Commons Sitting of 1 July 1882

Preamble
MR. MARUMpointed out that according to the framework of the Act all occupiers of hereditaments would be called upon to pay this tax. The Government proposed that the tax should be payable when a murder or other crime was of an agrarian character or arose out of an unlawful association; but there was nothing in regard to agrarian offences in the Preamble. Might it not be that the crime could be traced to people who were not occupiers of hereditaments, as, for instance, in the case of the deplorable murder in Phœnix Park? That was believed not to have proceeded from agrarian causes, and it had been frequently said that such murders were due to foreign sources. If that was so, why should the occupiers or owners of land be called upon exclusively to pay for crimes which were not derivable from agrarian disputes? In a town there would probably be very few occupiers, but there might be very many artizans and others who took a prominent part in organizations of an

1025
unlawful description, and yet occupiers of land would be responsible for crimes proceeding from such associations. In his judgment, the Home Secretary had failed to justify the proposal to make the occupiers of hereditaments and laud pay for crime over which they had no control.
MR. BYRNEsaid, he could not help thinking that the clause as it stood would operate very hardly upon a class of tenants, some of whom were poor and even receiving out-door relief. He was astonished to hear the Home Secretary say the Irish Members did not understand this question at all, and that it was a question not of money, but of mutual guarantee or guarantor. As he understood it, what was mutual ought to apply to rich and poor alike, to tenant and landlord equally; but unless the clause was amended it would inflict the greatest hardship and suffering on poor people, and would leave the rich untouched. The wise course would be to take advantage of this Amendment, and so alter the clause that the landlord should allow to the tenant one-half of the tax, or that, at all events, people entitled to receive outdoor relief should be exempted.
DR. COMMINSsaid, everyone knew that at the root of the agrarian crimes lay the abuse of power by the Irish landlords. This Bill was supposed to be a preventive measure; but he believed it would not operate in that way, unless it went to the core of the question and dealt with the excessive use of power by the landlords.
THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Member knows exactly what the Amendment is; it is very simple, and he must speak directly to it.
DR. COMMINSsaid, the Amendment was that the rate to be levied should be divided equally between landlord and tenant. Hon. Members seemed to be ignorant of the Irish Poor Law. Under the Poor Law half the rates were deductable from the money due to the landlord; and if half this new tax was to be paid by the landlords, they would be restrained from using their legal rights in a manner which had led to one-half of the crimes committed. It was said that because landlords used their legal rights to evict crimes had been committed.
THE CHAIRMAN: The time has come when I must seriously draw the
1026
attention of the Committee to the very prolonged mode in which these debates are being carried on; and I trust the Committee will support me in my efforts to confine the speeches of hon. Members strictly to the Amendments.
DR. COMMINSsaid, he did not wish to deviate in the slightest degree from the question, or to repeat a single argument already used; but he thought that in order to prevent the abuse of legal rights by the landlords the Committee should make it their interest not to abuse their rights, by making them liable to the same proportion of this tax as of the poor rate. They would then refrain from acting in what the Chief Secretary had called a cruel and unpatriotic manner. If the avowed purpose of this Bill was to be attained, and the measure was to be punitive and preventive, there should be no exemptions made, and certainly none which would leave the foundation of Irish crime altogether untouched.
MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, he wished to point out a consideration in connection with this Amendment which had not yet been advanced. He had always endeavoured to avoid repeating arguments which had already been used, especially when they had been much better put than he could put them. But the point he wished to put was this—if the landlords were compelled to bear a portion of this tax, they would be discouraged from unnecessarily asking for an increased police force; while if no such check was imposed upon them, they would be very free to ask for any number of extra police, well knowing that they would be free from liability for the expense. That liability would also have this effect—it would go to some extent towards teaching those gentlemen to be-have themselves; it would teach Irish, landlords that they had better try to get upon good terms with the people, and not excite exasperation and ill-feeling by harsh conduct and demeanour, and that it would be better for their pecuniary interests to cultivate relations of peace and goodwill towards the people. If they were exempted from the incidence of this tax, they would be constantly asking for more and more police to give them courage—which a good many of them needed—and to enable them to act hardly and severely on individuals in the locality towards whom they had no

1027
good feeling. He thought that was a fair argument in favour of the Amendment, and he wished to put it before the highly receptive mind of the Home Secretary, who was always so very willing to accept reasonable Amendments from that quarter of the House.
MR. METGEregarded the Amendment as specially strong in regard to the interest which landlords, equally with tenants, had in the detection of crime. It was very strong, because of the effect it would undoubtedly have in respect to the landlords themselves; and he had no doubt that the landlords were largely responsible for the present state of things in Ireland. They had been condemned out of the mouths of Members of the Government for their action during the last few years. This Amendment would act as a restriction on the landlords as well as the tenants, and that was really the whole object of the clause. The Government had refused to exempt other classes of persons from the Bill, such as clergymen and doctors, and why should they exempt landlords in cases where crimes could be traced actually to their action? In the last few days there had been a Corporation formed by landlords in Ireland; that Corporation would directly conduce to the commission of crime.
SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGGrose to Order, and asked whether the hon. Member's observation had anything to do with the question?
THE CHAIRMAN: It has nothing whatever to do with the question. This Corporation is repeatedly brought in where it has no reference to the subject, and I must ask the hon. Member to keep closely to the question before the Committee.
MR. HEALYrose to the point of Order.
THE CHAIRMAN: The point of Order is settled.
MR. METGEsaid, his object was to show that this Amendment should be adopted. If the Government wished to put down crime the clause should be used equally, and the landlords had instituted a Corporation which would increase crime—
THE CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member persists in what I have already told him is irregular, I must take other steps.
MR. METGEsaid, he did not wish to discuss the criminal class in Ireland.
SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGGasked whether the hon. Member had a right to talk of the landlords in Ireland as the criminal class?
THE CHAIRMAN: Is the hon. Member about to go on with his argument in that way?
MR. METGEreplied, that he would say no more about the subject; but, in regard to the Amendment, he thought he was in Order in saying that, as the clause stood, the landlords were practically exempted from all penalties to which they ought really to be equally liable with the tenants. The Home Secretary said he wished to bring punishment home to the men who occupied land; and then he said landlords, being to a certain extent occupiers of land, would come within the clause. That might be so; but there was in the Act a clause providing that the Lord Lieutenant might exempt any specified portion of an area or any specified rateable property in such area; and anyone who knew how such arrangements were made, would know that it was absurd to talk of the landlords being taxed. The Lord Lieutenant would not decide that a district was to be charged so much without having obtained some evidence showing that the penalty should be imposed; but how would he obtain that evidence? He would obtain it directly from the landlords, the very class who ought to be included, and who, if included, would have a strong reason for mitigating the charge as much as possible. Something had been said about the charge being in some cases exorbitant; and a case had been mentioned in which £500 was levied on a district where a man had his hat knocked off. That might be an exaggerated case, but he knew of a case just as trifling, in which a heavy charge had been imposed. If the men who were to collect the evidence upon which the charges were to be imposed were themselves made liable in some measure for the amount levied, they would use certain discretion in respect to their evidence. An hon. Member (Mr. O'Sullivan) had said that a strong opinion prevailed in Ireland that the terrible crime which had shocked the whole country was instigated by the landlord and Orange classes in Ireland. He did not wish to support that view, but such opinions did strongly and largely prevail; and when such a feeling existed, and a

1029
blood tax was levied on the people, and they were separated by hard-and-fast lines from the class whom they believed to be equally responsible for the crimes committed, the effect would be to drive the people further away from any effort to assist in detecting the perpetrators of crimes. For these and other reasons he urged the Committee to accept the Amendment.
MR. GILLsaid, that although every allusion made to the conduct of landlords, from the disagreeable point of view, was opposed by hon. Members, he felt himself bound to bring forward another reason why this tax should be levied on the landlords. There had been some very eminent authorities quoted as to the harsh, cruel, and unpatriotic character of the landlords. In a recently-issued Pastoral, the Cardinal Archbishop of Dublin had condemned, in the strongest terms, the terrible crimes which were disgracing Ireland, and he said every Christian and every honest man should condemn them. His words were—
"No words of defence can be offered for the deeds of oppression which in some districts are driving our poor and unhappy people to desperation and ruin; but, on the other hand, no words of reprobation are strong enough to denounce the horrid deeds of vengeance which are making our country a bye-word among civilized nations by the one class as well as by the other."
The same authority said—
"There is unfortunately too much reason to fear that many of our people are at this moment inveigled by the emissaries of revolution into these fatal combinations, where they become the slaves of unknown tyrants, and where at any moment they may be called upon to perpetrate the most hideous crimes."
THE CHAIRMAN: The Cardinal Archbishop's Pastoral is not applicable to this Amendment.
MR. GILLsaid, he thought that upon this Amendment it was fair to argue that the landlords ought to bear their share of the tax, and that was the exact point he was arguing. The Cardinal Archbishop said these people were being inveigled into secret societies, and he wanted to argue that the imposition of this tax on the people would still further inveigle the people into those societies. If they saw that the law was altogether against them, and they had nothing to hope for from it, what respect could they be expected to have for the law? If this Amendment was not car-
1030
ried, and the tax was put entirely on the poor people instead of being shared by the landlords, it would drive hundreds who had hitherto trusted the law into secret societies, and they would be driven to commit crimes in order to obtain the justice which the law would not give them.
MR. HEALYsaid, that up to that time the proceedings in Committee had been conducted with something like quietude, and there was no intention on the part of himself and his hon. Friends to proceed in any other way, no matter how long the Government carried the matter on. They found, however, that they were constantly interrupted by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and no one had been able to get a word out without the hon. Member for Old-ham (Mr. Lyulph Stanley), who got into Parliament through the Irish vote, shouting "Order, order!"
THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Gentleman intend to speak on the Amendment?
MR HEALYsaid, he did; but he wished to appeal to the Committee to cease making noises until the arguments of hon. Members had reached them.
THE CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member does not intend to speak on the Amendment he must not rise to it.
MR. HEALYsaid, he had heard a similar expression used before during the debates; but if the time had now arrived when it was not to be used he would not repeat it. But if the Government desired to make progress he would ask them to consider that this Amendment was put forward for a special purpose. He was not going into the merits of the Amendment, but he hoped the Committee would proceed calmly and rationally, without interruption to speakers.
MR. LEAMYasked how the Government could expect to get a tax of this kind from tenants who had the utmost difficulty in paying their rents? The Government stated that their object in imposing this tax was to some extent to punish tenants, because, he supposed, they believed the tenants sympathized with crime, and had not given that assistance which the Government thought they ought to give in detecting the real offenders. But surely there was a difference between punishing and crushing a man, and the Government would over-do

1031
their work if they imposed too heavy a burden on the people. Some Members of the Government had said that the disturbance in Ireland had arisen from the fact that tenants were burdened with excessive rents which they were unable to pay; that, in the last Parliament, an Act was passed in the interests of law and order; that not only was the Peace Preservation Act necessary to put down crime, but to strike at the root of crime; and when the Government proposed to impose this heavy tax, they were overdoing it, because if agrarian crime was rife through the misery and distress caused by heavy rack rents, surely if this tax was added to their rents, the rents, even if reduced by the Land Court, would be brought up to the level of the old rack rents. In that case the same spirit of ill will to the landlords, and the same misery and crime which was said to have sprung from distress, would again become rife in Ireland. No matter how fairly the Lord Lieutenant might desire to act in the imposition of this charge, and no matter how fairly the local authorities might desire to discharge their duties, it was inevitable that, in many cases, men who had no sympathy with crime, and were as innocent of crime as any man in that House, would have to bear this severe burden. Although the Chief Secretary had described 10 s. in the pound as an extravagant sum which the Lord Lieutenant was not likely to impose, it must be borne in mind that not only could the Lord Lieutenant impose a charge for compensation for outrages to persons, but also for additional police; and an additional charge might be levied under the Malicious Injuries Act for the burning of a house. Therefore, it would be possible to have three imposts on a tenant who was perfectly innocent of participation in any crime out of which a charge arose. He might have to pay compensation for personal injury, for additional police, and a charge under the Malicious Injuries Act for injury to property. Therefore, the Government ought not to impose too big a burden on innocent tenants. If it were certain that this charge would only strike guilty tenants, it would be right enough; but unless the Lord Lieutenant possessed supernatural powers, it would be impossible for him to select men who participated in crime by screening the guilty
1032
men. When this Bill became law, it would happen in any districts where injuries were done to persons there would be injuries to property, and, in consequence, the rents would be brought up practically to the old rack rents, which the tenants would have no means of paying. He did not believe the Government intended to bring about such a state of things that tenants must either fail to pay their rents, or fail to pay the State. If they failed to pay the State, the State could distrain upon their goods; and then, if the State took away their cattle or ploughs, they would be unable to work, and in that way they would be unable to pay their rents. When men found themselves in a hopeless position, it was impossible not to conceive that they might be driven to desperation. No idea could be formed as to the amount of the tax, and it was very likely that next year Parliament would be appealed to on behalf of a large number of tenants who had been borne down by an excessive tax; and then another appeal might be necessary to relieve the tenants in the same way as the Government now proposed by the Arrears Bill. If the Government thought that 60,000 or 100,000 tenants were so much in arrear that this country should pay half their arrears to enable them to begin afresh, this was hardly the time to pass a law which would impose so heavy a burden upon the people that next year Parliament might be asked to pay that burden for the people.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 26; Noes 159: Majority 133.—(Div. List, No. 203.) [1.0 A.M.
THE CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment is in the name of Colonel Nolan. It is to insert, after the word "thereof," in line 38—
"Any person who is liable to pay a rent in respect of any premises in any such district may deduct from such rent one half of the sum which he has paid for such addditional constabulary in compensation on account of such premises."
This Amendment cannot be put because it is governed by an Amendment just passed.
The next Amendment is in the name of Mr. Healy, and it is to insert, after the word "thereof," in line 38, "Provided, That such district shall not be less

1033
in area than the barony in which it is situate." That Amendment, also, cannot be put, because it has already been decided that there may be a portion of a barony subjected to tax.
MR. HEALYthen moved to insert, after the word "thereof," in page 8, line 38, "in occupation at the date when such charge is applotted." He apprehended there would be no objection to this Amendment.
Amendment proposed,
In page 8, line 38, after the word "thereof," to insert the words "in occupation at the date when such charge is applotted."—(Mr. Healy.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, the Government could not accept the Amendment, for the charge was one made upon the land, and not upon the occupier.
Mr. COURTNEYin the Chair. [1.5 A.M.
MR. HEALYsaid, they ought to get a statement whether absentees were going to be charged this tax or not. In the case of men who were not on the spot when the crime was alleged to have been committed, were the Government going to hold such men liable? His point was this—that if there was no one in the occupation of the land at the time the crime was committed, it could not possibly be said there was any guilty party on the spot. How could it be said that a man had any guilty knowledge if he was not present? Unless the Government had made up their minds to refuse every Amendment that was put forward, he asked them how they could, as reasonable men, tax a person who was not in the occupation of the land at the time the crime was committed?
MR. LEAMYsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to think that if this Amendment was accepted it would possibly have the effect of inducing a man who was in possession of a farm, and who feared he would be called upon to pay this tax, to get rid of his farm, and so escape payment. It must be borne in mind that a man could not get rid of his farm since the Land Act of last year so easily as the right hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to imagine. Under the Land Act of last year they all knew that the rents were
1034
being reduced, and that the farms would become so valuable that a man would not, in order to escape the mere incidence of taxation—which might be only 6d. or 1s. in the pound, and must be only temporary—a man would not be induced to give up his farm, and would not be induced to look about for some party to buy his farm. It was necessary that the Government should give some bonâ fide reason for refusing the Amendment, which appeared to him a very fair and sensible one.
MR. HEALYtrusted that the Attorney General for Ireland would reconsider this point. Did the right hon. and learned Gentleman mean to say that if a man was not in occupation of a farm at the time a crime was committed he was to be taxed? He would put it to the Attorney General for Ireland in this way. Suppose that a man assigned to somebody else his land, and that somebody else did not know that a crime had been committed in the district, it could not be held that the assignee had committed the crime? The words of the Home Secretary a moment ago were that he was anxious to make the inhabitants of a district the guarantors of its security. Was he going to make the guarantor of a district a man who was not there at all? This was a matter in which he (Mr. Healy) supposed the Attorney General for Ireland had advised the Home Secretary, and surely he would not so badly advise the right hon. and learned Gentleman as to say that a man in his absence should be fined. He could not see what object the Government could have in refusing an Amendment of this kind, and the Attorney General for Ireland need not think that by speaking for half-a-minute he would get rid of the Amendment. Let them take the case of a man who had saved a little money in America, that this Act existed from June, l880, and that the crime was committed on the 1st July, 1880, and supposing a man bought the occupancy of a farm without ever having been in the district at all, the argument of the Government was that this new man, who, it might be, had not been within 100 miles of the farm in question, was to pay this police fine. If that was the kind of decision the Attorney General for Ireland would give when he was elevated to the Irish Bench, he (Mr. Healy) could not congratulate

1035
the litigants who would come before him.
MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he was really astonished at the attitude of the Attorney General for Ireland. It surely would not be held reasonable and just that a man coming to a district before the commission of a crime and the applotment of the tax should be called upon to pay the charge. The Home Secretary now took refuge in silence, but he had said a short time ago that the Government wanted to make the recent occupiers interested pecuniarily in the detection of crime. The Irish Members were willing to take the right hon. and learned Gentleman at his own word. They said fine the resident occupiers, but do not fine those who were not resident occupiers when the crime was committed. He would take a case which might occur. Suppose a man had had a large share in the commission of crime, and suppose that man, in order to avoid the fine, gave his farm to the occupancy of somebody else, he supposed the right hon. and learned Gentleman would argue, that as they were not in a position to fine the chief participant in the crime, they should tax the new comer. He thought this clause would work more effectually if the Amendment was accepted.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, the charge was to be put on the land, and as long as the charge was on the land the Bill contemplated that it should be paid by the occupier. By the Amendment it was proposed that only the person who was in the occupation of the land at the time the crime was committed should be called upon to pay the tax, and not the person who became the occupier subsequent to the commission of the crime. It was a well-known fact that when a person purchased land he took into consideration all the charges that rested upon it, and anyone buying land after the passing of this Act would know full well that it was liable to this charge. The Amendment would entirely defeat the object of the clause, and, therefore, it could not be accepted.
MR. SEXTONsaid, the Attorney General for Ireland had said the charge would be on the land. That seemed a conclusive way of evading the question. But why was the charge to be laid on the land? Was it not because those who were in the occupation of the land
1036
were supposed, to have a guilty knowledge of crime? The tax was to be levied on the occupiers of the land, because, in the view of the Government, their residence in the vicinity gave them a guilty knowledge. He submitted that the clause could be carried out in no other way than in the manner indicated in the Amendment. The Lord Lieutenant made an applotment on the occupier. If he was not to recover it from the occupier who was in occupation at the time of the applotment, how was he to recover it? The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland suggested that the man who was in occupation at the time of the crime might positively get rid of his farm for the purpose of escaping the taxation; but that was a suggestion which could not be entertained for a moment. When a man had occupied his farm under a rack rent, and most discouraging circumstances in other respects up to this, he was not likely now to give up his holding even to escape the burden of this police tax. Suppose, however, he did give it up, what, then, did the Attorney General for Ireland say? Why, that if the Amendment were adopted, and a man sold his interest in his farm, the person who came in would not pay, and no one would pay. The Attorney General for Ireland was a practical man, and he said if they did not get the money from the person who had the guilty knowledge, they must get it from the new-comer. "If," said the right hon. and learned Gentleman, "you are not to get it from the person who is in occupation, how are you to get it from the previous occupier, who, possibly, had left the country?" He (Mr. Sexton) would like to know by what possible means a man who came into the district after the crime, could be held responsible for this tax? The newcomer's only crime was that he had had a few hundred pounds in his pocket, and he had had the misfortune to buy a farm in a district where a crime had been committed. Did the Government seriously mean to stand on the principle that when a man entered upon the occupation of a farm he was to take the legal responsibility of his predecessor? He respectfully submitted that there could be no more absurd argument than that advanced by the Attorney General for Ireland.
MR. HEALYsaid, if he withdrew the Amendment, would the Government agree to insert these words—"inoccupation at the time of the crime." It appeared that it did not matter whether a man was in the district or not at the time a crime was committed; he had to pay in any case. Was this the sort of logic to which the Committee were to be treated? Why did not hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite come for ward now that the Government was got on the hip? In the first place, the Committee was told that a district must pay towards the detection of crime; and, in the second place, they were told that a man must pay, whether he was in the district at the time of the crime or not. Such were the arguments by which this miserable Bill was being supported; these were the arguments which the public would not learn because they would be suppressed by the English Press; these were the arguments used when he and his hon. Friends were charged with Obstruction. The argument of the Government was that the people of a district must be made to suffer if a crime be committed; and whether a man was in occupancy or not at the time of the crime, he must pay all the same. [Sir FREDERICK MILL-BANK: Hear, hear!] The hon. Gentleman, who had recently been made a Baronet for political services, naturally cheered that sentiment. He would ask hon. Gentlemen, even though some of them had been made Baronets—
MR. MAGNIACrose to Order. He would like to know whether the hon. Gentleman was in Order in using an expression of that kind? ["What expression?"]
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY): I must confess that the discretion of the remark was very questionable; but I cannot say it was out of Order.
MR. HEALYsaid, he was very glad they now had it on the authority of the Chairman that it was not a crime to be called a Baronet. He would ask the Committee to remember the argument upon which the Home Secretary based this clause earlier in the evening. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary said it was intended to make the resident occupiers guarantors for the peace of the district; and now the Committee were told by the Attorney
1038
General for Ireland that, whether a man was in the district or not, he was to pay. The Attorney General for Ireland said the charge would fall on the land, and if a man took land from another, he would take it with all its charges. Let them take the case of a man who was unable to pay his rent because of the exorbitant charges put upon him by this Act. If this man were evicted, and another took the farm, the Government were of opinion that the new-comer must pay the charge, which, by the way, had ruined the previous occupier. These were the arguments to which the Committee was treated; therefore, there was no other course open to him than to go to a division.
MR. GILLsaid, the Attorney General for Ireland made a most extraordinary statement, which he (Mr. Gill) could easily understand if this clause of the Act were not retrospective. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that a new occupier could not be misled, because, when he took a farm, he would take into account that this charge would be upon it. How would that be in the case of a man who purchased a farm long before this Act was in contemplation? Suppose an outrage was committed 18 months ago in a particular district, a man who, six months later, purchased a farm in that district, would be actually mulcted out of his money, because no one could imagine for a moment that the district would be brought under the operation of a clause like this. He would instance another absurdity to which this clause would give rise. If a man bad actually committed a crime, and had given up his farm and gone to America, and if the land fell into the occupation of the landlord, would the Attorney General for Ireland contend for a moment that the tax should fall upon the landlord?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): Certainly.
MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, his hon. Friend (Mr. Gill) asked the Attorney General for Ireland whether a landlord who took possession of land would be taxed under this clause for crime committed in the locality, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman, with that commanding countenance which proved his ingenious Irish nature, which, by the way, had been a little tarnished in this

1039
Committee, said "Certainly." Did the right hon. and learned Gentleman mean to deny that the power which was given to the Lord Lieutenant, in this and other clauses, to exempt from this taxation persons remarkable for their devotion to law and order, would not be exercised? Why, the natural interpretation of this clause would be to exempt a landlord in every case from any share in this taxation. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said, a short time ago, that the tax was on the land, and not on the occupier. If that were so, it ought to be a matter of perfect indifference to the Government who was the occupier. The Attorney General for Ireland had also said that if a man took a piece of land, he ought to take it with all the burdens upon it, and, imagining a case, he pointed out that an Irish-American millionaire, entering upon the occupation of land in a particular district in Ireland, would take the land with this fine as part of the charge on the land. But, possibly, the burden would not have been on the land when the purchase was made. This clause being retrospective, a fine could be placed on the land for an outrage committed two years ago, and a man purchasing land before or after the commission of the crime would be rendered liable to this tax. He would put another case. A large number of people had been imprisoned during the last 18 months under the Coercion Act. Many had been imprisoned from the district of Loughrea, more, he thought, than from any other part of Ireland, and yet, curiously enough, there was no part of Ireland at the present moment where there was a more terrible disregard for what was called law and order. Four murders had been committed in the district of Loughrea within the last three weeks; and he would put it to the Government—was it fair that the farmer of Loughrea, who was at present in Kilmainham Gaol, should, when he came out, find his farm taxed in respect of crimes committed when he was actually under lock and key? There would be taxed under this clause, which was meant to provide punishment for guilty knowledge, men who could not have guilty knowledge, inasmuch as they were hundreds of miles away, and possibly under the safe custody of the Government's own warders and turnkeys. He called up on the right
1040
hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland either to accept the Amendment, or to explain to the Committee, in as calm and as rational a manner as he could, how it was possible to reconcile the clause as it now stood with the cases which had been put to the Committee.
MR. SHEILnoticed that the Attorney General for Ireland had attempted to rise, but had been restrained by the right hon. Gentleman sitting beside him. He would remind the Committee that a proposition was made by the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) which had been unnoticed. The proposition was to limit the Amendment by the insertion of the words "when crime is committed." It appeared to him that the suggestion was well worthy of consideration; and, whether the Committee would accept it or not, it was one which the Attorney General for Ireland might notice in some way.
MR. SEXTONasked the Committee to clearly note that no reply had been given to the arguments based on the retrospective action of the clause. The Government had intimated their intention that this Bill should run back two years, so that in reference to a crime, agrarian or otherwise, committed in Ireland during that time this tax might be imposed. A murder might have been committed two years ago, and a tenant might have entered upon the occupation of a farm 18 months, or 12 months, or six months ago; a man might have purchased a farm without ever having visited the parish in which it was situated; yet he was to be called upon to pay this tax, though it could not be said that he had the slightest guilty knowledge of the crime previously committed there. Before the Committee divided, he wished to obtain an answer to one question. He wished in all humility to lay a case before the Attorney General for Ireland. A crime—say a murder—had been committed in a district in Ireland. A landlord in that district had reason to suspect a certain tenant as being concerned in that murder, either as principal or accessory, and he called upon the man to give up the holding. The farm was vacated between the commission of the crime and the applotment of the charge, or, at any rate, between the commission of the crime and the collection of the tax. In the interval the Land Corpora-

1041
tion got to work in Ireland, and the vacated farm was filled by one of the loyal farmers from another county. Was this loyal man to pay for that complicity in murder which the Government believed to be present to the mind of the previous occupier?
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 21; Noes 148: Majority 127.—(Div. List, No. 204.) [1.40 A.M.
MR. HEALYsaid, the Attorney General for Ireland had said that this tax would fall on the land; therefore, he (Mr. Healy) was very curious to see if the Government would reject this Amendment, which was to insert, after "thereof," in line 38—
"Provided, That if any premises so chargeable shall be unoccupied at the date of any such applotment, the charge shall be payable by the owner of such premises."
This Amendment would admirably carry out the intention of the Government, and therefore he submitted it for their favourable consideration.
Amendment proposed,
In page 8, line 38, after the word "thereof," to insert the words "Provided, That if any premises so chargeable shall be unoccupied at the date of any such applotment, the charge shall be payable by the owner of such premises."—(Mr. Mealy.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, it was clear that if the premises were unoccupied, there would be no one in occupation; but if the owner himself went into occupation, he would, of course, become liable as occupier. If the landlord put anyone else in occupation, the person so put in would become liable; and, therefore, directly or indirectly, the owner would become liable. There was nothing at all inconsistent in making the charge one upon the occupier.
MR. LEAMYasked if they were to understand that the only person who could be looked upon as the occupier was the tenant? Surely, if the farm was in the landlord's hands, he ought to be considered the occupier for the purposes of this tax.
MR. GIBSONsaid, it was easy to see how easy it would be to ruin the owners of farms if this Amendment were ac-
1042
cepted. There would, no doubt, be an attempt to "Boycott" a large number of farms in order that the owner should not only have the farms on his hands, but be required to pay this tax. The Amendment would certainly give a new development of "Boycotting" which had not hitherto been understood.
MR. REDMONDsaid, it must be remembered that this tax was to be regarded as a punishment. It seemed to him that the landlord who had several "Boycotted" farms on his hands was, perhaps, one of the very men who deserved the punishment provided by the clause, for the probability was he had the farms on his hands because he had unjustly evicted his tenants, and had, in consequence, contributed largely to the state of things from which arose the crime by which the district had been disgraced. He (Mr. Redmond) trusted his hon. Friend would press this Amendment on the Government. It seemed monstrous that if a farm were really in the occupation of a landlord, the landlord should not be called upon to pay this tax.
MR. METGEsaid, that as well as he could understand the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for England, in the case of actual occupation, the landlord would be charged under this clause. He would remind the hon. and learned Gentleman of what took place under the Poor Law. Under the Poor Law a landlord was required to pay not only in respect of the land he himself occupied; but, if he evicted a tenant, in respect of the land lately occupied by the tenant.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Metge) could not understand the Amendment. An owner might be in occupation of land belonging to himself. If a tenant went out and the owner worked the farm, he was the occupier, and would pay this tax. What the Amendment dealt with was unoccupied land. A farm was not unoccupied if the owner was working it, and making profit out of it; but if a farm went out of cultivation, under the Poor Law and under this Act also the rate would not be paid. If a tenant came in afterwards he would take the farm subject to a charge of this kind, and, of course, would pay less rent. The clause as it now stood was perfectly just, and all the arguments which had

1043
been adduced upon the matter, as regarded the owner having the land on his own hands, were entirely beside the question.
MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, it was perfectly plain that if the landlord was working the farm he was the occupier. But what the Irish Members wanted to know was, why the landlord should not pay this charge in a case where he did not work the farm? He would like to put a case which had occurred in the county he represented (Longford). There was in that county a landlord who was continually quarrelling with his tenants; he had evicted far and wide, and in one townland deserted farms were to be seen on every hand. Was this landlord, who had evicted tenants out of sheer dislike of them, to be exempted from this taxation, while the rest of the occupiers in the townland were to bear the whole burden of the charge? If the Government could adduce any legal or moral justification for such an exemption he should be glad to hear it.
MR. LEAMYsaid, the Chief Secretary for Ireland had expressly claimed for the Lord Lieutenant the power of exemption in the case of "Boycotted" farms. There was a question on that point he (Mr. Leamy) would like to put to the right hon. Gentleman. The Committee had been informed that if farms were vacated the landlord would not be called upon to pay the tax, but if, some time afterwards, new tenants, who, it might be, had never been in the district before, entered upon the occupation, they would be called upon to pay this charge. The question he wanted to put was this. Supposing the Lord Lieutenant imposed on a district a charge of £300, they might say that charge was put on the land; but unless there was somebody occupying the land, how was the tax to be raised? He could not understand why, if the Lord Lieutenant was imposing a charge in the first instance, he should not take care to impose it only on farms in the occupation of somebody who was liable to pay. This might happen—the Lord Lieutenant might make a charge of £300 on a district covered by 20 farms, and each farmer might have to pay a certain amount on his valuation to make up the sum, but two of the farms might be found to be vacant, and they might be
1044
unable to make up the sum. The Lord Lieutenant, therefore, should take care to select a district where the people in occupation of farms were quite able according to their valuation to meet the charge. He could not see how the charge could be put on unoccupied land.
MR. METGEsaid, he should like to point out that the Home Secretary had left the Committee under a false impression. He (Mr. Metge) had drawn an analogy with the Poor Law, and had said that if, in collecting the poor rate, a farm was vacant, the landlord became at once liable for the rate upon it. The Home Secretary had replied, "Yes, that is so, if the landlord works the farm; but if he does not, and the farm is allowed to remain idle, he is not charged with the rate." That was not the case. If the farm became wild the landlord could apply to the Returning Officer and say, "I wish to have a re-valuation of this farm," but the old valuation remained until this application was made. The analogy must obtain in the case before the Committee. The Government had given no answer to the strong case mentioned by the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. M'Carthy). The hon. Member had given the case of a whole country-side being swept of its tenants except one or two, and the whole charge being levied upon those few individuals.
MR. SEXTONsaid, the theory of the Law Officers of the Crown was most bewildering, and if carried out in Ireland would lead to most extraordinary results. When the Lord Lieutenant proceeded to levy a tax he would make the charge according to the rateable value of the district; and if the charge was a charge on the land, the tax would logically follow that definition. If the occupier was not to be had—if, in other words, the land was not occupied—the Law Officers should have the courage of their convictions, and say the charge should be levied on the owner. He failed to see what answer could be given to the excellent argument of his hon. Friend the Member for Meath (Mr. Metge), who had given an analogous case where the charge was a charge on the land—namely, the charge for the maintenance of the poor. If the occupier could be found, he was made to pay; but if he could not be found, the person whose duty it was to collect the rate went to

1045
the next person connected with, the land and levied the charge upon him. If the charge was a charge upon the land, so long as anybody had a vested interest in the land, whether he were owner or occupier, he should be charged, otherwise the statement that the charge was a charge upon the land was misleading. The hon. Member for Longford (Mr. M'Carthy) had put a very instructive case; and he (Mr. Sexton) would inform the Government that cases more extreme than that were likely to occur. The hon. Member for Tipperary had told them of a case in his county where a certain landlord—a nobleman—had served notices of eviction over the whole extent of a wide parish. This landlord, who was a man of strong will, had expressed the determination of carrying out the evictions. Well, supposing that that parish were depopulated of every man, woman, and child—depopulated to its last inhabitant—and supposing, in consequence of the feeling caused by this wholesale eviction, someone was wounded or killed on the roadside, a tax would be levied on the parish; but who would pay it? The occupiers would be all gone—there would be no tenants left—they would all of them have passed along the highway to the poor-house. The only person left would be the landlord, the person who, by the action he had taken, had caused the state of feeling which had led to the outrage. Was he, guilty as he was, to pay nothing in respect of the outrage?
MR. PARNELLsaid, he thought they ought to have an answer from the Government as to the cases of eviction mentioned by his hon. Friend (Mr. Sexton)—cases which indicated a remarkable shortcoming and omission in the clause under discussion. His hon. Friends had mentioned cases where all the inhabitants of a district might be evicted, and where, in consequence, outrage might take place. The Lord Lieutenant, in pursuance of powers given him under the Bill, would bring in a force of extra police, or would give the relatives of the person maimed or injured some compensation; and the Government had been asked on what lands would the charge for the police or for this compensation be levied? If there was no land upon which it could be levied, except that which was not in the occupation of tenants, and was waste land, how could
1046
the charge be made? That was a plain question. Were the Government going to take powers in this Bill to go outside the district in which the outrage was committed—outside the district in which the state of things prevailed that caused the ill-feeling which led to the crime—and levy the tax upon some other locality, simply because there were tenants in it to pay—tenants in it who had paid their rents? Were they going to mulct these people in a charge by reason of an offence in which they had had no share or part, and which had occurred simply because a landlord of an adjoining district had evicted all his tenants and had left all their farms waste and derelict, as described by the Home Secretary? The hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Metge) had shown that the information and knowledge of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary upon this subject, and the statements he had made before leaving the House, were incorrect. The hon. Member had shown that if in the case of the poor rates a farm was left unoccupied and waste, the landlord of that farm was liable to pay the sum originally levied upon it until he called in the proper official and had the valuation altered. He was not speaking of any house upon the farm, because he was aware that where a house was unoccupied a landlord could claim to be exempted from paying any rates in respect of it; but he was speaking of unoccupied land—land, in the words of the Home Secretary left "waste and derelict." The poor rates on such land would still be charged, and would be payable by the owners; but, in the present case, the Government departed from that principle, in order—it could be for no other purpose—to inflict a heavy charge upon the tenants. The Irish Members were entitled, he thought, to ask the views of the Government on these points, which had been put with the greatest clearness and distinctness.
MR. HEALYsaid, it was evident that it was not argument, but avoirdupois, that was going to weigh with the Committee, and, that being the case, it would be as well, perhaps, for the Government to put a weighing-machine in the Lobby to have them weighed instead of counted. Hon. Members had put some very pertinent questions, to none of which, however, the Government deigned an answer.

1047
When he had put a question to the Attorney General for Ireland, that right hon. and learned Gentleman, having been accused by his Colleagues of having "put his foot in it," was not allowed to reply, and the English Solicitor General was put up in his place. The Attorney General for Ireland had previously delivered an argument; but that, so far as he (Mr. Healy) could judge, was put out of joint. The Home Secretary got up, but had been shown by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Metge) to be entirely wrong; and when the Irish Members had defeated the Government in argument successively, one after another, those hon. and right hon. and learned Gentlemen took refuge in sombre silence. That was the position to which the Government was reduced. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary had stated, with that blandness and knowledge of the law which did not distinguish him, that when a farm was vacant in Ireland there was no one left to pay the poor rate in respect of it. The hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Metge) had shown that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was altogether wrong, as the Committee would have seen if it had paid any attention to the arguments. The hon. Member had shown that the owner of the land would have to pay the poor rate until he went to the supervisor and had the property re-valued; but although the Irish Members showed that the arguments of the right hon. and learned Gentleman were entirely valueless, the Government remained silent. Hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial Benches did not seem to care a button which way the argument lay. ["Hear, hear!"] He was glad to have the approval of hon. Members opposite even in regard to so limited a statement as that. In another argument the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary had thoroughly exposed the animus which pervaded this particular clause. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had said that nobody but the tenants should pay. Could anything be more extraordinary than that? Why were the tenants to be the only people who were to be called upon to pay? Because, according to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's contention, they were the only criminals. The contention of the Irish Members, however, was that the landlords were, if not more, at
1048
least equally to blame. There was an old proverb which said "there was no smoke without fire," and it might be generally understood by the Committee that where these outrages were taking place in Ireland they were not without some provocation. That being the case, the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that the occupier, and the occupier alone, was to be the party who was to be responsible, was an argument that he (Mr. Healy) considered entirely fallacious. The Government had taken power under a former portion of the clause to allow the Lord Lieutenant to exempt any portion of the inhabitants that he pleased from the payment of the tax. Was that not sufficient for their purpose? Supposing a farm had been "Boycotted," as was said by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson)—though anyone who supposed that a farm would be "Boycotted" for the purpose of getting this blood tax on or off must have very little knowledge of agricultural operations in Ireland—the Lord Lieutenant had a power of exempting that in itself should be sufficient to enable the Government to give relief. As the Government—as was not unusual—had no answer to give, he would put to them another point. Supposing at the time a certain crime was committed, would they be prepared to exempt both the owner and occupier from the payment of the tax? They had made a statement to the effect that they wished to get at the criminals—that they wished to punish the guilty parties. He put the case of a farm that was entirely derelict at the time of the commission of a crime; would they still charge that farm with the blood tax—in the case either of the landlord or tenant, would the Government, at least, give him an answer upon that point? Supposing a man had two farms in two different portions of the same county, as very frequently happened, and supposing one was accommodation land near a town, and the other, upon which the tenant lived, was 10 miles away, if an outrage occurred in the district in which the accommodation land was situated, would the occupier, who was living elsewhere, be called on to pay a tax? He put these points to the Government, and surely, if argument was to be of any weight, if there was any use in it, some answer

1049
should be given. He put two cases to the Committee, and he took his stand on them, and he maintained that nothing could justify the Government in refusing them either a reply or concession on them. The Government had been very careful to provide for the case of accommodation land under the Land Act—they had taken good care that accommodation land and town parks should not have the benefit of that Act—these lands were not to have the advantage of any ameliorating legislation, but only the advantage of coercive legislation. The Government were careful enough of the interests of the landlords—["Question!"] He was entitled to be protected from these cries. When the Prime Minister, or anyone on the Treasury Bench, was at any time interrupted by Irish Members, the interruption was received with a perfect storm of howls. Hon. Gentlemen opposite could see injustice in attempts to cry down their own side; but when the injustice of their crying down other people was pointed out, they failed to see it. He would put the case again to the Government—were the men who in the Land Act they had excluded from benefit on account of their being the holders of accommodation land, to suffer the burden of this Coercion Bill for the same reason?
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the Government, through the mouth of the Solicitor General, and through himself, had given a reason which they thought reasonable and adequate for refusing this Amendment, and, having done so, they would be no parties to a deliberate waste of time, to an organized attempt to obstruct the Business of the House.
MR. HEALYsaid, he would only say one word in answer to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's statement, and it was the second time the Government had made this statement when they found themselves without argument in replying to the Irish Members. When the late Chief Secretary, the right hon. Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. J. Lowther), took part in the discussion, the Government felt themselves bound to answer him, though they kept the Committee for hours. It was only Irish Members below the Gangway on the Opposition side of the House that the Government—having first given them bad arguments—refused to answer.
MR. PARNELLsaid, he was not to be deterred by the stilted and affected indignation of the Home Secretary from, repeating his question—a question which it was perfectly fair to ask, and which it was most unfair for the Government not to answer. The Irish Members were entitled to an answer. The case had been put by himself and his hon. Friends repeatedly—the case where a district had been cleared and land was left derelict in the hands of the landlord. As a consequence of the evictions, outrages occurred, and, for the sake of argument, he (Mr. Parnell) would assume that the Lord Lieutenant would suppose that the outrages had been committed by the evicted tenants, and would consider it right to give the victims of those outrages compensation under these clauses, and, perhaps, to send extra police into the district. In such a case, would the charge for this compensation and for the extra police be placed upon the holdings from which the tenants had been cleared; or would the Lord Lieutenant, under this Bill, be entitled to go outside the district into some other district where the people had had no complicity in the outrages, and had no knowledge of them whatever, in order that he might throw the charge upon the tenant class, and not upon landlords? This was undoubtedly a point that would often come up in the working of this Bill in Ireland.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he did not think an answer was required. It was obvious that, under the clause, the tax could only be imposed on the district to be charged.
MR. PARNELLsaid, he wished to know on what district the charge would be imposed? If an outrage occurred in a district which had been cleared, would the charge be taken off that district and put on some other district which could not have had complicity with the outrage? That was a very plain and simple question.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the charge would be put on whatever area the Lord Lieutenant fixed.
MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that was just the point. The charge would be imposed where the Lord Lieutenant thought fit. The case the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had put before the Committee might occur. The landlord of a district might evict all

1051
the tenants and leave the district derelict and waste, an outrage might occur, perhaps at the hands of, or by the instigation of, some of the evicted tenants; and unless this Amendment were accepted, the landlord could not be taxed for that outrage, but the Lord Lieutenant would be obliged to impose the tax upon an adjoining district occupied by tenants. The Home Secretary said the Government had given a reasonable and adequate response to the arguments of the Irish Members; but it seemed that what the right hon. and learned Gentleman considered an adequate answer to an argument of the Irish Members was first to misrepresent that argument.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY): Order, order!
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Of course, I mean unintentionally, and then to place before the Committee as facts matters which are not facts.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY): I must call upon the hon. Member to withdraw the statement he has made.
MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he would, of course, withdraw the statement. He must have very inaccurately and very insufficiently found expression for what it was in his mind to say. He had been alluding to the statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary with regard to the Poor Law in Ireland, which statement the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Metge) had contradicted and proved to be utterly incorrect. He would not force the right hon. and learned Gentleman to give them arguments—he might have none to give; but he (Mr. O'Connor) must protest against the way the right hon. and learned Gentleman was endeavouring to force the Bill down their throats by arguments which were no arguments, and statements that were incorrect.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 20; Noes 142: Majority 122.—(Div. List, No. 205.) [2.35 A.M.
MR. HEALYsaid, he wished now to move a Proviso to the effect—
"That no amount shall be levied under this section upon any person who has obtained the benefits of any Act that may be passed in the present Parliament dealing with arrears of rent in Ireland, or whose claim there under is pending."
1052
He regarded this as the most vital Amendment to the clause. The Government had brought in a Bill dealing with arrears of rent in Ireland, and having done that they had practically admitted that the occupiers were in certain cases unable to pay their rent. By accepting the Amendment of the hon. Member for Leitrim (Mr. Tottenham)—a very unfortunate step he (Mr. Healy) considered—they had thrown back the application of this clause for no less a period than two years. The hon. Member's Amendment was to the effect that all claims under this clause could be made just as though the Peace Preservation Act had never expired. This Amendment—though it seemed to him (Mr. Healy) utterly unnecessary—made the proposal he was now submitting to the Committee necessary. What did the Government propose to do? They proposed that where tenants were impoverished by reasons of bad seasons to relieve them of payment of all arrears, provided they would pay one year's rent up to the 1st of November, 1881. That was an admission of that which the Irish Members had all along contended was the case—namely, that a series of bad seasons had rendered it utterly impossible for the Irish tenants to pay all the rents due to the landlords. Well, if the tenants were unable to pay the arrears to the landlords, how could they pay a heavy tax that they could never have contemplated, seeing that the Act under which it was imposed—the Peace Preservation Act—had lapsed? It was a well-known principle of legislation that retrospection was a thing to be at all times condemned. The retrospection of the present Bill, making the tenantry of Ireland liable to be taxed for outrages committed since the 30th of June, 1880, opened up endless difficulties. If a man applied to the Court under the Arrears Bill to have his arrears of rent wiped out on payment of a certain sum, how could it be argued that he was a fit subject for a blood tax, even though they might say that the man, after he had received the advantage of the Arrears of Rent Bill, would be a better subject for the payment of the tax than he would be if that Arrears Bill had not been passed? Were they going to say that they had passed an Arrears of Rent Bill for the purpose of making people fit subjects for the payment of a blood tax? This, he

1053
could see, was the only argument open to the Government—namely, that the resources the Arrears of Rent Bill might leave the tenants would leave them in a better position for the payment of the blood tax. So that they threw the House of Commons into a convulsion, put the House of Lords in a panic, and ran amuck with the principles of political economy, in order to enable people to pay a tax that was not in force two years ago. He put this to the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, and not to the Home Secretary—for the Prime Minister, as the Arrears of Rent Bill abundantly testified, had his mind open on the subject of the condition of the Irish tenants—and he would ask whether it was right that poor and miserable people, whose arrears of rent had been wiped out, should be plunged into deeper misery by having to pay a tax of this character?
Amendment proposed,
In page 8, line 38, after the word "thereof," to insert the words "Provided, That no amount shall be levied under this section upon any person who has obtained the benefits of any Act that may be passed in the present Parliament dealing with arrears of rent in Ireland, or whose claim there under is pending."—(Mr. Healy.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he was bound to say he found in this Amendment, and in the arguments the hon. Member had used in support of it, a remarkable illustration of the great capacity of the human mind to take different views of a subject—to take views according to the position in which the person who approached it might stand. He owned it was a matter of great surprise to him that an Amendment such as this could be submitted to the Committee, so destitute was it of even the colour of justification. Parliament might include in the Arrears Bill a provision—though, perhaps, not in the exact form in which it was now proposed—to enable tenants, without any previous declaration or proof of incapacity to pay their rent, to obtain the benefit of that measure. That was a thing which was perfectly possible, and it had, undoubtedly, been within the scope of some of the proposals which had been made by hon. Gentlemen who were anxious that the Bill should pass. He took it that the Amendment assumed
1054
that persons who obtained the benefit of the Arrears Bill would obtain it after declaration and proof that they required it on account of inability to pay all that was due from them. Let them take the matter on that ground. It was admitted that persons so loaded with arrears, and overcharged with rent beyond their power to pay—that was to say, persons already in a state of insolvency—were, unquestionably, not in a position to bear a new burden. But the purpose of the Arrears Bill was to take them out of that state of insolvency The purpose and effect of the Arrears Bill was to place those tenants who took its benefits presumably just in the position of other tenants—to place them in such a position that they would be able to pay their rents, and would be solvent. If they were placed in that position they should pay the tax, under the clause of the present Bill they were discussing, along with all other solvent persons. There could not be exemption for one set of solvent persons, whilst another set were called upon to pay. It was an untenable, a monstrous, position to take up in argument to say that people, because they had once been in a position of pecuniary difficulty, from which Parliament had relieved them, they were not to be liable to pay charges imposed upon the rest of the community.
MR. SEXTONsaid, he had listened with great respect and attention to the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, and he must say he failed to see in it any effort of reason against the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman said it was an untenable and monstrous position to say that persons who had once been in pecuniary difficulty should be rescued from the obligation that would he under this clause. But the case was not the case of persons who had been once under pecuniary difficulties. The thing was not in the past tense at all—it was the case of persons who were in the profoundest pecuniary difficulties, and who would be in the profoundest pecuniary difficulty when this Prevention of Crime Bill passed into law. What was the financial condition of the tenant who came under the Arrears Bill? He would be obliged to go into Court—because, although the Prime Minister had brought before them a hypothetical case as to what might be brought into the Arrears

1055
Bill, he (Mr. Sexton) knew enough of that House, and of the right hon. Gentleman, to know that the Bill as it left the House would be the Bill as it entered the brain of the right hon. Gentleman. The tenant would have to satisfy the tribunal that he was unable to pay his rent. He (Mr. Sexton) would not follow the Prime Minister into changes that might be introduced into the Arrears Bill, He and the Committee had a right to take the Bill as it stood. The tenant would have to show that he was almost penniless before the State would come to his assistance, and then, when the settlement was finally arrived at, the man would be left destitute. This tenant, who was destitute, would have to till his farm. How could he buy stock? Yet the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister said this would be a solvent person, and ought to be required to pay the tax under this Bill. He (Mr. Sexton) altogether denied the accuracy of the proposition. The tenant might be solvent in the sense that he had no debts to pay, but he would not be able to pay this tax. In all probability, he would have to run into debt to get his first crop into the ground. To make such a demand as was proposed in this clause upon such a man would be not to do an act that tended to do away with a state of lawlessness and disorder, but which would tend to the commission of crime. The Government proposed in the Arrears Bill to assist the tenants of Ireland to the extent of some £2,000,000, and he thought that the was entitled to say that a class of men who were dealt with in that way by the State would regard the State with feelings of gratitude. Tenants who were nearly starving, and who were living in wooden huts, would be grateful for the assistance that enabled them, to get back on their farms—the landlord foregoing part of the rent, whilst the State paid part. The state of mind of the tenants would be one of thankfulness and peacefulness—they would be anxious to get into the Land Court to get their rents reduced. But if the Government came down upon them with other obligations, which would leave them in a condition as bad as that from which the State had rescued them, all this good effect would be lost, and the people would be brought into conflict with the forces of the Crown, which could not but tend prejudicially
1056
to the interests of peace and order in Ireland.
MR. HEALYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had described his Amendment as destitute of even the colour of justification. This was the first Amendment of his that the right hon. Gentleman had spoken of in such terms, and yet his (Mr. Healy's) view of it was that it was one of the most reasonable Amendments he had yet proposed. The Prime Minister's argument was, that after a tenant had received the relief of the Arrears Bill, he would be a solvent tenant. He denied that the tenant would be solvent. He would be nothing of the sort. The man who had not been able to pay rent to his landlord, generally speaking, had not been able to pay his debts to the shopkeeper, and in such cases he wanted to know how could they call the tenant a solvent man? It was a matter of notoriety that a man who was steeped to his lips in debt to his landlord, was also largely indebted to the trades people, because the landlord had a power of collecting rent which the tradesmen did not possess with regard to the debts due to them. The landlord had the power of distress and eviction, and seven or eight other powers which the ordinary creditor had not, so that the man who had been evicted, or who ran the risk of it, must be in debt more or less to other people than his landlord, because the landlord, having the supreme power of eviction, was sure to be paid as long as the tenant had the means of paying. But a tenant in this position was the man whom the Prime Minister (Mr. Gladstone) spoke of as solvent—a man, forsooth, who, although the landlord had been satisfied, had his goods and chattels still at the mercy of the other creditors, and who, because he had been able to scrape together sufficient money to pay one year's rent, because of his savings and struggles, by means of begging, borrowing, and backing bills, and getting his friends in America to send him a trifle, that man, after superhuman struggles of this kind, just because he had got, not his body, but his neck, out of water, was described by the Prime Minister as a solvent debtor. He (Mr. Healy) was always glad when the Prime Minister interposed and relieved the tedium of debate by a little of his eloquence; but, in this case, the Prime

1057
Minister's argument was lacking in its customary logic. He would point out that there was a special provision in the Arrears Bill which the Prime Minister had said would make the poor tenant solvent, proving that the Government in drafting the Bill did not believe him to be solvent. What was it that that Bill proposed to enact? By the 4th sub-section of the 1st clause, in a paragraph of three lines, it was to be provided that the remission by the landlord
"Of the whole or any part of the rent payable in respect of the year expiring as aforesaid shall he deem to be a satisfaction of the amount of rent so remitted?"
Which meant that the Prime Minister had found it necessary to enact that the landlord might in the case of the insolvent debtor remit the whole or any portion of the rent? The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) had contemplated such a state of penury that he had inserted this provision in the Arrears Bill, and yet this was the class of men whom the Prime Minister had described as solvent tenants. But there was one argument more. The Arrears Bill was not only to apply to the tenant who was absolutely on the holding, but to evicted tenants, and he would ask, was the man who had been evicted and was put in again by the mercy of the landlord and simply got a new start, or who, having been evicted, was without cattle to stock the farm or money to till the land—was such a man to be described as a solvent tenant? There was, from top to bottom, no soundness in the argument of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone). This was the reason why they were bound to continue these debates during the night and to discuss them as calmly as if it were noon-day; but he would point out that it was not the Irish Members who were responsible for this state of things. Her Majesty's Government had chosen to bring in a Bill dealing with the whole range of the Irish Land Question, and they must discuss the measure dispassionately, rebutting the weak arguments and giving in to those that were strong; but with regard to the point now under discussion, they had never, from the commencement of the debates in Committee to the present time, had so flimsy an argument as had been employed by the Government brought forward for their acceptance.
MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he did not think the Government, in the course they were pursuing, was making a good precedent for the Arrears Bill or for any other measure. His hon. Friend the Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) had put the case of a tenant who, although he might be relieved by the Arrears Bill of all debts to his landlord, would still be deeply indebted to the shopkeepers, and this was doubtless a very strong case. But he (Mr. O'Connor) would put the case of a tenant who, by the Arrears Bill, might be relieved of all burdens in the shape of debt to his landlord, and who, at the same time, by his own economy had kept himself free from debt to his tradesmen. What was the position of such a man? It was that he was solvent in the sense that he was able to pay his way. By taking advantage of the Arrears Bill, should it become law, he would be able to pay in 1883 the rent of the previous year; but if this clause in the Prevention of Crime Bill were passed, he might be obliged to pay a fine on account of some crime committed in the year 1880, and, therefore, he might be placed in just as bad a position as he would have held had the Arrears Bill never been brought forward. This consideration appeared to his (Mr. O'Connor's) mind entirely to undo any benefit that might be conferred on the tenants by the Arrears Bill. If a man owed £10 for rent in 1880 he would be enabled to compound for that amount under the Arrears Bill, and having done that, he would be able to pay the rent in the succeeding years; but what would be his position if, in 1883, instead of paying his rent, the £10 had to be paid on account of some crime that had been committed one or two years before? That, he (Mr. O'Connor) thought, was a complete answer to the Prime Minister. At the same time, he must say that the tone and temper of the Prime Minister in discussing this Amendment might be imitated with advantage by the right hon. Gentleman's subordinates, who seemed to endeavor to make up for want of argument by an assumption of virtuous indignation, which, however, failed to impose on the minds of the Committee.
MR. THOROLD ROGERSsaid, he had twice that evening voted with hon. Members opposite for Amendments em-

1059
bodying principles which he believed to be just. He had voted with them on the question of the obligation of the landlord to pay his contribution towards the crime committed in a particular district because he believed, as a matter of fact and evidence, the landlords of Ireland were quite as responsible as the tenants for the present condition of the country; but anything more violent or contrary to justice than the proposition now before the Committee he had never heard. That proposal was that the tenant who got the benefit of the Arrears Bill, and who was to be put in a position of security for the future, should be rendered irresponsible for anything that might be done in the district to which he belonged, and, while getting the benefit of an Act of Parliament that would relieve him of a burden he could not otherwise sustain, should be also relieved from all responsibility for the consequences of acts which he knew had been committed in the district.
MR. GRAYsaid he always admired the confidence the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Thorold Rogers) felt in his own opinions.
MR. THOROLD ROGERS: I have not in yours.
MR. GRAYsaid, the question was not confined to the proposition that tenants already cleared of liability under the Arrears Bill should not be liable for the tax sought to be imposed by this clause, but it also had reference to those whose claims were still pending. The Prime Minister had seemed to assume that the moment the Arrears Bill was passed all the tenants who came under it would be converted into solvent men, who would be quite competent to pay fresh impositions. The same thing was said as to the Land Act; but it had not been found that the relief intended to be afforded by that measure had as yet reached the great mass of the tenancy. The machinery of the Land Act was to be applied to the question of arrears, and he would put it to the Committee how long would it take the tenants to have their claims tried and decided in the Courts established by that measure; whereas the moment the present Bill was passed the tenants would be placed under the liability it would create, not only from the date of its becoming law, but for two years beforehand. What could be more "violent," to quote the
1060
language of the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Thorold Rogers), than such a proposition on the part of a paternal Government, who said to the tenant—"We have cleared you of all the liability for rent you are unable to pay, and have converted, you into a solvent man with one Bill; and we now knock you down and render you insolvent with another? We pass a couple of Bills side by side, one of which will convert you into a solvent man in a couple of years, while the other will render you insolvent, perhaps, forthwith." Was not that, he asked, a much more violent proposition than that of the Amendment? He could conceive nothing more calculated to bring a man to that state of desperation, which was the surest incentive to crime, than to say to a particular class of men—"We propose by certain legislation to save you from a destruction which is otherwise inevitable," and then, almost immediately after, to pass other legislation that would be sure to confirm the destruction which the first measure was intended to obviate. He regarded this Amendment as a most important one, and he was exceedingly anxious to hear the views of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland in regard to it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman must be well aware of the condition in which thousands of Irish tenants who would be affected by this Bill were placed, and he would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to take the case of a tenant who would be obliged to avail himself of the benefits of the promised Arrears Bill and say in what position he would be placed in the event of a large sum being charged upon him under the operation of the present Bill? What would be the good of relieving a man of one charge in order to impose upon him immediately afterwards another equally, if not more, onerous? Indeed, the passing of the present Bill would only be placing the poorer class of tenants in a worse position than before, because the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Bill was holding out hopes to them which, by the operation of this Bill, would necessarily remain unfulfilled. The right hon. and learned Gentleman ought to consider this matter and state in what way the argument would be met by the legislation which the Government had in contemplation.
MR. PARNELLsaid, there was another point that was worthy of consideration. The tenants it was proposed to help by the Arrears Bill, and whom this Amendment proposed to exempt from the charge imposed by the clause under consideration, were very poor. They would have to prove their inability to pay their rent, and they would be found almost broken to the ground, without money, stock, or farming implements of any kind—being, in fact, in an utterly bankrupt condition. In a great many cases, especially those of the smaller tenants—and they must recollect that about 320,000 out of the 650,000 holdings in Ireland were valued at less than £8—he should have thought the Government would have been only too anxious to escape the necessity of charging such persons with a tax of this kind, the collection of which must be exceedingly troublesome and expensive. If they took the case of Lord Ardilaun's estate in the county of Mayo, where the tenants were exceedingly poor and the holdings very small, it would be found that of the 2,000 or 3,000 tenants on that estate the average rent was £6 or £7. Those tenants would probably derive great benefit from the Arrears Bill; but if they were put under the operation of this clause, how were they to meet their payments? How, on such estates as these in the West of Ireland, was it proposed to collect the charges that might be made under this clause? He knew of no way in which it could be done. These people had very little stock, and when the officers of the Government went to seize they would find nothing, or next to nothing, to lay hold of. The tenants had no money, and consequently no banking accounts and the Government would find themselves saddled with the task of recovering money from a multitude of small tenants who were absolutely without effects on which to levy. This would throw a serious charge upon the county, and would necessitate extra police to assist in the collection, leading to a further charge, so that it would go on, one charge being added to another, until it would be like "the House that Jack built." "Who, he asked, was to pay all this expense? The tenancy could not, and the result would be that in the long run the cost would fall on the British taxpayer. Such a state of things would necessarily cause immense
1062
friction and ill-will in the different districts, and would probably lead to further outrages and confusion, so that in the end the condition of affairs would be worse than it was at the beginning. Her Majesty's Government would do well to accept this Amendment in the case of those tenants whose inability to pay rent would be the first condition of their coming under the Arrears Bill. They must prove that they were paupers before they could be exempt from the payment of arrears. The Prime Minister had said the Arrears Bill would make the tenants solvent. It would do nothing of the kind. It would simply take off a load of debt, but it would not put them in possession of means to meet extra payments; and even where they had their arrears remitted, a large number would have to sell their holdings and go to some other part of the country. The Arrears Bill would, doubtless, confer a benefit on the landlords of these poor people, because it would enable them to get a certain portion of their arrears; but it would make the tenants themselves none the richer, and they would still be unable to pay any levy under this clause. The argument of the lion member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) was as plain as a pike-staff, and he could not understand how it was that the Prime Minister, who certainly was not wont to be illogical, could have fallen into so absurd a mistake as to suppose that the Arrears Bill would enable the tenants to pay that which they were previously unable to pay.
MR. GIBSONsaid, no doubt what had fallen from the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) was very true, and this was a clause which might suggest any variety of topics to be discussed in every conceivable manner, and at any conceivable length. As it was, the Committee had been exactly four and a-half hours discussing one line of the clause; and he thought they must all feel that, to put it very moderately, they had almost discussed this Amendment sufficiently to enable them to go to a division upon it. Surely four and a-half hours on one particular line was enough.
MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) had taken up a most extraordinary position. He had said that the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of

1063
Cork (Mr. Parnell) had stated what was substantially correct, and yet, having assumed that position, he was blamed for insisting on discussing the matter.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 16;
Noes 122: Majority 106.—(Div. List, No. 206.) [3.30 A.M.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY)said, the next Amendment which had been put on the Paper by the hon. Member for Wexford was irrelevant to the present clause, and could not be put.
MR. HEALYsaid, he had already stated that he did not intend to move it.
MR. SEXTONsaid, he wished to move, at the end of Sub-section 2, the following Proviso:—
"Provided, That one month at least prior to making any order charging any district or portion of a district as aforesaid, the Lord Lieutenant shall cause to be published in the Dublin Gazette, and in two other newspapers circulating in such district, notice of his intention to make such order and of its effect, and any ratepayer or ratepayers of such district may at the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner, within such period of a month, appear before the Lord Lieutenant either personally or by counsel or solicitor, and show cause against the making of such order or any portion thereof, and the Lord Lieutenant may thereupon at the expiration of such period of a month either confirm or suspend such order, or vary or otherwise modify its terms as to him shall seem just."
The object of the Amendment was to secure that before any order was made by the Lord Lieutenant to levy a tax on a district, the ratepayers should have the opportunity of appearing before him and showing cause why the order should not issue, or why it should issue, to a less burthensome extent than the Lord Lieutenant intended. The Committee would understand that the order of the Lord Lieutenant might result from either of two acts—the importation of extra police into a district or the commission of crime. In the first case, the Lord Lieutenant would not proceed to an investigation, but could of his own authority send an additional force of police. Then the Inspector General would submit to the Lord Lieutenant an account of the cost of the police so sent, and the first the people would know of the burden put upon them would be the issue of the Lord Lieutenant's order. It was quite evident that the ends of
1064
justice required that the people should have some opportunity of being heard before the tax was levied. They might be able to show that the police force sent down was excessive, that the circumstances under which they were sent were not circumstances for which they were responsible, or that the area over which the tax should be levied should be increased. In the case of the commission of crime, although an investigation was to be held in the district, it left out of view several essential matters. The Lord Lieutenant would, on issuing a Commission, direct the Commissioners to ascertain whether the crime was agrarian, or arose out of unlawful combination, or whether there was reason to believe that the people in the district had withheld material evidence, or had a guilty knowledge of and complicity with the crime; and, although all these things might be ascertained and reported to the Lord Lieutenant, the people of the district might be able to show that the sum intended to be fixed as compensation was excessive, or that the district to be charged with the tax was too small, and ought to be enlarged, or that the responsibility for the crime really lay with some other district. What the Amendment meant was that before the Lord Lieutenant issued his unchangeable fiat, on which the collectors would proceed, the people should have the right to be heard; and it purposed, in the first place, that one month before the issue of the final order the Lord Lieutenant should publish a notice of his intention to make the order. He had fixed a month as the period, in. order that there should be time for the intention of the Lord Lieutenant to come to the knowledge of the people, so that they might engage a solicitor or counsel to appear before the Lord Lieutenant. Moreover, it was provided by the Amendment that the intention to make the order should be made known in two of the newspapers of the district, as well as in The Dublin Gazette; because The Gazette was seen only by the official class, and if the notice were confined to that medium it would not come to the knowledge of the people. It was then proposed that the ratepayers might, at any time within the month, appear before the Lord Lieutenant to show cause against the order. As regarded the time and manner of this ap-

1065
pearance, it was proposed that they might appear personally, or by counsel or solicitor, the object of the appearance being to show cause against the making of the order, or any portion of it. Under this Amendment the Lord Lieutenant would he able either to carry out his first intention, or to depart from or vary and modify it in any way he might think fit.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY)said, his attention had been called to the fact that this Proviso did not relate to the clause now under discussion. This was a Proviso purporting to introduce certain safeguards which should prevent the Lord Lieutenant making an order, or from making it in a manner deemed inexpedient; but the power of the Lord Lieutenant to make an order was contained in Clauses 15 and 16, which had been already passed; and as no reference to the power to make an order was contained in the clause under discussion, the Proviso, therefore, as only affecting clauses already passed, could not be put.
MR. HEALYrose to a point of Order. He wished to know whether it was not possible, in running through this clause, to take into consideration, in connection with the previous clauses, the phraseology, such as "in the prescribed manner," which ran through it? His hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) proposed to deal with a certain order. That order was not mentioned in the clause; but his hon. Friend reinserted it so as to make it perfectly in Order.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY)said, he did not think the hon. Member (Mr. Healy) quite understood his ruling, which was that the Proviso laid down certain safeguards as to the method in which the Lord Lieutenant might issue his order, which were relevant only to the sections giving power to the Lord Lieutenant to issue that order, and that those sections had already been passed. Section 17 gave no power whatever in reference to the making of the order; therefore, the Proviso could not be taken. The next Amendment would be moved by the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Leamy).
MR. LEAMY MR. LEAMY moved, in page 8, line 38, after the word "thereof," to insert the words—
1066
"Provided, That in the case of any order charging a district with any sum pursuant to section sixteen of this Act, such order shall exempt from the payment of such charge, or any portion thereof, any rate able here determents in such district in the occupation of any person who at the time when the crime in respect of which such charge is made was committed, was imprisoned under the provisions of the forty-fourth Victoria, chapter four."
It was unnecessary to speak at any length in support of the Amendment, for the reason that the ground on which the power of awarding compensation was claimed, and the reasons given for its exercise, was that it was to punish people who had committed crime themselves, or had screened those who had been the perpetrators of crime. It was altogether unfair to assume that a man who was imprisoned in Kilmainham Gaol could have prevented the commission of crime perpetrated while he was in durance; and, under these circumstances, it was only just that his property should be exempt from taxation, especially as, under the last Coercion Act, the Government had already punished him by keeping him in gaol, and putting him, in all probability, to great pecuniary loss, in consequence of his being taken from home and not being able to conduct his ordinary business.
Amendment proposed,
In page 8, line 38, after the word "thereof," to insert the words—"Provided, That in the case of any order charging a district with any sum pursuant to section sixteen of this Act, such order shall exempt from the payment of such charge, or any portion thereof, any rate able here determents in such district in the occupation of any person who at the time when the crime in respect of which such charge is made was committed, was imprisoned under the provisions of the forty-fourth Victoria, chapter four."—(Mr. Leamy.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTasked whether this was not also an Amendment relating to the order? It seemed to him to be prescribing the form of the order, as far as he could gather from hearing it read; but it was difficult to see exactly what was the effect of these Amendments which were not upon the Paper, but were furbished up at the moment in order to make further obstruction to the Bill.
MR. LEAMYrose to Order. He wished to ask whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Se-

1067
cretary, in rising to a point of Order, and to ask the opinion of the Chairman as to whether the Amendment was in Order, was himself in Order in charging him (Mr. Leamy) with furbishing up this Amendment for the purpose of obstructing the Bill?
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY)said, with respect to the point of Order as to whether the Amendment could be received, he had given it his best attention, and he thought that, although it was somewhat informal, it was substantially relevant. The clause under discussion referred to the incidence of the charge on certain persons, and the essential part of the Amendment was to exempt from liability those who, at the time the crime for which the charge was levied was committed, were imprisoned under the provisions of the Act 44 Vict., c. 4.
MR. GRAYwished to have the Chairman's ruling in respect to the other point of Order. He had always understood that to charge a hon. Member of that House with Obstruction was out of Order.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid he was afraid that the remark to which reference had been made was an act of disorder which it would be his duty frequently to repeat. An Amendment more trifling with the Committee than that which had just been moved could not be conceived. He could imagine no possible object it could be expected to serve, save that of unnecessarily delaying the progress of the Bill. It was clear that such an exemption as the Amendment proposed would apply to everybody who happened to be temporarily absent from his business from any cause whatever. If the clause would apply to persons in Kilmainham, the presumption would be that they had something to do with the crime committed in their districts, and it was also to be assumed that they had in their houses persons connected with them whom it was quite as necessary to impress with the desirability of stopping crime as in the case of those in confinement. Therefore, every possible reason by which the clause could be justified would apply far more to those who were in Kilmainham than to anyone else.
MR. HEALYsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman took a singular view when he said that people who were con-
1068
fined in Kilmainham were more likely to be engaged in the commission of crime than others. He (Mr. Healy) thought they had all heard of the Treaty of Kilmainham. ["Order!"] Of course he was out of Order in alluding to that, and equally, of course, the Government, in releasing three Members of that House who were in Kilmainham, released those whom they believed to be engaged in the commission of crime while there. Such, at least, was the argument presented by the Government; and it followed that the longer they were there, the more crime they were responsible for. He should like to have it on the authority of the Home Secretary whether he believed those hon. Members who were in Kilmainham were engaged in the commission of crime while there? If he could not say that they were, how could it be said of those poor occupiers of holdings, who had been in gaol early the whole time the Coercion Act had been in operation, and who could not possibly have had either hand, act, or part in the crime that had been going on while they were in confinement? He would remind the Committee of the pretext on which that Coercion Act was ob tainted. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster)—
MR. LYULPH STANLEYrose to Order. He wished to know was the hon. Member (Mr. Healy) in Order in going into the Coercion Act of last year?
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY)said, he was waiting to see what connection was made out before interrupting the hon. Member.
MR. HEALYsaid, he had been about to state that the right hon. Gentleman who had obtained the Coercion Act had asserted that it would be the means of breaking up the murdering gangs who infested certain districts in Ireland. But what had they found since that Act was passed? Why, that crime still continued as rife as ever, notwithstanding all the arrests that had been made by the police, and the length of time a large number of persons had been kept in gaol.
MR. REDMONDsaid, he thought it would be acknowledged that, during the progress of these clauses in Committee, the Irish Members had done nothing tending to heat the debates. He re-

1069
gretted, however, the tone and temper of the speech of the Home Secretary, and protested against the statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the Amendment before the Committee had simply been proposed for purposes of Obstruction. He (Mr. Redmond) certainly regarded the Amendment as a most reasonable one, and was convinced that the hon. Member (Mr. Leamy), who had moved it, had done so in a spirit of perfect good faith. The Home Secretary seemed to think that the fact that certain men were imprisoned in Kilmainham was to be taken as proof that they were engaged in the commission of crime. The course of events, after the arrest of these men, showed the contrary. He was entitled to say that event before and after those arrests were a proof that the men so arrested had, while at liberty, been a restraining influence on the people in the prevention of outrage and crime. [Laughter.] That statement excited the laughter of hon. Members opposite, and he did not expect they would agree with him; nevertheless, he would point out to them a fact which their laughter could not gainsay, and which they would not be able to deny, and that was that so long as the persons who had been imprisoned at Kilmainham were allowed to remain at large among the Irish people crime of a horrible character had not been so frequent as it had become during their incarceration. Notwithstanding the in terruptions, which were totally irrelevant—
MR. BORLASE: I rise to Order. We have not before us the words of this Amendment, and I wish to know if, on this occasion, the whole question of Kilmainham and the Kilmainham Treaty can be raised?
MR. REDMONDsaid he was not discussing "the whole question of Kilmainham," whatever that meant in the rather confused mind of the hon. Member. He was discussing the clause and the narrow point whether from this tax to be imposed those men should be exempt who, at the time the murders were committed, were not in the locality; and he was endeavoring to point out that he believed if these men had not been in the custody of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) they would have used their influence for the prevention
1070
of crime, as they had done before they were arrested. ["Oh, oh!"] He would not allow himself to be drawn by these interruptions into an acrimonious discussion. He was anxious to deal with the matter fairly, and he wished hon. Members on the other side of the House would endeavor to deal with it in the same way, because the course they were pursuing did not add to the advantage of the Committee or the dignity of their proceedings. He wished to point out that the men they asked to have exempted were men who could not be said to be responsible for any of the crimes for which the charge was to be imposed. They could not be said to be responsible for the withholding of evidence, and those were the only two things which afforded the Government any justification for their proposal. After all, it could not be denied that the whole justification of the clause was to be found in the desire there was to impose a certain amount of punishment, in order to mark the sense of the Committee as to the guilty knowledge of these people in regard to the commission of these crimes. As he had said, the men whom they now sought to exempt could not have had any guilty knowledge, or have withheld any evidence that would lead to the detection of the persons who perpetrated the crimes. He would also remark that the proposal of making exception was not so absurd as the right hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to suppose, because the Government, with the assistance of hon. Members below the Gangway on that side of the House, had taken power to exempt from the fine any individual they might think fit. Surely, if that was justifiable, they were equally justified in asking to have an exemption made in the case of men who could not possibly have had any act or part in the commission of the crimes for which the charge was made. As he only rose to protest against the spirit that was sought to be imported into the debate by the Home Secretary, and to express his opinion that it was a reasonable Amendment, he would not further prolong the discussion.
MR. SEXTONsaid, he did not think it necessary to waste any time over the observations of the Home Secretary. If the Amendments were just in themselves, no assertion such as had been made would have any effect. The Home

1071
Secretary stated that an exemption granted to a person in Kilmainham would equally apply to any truant person from the district. There was a difference, however, and it was this—that any truant person might have gone away of his own accord, whereas a person taken away by the police and imprisoned could not be said to have left the place of his own accord. The right hon. and learned Gentleman also stated that the men imprisoned in Kilmainham were persons guilty of the offence of incitement to crime, but those who had studied the list of "suspects" knew that the majority of them were only suspected of intimidation. Out of 180 in prison 60 were not suspected of incitement to crime, but of offences of a minor character; and it was notorious that hundreds of men had been imprisoned who were not suspected by the Government of being concerned in any sort of crime. That being so, he thought it was extraordinary that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should have made such a statement. The theory of the Government was that persons were to be fined because of their near vicinity to the place where the crime was committed, and what the Irish Members claimed was that persons taken out of the district by force and kept in gaol could have no knowledge of the crime, and, therefore, ought not to be made responsible for it in any way.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 15; Noes 109: Majority 94.—(Div. List, No. 207.) [4.10 A.M.
MR. PARNELL MR. PARNELL moved, at the end of Sub-section 2, after the word "thereof," to insert the words—
"Provided, That where the occupier of any holding has applied to the Court under the provisions of the Land Law (Ireland) Act to fix a fair rent, no portion of the charge shall be apportioned pending the fixing of such judicial rent."
It was well known that there was a block in the Land Court, and that a vast number of the smaller tenants were paying, or were attempting to pay, rents which, when they came up for adjudication before the Court, would be pronounced to be excessive; but, owing to a defect in the Act, which it was not necessary for him to describe specifically, they would have to continue to pay the
1072
old excessive rents until the judicial rent was fixed and the decision of the Court given. Now, it had been the boast of the Liberal Party—but he was afraid it would no longer be possible for the Liberal Party to continue that boast—that the policy adopted after the General Election of 1880—
MR. WARTONrose to Order, and submitted that the Amendment could not be put, for the reason that the Committee had already passed the place where it could possibly have been placed. They had passed the words "other than those of the Lord Lieutenant," which came before this Amendment by exactly one line.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY): I must ask the hon. and learned Member to point out to me the words that come before that are said to exclude this Amendment.
MR. WARTONsaid, the Amendment of the Home Secretary, which had been adopted, was to insert after the word "district," the words—
"Other than those exempted by the Lord Lieutenant in pursuance of this Act."
So that the Committee said by that only certain hereditaments could be exempted. Therefore any Amendment attempting to make any exemption other than those made by the Lord Lieutenant was contrary to the words they had already passed. Only the Lord Lieutenant could exempt, and only on the breach of the 15th clause. No other exemption was admissible, and they had passed the place where such exemption could come.
MR. HEALY, on the point of Order, submitted that, supposing the point of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) were good, which, of course, it was not, the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) would not have made sense of the particular place to which the hon. Member referred, and the Chairman would accordingly have ruled that it was out of Order.
MR. GRAY, on the point of Order, pointed out that the Chairman had permitted the Committee to divide upon an Amendment proposing to exempt certain persons; and if that had been out of Order the Chairman would not have permitted the division to have taken place.
MR. PARNELLsaid, he might add to the observation of his hon. Friend the

1073
Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray) on the point of Order, and in reply to the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), that the matter referred to in the objection was a "district," and the subject referred to in the present Amendment was a "person." He thought they were precluded from adding Provisos exempting districts, but he submitted they were not precluded from exempting persons.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY)said, the objections raised by the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray) and the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) were perfectly regular in so far as they related to Amendments of the same kind; and he must take the entire blame to himself for allowing such Amendments to be put. If he had had the corrected Bill before him he should not have allowed them. It appeared to him the objection raised by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) was right, and, therefore, the Amendment could not now be put.
MR. HEALY MR. HEALY moved, in page 9, line 7, after the word "same," to insert the words—
"Provided, That no such charge shall be levied by distress."
The 3rd sub-section gave exactly the same power of levying under this clause as in the case of the Grand Jury cess, because it said—
"Every person so appointed collector shall, for the purpose of such collection, have all the powers, authorities, and remedies given by law to the collector of the Grand Jury cess."
The question of levying by distress had frequently been debated in that House and the whole Liberal Party were committed to a repeal of the law. Moreover, he would point out that the Law of Distress was simply a barbarous remedy, and it only remained upon the Statute Book because the House of Commons were too much occupied in passing Coercion Acts for Ireland to take it off. Under this Law of Distress the collector could go upon the land and seize the goods; but if carried out under this provision, as he proposed to amend it, the tenant of any holding would be able to compel the collector to produce a magistrate's order giving authority for the seizure. In Ireland they were told the people were an excitable people, and specially liable to be led into crime; and
1074
if this were really a Bill for the prevention of crime in Ireland, how undesirable it was that power should be given under it to a person to enter and seize a man's stock—his one cow perhaps. He moved this Amendment in the interests of the peace of a district, because there was no doubt that the levies would fall upon a certain class of tenants, and there would be resistance and turbulence, and on that ground he would ask the Government to accept the Amendment. All that he asked by the Amendment was that the person making the levy should be provided with a magistrate's order, and surely that was not too much to ask for. He would also remind the Government that there had been many instances of riots and disturbances—not in Ireland, but in this peaceable country called England—which had occurred when levies had been made upon the goods of poor persons, so that it was evident that riots and disturbances were the natural outcome of this law.
Amendment proposed,
In page 9, line 7, after the word "same," to insert the words "Provided, That no such charge shall be levied by distress.—(Mr. Healy.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, it was a condition, as far as he knew, that all charges upon land should be levied by distrait. This was a charge upon land, and he could see no reason why it should be dealt with in a different manner.
MR. HEALYsaid, that what he asked the Government was this—that so far as they were committed to the abolition of the Law of Distress—[Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT: No, no.]—at all events, there was a great conflict upon this point, and, perhaps, the historic conscience of the right hon. and learned Gentleman had not yet ripened on this matter. All that was asked was that at an expense of 1s. 6d. a magistrate's order should be obtained in advance. In the mere case of a search warrant the person who made the search had to be provided with a warrant; but in making a distrait that was not so, though it was in the search for some miserable chattel, or some miserable article of stock, perhaps all that the tenant possessed, in the world. That being so, was it to be wondered at that

1075
resistance would be made when the tenant believed the person making the seizure had no legal rights? Such resistance would lead to crime and bloodshed, and the result would be that the Government would come to Parliament for fresh powers to deal with the matter, the whole of which might be prevented by a notice of 24 hours.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the hon. Member had confounded two very different things. The distress for rent involved a number of considerations, and what the hon. Member's Amendment alluded to was the ordinary way by which county cess was levied, and even a magistrate's order must be levied by distress in order to realize. All that was proposed by the clause was to levy the charge just as the poor rate or county cess charges were levied; and the process proposed was exactly that under which the Grand Jury cess was levied.
MR. HEALYsaid, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman had been in the House when he (Mr. Healy) moved the Amendment he would have found that all he asked by it was that a magistrate's order should be obtained, so that it could be shown they had some legal right to levy. If the Government considered that his Amendment prevented the order, he was willing to amend it; but he did not think it would do anything of the kind.
STR FREDERICK MILBANK: I rise to Order.
MR. HEALY: Perhaps the hon. Baronet will favor the Committee on his legs. All that was wanted was that the person making the levy should show the unfortunate tenant that he had some legal right. What he wanted to prevent was the turbulence and disorder that would follow if there were no such order. They were told that this was a Bill for the prevention of crime, but he considered it was a Bill for the creation of crime, as it was evident it would cause disorder. The argument of the Home Secretary was no sufficient reason for refusing what was asked for, and he trusted that this concession would be made in the interests of the people themselves, and in the interests of peace and tranquility; because, if the Government had no regard for peace, at least they had—["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Members said "Oh, oh!" but he would say that
1076
no one suffered more terribly by turmoil in Ireland than the Irish Party did, for the reason that they had to face the Coercion Acts which were brought about, as they were told, by crime. ["Oh, oh!"] Did the hon. Member for Wales, or Caravan, or somewhere in the Principality, think the Irish Members had any interests to serve in staying up to that hour (4.30 A.M.) of the night, or that they only did it for fun? It was no fun at all. It might be sport to the Government, but it was death to them.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he had no wish that there should be undue harshness; and there was an Amendment lower down upon the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for New Ross (Mr. Redmond) which the Government were willing to accept—namely, that—
"Any person liable to any such charge shall on demand be entitled to inspect the applot-ment and the warrant for the collection of the name."
MR. HEALYsaid he was glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had hailed the smiling morn with some appearance of concession. With regard to the Amendment before the Committee, he would point out that the person who made the seizure must have some document; and he would ask if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would agree that the person making the seizure should produce the warrant or a copy of it?
SIR FREDERICK MILBANKwished to say one word. It was all very well for the hon. Member to say that the person making the seizure should produce an order; but if 24 hours' notice were given they might depend upon it there would not be a particle of anything left to seize. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Healy) had challenged him to "get on his legs." He had done so, and he hoped the hon. Member was satisfied.
MR. HEALYbegged to withdraw the Amendment, on the understanding that the persons who went to make a seizure should have some document or authority for making it, which they could produce.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTpromised that that should be done when they came to the subsequent Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY)pointed out that the next Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) could not be put.
MR. HEALYasked if the Chairman was aware that there was a provision with regard to collection which said that such applotment should be made and such charges collected by persons for the time being appointed by warrant of the Lord Lieutenant? That was the whole point of his Amendment, which provided that no person so named should receive any remuneration until he had made an affidavit that the levy had been fairly and impartially made.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY)said, the proposal of the hon. Member was to fix a condition to the receipt of remuneration for undertaking the work of collection. The Proviso was—
"That no person so named shall receive any remuneration for undertaking such collection until he shall have made affidavit before a justice of the peace that the levy has been fairly and impartially made, and that no more than the sum authorized by the warrant to be levied has been collected."
The proposal contained in the clause did not deal with those remunerations, and the Amendment was, therefore, irrelevant.
MR. SEXTONsaid, the Amendment he had to propose laid down the manner in which the collector should perform his duties, and was as follows:—
"Provided, That no proceedings for the collection of any such charge shall be taken unless at least ten days previous to the commencement of such proceedings notice in writing shall have been left at the dwelling house of the person liable to pay same, signed by the collector and bearing his address, and informing such person of his liability to such charge, and of the amount of same, and stating that, if not paid within ten days, legal proceedings might be instituted forthwith,"
The object of the Amendment was to give a certain amount of time for the payment of the charge. They had heard the Government say that the effectiveness of these tax clauses would depend upon the speed with which they were brought into operation. That might be true as regarded certain taxes; but with regard to the collection of this charge he thought a little time might intervene without creating any great inconvenience to the authorities. In the case of such taxes as the Grand Jury cess and the
1078
poor rate, a considerable time was given by the collectors; but in this case a special collector, appointed by a special order from the Lord Lieutenant, might take it into his head to proceed very promptly and call upon the people to immediately produce the money, and from any such course of action as that they might apprehend the most dangerous results. The Amendment would have a double effect; it would prevent irritation, and enable the person charged to be prepared with the money. Therefore, he hoped the Home Secretary would not see any objection to the Amendment.
Amendment proposed,
In page 9, line 7, after the word "same," to insert the words "Provided, That no proceedings for the collection of any such charge shall be taken unless at least ten days previous to the commencement of such proceedings notice in writing shall have been left at the dwelling house of the person liable to pay same, signed by the collector and bearing his address, and informing such person of his liability to such charge, and of the amount of same, and stating that, if not paid within ten days, legal proceedings might be instituted forthwith."—(Mr. Sexton.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the effect of the Amendment would be, as had been stated by his hon. Friend the Member for the North Riding of Yorkshire (Sir Frederick Milbank), to give a notice to the people so as to enable them to get everything out of the way before proceedings could be taken. There was no sort of reason for supposing that the clause would not be administered exactly in the same way as in the case of the poor rate and the county cess.
MR. METGEsaid, the Committee must not believe that county Cess was levied without notice, because due notice was given in every instance, and it was only in a few cases that an extreme course was taken. He would ask the Committee if they believed that the argument used by the hon. Baronet the Member for the North Riding of Yorkshire (Sir Frederick Milbank) was correct? Was it possible that a tenant could convey away his property, and not leave behind as much as would pay the rate, in the short time of 10 days? The rate would not be more than a few shillings, therefore it was

1079
impossible to believe that the tenants would remove their things merely for the purpose of evading the law.
MR. LEAHYsaid he could not let the assertion of the hon. Baronet pass without giving it the denial it deserved. The poor rates were struck in September, and were not collected until March; and no one ever ran away with their goods to avoid payment, nor would they run away from this blood tax.
MR. HEALYsaid, that now the hon. Baronet the Member for the North Biding of Yorkshire (Sir Frederick Milbank) had obtained the encomiums of the Home Secretary he (Mr. Healy) would say to him, "Never speak again;" and as to the statement that people would run away if notice were given, he must say that might be popular in Yorkshire, but it was not in Ireland. ["No, no!"] If not popular in Yorkshire, he did not know where the hon. Baronet got his ideas from. He knew himself that in the county of Waterford an agent, who had no more sympathy with the people of Ireland than the Home Secretary, and who was a collector of the poor rate and the Grand Jury cess, was in the habit of lending the people money out of his own pocket when he knew they had been unable to meet a tax, and they did not run away. The fact was, as was well known, that there was not a country in the world where rates and taxes were better paid, nor a country in the world where the people got worse value for them.
MR. SEXTONsaid, the only things on a farm that could be easily made away with were the live stock, and there would still be the furniture and the crops that could be seized.
MR. PARNELLasked the Attorney General for Ireland what was the practice pursued by the collector of county cess, and whether he could seize directly the amount became due?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): Certainly he can.
MR. PARNELLasked if it was not likely that this tax would be collected immediately?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): Not necessarily.
MR. PARNELLsaid the tax would be most probably collected by the police. Iron huts would be sent down to a dis-
1080
trict with a body of police, and the police would probably make raids upon the people of the district for their own support. In his judgment, the provision would be worked in the most arbitrary manner; and those responsible for the collection would, without notice, be making raids at all hours of the day and night; for he might notice there was no limitation of time. It would be possible immediately the Lord Lieutenant sent down his warrant and it was put into the hands of the officers—who would most likely be the Constabulary—that such officers would be able to go and seize upon cattle and goods and sell them on the spot at a low rate and without advertising the sale. He asked, was it fair that the law should exist in that way? They knew that the county cess collectors, before they resorted to such summary methods, followed a regularly defined practice. They sent first of all a document containing the amount of the cess that was due and payable by the occupier, and they said when they would come themselves for the collection of the money. When the period arrived they applied for the amount, and if they did not get it they might come and seize afterwards in a summary way. That, he repeated, was the practice; but if they looked at the sub-section before them they would see that there were no provisions in it to provide for a similar mode of collection. Everything was left bare and undefined.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the facts as to the present provision were not as the hon. Member stated; but, on the contrary, the provision was the same as in the case of Grand Jury cess. It was, in fact, expressly set forth that the persons engaged in the collection should have all the powers given by law for the collection of Grand Jury cess.
MR. PARNELL: If that is so I shall be glad if the right hon. and learned Gentleman will put it clearly in the Bill. [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT: It is in the Bill.] He did not think so. The powers referred to were to secure the collection of the money; but there were no safeguards to limit and prescribe the exercise of the powers thus conferred in such a way that hardship would not be inflicted. He might say that he was not be familiar with the circumstances as to I be able to say whether the safeguards he alluded to in connection with county

1081
cess were in the law, but he knew them to be in practice.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid that he would have no objection to meet the hon. Member on this point, and to provide that the charge should be levied in like manner to the county cess.
MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork, and the hon. Member for Kildare (Mr. Leahy), whom he had consulted, said that something like 10 days' notice was given by the collector of county cess; but the notice appeared to be an act of grace on the collector's part, and not a boon conferred by Statute. It was, therefore, plain that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman put words into the sub-section which would have the effect of making the collection of that tax the same as the collection of county cess, they might still not have the same practice pursued, and have the notice dependent on the indulgence of the collector. He, therefore, asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman to make the giving of notice a statutory obligation.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid that he wanted to make it quite clear what he intended. He meant to provide that the legal method of the collection of this charge should be the same as the legal method in connection with county cess. It might, of course, be proper that in the collection of such rates notice should be given by the collector, if it were thought safe, to grant indulgence in the case; but that was a different thing from making the indulgence a statutory obligation. He should, therefore, propose that the method of collection should be the same as that described in the 152nd section of the Grand Jury Act.
MR. PARNELL: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman read the section?
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTreplied that it was too long; but he would pass it over to the hon. Member for the City of Cork, suggesting that he might himself peruse it.
MR. METGEsaid that it was clear the difficulty was about the notice. In the case of county cess, the cess was struck for a certain day in the year, and was legally required to be paid on that day. The collectors gave notice to those liable to pay; but the cess was seldom
1082
paid on the first notice, and they there fore gave a second, and sometimes a third notice. Moreover, in extreme cases they allowed the time to outrun, and paid the money out of their own pockets, trusting to the people to pay up afterwards. If, therefore, the right hon. and learned Gentleman wished to make the collection under the sub-section before them act in the same way, a day should be fixed for the payment of the charge.
MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, that it was to be remembered that there was a great difference between the collection of this tax and the collection of county cess. In the latter case, they had a charge raised with the consent of the people; in the former, they had a punitive tax, and there was a temptation that those engaged in its collection might be tempted to be arbitrary, and regard their conduct as a part of the punishment. That was, at least, possible; and there was, therefore, some reason why there should be stringency in the conditions of the collection.
MR. LEAMYsaid, that he concurred in the opinion that the tax was arbitrary in regard to the collection. If a man were suddenly applied to and had not the money to pay, but found his cattle at once seized upon in consequence, it would be a great hardship. For this reason, notice of some kind should be given.
MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid that he had just now looked over the Statute relating to county cess, and he saw that the collector could collect it at once. It was, therefore, clear that the notice was a matter of grace. This, however, was not what they wanted in the present case, but that fair indulgence should be given. As a matter of fact, the collection of this tax might be made of the most harsh character, much more so than would happen in the case of the county cess, which was struck on a certain day, the day being advertised, and the tenant having, at least, a month's notice of the legal time of payment, and, in addition, several days' indulgence from the collectors.
MR. PARNELLsaid that the suggestion of the Home Secretary practically left the matter where it was. They wanted the general practice of the county cess collectors to be made obligatory on the collectors of this new tax. They

1083
were entitled to ask that notice should be given, and he did not think that there would be any risk to the collection if such a course were pursued. In the case of persons who had stock to seize, the tax would not be such a fine as would render it worth their while to drive their stock away to avoid seizure for refusal to pay; and as regarded the smaller class of tenancy, they would, practically speaking, have no stock to seize. He thought, therefore, that the Home Secretary should consider the matter, and say whether he would insert some such Proviso as was recommended on Report.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that he agreed that before the officer made the demand the people should have ample notice; but the general warrant would be published in the form that was prescribed, and could be given in The Dublin Gazette, and one or two of the local papers, so that the locality might know that the charge was to be made, and that the people might provide for it. It might also be an instruction to the collectors that they should collect generally in the same way as county cess was collected. They could not, however, make this a statutory obligation, for he could conceive that if a collector, even of county cess, thought that a man was going to bolt, he would use his power of distress to insure payment. That was what he must be able to do in this case if necessary; and the power was perfectly proper and right.
MR. PARNELLsaid, that he wanted to provide that when the levy was made and the fine was settled by the Lord Lieutenant, the collectors should furnish the person upon whom the levy was to be made with a document informing him of the amount—and, of course, that document would be furnished in the same way as the county cess document was furnished some time in advance. This really would not assist the people to avoid payment in the slightest degree, because the officers, in the event of the failure of payment, could make the seizure at any time. Thus, if a person did move his cattle, it was probable that he would bring them back, and when he did the seizure could be made. As a matter of fact, therefore, the risk would be slight.
MR. METGEsaid, that he was still of opinion that the Amendment might be accepted.
MR. GRAYsaid, that it was also desirable that before this levy was made or these proceedings taken there should be legal evidence that all the preliminaries had been complied with. They would not be so anxious in that matter if the Bill provided that the collectors of county cess were also the collectors of the tax under this sub-section. They would then assume that the collectors would go through the same forms; but special officers were to be appointed, probably Constabulary officers, who would adhere to the bare regulations contained in the Act itself, and if so more hardships would be inflicted. It was true that they might publish the notice in The Dublin Gazette and the local papers, but it would not thereby reach many of the poorest and most ignorant of the tenants. They should, therefore, have some assurance that notice would be given to the individuals, as was done in the case of county cess, or he might also say, the Income Tax.
MR. PARNELL: I suppose we may understand that that is the right hon. and learned Gentleman's view of the matter.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Yes; as a general instruction.
MR. SEXTONsaid he would withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. SHAW LEFEVREin the Chair.
[5.30 A.M.
MR. SEXTON MR. SEXTON moved in page 9, line 7, after "same," to insert—
"Provided, that no person shall he appointed collector under this section having any pecuniary interest in the proceeds of the levy."
He said that the clause afforded no assurance as to the persons to be appointed to collect. Those appointed to that kind of office in Ireland often belonged to the governing classes, and if anyone belonging to that class were injured, and the injury had to be compensated for under the clause, the person collecting might, if he were interested in so doing, be inclined to press matters too hardly.
Amendment proposed,
In page 9, line 7, after the word "same," to insert the words "Provided, That no person shall be appointed collector under this section having any pecuniary interest in the proceeds of the levy."—(Mr. Sexton.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid that it was not very easy to understand what was intended to be the scope of the Amendment. If it meant that a person on whose behalf a levy was made should not himself be the collector, he did not think it would be necessary to put it in the Bill, for there would not be the smallest probability of such a thing taking place. On the other hand, if the term "pecuniary interest" were to be applied—as in the ambiguous form of the Amendment it might be—to those for whom, as a class, the charge was required, the absurdity of the proposal would be equally great, for even in the case of county cess the ordinary collectors might be said to have an interest in the levy.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR MR. T. P. O'CONNOR moved, in page 9, line 7, after "same," to insert—
"Provided, that a warrant under this section shall not be in force for more than one year from the date thereof."
He thought that it could not be doubted that these warrants should not be held over the heads of people for more than 12 months, and that in that time the warrant should be considered to have spent itself. To make it run for more than 12 months was very likely to prevent a return to that tranquility which the clause was intended to restore.
Amendment proposed,
In page 9, line 7, after the word "same," to insert the words—"Provided, That a warrant under this section shall not he in force for more than one year from the date thereof."—(Mr. T. P. O'Connor.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, that the Amendment could not be accepted. The desire of the Executive would be to make the operation of the warrant as easy as possible, and if the amount were made payable in installments it might be spread over two half-years or three half-years. This plan, however, would be defeated if the Amendment were accepted.
MR. HEALYsaid, that there were some points in the right hon. and learned
1086
Gentleman's remarks; but he asked whether there was any objection to stating in the warrant the time for which it would run?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, that this was provided for in the prescribed form of the warrant.
MR. METGEsaid that the right hon. and learned Gentleman now appeared to hold that the installments should act as easily as possible; but he said earlier in the evening that the charge would be a penalty on the district, and his statements, therefore, were not quite consistent.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. REDMOND MR. REDMOND moved, in page 9, line 7, after "same," to insert the following sub-section:—
"Any person liable to any such charge shall on demand be entitled to inspect the applotment and the warrant for the collection of same."
Amendment proposed,
In page 9, line 7, after the word "same," to insert the following sub-section:—"Any person liable to any such charge shall on demand be entitled to inspect the applotment and the warrant for the collection of same."—(Mr. Redmond.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. HEALYsaid that the Amendment did not express with sufficient clearness what the Home Secretary promised earlier in the Sitting. He assumed that the hon. Member would have no objection to amend it, to provide that the warrant should be produced at the time of the seizure. The Amendment only said that the person should have the right to inspect the warrant; but nothing was said as to the time and place, and the opportunity of inspection might even be offered to him after the seizure, and at Dublin Castle.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid that the term "on demand" meant instantly, and he could not see how the difficulty the hon. Member referred to could arise. They might put in words to the effect that the person should
"On demand, 'before the execution of the warrant,' be entitled to inspect the applotment and the warrant or a copy thereof."
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn,
Amendment proposed,
In page 9, line 7, after the word "same," to insert the words—"Any person should on demand before the execution of the warrant be entitled to inspect the applotment and the warrant or a copy thereof."—(Sir William Harcourt.)
Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
MR. HEALY MR. HEALY moved, in page 9, line 7, after "same," to insert—
"Provided, that no person shall he appointed as a collector under this section unless such person would he eligible for appointment as high constable and collector of grand jury cess."
He said that they were surely not going to appoint policemen to collect this money. In his opinion, the acceptance of the Amendment would not weaken the clause, and he suggested that as they were now getting on nicely the Government should accept his proposal.
Amendment proposed,
At the end of the foregoing Amendment, to add the words—"Provided that no person shall be appointed as a collector under this section unless such person would be eligible for appointment as high constable and collector of grand jury cess."—(Mr. Healy.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid that he did not take the view that they were getting on nicely; but if such were the opinion of the hon. Member, perhaps he would withdraw the Amendment.
MR. HEALYasked what were the views of the Attorney General for Ireland in the matter?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, that they could not fetter the discretion of the Lord Lieutenant.
MR. HEALYsaid, that they heard continually of the inconvenience of extra duties being put upon the police, and that was a cry often raised by the Conservatives, who had only recently complained that owing to the energies of the police being diverted the caretakers had been abandoned. But an additional burden appeared to be contemplated in the collection of this miserable blood tax. Of course it was said that the Lord Lieutenant must not be fettered, but the Bill fettered him from first to last, and if they did not want him to be fettered they had better pass a measure for him to be allowed to do what he
1088
liked for three years—a proposal which might be very agreeable to the hon. Member for Stroud.
MR. GRAYsaid that it was important that the police should be excluded. As a body, they were highly respectable men, and he would be sorry to say anything against them. If, however, they appointed policemen, giving them a poundage rate on the collection, in addition to their salaries, it would become a matter of ambition with them to be appointed collectors, and it would be a matter of interest with them not to put down crime.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, that no difficulty or dissatisfaction arose from similar provisions in the Act of 1870.
MR. HEALYsaid, that then the case was different, for the Grand Jury appointed the collectors.
MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that of all persons that they could select for the collection, the most unfit would be the Constabulary, who, during the last few years, had been made to do very disagreeable duty in attending evictions, and were already unpopular from having been brought into frequent collision with the people. Another point to be noticed was the fact that large sums of money might have to be collected. The remuneration for the collection would depend on a poundage and accordingly the collector would have a pecuniary interest in getting all he could; whilst, at the same time, for his remuneration as a constable, he might not be a very proper person to entrust with the large sum that he might be required to obtain.
MR. HEALYasked whether it really would be the police who would carry on the collection?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)replied, that it would most probably be the police.
MR. GRAYsaid that the Act of 1870 extended over a small area, and no comparison could properly be drawn between cases under it and what would arise under the present measure. Besides, the Lord Lieutenant and his advisers would, in making the charge, practically act on the Report of the officers who would have to obtain the money, and who would thus have an interest in having it fixed as high as possible. Surely there were sufficient proper persons to select

1089
for the collection without selecting those that were least fit.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, that, personally, he was satisfied that the collection would go with much more smoothness if the police, rather than anyone else, were appointed for the work,
MR. REDMONDsaid that he was anxious that this duty should be fulfilled by ordinary county cess collectors; and they had more than one reason for that. They objected to the police, not only on the grounds stated by the hon. Member for the County of Carlow (Mr. Gray), but also because, if the collection were made by the county cess collectors, they would give the same notice, and collect in the same way, as they did in the case of county cess. He asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman for an assurance that the Government would consider the appointment of cess collectors to collect the tax. It was most objectionable on every conceivable ground that the persons so appointed should be policemen.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, of course he would take care that the matter should be considered, but his own opinion was that cess collectors would not undertake to do the duty.
MR. REDMONDsaid, he was sorry to hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman give expression to such an opinion.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, he had pointed out that he did not think cess collectors would be chosen. Instead of sending collectors with police to protect them, it would be better to employ the police to collect.
MR. REDMONDobjected wholly to that, for it implied that there were districts in Ireland where crime was committed, and where the district was so demoralized that no man could be found to collect a rate there. ["Hear, hear!"] He did not complain of the cheers with which he was interrupted, because they came from Englishmen; but he did protest against the expression of such an opinion by an Irishman who filled the post of Attorney General. It was monstrous that he should be allowed, to mislead English Members by the expression of an opinion of that kind. At that moment there was not a district in Ireland where a man might not safely go and collect a tax.
1090
He must ask the Chairman to use his authority to protect him against the interruptions of English Members, who did their best to import heat and bad blood into the discussion; and their efforts were sometimes too much for the tried patience of Irish Members to keep their temper. The disorderly interruptions had only one intention—to precipitate some kind of a scene, and to throw discredit on the Irish Members. But if they succeeded in producing a scene, the discredit would be upon the Committee, and not upon the Irish Members, who, in these trying times, had striven to keep their tempers.
MR. T. P. O'CONNORdenied the Attorney General for Ireland's statement, and challenged him to give one case in Ireland where collectors of county rates or poor rates had a single difficulty in making their collections. The concession of the Home Secretary with regard to the previous part of the clause absolutely established the justice of the proposal of his hon. Friend, for the right hon. and learned Gentleman had conceded that the tax should be collected in the same way as the county cess; and, if that was to be so, who were better able to be collectors of this blood tax than the collectors of county cess, who were in the habit of doing the duty? The Attorney General for Ireland must be unacquainted with the position taken up by his right hon. and learned Colleague. But the Committee had reason to be thankful, perhaps, for the frankness with which he had stated his opinion and intention that policemen should be employed. That threw a flood of light on the proceedings. The Government would investigate the matter, said the right hon. and learned Gentleman; but he forgot that, under Clause 15, it would be necessarily the police who would invite the action of the Lord Lieutenant, and by their own reports the local police would be placed in this position—that the same men would have the onus of collecting the tax their report imposed upon the people. If the Bill was bad, and would be exasperating in its effect, a better policy could not be found for increasing that.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 14; Noes 109: Majority 95.—(Div. List, No. 208.) [6.10 A.M.
MR. HEALYwished to insert an Amendment in line 7 of the clause, to the effect that the expenses of a summons for the charge should not exceed 5s. It was usual, in a summons for small debts, that the costs should not be more than 5s.; and, on the whole, he thought it would be wise for the Government to make the same provision in these cases. If the levy had to be enforced, as it were, at the point of the bayonet, it followed that the man resisting it would be a poor man, for no man would be so foolish as to defer the payment of the claim if he had the money to meet it. Supposing a man had to sell part of his stock, or of his furniture, to meet the demand, then he must have time to do this; and he thought the Government should make this as light for the unfortunate man as possible, and the Home Secretary had implied that the levy would be sometimes excessive.
Amendment proposed,
At the end of the foregoing Amendment, to add the words—"Provided, That in case any person is summoned before a justice to enforce payment of any such charge, it shall not be lawful for such justice to award more than five shillings as the costs and expenses of any such summons."—(Mr. Healy.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid he hoped hon. Members would be consistent in admitting that the business of making these collections should be on the same footing as the county cess. There was no such provision as this in connection with the collection of country cess; it was in the discretion of the Justice to say what costs should be paid. In reference to one or two Amendments, the Government had undertaken that the form of levy should be as nearly as possible that of the county cess, and on the same conditions.
MR. HEALYsaid, he would accept that principle if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would agree to it all round; but the Committee had just defeated an Amendment in that direction—namely, that the tax should be collected by the collectors of county cess. Having voted that down, the right hon. and learned Gentleman now asked the Committee to proceed, as if they had been sleeping all the time. He would not complain if the Government accepted
1092
the principle, but they were not doing so. Another point was this—the magistrates would be apt to view this on a very different principle to the ordinary levy of county cess. It was quite true that in recovering this last there was no limitation of costs; but they would look at the matter differently, and there would be no limit to vindictiveness, and the magistrate would be less likely to show fair play to individuals. The collection of the poor rate was a mere abstract question exciting no feeling, and, though a question of malicious injury might arise, they were not such cases as would come up in this case. He was appealing for a most miserable class. The Committee had no idea of the condition of those who would suffer under this tax, of the miserable lot of these unhappy serfs on the mountain side, for it was in these miserable districts that the murders were committed. If any Gentleman would go to where the murders were committed they would find the most miserable tenants on the face of the earth. Why, then, grind these miserable wretches? The House was unpopular enough in Ireland, and English law was hated enough there without making it worse. Why, he was trying to popularize the British connection by his Amendment—though he confessed that was rather a stiff thing to undertake—and let the Committee show a little fair play. Surely 5s. was enough costs in which to mulct these unfortunate men.
MR. LEAMYsaid if the Home Secretary would not accept this, let him state what he would do. If an unfortunate man was summoned, he would have to come to Petty Sessions, perhaps from a long distance; he would lose his work during the time he was there, and it would be quite hard enough to have the decree enforced at all. He supposed there would be no necessity for the employment of a solicitor, and the amount under the Amendment of his hon. Friend would be quite sufficient to cover the costs in every way. The costs would be really only the expense of the stamp and the cost for serving the summons.
MR. GRAYsaid, unfortunately, in the rural districts of Ireland the magistrates were all taken from one class, a class known to be in decided antagonism and hostility to the tenancy, though he did not mean to insinuate that invariably or frequently magistrates on the Bench,

1093
even though they were landlords, would be influenced by a vindictive, hostile feeling to the class they imagined might have injured them; yet certain cases might arise in which a landlord might impose vindictive costs on an unfortunate tenant brought before him. It would be the poorest class who would be proceeded against in this manner, for no man who could pay the levy would like the case to go to Court, for that would simply add to the cost; it would be a class to whom a few shillings would be of the greatest moment. The levy might be assumed to be very small. Sometimes the levy itself would not amount to the costs which even under this Amendment would be imposed on the tenant; and, surely, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not accept this, he might name some limit to protect the tenant against injustice that in some cases would be inflicted by landlords who were also magistrates, and who could not forget on the Bench their position outside. The Small Debts Act afforded a fair example of this class of legislation. It might not be necessary to name a sum for all cases, for a wealthy man might, for some reason, like to fight it out in Court; but if the Government would say some percentage, that would, perhaps, meet the case, but some limit should be given to protect the poorest classes, on whom these levies would be made.
MR. TREVELYANsaid, undoubtedly, in most of the cases, 5s. would be reasonable costs; but there was one consideration the Committee would do well to remember, and which really ought, in the opinion of the Government, to govern this controversy. Of late there had been many cases of resistance to the payment of legal claims in Ireland, and resistance to the payment of claims and debts had, in certain cases, been considered by those who resisted a matter of principle; and it must be recognized that resistance to these claims might be considered a matter of principle too. Now, the means of overcoming that was by legal proceedings and the infliction of costs; therefore, it seemed undesirable—while he had every reason to believe that the Bench would not bear hardly on poor persons—it was extremely undesirable to fix a limit to costs by law. While the hon. Members for Wexford (Mr.
1094
Healy) and Carlow (Mr. Gray) were talking with full knowledge of Ireland, and with great and just sympathy with a class of people they understood, the Committee must remember it was not only the poor people who resisted for 18 months the payment of legal claims. Without entering into a controversy on their action, it was absolutely the fact that some of the richest men among the tenant-farmer class had been among the leading people in resisting the payment of legal debts. It was against this class that the Court would have the discretion of inflicting costs, and it would not be directed against the poorer class to whom the hon. Members referred. As regarded the manner in which this business of collection was to be conducted, it was a matter on which, in the course of the last two days, he had said much, and on which a long discussion had taken place; but he did not believe that this clause would over be used for vindictively inflicting suffering on the poorer classes of tenants.
MR. HEALYsaid he was quite ready to meet the Chief Secretary in so far as he had gone. He stated that this tax might be resisted by the wealthier tenants; then, would he except these and restrict the limitation to holdings of a £30 valuation? As to the principle of resistance to just debts, let him remember there was a yet stronger principle—that of poverty. Would the right hon. Gentleman adopt the limitation in the Arrears Bill—a £30 valuation? He was willing to go lower, and take anything he could get. He was quite ready to make the proposal that in cases where the valuation was not over a certain limit the costs should not exceed 5s., say in cases of holdings rated under the Act for the valuation of rent and property at a £30 valuation, so that the unfortunate tenants on unproductive mountain sides should not have heavy costs thrown upon them. It was all very well to say the magistrates would act leniently; they would not, and they were not to be trusted any more than the "Great Unpaid" in England was by hon. Members opposite. He trusted the Government would see their way to accepting something in the nature of this Amendment. Surely the Small Debts Act, if it had any force at all, should apply to these cases. The Attorney General for Ireland said that he

1095
would desire to apply this levy as moderately as possible, and he even spoke of dividing it into three installments; and if the Government were willing to act leniently in this way, why not do the same in the matter of costs? The cases where a man of property thought it worth his while to resist legal pressure would be only 1 in 1,000.
MR. SEXTONsaid, the Chief Secretary had spoken of the resistance to legal debts on the part of the richer tenants, and the first observation in reply to that was, that his hon. Friend had offered to accept an Amendment that would limit this special protection to the poorer tenants. It was not asked that really wealthy tenants should be protected by the Amendment, and there was no objection to rendering them liable to costs at the discretion of the Courts; but he asked that tenants in an obviously poor and wretched condition should have the protection of the Amendment. The second observation to the Chief Secretary's remarks was that resistance to debt had been resistance of one man to another, and, so far as he knew, there had been no resistance made to demands on behalf of the State. The debt to be demanded under this clause would be a debt to the State, and the reason why he was entitled to draw a distinction between this class of debt and another was that he was not aware of resistance to either the Grand Jury cess, or the poor rate, or anything in the nature of a public application. It had been said by the Home Secretary that in the case of summons for county cess in Ireland, costs were levied at the discretion of the magistrates; but in reference to county cess or poor rate there was reason for this discretion. These did not raise any new impost, for county cess and poor rate were parts of the ordinary obligations of citizens in every year; and every person of forethought and prudence might reasonably be expected to provide for these obligations; and there was nothing unreasonable to charge him with costs in proportion as he neglected that duty. But the charge Tinder the Bill would be in an altogether different position. It would not form part of the ordinary obligations of a citizen, or a charge that a citizen had a right to expect would be thrown upon him; it would be an unforeseen burden, an oppressive demand that would fall
1096
heavily and unexpectedly on the poor people of Ireland, ignorant men, perhaps, but who would know they never should have been liable for it; persons who detested and abominated crime from the bottom of their hearts, and had no sympathy with agrarian or any other form of outrage. So, then, there was a strong case for those who said that, in addition to the claim demanded, the costs should be as light as possible.
MR. CALLANsaid he was surprised that the Government should waste time over such a trifling Amendment as this. The Committee heard a great deal about the murders in Ireland, and they had heard the Home Secretary in his magnificent manner, so suggestive of a Corinthian pillar of the State, upon these small Amendments, and he was surprised that the late Chief Secretary, with his intimate knowledge of Irish affairs, had not risen to throw oil on the troubled waters for once. If he had referred to the 3rd section of the 17th clause, he would find there that—
"Every person appointed as collector shall, for the purposes of this collection, have all the powers, authorities, and remedies given by law to the collector of grand jury cess."
And what were these?
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE): I must ask the hon. Member to speak to the Question.
MR. CALLANsaid, with all due respect to the Chair, he was speaking expressly to the Question.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE): Does the hon. Member contest my ruling? I have already said the hon. Member is not speaking to the Question.
MR. CALLANquoted the Amendment and said, he wanted to show what power had already been given by the clause, and what authority collectors had, so that it was not necessary that costs should be above 5s. He wanted to show that, according to the clause, there was power, there was authority, and there were remedies given that would cover all expenses that could be necessarily incurred, the Amendment only referring to cases where a man was summoned before the magistrate. The power and authority included the entering on a man's land, or into his house, and seizing stock or furniture; any article in the house or on the land could be seized without any summons what-

1097
ever, and without incurring any costs whatever. The collector would have the same authority as he would have in regard to county cess; he could go and seize, without summons, by virtue of his warrant; therefore, if he took out a summons, it was, as one might say, in excess of his jurisdiction, for there was no necessity for his doing it.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE): Again I must call on the hon. Member to speak to the Question, which is, whether the costs under a summons shall be more than 5s.
MR. CALLANsaid, he wanted to show that it was desirable to impose this limitation, because efficient remedies were given already by the clause, and summoning a poor man was—[Interruptions]—but he must ask the Chairman to protect him against disorderly interruptions, which prevented him being understood, and which must interfere with the course of anyone's argument, especially at such an hour.
MR. HEALYsaid, the Committee must do the minority the justice of allowing that they had endeavoured to conduct these proceedings with as few divisions as possible. They had not been frequent, and he wished to avoid a division now. As had been just said, the Government had the power of distress, and they should not, because a rich, man might repudiate a just claim, seek to have this power of heaping up costs against any poor tenant. The Government had already refused his Amendment to prevent the operation of the Law of Distress, and they also asked to have the power of heaping up costs. That was too much to ask. The rejection of his Amendment had put the Government in this position. Having said they would levy by distress where they possibly could, they now said they would put that law in force with the addition of as heavy costs as possible. He thought the Government must see that that would not matter one way or the other to them.
MR. GRAYsaid, the Chief Secretary had spoken of a wealthy man resisting payment of legal debts, and that it was undesirable in such a case to have a limitation that would encourage him in his resistance. The fairness of this argument was recognized by his hon. Friend the Member for Wexford; and, accordingly, he said then exempt the wealthy man from the operation of the
1098
limitation, and provide that it should only apply to the poor tenant, whom the Chief Secretary admitted must be hit very hard by the imposition of a heavy sum for costs. No reply was made to that proposal; but he was not without hope that the Government would see their way to accepting it in principle by a provision that where the sum did not exceed a certain amount specified, then the costs should not exceed a certain amount. There was reason in this proposition, and he trusted the Home Secretary would see his way to accept it, for he was sure there was no desire that vindictive costs should be heaped up against a tenant.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: No, Sir; I do not admit for a moment that this clause has been discussed in a reasonable manner. I am bound to say that, in my Parliamentary experience, a more intolerable and unjustifiable waste of public time has never been known than that exhibited on this clause, which has now occupied the Committee 14 hours—a clause not of first-rate importance—by Amendments many of them wholly unreasonable, and none more so than that now under discussion. During the time wasted on this clause not one single argument has been advanced why there should be a distinction between the rule in the collection of this rate and the collection of county cess, or poor rate, or any other rate. I know it is no use entering this protest, but I do record it, that the House may judge hereafter how it may be necessary to proceed with this Bill, that now, after 14 hours of the most wanton, most deliberate, most intolerable waste of time ever known, without the slightest reason a discussion has been carried on for more than an hour on an Amendment for which no sort of solid argument has been offered.
MR. GRAYtook the opportunity of saying that a more intolerable and unjustifiable attack had never been made. What were the facts? While the Committee were discussing the Amendment, while the Chief Secretary was dealing with arguments, the legitimacy of which he recognized, the right hon. and learned Gentleman who had just made this attack was fast asleep.
MR. CALLANcalled attention to interruptions proceeding from the hon. Members for Tyrone and Berwick.
MR. GRAYappealed to the Home Secretary if what he had said was not true?
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, it was certainly not true; he heard every word, and had heard the last two hours' discussion of the clause.
MR. GRAYsaid, he would make his appeal to the Chief Secretary, who did hear the discussion, and recognized there was some force in it, and who stated, in reply, the only objection made to the limitation of costs—that in certain cases a man might withstand payment of this legal debt on what he might consider a principle. Then, to meet that difficulty, the supporters of the Amendment suggested that a limitation should be inserted in the Amendment providing that this safeguard should not extend to the case of the rich man. It was very well, or rather it was very ill, for the Home Secretary to speak in the rather wild manner he had; but he should remember that while he was responsible for the carriage of the Bill through Committee, the Chief Secretary for Ireland would be responsible for the administration of the Act during the three years it was in force—
SIR JOHN HAYrose to Order, and asked, was the hon. Member addressing himself to the Amendment?
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE): The hon. Member is rather wandering from the Question, to which I must ask him to keep.
MR. GRAYsaid, he was endeavouring to strengthen his appeal to the Home Secretary to at least give a reply to the suggestion that this limitation should be applied to the case of poor tenants, while exempting those wealthier persons against whom the Chief Secretary said the power of imposing costs must be used. This had been recognized as a reasonable suggestion, and it had been made with the view of avoiding a division. The right hon. and learned Gentleman would see it was desirable to consider this; and if he had any objection to make to the suggestion, he would make it, using a little more courtesy in referring to the arguments used in its support.
MR. HEALYsaid, anybody who had just entered the House would not know the temper in which these Amendments had been discussed. While the Committee were engaged with a particular
1100
Amendment to a particular clause, the Home Secretary wandered from the clause in order to make an attack on Irish Members—in which he must have been entirely out of Order—with the view of showing Gentlemen who had just entered the House that Irish Members had acted otherwise than with the discretion they had used during the night past. As to saying there had been a deliberate waste of public time, if there had been a waste, it had been of their own time. The time belonged to those Members who had been up all night discussing the Bill, and had not moved one single Motion to report Progress or to delay discussion.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE): I must recall the attention of the hon. Member to the Question before the Committee. He is now going beyond a reply to the Home Secretary.
MR. HEALYsaid, he had dealt with that. The argument of the Chief Secretary, used while his right hon. and learned Colleague "lay like a warrior taking his rest," was that the rich tenant would be included in the Amendment for the limitation of costs, and to meet that, he (Mr. Healy) had said he was willing to adopt the limitation known in the Arrears Bill. And at that point the Home Secretary got up and made his monstrous tirade.
MR. PARNELL: I suppose I may speak for the first time on the Amendment without being accused of wasting time? I am speaking once; the Home Secretary has spoken three times. I I will say this—the Amendment is of a most important character, and I am certainly very much surprised that the Government should not have agreed to accept it. As the matter at present stands, there is no limit to the amount of costs a Justice may put on; and, as we have shown that a large number of Irish tenants are of the poorest, it is reasonable to ask, where power is given to the Government to place a penal fine of this kind on tenants, that the amount of costs that their officer shall be able to recover in proceedings before a Justice shall be limited in their extent. In proposing a limit of 5s. we make a reasonable proposal. The further suggestion as to the limitation to a particular valuation was also reasonable, and deserved to be met in a different spirit than it was by the

1101
Home Secretary. The proceedings before the Justice will be very simple; there will be no necessity of employing expensive counsel, or even of employing a solicitor where there will be no difficulty in obtaining the order of the Justice; and when the matter can be so summarily disposed of, why the desire to inflict heavy costs? The Amendment should have been met in a different spirit by the Home Secretary, who appeared to wish to create a false impression in the minds of those Members who have just come down to the House, and do not know the course of the discussion.
MR. PLUNKETsaid, he had been present, not absolutely the whole time, because it was almost a physical impossibility to remain the whole night. He had been away for only a couple of hours, and, returning, he found those who called themselves the Irish Members repeating precisely the same arguments which they were using when he went away two hours before. All through the night a series of frivolous Amendments were being moved, and though there had not been repeated Motions for Adjournment, such as had been known before on such occasions—
MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYrose to Order, and asked, was this speaking to the Motion before the Committee?
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE): The right hon. and learned Member is not out of Order.
MR. PLUNKETcontinued. He was speaking in reply to what had been said by the hon. Member who had just sat down. The Minister in charge of this Bill had been recklessly and unjustly attacked. He (Mr. Plunket) was his determined political opponent, but he could not forget that he was also a Member of the House of Commons, and in speaking now he was only doing what he felt was his duty to the House of Commons. The Home Secretary, with astonishing patience, which he would venture to say would add to his great reputation in the House, had steadily followed this discussion, in which there had been both waste of time and attacks of the most insulting character levelled against himself—levelled in a manner he (Mr. Plunket) would have found it most difficult to endure. And now again they had, time after time, speeches made upon an Amendment that would only bear honest argument for
1102
five minutes. When it had once been said that in the case of small tenants there was nothing more had been shown in support of the Amendment, and it did not advance the argument with the Committee to repeat the same thing over and over again 30 or 40 times. Hon. Members were not sent there to listen to repeated arguments of this kind, but to transact the Business of the House. Of course, the simple answer to the Amendment was that the discretion of a Court was never limited by such considerations in other analogous proceedings, and why should it be in the present case? That was the whole argument, beyond which it could not be advanced, and he agreed with the Home Secretary this was a deliberate waste of time.
MR. SEXTONsaid, since the present Chairman had presided from an early hour he had not seen fit to declare that any of the Amendments brought before him were in any sense similar to any previously brought on. Before he occupied the Chair, the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) was in that position, and he did, in one or two cases, see fit to declare that Amendments hon. Members desired to move were in some sense similar to those which the Committee had decided. As soon as he announced that ruling, it was at once accepted; and, therefore, he (Mr. Sexton) was entitled to declare that the Amendments hitherto considered, and put from the Chair, had been Amendments differing materially one from the other, for to say otherwise would be to impugn the competency of the Chair to protect the Committee from irrelevant discussion. He treated with perfect unconcern the unsupported assertion that arguments had been repeated when a right hon. and learned Gentleman, who had been present all night, with the exception of two hours, was unable to state a single instance of a repetition of argument. He (Mr. Sexton) had been only absent a few minutes; he had been in the House on each Amendment, though not always in the House, and he challenged the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Plunket) to cite any case of such repetition of argument as would have called for the interference of the Chairman, or entitled him to make the attack he had, with a heat that rivalled that of the Home Secretary. Irish

1103
Members had confined themselves strictly to arguments relative to the Amendments before the Committee, and had not themselves done anything to excite temper, nor had they been led by exhibitions on the other side to lose their own tempers. When the right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of frivolous Amendments put forward, and supported by repeated arguments, he (Mr. Sexton) was quite willing to wait the judgment of the tribunal of public opinion upon that.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 14; Noes 108: Majority 94.—(Div. List, No. 209.) [7.20 A.M.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE): The next Amendment stands in the name of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), and it cannot be put, because a similar proposal has already been negatived by the Committee; but the following Amendment can be moved.
MR. PARNELLbelieved the Government had agreed to this.
Amendment proposed,
In page 9, line 7, at end, to add the following sub-section:—"A Return, showing the sums from time to time collected under this section, the districts from which same have been levied, and the manner in which same have been disposed of, shall be presented annually to Parliament within one month after the opening of Par liament."—(Mr. Parnell.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, there was no objection to this.
Question put, and agreed to.
MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he thought the Government had previously expressed their willingness to accept his Amendment as to the publication of each warrant, and other particulars, by advertisement in newspapers.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, it was understood that this, with other matters, should be dealt with among those things agreed upon as to be dealt with under a prescribed manner.
MR. HEALYasked, would all the particulars asked for in the Amendment be given? That was rather an important point.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he would not pledge himself as to de-
1104
tails, but to a prescribed form he would agree.
MR. HEALYasked, would a copy of all these prescribed forms be laid on the Table, as were the Rules and Orders in the case of the Land Bill?
MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he did not think it necessary to move his Amendment.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTobjected to laying such a large multitude of forms on the Table.
MR. HEALYsaid, there were a multitude of Rules to the Land Act, some of them forming a book of 70 or 80 pages, and in each case the Government had them laid before the House.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he would not undertake to lay all these forms before the House.
MR. SEXTONsaid, he hoped the Government would agree to the provision he wished to add to the clause. It was desirable that two Justices should confer as to whether an order should be issued, and within what time payment should be made.
Amendment proposed,
At the end of the foregoing Amendment, to add the words—"Provided, That no order for the payment of any such charge shall be made by one justice."—(Mr. Sexton.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the orders would be made under the Lord Lieutenant, and, therefore, the question whether an order should be made or not would not depend upon any authority but his. As to the time of payment, he saw no reason for departing from the rule that applied in county cess and county rates. There was no reason for drawing a distinction.
MR. HEALYsaid, that a distinction was drawn, and he could see the reason why two magistrates should be required to adjudicate.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 14; Noes 111: Majority 97.—(Div. List, No. 210.) [7.30 A.M.
MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, in his Amendment he followed the lines of the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act of 1851, and a reference to that Act would explain his meaning, and support his Amendment. In that Act it was pro-

1105
vided that when an order was made by the Justice for the payment of any sum exceeding 20 s., or a term of imprisonment exceeding two months, there should be a right of appeal to the County Court Judge. It was evident that here a very large discretion was given. If a man was only liable to pay 1s. above the pound, or to be sent to prison on account of it, he had his appeal; and, à fortiori, there ought to be a right of appeal in this case, where a man might be rendered liable to pay a sum even of £50. If that was so, it was only fair to ask the Government to deal with the case according to the precedent of the Act of 1851. He thought, also, that in a case where a man's character was brought into question, as it would be by this Bill, he was justified in the proposal.
Amendment proposed,
At the end of the foregoing Amendment, to add the words—"Provided, That in case any person is summoned before a justice to enforce payment of any such charge, such person may, should he consider himself aggrieved by the order of such justice, appeal therefrom to the county court judge for the county and division within which such order has been made, subject to the provisions of and in manner prescribed by the twenty-fourth section of 'The Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851.'"—(Mr. T. P. O'Connor.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he must make the same answer to this as he had made to the last 10 or 12 Amendments. He could not depart from the method adopted in levying county cess or other rates, and give an appeal in this case, when it was not given in that. Every argument used was one that would equally apply to the case of appeal from the levy of county rates. He did not understand that the character of any individual would be at stake in respect to being under an obligation to pay his share of a levy made on the district; and, therefore, he could not see the force of that argument as any reason for departing from the principle adopted in levying other rates.
MR. SEXTONsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman's memory was defective, and if he looked back he would find that half the Amendments he spoke of had been accepted by himself. The Home Secretary was puzzled
1106
to see how the character of a man would be at stake; but it was perfectly plain, though, to be sure, one's faculties were not in the best working order under these circumstances. Although the levy was general, the Bill provided that the Lord Lieutenant might make exceptions. He might exempt those whom he considered free from any suspicion of moral complicity in the crime. The exemptions of the Lord Lieutenant would clear from all moral suspicion of complicity, while all those who did not receive exemption would he under a ban or moral suspicion of responsibility for crime.
MR. HEALYsaid, as to following the principle of the county rates, he had already commented on the fact that when he asked for the application of the principle it was refused, and his Amendment was voted down. He asked that the principle should be applied in appointing collectors, but it was refused. There was some hon. Member who appeared to be solacing himself with a penny whistle.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE): Order, order! I must call on the hon. Member to withdraw that remark.
MR. HEALYwithdrew it, but explained that he was interrupted by an extraordinary noise, like the playing with a Castanet. If the Government desired to apply the principle of the county rate, let them do it; but not accept it and. reject it as they pleased.
MR. LEAMYsaid, no man would think of appealing from the decision of the Justice unless he had some special ground, some ground that he believed would convince the legal mind that in his case he should be relieved from the impost. If these charges were levied properly and correctly, there would not be appeals, for how could a man induce the Court to relieve him if he was the man liable to the charge? But suppose the man who appeared before Petty Sessions was not the legal occupier, and that a question of law was raised, and, nevertheless, the magistrate decided he must pay, it was very reasonable in such a case that he should have the right of appeal, when, of course, if he could not make good his point, he would have to pay considerable costs. The reason why this exception was asked for was because this was an exceptional

1107
rate, and an exceptional tax imposed under unusual circumstances, and exceptional in that it was not so much in the character of a tax as in the nature of a punishment.
MR. HEALYpointed out that upon the question of legal occupancy on a certain day rights of property of great value might depend. The proposal to have two Justices having been refused, the appeal to the County Court Judge was proposed, and he would impress on the Government the fact that here might be most important questions of tenancy and occupancy arising, and all that was asked was, that such a question should not be finally decided by some magistrate who might have a pecuniary interest in it, but that it should go before a competent and responsible officer—the Judge of the County Court. The district magistrate might be a relative of the man on whose account compensation was claimed, or he might be a landlord directly interested when a question of occupancy arose. Having regard to the great many matters involved, the Government should agree to go a step further, and not leave all the power without appeal in the hands of individual unpaid magistrates.
MR. PARNELLsaid, he would not have thought it so important to obtain the power of appeal if the Government had consented to the previous Amendment to provide that two Justices should hear a case. But as there was to be only one, it would be a very fair thing, following the precedent of the Petty Sessions Act, to allow this appeal. The Lord Lieutenant would have to act without legal knowledge or check to prevent abuses or mistakes, and it was extremely probable that mistakes would often arise. A single Justice might decide that a fine should be inflicted on a man for a holding for which the man might not be really liable. It was unlikely that a man would go to the expense and inconvenience of an appeal unless he had a good case.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 14; Noes 129: Majority 115.—(Div. List, No. 211.) [7.55 A.M.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE)said, a Notice of Amendment had been placed in his hands by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton),
1108
having for its object a limitation of the time within which charges on account of crimes should be levied. This he ruled out of Order, as being contrary to a decision at which the Committee had already arrived.
Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Before this clause is put I must ask this House, and I think I may ask people outside this House, to consider the history of this clause. I have been myself exactly 11 hours continuously engaged in the discussion of this clause, and four hours or more were previously occupied in the consideration of it. That is to say, that on a clause of certainly secondary importance in this Bill, a clause which involves no Constitutional principle, which involves no question of a novel character, which is simply an ordinary clause of the kind with reference to the taxation imposed in previous clauses of the Bill—I beg leave to call attention to the fact that all the clause contains is the manner of imposing charges in respect to matters decided on in previous clauses, and that on this clause there has now been expended time equivalent to two whole working days of the House of Commons. This has been done with enormous inconvenience to individual Members of the House, it has been done deliberately, it was, I believe, intended to be done, it has been done, unquestionably, in an adroit manner; but the ingenuity has not, in the least degree, concealed the deliberate intention of blocking and impeding the progress of a measure for the prevention of crime in Ireland. These tactics have been steadily pursued by hon. Gentlemen opposite for weeks past. They have used every method at their disposal to prevent the passage through this House of a measure which may stop the horrible and atrocious crimes occurring in Ireland. This is the persistent object they have placed before themselves, and which they are still pursuing by methods we have seen adopted on this clause. Sir, I ask the House to note this, and I ask the country to note it. I ask this in order that every Party and every Member of this House who desires that the abominable condition of Ireland should find some remedy may consider whether the time has not come

1109
at which this House shall take some method of dealing with this conduct.
MR. PARNELL: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has attempted to excite the passions of the Committee, has deliberately attempted to excite the passions of the Committee—of a Committee mainly composed of Gentlemen who have not been present during the whole proceedings to which he refers. The Home Secretary has exceeded his right as a Member of the Committee. He has deliberately imputed a Parliamentary offence to Members opposing this Bill, and in doing so he has taken upon himself the authority of the Chair. I have yet to learn that a Gentleman, even in the high position in which, in his own opinion, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is, is entitled to assume that function without the permission of the Committee. Until he is made Chairman of the Committee, I know not by what right or title he has assumed to speak in the tone he has now spoken. He has called, indeed, the country to witness, in regard to proceedings with reference to the conduct of this measure, which took place by his design—by his doing—at a time when the country—the Press of the country—could not be witnesses of these proceedings, and he has deliberately chosen this moment, when the Press and the Members of the Committee have returned to their duties, for making this charge against us, well knowing that the country could not judge of the truth of his assertion. Why has he not arraigned our conduct in opposition to this Bill during the days and nights we have spent on it in full view of the country? It was not by our wish that this all-night Sitting was held. We should have very much preferred that the Government had not adopted the unprecedented course of taking an all-night Sitting, and I say no Opposition has ever met such a course taken by the Government so kindly, and to do as little as we could to impede the Bill, or with as little desire to use the Forms of the House, legitimate Forms, which, under the circumstances, we should have been perfectly entitled to use, but which we have not used. Not a single Motion to report Progress has been made during the whole night, not a single dilatory Motion has been made. It is within the recollection of the Committee that on several occasions Her Majesty's Govern-
1110
ment have themselves moved Motions to report Progress, thereby indicating that they were fully satisfied with the progress made; if not, why did they make the Motion, as they repeatedly had, during the evenings which have been spent on this Bill? Now, I deny again the contention of the Home Secretary that no Constitutional principle is involved in this clause. On the contrary, it is a clause of the greatest importance, and it derives its importance from matters of detail more than anything else; and therefore it was that we were prepared to spend more time in the discussion of Amendments in Committee on this clause than on its general principle. But the clause in itself is most important, from the point of view of Constitutional principle, the very character that the Home Secretary denies it. It provides for the limitation of area, it fixes the area within which fines may be inflicted; and, in my view, and that of my hon. Friends, it fixes the area in a manner most objectionable to us and to the country we represent. Now, the Home Secretary has appealed to the country at large, and all I can say is that, as regards our conduct on this clause, and on every other clause, we confidently appeal to our country. We appeal to our countrymen at home and abroad, and we feel confident that our conduct will be endorsed by our countrymen at home and abroad. I ask you where are your Irish supporters? How many Irish Members have you been able to muster to your side; how many assisted you last night? How many have followed you into the Division Lobbies in the divisions upon this clause up to this time? Two or three Irish Conservatives. Where are the Ulster Members, where are the nominal Home Rulers? They would not venture to go so contrary to the wishes of their countrymen as to support the Government on the stages of this Bill, and they have shown by their absence, or by their votes, that they are with us and not with you. You are destitute of Irish support, of the support of any section of Irish Representatives, except the extreme Conservative section, your hereditary enemies, who have pushed you on to this miserable and wretched course, as you are destitute of any reason or justification for pressing forward measures of this atrocious character. The Home Secretary

1111
would have us believe that to him belongs the monopoly of wishing to preserve law and order in Ireland. I should have thought that those who lived in Ireland had the greatest interest in the preservation of law and order there; that we who share her misfortunes and her prosperity would care most for our country. But the Home Secretary prides himself on being the only person to do this. Our position on the Bill has been this—that experience of centuries of your rule in Ireland has shown that a policy of coercion is disastrous, and, so far from putting a stop to crime, increases it. We warned you of this on your Coercion Bill of last Session, and we were met in the same way and with the same appeals to the passions of the House, and with the same appeals to the country for support, a country ignorant of what they were asked to legislate about. We are not afraid of the Home Secretary's threats, we are not afraid of doing our duty, and we shall continue to do it; and we warn the House and this country of the results—the necessary results—that experience shows has followed every Act of coercion you have passed against the Irish nation, the result of an increase in crime, and a further alienation of the people of Ireland from this country, while you will drive to despair the majority of the Irish people who desire to see their country prosperous and restored to tranquillity and quiet.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: The Home Secretary spoke, as I understand, not in the name of the Government, or for himself individually, but he spoke in the name of the House of Commons generally. He made an appeal to us here to consider in what way we should proceed under these peculiar circumstances. The House is perfectly well aware of what the real situation is. It is an insult to our common sense to try to divert us from the real situation by such flimsy pretexts as I have heard put forward within the last half-hour while I have been in the House. Do hon. Members suppose that those who have been away for some hours are not perfectly well aware of what has been taking place, and of the tactics that, with intention, have been pursued? It is all very well to say these things to persons who may not know what we on this side know from bitter experience. We know perfectly well
1112
the meaning of all this. When the Government appeal to the House and say this measure which you, by a large majority, have agreed to consider of importance, and which we put before you as a proposal to put a stop to a condition of affairs in one part of this Empire which is dangerous to the whole of the Empire, and when they say—"We are met with this kind of opposition, which has been lately developed against it, and it is necessary for the House to take into consideration some other mode of furthering the measure," I say that is an appeal that the Government are perfectly entitled to make, and which, indeed, the House expected them to make. I can only say that though I and a great many of us are prepared, as we have shown ourselves willing, to do all we can to prevent any unreasonable infringement of the liberty of debate, and to preserve the privileges of the minority, yet those privileges can only be preserved by a proper and reasonable attention to the absolute necessity of carrying on Business. If it should be—as I rather gather from the words of the Home Secretary it is—in the contemplation of the Government to make any further proposal to the Committee, with the view of expediting the progress of this measure, they will have my support certainly in any reasonable proposal for carrying through a measure of such vital importance.
VISCOUNT EBRINGTONsaid, the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) referred to the number of Ulster Members who had not given the Government support. Perhaps he was not aware that a majority of the Irish Members present supported the Government in the division for leave to introduce the Bill; and on the second reading Members from every county in Ulster, except Cavan, supported the Government. At one time or another upwards of 40 Irish Members had supported the Government; there were more than 30 Irish Members who had never opposed the Bill; and a majority of the Irish Members had never once voted against the Government; while it was seldom, indeed, that a majority of Home Rule Members even had voted with its opponents. More often than not—a reference to the Division List would show it—the number of the Irish Members voting in the minority had been less than 30—without

1113
quoting the figures exactly—although there were 61 of them returned on so-called National principles, so really even the half of them had not constantly followed the opponents of the Bill.
MR. SEXTONsaid, he would merely remark that the absentees might be accounted for by the fact known at the outset that the majority had no liking for the Bill. It was also true that though Ulster Members voted for the Bill on the second reading, their love for the Bill had grown cold, and the more they knew of it the less they liked it. A great deal had been heard of the steps to be taken in reference to the part which Irish Members had taken in the House in opposition to the Bill, and attempts had been made by vagueness of language to invest these steps with horror, and to frighten Irish Members who had simply done their duty. They would await with tranquillity any steps that could be taken. No steps that could be taken, no steps it was competent for the House to take, or steps it was within the ingenuity of the Government to suggest, could interfere with the determination that had animated them from the beginning of the Bill, and which would animate them to the end, not to permit that Bill to be applied to the Irish people in the form of law until they had said what they had to say against it. The right hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) said the Home Secretary did not speak so much on behalf of the Government as on behalf of the House; but he confessed from his simple—perhaps narrow—point of view as an Irishman endeavouring to defend the rights and liberties of his people, he cared little whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke for the Government or for the House. The overwhelming majority of the House was composed of Gentlemen who had never set eyes on Ireland, who had no direct interest in the administration of the Bill—of Gentlemen whose constituents would never suffer from the operation of this stringent measure. The only people to whom the Bill would be applied were the people who sent the Irish Members to the House, and Irish Members were concerned in their representative capacity. He did not wonder at the smile that passed over the face of the right hon. Member opposite—it would not be Par-
1114
liamentary to call it a sinister smile. He, last year, when pleading for a Bill like this, gave assurances that read strangely when read by the light of his after conduct—when the words that accompanied the discussion of the Coercion Act and their fulfilment were remembered—he could not wonder at the smile that met the words "we are the men concerned." Nor could he be surprised at the prejudices against this Bill. It would go hard with Irish Representatives when this Bill became law. The Home Secretary, at the close of a Sitting which had not been marked by a single Obstructive Motion, and which had been marked by the acceptation by the Government of several Amendments proposed by Irish Members, had the hardihood to rise at that Table and talk about Obstruction. He went so far, and it was not usual in Parliamentary debate, as to call in question the intention of the Irish Party. When he resorted to that extreme and unusual method of criticism, he (Mr. Sexton) was entitled to say that he would find nothing to question or impugn in their actions. If he could, why did he say so much about intention? They were entitled to have their intentions judged by their acts, not merely in reference to this Sitting all night; and he claimed with perfect justness, before the House and the country, that it was impossible to lodge against the Irish Party, with any degree of reason, the charge that they had used or abused the Forms of the House for purposes of Obstruction. The positive facts of the case were, that they withdrew many Amendments upon which they might have taken divisions, and restrained the great body of Irish Representatives from speaking on the Amendments. The work of fighting the Bill was left to a comparatively small section of the Party; and he was aware that many of his personal Friends felt it hard to follow the advice of their Friends, and remain silent. There were 35 Members available for constant discussion; but an examination of the record of proceedings would show that only eight or 10, and sometimes not more than six, took part in the discussion of an Amendment, and that was because they were anxious to limit the discussion to each particular Amendment. Proceeding with some observations on the clause, the hon. Member

1115
said, this blood tax was false and vicious in principle, and at the best it was a barbarous expedient, because, taking no note of responsibility, it only confounded the innocent with the guilty. The object was, it was said, to give the people a pecuniary interest in the maintenance of law and order, and that might be done if applied to wealthy people; but the great body of the people were poor, and instead, therefore, of this being an inducement to aid in the preservation of law and order, it would drive them to the brink of despair when they were burdened with a tax for crimes for which they were not responsible, and which they knew they could not pay. His Party had tried to induce the Government to make exceptions in favour of certain classes, who, two years ago, were only saved from starvation by the charity of the world; and they had asked the Government to exclude from the operation of the clause those tenants who would be saved from a position of hopeless arrears next year by the charity of the State. These appeals were made in vain. In want or in wealth, thriving or starving, the hammer of the tax was to come down on all with equal force. Was it without reason that hours were spent in the endeavour to temper the severity of the clause to classes allowed to be worthy of compassion? Was it not enough that the Government should refuse these appeals, but that they must proceed to make special exemptions, and to raise up a privileged class not to be subjected to this tax? In every district they would select and set apart a privileged caste of men, and the effect would be that instead of allaying the evil feelings between class and class, instead of tending to create a state of peace and tranquillity, it would propagate those evils, and increase the animosities between the class subjected to, and the class exempted from, this tax. The result must be dangerous to public peace. These were the objections to the clause. The Irish Party were, with perfect confidence, ready to submit to the country—more readily than to the House—the whole question of their conduct on the Bill from the beginning. Instead of using the Forms of the House for Obstruction, they had abstained from employing those Forms; and, far from wasting time, Irish Members had restrained
1116
themselves from interfering, lest they should give a pretext for the charge.
MR. TREVELYAN: The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) has charged the Home Secretary with having exceeded his right as a Member of the Committee, and with having assumed the authority of the Chair. Now, my right hon. and learned Friend cannot help being impressive when he speaks, and I should be sorry were it otherwise. He appealed in the strongest way to reason—he did not appeal to passion; and he made a statement of great importance. He spoke of the delay on this clause, which has lasted now for 15 hours—two whole days of the time of this House, which has on it the entire burden of the Empire. Measures most important to the Empire are waiting—measures which, in the opinion of the Government and of the House, are deeply important to the country hon. Members opposite represent, and questions in which time is the essence of importance. The hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) and the hon. Member for the City of Cork have spoken with superficial plausibility of the conduct of the opponents of this Bill, that they have not resorted to abuse of the permanent Forms of the House. That is so; but there is a much more serious charge than having made use of Motions for Adjournment, or to report Progress. It has consisted in bringing forward a perpetual series of Amendments, colourably differing, to avoid being ruled out of Order from the Chair, and in supporting these by a series of speeches, putting the same argument 10 times, and in some cases 15 times over, when, for purposes of rhetorical effect, they needed not to be repeated more than once or twice. The old form of Obstruction discredited Parliamentary Forms; but this has discredited reasonable discussion. The hon. Member (Mr. Parnell) has spoken of Coercion Bills failing. The Coercion Act of 1870 was absolutely successful. The Coercion Act of 1870 brought down outrages over a long series of years. One thing can make this Coercion Bill fail for a time, and that is when hon. Members who are listened to in Ireland speak of it as being directed against the people of Ireland. The hon. Member for Sligo asks what interest his constituents have in this Bill except interest in opposing it? Why,

1117
everybody has a direct interest in seeing crime put down in their midst, and when the hon. Member for the City of Cork appeals to his countrymen at home and abroad, let him remember and appeal to those poor wretches who are waiting night after night for the visit of "Captain Moonlight," and of another higher class who never pass a corner or turn down a lane without the fear of being shot. I solemnly warned the House of Commons 10 days ago of what would happen if this Bill were delayed. Have my warnings been justified or not? It is my belief that if you asked the great body of the Irish people they would say they would much rather the Bill had passed three weeks ago than that it should pass three weeks hence. The responsibility of it not passing seriously rests on certain Members of this House, and I think the time has come when it is a serious question indeed if Parliament shall continue to share that responsibility.
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES in the Chair. [8.45 A.M.]
MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he could not congratulate the Chief Secretary on his speech, and rather pitied the right hon. Gentleman that he had to succeed his Colleague. He made a sort of apology for the Home Secretary, because he knew that the discussion was carried on in a calm and temperate manner until the Home Secretary, for purposes of his own, interfered to excite passion. The Chief Secretary pointed to what had followed the Act of 1870 as showing the success of coercion; but if he had had time to refer he might quote passage upon passage from the speeches of the Prime Minister that went to show that the decrease in crime was not due to the coercion but the remedial legislation of 1870, and he said that in the debates on the Compensation for Disturbance Bill over and over again. All through the discussion on the Bill the Irish Party had said it was a Bill that could be used against Constitutional agitation. When his hon. Friend, a Constitutional agitator, stated that, and that the Bill might be used against him, the House cheered, and the cheer of the sardonic Home Secretary was loudest in greeting the statement that the Bill might be used against Constitutional agitation, And that was what he feared
1118
if the Bill came for administration into the hands of a Chief Secretary of imperious temper and weak nerves—that it would be used against such agitators and not against the perpetrators of crime. Then the Leader of the Opposition professed himself anxious for any measure that would respect the privileges of minorities; but would he take the same view when next the Procedure Rules were debated, or would he be anxious to adopt any measure interfering with any minority but the Conservative minority? He observed that a noble Lord opposite (Viscount Ebrington) claimed that the Bill had never been opposed by a majority of the Irish Members, and following on after the Home Secretary any Parliamentary neophyte could whet his sword and gain a cheap applause by statements of this kind; but he could tell him it was not so. The Bill had always been opposed by a majority of Irish Members, and most of the clauses had been opposed by English Members on the Radical Benches. In some divisions indeed—and he said it with regret—there were more English than Irish Members in opposition. Out of 26 Amendments on the Paper five were withdrawn or ruled out of Order, and out of the 21 remaining seven were accepted by the Government. A third of the number was accepted, and in the face of that fact the Home Secretary had the audacity to declare that the Amendments were more irrelevant than on any previous occasion. The Home Secretary endeavoured to make light of the clause, but it was one of the most oppressive clauses in an unprecedently stringent Bill; and if anything could make it more oppressive and stringent, it was the action of the Government in refusing every Amendment that sought to protect the poor and make the rich contribute to the tax. It was asked that landlords should be subject to the tax and it was refused; then it was asked that the tax should be divided between tenant and landlord—it was refused; and then they pleaded for those who were placed in hopeless insolvency, but all in vain, as if the Bill, while meant to spare the rich, should grind the poor and fine the miserable and starving.
MR. LEAMYdenied that the Irish Members had been engaged in obstructing the Bill, and regretted that the Go-

1119
vernment had not accepted the limitations which had been proposed. Not only were important Constitutional principles involved in the Bill; but it would ruin many of the poor Irish tenants. He did not see why the whole blame should be thrown upon the Irish Representatives for the delay which had occurred in passing the Bill. In the early part of the proceedings in Committee, nearly as many English Members spoke as Irish. It was a Bill which abolished trial by jury; it gave indiscriminate and arbitrary powers to the Lord Lieutenant; it re-enacted the Alien Act; it contained provisions of an extravagant and extraordinary nature; and, while it was pretended to be put in operation in aid of the ordinary law, it entirely overturned and revolutionized it. The Irish Members would therefore be acting unfairly and dishonestly towards their constituents if they did not endeavour to amend it; and with that view they offered the most strenuous opposition to the passing of the clause.
MR. HEALYsaid, he could imagine that a Gentleman like the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who was himself animated with the best intentions towards Ireland, and who since he came into Office had exhibited a marked contrast to his Predecessor, the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster)—he could understand that a Gentleman like the right hon. Gentleman should manifest a certain amount of impatience, because the Irish Members declined in all respects to trust the Government with the administration of this clause. The remarks of the right hon. Gentleman were founded on the assumption that every official of the Government was actuated by the same feelings as himself. No doubt, if that were really so, and the Lord Lieutenant and the entire Irish Executive were impressed with similar convictions, the hardships of which the Irish Members complained would not occur under this clause. But the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford entered upon Office accredited to the Irish people with all the marks of a sympathetic and benevolent mind, and with every kind of good intention; but, before many months had passed over, he stood revealed in his true character; and what became of the right hon. Gentleman's good intentions, and the character he had assumed of a
1120
friend of Ireland? The present Chief Secretary for Ireland, after being intrusted with these powers for a few months, might become as hardened in the execution or carrying out of his functions as the right hon. Member for Bradford. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had attempted to fix on the Irish Members the blame for the murders which had just occurred. He (Mr. Healy) made no complaint of that, although it was a severe charge; but he would turn to the chief spokesman of the landlords in Ireland. The Government based their claim for the urgent passage of the Bill upon the argument that it would arrest such murders as that which had recently taken place near Longhrea; but he wished to see what it was that The Dublin Orange Daily Express, the editor of which was the Irish Correspondent of The Times, said upon that matter. These were the words of that writer, and they appeared only yesterday—
"Will any rational man assert that such a murder as this would fall within the scope of the operation of the Act to any appreciable extent?"
That sentence alone was a complete condemnation of the argument of the right hon. Gentleman—[Mr. ECROYD: Will the hon. Member read the context which follows?]—The writer went on to say—
"Before a murderer can he tried, he must be caught; and of the hundreds of murderers now at large,"
—[An hon. MEMBER: A gross exaggeration.]—Yes, it was a gross exaggeration, because there had not been 100 murders committed altogether within the last three or four years; but the writer continued—
"And of the hundreds of murderers now at large and plying their public trade throughout the country, for these ruffians go about in gangs, how many can we reasonably expect have been secured by the police?"
He had now read the context, as the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Ecroyd) had requested him. The Chief Secretary for Ireland said the Bill would interfere with the operations of "Captain Moonlight," and that there were a number of persons who were in daily terror of "Captain Moonlight." If that were really so, where were the police? So far as he could see, the police had no more practical powers for the detection of "Captain Moonlight" than they had now.

1121
They were now exercising all the powers they would get under the Bill in advance. At the present moment, no Irish policeman met a man upon a road at night and did not search him, in order to see if he had anything of a dangerous character about him. It was said they were to trust to the Liberal Party; but it was not the Liberal Party with which they were dealing. They were dealing with the Liberal Party, plus the action of the force which the Tory Party brought to bear upon them. And that was the reason why they were inclined to distrust the statements made to them, although such statements were made in evident good faith. If the right hon. Gentleman and the Government failed to carry out the clause as the Tory Party considered it ought to be carried out, there would be Members of the Front Opposition Bench getting up and drawing the most thrilling picture of the murders which had been committed, with harrowing details, and loud protestations against the inadequacy of the compensation awarded. He (Mr. Healy) had every reliance on the good intentions of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland so far as he might be able to carry them out; but he would warn the right hon. Gentleman, in advance, that his good intentions would be thwarted by the necessity he would find himself under of making concessions to the Tory Party.
MR. W. E. FORSTER: Many allusions have been made to me in the course of the debates upon this Bill; but I have been very anxious that they should be as little prolonged as possible, and I have, therefore, not thought it necessary to mate a reply. I only rise now for the purpose of making a very few remarks, in consequence of the remarks which have been made. I am quite content to leave my connection with Ireland to the judgment of my country. I will only make one observation with regard to the Act of last year. It has been said that, in some respects, it has not been successful; but in one respect, at all events, it has been a great success, and that is, that it prevented the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) and the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) who has just spoken, from governing Ireland. And, while I wish to say as few remarks as possible, I feel bound to say that I am convinced the
1122
time has come when the House must take decided steps to carry out its intention of having this measure passed with as little delay as possible. By an overwhelming majority, the House has expressed its agreement with the Government that this measure is necessary for the prevention of crime. The state of Ireland is, in some respects, worse than it has been for many years. It appears to me that there have been a fewer number of outrages this month than there have been in some previous months; but as regards the worst cases of outrage, they have been far worse and far more numerous. There have been more agrarian murders in the month just come to an end than in any one month in any year since 1844. There has been no month in any year in which there has been anything approaching six agrarian murders. There have been other atrocious outrages, such as bad cases of firing at individuals, and attempts to murder. There has also been a new kind of heinous offence, for the incendiary fires have not merely been directed to the destruction of property, but have been carried out with a cruel recklessness which, I think, must amount to an intention to burn people in their houses. Life is less safe in Ireland at this moment than it has been for many years. I am not going to argue now how far this Bill will prevent crime or not; but I believe that many of the provisions contained in it will have a very great effect. What I wish to call the attention of the House to is this fact—that, as I before observed, the Imperial Parliament is responsible for the government of Ireland. By an immense majority, Parliament has expressed its conviction that this measure is necessary. It is, therefore, only consistent with that opinion that Parliament must also believe that any delay in passing the measure must increase the danger to life and augment the number of murders. Therefore, inasmuch as Parliament is responsible, it is now, I believe, its duty to see that the danger should be minimized as much as possible; and I trust the Government will carry out their intention of appealing to this House to support them in securing that the measure which they consider necessary for the preservation of life shall be passed with as little delay as possible.
MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) had compressed the whole history of Ireland into one single sentence when he said that, but for his Coercion Bill of last year and his police, the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) and those who acted with him would have governed Ireland. They had there the whole history of Ireland summed up. It was always owing to some Coercion Bill, and to the police of some unwelcome Government, that Ireland was kept from being governed by the people she would herself select, and the system she desired to have. The right hon. Gentleman told the whole story of Irish rule in that unlucky sentence. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that he committed his whole career to the judgment of his country. He (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) also left it to the judgment of the country. It showed how Ireland had been governed by Coercion Bills. The right hon. Gentleman said that crime had increased under the Coercion Bill of last year and under similar measures of repression. The Irish Representatives were very well acquainted with that fact. That had always been their case. They had always said that measures like this and a system like this must endanger life, and must increase crime, and every year added fresh evidence to the truth of that assertion. They had now reached the 54th Coercion Bill which had been brought in for Ireland since the Act of Union, and the same appeal was made to them to be quick in passing it, and not to linger in making it law, or crime and outrage would increase in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman who had just addressed the House spoke of the crimes actually going on at this moment, and the necessity of doing something by special provisions to prevent it. The other day the Irish Members were accused by the Secretary of State for the Home Department of aiding and abetting in crime by delaying the passing of the Bill, while, in the glare of the open sun, men were being murdered in Ireland. If that were true, what would be the use of their sunset and sunrise provisions? He (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) ridiculed the explosion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to which the Committee had been a witness, and remarked that there was a great deal of
1124
artificial passion in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's statement.
THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that he is not speaking upon the clause at all.
MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, he was answering speeches which had been made in the course of the debate that morning.
THE CHAIRMAN: The discussion has now gone on for some time in that direction, and it is altogether drifting away from the clause. I must now ask that the Question before the Committee shall be followed.
MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, he was not afraid of declaring that the Irish Members were not offering any factious opposition to the clause. But they felt themselves called upon, by a sense of duty, to oppose that clause of the Bill, and, in performing that duty, to quote the words of Lord Beaconsfield, they were not to be deterred by the menaces of the "Bravo" of the Treasury Bench. ["Oh!" and cries of "Name!"]
MR. REDMONDremarked, that a speech from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) was always an interesting event. The right hon. Gentleman could speak with some authority upon Coercion Acts, and with special authority upon the provisions of this Bill; because, if he (Mr. Redmond) were not labouring under a mistake, this was substantially the Bill which, if he had been permitted by circumstances to remain in Office, the right hon. Gentleman would himself have proposed as the alternative which he mentioned to the House on a recent occasion. [Cries of "Order!" and "Question!"] He was quite in Order, and he regretted to see that hon. Members sitting on the Treasury Bench were prompting the Chairman to declare that he was out of Order.
THE CHAIRMAN: There has been no prompting from the Treasury Bench on the subject of the hon. Member's speech at all.
MR. REDMONDsaid, he was glad to hear that. He was not surprised to find that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) was willing, and even eager, to support a clause like the present, because the provisions it contained were very much akin to those which he would himself have proposed if he had been

1125
permitted to remain in Office. He (Mr. Redmond) quite concurred with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) in the remarks his hon. Friend had made in reference to the "explosion" of the Secretary of State for the Home Department. The charge of Obstruction levelled against the Irish Members, in reference to their dealings with this clause, was one which had often been brought against them; but it was a charge which he regarded without the slightest uneasiness. During the whole of last night the same charge had been made, so that it was not one with which they were unfamiliar; and if the Committee imagined that by preferring a charge of Obstruction against the Irish Members they would induce him and his Friends from deviating by one hair's breadth from the course they had marked out for themselves, they were very much mistaken. [Cries of "Question!"] The Irish Members felt it their duty to persevere with their opposition to the clause, and with every Amendment proposed to it; and the Committee were greatly mistaken if they believed the Irish Members were going to be put down. They had only one consideration before them, and they believed it to be their duty; to the country and to those who had sent them there to represent them to follow it up. He regretted the speech which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. He had listened to the right hon. Gentleman's utterances with the greatest anxiety—
MR. BIDDULPH: I rise to Order. I wish to ask you, Sir, and to ask the Committee, if it is not time that this miserable farce should be put a stop to?
THE CHAIRMAN: I have been painfully impressed, for some time past, with the manner in which the Business of this Committee has been conducted. The Bill has been in Committee now for 23 days, and it has been engaged upon this particular clause for 19 hours. A limited number of Members have systematically frustrated the progress of Business by moving a mass of Amendments, some of which are practical and fair, but by far the greater number of which are only intended to raise, by new forms, questions which have already been decided by large majorities of the Committee. These Amendments have been made the occasion for the needless repe-
1126
tition of irrelevant and endless arguments, and, in my opinion, have been deliberately planned in order to waste time. I now think the time has arrived when, if the Committee is to carry out rationally and fairly the duty intrusted to it, it must protect itself by the Rules of the House intended to meet cases of deliberate Obstruction. I must express the sense of the Chair that deliberate and planned Obstruction has existed in the Committee, and I may soon have to indicate to the Committee the names of the Members who, in my opinion, are engaged in systematically pursuing it.
MR. REDMOND: I have listened with the greatest equanimity, Mr. Play-fair, to the statement you have just made, because I feel that not one sentence of it refers to me in the slightest degree. You have heard every single remark that I have made, and I appeal to you whether I have wasted the time of the Committee? I will, therefore, pass by the statement you have just made to the Committee with the single remark—[Cries of "Order!"]
THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not discuss the opinion of the Chair. The clause is the only thing before the Committee at the present moment.
MR. REDMOND: As I understand, Sir, your interference in the middle of my remarks—[Cries of "Order!" and "Name!"]—I assure you, Sir, that I have no desire whatever to overstep the Rules of the Committee, and I am prepared to bow at once to any decision you may give from the Chair. But I must protest against the interruption which cuts a sentence in two, before it is possible for you to know what I was about to say. I will, however, pass from the remarkable statement you have made, and will pursue the argument I was about to address to the Committee, and which I understood you to think was entirely relevant to the clause, because you did not interfere to call me to Order. [Interruptions.] Hon. Members opposite seem to be of a different opinion. I have, at least, a right to reply to the arguments of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. Their arguments have had no weight with me. They can have no weight withthelrish Members—[Cries of "Name!"] Hon. Members opposite—
MR. BIDDULPH: I rise to Order.
THE CHAIRMAN: I think the time has come when it is absolutely necessary to stop the persistent and wilful Obstruction of the Business of the Committee that has been going on. I severally Name to the Committee as having been engaged in this process of Obstruction, the following Members:—Mr. Biggar, Mr. Callan, Dr. Commins, Mr. Dillon, Mr. Healy, Mr. Leamy, Mr. Justin M'Carthy, Mr. Marum, Mr. Metge, Mr. T. P. O'Connor, Mr. O'Donnell, Mr. Parnell, Mr. Richard Power, Mr. Redmond, Mr. Sexton, and Mr. Sullivan.
MR. O'DONNELL: That statement is an infamy. [Cries of "Name!"] I have been absent all the night, and I have been foully Named as guilty of Obstruction. You sin, Sir, against all the traditions of your Office.
THE CHAIRMAN: That particular statement I will report specially to the House; but, in the meantime, I severally Name the Members I have mentioned as having been guilty of systematic Obstruction.
MR. CHILDERS: I beg to move, Sir, in accordance with your announcement—
MR. MARUM: Mr. Playfair, I rise to Order.
MR. CHILDERS: I beg to move, Sir, in accordance with the announcement you have just made, that Mr. Biggar, Mr. Callan, Dr. Commins, Mr. Dillon, Mr. Healy, Mr. Leamy, Mr. Justin M'Carthy, Mr. Marum, Mr. Metge, Mr. T. P. O'Connor, Mr. O'Donnell, Mr. Parnell, Mr. Richard Power, Mr. Redmond, Mr. Sexton, and Mr. Sullivan be severally suspended from the service of the House during the remainder of this day's Sitting.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Question I have to put is, "That Mr. Biggar, Mr. Callan, Dr. Commins, Mr. Dillon, Mr. Healy, Mr. Leamy, Mr. Justin M'Carthy, Mr. Marum, Mr. Metge, Mr. T. P. O'Connor, Mr. O'Donnell, Mr. Parnell, Mr. Richard Power, Mr. Redmond, Mr. Sexton, and Mr. Sullivan be severally suspended from the service of the House during the remainder of this day's Sitting."
THE CHAIRMANdeclared that the "Ayes have it;" and, that decision being challenged, Strangers were directed to withdraw.
MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (speaking Seated and covered) said: On a point of
1128
Order, Sir—I wish to know whether this vote will affect the Sitting of the Committee only, or the Sitting of the Whole House?
THE CHAIRMAN: The Motion must first be made in Committee, and then in the Whole House.
Question again put.
THE CHAIRMAN: What hon. Members are desired to tell for the Noes?
Several hon. MEMBERS: Mr. Richard Power and Mr. Redmond.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Tellers must be Members who have not been Named. I again ask what hon. Members are desired to tell for the Noes?
MR. CALLAN (speaking seated and covered): Under what Rule of the House do you give that decision? [Cries of "Oh!"]
MR. HEALY: The Rules of the House are done for.
THE CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Members who have challenged my decision on behalf of the Noes are not prepared to name Tellers, I must declare that the Ayes have it.
Colonel NOLAN and Mr. SYNAN were then named to be Tellers for the Noes.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 126; Noes 27; Majority 99.—(Div. List, No. 212.) [9.40 A.M.
Whereupon the CHAIRMAN left the Chair in order to report the said Resolution to the House.
Mr. SPEAKER having resumed the Chair—
MR. LYON PLAYFAIR: I have to report to you, Sir, as having abused the Rules of the House by being guilty, in my opinion, of persistent and wilful Obstruction of the Business of the Committee, and as having been Named by me to the Committee accordingly, Mr. Biggar, Mr. Callan, Dr. Commins, Mr. Dillon, Mr. Healy, Mr. Leamy, Mr. Justin M'Carthy, Mr. Marum, Mr. Metge, Mr. T. P. O'Connor, Mr. O'Donnell, Mr. Parnell, Mr. Richard Power, Mr. Redmond, Mr. Sexton, and Mr. Sullivan. The Committee thereupon voted that the Members Named be severally suspended from the service of the House for the remainder of this day's Sitting, and the Sitting of the Committee has been suspended in order

1129
that this Resolution should be reported to the House.
SIR JOHN HAY (speaking seated and covered): Mr. Speaker, before you put the Question, I desire to say that I have been twelve and a-half hours in the House, and, as far as I am aware, Mr. Marum and Mr. Callan ought not to be included in the vote.
MR. GRAY (speaking seated and covered): Some of the hon. Members who have been Named were not in the House at all.
MR. HEALY: I am glad that I am in it, anyhow.
MR. SPEAKER: The following Members having been reported to the House as having abused the Rules of the House by being guilty of persistent and wilful Obstruction of the Business of the Committee—namely, Mr. Biggar, Mr. Callan, Dr. Commins, Mr. Dillon, Mr. Healy, Mr. Leamy, Mr. Justin M'Carthy, Mr. Marum, Mr. Metge, Mr. T. P. O'Connor, Mr. O'Donnell, Mr. Parnell, Mr. Richard Power, Mr. Redmond, Mr. Sexton, and Mr. Sullivan, the Question I have to put is, That the Members I have Named be severally suspended from the service of the House during the remainder of the Sitting. As many as are of that opinion say "Aye," and the contrary say "No."
MR. BIGGAR: Mr. Speaker! Mr. Speaker—[Mr. HEALY: Go it, Biggar.]
MR. SPEAKER: I think the Ayes have it.
The decision of Mr. SPEAKER having been challenged,
MR. BIGGAR (speaking seated and covered): As a matter of Order, Mr. Speaker, should not the Chairman of Committees have given some reason or evidence on which to ground his Report for the suspension of the hon. Members who have been Named? I can state as a fact that I was not in the House last night from 12 o'clock until 9 o'clock this morning. I can also state that my hon. Friend the Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) is not present, and that he has not been in the House since shortly after 12 o'clock last night. I appeal to you, Sir, whether the Chairman of Committees should not have given some tangible reason for suspending us?
MR. CALLAN (speaking seated and covered): I think it is due to myself to Bay that while Mr. Playfair was in the
1130
Chair I did not open my lips upon this clause during the sitting of the Committee; and, therefore, when he states that, of his own knowledge, I have been guilty of wilful and systematic Obstruction, he states that of which he can have no knowledge, and that which is an utter falsehood.
MR. SPEAKERagain put the Question.
MR. CALLAN: Should not the names be put severally? [Cries of "Severally, severally!" from Members from Ireland.]
The House divided:—Ayes 125; Noes 29: Majority 96.—(Div. List, No. 213.) [9.50 A.M.
MR. SPEAKER: In pursuance of the Order of the House, it is now my duty to call upon Mr. Biggar to withdraw.
MR. BIGGARrose to comply with the direction of Mr. Speaker.
MR. HEALY: Let us withdraw in a body.
The Members whose names were included in the Resolution rose in a body and left the House; Mr. CALLAN, when he had reached the Bar, turning and exclaiming—"I have been suspended upon a false Report made to you, Sir, by a salaried Official of an unprincipled Government."
MR. LYON PLAYFAIR: I have now to Report to the House that Mr. O'Donnell, the Member for Dungarvan, sitting in his place, has insulted the Chair. He said that the action taken by it was "an infamy."
MR. SPEAKER: The proceedings of the Committee having been interrupted by disorder, the House has taken action in the matter by the suspension of the Members who have now withdrawn. The Chairman of Committees has further made a Report, which the House has now heard, in regard to the conduct of Mr. O'Donnell, the Member for Dungarvan. It is for the House to determine what course should be taken in regard to the matter.
MR. SHEIL: I rise to Order. I wish to point out, as a matter of Order, that the words of the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) were not taken down, and that no Motion was made that they should be taken down. Under these circumstances, is the House entitled to take notice of them?
MR. SPEAKER: The Chairman of Committees, in pursuance of his duty, has made a distinct Report to the House, and on that Report the House can proceed.
MR. O'SULLIVAN: On the point of Order, Mr. Speaker, may I ask you, Sir, if the Chairman of Committees was in Order in suspending the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) in his absence, and having regard to the fact that he had not been in the House since 12 o'clock last night?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has risen to a point of Order which does not arise in the matter now before the House. If the hon. Member considers that the Chairman of Committees has exceeded his duty, it is open for him to submit a Motion to the House in the ordinary way, by Notice; but he cannot introduce it into the present debate.
MR. A. GREYstated, that just before the last division was taken, the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan) crossed the floor of the House to him and said—"If you support this Motion, you will be voting for a falsehood."
MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member desires to make a complaint of that matter, it will be open for him to do so on a future occasion; but the Question now before the House is as to the conduct of the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell).
MR. CHILDERS: You, Sir, have just received from the Chairman of Committees a Report of certain words used by a Member of this House, who is one of those whose absence from the service of the House during the present Sitting the House has already voted. It is, I need not say, with great hesitation and doubt that I rise to make a Motion upon the subject. There are reasons which will occur to any hon. Member why I should rise with some doubt; but I think there can be no question that, that Report having been made and recorded, as it will be, on our Journals, we should have until Monday to consider what course to pursue. As I think I have the general feeling of the House in favour of that view, I will move whatever Motion, Sir, in your opinion, would be proper to carry out that wish, so that we may have until Monday to consider what course shall be taken.
MR. SPEAKER: I must point out to the right hon. Gentleman that if he pro-
1132
poses to consider this matter on Monday, he can move that the conduct of Mr. O'Donnell be taken into consideration on Monday next.
MR. CHILDERS: Yes, Sir; I think that is the right Motion, and I will now move it. I hope by that day we shall be more able to deal with the subject satisfactorily than we could at present.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I will second it, as I think the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman is clearly a right proposition, not only because I believe it to be entirely in conformity with precedent—I believe whenever an hon. Member's conduct is impugned a day should be fixed for considering it—but also because it is necessary for the purposes of justice that the hon. Member should be in his place, and be in a position to offer any explanation or make any statement he may think right. Of course, as the hon. Member has been suspended to-day, he cannot do that now, and we should only be doing a right and fair thing to let the matter stand over to the next meeting of the House, on Monday. We ought not now to prolong what might turn out to be an inconvenient and painful discussion; therefore, I think we should adopt the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the conduct of Mr. O'Donnell be taken into consideration upon Monday next."—(Mr. Secretary Childers.)
MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had informed the House that he rose with doubt and misgiving, and confessed that he did not know what was the proper course to pursue. That, however, was not to be wondered at, seeing that the right hon. Gentleman then proceeded to ask the assistance of the Speaker to formulate a Motion for him. It was unprecedented for an hon. Member to get up and undertake the duty of the Leader of the House for the time being in a matter of this kind, and then to have to admit that he did not know what course to pursue. The right hon. Gentleman had proposed that the House should discuss this matter on a future occasion, and the proposal was seconded by the right hon. Baronet the Leader of the Conservative Party. In his (Mr. Arthur O'Connor's) opinion, that was not a proper course.

1133
Hon. Members who were then in the House were the best qualified to judge of the transaction which they had recently witnessed, and Members who might be present on Monday would not be in so good a position to form a judgment on the matter as those then present. It had always been a principle of the House that questions concerning Procedure, Privilege, and the dignity of the House should be treated as matters of Privilege and dealt with immediately. Some time ago, when he (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) had ventured to bring before the House a question of that kind with regard to a certain publication, and when he proposed that it should be taken on the following Monday, as was proposed in this case by the right hon. Gentleman, the Speaker had decided that Privilege must be dealt with at once, and he could not see why the present proceeding should be considered in Order if his proposal to deal with his point some months ago was out of Order. The right hon. Baronet the Leader of the Conservative Party had said it would be only fair to the hon. Member for Dungarvan that he should be in his place to reply to anything alleged against him; but there was no difficulty about that, for it was quite open to the House to vote that the hon. Member be heard now at the Bar, or in his place, as they might think fit. By its action at that moment, however, the House, upon the confession of the Secretary of State for War, had shown that it was scarcely in a frame of mind to deal fairly with this question. The Colleagues and countrymen of the hon. Member for Dungarvan could not carry on the discussion which had been interrupted as they wished, and he, therefore, thought it would be well for the House to now adjourn. If they were to postpone the consideration of a question of Privilege until Monday, they should also adjourn all other Business to the same time. He therefore moved that the House do now adjourn.
MR. GRAY, in seconding the Motion, thought the proposition of the hon. Member for King's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor), if adopted, was the only way in which the matter could now be treated with justice to the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell). The House was in a peculiar position with regard to the Report of the Chairman of Committees, for it had no official cognizance
1134
of the words said to have been used by the hon. Member, for they were not taken down at the time. The Chairman of Committees had, as a matter of fact, exercised his discretion and selected a single word upon which to found his Report; but he had not reported the precise terms or sentences used by the hon. Member. He (Mr. Gray) was not prepared to say whether that course was unprecedented or not; but if it was not without precedent, he hoped it would not be a precedent frequently followed, because it deviated very materially from the lines of justice and fair play. The word "infamy" might, taken in some connections, be very disgraceful, but taken in another connection it might have a totally different application. It might then be an honest expression of opinion and a truth, and might be worthy the approval, and not of the censure, of honest men. There were two courses for the House to pursue, either of which might be taken if it desired to act fairly; one, that hon. Members now present, who heard the expressions of the hon. Member, and who knew the facts which drew forth that expression, and the entire context, should now deal with the subject; the other, that the entire Business of the House should be adjourned. If the House was in a temper at that moment to calmly judge of the guilt or innocence of the hon. Member for Dungarvan, clearly then was the time to act upon the matter, because there was no precise record of the language, and the terms used might escape from the memory of those who heard them by Monday, while those who did not hear them would have no knowledge of them except from the Chairman's Report. If the House was not in a frame of mind to properly and fairly consider that matter, it could hardly pass to the consideration of the much more important Business before the House. He could not see any difficulty as to the hon. Member for Dungarvan having been suspended, because it was open to anyone to move that he should be, at least, heard at the Bar, and he (Mr. Gray) had no apprehension that the hon. Member would not be able to justify his language and to show provocation. He was, however, not concerned in making a vindication for the hon. Member; but he warmly supported the Motion that the House should adjourn, not

1135
merely because of the question reported by the Chairman, but also because there was a great deal of important Business in which those hon. Members who had been suspended were deeply interested. To continue the Sitting now would still further aggravate the feelings which the proceedings recently witnessed would create in Ireland.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)
MR. CHILDERSexplained, that when he asked the Speaker to indicate certain words for the Motion he wished to propose, he had no doubt at all with reference to the Motion, for he was quite prepared to make a definite proposal; but the case was entirely unprecedented, inasmuch as that a Report had been made by the Chairman of Committees to the Speaker of words used by a Member who had been suspended, and it was important that he should not, on the spur of the moment, formulate a Motion which might not be exactly in accordance with the customs of the House. With regard to the question of adjournment, the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Gray) had asked why the House could not at once deal with the matter in the presence of all those who had heard what the hon. Member for Dungarvan had said? If that were so, that would be an excellent reason against the adjournment; and with regard to the general proceedings of the House, he hoped the House would not agree to the Motion. Having passed this Resolution, which would enable the hon. Member to make his explanation on Monday, the House might now proceed with the Bill, and he, therefore, resisted the Motion.
MR. O'SULLITANsupported the Motion, believing that there was a sufficient reason for the adjournment, in the fact that 16 Members had been suspended.
MR. SPEAKER: The Question before the House is the conduct of Mr. O'Donnell.
MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, he would most respectfully submit that the Question before the House was that of adjournment.
MR. SPEAKER: The Main Question is the conduct of Mr. O'Donnell, and upon that a Motion to adjourn has been made; but the hon. Gentleman is not
1136
entitled to refer to the suspension of the Members.
MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, he would not proceed with that point; but he thought the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) had very strong ground for objecting to suspension. The hon. Member had left at 12 o'clock, and, therefore, between that time and his suspension, he had no opportunity of addressing the House. That, he thought, ought to be sufficient ground for protesting against his suspension. He also thought the Chairman was wrong in suspending the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon), who also had not been present in the House all the night, not even being in it when he was suspended, and that was an additional reason for adjournment. He should have no objection to the Bill being debated the whole day; but, considering that a serious charge had been made against the hon. Member for Dungarvan, the House ought now to adjourn.
MR. O'KELLYfelt that the House was not in a judicial frame of mind for proceeding with the Bill, having in view the painful scenes through which the House had just passed. The Business of the House could not be properly carried on while a large number of the Representatives of the people were absent forcibly.
MR. BYRNEalso supported the Motion for adjournment, observing that if the Business was proceeded with the hon. Members who were suspended ought to be present. Any hon. Member not having been present during the proceedings of the House for some hours might, on the spur of the moment, use very strong language at finding himself suspended. He believed the House was sufficiently just not to censure a Member for an offence of which he was not guilty, and, until he was proved guilty, he was entitled to fair play.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member (Mr. Byrne) is bound to confine himself to the Question before the House, which is the conduct of Mr. O'Donnell.
MR. BYRNEsaid, he did not wish to travel outside the proper question; but he thought it would be better if the hon. Member for Dungarvan was allowed to come to the Bar and explain his words, and set himself right with the House.
MR. SYNANsaid, he was afraid that opinions and feelings would be expressed

1137
in Ireland upon the unprecedented position in which the House had been placed which, would go far to disturb peace and order. He thought the Motion for adjournment was only a fair one, because the hon. Member for Dungarvan ought to have an opportunity of defending and explaining his position and his language. An adjournment was desirable in order that hon. Members might have time to consider Amendments, and the singular position in which they were placed, so that they might return to the consideration of this important subject with calm judgment.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan) is bound to confine himself to the Question before the House, which is the conduct of Mr. O'Donnell.
MR. SYNANobserved that the Secretary of State for War treated this matter as if nothing had happened, in order to dispose, as speedily as possible, of the remaining clauses of the Bill. What effect would those words have in Ireland? Would it not be said that the Members had been suspended in order to hasten the Bill through the House?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Limerick is not permitted to discuss the Bill. The House is now considering a point of disorder, and the point immediately before the House is, "That the conduct of Mr. O'Donnell be taken into consideration on Monday next," Upon that a Motion to adjourn the House has been made, and the hon. Member is not entitled to discuss any point upon that Motion, except the conduct of Mr. O'Donnell.
MR. SYNANasked whether he was not at liberty to give his reasons for supporting the Motion?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is bound to confine himself to the conduct of Mr. O'Donnell, although a Motion for adjournment is raised upon that Question, and he is bound to confine himself to that Question in any observations he may have to make.
MR. SYNANappealed to the Prime Minister to state whether he (Mr. Synan) could either support or oppose the Motion for the adjournment of the House?
MR. GLADSTONE: I have no difficulty whatever in answering the appeal of the hon. Member for Limerick. I think that reason and policy support the Rule which has been laid down; and
1138
there could be no adequate discussion, even if it were in Order at this moment, under circumstances such as those which took place before I entered the House. The present Motion is, "That the conduct of the hon. Member for Dungarvan be considered on Monday." It is impossible, I think, to conceive a more just, and orderly, and prudent proceeding than to adjourn the consideration of that question until a time when we shall have an opportunity of considering the case fully in our minds. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Synan) is disposed to support the Motion for adjournment, but not as against the previous Motion, for he expressly says he regards that as reasonable and fair. If it be reasonable and fair, the proper course is to allow the Motion to pass. We shall have an opportunity of considering the case fully before we are required to deal with it formally in debate on Monday. I consider that the Rule of Debate, that on a Motion for the adjournment of the House arising under such circumstances as these, no subject shall be discussed except that which arises out of the Main Question on which the Motion is made, is a reasonable and excellent one. With regard to the adjournment, on its merits I cannot conceal from myself there is no doubt that, if it were not in the direction of reason and order, it could not be accepted. I must point out to the hon. Member for Limerick, and any of those who agree with him, that considering our liberty of debate is at present strictly confined by Rules of the House, in reference to a matter in which I believe the hon. Member agrees that the subject-matter is reasonable, the better course will be, that when the Motion for the adjournment of the question relating to the conduct of Mr. O'Donnell has been agreed to, we should go on with the consideration of the clauses of this Bill in Committee and dispose of it.
MR. LALORthought the Government would see the great necessity of adjourning.
MR. SPEAKER: The question is the conduct of Mr. O'Donnell.
MR. LALORsaid, he did not intend to justify the conduct of Mr. O'Donnell, but the hon. Member had not been in the House since 12 o'clock, and therefore had not opened his lips at the time of suspension. That was not the first time Mr. O'Donnell had been suspended

1139
wrongfully and the House had to re-instate him. As he could not enter into the whole facts of the case with reference to other Members, he hoped the Government would see the necessity of consenting to the adjournment, as the House was not at present in a temper to discuss the matter calmly. What would the Irish people think of the suspension of 16 Members?
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 14; Noes 156: Majority 142.—(Div. List, No. 214.) [10.40 A.M.
Original Question again proposed.
MR. JOSEPH COWENwished to know if he would be in Order in giving Notice of a Motion, which he would move on Monday, with reference to this proceeding? He understood that, on a Report of the Chairman of Committees, 16 Members had been suspended, and that several of them were not in the House during the proceedings.
MR. SPEAKER: I must point out that the Question before the House is, "That the conduct of Mr. O'Donnell be taken into consideration on Monday next." Any observations by the hon. Member must be confined strictly to that point.
MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, he had no desire to give even an appearance of disobeying the Speaker, and he only wished to ask permission to give Notice that he would move a Vote of Censure upon the Chairman of Committees.
MR. SPEAKER: The Question is, "That the conduct of Mr. O'Donnell be taken into consideration on Monday next."
MR. SHEILrose to Order, and mentioned that the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) had used the language complained of after his suspension from the service of the House.
MR. SPEAKER: That question will be taken into consideration on Monday next.
MR. SHEILsaid, his point was that Mr. O'Donnell was no longer a Member of the House.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
Ordered, That the conduct of Mr. O'Donnell be taken into consideration upon Monday next.
The Entry on the Votes is as follows:—
The Chairman having called the attention of the Committee to the evidence of the long continued and increasing obstruction to the business of the Committee, which, after twenty-three days' sittings, had culminated in the discussions upon the present Clause, said the time had now arrived when he was persuaded that the Committee, having full knowledge of these proceedings, would support him if he proceeded to Name the Members who had taken the most prominent part, in persistently and wilfully obstructing the business of the Committee.
And the Chairman thereupon proceeded to Name severally:—
Mr. Biggar, Mr. Callan, Dr. Commins, Mr. Dillon, Mr. Healy, Mr. Leamy, Mr. Justin M'Carthy, Mr. Marum, Mr. Metge, Mr. T. P. O'Connor, Mr. O'Donnell, Mr. Parnell, Mr. Richard Power, Mr. Redmond, Mr. Sexton, and Mr. Sullivan, for having abused the Rules of the House by persistent and wilful obstruction of the business of the Committee:—
Motion made, and Question put, "That Mr. Biggar, Mr. Callan, Dr. Commins, Mr. Dillon, Mr. Healy, Mr. Leamy, Mr. Justin M'Carthy, Mr. Marum, Mr. Metge, Mr. T. P. O'Connor, Mr. O'Donnell, Mr. Parnell, Mr. Richard Power, Mr. Redmond, Mr. Sexton, and Mr. Sullivan be severally suspended from the service of the House during the remainder of this day's sitting:"—(Mr. Secretary Childers:)—The Committee divided; Ayes 126, Noes 27.
Whereupon the Chairman left the Chair in order to report the said Resolution to the House.
Mr. Speaker resumed the Chair, and Mr. Playfair reported to Mr. Speaker that Mr. Biggar, Mr. Callan, Dr. Commins, Mr. Dillon, Mr. Healy, Mr. Leamy, Mr. Justin M'Carthy, Mr. Marum, Mr. Metge, Mr. T. P. O'Connor, Mr. O'Donnell, Mr. Parnell, Mr. Richard Power Mr. Redmond, Mr. Sexton, and Mr. Sullivan had been severally Named by him to the Committee for having abused the Rules of the House by persistent and wilful obstruction of the business of the Committee, and that the Committee had resolved that Mr. Biggar, Mr. Callan, Dr. Commins, Mr. Dillon, Mr. Healy, Mr. Leamy, Mr. Justin M'Carthy, Mr. Marum, Mr. Metge, Mr. T. P. O'Connor, Mr. O'Donnell, Mr. Parnell, Mr. Richard Power, Mr. Redmond, Mr. Sexton, and Mr. Sullivan be severally suspended from the service of the House for the remainder of this day's sitting.
Mr. Speaker thereupon forthwith put the Question to the House, "That Mr. Biggar, Mr.

1141
Callan, Dr. Commins, Mr. Dillon, Mr. Healy, Hr. Leamy, Mr. Justin McCarthy, Mr. Marum, Mr. Metge, Mr. T. P. O'Connor, Mr. O'Donnell, Mr. Parnell, Mr. Richard Power, Mr. Redmond, Mr. Sexton, and Mr. Sullivan be severally suspended from the service of the House during the remainder of this day's sitting:"—The House divided; Ayes 125, Noes 29.
Mr. Speaker then directed Mr. Biggar, Mr. Callan, Dr. Commins, Mr. Dillon, Mr. Healy, Mr. Leamy, Mr. Justin M'Carthy, Mr. Marum, Mr. Metge, Mr. T. P. O'Connor, Mr. O'Donnell, Mr. Parnell, Mr. Richard Power, Mr. Redmond, Mr. Sexton, and Mr. Sullivan to withdraw, and they withdrew accordingly.
Mr. Playfair then reported to Mr. Speaker that Mr. O'Donnell, the Member for Dungarvan, sitting in his place, had insulted the Chairman, saying that the action taken by him was an infamy.
Mr. Speaker thereupon addressed the House, and stated that it was his duty, in consequence of the Chairman's report, to submit the conduct of Mr. O'Donnell to the judgment of the House:—
Motion made, and Question "That the conduct of Mr. O'Donnell, be taken into consideration upon Monday next:"—(Mr. Secretary Childers:)—
Whereupon Motion made, and Question put, "That this House do now adjourn:"—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor:)—The House divided; Ayes 14, Noes 156.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
Ordered, That the conduct of Mr. O'Donnell be taken into consideration upon Monday next.
Then the House again resolved itself into the Committee on the Bill.
[10.55 A.M.
The CHAIRMANof COMMITTEES in the Chair.
(In the Committee.)
Question again proposed, "That the Clause (17), as amended, stand part of the Bill."
MR. GRAY MR. GRAY moved that Progress be reported, believing that the circumstances justified a Motion of that character. The House had been sitting since 2 o'clock on the previous day, and the Irish Members had remained up all night to discuss a Bill in which they were deeply interested. They had not moved a single Motion of this character,
1142
lest they should be accused of obstructing the Business; but the circumstances which had happened justified the Motion. Many of the Members who had been suspended took no part in the proceedings in Committee.
THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Carlow cannot discuss the suspension of hon. Members on this Motion.
MR. GRAYrepeated that 16 Members who were deeply interested in the Bill had been suspended, and he thought that was a sufficient reason to induce the House, if it desired that the Irish people should consider that their interests had received fair play, to consent to this adjournment. He thought the proceedings had been most unjust and impolitic, and that they would not tend to allay popular discontent in Ireland.
THE CHAIRMAN: Order! Order! The hon. Member for Carlow must simply discuss the Motion for Progress; he cannot discuss the suspension of Members.
MR. GRAYsaid, he would not discuss that matter; but seeing that the Committee had been discussing the Bill since 2 o'clock yesterday, with the exception of an interval of two hours, and that a considerable number of Amendments had been accepted by the Government, or otherwise disposed of, there was abundant reason why Progress should be reported. To continue the Sitting would not tend to the pacification of Ireland; but it would tend to facilitate the progress of this Bill through the House if the Government would consent to act in a reasonable manner, instead of adopting a high-handed course.
THE CHAIRMAN: Order! Order! The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gray) is thoroughly out of Order, and I must ask him to confine himself to the point before the Committee.
MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Will you kindly inform me in what respect my hon. Friend the Member for Carlow has offended?
THE CHAIRMAN: Order! Order! If the hon. Member for Carlow wishes to discuss the postponement of this particular clause, he is at liberty to do so.
MR. GRAYsaid, he confessed to a more than ordinary amount of stupidity this morning; but he had the strongest desire to adhere to any ruling which the Chairman might lay down, whether it commended itself to his judgment or not.
THE CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Gentleman the Member for Carlow desires to know what I call him to Order for, it is this. He implies that there was a prearranged concert to bring about the present state of things. There was no such pre-arranged concert, and the hon. Gentleman was discussing the suspension indirectly.
MR. GRAYsaid, he would only appeal to the Government not to pass this Bill by dint of their majority; but to show a little fair play to the Irish Members, who were so much interested. They would do far more to strengthen their position by that means than they could possibly do by merely using the brute force of a majority, which could not command any sort of respect from men of fair-dealing and honest intentions. He moved that the Chairman be directed to report Progress.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Gray.)
MR. DODSON: The Government are not prepared to assent to that Motion. They hope the Committee will address itself to the clauses of the Bill, and proceed with it in a business-like fashion. It has been used as an argument that certain hon. Members have been suspended, and, therefore, the Sitting should not be continued, but Progress should be reported. I would only point out that those hon. Members have been suspended from the service of the House during the Sitting of the House, and if the House should now be prepared to terminate its Sitting it would be stultifying itself.
MR. SYNANsaid, he did not know what were the right hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Dodson's) ideas of "a business-like fashion;" but they seemed to consist solely of a desire for expedition. He (Mr. Synan) did not know whether it was to be considered business-like that a number of Members should be taken by surprise, and the Bill rushed through Committee there and then. The expulsion of those Members had certainly filled him with surprise.
THE CHAIRMAN: Order, Order! I must point out that the Question before the Committee, and the only question that can now be discussed, is that Progress be reported on this particular
1144
clause. I cannot allow any reference to be made, or any discussion to be taken, upon the suspension of Members.
MR. SYNANsaid, he wished to remind the Chairman that the Rules of that House were to be applied with indifference to every Member of the House. The Chairman had allowed the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Dodson) to refer to the suspension of Members. On what principle was he (Mr. Synan) to be refused permission to answer him?
THE CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson), in one single sentence, referred to an argument which has been repeatedly brought forward, and which is out of Order. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Synan), in discussing that question, is perfectly out of Order.
MR. SYNANsaid, that he also had only referred to it in a single sentence. This was not the way in which the Business of the country should be carried on. He supported the Motion for Progress in order to give a chance for a proper discussion of the clause, which could not possibly be had while 15 or 16 Members whose presence was necessary were absent. He wanted to know why the Head of the Government was not there to argue the matter? If that were English or Scotch Business, the Motion for Progress would not be resisted; it was only resisted because it was Irish Business.
MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORthought they had very good reason for reporting Progress, for the House had decided to postpone the consideration of the case of the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell), in order that it might have time to consider the situation. That was precisely the consideration which weighed with the Irish Members—they wished to have time to consider their position, which hon. Members, on whichever side they sat, would admit to be one of considerable difficulty. The Constitutional rights of a number of the Irish constituencies had been suspended, and it was the duty of those Irish Members who remained in the House to do what they could in defence of those constituencies. When the Irish Members found themselves reduced to a mere handful of men—and those not among the Members who best understood and had most thoroughly considered the

1145
details and provisions of the Bill—it was only reasonable that they should make an appeal, and that that appeal should be listened to by the Committee.
SIR JOHN HAYtrusted that, before the Motion was put, they would hear from the Government that they proposed to go through with the Committee, and to finish the Bill before they rose. He said that after sitting there for more than 14 hours. He would not allude to what had passed; but, in the position in which they now found themselves, and looking at the condition of Ireland, he believed they would be stultifying themselves before the country if they did not make up their minds to sit through that day, and even through Sunday if it should be necessary. He reminded the Committee that the Battle of Waterloo was fought on a Sunday; and he trusted that this Sitting would not terminate until the Bill had passed through Committee.
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that whether they went through all the clauses or not, no man could say that Clause 17 had not been sufficiently discussed.
MR. BLAKEsaid, he had not spoken a single word before during the whole of that debate, and he could not be said to have offered any obstruction whatever. Sixteen hon. Members of the House had been suspended, and among them were the framers of some of the principal Amendments. Those hon. Members who were still present were not, he believed, in a position to deal with those Amendments; and he thought an opportunity should be given for those who were absent to come back before those important Amendments were disposed of. He was, therefore, of opinion that the proceedings of the Committee ought to be suspended until Monday.
MR. M'COANsaid, he would give utterance to a similar plea for the indulgence of the Committee on the ground that he had taken a very moderate share indeed in the discussions on this Bill, and had not placed upon the Paper a single Amendment which, by any perversity of interpretation, could be regarded as obstructive. But when he came down that morning, and heard what had taken place, the impression produced on his mind was not such as to conciliate his own further action towards the Government.
THE CHAIRMAN: Order! Order! The hon. Member (Mr. M'Coan) must not discuss the question of the suspension of Members. The Question before the Committee is simply whether Progress should be reported or not?
MR. M'COANsaid, he was not going to discuss that question; but he thought the Government had acted with great unwisdom in the course they had taken. Unless the appeal now made to them to report Progress wag acceded to, it would become his duty, as it would be his inclination, to take up such an attitude towards them on the remaining clauses as moderate men like himself had not hitherto taken.
THE CHAIRMAN: Order! Order! The hon. Member is discussing the question of what has occurred. He must confine himself to the Motion before the Committee.
MR. M'COANsaid, he had not had the same feeling against the Bill as many other Irish Members, for so far as it was levelled against crime, it had his sympathy and support—he only opposed it so far as he found it unnecessarily levelled against the liberties of the Irish people. This 17th clause had largely commanded his sympathy, because it was intended to compel the large mass of the Irish people to range themselves on the side of law and order, and lend themselves to both the detection and the prevention of crime. He had admired the patience with which the Government had borne the obstinate opposition offered to the clause, and he regretted that they had not carried their forbearance a little further until the other clauses, to which comparatively little opposition would have been offered, had been reached.
MR. SHEILsaid, the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken (Mr. M'Coan) had declared that he supported the Bill so far as it was levelled against crime. Still, neither the hon. Member's support, nor his opposition, seemed to be very staunch—he had acted in a very half-and-half spirit.
THE CHAIRMAN: Order! Order! That is not the Question before the Committee.
MR. SHEILsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Dodson) had come up smiling—and very naturally, for he was fresh and vigorous—and had

1147
genially told them to get on with their Business in a business-like way. But other hon. Members had been here for hours and hours discussing the Bill. It was all very well for Gentlemen to come down, like most of those he saw sitting opposite, and to talk about making progress when they had not heard a word of the discussion on this 17th clause. If the Irish Members were to do rightly, they would repeat all the arguments for the benefit of those hon. Gentlemen who had not heard them. He would not refer to the scene that had occurred; partly, because it was out of Order, and, partly, because the Chairman's own conduct would be inquired into on Monday.
THE CHAIRMAN: Order! Order! The hon. Member is referring to what has taken place, and is quite out of Order.
MR. SHEIL: I was referring to what will take place on Monday. Is that out of Order?
THE CHAIRMAN: It has nothing to do with the clause or Motion before the Committee.
MR. SHEILwent on to urge that many hon. Members who had sat all through the night were not physically able to carry on the discussion, and Progress ought to be reported on that account. The right hon. and gallant Member for Wigtonshire (Sir John Hay), speaking as a Scotch Member, had told them that as the Battle of Waterloo was fought on a Sunday, they ought to repeat the performance in that House. No doubt, it was a very gallant thing to carry on the fight against the four or five men left, when all the rest had been put to flight by a process to which he would not make further reference.
MR. MACFARLANEthought the majority were really demoralized. He suggested that when the clause under discussion was disposed of, they should report Progress before taking up the 18th, or else an unfair advantage would be taken of the position of the Irish Members. It was not desirable that clauses should be rushed through under such very disadvantageous conditions. He had been absent from 12 o'clock to 9, and, therefore, although he was not given to obstructive conduct, it was only an accident that he was not with his hon. Friends outside.
SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, he had not interfered much in the course of the debate; but he could not give
1148
any support to this clause. He believed in the maxim that, rather than have one innocent man suffer, many guilty should be allowed to escape; and, certainly, under this clause, though individually guilty men might be caught by it, large numbers of innocent people would suffer enormously. He would not go into the question of the unhappy circumstances which had occurred during his absence from the House, or say whether the course pursued had been right and justified, or harsh and oppressive; but he asked the Government to look at the larger question of the convenience of hon. Members, which was much invaded by their being kept here to march through the Lobbies every now and then. He did not, however, complain of that, though he had been one of the humble cavalcade himself; but he asked what would be its effects upon the country for which they were legislating? The Irish people would read in the public journals accounts of what had happened, and would that be likely to tend to quieten the country? Under all the circumstances, he felt bound to support the Motion for reporting Progress.
MR. W. H. SMITH: I have listened with great attention to the speeches of hon. Gentlemen who have recently addressed the Committee, and I differ entirely from their view. I venture to think that they make slightly too much of the hon. Gentlemen who, unfortunately, have been suspended; for we must think, in the first place, of the condition of Ireland. It is the condition of Ireland which has made it necessary for the Committee to consider a Bill which none of us would have wished to see introduced, if it had been possible to do without it; but, unhappily, the necessity is overwhelming. Of that we have had ample evidence from Members of Her Majesty's Government; and even if that evidence had not been presented to us, every newspaper which has been put into our hands has brought to us a tale of sorrow, wickedness, and mischief which ought to bring home to every one of us a sense of the duty incumbent upon us to take all possible steps to put an end to a reign of terror which is a disgrace to civilization. This measure is not intended to restrict the liberty of law-abiding citizens, but is a measure for the protection of law-abiding citizens—for the protection of

1149
the honest and the well-doing; and we should fail miserably in our duty to the country if we spared any effort, exertion, or sacrifice in order to pass this Bill—while, of course, giving ample, careful, and deliberate consideration to its clauses—as speedily as possible.
MR. O'SULLIVANsupported the Motion for reporting Progress, for the suspension of a certain number of Members—
THE CHAIRMAN: Order! Order! The hon. Member must not go into that.
MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) had been permitted to refer to it. However, he supported the Motion for Progress, because there were many strong and urgent reasons against passing a clause which proposed to levy a blood tax upon the country, and because many reasonable Amendments which had been proposed had been rejected by Her Majesty's Government. He thought the clause, as it stood, was far too severe. It was all very well to talk about sitting till the Bill was finished, and sitting, as a Scotch Member (Sir John Hay) had advised, all day on Sunday if necessary; but how would that tell upon the country—upon the people of Ireland—upon the Irish people in America and in Great Britain—aye, upon the people all over the world?
MR. GIBSON: I can tell the hon. Member how I think it will be regarded by every sensible man. If the Committee consents to do what is suggested—namely, to report Progress when this clause has been passed—it will amount to an admission that the House was satisfied, after an 18 hours' discussion, with carrying one clause—to a declaration that when, under circumstances not now to be discussed, certain hon. Members have been suspended, the House of Commons has seen fit to suspend its own functions and labours in the face of a crisis of unexampled importance, and, at the close of the month of June, when I believe more agrarian murders have been committed in Ireland within a month than have ever been committed within a similar period, with one exception, for the last 40 years, and when a new form of agrarian crime, of exceptional and appalling barbarity, has been developed and reported within the last few days—
1150
the crime of setting fire to houses in which outrages have been committed, and leaving the inmates to be burned alive if they cannot manage to escape. How will the case be regarded if the House of Commons is satisfied, in the face of this crisis, not to make, at all events for once, some reasonable progress with the Bill under discussion? Is there any man in this country capable of thought who will be content to see the House of Commons yielding to its difficulties, instead of grappling with them? If all our prolonged labours and Sitting, and the incidents that have marked this prolonged Sitting, are to culminate in the passing of one single clause, the conclusion will not only be lame and impotent, but it will subject this House, and all connected with it, to contempt. I quite admit that no rash, no unreasonable, no unbecoming progress should be made; but my one simple contention is this, that the House of Commons is bound to be justified in its own eyes by the progress which the exigencies of the position demand from us; and it will not be justified by the mere passing of a single clause, or anything at all like it.
MR. W. J. CORBETsaid, he had not opened his mouth once before since the Bill came before the Committee, and he did so now only because he wished to make a protest against what had taken place this morning.
THE CHAIRMAN: Order! Order! The hon. Member cannot make his protest on what has taken place. That is not before the Committee. He must keep to the matter before us.
MR. W. J. CORBETsaid, then it was quite plain that all discussion was to be stopped and stifled.
MR. BYRNEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Dodson) had advised them to be business-like. It required no great stretch of imagination to imagine a place where the right hon. Gentleman himself had done business in a business-like manner, and that was the city of Chester. He (Mr. Byrne) wished to divest this 17th clause from all the romance with which it had been invested by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who had protested against the notion that this blood tax was a matter of money—a matter of

1151
business. With all respect for the opinion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, he (Mr. Byrne) would say that it was a pure matter of pounds, shillings, and pence. The people who touched blood-money would go down with detestation to generations yet unborn. He supported the Motion for reporting Progress; and he would remind the Committee that when, two years ago, at the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), they sat until Sunday morning, the result was that the Bill on which they were engaged was cast out in "another place;" and it was very properly cast out, if for nothing else than the desecration of the Sabbath.
MR. GLADSTONE: After what has been said by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the County of Limerick (Mr. O'Sullivan) and by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), I want to say a few words. It has already been understood that we cannot assent to the Motion for reporting Progress, or to the proposal to stop with the passing of the clause under notice. It is quite impossible for us to consent to arrest the progress of the Committee there. The course which we do propose to take is this. We shall go on with the Bill, and we hope the effect will be to give us some results of this lengthened Sitting analogous to what might have been attained in an ordinary full measure of an ordinary Sitting. We shall watch the progress of the Bill, and the general sense of hon. Members as to the course to be pursued, and perhaps we shall make some further annouenement when the afternoon is further advanced. Taking all the circumstances into view, I am bound to say that the Government, during the interval, will watch the progress made, and will very carefully consider, as it is their duty very carefully to consider, another question. Last Session the House did make a provision for expediting the progress of very important Business. Circumstances of very great difficulty have now arisen, and it will certainly be our duty to consider materially, and to inform the House of the result, whether the time may not arrive when the House might contemplate the revival of that important provision, so that, by Rules more stringent than those we have in ordinary use, we
1152
might be able to fix some absolute time for limiting the discussions upon this Bill. No matter can be more important in the present deplorable condition of Ireland, which has done so much during the past few weeks to darken the prospect before us.
MR. SHEIL: Will the Prime Minister give us some kind of idea as to the hour at which he will consent to report Progress?
MR. LABOUCHERE, though he was one of those who would do his best to make a Coercion Bill exceedingly difficult for any Government to pass, and though he believed the Irish Members had been somewhat hardly treated, and their motives and intentions not thoroughly understood, confessed that a fair and reasonable amount of progress ought to be made during any Sitting. He, therefore, believed it to be a mistake to ask the Committee to report Progress before a vote had been taken on the clause. He could understand the Prime Minister refusing to say at what hour they should bring their labours to a close, because, when a time was once fixed, that very fact often led to more exhaustive discussion; but when they had voted on the clause, he thought they might fairly ask the Prime Minister about how far he considered the Bill ought to be carried during the present Sitting. [An hon. MEMBER: Finish it!] An hon. Gentleman said "Finish it." There were some persons who were more Royalist than the King. The right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) would not say, for a moment, that the Bill ought to be finished at the present Sitting, because there were original clauses put down by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. W. M. Johnson), who seemed to be one of the greatest Obstructives in the House, that unquestionably required very serious discussion. He (Mr. Labouchere) could assure the Prime Minister that he was speaking with a desire to avoid any of those scenes which they all so much regretted—he was speaking with a desire to have some sort of modus vivendi in regard to this Bill. He would suggest to the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray) that he should withdraw his Motion.
MR. GRAYsaid, he could not withdraw the Motion. After the speech of

1153
the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, he thought it was necessary that a division should be taken upon it, because it was the only method open to Irish Members to record their opinion of these proceedings. He knew from his own knowledge that it was arranged that a division should be taken about five minutes from the time when the proceedings were interrupted. So far as the Irish Members were concerned, they would continue to do what they believed to be their duty, without paying any regard to what seemed to be something like a threat in the speech of the Prime Minister. They would discuss the Amendments in the same spirit as heretofore, at such length as they might consider their importance necessitated, altogether irrespective of the consesequences, whether of the introduction of the new Rule of Urgency to suspend Members who might differ from him, or whatever else he might do.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 16; Noes 159: Majority 143.—(Div. List, No. 215.)
Original Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 158; Noes 19: Majority 139.—(Div. List, No. 216.) [12.10 P.M.

PART IV.

  SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS AND DEFINITIONS.
  Clause 18 (Punishment for offence against this Act).
  MR. M'COANhoped the Committee had now reached an Amendment which, without much advocacy from himself or his hon. Friends, would commend itself to the good sense of the Government. The words of the Amendment, he need hardly inform the Committee, were not his own, but were taken textually from the Trades Union Act; and, inasmuch as the Committee had just heard from the Prime Minister that he was disposed to follow generally the lines of that Act, he (Mr. M'Coan) hoped the Government would accept the principle, if not the exact words, of the Amendment he had placed on the Paper. The clause, as it stood, imposed a penalty for an offence against the Act of imprisonment, with
  1154
  or without hard labour, for a term not exceeding six months. He was not exceeding the probabilities of the administration of this Act when he said that, in the great majority of cases, the actual penalty inflicted would be imprisonment with hard labour for six months. When the Committee remembered that some of the offences created by this Bill were, morally speaking, but slight offences, they would admit that six months' imprisonment with hard labour was a very heavy penalty. He would not weary the Committee by going through the list of offences created by Clauses 4, 5, and 6 of the Bill; but in support of his Amendment he would remind the Committee that, under Sub-section (d) of Clause 5, it was an offence to commit even a technical assault on any constable, bailiff, process-server, or other minister of the law; and for such an offence any person was liable to imprisonment for six months with hard labour. Unless the intention of the Government, in pressing on that legislation, was to act with a degree of severity amounting to cruelty, he hoped they would accept some mitigation of the penalty, and he hoped so all the more confidently because the Prime Minister himself had declared his willingness to follow the lines of the Trades Union Act.
  MR. GLADSTONE: With such adaptations that are necessary for the circumstances of Ireland.
  MR. M'COANadmitted that the cases were not exactly on all fours; but he failed to see any reason why there should be a substantial difference of punishment. The punishment provided by the Trades Union Act was found to be abundantly adequate for even the gravest cases under that Act. Three months' imprisonment with hard labour was no trivial matter, and he considered it would be amply sufficient for such offences as those enumerated in Clauses 4, 5, and 6 of the Bill. He submitted his Amendment with confidence, and its acceptance by the Government would be a concession to the Irish Members, and through them to their constituents, which would be very gratefully appreciated.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 9, line 10, to leave out all after "shall," to end of Clause, and insert "if summarily convicted be liable either to pay a penalty not exceeding twenty pounds, or to be imprisoned with or without hard labour for a

  1155
  term not exceeding three months."—(Mr. M'Coan.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'be liable' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. SYNANsaid, he did not see why the punishment under this Act and under the Trades Union Act should not be assimilated. A moment ago the Prime Minister admitted that he had used the words attributed to him by the hon. Member for Wicklow (Mr. M'Coan); but the right hon. Gentleman qualified his admission by stating that the circumstances of the case must be taken into account. It was for the Government to show that the circumstances of Ireland were more aggravated than those with which the Trades Union Act was intended to deal. He (Mr. Synan) ventured to say that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister would not find any such difference in the circumstances as would warrant an increased punishment for the offences under this Act.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, he had not risen earlier, because he thought that, on the main point raised by this clause, there could be no doubt as to what were the intentions of the Government. The power of summary jurisdiction, he took it, was regarded by every hon. Member present as an extremely important part of the Bill. If the Government were prepared to accept the very sweeping and important Amendment in the scale of penalties, which could be imposed on summary conviction, they would show considerable weakness. The hon. Member for Wicklow (Mr. M'Coan) had quoted some words of the Prime Minister which he (Mr. Trevelyan) was certainly not competent, at that moment, to explain. The Prime Minister had supplied a most important reservation to these words; and it appeared to him (Mr. Trevelyan) that the first adaptation which the circumstances of Ireland required was that the people should know that the punishment under this most important and exceptional Bill should be certain. It would be very unwise to persuade the people that, in the case of some weak magistrate, they might escape with some money punishment. It could not be said that the limit of punishment laid down in this clause was exceptionally severe, for if the Committee looked at the powers of punishment given by the Petty Ses-
  1156
  sions Act, they would see that Justices in Petty Sessions had power to impose penalties as severe for offences not more heinous than those contemplated by this clause. By the Habitual Criminals Act, 1869, any person who assaulted a constable while in the discharge of his duty might be, on summary conviction, imprisoned for six months' with hard labour. It must be remembered what the offences under this Act were, and how grave they were. The hon. Gentleman spoke of them as light offences; but what were they? They were—Intimidation, riot, or unlawful assembly, forcible possession, assaults, cases of grievous bodily harm, assaults on constables, taking part in prohibited meetings, being out in a proclaimed district at night, being a member of an unlawful association. The hon. Members who had spoken on this clause must remember that not only was he able to argue that a Justice in England could, on summary conviction, impose severe punishment; but he was able to argue that in England very heavy punishment indeed could be given for offences under indictment. This Bill was specially framed to meet the difficulty of Ireland, which was the impossibility of convicting on indictment; and, therefore, if he was able to show that not only as heavy, but heavier punishment, was given in England for indictable offences, he had a right to ask that substantial punishment should be awarded in Ireland on summary conviction. The Government, however, was willing to make one relaxation, which he thought would meet the general sense of the Committee. The Government was of opinion that in regard to the 7th clause, considering that the question was not one of a riotous meeting, but a meeting which the Government prohibited for the general safety, three months' imprisonment with hard labour would be an adequate punishment to impose upon any person attending such meeting. A person who was out after sunset under suspicious circumstances, and for the commission of crime, ought to be punished, and punished severely; but the Government felt that in the case of men who were merely out under suspicious circumstances, it would be sufficient to provide a punishment of three months' imprisonment with hard labour. If this punishment were enforced rigorously, his belief

  1157
  was that it would be found quite ample. With the exception of these alterations, the Government meant to adhere to the scale of punishment provided in the Bill.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he did not think the Chief Secretary for Ireland could really expect the Irish Members or the Committee to set great store on the concession which he had said the Government were prepared to make. What did that concession amount to? If a man attended, it might be through curiosity, a meeting which the Lord Lieutenant had declared he considered likely to prove dangerous to the public peace or safety, he should not be sentenced to imprisonment for a longer term than three months; and the second concession was that, if a man were found out after dark under suspicious circumstances, he also should not be liable to imprisonment for more than three months. But what were suspicious circumstances? In this country it was a suspicious circumstance to be well known to the police; in Ireland the police would regard it as a very suspicious circumstance if they met, after dark, a man whom they did not know. Therefore, if a man were travelling in Ireland, in a district where he was not well known to the police, and he was met by a policeman, he would be liable to imprisonment for a period not exceeding three months, and the Chief Secretary for Ireland expected the Irish Members to consider that a concession to that effect was to be regarded as a very important alteration in the attitude of the Government. There were other offences under the Bill, for which this clause provided a punishment of six months' imprisonment. One was intimidation. Now, intimidation was an offence of a very elastic character. Under the provisions of this Bill—
  "Every person who wrongfully and without legal authority uses intimidation, or incites any other person to use intimidation, firstly, with a view to cause any person or persons, either to do any act which such person or persons has or have a legal right to abstain from doing, or to abstain from doing any act which such person or persons has or have a legal right to do …. shall be guilty of an offence against this Act."
  If a man had a marriageable daughter who was over 21 years of age, and that daughter proposed to marry the man of her choice against the will of her father, and if the father threatened her with the
  1158
  loss of her dowry, he would be guilty of the offence of intimidation; he would be endeavouring to induce his daughter, of full age, to abstain from marrying the man she wished, a thing she had a perfect legal right to do. The next clause furnished the Committee with another specimen of what were offences against the Act. It was an offence against the Act for which a man might be sentenced to hard labour for six months, if he committed an assault upon "any constable, bailiff, process server, or other minister of the law." There was one very peculiar feature about this clause, and it was this—that it entirely differed from clauses in the Act relating to this country. By the 32 & 33 Vict. c. 39—the Habitual Criminals Act—assaults on policemen were provided for under that Act; a person who assaulted a constable when in the discharge of his duty should, on summary conviction by two or more Justices, be liable either to pay a penalty not exceeding £20, or to a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months, with or without hard labour. The peculiar feature of the clause in this Bill was that it was not necessary that a man should assault a constable when in the execution of his duty; and if a constable, bailiff, process-server, or other minister of the law was assaulted, no matter when and to what extent, he could have his assailant before the Justice and cause him to be imprisoned for six months with or without hard labour. The Chief Secretary for Ireland felt the injustice of the difference which it was proposed to establish between the two countries, and he said the Committee must consider the summary convictions in Ireland as corresponding with convictions on indictment in England. Nothing was more monstrous than to take such a view of the matter. Why were they to regard such petty offences as he had referred to, committed in Ireland, as of the same heinous character, and punishable in the same severe manner, as such crimes as attempts to murder and assaults to do grievous bodily harm committed in this country? He (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) did not think that even the Chief Secretary for Ireland considered that the concessions he had announced were at all such as the Irish Members might fairly expect from the Government. He thought the Govern-

  1159
  ment might fairly concede that any assault for which, a man should be proceeded against under the clause should necessarily be of a very serious and aggravated character; but, no doubt, any observations he had to make on this matter would more properly be made on a subsequent Amendment.
  MR. O'SULLIVANsupported the Amendment, which would only alter the clause insomuch that it would reduce the penalty to be imposed under it. The Amendment was so reasonable that he could not understand how the Government could reject it.
  MR. LALORsaid, the Chief Secretary seemed to forget altogether that this Bill created crimes that had hitherto been utterly unknown in Ireland. There were instances where the police had prosecuted children and others for such offences as whistling "Harvey Duff," and offences of this character would be constantly brought before the Court under the Act. Under the circumstances the Amendment was very fair and reasonable.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER), in reply to the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor), said, that the punishment attaching to similar offences under the ordinary law were more severe than had been mentioned. It was intended to move the Amendment carrying into effect the concession made on the part of the Government upon the Report.
  MR. MACFARLANEsaid, there could be no denying that the Government made a very substantial concession when they changed the provision of this clause, inflicting six months' imprisonment on those who were guilty, into three months' on those who were not guilty of anything. But what he should like to see was that those who were not guilty of anything should receive no punishment whatever. He would suggest, therefore, that the Government should go still further in regard to this second class of persons and remove from their case the infliction of hard labour.
  THE CHAIRMAN: There is an Amendment to that effect upon the Paper.
  MR. BYRNEsaid, the clauses of the Bill were so stringent and comprehensive that they would include the most trivial offences, and it would be
  1160
  very unjust and unfair to inflict the extreme punishment of six months' imprisonment in the case of offences so small in themselves as whistling a tune to which the police might object, or attending a meeting which was proscribed, but which the person charged might not have known was proscribed, as, naturally enough, he might never have seen the notice in the newspaper. Therefore he asked the Government if they would not go a little further and accept this Amendment?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, it appeared to the Government that some of the offences under the 4th, 5th, and 6th clauses of the Bill might be of a very aggravated character; and, as they were creating a special tribunal, with a special jurisdiction to try persons charged with those offences, it would be absurd if they did not provide punishment to some extent adequate to the offence. They had to deal with the maximum offences, as well as the small offences, and, in order to meet them, they must have this maximum punishment in the Bill. They must, by legislation, assume that the law would be administered justly, and they were not to assume that it would be administered unjustly. By the Act of 1870, the punishment was six months with hard labour; and the Government, in reference to the 7th and 8th clauses, had altered that to three months with hard labour. The object of the Bill was to let persons know that, under the exceptional circumstances of Ireland, these matters which were dealt with as offences under the Act were crimes. This was the object of the Bill, that while these exceptional circumstances existed, the Legislature regarded these offences as crimes; and, in order to effect that object, it was absolutely essential that adequate punishment should be provided. A small money penalty might be no punishment at all; because it might be paid by a third party, and in that way it would not be regarded as a punishment.
  MR. SYNANsaid, that, in his apprehension, the statement that aggravated crimes—which, perhaps, would be the subject of indictment—would be contained under Clauses 4, 5, and 6 of this Bill, was no justification at all for applying the punishment of six months' imprisonment with hard labour to offences

  1161
  such as "Boycotting" and exclusive dealing, which, if the Bill did not become law, and unless they had assumed a serious character in some cases in Ireland, would never have had the expression of "crimes" applied to them. Now, was it not in the power of Her Majesty's Government to settle proportionally the punishment adequate to each of the offences? For the large offences, the punishment of six months' imprisonment was possibly too small, and. for the small offences it was possibly too great; and, certainly, if it was left to the discretion of the magistrates in Ireland the consequence would be that they would visit every offence with the full punishment, or something like the full punishment. Why were such offences as exclusive dealing to be punished with hard labour for six months, without the alternative of paying a fine? It was not stated absolutely, but insinuated by the hon. and learned Attorney General for England, that the reason for that was that some third parties would come forward and pay the fine, and that the awarding of a fine would be no punishment at all. There was no evidence of that. There had been no justification given for the punishment proposed, and the Amendment ought to be accepted.
  MR. GRAYquite agreed with the hon. and learned Attorney General for England that some of the offences that might come under these clauses might be of a very serious character, and require very serious punishment; but crimes, such as an assault upon a constable, might vary from the most grievous assault, which would be insufficiently punished by six months with hard labour, down to a mere technical assault, which would be too heavily punished by imprisonment for one single day. He himself would not object to see six months' hard labour inflicted in serious cases; but he wanted to have a discretion left to the Courts, where a mere technical offence had been committed, not to inflict a stigma upon the name of an individual, even with the sentence of hard labour for one single hour. If the clause remained as it was at present, they gave no option to the magistrates but absolutely to acquit or discharge the individual, or sentence him to some term, be it small or great, of imprisonment with hard labour.
  1162
  Take the case that had been pointed out already, of a large number of individuals attending a public meeting which had been proclaimed by the Lord Lieutenant, but of which they had no information.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, it was provided in the Bill that two magistrates must attend at the meeting and notify the people that it was prohibited, and no criminal offence would be committed, except in the case of persons who refused to withdraw after a reasonable time.
  MR. GRAYsaid, that justice would be sufficiently met in the case of a mere technical assault upon a constable by the infliction of a fine. He could understand the Government having a solid and reasonable objection to a fine without imprisonment; but what was proposed was to leave a discretion to the Court to inflict a fine or imprisonment, as the justice of the case might require.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he really thought that hon. Gentlemen who called themselves Liberals should consider what was said in regard to this Amendment by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Trevelyan). The right hon. Gentleman had made a statement as to the Amendment, which he (Mr. Labouchere) did not hesitate to qualify as monstrous in coming from a Liberal. The right hon. Gentleman said he was perfectly ready to make concessions, and what were these concessions? The first was, that if a person happened to be present at a public meeting which was prohibited by the Lord Lieutenant, and if he did not read the proclamation—that was to say, if he was simply going by and found himself at one of these public meetings—he thought three months' hard labour would be sufficient.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, the proclamation would be read, and he must refuse to leave within a reasonable time before the penalty would apply.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, if he refused to do what they had a perfect right to do in this country, and what he trusted everyone would have a perfect right to do, to attend a public meeting, whether the Executive objected to it or not, the punishment that was to be meted out to him—and this was a concession, remem-

  1163
  ber—was three months' hard labour. And the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary said that he would concede that if a person was found out after dark, and was arrested by a policeman on suspicion, the maximum punishment that would be inflicted upon him should be three months' hard labour. Why? Because he thought that was enough for a man who had not committed any crime. He (Mr. Labouchere) should say it would be enough. He looked upon this Bill, upon every clause of this Bill, not as though Lord Spencer and the present Irish Chief Secretary were to be in power during the three years, but as if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. J. Lowther) was to be in power, and he asked the Committee whether they would be fully prepared to give such absolute powers to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Lincolnshire? He (Mr. Labouchere) could assure the right hon. Gentleman that he had no personal feeling against him; but he would as soon go to Tripoli, or to any place where despotism reigned, as to Ireland with these clauses in the Bill and the right hon. Gentleman at the head of affairs there. Did the Committee think that a man found out after dark in Ireland, and who had committed no crime, ought to be punished with three months' hard labour, simply because a policeman took it into his head to think he was a suspicious person, and might commit some sort of crime? Let them punish those outrages and crimes if they liked. Nobody objected to that; but what they wanted was to distinguish between the punishment meted out to men who had committed crimes, and those who had not. He said that the mere suspicion of the possibility of committing a crime ought not in itself to be an offence which ought to be punished with a degrading punishment such as hard labour.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) was not to assume that any person found out after dark, under any circumstances, without reasonable suspicion, was to be punished by three months' hard labour. He should look at the other circumstances of the question. Suppose a person was found out at night, with a gun in his hand, behind a wall, was it too much to give him three months' im-
  1164
  prisonment? [Mr. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: You can do that under the present law.] Yes; but that was what the hon. Gentleman said. He would not have committed a crime; but he might be about to commit a crime. This was an example of what might take place. If this man was there for the purpose of "Moonlighting," waiting to commit murder or violence, was it to be said that under no conceivable circumstances of that kind it would be right to commit him to prison?
  MR. MACFARLANEpointed out that this was very much a question of confidence in the Administration; and if the trial of those cases were committed to English or Scotch magistrates who were qualified by law, and who had not taken any part in the land war in Ireland, more confidence would be felt in the Administration, and there would be less objection taken to the mere wording of the clause; but, judging of the future from the past, they had reason to expect that the law would not be properly administered in Ireland.
  MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, that every man in that House and country must recognize the unhappy state of Ireland, and no one could object to the police arresting a man in the interest of public safety under the suspicious circumstances the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had described; but what they complained of was that a man who was arrested on mere suspicion, and not guilty of any offence, should be punished by three months' hard labour. To arrest a man because he went out of his way, and to punish a man with three months' hard labour on mere suspicion, was contrary to all principles of justice.
  MR. M'COANsaid, he did not wish to tie the Committee down to the hard-and-fast words of that Amendment, and the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Trevelyan) probably might be carried a little further and meet all the circumstances of the case, if, instead of limiting the reduction of the six months' scale of punishment in the case of the 7th and 8th clauses, he would select cases from the 4th and 5th clauses—he (Mr. M'Coan) would not say the 6th clause, because the 6th clause dealt with aggravated offences, which were morally, as well as socially, criminal. If he would

  1165
  do that, and make a selection of offences in which he would apply the small scale of punishment, he would not press the matter to a division, and he thought the whole necessities of the case would be met if he did that. He admitted that where a man was found out under a hedge or a wall with a gun to shoot somebody, he would give him more than six months' imprisonment; but a person might be found out in such a case that it would be sufficiently met by a fine or a month's imprisonment. He did not want to minimize punishment where it was deserved; he simply wanted that minor offences should not be met with aggravated and unnecessary punishment.
  MR. P. MARTINsaid, he thought it would be fair and just that the right of inflicting a pecuniary punishment should be given to the magistrates. The hon. and learned Attorney General had put to the Committee the case of a most aggravated offence dealt with under this clause; but, at the same time, they must recollect that there was also a much smaller offence in contemplation under it; and, in dealing with that small offence, he (Mr. P. Martin) thought this pecuniary penalty ought to be reserved for the magistrates. It would appear to him a very dangerous thing to say to the magistrates in Ireland with regard to such offences as these—"In point of fact you must commit these men to a common gaol with hard labour, instead of inflicting a pecuniary fine for a trifling offence." With all respect to the Committee, he did submit that it would impede the Government in discharging their duty. In 1879, on the recommendation of a Select Committee, who were unanimously of opinion that there should be that elasticity of discretion, an Act was passed for England, to amend the law relating to the jurisdiction of magistrates, and empowering the magistrates to impose a fine for offences punishable on summary conviction, if the Court thought that the justice of the case would be better met by a fine than by imprisonment. It was agreed that that Act should be extended to Ireland, and the only reason that it was not extended at that time was that it was conceived that if they entered upon the Irish Question at that time, it might so delay the Bill that that very useful Bill for England would be thrown out. He trusted that the Committee would
  1166
  follow the example set on that occasion.
  MR. BOURKEthought the clause, as it was at present framed, gave the elasticity the hon. and learned Gentleman referred to. The greatest amount of elasticity possible under the Criminal Law could be given under the clause.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he would not vote for this Amendment, but he certainly would propose an Amendment giving the option to magistrates to impose a fine not exceeding £50, for he thought it was an unfair thing that they should compel the magistrates either to acquit or to send a man to prison. If there was anything in this country which ought to be regarded with more suspicion than another, it was the imprisonment of our fellow-citizens. In foreign countries they had imprisonment for very slight offences, and so commonly was it exercised in France that nobody thought anything about it; but in this country they looked upon imprisonment in a different light, and he could not understand how it could be said that there was elasticity in a clause which compelled the magistrates either to acquit or imprison a man. He hoped the Committee would not legislate on the subject in haste and without proper discrimination. He would ask the Government to accept an Amendment to this effect—At the end of the clause to add the words, "or to such fine, not exceeding £50, as the Court may order." There was many a case in which a man might be guilty of an offence of a slight kind, such as "Boycotting," which would require a stern admonition from the law, but which certainly would not deserve imprisonment; and, in such a case as that, they ought to give the magistrates the power of inflicting such a penalty as would mark the offence of a man's conduct, and yet not place a stigma upon him for life. Now, it was said that a certain association would pay these fines. That association could not pay very many fines in this way. Besides, they were going to have a special magistracy, not the ordinary Justices, who might be deterred by fear—they were going to have special magistrates, and yet, for the first time in their legislation, they were giving these magistrates power either absolutely to discharge a man or to imprison him. He trusted the House would not sanction

  1167
  that innovation on the principles of our Constitutional rights, which gave us a horror of imprisoning any man.
  THE CHAIRMANpointed out that it would be impossible for the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) to move his Amendment in the event of the Amendment before the Committee being accepted.
  Mr. COURTNEYin the Chair. [1.45 P.M.
  MR. M'COANsaid, he thought the object of his Amendment would be substantially met by the substitution of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry); and, therefore, he respectfully asked to be permitted to withdraw his Amendment.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY): Is it your wish that the Amendment should be withdrawn? ["No, no!"]
  Question, "That the words 'be liable' stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.
  MR. SYNAN: May I take the liberty, Sir, of asking whether I am at liberty to move an Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell)?
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY): Is the Amendment on the Paper?
  MR. SYNAN: It is.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY): No; the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for the City of Cork cannot be put, because the discussion which has been raised and the Motion which has just been put has been on the question whether an alternative money penalty should be allowed, and the Committee has decided that there should be imprisonment in all cases. The question involved in this Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for the City of Cork is not merely the option that a money penalty should be allowed, but it insists upon a money penalty, and only imposes imprisonment in the event of the penalty not being paid.
  MR. MOLLOY: Is the second portion of the Amendment of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) out of Order too?
  THR DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY): Yes; that is out of Order too.
  MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, he begged to move an Amendment which stood in the name of the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings)—namely, "In page 9, line 11, leave out 'with or'"—the object being to omit hard labour.
  Amendment proposed, in page 9, line 11, to leave out the words "with or."—(Mr. Joseph Cowen.)
  Question put, "That the words 'with or' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 138; Noes 18: Majority 120.—(Div. List, No. 217.) [2 P.M.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR moved, as an Amendment, in page 9, line 12, that the word "six" be omitted after "exceeding," and the word "two" be substituted. That would make an alteration which would effect an approach to the law in this country. If a man was guilty of several of the acts made offences under this Bill in this country, he could only be sentenced to two months' imprisonment, and no ground had been shown for so extreme a sentence as six months as the only sentence that could be given.
  Amendment proposed, in page 9, line 12, to leave out the word "six," in order to insert the word "two."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'six' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. BYRNEsupported the Amendment, and pointed out that, as the clause stated, the magistrates would have no option as to the sentence, and would have to inflict six months' imprisonment on a man, even if he had been unwittingly guilty of an offence.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the Committee had discussed this matter on the previous Amendment to reduce the penalty to three months. That had been negatived. The argument was that three months was too small a maximum, and now the hon. Member (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) proposed two months.
  MR. GRAYsaid, he should be content to leave the clause as it stood, provided that the magistrates had some discretion as to the infliction of imprisonment or a fine; but, as the Committee had negatived a discretion being given,

  1169
  the only course open was to endeavour to restrict the maximum penalty which might be inflicted. That was why he preferred two months instead of three, although he would have agreed to the higher term, if discretion had been given to the magistrates.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 136; Noes 15: Majority 121.—(Div. List, No. 218.) [2.15 A.M.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 9, line 12, after "months," insert "or such, less term as is in that behalf fixed by any section of this Act."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked for some explanation of the Amendment?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES), in reply, said, that if these words were not inserted, the clause would stand as giving six months' imprisonment for all offences under this section; but his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department wished to mitigate the penalties in some cases, and, therefore, these words were inserted.
  Question put, and agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he wished, before the clause was put to the House, to take the ruling of the Chair on the words which he proposed to add at the end of this clause—namely, "or such fine not exceeding fifty pounds as the Court may order." The hon. Member for the County of Wicklow (Mr. M'Coan) had moved an Amendment which was discussed, and which he then desired to withdraw. The withdrawal, however, had been objected to, and the Amendment was negatived; but this was so important a subject that he (Mr. Mitchell Henry) submitted, in the commonest justice, a discussion and a division on the proposal ought to take place.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY): As the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) is aware, when an Amendment is moved it cannot be withdrawn, except with the assent of the Committee. Opposition was taken to the withdrawal, and the Amendment was negatived. That Amendment sug-
  1170
  gested the option of a fine, and that having been negatived, it is now incompetent to the hon. Member to move his Amendment.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he should move it on Report.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked whether it was not the fact that the Motion of the hon. Member for the County of Wicklow (Mr. M'Coan) was not merely a Motion to substitute a money penalty, or to establish an option, but to reduce the term of imprisonment from six to three months? The rest of the object of the Amendment was to leave to the Judges a discretion to inflict a money penalty of £20. The whole of the Amendment was taken together and negatived in its entirety. Therefore it would be impossible for any hon. Member to move what was tantamount to the same Amendment; but he wished to know whether a portion of that Amendment might not be, by itself, proposed as a fresh Amendment?
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY): As the hon. Member (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) is aware, if the Motion of the hon. Member for the County of Wicklow (Mr. M'Coan) had been withdrawn, it would have been competent to entertain a question of varying the money penalty. It was not negatived in its entirety. The second question of mitigation of imprisonment was put by the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray).
  Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  MR. MOOREasked whether the House was to receive any information as to the officials who were to administer this Act? The punishment provided was very severe, and it would fall on the sons of farmers and labouring men, most of whom had been beguiled. This power of summary imprisonment for six months was a very serious matter.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY): The hon. Member for Clonmel (Mr. Moore) cannot discuss that question on this clause; but on the clause which follows he can.
  MR. MOOREsaid, he did not think the subject arose on the following clause. It was understood that there were to be special officers appointed to work this clause; and in the following clause a provision was made for the pre-

  1171
  sence of two magistrates; but he wished to know by whom this clause was to be administered, and whether the same officers and police who were engaged in tracking criminals would administer the Act, or the Resident Magistrates? There should be some guarantee that the clause would not be administered by Resident Magistrates.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, he wished to remind the hon. Member for Clonmel (Mr. Moore) how emphatically the doctrine had been laid down that the arrangements with regard to magistrates were purely executive and administrative, and the Government could not consent in any way to place them in the Bill. The nature of the arrangements had been shadowed out on a previous occasion; but the arrangements must be carried out by the Lord Lieutenant's orders.
  MR. M'COANobjected to the arrangements being left to the will of the Lord Lieutenant.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY): I must point out that this question arises on the next clause; it is premature to discuss it now.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked, whether it was not competent to discuss the nature of the tribunal? The Resident Magistrates were well known to be very much under the guidance of the special magistrates.
  MR. SYNANcould not conceive why substantial questions on this clause could not be discussed. He thought the punishments under Clauses 7 and 8 had not been sufficiently mitigated, and that there ought to be some distinction made in this clause between the punishments under Clauses 4, 5, and 6. Although unwilling to prolong the discussion, he thought it was absolutely necessary to take a division on the clause, and to amend the clause on Report. The whole matter was left too much to discretion, when it was known who these magistrates would be, and when the promise made by the Chief Secretary for Ireland had not been placed in the Bill.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYfelt that there ought not to be any doubt upon this subject, or anything that would look like a breach of faith. The Government distinctly promised that in the administration of the Act two magistrates should be required, and that one of them should be a trained lawyer. Did
  1172
  the Government still adhere to that promise?
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, the promise was only made so far as it could possibly be carried out. Resident Magistrates who were trained lawyers could not be made at command; but, so far as the condition and list of magistrates allowed, the magistrates would be associated with lawyers.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he could not regard that as carrying out the promise given by the Chief Secretary for Ireland. [Mr. TREVELYAN: The promise is being considered.] The Committee could not know what had gone on between Dublin and London; they were only going on what had been stated in the House; and he (Mr. Labouchere) thought there had been a distinct pledge given that one of the magistrates should be a trained lawyer. As to the argument of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, it was perfectly possible to have one lawyer to sit with the Resident Magistrates. He thought there ought to be no misunderstanding as to whether the Government adhered to the pledge given, for upon the faith of it many of the clauses of the Bill had been granted. He should not like to say they had backed out of a promise; but they had certainly given an undertaking from which they could not honourably recede.
  MR. O'KELLYsaid, a clear and distinct promise had been given that the new tribunals should consist of two magistrates, one of whom should be a trained lawyer; and the expectation had been that some of those men would be taken from the general public, and not from those who were imbued with the ideas of the class to which there was so much objection. The clause would, practically, be no protection at all, if the magistrates were to be people of that class. The Bill would confer enormous power on the magistrates; and it was of the utmost importance, even from the Government point of view, that the people should have some slight confidence, at least, in the judicial character of the magistrates. If the Government did not carry out their promise the feeling in Ireland would be that accused persons would be sent before what would practically be a military tribunal, and dealt with in a summary manner. In that way the law would be made an in-

  1173
  strument of vengeance, and not an instrument of justice.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, the promise was given by the Prime Minister, and as the right hon. Gentleman was not now present, the Committee could not arrive at a distinct understanding as to the promise; he would further point out that this matter did not arise upon this clause, but upon a clause which the Government proposed to substitute.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYsubmitted that the question could not possibly arise on any other clause. The Prime Minister had given a distinct and positive promise; and he (Mr. Mitchell Henry) was convinced that the right hon. Gentleman would not recede from it. Why, then, did the Chief Secretary for Ireland say it would be adhered to only as far as possible? It could be adhered to perfectly well. The Government knew very well that there were a number of effete and worthless magistrates in Ireland who would be summoned to Dublin and offered inducement to retire. They, of course, would want to make their own bargain.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY): I must point out to the hon. Member for Gal way (Mr. Mitchell Henry) that it is premature to discuss this question upon this clause.
  MR. O'SULLIVANprotested against this clause as giving too much power.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, that with reference to the ruling of the Chair, he was not discussing what the tribunal ought to be; he stood on the pledge given by the Government.
  MR. MOLLOYsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland asked the Committee not to discuss this promise in the absence of the Prime Minister, while the Chief Secretary for Ireland denied that the promise was given as stated.
  MR. GRAYsaid, that the clause would be put into most extensive operation, and would, in many cases, inflict grave hardship, and cause a feeling of aggravation and soreness. A man might be sentenced for what, at that moment, was no crime, and punished by a degrading sentence, involving association with the vilest characters. Why should the Government refuse to mitigate the punishment for offences which were at present legal? Clause 4 was so wide
  1174
  that any individual taking part in any public affairs might find himself caught in the meshes of this clause, and would be liable to six months' imprisonment with hard labour. If he (Mr. Gray) attended a public meeting, he could be cast into prison; and even the modifications which had been made as to public meetings offered no adequate protection to individuals; and he was certain that many innocent individuals would be convicted for attending meetings which were made illegal by a proclamation in The Dublin Gazette, but of which they would know nothing. The police were frequently over-zealous, stimulated by inflammatory speeches in that House, on the necessity of taking strong measures, and he feared that under such incentives they would be more active, and would arrest many persons who were innocent; and the special magistrates would consider it obligatory upon them to do something to show that they were properly discharging their duties. The determination of the Government to attach the stigma of crime to men who were perfectly innocent showed a feeling which the people of Ireland would interpret as vindictive towards an entire class, and that would be greatly to be regretted.
  MR. M'COANsaid, his objection to the clause was, that it might fall into the hands of other administrators than the present Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary for Ireland. He regarded with something approaching to horror the possibility of the administration of this Act by a Conservative Government.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY): I must invite the hon. Member for Wicklow (Mr. M'Coan) to address himself to the Question before the Committee. It is—"That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  MR. M'COANthought his objection was very much to the point. This would be a monstrous power in the hands of people in whom the Irish people had no confidence. He also objected to it on account of the tribunal by which it might have to be carried out.
  MR. LABOUCHEREthought that, when the Executive took power to forbid any political meeting, and when any person declined to withdraw at the order of the Executive, such person, far from

  1175
  deserving three months' imprisonment with hard labour, might be doing an exceedingly laudable thing. But the main objection was—and in consequence of it, he should vote against the clause—that the option of a fine was not given to the magistrates. No doubt, in some cases, a fine might not meet the circumstances; but the point here was, that if the magistrates considered that the person had violated the letter of the law, no matter what the extenuating circumstances might be, they must punish by imprisonment.
  MR. FIRTHsaid, that he agreed with the second objection stated by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere).
  MR. BYRNEsaid, they well knew that for the future, in Ireland, any word spoken, or the slightest movement of the head or eye, would be an act punishable with imprisonment. he hoped that the Government would, at all events, avoid the mistakes made in the appointments under the Land Act, and that they would appoint thoroughly efficient and legally-trained gentlemen, of some practice and standing at the Bar, to adjudicate on these offences. It was to be hoped they would not send out a wool-stapler from Bradford to administer the Act.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he would not comment on the absence of certain hon. Members, because he was anxious to remain within the four corners of the Rules of the House, not so much on his own account as on account of the Chairman, the extreme delicacy of whose position he fully appreciated. Those who had opposed the Bill had opposed it tenaciously, obstinately, and he might even say obstructively; and it had been thought fit to take action against them, that action having been stimulated by the Government of which the Chairman was a Member. He merely said this, not to infringe any of the Rules, but to show that he was fully alive to the situation. The clause before the Committee proposed the most severe treatment for offences of a trivial kind. If, for instance, he were to meet a man, and were to say "Fee-fi-fo-fum" to him, and a policeman heard it, and chose to think that it suggested something of an intimidating character, he (Mr. O'Connor) might be liable under this clause to imprisonment with hard labour
  1176
  for six months. They knew that the powers given to magistrates in Ireland were not used with a very sparing hand, and the imprisonment of ladies and others had given a very good foretaste of what might be expected under this Bill. He asked the Committee to attempt to realize what the clause really meant, and what was the real meaning and significance of the expression "six months' imprisonment with hard labour." Hard labour meant the treadmill, shot drill, the crank, and other labour of that kind, and it could be carried on for not more than 10 or less than six hours per day, exclusive of the time occupied at meals. Then, what was the dietary that these men would have to endure? At breakfast they were to be allowed six ounces of bread and a pint of gruel—two ounces of coarse oatmeal with salt. At dinner they were to be allowed—
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY): Order, order! I must invite the hon. Member to confine himself more strictly to the terms of the clause. It is scarcely relevant to the whole scope of the clause to give the Committee a complete account of all the details which the imprisonment inflicted under it involves.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he was anxious not to transgress the Rules of Order, but he thought it was important to show the Committee what hard labour really meant. [Cries of "Order!"] He would conclude by warmly protesting against the manner in which his remarks had been interrupted by hon. Gentlemen sitting on the other side.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 186; Noes 20: Majority 166.—(Div. List, No. 219.) [3.20 P.M.
  Clause 19 (Court of Summary Jurisdiction).
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES) moved that the clause be struck out of the Bill, the intention being to bring up in substitution another clause which stood on the Paper to give a power of appeal.
  Moved, "That the Clause be struck out of the Bill."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
  Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  MR. JOSEPH COWEN: Will that be taken now, or brought up as a new clause?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): As a new clause; it cannot be taken now.
  MR. GRAYhoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would take care that the clause was not brought on until hon. Members who were not in the House had the opportunity of re-drafting the Amendments which were at present on the Paper, and making them applicable to the new clause. A number of hon. Members could not enter the House to hand their Amendments to the Clerk at the Table, and he hoped the new clause would not be taken till Monday.
  MR. GLADSTONE: An opportunity will be given for placing any Amendments upon the Paper.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYasked the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister whether the special tribunals of two magistrates, who were to carry out the summary powers of the Bill, would have upon them one magistrate who was a trained lawyer?
  MR. GLADSTONE: It is extremely unusual for statements in reference to Amendments to be made on the Motion for striking out a clause. I hope we shall be allowed at once to drop this clause.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, it was only a reasonable thing to ask, and there ought to be no doubt about it. A plain assurance on the point would prevent the putting down of unnecessary Amendments.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSasked if the new clause would be taken at the present Sitting?
  MR. GLADSTONE, in reply, said, it would be taken on Monday.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORwanted to know what were the intentions of the Government as to the Sitting. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister said some hours ago that, after a reasonable amount of progress had been made, similar to the work done at an ordinary Sitting, he would make a further statement. Since then two clauses had been passed. It was impossible that the Committee could continue its labours indefinitely.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY): Order, order! These remarks are not relevant to the Question
  1178
  before the Committee, which is that Clause 19 stand part of the Bill.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he did not wish to move that Progress be reported or to transgress the Rules of the House. He had merely asked for information.
  Question put, and negatived; Clause struck out accordingly.
  MR. SHEILsaid, he should move that Progress be reported, because no reply had been given to the reasonable inquiry of the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Sheil.)
  MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, he did not think there was any obstructive purpose in that Motion, for the Government had themselves promised to make a statement when a reasonable amount of progress had been made.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: We have considered this matter with a view to what we think reasonable discussion, and the future despatch of this Bill, and we have come to the conclusion that a proper and fair arrangement would be that the Committee, at its present Sitting, should go through all the clauses of the present Bill, and then stop. There would then be left for consideration the postponed clauses, the substituted clauses, and the proposed new clauses.
  MR. GRAYsaid, he was sorry to hear that declaration. Early in the morning when the Prime Minister made a statement, he spoke in very different terms to that which the Secretary of State for the Home Department had just used. The consequence was that they had been led to anticipate very different treatment, and he thought a very great hardship was being inflicted on a small handful of Irish Members. The Prime Minister had given them some hope, when reasonable progress was made with the Bill—such progress as might be expected from an ordinary day's work in Committee—of respite from a toil which was becoming an absolute physical torture—a species of hard labour inflicted upon Members of the House, even without the intervention of

  1179
  a tribunal. He had been continuously in the House for 18 hours, and it was unfair to ask him (Mr. Gray) and his Colleagues to continue to discuss all the remaining clauses of the Bill. It was not treating fairly a small minority, even an Irish minority.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray) has not misquoted me, but we differ as to the construction to be placed on my language. What happened, to the best of my recollection, wasth is—about four or five hours ago, the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) stated from the opposite Bench that the Committee ought to proceed regularly with its work, and should not desist until there had been reasonable and full progress, such as might be made at an ordinary day's Sitting. With that declaration my Colleagues and I concurred, and we adopted that language. Now, Sir, upon considering the matter, we are really of opinion that the clauses now remaining in the Bill are clauses that might quite well be disposed of in a day's Sitting. The fact is, I am bound to say that I think we have got a little demoralized in regard to our estimate of what a day's work should be after the great length of time that has been spent upon 16 clauses of the Bill. On the other hand, it is quite true that many of those 16 clauses contain matter of very great difficulty, and of very great delicacy; and some of them may almost be said to be the foundation in themselves of a not unimportant Bill. We have not been very impatient in resenting the apparently slow progress that has been made; but we have now arrived at a point where questions of principle are wholly disposed of, and where the clauses which remain are subsidiary and consequential, and it is our opinion—an opinion on which we propose to act—that we should go on with those remaining clauses; and we do not think we are asking anything undue in asking the Committee to dispose of them. We have also considered the further matter to which I referred this morning, and we conceive it to be our duty, in view of the more expeditious progress of Public Business, to propose to revive on Monday the measures adopted last year, and commonly known as the Resolutions upon Urgency.
  MR. SHEIL: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to bring in Urgency upon the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Bill as well as upon this measure?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The nature of the proceedings of the House as to Urgency was this—first, a general Resolution was passed, and under that general Resolution it was open to the Ministry to propose to apply the Rule of Urgency to any particular measure; and that proposal, if sanctioned by a three-fourths majority, took effect. Last year the House did apply it to certain Irish Bills; but when we proposed to apply it to Supply we had an inadequate majority, and it was rejected. As to the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Bill, it would be altogether premature to entertain any question in regard to it. We have already said that it is on a level with this Bill in regard to its importance; but beyond that I have no proof before me, and I have no right to conclude that a similar opposition will be offered to it. If it is, then will be the time to consider whether it is necessary to make any proposal respecting it.
  MR. SHEILsaid, he must conclude, from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, that the Government had no intention of taking Urgency for the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Bill, a resolution which in no way surprised him. He thought it his duty to divide the Committee upon his Motion because of the absence of so many Members of the Irish Party.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsuggested that Clause 30, which defined the duration of the Bill, should not be taken that day, but that it should be postponed until there was a full complement of Irish Members in the House.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I must say that when I spoke last, it did occur to me that the question of duration was a question upon which a short debate might take place. Most of the clauses appeared to me as if they were clauses that might pass almost without debate. On the question of duration, I thought it very possible that a debate of an hour or two might take place, and that was quite included in the view that I took of a possible day's work. It would be a recession from what I stated a few minutes back if I were to postpone that clause. That clause will be open, like every other, to reconsideration on Re-

  1181
  port; but I must adhere to my statement.
  MR. GRAYasked his hon. Friend (Mr. Sheil) to withdraw the Motion to report Progress, as he did not wish to do anything of which the Party would be ashamed. After Clause 20 was agreed to, it might then be renewed as a protest against the physical force used to pass the Bill through the House.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had misled the Irish Members this morning. Under the circumstances, the Irish Representatives would fight the Bill as long as they could.
  MR. MACFARLANE(who rose amid cries of "Oh!") said, hon. Members, as usual, would not wait to hear what was about to be said before they shouted down any hon. Member they did not wish to hear. There were a number of hon. Members of the House who used the House as a boy used an empty cask. [Cries of "Order!"] What he had to say was, that the Government had come to the conclusion—he would not say that he agreed with them—that a certain number of Irish Members had misbehaved themselves, and they had expelled those Members. He wanted to point out the peculiar injustice it would be to the Irish Members who had not misbehaved themselves—those who behaved to the satisfaction of the Government—to keep them in the House an indefinite time, whereas those Irish Members who had not behaved to the satisfaction of the Government had gone comfortably home. The Prime Minister had led them to believe, perhaps unintentionally, that the passing of two or three clauses would be considered satisfactory progress, and he (Mr. Macfarlane) hoped that course would be taken.
  MR. SHEILsaid, he was under the impression that Clause 19 had been withdrawn; if that was so, he asked leave to withdraw his Motion; but if it was otherwise he would not withdraw it.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Clause 20 (Proclamation of districts).
  MR. GRAY MR. GRAY moved an Amendment standing on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy)—namely, to amend the clause by inserting in line 35, after "him," "from information duly made on oath and in writing."
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 9, line 35, after the word "him," to insert the words "from information duly made on oath and in writing."—(Mr. Gray.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, Her Majesty's Government found it impossible to insert this Amendment.
  MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, he thought the Government should not have objected to the Amendment that had been proposed. The Irish Members did not object to the Government getting all the information they could; but they thought that such information should be made on oath and in writing.
  MR. BYRNEdrew attention to the fact that the Amendment would make the law in Ireland the same on that point as the law in England.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 17; Noes 213: Majority 196.—(Div. List, No. 220.) [4.15 P.M.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (for Mr. SEXTON)MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (for Mr. SEXTON) moved to amend the clause, by inserting in page 9, line 35, after the word "time"—
  "At the request of the majority of the justices of the peace for any specified part of Ireland, expressed at a meeting of such justices convened in the prescribed manner."
  MR. BRODRICKrose to Order. He wished to know whether the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) was not too late in moving the Amendment, as the word "him," which stood in the clause after the word "time," had been already agreed to?
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY)said, he regretted to say that it was so. By an unfortunate transposition of the Amendments on the Notice Paper, the Amendment was too late.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, in that case he would move the Amendment after the word "him." Although such a course involved the employment of not very elegant phraseology, it was open to no other objection, and he thought they should not be made to suffer for any error that had occurred, considering that they had no control over the manner in which the Amendments were placed on the Paper. He

  1183
  did not pretend to be able to do justice to the Amendment under the circumstances, and he regretted that his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), in whose name it stood, and who could have done justice to it, was not present. He begged to move the Amendment as amended, at the same time protesting against the manner in which the Government acted in dealing with the Amendment in the absence of his hon. Friend, in whose name it stood.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 9, line 35, after "him," to insert the words "at the request of the majority of the justices of the peace for any specified part of Ireland, expressed at a meeting of such justices convened in the prescribed manner."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, if the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had been in his place, the Government could not have seen their way to accept the Amendment. He (the Attorney General) thought if the Amendment was left as proposed it would not be doing justice either to the Lord Lieutenant or to the Justices of the Peace; he, therefore, could not accept the Amendment.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, it was perfectly plain that the Lord Lieutenant could not be able, of his own knowledge, to judge of every district in Ireland. It would be necessary for him to act upon the information supplied to him by responsible persons, and the Amendment provided that the responsible persons should be Justices of the Peace in the different districts which it was proposed to place under the Act. Possibly, if the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had been present, he would be convinced by the arguments of the Government, and would be disposed to withdraw the Amendment; in his absence his Colleagues were not able to judge what his action would have been, and he would be compelled to take the sense of the Committee.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAhoped that his hon. Friend (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) would not take the sense of the Committee by calling for a division. He did not think they should call upon a body of magistrates to come together to do something which the Lord Lieutenant
  1184
  could do very well from information received direct. He thought if the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had been in his place, on a little reflection, he would not have moved the Amendment, and he (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) hoped it would now be withdrawn.
  MR. GRAYsaid, he would join with the hon. Member who had just sat down (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) in his appeal to the hon. Member who had moved the Amendment (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) to allow it to be withdrawn, and not to go to a division. The Amendment was one upon which there existed some slight difference of opinion amongst the Irish Party themselves, and for that reason he urged its withdrawal. At the same time, he (Mr. Gray) would say that he had no kind of confidence in the magistrates of Ireland, whether they were acting in private or in public conclave; whether they were acting as private individuals or publicly as a body. As his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) was not present to move his Amendment, and as he would have an opportunity of moving it on the Report, he merely made the suggestion to the hon. Member for the Queen's County not to divide upon it.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he thought if the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had been present, he would have carried with him, not only the body of the Irish Members, as he generally did, but hon. Members from other parts of the House, whose judgment he would have swayed. As the hon. Member who had just spoken (Mr. Gray) had said there was a division of opinion about the Amendment, he asked leave to withdraw it. At the same time, he thought anything more unfair, more ungenerous, or more unexpected than the course taken by the Government towards the remnant of the Irish Party could not be conceived. He thought that what was passing through the minds of hundreds of Irishmen was that they would like to have one cavalry charge to settle the whole matter. He begged to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. MOLLOY (for Mr. BIGGAR)MR. MOLLOY (for Mr. BIGGAR) moved, as an Amendment, in page 10, line 6, after "thereof," to insert, "and shall be forthwith published in two newspapers circulating in such district."
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he was of opinion that the publication in two Dublin newspapers would be sufficient. He might also say that the Amendment would, in some cases, defeat its own object, because some districts were so small that two newspapers were not published in them. The Peace Preservation Act of 1881 contained a clause to the effect that the manner of proclamation should be left to the Executive, and he thought that much safer than to lay down a certain mode of carrying into effect the law.
  MR. O'SULLIVANpointed out that they did not intend that the two papers in which it was proposed to insert the proclamation should be published in the district, but only that they should be circulated in the district. There were plenty of papers circulated in districts in which they were not published. They did not want to select certain papers, but would, leave that to the Government. He thought the Amendment was so fair that it ought to be accepted by the Government.
  MR. SHEILthought there was nothing to prevent the Government making the proclamation in any manner they liked, and all the Irish Members asked was that the Government would make the proclamation in any two newspapers published in the district, or even in Ireland.
  MR. MOLLOYwould ask the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General to state how these proclamations were to be made known. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said they would be made known in The Gazette; but The Gazette was never seen in the country parts of Ireland. They suggested that the proclamation should be in two newspapers published in the district, and they did not mind what newspapers they were. They thought there ought to be some means of making these publications known to the people in the counties who would be affected by them. If the Government would say that the proclamation would be made known in two newspapers having a circulation in the Province in Ireland in which the proclamation took place, the Irish Members would be satisfied. If they were
  1186
  only to be published in the official Gazette, they might as well be published in the London Times.
  MR. M'COANthought if they were published on the chapel doors of the district to which they applied that would be sufficient.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that was the course that was already taken in many cases, and that was the course that would practically be adopted.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, he could not see why the Government hesitated to accept that Amendment. If the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would say any two papers in the district, or in Ireland, that would be sufficient for their purpose. What they wished to have was, that the form of the proclamation would be accessible to the neighbourhood, and to anybody in it. In The Dublin Gazette it would not be accessible. He had no doubt whatever that the Lord Lieutenant would have the proclamation posted on the chapel walls; they were not speaking of that, but they were speaking of what was actually provided for in the Bill. He thought his hon. Friends would be quite ready to accept the publication in two newspapers published in Ireland.
  MR. M'COANsaid, he was sorry to be at issue with his hon. Friend behind him (Sir Joseph M'Kenna), who usually spoke with such clearness and force. He did not think that the publication in any two newspapers in Ireland would meet their purpose, as newspapers were published in one part of the country that were not seen in other parts. He thought the publication should be made in the same district to which the proclamation applied.
  MR. BLAKEsaid, he would venture to say that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would make a great mistake if he did not accede to the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. Molloy). He (Mr. Blake) was in a public office for 10 years in Ireland, and he ventured to say that in all mattert of the kind a notice inserted in the Dublin newspapers or in The Dublin Gazette would be of no avail in the districts to which the proclamation applied. He knew that it was also the practice of the Board of Works; but there were numerous counties in Ireland where The

  1187
  Dublin Gazette was never seen. As for the notices posted up at the police stations, he knew that there were many people in Ireland, who ought to be informed of these matters, who never had an opportunity of seeing the notices posted at police stations; whereas there were few people in a district who did not see the notices when they were inserted in the local papers. He was sure it would be to the interest of the Government to have matters of that kind as widely known as possible.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, he would like to say a few words to relieve Her Majesty's Government from the imputation cast upon them by his hon. Friend the Member for Wicklow (Mr. M'Coan). The hon. Member had said if the proclamation was made in papers published in one district, it would be of no use in another district; but there were papers that circulated all over Ireland, and he thought these should be chosen.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, all proclamations were inserted in The Dublin Gazette, and, in addition, great care was taken that they should be likely to meet the end in view. There was not the slightest reason to apprehend any difficulty in the case of this Act, as the promulgation of the proclamations was precisely the same under this Act as it was under all other Acts. There was naturally a desire on the part of the Government to let the people know what was illegal.
  MR. GRAYasked, if he was to understand that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had said the procedure under this Act was the same as that laid down in the Act of 1870?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): I said 1881, the Act of last year.
  MR. GRAYsaid, the Irish Law Officers had told them that the Act of 1870 was the model for this Act; perhaps they would say what were the arrangements under the Act of 1870 for the promulgation of proclamations.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 15; Noes 197: Majority 182.—(Div. List, No. 221.) [4.55 P.M.
  The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEESin the Chair. [5.0 P.M.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  MR. GRAYsaid, that, as the clause now stood, there was insufficient provision for the promulgation of the warrant, and in that respect the Bill was much less minute than the Act of 1870. According to the clause, the proclamation of a district was to provide for the manner of the promulgation thereof, which really meant that the Lord Lieutenant would do what he pleased. It showed the progress the Government had made on the road to coercion in Ireland between 1870 and 1882. He invited the Prime Minister, who was responsible for the Act of 1870, to mark the advance that had been made on this particular subject.
  MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, that the result of the clause in its present form would be that a district would be proclaimed three or four days before the people were aware of it.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, he mentioned incidentally, when the Committee were discussing the preceding Amendment, that, in his opinion, there should be a promulgation of the proceedings in two newspapers. That would suffice to insure an amount of publication that would meet the case; and he would trust to the Lord Lieutenant to select the proper newspapers. He thought there was a grave objection to the proposal that the Government should be under the necessity of proving that the newspapers in which a promulgation was inserted should circulate in the district.
  MR. BYRNEthought it would be of the greatest assistance to the authorities to publish the promulgations as widely as they could, and he felt bound to oppose the passing of this clause.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 181; Noes 15: Majority 166.—(Div. List, No. 222.) [5.10 P.M.
  Clause 21 (Supplemental provisions as to proclamations and orders).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he wished to ask a question of a legal character. He desired to know whether

  1189
  the construction of the clause would make it necessary for the Lord Lieutenant to take the advice of the Privy Council, when he considered it desirable to alter or revoke any order made by him?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)replied that it would.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked, whether, if the Lord Lieutenant had made an order against a public meeting, and had described it as illegal upon imperfect information, and found that there was a very short time before the meeting would be held, it was incumbent upon him to take the advice of the Privy Council when he found that the proclamation was unfairly made? He thought the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would find there was a good deal in that point.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the Government would consider whether it would be advisable to strike out the words "or order."
  MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, a copy of each warrant was to be laid before Parliament, and he should be sorry to see the clause containing that provision rejected.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 22 (Regulations as to courts).
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES) moved to strike out the clause, and said he should ask leave to introduce another clause in its place.
  Motion made, and Question, "That Clause 22 be struck out of the Bill,"—(Mr. Attorney General,)—put, and agreed to.
  Clause 23 (Rules of procedure in Schedule) agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 24 (Allowances to judges, witnesses, and others).
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (for Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT)rose to move, as an Amendment, in page 12, line 5, at beginning, to insert—
  "There shall tie paid out of the Consolidated Fund such allowances to judges, chairmen of counties, and."
  MR. O'KELLYsaid, the Committee had now been engaged for 27 consecutive
  1190
  hours, and he felt he had reached a point of physical exhaustion when it would be impossible for him to continue to pay attention to the work of the Committee. There were also other important reasons why they should postpone the further consideration of the Bill. He was personally of opinion that the Committee could not wisely or quietly continue the discussion of its provisions. It was of great importance for the future of the measure that the people of Ireland should have some faith in the criticism to which the measure had been subjected, and in the absence of hon. Gentlemen who possessed, in an extraordinary and special degree, the confidence of the people of Ireland, he thought it most unwise to continue the discussion. The object of the measure, as he understood it, was to put down crime and outrage in Ireland. He held that the Committee had that day set the people of Ireland such an example of illegality—[Cries of "Order!"]
  THE CHAIRMAN, interposing, said, the hon. Member (Mr. O'Kelly) must not discuss matters outside the question now before the Committee.
  MR. O'KELLYsaid, he was speaking of Members of the Committee, and he held that an example had been set to the people of Ireland that day which was likely to—
  THE CHAIRMAN, again interposing, said, the hon. Member was straying from the subject.
  MR. O'KELLYsaid, he had very little more to say; in fact, he had said what he wished to say. His experience in that House was that the presentation of reasons by Irish Members had very little effect either upon that Committee or upon the House. [Cries of "Order!"] He regretted that as much, perhaps, as some of those Members who cried "Order!" because he thought it a bad thing for the future of his own country, and, perhaps, a bad thing for the future of Europe. He had been connected during the past few years with a Party who had made strong efforts to turn the attention of the people—[Cries of "Question!"]
  MR. A. GREYasked whether the hon. Member (Mr. O'Kelly) was in Order?
  THE CHAIRMANreplied that the hon. Member could not make a general speech upon a Motion to report Progress.
  MR. O'KELLYsaid, he wag simply giving some reasons for the Motion he was about to make. He did not regard that Motion as simply a Motion to report Progress; but he intended it to be in the nature of a protest against the action of the Committee.
  THE CHAIRMANremarked that the hon. Member was apparently trying to come into collision with the Chair. The hon. Member could not make a Motion to report Progress a Motion of protest against anything that had occurred, and he should ask him to be careful.
  MR. O'KELLYsaid, he had no desire to come into collision with the Chair. Nothing was further from his view. He believed that in the course he had taken he was strictly within the Rules of the House; but as the Chairman had defined his position as one of defiance to the Chair, he immediately bowed to his ruling, and would simply conclude by moving that Progress be reported.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Mr. O'Kelly,)—put, and negatived.
  The decision being challenged,
  THR CHAIRMANstated that several utterances on the part of the Ayes came too late for him to take notice of them.
  MR. GRAYbegged to move that the Chairman leave the Chair. He thought they had reached a point in the Bill in which it was quite impossible that hon. Members could take any useful part in the discussion of the Amendments. They had now reached a clause involving a very important principle, which they claimed the right, if they had the physical power left them, to discuss. He did not think the Committee would receive any observations they might make in a manner which would be at all hopeful. He himself had now been in the House 20 hours continuously, and he did not think it was their duty simply to exhaust nature to the last point, in order to gratify a Government which was using its majority to physically exhaust a small Party. He was only sorry that the Government had not announced their intention before that. If that was the determination of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, it would be more considerate if he would say so
  1192
  frankly to the Committee, and let them go about their own business. He (Mr. Gray) was determined to persevere in the present Motion, and protested against the Committee proceeding further at that present moment.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Gray.)
  TUE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, it should be pointed out that to that clause no Amendment whatever had been placed upon the Paper, except the Amendments of his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department. The fact was worthy of notice, for all the hon. Members from Ireland, carefully watching this Bill for weeks, with this clause before them, could not find one Amendment to put on the Paper. Now, however, he understood the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray) to say that he could not give proper consideration to the clause.
  MR. GRAYreplied, that the explanation of that was perfectly simple. There was no need of putting down Amendments, because it was the principle of the clause altogether to which they objected. He declined to enter into any discussion of it now.
  MR. SHEILsaid, it seemed to him that if the argument of the hon. and learned Attorney General held good as to that clause and other clauses, it would not hold good as to Clause 26, to which there were Amendments. He (Mr. Sheil) believed his hon. Friend the Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray) would be satisfied if the Government would allow Progress to be reported on reaching Clause 26. [Cries of "No!"]
  MR. O'SULLIVANobjected to the power of payment of the expenses of witnesses as likely to lead to bribery.
  Question put.
  THE CHAIRMANdeclared that the Noes had it. [Cries of "No, no!"
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, hon. Members must challenge the Motion so that their challenge should reach the Chair.
  MR. GRAYsaid, he had challenged the Motion as loudly as he could.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, that, if that was so, he was under a misconception, and he would put the Question again.
  Question again put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 11; Noes 176: Majority 165.—(Div. List, No. 223.) [5.40 P.M.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES) moved, as an Amendment, in page 12, line 5, before the word "there," to insert the words—
  "There shall be paid out of the Consolidated Fund such allowances to judges, chairmen of counties, and."
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. W. J. CORBETsaid, he was convinced of the necessity of bringing the Sitting to a close, and he would, therefore, move to report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. William Corbet.)
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 11; Noes 172: Majority 161.—(Div. List, No. 224.) [5.45 P.M.
  Question again proposed.
  MR. LEAHYsaid, he would now move that the Chairman do leave the Chair.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Leahy.)
  MR. M'COANsaid, he was as much opposed to that system of procedure as any man in the House; but he thought hon. Gentlemen behind him had done enough to meet the honour of the case. He would make an appeal to the Prime Minister, who was not yet committed to any pledge against what he (Mr. M'Coan) was now going to suggest. If Clause 30, which contained an important provision respecting the operation of the Bill, were suspended till a later stage—[Cries of "No!"]—he thought his hon. Friends would have no further excuse for Motions to report Progress.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have already stated that I could not agree to that.
  MR. GRAYsaid, he was sorry his hon. Friend the Member for Wicklow (Mr. M'Coan) had made an appeal which he (Mr. Gray) foresaw the Government would not grant. His hon. Friend thought they had done sufficient for honour. He (Mr. Gray) really
  1194
  did not know if there was any particular question of honour involved; it was a question of duty. As to the means which could best be adopted to prevent the progress of a Bill to which they were all conscientiously opposed, they were novices; but if the Prime Minister would give them some of his experience gained in passing the Divorce Bill, or the President of the Board of Trade, and the Secretary to the Treasury, would tell them how to go on, it would be an advantage. He (Mr. Gray) did not understand the procedure so well as those right hon. and hon. Gentlemen, and Irish Members could only enter their protest in the rough-and ready manner which they had adopted.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he, contrary to his hon. Friend (Mr. Gray), was glad the appeal of the hon. Member for Wicklow (Mr. M'Coan) had been made, because it revealed the situation in all its nakedness. The Government had evidently made up its mind, and the Committee had made up its mind, to pass this Bill, right or wrong. ["Hear, hear!"] Well, he knew that very well, and that the hon. Member's appeal would be futile. He (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) would not have condescended to make it himself; but he was glad it had been made. If the Government meant to pass the Bill as soon as it could, there were half-a-dozen of them who must do what they could, if only for the sake of the independence of Members of Parliament. ["Oh!"] Yes, there had been Members of Parliament who, under circumstances much less grave than those in which they stood, would have warned the Government that, if the House of Commons and the Government of the Crown were to pass measures subversive of liberty, the people had rights behind them all. It was in that House that Charles James Fox reminded the Coercion Ministry of his day that, if they attempted to pass a measure equal only to one small portion of the present Bill, they might pass the measure, but they could not deprive the people of the right to resist measures subversive of public liberty. But the days of Fox had gone, and the spirit which animated Members of Parliament then was gone too. Proposals were now made in this House which would have been scouted from the old House of Com-

  1195
  mons in the days of Pitt and Fox. If any man wanted to appreciate the descent that had been made, let him read the speeches made in the year 1795, when the Government proposed coercive measures, and then let them complain, if they could, of the conduct of the Irish Members. It was nothing like what it was then. Let the Government pass their Bill. They that were left could only stand in the gap as long as they could; and until they were swept out they would stand in the gap.
  MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, he regretted the Government's refusal to agree to the proposal of the hon. Member for Wicklow (Mr. M'Coan). They were a very small number; but, at the same time, they must do what they could to oppose this measure. It was a measure of the worst class of coercion which had been brought in for half-a-century, and they would not be doing their duty if they did not object to its passing.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 9; Noes 171: Majority 162.—(Div. List, No. 225.) [5.55 P.M.
  Question again proposed.
  MR. O'SULLIVAN MR. O'SULLIVAN moved that the Chairman report Progress. He did so on account of what took place in the earlier portion of the day, when he understood the Prime Minister said that if he saw a fair and reasonable amount of progress made, he would make a statement to the House as to what course he would pursue. After that, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman what he considered a fair day's progress? Up to that point, they had passed six important clauses of a Bill which suspended trial by jury and levied a blood tax, and he should like to know upon what they could, or had a right to, speak more strongly than that Bill? When the right hon. Gentleman was asked how far he would go with the Bill that day, he said when he saw a sufficient amount of progress made he would make a statement as to what he would do; but now the right hon. Gentleman said the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill, must be finished that night. He (Mr. O'Sullivan) had said he would ask his hon. Friends to withdraw all their Amendments to the Bill, if the right hon. Gentleman would allow Clause 30 to be
  1196
  adjourned; but, notwithstanding the assurance that he would be satisfied with a fair day's work being done, the right hon. Gentleman would not adjourn the clause, which was the last and the most important of them all.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. O'Sullivan.)
  MR. LALORsaid, the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Sullivan) was trying to do what no one ever did, and what no man ever could do—and that was to confine the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister to any statement that he had made—["Oh, oh!" and "Order!"]
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Lalor) has cast an imputation upon a Member of this House, and he must withdraw the expression.
  MR. LALOR: So far as it concerns the honour of the right hon. Gentleman, I do; but, at the same time, I say it is a matter of fact—[Laughter, and cries of "Order!"]
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Member for Queen's County to withdraw the statement unconditionally.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I rise to Order.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order! Order!
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I rise to Order.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Lalor) withdraw the imputation?
  MR. LALOR: It is quite possible that you may have misunderstood me, Sir, I say, as a fact, the right hon. Gentleman never makes a statement that he does not leave a loophole through which he may escape, and in that way you cannot confine him.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has not withdrawn the expression; and if he does not do so, he is defying the authority of the Chair, and I must take other and necessary means.
  MR. LALOR: If you put it in that way, that I defy the authority of the Chair, I do withdraw it.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 9; Noes 173: Majority 164.—(Div. List, No. 226.) [6.15 P.M.
  Question again proposed.
  MR. BYRNE MR. BYRNE moved that the Chairman leave the Chair. He made the Motion with very great reluctance; but he thought, after the conduct of the Government towards the Irish Members, he should be wanting in his duty if he did not protest, in the strongest manner, against the action of the Government. It appeared to him that the passing of a Bill was of no account to the Government, so long as they did pass it, whether it touched the lives and liberties of the Irish people or not. They ought not thus to attempt to rush it through, and it was in the belief that their conduct was unjust and unfair that he made the Motion he did.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Byrne.)
  MR. HENEAGErose to Order, and asked if the time had not arrived for the Chairman to take action? And he wished also to put this question—Whether, considering the systematic manner in which these Motions were being made, and the language that accompanied them, it did not amount to absolute Obstruction and nothing else?
  THE CHAIRMAN: In answer to the appeal made to me, I must caution hon. Members who are making these dilatory Motions that they are pursuing the same course which drew upon other Members the displeasure of the Committee in an earlier portion of the day.
  MR. GRAYsaid, he saw no analogy between the two cases. He was warmly in accord with the Motion, and he should support it, and any further number of them, as a protest against the Government in endeavouring by physical force to compel the Committee to pass a Bill within a certain number of hours. What they had to consider was whether they were justified in their course of action. He did not expect to be justified in the opinion of the Committee; but, without meaning any disrespect, the Irish Members did look for justification elsewhere. They felt in their own hearts and their own consciences that they were taking a right and proper course, and they must bear the censure that hon. Members thought fit to pass upon their conduct. He was rather inclined to believe that the right hon. Gentleman now at the head of the Ministry had not failed to
  1198
  show his opposition to Bills objectionable to him by making dilatory Motions, and the late Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. W. E. Forster) had adopted the same course as a protest against a particular Bill deemed by him to be of a mischievous character. They (the Irish Members) deemed this Bill to be of a mischievous nature; but, up to the present, no dilatory tactics, as the Chairman styled them, had been adopted by moving alternate Motions to report Progress, and that the Chairman leave the Chair, from that side of the House, and all that had been done was not accompanied by anything that could be called by the name of Obstruction. ["Oh, oh!"] Certainly, the discussion had proceeded without the Motions that were now being made, and he thought rightly and properly made, until they found that the Government had come down and got a large number of Members suspended from the service of the House—of course, after the ruling of the Chair, he did not intend to discuss that matter, as he meant to keep within the Rules of the House—but when they found the Government, by relays of Members, had come to a fixed determination upon the matter; when they knew there was no object in so acting, excepting the triumph of defeating nine men—on which they might be congratulated bye-and-by—when they knew that no advantage to the Public Service was to be attained, because the Government had already announced their intention of introducing Rules of Urgency on Monday; when they found that the Prime Minister, at an earlier part of the morning of the second day they had been kept there, had held out hopes to them that there would be an adjournment, it did not matter what arguments were used against them, but he said they were perfectly justified in the course they had adopted. They were justified in saying, now they had reached a contentious clause of the Bill, that although a small majority—["Minority!"]—he hoped hon. Members would pardon him; but he had now been in the House continuously for 22 hours—they were justified in saying the Committee had gone far enough, and if the Committee denied them their rights, then the odium would fall upon those men who sought to stifle free speech.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, the Chairman had intimated that he should

  1199
  have to caution hon. Members against a repetition of the conduct which had led to the suspension of other Members; but he (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) did not know what conduct had led to that penalty, as he himself had seen nothing.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not discuss the question of the suspension of the Members this morning.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he knew he must not, and that was the reason he was not going to do so; but he meant to say he had seen nothing in their conduct.—["Order!"] If hon. Members would quietly listen they would hear what he had to say. He did not see anything in the conduct of hon. Members to incur the pains and penalties of suspension, and, therefore, he was not in a position to appreciate the significance of the caution just given to him. If he was told to learn by their example, he should certainly like to be told what they had done. He understood they had been expelled because they had offered resistance to this Bill. [Cries of "Obstruction!"] He was not disturbed by cries of "Obstruction," and he should do what he thought fit in the matter, whatever might happen. Of course, the Irish Members had opposed the provisions of the Bill; but they had not done so more than the English Members would have done, if such a Bill had been directed against their own countrymen. The opposition had been nothing like the opposition which the Government quietly put up with from another section of the House over the Hares and Rabbits Bill of a previous Session. In many of the Sittings upon that Bill, there was not a clause taken in an entire evening; whilst now, the Committee had passed a number of most significant clauses. The Irish Members had not offered anything like an unfair opposition to the Bill. The Government evidently meant to pass the Bill at this Sitting, in spite of their protests and reasoning; and, if so, it remained for them to make such a stand as they could, and to have recourse to all the Forms of the House. No doubt, that course might exasperate certain hon. Gentlemen. Well, they must be exasperated; that was all. The Irish Party were exasperated, too, at seeing the liberties of their countrymen trodden down and trampled under foot. There-
  1200
  fore, they took the only course that was open to them, and they entrenched themselves behind the Forms of the House. The Government might propose their suspension, and they could be thrown out. Therefore, if the Government wanted to save time, let them do that at once; but while they had the power to resist they were determined that the Government should not pass the Bill until there had been a full and fair discussion of the clauses, and they could not do that as the Committee was at present constituted, because the men who had studied it most closely were not present, and, consequently, it was not possible to obtain a very effective criticism of the Bill, the numbers present being exhausted, and not enjoying the qualifications possessed by their absent Colleagues. It was not fair that the Committee should go on with the consideration of the Bill; but as that had been stated over and over again, he would suggest to his hon. Friends that it was not worth repeating. At the same time, if his hon. Friend the Member for Wexford (Mr. Byrne) went to a division, on their return from the division, if no one else repeated the Motion, he (Mr. O'Connor) would, whatever might be the consequences. He was aware that the House could do a great deal. It might suspend him, or send him to the Tower; and he must say that the only consideration that weighed with him was the leniency of the treatment the House had extended. That leniency was painful. If there were some serious penalty attached, a Member might not care about offending, but the penalty was so slight and so ephemeral, that it did not require any great amount of courage to submit. He had no wish to incur suspension; but he would go on with his opposition to the Bill as long as he possibly could, and the Committee could take what course it chose.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 8; Noes 175: Majority 167.—(Div. List, No. 227.) [6.35 P.M.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Question is, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he did not know what the words were; but they related to a clause under which the Committee were asked to vote a sum of money; and if there was one thing the

  1201
  House of Commons ought to treat with deliberation and care, it was a question relating to the public purse. The Bill which was of a character that he need not describe, depended upon this clause for its being carried into effect; and if he could defeat the clause, he would be able to defeat the Bill. The Irish Members strongly objected to the clause, and believed they had a right to demand that it should not be considered until the Committee was re-established in its integrity, and until those hon. Members whose absence they deplored, and from whose absence they suffered, were able to be present and give sound advice. Under these circumstances, he moved that the Chairman report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)
  COLONEL KINGSCOTEasked if the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) was in Order in moving to report Progress? He (Colonel Kingscote) thought the Committee would go with him, when he said that it was trifling with the Committee to make such Motions continually.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Chairman is only the exponent of the wishes of the Committee, and I have waited to see whether the Committee entertain the same view that I do. The Question is that I report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (remaining seated and covered): I understand, Sir, that your ruling is a vindication of my conduct, and that I am entitled to make the Motion?
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 8; Noes 169: Majority 161.—(Div. List, No. 228.) [6.55 P.M.
  MR. O'KELLY: I move that the Chairman leave the Chair. I do so as a protest, perhaps the final protest, that we shall be able to make against the passage of this measure. The clause on which the Motion is made affects a vital principle of the Bill; and, in fact, if it were left out, the Bill would be unworkable. It is for that reason that we have put down no Amendments to the clause. We believe that this and the
  1202
  other clauses destroy the liberty of our countrymen, and every right that free men are in the habit of holding dear. With the Bill, Constitutional liberty will come to an end in Ireland, and I, for one, am resolved not to be a party any longer to the farce of passing such a measure. This Bill is not merely a legislative act; it is an act of war on Ireland and her people. Its consequence will probably be very unfortunate. We have no longer power to resist its passage, or to make other Constitutional efforts in this House to modify the measure and lessen the evil effects that we fear must spring from it. The disappearance from this House of the ablest men of our Party has, so to speak, taken away the right arm on which Ireland is wont to depend for the defence of her liberty. We are here merely as a maimed Party, and we can no longer offer an effective resistance. Under those circumstances, I consider it my duty to oppose, to the utmost of my power, the further progress of this measure in Committee.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. O'Kelly.)
  SIR HUSSEY VIVIAN: I think that the Committee must feel that the time has fully come when this, which I would almost call a farce, should be brought to a close. These repeated Motions for reporting Progress, and that the Chairman leave the Chair, are simply intended to delay the transaction of Business. No one doubts it; in fact, hon. Members who take that course avow it openly. Under those circumstances, it will not be denied that their action comes within the Standing Order of this House, which prohibits such a course being pursued. I, therefore, most earnestly appeal to the Leader of the House not to allow this state of things to continue in absolute opposition to and disregard of the Standing Order, and that he will take such measures as are necessary to re-establish the dignity and Order of the House.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: Mr. Playfair, whilst agreeing with the general tenour of the remarks of the hon. Member for Glamorganshire (Sir Hussey Vivian), I think that there is one matter on which correction is necessary. According to the Standing Orders of this House, the responsibility of taking

  1203
  action does not rest with the Leader of the House, but with the Speaker or the Chairman of Committees. On the general question, I am bound to say that the action taken by the hon. Members who have spoken from below the Gangway has certainly most severely tried the patience of the Committee; and it must be evident to everyone, by their own admission, that it has been taken for the purpose of obstructing the further progress of Business. However, it is a question for the Chairman, and no one else, to judge of the feeling of the Committee and the action that should be taken.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Assheton Cross) has stated the Law of the House on this subject with perfect accuracy. At the same time, as an appeal has been made to me, although I have no duty of taking the initiative in the matter, I think that it is my duty to answer the appeal, and at least give my opinion. I am bound to say that I cannot for a moment entertain a doubt as to the application of the Standing Order to the case before us. It is to be remembered that the Standing Order is broad in its construction. It provides for the case of disregard to the authority of the Chair, and it entirely provides for the case of abusing the Rules of the House by persistent and wilful obstruction of Business—that is, of turning to account the unbounded license and general process of the Rules of the House for the purpose of enabling a minority to place its own will in the place of that of a majority, and thereby, with full knowledge and continued perseverance, to obstruct wilfully and persistently the Business of the House. It is, therefore, unnecessary to be warm on this subject. I take it that it is a question of the true construction of language, and I would almost be content to appeal to the hon. Gentlemen who voted in the minority in this case to say whether it is not fair to allege that, from the point of view of the majority, such a use of the Rules of the House for such a purpose was abusing the Privileges of the House?
  THE CHAIRMAN: I think it now my duty to Name Mr. Byrne, Mr. William Corbet, Mr. Gray, Mr. Lalor, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Arthur O'Connor, Mr. O'Kelly, Mr. O'Sullivan, and Mr. Sheil, as having abused the Eules of the House by per-
  1204
  sistent and wilful Obstruction of the Business of the Committee.
  MR. GLADSTONE: This is the point at which the initiative of Her Majesty's Government comes into operation, and it is my duty to move that the Gentlemen named be severally suspended from the service of the House during the remainder of this day's Sitting.
  Motion made, and Question, "That Mr. Byrne, Mr. William Corbet, Mr. Gray, Mr. Lalor, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Arthur O'Connor, Mr. O'Kelly, Mr. O'Sullivan, and Mr. Sheil be severally suspended from the service of the House during the remainder of this day's Sitting,"—(Mr. Gladstone,)—put, and agreed to.
  Whereupon the CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report the said Resolution to the House.
  Mr. SPEAKERresumed the Chair.
  MR. PLAYFAIRreported to Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Byrne, Mr. William Corbet, Mr. Gray, Mr. Lalor, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Arthur O'Connor, Mr. O'Kelly, Mr. O'Sullivan, and Mr. Sheil, had been severally Named by him to the Committee for having abused the Rules of the House by persistent and wilful obstruction of the Business of the Committee; and that the Committee had resolved that Mr. Byrne, Mr. William Corbet, Mr. Gray, Mr. Lalor, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Arthur O'Connor, Mr. O'Kelly, Mr. O'Sullivan, and Mr. Sheil be severally suspended from the service of the House for the remainder of this day's Sitting.
  MR. SPEAKERforthwith put the Question to the House, "That Mr. Byrne, Mr. William Corbet, Mr. Gray, Mr. Lalor, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Arthur O'Connor, Mr. O'Kelly, Mr. O'Sullivan, and Mr. Sheil be severally suspended from the service of the House during the remainder of this day's sitting."
  The House divided:—Ayes 128; Noes 7: Majority 121.—(Div. List, No. 229.) [7.15 P.M.
  Motion agreed to.
  Then Mr. SPEAKER directed Mr. Byrne, Mr. William Corbet, Mr. Gray, Mr. Lalor, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Arthur O'Connor, Mr. O'Kelly, Mr. O'Sullivan, and Mr. Sheil to withdraw, and they withdrew accordingly.
  The Entry on the Votes is as follows:—
  Mr. Byrne, Mr. William Corbet, Mr. Gray Mr. Lalor, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Arthur O'Connor, Mr. O'Kelly, Mr. O'Sullivan, and Mr. Sheil having been severally Named by the Chairman for having abused the Rules of the House by persistent and wilful obstruction of the business of the Committee:—
  Motion made, and Question, "That Mr. Byrne, Mr. William Corbet, Mr. Gray, Mr. Lalor, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Arthur O'Connor, Mr. O'Kelly, Mr. O'Sullivan, and Mr. Sheil be severally suspended from the service of the House during the remainder of this day's sitting,"—(Mr. Gladstone,)—put, and agreed to.
  Whereupon the Chairman left the Chair to report the said Resolution to the House.
  Mr. Speaker resumed the Chair, and Mr. Playfair reported to Mr. Speaker that Mr. Byrne, Mr. William Corbet, Mr. Gray, Mr. Lalor, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Arthur O'Connor, Mr. O'Kelly, Mr. O'Sullivan, and Mr. Sheil, had been severally Named by him to the Committee for having abused the Rules of the House by persistent and wilful obstruction of the business of the Committee; and that the Committee had resolved that Mr. Byrne, Mr. William Corbet, Mr. Gray, Mr. Lalor, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Arthur O'Connor, Mr. O'Kelly, Mr. O'Sullivan, and Mr. Sheil be severally suspended from the service of the House for the remainder of this day's sitting:
  Mr. Speaker forthwith put the Question to the House, "That Mr. Byrne, Mr. William Corbet, Mr. Gray, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Arthur O'Connor, Mr. O'Kelly, Mr. O'Sullivan, and Mr. Sheil be severally suspended from the service of the House during the remainder of this day's sitting: "—The House divided; Ayes 128, Noes 7.
  Then Mr. Speaker directed Mr. Byrne, Mr. William Corbet, Mr. Gray, Mr. Lalor, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Arthur O'Connor, Mr. O'Kelly, Mr. O'Sullivan, and Mr. Sheil to withdraw, and they withdrew accordingly.
  Then the House again resolved itself into the Committee on the Bill.
  (In the Committee.)
  Question, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair,"—(Mr. O'Kelly,)—put, and negatived.
  Amendment, in page 12, line 5, at beginning, insert "there shall be paid out
  1206
  of the Consolidated Fund such allowances to judges, chairmen of counties, and,"—(Mr. Attorney General,)—put, and agreed to.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT moved, in page 12, line 6, to leave out the words "judges and."
  Amendment proposed, in page 12, line 6, leave out "judges and."—(Sir William Harcourt.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there omitted."
  MR. MACFARLANEsaid, that he was not going to express any opinion as to what had taken place; but it was quite obvious that with, so many Irish Members absent, it would be perfectly impossible for them to carry on, with any degree of intelligence or equality, the discussion upon the remainder of the Amendments. Therefore, he did not intend to delay for a single moment the passing of the Bill, either by word or vote, although he believed it was an excessive measure and far beyond the necessities of the case. He had voted for the whole of the Amendments which had been moved from that side of the House, but was not conscious of having given one single obstructive vote. He did not now, however, propose to discuss the Bill any further, for he felt that, so far as his small voice was concerned, it would be useless to offer any further resistance. He would leave the whole responsibility in the matter to the Government.
  MR. M'COANsaid, that he equally felt, considering the present state of the Irish Benches, that it would be idle—if indeed it would not be a sheer waste of time—to drag the Members of the Committee any more through the Division Lobbies with the object of showing formal opposition. Therefore, so far as he was concerned, and he thought he might speak also for the few hon. Members from Ireland sitting near him, he should cause no further delay by taking any part in the discussion of the proceedings.
  Amendment agreed to; words omitted accordingly.
  On Motion of Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT, further Amendment made in page 12, line 9, after "expenses of," insert "persons charged, counsel, and."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  On Motion of Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT, Clause 25 (Rules for procedure and matters to be prescribed), struck out of the Bill.
  Clause 26 (Powers of Act to be cumulative).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that he had intended to move some Amendments which stood in the name of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy). He suggested that, as now a large number of the Irish Members were suspended, it would be exceedingly graceful on the part of the Home Secretary if he accepted the Amendments that stood in their names. On one of them—
  THE CHAIRMANpointed out that he had already proposed the clause to the Committee, and no Amendment could be put.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that, in that case, he would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to consider the Amendments on Report.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, if they had some time ago taken the course suggested by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), no doubt they should have facilitated considerably the passage of the Bill. He bad no objection to accept one of the Amendments, that the words "more than once" should be substituted for "should not be twice punished for the same offence."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 27 (Definition of "unlawful associations").
  On Motion of Mr. GIBSON, the following Amendments made:—In page 12, line 33, leave out "or carrying on operations;" and in line 34, at end, add "carrying on operations for or by the commission of crimes or."
  MR. LABOUCHERE (for Mr. REDMOND)MR. LABOUCHERE (for Mr. REDMOND) moved to omit the following subsection of the clause:—
  "And the expression 'crime' for the purposes of this section means any offence against
  1208
  this Act, and also any crime punishable on indictment by imprisonment with hard labour, or by any greater punishment."
  THE CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member wishes to move that, he must do so himself.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Then I move it.
  Amendment proposed, in page 12, line 35, to leave out from "crimes" to end of clause.—(Mr. Labouchere.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, the Government could not possibly accept the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 28 (General definitions).
  On the Motion of Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL, the following Amendments made:—
  In page 13, line 2, at end of line insert as a separate paragraph:—"The expression 'county' includes a county of a city and a county of a town and city and county; the expression 'Attorney General' includes in the case of any vacancy or inability to act the Solicitor General."
  And in lines 24 and 25, leave out "police magistrate within," and insert "divisional justice of."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 29 (Short title) agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 30 (Duration of Act).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that he had an Amendment on the Paper to the clause, his desire being to reduce the period of the operation of the Act to two years, and also to provide that in no case should the Act continue in force beyond 21 days after the first Sitting for the transaction of Business of any Parliament subsequent to the present Parliament. He did not, however, intend to press the Amendment if the Government said that they could not accept it;

  1209
  neither would he divide upon the clause. He, moreover, wished it to be distinctly understood that there were several hon. Gentlemen in the House who did not give their assent to the clause, but who refrained from dividing upon it in order to save the time of the Committee.
  MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, that he agreed with the observations of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). There never was a Coercion Bill of the extent of the present measure, or that was proposed for so long a period. They were asked to give these powers for three years, and, in this respect, the Bill was without precedent. He was bound to say that if when the Bill came up for Report their powers of speech were not taken away from them by the passage of the Urgency Resolution, he would feel it his duty to move an Amendment similar to that of the hon. Member for Northampton.
  MR. BLAKEsaid, that he thought it was incumbent upon them, though few in number, not to let the clause pass in its present objectionable form without challenging a division. He thought it a most monstrous thing to propose to apply the Act for three years. Although he admitted that, in the present state of Ireland, the Government were justified in bringing in a measure of this character, he could not approve of it in its entirety, and he especially believed that a period of 12 months would be sufficient for its operation.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: It is quite true that the period is longer than is usually taken; but it is for the first time that we have had to deal with persons who do not act in good faith to Parliaments. That is one of the main grounds that we have put this period into the Bill. In former times, when you had men who acted honestly and in good faith towards the House of Commons, you could properly, and with a regard to the public interest, review each year the necessity of a measure of that description. Unhappily, we find ourselves in totally different circumstances. The experience of to-day, and this Session, shows that there are persons whose object is to discuss measures not upon their merits, but having another object—to paralyze the action of Parliament, and bring the House of Commons into disgrace. That being a pew and totally different state of things,
  1210
  we have not thought it right to propose a period which would involve Parliament in an immediate reconsideration of the question. At the same time, I would wish the House to understand that it is not in contemplation that there should be a necessity—I hope there may not be—for keeping this Act in operation throughout the whole of Ireland, or in any great part of Ireland. Hon. Members must observe that the most stringent and most obnoxious provisions of the Bill depend upon the proclamation of the Lord Lieutenant. They apply only in proclaimed districts. In any other district of Ireland which is restored to peace and tranquillity, the proclamation of the Lord Lieutenant will be withdrawn, and, practically speaking, the operation of the Bill will immediately come to an end. Therefore, it should not go forth that this is a Bill of three years' duration which will necessarily apply for that period over the whole of Ireland. It is not so. It will apply to no part of Ireland any longer than in the wisdom of the Executive Government it is absolutely necessary.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, that he quite appreciated the statement that the Bill was only to be of partial operation, for there might be something in it; but, notwithstanding that fact, he thought three years an extraordinarily long period, and he asked whether to reduce the period would not be a proper concession to make to those who had not obstructed the Bill, but took the same view that he did?
  MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, that it was an extraordinary statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that this Bill, which was to entirely suspend Constitutional liberty in Ireland, was made applicable for three years in consequence of the disorganization of the House of Commons.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, interposing, said, that the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Joseph Cowen) had given too wide an interpretation to his remarks. He (Sir William Harcourt) was anxious that it should be understood that the measure was justified by the existing state of things in Ireland, and the Government believed that no less a period than three years was necessary for it to eradicate the evils which, owing to pernicious teaching, had pervaded in that unhappy country.
  MR. JOSEPH COWEN: The point I wish to draw attention to is that the Bill is to be continued for three years, in consequence of the disorganized condition of Parliament.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 69; Noes 6: Majority 63.—(Div. List, No. 230.) [7.50 P.M.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Sir William Harcourt,)—put, and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.
  House adjourned at Eight o'clock, p.m. on Saturday till Monday next.