, when he was Chief Secretary for Ireland, the case of a most respectable man, a bank manager, who was refused a licence to carry a gun, because the magistrate was annoyed that the applicant had been asked to shooting parties in the neighbourhood. The noble Lord took up the case very warmly, and reproved the resident magistrate. Any man who received from two magistrates of his neighbourhood a certificate that he was a respectable man should be granted a licence, not for a revolver or a rifle, but for a shot-gun to be carried only on his own land. Nothing could be more reasonable, and former experience showed that it was also necessary. The hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell), who had expressed himself in such bitter terms, had himself a clause on the Paper similar to that under consideration. When this circumstance was remembered, the language used by the hon. Member was simply an insult to the House. He did not think that the interests of the farmers of Ireland ought to be sacrificed in that way. He trusted the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary, who had shown so conciliatory a spirit and so much common sense in the conduct of the Bill, would consider the matter in the light in which he (Mr. Mitchell Henry) had endeavoured to put it.

MR. GIBSON

said, he did not look upon the Amendment proposed by this clause as one of great magnitude, as it was in the Act of 1875, and he saw no objection at present to its being in this Bill. The Home Secretary seemed to prefer that the matter should be left in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant, but he did not see much advantage in this. The Amendment, however, should be altered so as to meet some of the objections mentioned by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill); and, therefore, he would suggest that if the clause now proposed should be read a second time it should be modified in sonic respects—namely, if two magistrates were to have a discretion to grant certificates, it should be on their personal knowledge that the applicants were fit and proper persons to have certificates granted to them.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

wished to know whether these suggestions would be accepted by the hon. Gentlemen opposite?

MR. CALLAN

was quite willing to accept the suggestion, as all he wished was to protect the farmer.

MR. BIGGAR

was unable to understand what the Government intended to do. He was not enamoured of the particular Amendment, as he did not think the getting two magistrates to privately sign the certificate was the proper way to do business. He thought there should be one plan for the whole country, and he would suggest, if the clause were read a second time, the justices in petty sessions should be the persons to give the necessary licence, as then some opportunity would be given to the public of knowing something about the matter.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. GIBSON

proposed, in the last line of the clause, to insert the words "on their personal knowledge."

MR. PARNELL

asked whether it was worth while to insert this Amendment, as it would be a limitation to the discretion of magistrates, which might be very inconvenient in many cases. They might not have a personal knowledge, but they might be sufficiently satisfied of the respectability of persons by the information received from friends. He did not understand that under the clause as it was in the Bill of 1875, any inconvenience had arisen.

MR. GIBSON

said, no instance of practical inconvenience had come under his notice while he was in Office.

MR. PARNELL

remarked, that had such inconvenience arisen, no doubt the right hon. and learned Gentleman would have heard of it.

MR. DAWSON

believed that the requirements of the case would be met by the magistrate's satisfying himself by inquiry or otherwise that the person to whom he granted a certificate was worthy of the trust.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

was not quite sure that it would be well to leave this matter with the magistrates, as in some counties, say Clare, Galway, and Mayo, there were mauxais sujets, and if they should request certificates and be refused the magistrates would incur much unpopularity, and it was not a pleasant thing to do that in those counties. He hoped the Government would abandon their reticence and favour the Committee with their views upon this matter.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, the reticence of the Government had thrown quite as much light on this subject as the two speeches of the noble Lord. In the first of those speeches the noble Lord attacked the Government for not accepting the Amendment.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

explained that he never did such a thing.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, that, in that case, he, for one, misunderstood the noble Lord's remarks. He was prepared, on behalf of the Government, to adopt the present proposal.

MR. CALLAN

hoped his hon. Friend (Mr. Biggar) would not resist the Amendment, as it would really be a great boon.

MR. BIGGAR

was willing to defer to the wishes of his political Friends; but lie still thought it preposterous to suppose that justices should know everybody within their districts.

Amendment (Mr. Gibson) agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to, and added to the Bill.

MR. CALLAN moved the following New Clause:—

(Register of licences to be kept and filed.)

"Every person appointed to grant licences under this Act shall keep a list of the names and residences of all persons applying for such licences, and shall, on the first day of every year, deposit with the clerk of the peace of the county a copy of such list, adding thereto, to the name of each applicant, a statement showing whether the licence has been granted or refused, specifying also the nature of the licence applied for, and the nature of the licence, if any, granted, which list shall be kept by the clerk of the peace among the records of the county, and same shall be open for inspection without fee."

The hon. Member quoted instances in which the magistrates had acted very capriciously in refusing licences, and this provision, he contended, would act as a deterrent in such cases, and there could be no evasion. He could conceive of no valid objection to his proposal.

Clause (Register of licences to be kept and filed,)—(Mr. Callan,)—brought up, and read the first time.

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

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

hoped the hon. Member would not press the clause. It was a mere directory matter, and he had no doubt that the Lord Lieutenant would, in his proclamation, direct a register to be kept that he might know to whom licences had been given and from whom withheld; but the Government had endeavoured to make this Bill short, precise, and clear, and not to overlay it with administrative details of this kind.

MR. CALLAN

said, that having the personal assurance of the Home Secretary that the Lord Lieutenant in his proclamation would direct a register to be kept, he should ask leave to withdraw the clause.

MR. LEAMY

did not understand the right hon. Gentleman to pledge himself that the proclamation would contain such a direction, and he hoped the Amendment would be pressed.

MR. HEALY

thought this matter was more important than the Home Secretary seemed to think. Farmers and respectable people were liable to be refused licences without any cause assigned.

MR. DAWSON

said, the clause would not fetter the discretion of the magistrate; it would only limit his caprice.

MR. T. D. SULLIVAN

thought the veil of secrecy should not be thrown over these matters. The magistrates were supposed to act in an upright manner, and it was not too much to ask that the public should have an opportunity of judging whether they did so or not. Magistrates ought not to quail before the dread of unpopularity.

SIR EDWARD WATKIN

, premising that the necessity of supporting the Bill was one of the most painful incidents in his Parliamentary life, said, it was a very serious thing to refuse to any man the right to bear arms, and Parliament ought to have a record of all such refusals. What harm could it do? If it only helped in the detection of crime, it was important to have it. It seemed to him that this was a clause which vitally affected public liberty, which ought to be surrounded with every safeguard, and it would enable Parliament to correct any piece of petty tyranny that might take place. The Home Secretary spoke of the Lord Lieutenant requiring such a register by his proclamation; but why not put it straightforwardly with the Bill, and let everybody know?

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

MR. CALLAN

hoped that, after the speech of the hon. Baronet the Member for Hythe (Sir Edward Watkin), Government would accept the clause and save the necessity of a division.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 35; Noes 90:—Majority 55.—(Div. List, No. 142.)

MR. CALLAN moved the insertion of the following Clause:—

(Prisoners under this Act to be treated as first-class misdemeanants.)

"Any persons who shall be convicted before a court of summary jurisdiction of acting in contravention of this Act, and shall be sentenced to any term of imprisonment, shall be treated as a first-class misdemeanant."

He begged to point out that persons convicted under the Bill would not necessarily be guilty of any moral offence, and that as those who were convicted would not suffer in the smallest degree in their private character, they should not be obliged to herd with common criminals, but should be treated as first-class misdemeanants.

Clause (Prisoners under this Act to be treated as first-class misdemeanants,)—(Mr. Callan,)—brought up, and read the first time.

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

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

MR. PARNELL

, in supporting the Motion, said, he had had a clause on the Paper on the same subject; but as he was not in his place he had been unable to move it. His clause would give more latitude to the Lord Lieutenant and the Government in reference to the treatment of prisoners. It was exceedingly likely that the cases of persons convicted under the operation of this Act would vary very much. He did not wish to dispute that there might be some instances of prisoners who would deserve the harsh treatment provided under the ordinary law; but he thought the number of those cases would be very limited. He thought the number of cases in which prisoners would be convicted who had concealed their guns for bad motives would be exceedingly limited, and that by far the greatest number of persons who would be convicted under the operation of this Act would consist of persons who from negligence or some other cause failed to give in their guns at the proper time. He thought it was evident, from the nature of the offences, and from all the circumstances surrounding the case, that but a very small proportion of persons actually convicted under the operation of the Bill would be persons belonging to the criminal classes, whose minds it would be desirable to reform by harsh treatment. He thought, at all events. power should be given to the Lord Lieutenant to treat certain persons leniently where he thought proper. The discipline of the gaols in Ireland had very materially altered for the worse since the prisons passed under the control of the Government. Previous to the Prisons Act of 1877 the prisons were under the control of the county authorities. They had then considerable power with regard to the framing of rules, and also in regard to the inspection and direction in regard to the treatment of prisoners, which had now been entirely taken away from them for all practical purposes by the Act of 1877. The prisons in Ireland were now practically under the control of the Government, the Visiting Justices, taking the least possible interest in their duties, simply because all power was taken from them. The treatment of prisoners was specially bad in regard of diet; the diet of those who would come under the Act being what was practically starvation diet. It was entirely unsuited to the agricultural classes, who were accustomed to eat large quantities of bulky food. Every man under hard labour in Class 2, which was the class under which those prisoners would come during the first month of their incarceration, would get only 15 oz. of bread per day, 2 pints of thin gruel, and for dinner on some days 6 oz. of suet pudding; on other days 8 oz. of potatoes, and still on other days, half a pint of soup. Thus, for a man accustomed to eat fully 4 lb. or 5 lb. of bread during the day, they had only 15 oz. of bread, 2 pints of gruel, and less than half-a-pound of suet pudding or potatoes. In effect, they had about 21 oz. of food, and, including the soup or gruel, only 25 oz. of solid food. That diet was entirely insufficient for the class of persons likely to be imprisoned under the Act, and he would ask the Government whether they would not give power to the Lord Lieutenant to make some special exceptions with regard to the diet of those prisoners. Then there was the plank bed. The prisoners would have to sleep on the plank bed for the first month of their imprisonment, without any mattress; they would be forced to lie on the plank bed, which was undoubtedly a form of torture, and which he did not think ought to be sanctioned for any person whatever, and certainly not for the class of persons who would be liable to be committed under the Bill. He objected, therefore, first of all to the insufficiency of food; secondly, to the plank bed; and thirdly, to the solitary confinement. Those persons who were committed under the Bill would be kept through their imprisonment under the separate and solitary system. They would only be allowed one hour for exercise, and, therefore, the remaining 23 would have to be spent in their cells, without being allowed to speak to anyone. Therefore, it came to this, the men brought up with the strictest regard for the law—men who had never violated the law in the slightest way, either in word or deed—were now liable to be brought before a magistrate on suspicion, and sentenced to such punishment as he had described. Anybody in Ireland within a proclaimed district who did not comply with the provisions of that very stringent Bill, would be liable to be imprisoned, and branded for the rest of his life as a felon. He contended there was no reason for refusing the concessions they asked on the point. The Government gave them very fair concessions on the last Bill; and he would take the opportunity of saying that, so far as he knew, those concessions had been carried out in the spirit and letter. No good could be attained by harsh treatment to prisoners. They would do more in Ireland to make their rule repugnant to the masses of the people by setting up martyrs to their treatment than in any other way, and nothing was more likely to create a great deal of dissatisfaction throughout the country than to seize on innocent men, place them in prison, and subject them to a correctional course of treatment such as he had shown they had to endure, and then at the end of their time set them at liberty to become standing preachers of sedition. He, therefore, hoped the Home Secretary would see the expediency of empowering the Lord Lieutenant to see that a milder treatment was adopted under the present Bill.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, a great part of the observations of the hon. Member had consisted of a condemnation of the present system of prison discipline. That was a question which might be open to discussion; but it was not one which he proposed to discuss now. If that prison discipline were bad for offenders under this Bill, it was bad for all offenders; and there was not a single word which the hon. Member had uttered against the measure before the House which might not be stated against a dozen of Statutes which were passed in every Session of Parliament. In short, the argument of the hon. Gentleman was an argument against the administration of all Criminal Law. The hon. Member said that this was an exceptional case. The Government had decided, and the House had confirmed the decision, that it was for the public interest that the Bill should be passed; and if there were persons in Ireland who offended against its provisions, and broke the law with regard to the carrying of arms, those persons must take the consequences. To treat offenders under the Bill in a different way from other offenders against the law would be a fatal political mistake, and would destroy the effect of the measure. The hon. Member had also said that they would condemn to severe treatment a number of people who offended unconsciously; but every precaution had been taken against such a result. If the offence were found to be a very slight one, there would be an equally slight penalty—a shilling or so; and if it were found that there had been no offence at all, there would not only be no punishment, but, under an Amendment which he had placed on the Paper, a man would be actually paid for having given up his arms. In other words, every possible care had been and would be taken that no man should be punished who had not wilfully and deliberately broken a law made in the interest of public safety. He must decline to accept the Amendment.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

strongly urged that the Amendment should be accepted, more particularly as the offence was a purely political one, and was not so much against England as against one particular class. He was of opinion that severity of punishment for political offences never resulted in anything but harm to the cause which it was meant to serve. He contended that the Bill could not be compared with other Acts, because it was constituting that an offence in Ireland which was not an offence in England, and what was innocent one day was to be a crime the next. Legislation such as this would never be accepted by the Irish people.

MR. DAWSON

thought that the Government should temper mercy with justice in the case before them. Ample discretion should be left in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant to relax rules and diminish or remit punishments. Many of the offences committed under the Act could not be moral offences at all, or only in a slight degree, and ought, therefore, to be dealt with leniently. The Irish-speaking people would have information of that Bill being in force very feebly conveyed to them, and it was extremely probable that many poor people would remain for a long time ignorant of it. The 67th section of the Prisons Act of 1877 provided that whenever any person was convicted of misdemeanour and sentenced to imprisonment without hard labour, it should be in the power of the Court to order him to be treated as a first-class misdemeanant. He could not understand why the people imprisoned under this Act should be precluded from such a provision. If the proposed clause were not accepted, the House would have only to take one step more in order to bring back to them the days of torture and the rack.

MR. FINIGAN

said, this Bill was intended to prevent firearms being used in Ireland for illegal purposes. He did not anticipate that many farmers would be arrested, because they would at once give up their arms and obtain the compensation provided. There was a class of young men—farmers' sons for instance—who would not care to give up their sporting rights, and it would be such men who would be arrested. As the Bill was not like the Protection Act, primarily a punishing Bill, everything ought to be done, compatible with the attainment of the objects of the Bill, to alleviate the condition of prisoners under the Bill. The Amendment would give no trouble, and might do much good; and the Government might very gracefully, and with some show of clemency, assent to it. That a man, whose offence might not have the slightest political significance, should be condemned to sleep on a plank bed was wholly inconsistent.

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

pointed out that the section of the Prisons Act of 1877, which had been referred to by the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Dawson), was the 48th, and did not bear the construction sought to be put upon it.

SIR EDWARD WATKIN

thought they were entitled to some answer from the Treasury Bench on the point which had been raised. That was, if the prerogative of mercy were to be given to the Irish Executive, why was it that they declined to allow their own Lord Lieutenant to deal with these cases in a manner consonant with mercy if he saw fit?

MR. T. D. SULLIVAN

said, the English people would not like to be compelled to give up possession of their arms, for which they had a great affection. In this country there were instances of the abuse of the possession of firearms, yet the Legislature did not propose to take the right of bearing arms from the people. In Ireland, immediately upon the passage of this Bill, what was now a legal possession would become a crime punishable by measures of the greatest possible severity. Many men would feel a sense of humiliation in surrendering their arms. He strongly objected to the attempt made by the Home Secretary to abolish all distinction between crimes which would come under the Bill and ordinary crimes. The Government, he held, should not punish a man for the possession of arms in the same manner as the law punished an offender guilty of a shameful crime.

MR. SERJEANT SIMON

observed, that the Amendment was nearly identical with one which he had himself unsuccessfully proposed. The persons who would be subjected to the operation of thin Bill would be respectable men, not ordinary felons, criminals, village tyrants, or dissolute ruffians. He protested against such persons, wrong as they might be in their political views, being forced to undergo the torture of the plank bed. Persons arrested under the Coercion Act would be allowed six hours' association each day; they would be allowed to eat, drink, and smoke as they liked; they would be able to talk treason and Fenianism if they chose—they would be permitted to luxuriate in the day-time. Yet those sent to prison under the provisions of this Bill were to be placed on a plank bed. Surely that was not consistent. He appealed to the right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench to re-consider the matter, and not to subject persons of the class alluded to to the treatment reserved for only the meanest criminals.

MR. BIGGAR

contended that the offences contemplated by this Bill being of a slight character, the punishment attached to them should be more mild in its nature. A man who might have lying somewhere in his house, without knowing it, a pike-head or a part of some other weapon, would be liable under the Bill to be taken before a magistrate and thrown into prison, although he might be perfectly innocent. He would have no power of appeal if his imprisonment were less than a month. He would be subjected to the ordinary prison discipline, made to lie on a plank bed, and exposed to other hardships and privations, which, if he were of a delicate constitution, would injure his health, and perhaps even take away his life. He thought that the persons to be imprisoned under this Bill ought to be treated as first-class misdemeanants; and he could not understand why a harsher prison discipline should be applied to persons coming under the operation of this Bill than was applied to those who were arrested under the Bill previously passed for suspending the Habeas Corpus Act. One of their friends who had just been arrested under the new Coercion Act was, he understood, charged with inciting to murder; and yet he would be entitled to much better treatment during the 18 months for which he might be kept in custody than the person who would be imprisoned for a much shorter period under the present Bill. The offences against which this Bill was directed were political offences, and nothing else, because they were connected with the agitation which had made the landlords and magistrates of Ireland bring that pressure to bear on the Government, in consequence of which they were now legislating under the influence of panic.

MR. LEAMY

was of opinion that the sting would be taken out of the Bill if this clause was incorporated in the measure. The Irish people would never look on persons arrested under this Bill as criminals, but would regard them as political offenders, who ought not to be tortured in prison by plank beds. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would respond to the appeal which had been made to him, and sanction this clause.

MR. J. N. RICHARDSON

said, that persons might, from inertia or laziness, not surrender the arms in their possession; and if they did not, and their premises were searched and the arms discovered, they would under this Bill be considered as criminals. Any person having arms and doing wrong with them should be punished; but he hoped that the Home Secretary would be able to grant some concession in reference to this clause.

MR. M'COAN

said, the supporters of the clause simply asked the Home Secretary to consent to persons arrested under this Bill having some comfort in the shape of bedding, having freer intercourse with their relations, and the possibility where they could of buying better food. He congratulated the Irish people upon the fact that this Bill passed through the hands of the Home Secretary, and not through the less merciful hands of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. He hoped the Home Secretary would make the final concession now asked for.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 37; Noes 201: Majority 164.—(Div. List, No. 143.)

MR. SPEAKER

It is now my duty, in obedience to the Orders of the House, to put forthwith the several Clauses and Amendments on the Notice Paper. There are six clauses standing in the name of the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell). The first of these clauses I should consider it my duty to the House not to put, because it clearly could not be entertained by the House. The second, third, and fourth, providing for licences being granted on production of a certificate by two justices of the peace, for the keeping of a register of licences under the Act, and for the treating of prisoners as first-class misdemeanants, are identical with those which have been moved by the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan) and dealt with by the House. The 6th clause, referring to the treatment of prisoners, is also substantially the same as one proposed by the hon. Member for Louth, and which has been divided upon. I will now proceed to put the 5th clause of the hon. Member for Dungarvan, which provides for the suspension of ejectments. If the hon. Member is not in his place to move it, it would be irregular in me to put it.

MR. FINIGAN

I rise to Order. [Cries of "Order, order!"] I rise, Sir, to a point of Order. I wish to ask you whether, when the course of Business takes this form of urgency, it is usual at this stage to call upon hon. Members either to move or not to move the Amendments in their names?

MR. A. M. SULLIVAN

I wish to ask you, Sir, whether, as a matter of fact, the direction under which you are now proceeding from the House is, not that the hon. Members shall thereupon move the Motions which stand in their names, but that you shall put them from the Chair? If the direction were that they should thereupon be moved, no doubt it would be quite clear; but I beg to submit to you, Sir, that if the hon. Member for Dungarvan were in his place you would not call upon him to move—that, in point of fact, the direction is, not that the Clauses and Amendments shall be moved, but that they shall be put from the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER

The general Rule of the House is quite clear. No clause can be moved except by the hon. Member who has given Notice of it,

MR. CALLAN

I rise to Order. [Cries of "Order, order!"]

MR. SPEAKER

The next Amendment on the Paper——

MR. CALLAN (still standing)

I have said, Sir, that I rose to Order. [Renewed cries of "Order, order!"]

MR. SPEAKER

I am carrying out the directions of the House; and, so long as I am carrying out the directions of the House, I shall consider any interruptions as disorder. The next Amendment on the Paper stands in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan). It is substantially the same as that of the hon. Member for Louth, which has been already dealt with by the House. The next Amendment on the Paper is that of the right hon. Gentleman who has charge of the Bill (Sir William Harcourt). It is proposed to amend the Bill by inserting, in Clause 1, page 1, line 8, which prohibits the having or carrying of arms, after the words "any person carrying or having," these words "or reasonably suspected of carrying or having arms or ammunition." The Question I have to put is that these words be inserted.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made.

MR. SPEAKER

The next Amendment is in the name of the hon. Member for Dungarvan, Clause 5, page 3, line 8. The hon. Member is not here. At the same time, I am bound to say that it is open to any other hon. Member to move the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 8, to leave out the words "a divisional justice," and insert the words "two divisional justices."—(Mr. Parnell.)

Question put, "That the words 'a divisional justice' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided:—Ayes 265; Noes 34: Majority 231.—(Div. List, No. 144.)

MR. SPEAKER

said, the next two Amendments placed on the Paper by the hon. Member for Dungarvan were dependent on the preceding Amendment, which had just been negatived, and could not, therefore, be put. The next Amendment of the hon. Member proposed to add certain words which were included in the first clause of the hon. Member for Louth, and had been already rejected by the House.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, at end of Clause 5, to add the words "but nothing in this Act shall prevent the person charged, if he himself desire it, from having the option of being returned for trial before a jury."—(Mr. Finigan.)

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

The House divided:—Ayes 36; Noes 267: Majority 231.—(Div. List, No. 145.)

MR. SPEAKER

said, the next two Amendments on Clause 5, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell), could not be put, because the first was substantially the same as the Amendment which had just been negatived by the House, and the second was inconsistent with the provisions of the Bill already agreed to. With regard to Clause 6, there was an Amendment in the name of the same hon. Gentlemen, which he would put if any other hon. Member would move it in the absence of the hon. Member for Dungarvan.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 15, after the word "being," to insert the words "the term 'proclaimed district' shall mean any county, county of a city, county of a town, or any barony, baronies, half-barony, or half-baronies, in any county at large, in any district of less extent, to which the provisions of the Peace Preservation Act are declared to apply, by proclamation under the said Act, so long as such proclamation shall be in force."—(Mr. Parnell.)

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

The House divided:—Ayes 36; Noes 268: Majority 232.—(Div. List, No. 146.)

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 17, to leave out from the word "also," to the word "defined," in line 18, both inclusive.—(Mr. Parnell.)

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

The House divided:—Ayes 275; Noes 35: Majority 240.—(Div. List, No. 147.)

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 18, after the word "defined," to insert the words "unless it can be shown that such portions of weapons are unserviceable and useless."—(Mr. O'Donnell.)

Question put, "That those words be there inserted." The House divided:—Ayes 35; Noes 273: Majority 238.—(Div. List, No. 148.)

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 19, to leave out all the words after the word "gunpowder," to end of Clause.'—(Mr. Healy.)

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

The House divided:—Ayes 271; Noes 30: Majority 241.—(Div. List, No. 149.)

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 24, to leave out from the word "the," to the end of Clause 8, and insert the words "thirtieth day of September, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-two."—(Mr. O'Donnell.)

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

The House divided:—Ayes 244; Noes 38: Majority 206.—(Div. List, No. 150.)

MR. SPEAKER

The remaining Amendments on the Paper cannot be put, because they have been practically disposed of by the division which has just taken place. I have now to call upon the right hon. Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt) to state what course he proposes to take in regard to the Bill.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

Naturally, the next stage of the Bill would have been to propose the third reading; but I entered into an undertaking with hon. Members that I would make a proposal to the House in respect of compensation with reference to arms which may be voluntarily given up. I propose, further, to extend the proposal to the case of persons who, not having voluntarily given them up, may be proved to have held them back under circumstances which may not appear to have been wilful. I have been desirous of giving the largest scope I could to the proposal. If hon. Members will look at what I propose to add to the 1st clause, they will see that I have endeavoured to do even more than I engaged to do. One of the complaints of hon. Members is that these arms are taken away from the people under the Arms Act, that they are not taken care of, that they could not be identified, that they could not be reclaimed, and that when the period for keeping them from them had expired, they were neither able to get their arms or the money they were estimated to be worth. The House will see that in my proposal I have made provision, under the direction of the Lord Lieutenant, for the deposit, the registration, the value, and the care of arms. The provision applies, of course, only to arms which are given up voluntarily—of course, if any are kept in defiance of the Statute they will be forfeited. Those which are voluntarily given up under the cirstances to which I have referred will be taken into the possession of the Crown, by whom they are to be taken care of, and, as a general rule, to return them, when the proclamation ceases to be in force, to their former owners. It was, however, put strongly by hon. Gentlemen opposite that as the proclamation might remain in force for some time the arms might suffer, and that, consesequently, an injury might be inflicted upon the persons so giving up the arms. Accordingly, I have given the option to the Lord Lieutenant, in order to prevent the necessity of taking care of useless arms, or of arms that would become useless by being kept, of placing upon them a money value, and of allowing the owners to obtain the value of their arms in money. The original proposition that I made to the House was only to pay the value in cases where the arms were not restored. The proposal which I have now to make goes a good deal further, and I believe that such a proposal would have a great tendency to carry out the object of the Bill—that is, to induce people voluntarily to give up their arms. I hope the House will acknowledge that the Government have fulfilled the pledge they made on the subject. But this being a money clause, hon. Members will be aware that it is necessary to go through the formality of re-committing the Bill. We have had a protracted struggle over the Bill, and I hope I may make an appeal to the good feeling, and, if I may say so, to the sense of honour, of hon. Members opposite, that they will not take advantage of the technical Motion I am about to make in order to give effect to a clause which is to carry out the wish they have expressed, and the pledge which the Government have given, for the purpose of further prolonging these wearisome proceedings. I have great confidence that my appeal will be responded to by hon. Members. Having made that appeal to them, I have now to move— That the Bill be re-committed in respect of the Amendment to Clause 1, relating to Compensation, now standing upon the Notice Paper.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be re-committed in respect of the Amendment to Clause 1, relating to Compensation, now standing upon the Notice Paper."—(Sir William Harcourt.)

MR. PARNELL

said, he was sure that none of the Irish Members would desire to take advantage of the fact that the agreement entered into by the Government rendered it necessary to recommit the Bill; but, at the same time, he wished to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that in moving an Amendment to the Motion which the right hon. Gentleman had just made in respect to a matter which he (Mr. Parnell) would shortly explain, he would not be taking any advantage of the Motion which the right hon. Gentleman now made for the re-committal of the Bill, because he should have made it in any case on the third reading of the Bill. He proposed to move as an Amendment to add to the Motion which the right hon. Gentleman had just made— And also an Amendment to the 8th clause, so as to limit the continuance of the Act to the first day of June, 1884. This was a Motion which he should in any case have moved on the third reading of the Bill, and to carry out the object he had in view it would have been necessary to re-commit the measure. The question he wished to raise was one which he had not hitherto been able to raise in the shape of a debate upon any of the stages of the Bill. He was debarred from raising it on the Committee stage by the course which the House decided upon adopting, and from the same cause he had also been debarred from raising it on the stage of Report through which they had just gone. It was not, therefore, from a desire to prolong the proceedings on the Bill, or to enter into any factious opposition, that he now felt it necessary to raise the question, but because hitherto it had been found impossible to raise it by debate. He thanked every hon. Member who had helped the Irish Members in the part they had taken in opposing the measure. They had done all they could to prevent the coercion of Ireland; and he felt convinced that none of them would have cause to reproach themselves in the future with having left any stone unturned, or anything undone, to prevent their country from having this coercion placed upon it. But the question he now raised was one upon which he desired to make a last appeal to the Government. They had had a division recently on the question of limiting the duration of the Bill—to a period, he thought, of a year and a-half. The proposal he wished to submit would practically limit its duration to something like three years and two months—the question being between 1886 and 1884. It would, he thought, be a graceful act on the part of Her Majesty's Government if they would include this concession among the others they had made to the Irish Members and to the Irish people. He certainly hoped that by the time the year 1884 arrived the Irish Question would have been solved in some way or other—either that Her Majesty's Government would have been able to persuade the Irish people of their ability to govern Ireland in the House of Commons, or that the Irish Members, on the other hand, would have been able to persuade Parliament that it was only proper to restore to them the right of ruling Ireland on the shores of their native country. Surely, then, the year 1884 was long enough for such an enactment to last; and, no matter what the issue of the next few years might be, he trusted that the Government would not think that those few years were not sufficient to decide how Ireland was to be ruled, and what course should be taken in future. He was sure they would not enter into the next few years with any idea that it would be necessary to keep Ireland permanently disarmed, or even for five years. Surely, three years and two months were quite sufficient for such a purpose. The late Government re-enacted the old Coercion Act for a period of five years. He would ask a Liberal Government not to be as hard as they were, and not to be so little convinced of their own power to conciliate the Irish people to English rule; but to accept the proposal which he now made, that the continuance of the Bill should only last until the 1st of June, 1884.

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, To add at end thereof the words "and also in respect to an Amendment to Clause 8, to limit the continuance of the Act to the first day of June, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-four."—(Mr. Parnell.)

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

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

I must say that I do heartily wish I could respond to the appeal of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell); but I will tell him in a very few words why I cannot do so. The last Government, as he says, in 1875, passed an Act which contained these provisions, and others, with reference to the preservation of peace in Ireland. I think no man can dispute that in the year 1875, when that Bill was passed, Ireland was in a less disturbed state than it is at the present moment, and has been for the last six months. The hon. Member appeals to us to make an experiment as to whether or not three years will be sufficient to enable us to dispense with a measure of this character. Now, I have had to refer to the fact that we have made that experiment. We thought, at the expiration of five years from 1875, we would try whether or not Ireland could do without an Arms Bill. That experiment has now been tried for nearly 12 months, and I am obliged to repeat again, what I said yesterday, that, in my opinion, that experiment has failed. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Hear, hear!] The noble Lord rejoices that it has failed. I regret that it has failed. I think that, as a Liberal Government, we were bound, under the circumstances, to make that experiment, and I am not ashamed of the fact that we made it. But, having made that experiment, and believing that the circumstances of Ireland are more grave now than they were in 1875, what we had to consider was whether we were to expose this Parliament again to the process through which, during the last two months, it has been going. Now, Sir, as far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned, they will not expose this Parliament again to the necessity of proposing an Arms Bill. The duration of the present Bill is accordingly made five years, so that, having in view the ordinary life of a Parliament, it will belong to another Parliament to deal with the question, and not to this Parliament. It appears to me that that is a reasonable and a sound ground to take. I think this House feels, and I think the country feels, that there are other matters to deal with besides the constant renewal of Arms Bills. It is, no doubt, perfectly true that in former times a measure of this kind was enacted only for a single year. That is true of the much more severe Act of 1847. But then you must remember this—that although these Acts were enacted for only brief periods, it was found necessary continually to repeat them, and that from 1847 down to the year 1880 there has always been an Arms Bill for Ireland. [The IRISH MEMBERS: Hear, hear!] Yes, that is a lamentable fact. I regret it as much as hon. Members do; but I differ from them in the judgment which they form of the necessity of such legislation. If that be so, if the majority of the House of Commons, and of Parliament, have found it necessary for 33 years constantly to re-enact measures of this character, what reasonable ground. I would ask, can you allege for supposing that if you were to pass this Bill for a brief term that you would not be called upon repeatedly to renew it? In old days it was the practice to introduce similar measures for short terms. Now, while I do not wish to speak offensively of hon. Members opposite—the language which has been addressed to me by them to-night has been too considerate to allow of my doing so—I must remind them, and I must remind the House, that in former days the opposition to measures of that character was conducted in a very different manner. That is an element, and a very necessary and essential element, in the consideration of this question. In former days, hon. Members who were in a minority, after having made a decent and a resolute protest against a measure, were content to accept the decision of the majority of the House of Commons; and under these circumstances, when the Government came forward with a Bill of this kind, it might be year by year, and laid before Parliament a case that was considered adequate, they were able to feel convinced that within a reasonable period the renewal of such a measure as this might be obtained. I think I am. justified in saying that now there can be no similar expectation, and to whatever period you may postpone this Bill, you make it a brief period if you like, but you will be certain to be met on its renewal by similar resistance. ["Hear, hear!"] I am glad to find that hon. Members opposite agree with me, at all events, in that proposition. It is for that reason that I do not feel justified in proposing, in this Parliament, at an early period, to take up again the consideration of an Arms Bill for Ireland.

MR. HERMON

said, that as the only English Member who had an Amendment on the Paper limiting the duration of the Bill to 1E84, he trusted that the House would allow him to say a few words. He was sorry that the Home Secretary had thought it his duty to decide the question so promptly, because he thought the Bill might well have been limited to three years. He know there were many English Members who were of the opinion, and the right hon. Gentleman had found out a method by which Bills of this nature could be passed in a shorter time than was the case at the beginning of the Session. The Home Secretary's arguments would apply to the Coercion Bill, which was only to be in force one year, and if it became necessary to renew that measure there would be some contention over it, as there had been already. He trusted that the powers already taken by the Government would work reform in the state of affairs in Ireland, and he could not help expressing his belief that had the Government made use earlier of the existing law measures of the present kind would have been unnecessary.

MR. MONK

would have been sorry had the House gone to a division without one Member on that side of the House rising to express regret that Her Majesty's Government was not able to listen to the proposal made by Irish Members opposite. He thought the Home Secretary had not sufficiently taken into consideration the measure which had already been passed by Her Majesty's Government with regard to Ireland. He had, however, reason to hope that long before the end of this Parliament Ireland would be a happy and contented country, and that there would be no necessity, in the year 1884, of renewing the Arms Bill. He could only express on the part of some hon. Members on that side of the House their regret that the Government could not accede to the proposed Amendment.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, he always turned to Hansard for the opinions of distinguished men. Accordingly he found in April, 1875, when a discussion occurred precisely similar to the present, that on the 29th of that month an oration was delivered by that champion of freedom, the present Home Secretary. The proposal was then as now to limit the duration of the Arms Bill, and the right hon. Gentleman on the occasion, said— He had not heard from the Chief Secretary for Ireland any sufficient reason for suspending the rights of the character dealt with by the Bill for so long a period as five years. Former Governments in asking for such powers had acted upon a plain Constitutional principle which the present Government—and for the first time—asked the House to depart from. That principle was that the responsible Government of the day should, from time to time, state to the House of Commons that there was an absolute necessity for the granting of the powers for which they asked. The right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland had reviewed the history of Ireland for nearly a century; but he had failed to show that any administration—Liberal or Conservative—had ever made a proposal similar to the present. The argument of the right hon. Baronet in its favour would apply with equal cogency to the English Mutiny Act. That was an annual Act. Well, it was not likely that Her Majesty's Government had it in contemplation to dissolve the Army within the next five years; but what would the House say to a proposal to continue the Mutiny Act for five years? Such a proposition would not be entertained for a moment. Upon principle, and in accordance with precedent, it would be most objectionable that any Bill suspending important rights of Her Majesty's subjects should be allowed to continue for so long a period as that suggested by Her Majesty's Government. If two years were sufficient in 1847 and 1848, and in the most disturbed times in Ireland, surely a like period would be sufficient now. It was no argument to tell the House of Commons that the Government did not mean to execute the powers which they sought to obtain. The liberty of the subject had never been made dependent on the discretion of any Government. The House had shown no disposition to support Her Majesty's Government during the progress of the Bill, but he must vote against the present proposal unless a much stronger reason was given for departing from established precedent than had yet been advanced."—[3Hansard, ccxxiii. 1838–9.] Truly the case of Irish Members was stated on that occasion by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary with admirable force. After him another champion of freedom (Mr. Goschen) got up and declared that he was in favour of the great Liberal principle of defending the rights of the people even against the best of Governments. The right hon. Gentleman had more than once reminded the House that there was a vast distinction between the circumstances of Ireland in 1875 and 1881. Of course there was, and the difference lay in the fact that Her Majesty's then Opposition were now Her Majesty's Government. In giving his support to the Amendment, he wished to state, that to his mind, the debates which had taken place had been extremely instructive with regard to the principles of Liberal Administrations.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 57; Noes 208: Majority 151.—(Div. List, No. 151.)

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Bill re-committed; considered in Committee.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

I propose to add to Clause 1, page 1, the following Clause:— Any arms or ammunition in the possession of persons not entitled to have the same which shall, within a period to be fixed by the proclaclamation hereinafter mentioned, be given up voluntarily, or taken under such circumstances as shall prove to the satisfaction of the Lord Lieutenant that they have not been wilfully kept back, shall be deemed to be in the possession of Her Majesty, and provision shall be made in such proclamation for the deposit, registration, valuation, and care of the same; and such arms and ammunition shall be returned to the owners thereof whenever the proclamation relating thereto shall cease to be in force: Provided, That, at any time, the Lord Lieutenant may, instead of keeping and returning the arms and ammunition aforesaid, if he think fit, pay to the owners of the same the value thereof, as ascertained in the manner provided by the proclamation, or the owners thereof may demand payment of such value, and such payments may be made out of moneys to be provided by Parliament.

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

MR. HEALY

suggested the substitution of the word "shall" for "can."

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

My intention is that the owner may always have the money, instead of the arms, if he chooses. As to the Lord Lieutenant, he may offer the money; but he is not obliged to do so.

MR. PARNELL

Would not that be at the end of the five years?

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

At any time—" Provided at any time—"

MR. PARNELL

On the application of the owner?

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

The Lord Lieutenant may offer money and keep the arms, and the owner may "at any time demand."

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

pointed out that this new clause, for which the Home Secretary had taken such enormous credit, and over which he had covered himself and his Colleagues with such attributes of generosity, was entirely due to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), who had suggested it to the Government.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, it appeared to him that the option rested with the Lord Lieutenant, and not with the owner.

Question put, and agreed to.

House resumed.

Bill reported; as amended, considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.