Commons Sitting of 7 July 1882

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.
MINUTES.—WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee—£5,703,891, Consolidated Fund. Resolution [July 6] reported.
PRIVATE BILL (by Order)—Considered as amended—Derby Corporation*.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Lunacy Regulation Amendment* [230]; Weights and Measures Act (1878) Amendment* [231].
Committee—Report—Third Reading—Election of Representative Peers (Ireland)* [215], and passed.
Considered as amended—Third Reading—Prevention of Crime (Ireland) [226]; Corn Returns (No. 2)* [193], and passed.

QUESTIONS.

  EGYPT (DIPLOMACY, &c.)
  MR. BOURKEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, With respect to the following passage in a Dispatch from Lord Granville, dated May 24th, 1882,
  1776
  "I told Musurus Pacha that reports had reached me to the effect that the communications addressed to Arabi Bey from Constantinople tended to encourage him in his opposition to the recommendations of England and France, but that I was glad to disbelieve these rumors," &c.
  what "reports" were these; where did they come from; and will they be produced?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, the reports were to the effect stated by Lord Granville; they were of a confidential nature, and will not be published.
  MR. BOURKE: Did they come from Constantinople?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I do not think that I ought to answer that Question publicly; but if the right hon. Gentleman wishes I shall be happy to tell him privately.
  MR. BOURKEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, With respect to the following passage in a Dispatch from Lord Granville, dated 24th May 1882—
  "I read to him" (M. Tissot) "Sir E. Malet's telegram of last night, reporting the gravity of the situation, and asked His Excellency to press strongly how undesirable it was to sacrifice the advantage of the agreement to which we had come in order to keep up a secret which in the end must be known,"
  what was the agreement above alluded to, and what was the "secret" which in the end must be known?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, the agreement referred to is that proposed by the French Government on the 12th of May, and agreed to by Her Majesty's Government on the 14th, under which Turkey was to be asked to send troops to Egypt if the two Governments considered it advisable that troops should be landed. (See Egypt No. 7, Nos. 179 and 196.) This agreement was a secret at the date of Lord Granville's dispatch.

  THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION—MR. JOHN GEORGE M'CARTHY, A SUB-COMMISSIONER.
  MR. PLUNKETasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that a protest has been made to the Irish Land Commission on behalf of all the landowners in the Union of Castletown, Berehaven, in the county of Cork, against the appointment of Mr. John George M'Carthy as a Sub-Commissioner for that district, on the following grounds, viz. that Mr.

  1777
  John George M'Carthy, before his appointment as such Sub-Commissioner, practised as a solicitor in the county of Cork; that he had many clients amongst the tenant farmers of the district of Castletown, Berehaven; that one of such clients was Michael M'Carthy, chairman of the local Land League; and that the son of Michael M'Carthy served his apprenticeship, as a solicitor, to the Mr. John George M'Carthy, and is now solicitor in every instance to the tenants whose cases will come before the Sub-Commission; and, whether, under these circumstances, he will suggest to the Irish Land Commission the advisability of making some other arrangement as to the Sub-Commission for the said district?
  COLONEL COLTHUESTsaid, that, before the Chief Secretary for Ireland answered the Question, he wished to ask whether it was not the fact that Mr. J. G. M'Carthy had given great satisfaction as sub-coroner, and whether the Chief Secretary, from his knowledge of the character and antecedents of Mr. M'Carthy, did not consider him incapable of being influenced by the grounds mentioned?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I have seen the remonstrance referred to in the Question of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin. I should have been glad if the Land Commissioners could have seen their way at once to have complied with it, and to have detached the Union of Castletown, Berehaven, from the Kerry Sub-Commission, and with that object the matter was pressed on the attention of the Land Commissioners, whose action, however, is, as the House knows, entirely independent of the Government, and they have informed me that it is not possible at present to recast the Sub-Commissioners' districts or alter the dates of the sittings, for which the regular notices have been served. Next Circuit Mr. M'Carthy will probably be transferred to another district. At the same time, I must, injustice to Mr. M'Carthy, say that the Commissioners state that the fullest reliance may be placed on his capacity and his integrity, and I am confident that he is not in the remotest degree likely to be swayed by any of the circumstances mentioned in the Question. From the time of his appointment as a Sub-Commissioner he has been entirely discon-
  1778
  nected from his former profession, and until he was removed by the Land Commissioners to the Kerry district was engaged in the County Mayo.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—MR. MARTIN KING.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant has received an application for release on parole from Mr. Martin King, a suspect imprisoned in Ennis-killen Gaol; and, whether, having in view that Mr. King's father, who is 89 years of age, is on his deathbed, His Excellency will consider favourably Mr. King's application?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Yes, Sir; His Excellency did receive an application for release on parole from Martin King, now a prisoner under the Protection of Person and Property Act. The applicant represented that his father was on his death-bed, and had no one to look after him. His Excellency directed special inquiry to be made; and the local Constabulary, who personally visited the old man, found him in his usual good health. He has not been ill lately, and I am glad to say that his daughter-in-law is living in the house with him. Martin King is in detention on suspicion of inciting to murder, and His Excellency is unable to order his release.

INDIAN OFFICIALS (MADRAS)—GOLD MINING CONCESSIONS.
SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked the Secretary of State for India, What notice has been taken of the fact that certain high officials in Madras, members of Her Majesty's Covenanted Civil and Military Services, have publicly figured of late years as concessionaires of enormous blocks of land in India for gold mining purposes; would he explain how they came to acquire these extensive areas of land; whether such conduct is a breach of their covenant with Her Majesty's Secretary of State for India; and, would he explain how the Madras Government permitted these proceedings?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, the Question of my hon. Friend does not specify any particular persons or cages; and I can only say that I am

1779
not aware that certain high officials in Madras, members of Her Majesty's Covenanted Civil and Military Services, have publicly figured of late years in the manner suggested. It is true that a member of the Madras Civil Service did some time ago, in contravention of the orders of Government, take part in negotiating and assignment of an exclusive right of mining in lands in North Arcot, to a partnership of which he was a member—which partnership was not registered as a Joint Stock Company. Upon the matter coming to the notice of Government the officer in question was suspended from employment pending the orders of the Secretary of State. Eventually, as he had divested himself of all connection with the partnership, and apparently realized the gravity of the position in which he had placed himself, he was permitted to return to duty, after having been some months under suspension. If the hon. Member will specify the case to which he refers inquiries shall be made.

CONVICT PRISONS (DUBLIN)—THE INSPECTORS.
MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he can state the names of the gentlemen appointed as successors to the first three outside inspectors of the Dublin Convict Prisons whose appointments came to an end in September 1881, and how many visits were made to the Dublin Convict Prisons since the first appointment of outside inspectors in September 1880?
MR. DILLONsaid, that before the latter part of the Question was referred to he would like to ask what system of inspection existed at Kilmainham?
MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I am informed that at Kilmainham there is a local Inspector, and that the prison is under the same system as the other convict prisons. I mentioned yesterday the names of the gentlemen whose appointments as unpaid Visitors of the Dublin convict prisons expired on the 30th of September, 1881, and who were re-appointed for 12 months. They appear to have paid one visit to the Dublin convict prisons—that was in December, 1880, when all three inspected the Mountjoy male convict prison minutely, and conversed with the prisoners in numerous cases in private.
MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY: Have there been no visits since that time?
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to appoint fresh Visitors?
MR. TREVELYAN: I will answer that on Monday.
SIR HENRY HOLLAND: Was any visit paid to Spike Island Prison?
MR. TREVELYAN: Yes. Pretty frequent visits.
SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: Would it not be wiser to ask these gentlemen to pay periodical visits?
MR. TREVELYAN: I shall certainly look into this matter.

THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION—COURT VALUERS—MR. GEORGE M'ILROY.
SIR HERVEY BRUCEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If a Mr. George M'Ilroy has been appointed one of the Court Valuers by the Irish Land Commission; if it is the case that his only qualification for the post is derived from the occupation of a small farm of about thirty acres; and, considering the importance of inspiring confidence in the impartiality of the Court Valuers, he will communicate with the Commissioners, suggesting to them to reconsider this appointment?
MR. FITZ-PATRICKasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. George M'Ilroy, who has lately been appointed Court Valuer by the Land Commission, is also a Deputy County Surveyor, at a salary of £80 a year; and, whether he still holds this situation, not wishing to resign it till he sees how he gets on in his new appointment?
MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the Land Commissioners inform me that they appointed Mr. M'Ilroy to his present office on account of his high character for integrity and competence. They have favoured me with copies of some of the testimonials submitted in his favour—one from Colonel Buchanan, and another from Sir Francis Brady—and I must say that they are thoroughly satisfactory. The Land Commissioners themselves have had several of his Reports before them in appeal cases; and they state that those Reports gave them entire satisfaction. With regard to his appointment as Deputy County Surveyor, if he has not already resigned it

1781
he must do so. He was appointed a valuer on that understanding.

THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY— CONSTABLE O'RORKE.
MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, at Ballintogher, county Sligo, Constable O'Rorke, of the Royal Irish Constabulary, has interfered to prevent the local fife and drum band from playing in and through the village; whether, if so, the Irish Government approve of the conduct of the constable; and, whether the course pursued by him is to be continued?
MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, this Question only appeared yesterday, and I telegraphed for information; but the Papers are not yet to hand. I have received a telegram from the County Inspector, stating that Constable O'Rorke reports that complaints were made to him of acts of intimidation by this band while parading the roads by day and night; that the neighbourhood was kept in disorder, causing terror and alarm to law-abiding persons, and in the discharge of his duty he ordered them to disperse, since which time the locality has become peaceable. I cannot express any opinion on the matter until I see the Papers.
MR. SEXTONasked if the Chief Secretary for Ireland would inquire into the conduct of the constable?
MR. TREVELYAN: Certainly; by all means.

CRIME (IRELAND)—ALLEGED FIRING AT CAPTAIN OWEN WYNNE.
MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to a paragraph in the "Freeman's Journal" of the 1st instant, purporting to proceed from the correspondent of that paper at Boyle, county Roscommon, and stating that Captain Owen Wynne, of Hazlewood, county Sligo, had been fired at the previous evening, while seated at his parlour window, by a party of three men wearing disguises, and that the bullets had passed quite close to his head and lodged in the opposite wall; whether Captain Wynne is at present, and has been for some time past, residing out of Ireland, and whether the statement that he had been fired at, or
1782
his house fired into, was a complete invention; whether he is aware of a report that the statement in question was despatched by telegraph from Sligo; and, whether the resources of the telegraph department have been employed to discover who sent the message?
MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I have seen the paragraph referred to, and I have also seen Captain Wynne's statement, that he has been residing out of Ireland for some time, and that there is no truth in the alleged outrage. The Government has no information as to the sources from which the inaccurate report was supplied to The Freeman's Journal, nor has any inquiry been made on the subject.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1868—THE LIST OF VOTERS— INSERTION OF PERSONS HOLDING PARTS OF HOUSE.
CAPTAIN PRICEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the Circular issued by his directions last year to vestry clerks and overseers, requesting that steps might be taken to put on the list of voters all persons occupying separately any part of a house, has been rescinded; or, have further instructions been given in the matter?
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT,in reply, said, that the Question had been put under a misapprehension, as the Home Office had put no interpretation whatever on the Act; but had merely called the attention of the vestry clerks and overseers to the existence of the Act, which, of course, it was their duty to administer. There was nothing, therefore, to rescind.

THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—THE TOWN CLERK OF ARMAGH.
MR. DILLONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been directed to a speech delivered at the re-opening of Newry Orange Hall on Thursday June 22nd, in which occur the following passages:—
"The Protestants felt that each one would have to combine with the other for their mutual defence. When the yeomen found they were so treated they went into the Diamon field and they confronted their foes and fired upon them. Forty-six of their opponents fell upon the field, while not a single one of the Protestant party was wounded.

1783
"As a Member of the Committee I can tell you that at the present moment the Orange men are organised into regiments and companies, and have their arms ready and everything ready;"
whether the Mr. Peel who delivered this speech is coroner and town clerk of Armagh; whether, as town clerk, he is officially charged with preparing the list of Parliamentary Voters; whether he is at the same time honorary secretary to the County Conservative Association; and, if these statements be true, what steps the Government propose to take?
MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I have seen a report of the speech in question. It contains the passage quoted by the hon. Member. Perhaps a different complexion might be put on the passage by the context; but, of course, it is a speech which ought not to have been made, for it not only stirs passion, but incites people to conduct which is actually illegal and punishable by Statute. Mr. Peel is County Coroner and Town Clerk. In the latter capacity it is his duty to prepare the Lists of Parliamentary Voters. He did not receive his appointments from the Executive Government, who, consequently, have no control over him. I am informed that Mr. Peel is not secretary to the County Conservative Association. The Government has no intention of taking any steps in the matter.

EGYPT—THE ARMAMENTS AT ALEXANDRIA.
BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether, in view of the fact that, in consequence of Admiral Sir Beauchamp Seymour's Despatch of the 29th of May last (Blue Book, Egypt, No. 8), remonstrances were then made to the Egyptian authorities on the construction of earthworks at Alexandria, and that, notwithstanding these remonstrances, the earthworks have since been mounted with heavy guns pointed at Her Majesty's ships "Monarch" and "Invincible," Her Majesty's Government will not at once take steps not only to prevent the completion of these works, but also to enforce their dismantlement?
MR. ONSLOWasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether instructions have been sent to the Admiral commanding the East India Station to place a sufficient number of vessels of the
1784
Royal Navy to act as convoy to the ships conveying troops from India to Egypt, in the event of this contingency being deemed necessary?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Sir, I regret to say that it is my duty to decline to give the information which the hon. Member for Greenwich asks for. I must make the same answer to the Question of the hon. Member for Guildford.
MR. ONSLOW: Sir, if that is to be the answer, then I would like to know whether any arrangements have been made by the Admiralty to guard against the possibility of any attempt to prevent the landing of troops from India in Egypt in the event of its being found necessary to land a force? I give Notice of this Question as a hint to the hon. Gentleman. Of course, if he says in the interests of the Public Service it should not be answered, I cannot expect an answer.
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I need hardly say that such, a measure would not escape the attention of the naval and military authorities; but I can give no other information on the subject at present.

THE BOMBAY CIVIL FUND.
MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether he will lay upon the Table a Copy of the Financial Despatch, of the 21st July 1881, to the Government of India relating to the Bombay Civil Fund, together with a statement showing the assets and liabilities of the Fund; the number of the present beneficiaries, and the nature of their claims; the nature and amount of the contributions received from all sources during the last five years; the nature and amount of all outgoings during the same period; the number of present subscribers; the probable amount of receipts during the next year; and the probable addition to the beneficiaries in number and amount during the next year?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, there will be no objection to lay upon the Table a copy of the despatch in question, together with a statement showing the assets and liabilities of the Fund as on the 1st of April, 1875—the date of the last valuation—which will show the nature and amount of the contributions from all sources. The par-

1785
ticulars required for the last five years can only be obtained from India after considerable delay.
MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that, in the absence of the information respecting the contributions of the last five years, he should feel it his duty to oppose the Bombay Civil Fund Bill.

PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—WILLIAM KEOGH.
MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If the case of William Keogh, a suspect in Enniskillen Gaol, a consideration of which was promised on the 15th of last month, will now be released; whether Mr. Keogh is charged with no crime, but simply with inciting to the non-payment of rent; and, whether he has not aged parents and two sisters who are solely dependent on his earnings?
MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant considered the case of William Keogh on the 22nd of last month, but decided that he could not at present order his release.

ARMY ORGANIZATION (UNIFORMS, &c.) —HEAD-DRESS OF HIGHLAND REGIMENTS.
SIR HERBERT MAXWELLasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether there is truth in the report that the feather bonnet is to be discontinued in the head-dress of Highland regiments?
MR. CHILDERS: Sir, the hon. Baronet will, I hope, excuse my saying that at the present juncture I hardly think the House will care to discuss a question of this nature. But as he has thought it his duty to ask it at only a few hours' Notice, I will tell him the facts. There have been for some time discussions as to the suitability of the present heavy and costly bonnet of the Highland regiments; and, after many complaints, the Duke of Cambridge appointed a Committee of Scotch officers to consider the question. They have not yet reported; but when their Report reaches me the hon. Baronet may be assured that I will give it my most earnest consideration, and, if he will meanwhile call on the Adjutant General, we shall be very glad to have his opinion on the subject.

EGYPT (POLITICAL AFFAIRS)—THE RIOTS AT ALEXANDRIA.
MR. O'KELLYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention has been called to statements in the "Morning Post" of Thursday, copied from the "Journal des Debats," in which the number of Arabs killed by the Europeans during the recent riots at Alexandria is placed at some six hundred; whether he has also seen an extract from a Tyneside-man's letter in the "Newcastle Daily Chronicle" of Thursday set the number of Arab dead at seven or eight hundred; and, whether he can corroborate these reports from information in his possession?
SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: No, Sir; I have seen varying rumours on this subject of a most startling nature; but there is no information corroborative of the statements in the Question at all.
MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government had any special reason for disregarding the warning as to the danger to European life and property contained in the telegram of Mr. Cookson, British Consul at Alexandria, received at the Foreign Office on May 30th, that is, twelve days before the massacre of June 11th; the telegram contained a petition from the principal British merchants to Lord Granville, and runs as follows:—
"British residents in Alexandria call upon Her Majesty's Government to provide efficient means for the protection of their lives.…The crisis is only suspended.…There is every reason to fear the recurrence of perils which will come without warning, and against which the Europeans are absolutely defenceless. They have not even the means of flight, as in order to reach the ships in the harbour they would have to run the gauntlet through the streets."
The petition goes on to say—
"The small squadron actually in port could only silence the Egyptian forts, and then would commence a period of great danger for Europeans, who would be at the mercy of soldiers, while the English Admiral could not risk his men ashore, as his whole available force for shore operations does not exceed 300 men, although the squadron was sent here to safeguard European life and property?"
MR. MAC IVERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to state at the same time, if he still wished the House to believe that such vessels as

1787
the Inflexible, Téméraire, and the Superb were able to enter the harbour at Alexandria, and if it was not perfectly well known that they were cruising some 20 miles oft the harbour?
SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I rise to Order, Sir.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is putting a Question which has no reference whatever to that now before the House. If the hon. Member desires to put his Question after the other Question has been answered, he may do so if his Question is in Order.
SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The reason why I rose to Order, Sir, was that the hon. Member was stating opinions in the course of putting the Question.
MR. MAC IVER: I beg pardon. I had no intention of stating opinions.
SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The hon. Member stated that it was perfectly notorious at Alexandria that these ships are cruising about and cannot come inside the harbour. That I consider to be stating opinions. With regard to the Question of the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett), I have to say that Her Majesty's Government took every step recommended by their agents and the Admiral, and the squadron was greatly enlarged. I can only say that the previous statements I made on the subject are perfectly accurate, and that the statements which I answered were incorrect. The further ships, with a very large landing force, were ordered on the 30th, instructions were sent to Suda Bay, and the first of them arrived at Alexandria on the 2nd of May.
MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Does the hon. Baronet mean to imply by that answer that there were more than 300 sailors available on the 11th?
SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Yes, Sir; enormously more than that.
MR. ONSLOWasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to make India pay for the war preparations now going on in that country in whole or in part, or whether the whole expense of equipping an Army in India, to be ready at any moment for foreign service, is to be borne by the taxpayers of this Country?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GLADSTONE): I am glad that the hon. Gentleman appears to know,
1788
or supposes he knows, a great deal about the expense and equipment of an army in India. He seems to know more than we do ourselves. All I can say in answer to the Question is that I am totally unable to give the hon. Member any information in regard to any war preparations in India, or, if there are preparations, the mode of paying for them.
MR. ONSLOW: Do I understand that no preparations are being made for sending troops from India?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GLADSTONE): I have already stated that I am totally unable to give the hon. Gentleman any information with regard to any preparations.
MR. ONSLOW: The right hon. Gentleman insinuates that I have given information which is false. ["No, no!"] What I wish to know is whether the Government are able to give the House any information as to troops being sent to Egypt from India, and whether the Indian Government will be called upon to pay for those preparations? I think I am entitled to an answer. ["Order!"]
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman has put a Question and has received such an answer as the right hon. Gentleman, acting on his responsibility, thinks proper to give. He cannot, therefore, repeat the Question.
MR. MAC IVERsaid, he would then ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he had any objection to give the House some information as to what was perfectly well known at Alexandria—namely, that Her Majesty's ships Inflexible, Superb, Alexandra, and Téméraire were not within the harbour; and whether it was not the fact that they had never been so, but were cruising about 20 miles from land?
SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I have various objections to make to the hon. Member's Question. In the first place, he has expressed an opinion; secondly, it is a Question which ought to be put to the Admiralty, and not to the Foreign Office; and, thirdly, the statement is inaccurate. I need only say that the answer I have previously given on this subject to the right hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir John Hay) is absolutely correct.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Without putting any specific Question, I may suggest whether the Government can give any further information as to

1789
the state of affairs at Alexandria, which, as we know, is extremely strained and may vary even from hour to hour. Therefore, without putting any Question which might embarrass the Government, I would ask if they can give any information with regard to the present state of affairs?
MR. GLADSTONE: I think it better at once to state that nothing has reached us of a disquieting character.
MR. MAC IVER: I wish to ask—[Cries of "Order!" and "Name!"]—whether I am correct in stating that the hon. Baronet wished the House to understand that the Inflexible, the Superb, the Alexandra, and the Téméraire are within the harbour of Alexandria?
SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I have nothing further to add to what I have said. In my answer on a former occasion I did not name these four ships; but with regard to certain ships, without naming them, I stated general facts as to their power and capacity to enter the harbour of Alexandria. That answer has been carefully tested by the Admiralty, and has been found to be perfectly correct.
MR. MAC IVER: The hon. Baronet has not properly understood my Question. [Cries of "Order!" and "Name!"] I meant to—
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has twice received an answer from the Under Secretary. He cannot rise a third time and ask the same Question.
MR. MAC IVERasked Mr. Speaker whether, if an hon. Member received an answer to a Question which had not been correctly understood, the same hon. Member was not in Order in repeating the Question? [Cries of "No!" and "Order!"]
[Mr. SPEAKER did not reply.]
SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked the Prime Minister—or he would postpone the Question until to-morrow if it was not convenient to answer then—Whether, seeing that M. de Freycinet had assured the French Chamber of Deputies that the armed intervention of France in Egypt should not take place without the clearly-expressed previous consent of the Chamber, he could give a similar assurance that the English intervention should not be undertaken without, at any rate, the House of Commons being informed of the fact?
MR. GLADSTONE: The House is aware, Sir, that the fashion of putting Preambles to Bills has of late disappeared, but the fashion of putting Preambles to Questions has lately revived. With regard to the Preamble of the Question, as far as I am aware the French have an Article in their Constitution under which it is necessary to communicate certain matters to the Chamber before taking action. The French Government have, I believe, no choice in this matter. In regard to postponing the Question till to-morrow, I am afraid I must ask my hon. Friend not to do so, because I should then simply have to repeat this very barren answer—namely, that the nature of the case prevents me giving a substantial answer.

ORDER OF THE DAY.
  PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 226.]
  (Secretary Sir William Harcourt, Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Solicitor General, Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)

  CONSIDERATION.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  Clause 1 (Special Commission Court).
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 26, after the word "to," to insert the words "what was before the passing of this Act."—(Mr. Warton.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. T. C. THOMPSON MR. T. C. THOMPSON moved, in page 2, line 28, to substitute "Act" for "section," so that nothing in the Act should give a Special Commission a jurisdiction not belonging now to a Judge and jury.
  Amendment agreed to.
  On the Motion of Mr. TREVELYAN, Amendment made, in page 2, line 30, by leaving out "have," and inserting "would but for this section have had."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 6 (Change of venue).
  On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND, Amendment made, in

  1791
  page 4, line 30, after "Justice," by inserting "or a Judge thereof;" and in page 5, line 17, by leaving out "of the High Court."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 7 (Intimidation).
  On the Motion of Mr. TREVELYAN, Amendment made, in page 5, line 37, before "towards," by inserting "to or."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 8 (Riots and other offences).
  MR. TREVELYAN,in moving, in page 6, line 6, after "who," to insert "in a proclaimed district," said, the Amendment was proposed in fulfilment of a promise made by him while the Bill was in Committee.
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. BRODRICKsaid, the Amendment would have the effect of rendering the clause to a great extent inoperative, inasmuch as pressure would be put on the Executive to proclaim districts in which the magistrates were unable to carry out the law.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the encouragement was held out that districts would not be proclaimed if possible, as an inducement to them to keep quiet. He would remind the hon. Member that there were powers to proclaim districts under particular clauses, and not generally under the Act.
  MR. GIBSONsaid, there was no evidence that the particular offences aimed at would be committed specially in a proclaimed district. He thought the acceptance of the Amendment would hamper the Irish Government, and lead to no good result.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, the Irish Government perfectly recognized the fact that in passing this Bill, Parliament intended that it should be used, not only for the purpose of punishing offences when they had come to a head or were difficult to check, but likewise for purposes of prevention. The Irish Government would carefully consider all the circumstances of the case before a district was proclaimed. This clause dealt with certain offences that occurred in great numbers in a district which was very disturbed, and which did not occur all the country over. He confessed he
  1792
  did not feel as strongly as the hon. Member opposite the distinction which the hon. Member drew between this and the other clauses.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEregretted the decision of the Government with regard to the Amendment, though he admitted that when the Lord Lieutenant and the Government of Ireland had distinctly stated that they did not require this power, it was difficult to do anything in the matter.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, he objected to the principle of coercion being applied to innocent parts of the country.
  MR. PLUNKETsaid, he hoped the objection would not be pressed if the Government persisted in refusing to accept his hon. Friend's suggestion.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. GIBSON MR. GIBSON moved, in page 6, line 8, to substitute the word "nine," instead of "six." The 3rd sub-section of Clause 8 dealt with an offence which had become common in Ireland—namely, the taking forcible possession of a farm from which the tenant had been lawfully evicted, and in many cases supporting and encouraging the tenant to take that forcible possession almost against the tenant's wish. This was one of the evils incident to "Boycotting" and the state of terrorism which so widely prevailed. The Government had inserted in this clause a provision that any person who within six months after being evicted took forcible possession of a house or land or any part thereof should be guilty of an offence against the Act. His objection to the limitation of six months was that it was about the worst conceivable period that could have been fixed upon. There were six months in which the tenant might redeem, and during this redemption period the land was practically worth very little, as the landlord could neither sink his money in it nor make a permanent new letting. The clause in its present form provided that the moment the redemption period ceased, and when the landlord might put a new tenant into possession, the evicted tenant should be freed from the restraint of the Act, and chartered to do everything he liked. This was open to serious criticism.
  Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 8, leave out "six" and insert "nine."—(Mr. Gibson.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'six' stand part of the Clause."
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, there was force in what the right hon. and learned Gentleman had said, and he would accede to the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 9 (Unlawful associations).
  On the Motion of Mr. TREVELYAN, Amendments made, in page 6, by leaving out lines 21 to 25 inclusive; and in page 6, line 26, by leaving out "proceedings," and inserting "operations."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 10 (Illegal meetings).
  MR. GIBSONsaid, he begged to move an Amendment providing that one Justice should only be required to attend wherever an illegal meeting was proposed to be held for the purpose of notifying the order of the Lord Lieutenant prohibiting same.
  Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 35, leave out "two," and insert "one."—(Mr. Gibson.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'two' stand part of the Clause."
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he could not accept the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On the Motion of Mr. TREVELYAN, the following Amendments made:—In page 6, line 37, after the first "and," by inserting "one or more of such justices shall in the prescribed form and manner;" in page 6, line 38, by leaving out "and repeat;" in page 6, line 38, by leaving out from "attending," to "and," in line 39, and inserting "that such meeting is prohibited by the Lord Lieutenant;" in page 6, line 41, after "time," by inserting "each of;" in page 6, line 42, after "Act," by inserting "so however that the term of imprisonment awarded shall not exceed three months."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 11 (Arrest of persons found at night under suspicious circumstances).
  On the Motion of Mr. TREVELYAN, the following Amendments made:—In page 7, line 7, by leaving out "suspicious;" in page 7, line 7, after "circumstances,"
  1794
  by inserting "giving rise to a reasonable suspicion of a criminal intent;" in page 7, line 11, after "bring him," by inserting "as soon as may be and within a period not exceeding seven days."
  On the Motion of Mr. LABOUCHERE, the following Amendments made:—In page 7, line 11, after "taking," by inserting "reasonable;" in page 7, line 11, after "bail," by inserting "but not exceeding fifty pounds."
  On the Motion of Mr. TREVELYAN, the following Amendments made:—In page 7, line 12, before "such," by inserting "on;" in page 7, line 13, by leaving out "on;" in page 7, line 14, by leaving out "fails to satisfy the court that he," and inserting "and the case being heard, the court believe that such person;" in page 7, line 15, after "abode," by inserting "and not;" in page 7, line 16, at end, by inserting "so however that the term of imprisonment awarded shall not exceed three months."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 12 (Arrest of strangers found under suspicious circumstances).
  On the Motion of Mr. TREVELYAN, the following Amendments made:—In page 7, line 23, by leaving out "suspicious;" in page 7, line 23, after "circumstances," by inserting "giving rise to a reasonable suspicion of criminal intent;" in page 7, line 24, by leaving out from "and," to "the justice," in lines 25 and 26, and inserting—
  "If such justice after inquiry into the circumstances of the case by evidence on oath is satisfied that such stranger has not a lawful object in being in such place;"
  in page 7, line 27, after "with," by inserting "two sufficient;" in page 7, line 27, after "sureties," by inserting "to an amount not exceeding fifty pounds for each surety;" in page 7, line 27, after "behaviour," by inserting "towards all Her Majesty's subjects;" in page 8, line 3, before "in," by inserting "is;" in page 8, line 5, by leaving out from "the," to "such," inline 6, and inserting "inquiry into the circumstances of the case of a person arrested under this section;" in page 8, line 6, by leaving out the first "or," and inserting "and;" in page 8, line 9, by leaving out "said;" and in page 8, line 9, after "justice," by inserting "or

  1795
  justices committing a person to prison in pursuance of this section."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 13 (Newspapers).
  MR. TREVELYAN MR. TREVELYAN moved, in page 8, at end of Clause, to insert the following sub-sections:—
  "(2) Where it appears to the Lord Lieutenant that such newspaper was printed and published in Ireland, the order of the Lord Lieutenant shall indicate the part of the newspaper on account of which the order was made, and if the newspaper specifies the office in Ireland at which the newspaper is printed and published, the order shall, as soon as practicable, be served in the prescribed manner at the office so specified.
  (3) Every order of the Lord Lieutenant under this section shall be published in the 'Dublin Gazette,' and shall be laid before Parliament within thirty days if Parliament is next sitting, and if not, within thirty days after the next sitting of Parliament."
  He might explain that these sub-sections had reference only to newspapers published in Ireland. It would, of course, be impossible to act in the same way in regard to foreign newspapers.
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he thought the 1st sub-section should be more specific. The phrase "part of" was very vague, and might be held to mean the whole page or the side of a newspaper. He moved to add "and the words."
  Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, in line 3, after the word "part," to insert the words "and the words."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, it would be impossible to accept that Amendment, because it would be giving wider publication to the very thing they wanted to suppress. The words "part of" would be held to mean the exact part of the article in respect of which the order was issued.
  Amendment to proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Words inserted.
  MR. LABOUCHERE MR. LABOUCHERE moved, in page 8, line 4, at end of Clause, to add—
  1796
  "The police conducting the search shall be bound to replace in the same order as they found them any articles that may be disturbed or to make good anything damaged or destroyed in the course of their search."
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that the Government would accept the Amendment in substance.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 14 (Searches for arms and illegal documents).
  MR. TREVELYAN MR. TREVELYAN moved, in page 9, at end of sub-section (2), to insert—
  "Provided, That it shall not be lawful for an inspector or sub-inspector to enter in pursuance of this section a dwelling-house during the night, unless he reasonably suspects that at the time of his entry a secret society or secret association existing for criminal purposes is holding a meeting in such dwelling-house.
  For the purposes of this section 'night' shall be deemed to commence at the expiration of the first hour after sunset and to conclude at sunrise."
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. LABOUCHERE MR. LABOUCHERE moved to amend the proposal by adding, after the word "dwelling-house," the words "and if it is found that no such meeting is then proceeding he shall at once retire." He believed that those were the words used by the Prime Minister when he announced the concession the Government were willing to make; therefore he supposed there would be no objection to it. He thought it would be the business of the police officer making the search, if he found there was no such meeting going on, to at once retire, and this was merely a polite way of explaining that to him.
  Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment,
  In line 5, after the word "dwelling-house," to insert the words "and if it is found that no such meeting is then proceeding he shall at once retire."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the proposal made by his right hon. Friend was intended to fulfil the pledge which was given in Committee by the Government; but the Amendment greatly extended the operation of it, therefore they could not agree to the Amendment. What

  1797
  the Government contemplated was that night search should only be lawful in connection with reasonable suspicion of the holding of an illegal meeting; but to say that the police should at once retire if there was not an illegal meeting going on would interfere with, if it did not entirely destroy, the purport of the clause. A secret society might be holding a meeting, or might immediately before have been holding a meeting, and on the approach of the police decamp, leaving behind them material evidence as to the nature of the meeting which might be most valuable to the Government; yet, if the Amendment were accepted, the police would not be able to take any cognizance of that fact.
  MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, he could not understand why the police should stay in the house when they found there was no meeting taking place. Every Englishman's house was supposed to be his castle, and he supposed that every Irishman was in the same position. Would it not be sufficient to enact that where the police had entered, and on search had found that no secret meeting was being held, and that no instruments of crime were on the premises, they should retire?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that it was rather for the Secretary of State for the Home Department and for legal Gentlemen to answer this question than himself; but if the police found nothing on search they would be bound to retire.
  MR. HOPWOODsaid, he was going to make the same remark as the Prime Minister rose. If the police did not retire upon finding there was nothing wrong, they would be committing an unlawful act, and would be liable to both the civil and criminal consequences of their act. He hoped that, after what the right hon. Gentleman had said, the hon. Member for Northampton would withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that after that explanation he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment to proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. CARTWRIGHTappealed to the House not to assent hastily to this Proviso, which was one that he thought
  1798
  would tend to considerably weaken the powers of the Bill. He was aware that the Government had given an undertaking with respect to this point; but he thought the very serious events that had been occurring since the time when the pledge was given ought to be sufficient to enable the House, notwithstanding that pledge, to refuse to accede to it. They were confronted by an array of sedition that was operating by underground channels and secret societies, which must task the forces at the command of the Government; and if they introduced this Proviso into the clause, he believed it would be most mischievous and cruel, because the police would be then fighting with one hand tied behind them, and it would make it easy to dispose of documents that might be most important in unmasking conspiracy. He and other hon. Gentlemen had received presentments on the part of Grand Jurors of several Irish counties protesting in the strongest way against any limitation or alteration of the provision relating to the right of search, as originally introduced into the Bill. He therefore hoped the House would not consent to the proposal of the Chief Secretary for Ireland.
  SIR WILLIAM HART DYKEsaid, he desired to utter a strong protest against the proposed mutilation of this clause. This Proviso was introduced in consequence of what he thought a most unfortunate pledge previously given by Her Majesty's Government. It would almost seem that the Government were getting so used to the horrors which were being daily enacted in Ireland as to be almost careless as regards the later conduct of this measure through the House. He thought that at present they ought, above all things, to seek to make the law feared by the people. ["Hear, hear!"] How better could they make the law feared than by giving the power which still happily existed in the Bill—the power to the representatives of the law at any time to enter into any house for the purpose of searching for arms or documents? It was a disgrace to that Assembly that in the present condition of Ireland they should be called upon to consider the weakening of this clause, which was intended for the detection and prevention of crime. They ought to demand from the Government to preserve the clause as it

  1799
  originally stood. It was somewhat hard on those of them who had given a loyal support to Her Majesty's Government throughout to find themselves thrown over at the last moment, and so mischievous and dangerous a Proviso as this proposed to be inserted in the Bill.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, after the speeches to which the House has just listened, I cannot speak too early or too plainly on this subject. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir William Hart Dyke) complains that he has been thrown over by the Government—[Opposition cheers.]—and his words are adopted by the mass of those who sit behind him. They complain that they are thrown over, because in a particular clause of this Bill a certain modification and restriction of the coercive portions of the Bill is to be introduced. But I have always heard from the other side in these debates totally different language. It is always held by speakers in that quarter of the House, when they want to escape the responsibility of Coercion Bills, that they have only acceded to the demands of the Government with great reluctance. Why, then, do they not now accede with great reluctance? It has never, it is said, been the intention of the Conservative Party to press for more than the Government require. That is language that is constantly heard; and now, because the Government propose a particular mitigation of a particular clause, those hon. Gentlemen, who have been careful to describe this Bill on all occasions as the most severe Coercion Bill ever introduced, come forward in a tone of complaint and lament that they are thrown over. The right hon. Gentleman seems to think the pledge given by the Government in Committee was a very small affair.
  SIR WILLIAM HART-DYKE: It was an unfortunate pledge.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Well, if it was unfortunate, it was still a pledge, and that is not a matter of small importance or to be treated lightly. To treat that pledge lightly is the demand made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite and by my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Cartwright). We, of course, cannot do that. We know that if a promise be given by the Government, they are bound by it, whatever Party it may be given to. The right hon. Gentleman seems to
  1800
  think that the Government may abandon their pledge on account of what has happened in Ireland since it was given. I do not know whether he has watched the circumstances which have occurred in Ireland since then. The right hon. Gentleman has heard, as we all have heard, of the horrible crimes that have recently taken place in Ireland, and that during the last three months there has been an increase in these crimes. But, Sir, these horrible crimes that have occurred have every indication of having been connected with the action of secret societies, and they are in that respect dissociated from the general sentiment of the people of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman says that our object should be to make the law feared by the people of Ireland, and that is the maxim which he has laid down; but our maxim is very different. It is that we would make the law feared by the criminals among the people, and the law respected by the people of Ireland, which is a far different maxim.
  SIR WILLIAM HART DYKE: I do not wish to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman. In my remarks I referred entirely to the criminals of Ireland.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I heard the words of the right hon. Gentleman, and he stated that his desire was to make the law feared by the people of Ireland, and these words were cheered by some Gentlemen behind him. But I must say—to use a word of which the right hon. Gentleman seems very fond—that his mode of expression was most "unfortunate." The change that has taken place is not the simple change that the right hon. Gentleman supposed. There has been an aggravation of the most fearful crimes committed, as we believe, in connection with the action of the secret societies. To the subject of the secret societies our attention has been most closely directed, and we have taken measures independent of and above those known to the House in relation to those societies, so as by every means in our power to bring about their detection and suppression. But it is not true that the general mass of agrarian outrage has been increasing within the last two or three months. On the contrary, there is a very great diminution, of the outrages connected with agrarian subjects in Ireland. There are indications also that, be far as the people in general are

  1801
  concerned, they are settling down into more orderly and peaceable habits. ["Oh!"] Someone says "Oh!" If that hon. Gentleman will kindly look at the Returns supplied by the Constabulary, which are the last, he will find that is the case, and that there has been for successive months, and is at present found, a very considerable diminution of agrarian outrages in general. Now, what is the change that is made in this clause? None at all in relation to secret societies, which is the object held in view all along by the Government. The restriction of the clause will not weaken the action of the Government with respect to the main difficulty with which the Government has to deal in Ireland—namely, secret societies. I am not speaking of the working of the clause, but upon its proposed restriction. My hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Cartwright) has spoken of the change of circumstances in Ireland. But I would repeat that, in respect of agrarian crime in general, the change is favourable, not unfavourable. The next argument of my hon. Friend was drawn from the presentment of Grand Juries. But I do not think the presentments of Grand Juries are a safe guide, though, doubtless, they ought to be taken into careful consideration. My hon. Friend has said that the power which we are going to restrict exists in the Metropolis. My hon. Friend is mistaken in that respect. My hon. Friend was referring to a law under which search may be made by day or night when a warrant has been issued for search in the particular house or premises mentioned. But the law which my hon. Friend recommends for Ireland is one which will confer a right of search in the whole of a district, embracing an entire county or more than a county. Then my hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman has given their opinion as to the necessities of the case in Ireland. Will the right hon. Gentleman permit me to say that, after all, he and my hon. Friend are not responsible in that matter. It was not incumbent upon them to force into the hands of the Government power in restriction of liberty which the Government do not admit to be necessary for the maintenance of order or expedient in existing circumstances. It is evident that the power of search by night is not one which ought to be carried beyond the limits of necessity. It is a power peculiarly grievous to those
  1802
  who are the sufferers by it, and peculiarly liable to lead to the most irritating and exasperating recollections, and in that way likely to lead to effects unfavourable to the cause of order. Searches by night for arms and documents are quite different from searches for meetings. In the latter case, simple entry in the premises decides the question. But in searches for arms and documents a total ransacking of the house becomes necessary, and complaints will naturally be made of the exercise of such a power. The inmates of the house are required to leave their beds in the condition in which they are, in order that those beds may be searched for arms or documents. It is not a pleasant subject to refer to, and I hope such powers will not be placed upon the Statute Book unless they are demanded by the responsible Government. I stated the view of the Irish Government on the subject when it was introduced to the House. It was that search should be confined to cases where there is reasonable suspicion of a secret or illegal meeting being held in a house. I would remind my hon. Friend that there is, or has been, a wholesome Rule of this House that when demands are made by the Government upon the people for grants of money, what the Government asks may be reduced, but cannot be augmented. According to the principles of the Constitution, it is not the duty of Members of this House to say to the Government—"What you ask is not sufficient for your purpose; you ought to get more." That Rule is wisely framed to prevent the House from giving more money than the Public Service requires. There is an exact analogy between that case and the demand made upon the House for the grant to the Government of coercive or restrictive powers. This House is the guardian of liberty. The responsible Government is, in the first instance, primarily and supremely the guardian of order. If the Government declines or fails to ask from the House of Commons what is necessary for the maintenance of order, it fails in its first duty. But, in such an I event, it is the duty of the Opposition to get rid of the Government which has so failed. But they ought not to seek to force into the hands of the Government coercive powers which the Government declare to be unnecessary and cannot conscientiously exercise. Such powers, if not necessary for order and are restrictive

  1803
  of liberty, are positively injurious to the cause of order. I wish to explain the position in which I stand. I am not able to break my pledge; and if I find powers given to me for purposes restrictive of liberty when they are not demanded, and when I do not believe them to be necessary, I shall hold myself at liberty to do what I consider in conformity with my individual duty as an officer of the State, and to examine my personal position. I hold myself bound to reject the offer of powers which the Government have not demanded and think unnecessary. I have laid down the principles which, in my opinion, ought to guide us in this matter. First of all, the Government cannot consent to break the pledge they have publicly given; secondly, it would be an unsound and a dangerous principle for the House to give, or for the Government to accept, coercive powers which they do not believe to be conducive to the purpose of the measure they have introduced; and, thirdly, this power of search by night is pre-eminently one which, on every ground of public policy, ought to be comprised within narrow bounds. On these grounds, it is wholly out of my power to accede to the proposition which the hon. Member has made.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Sir, I apprehend whatever pledge has been given by the Government, or however binding it may be upon them, it cannot be held to be binding on the House, and that the House is perfectly at liberty, notwithstanding the pledge given by the Government, in the course of the Committee, to take any course which it might think proper, and to discuss and consider a question on which the Government may undoubtedly feel that they have surrendered their freedom of action. The Prime Minister found a good deal of fault with my right hon. Friend near me for saying that the Government in this matter threw over a large body of the House, and seemed to think that was a very extraordinary position for us to take up. The right hon. Gentleman amplified and explained that by saying that in point of fact the House had nothing to do in the matter of granting extraordinary powers to the Government, but to give what the Government asks; at all events, not more than what the Government asks. Of course, the Government must, in the first place, come to the House and make
  1804
  out a case when asking for extraordinary powers; and having done so, and induced the House to consent to the second reading of a Bill of an exceptional character, and having acceded to the general principle upon which we are to act in regard to the exercise of those powers, and the nature of the powers to be given, the House has a fair right to say that it demands the exercise of its own judgment with regard to any concessions by the Government in the nature of a modification or a limitation of the powers which they themselves asked for. The question of giving the power of the right to search was very obviously the duty of the Government to propose. It was most necessary, considering the very great difficulties there appear to be in getting evidence and tracing crimes to their source; and, on the other hand, getting information that would tend to prevent crime. It was found the special powers were required and the right of search. A drastic and valuable power was accordingly inserted by the Government in the Bill; but in the course of the discussion in Committee the Government, for some reason which was not very apparent to us, and the Prime Minister, acting very much on his own suggestion, and taking the Bill at that moment out of the hands of the Minister who had been intrusted with its conduct, took upon himself to say that he was proposed to modify this proposal, and to modify it in the sense of limiting its operation.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman did not hear me, or he would have quoted me more accurately. I most expressly quoted and placed in the foreground the judgment of the Irish Executive.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I was not present on the occasion; but what I heard led me to believe that the right hon. Gentleman interposed and took the Bill at that moment out of the hands of the Home Secretary and the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who had conducted it so far. Now, however, the right hon. Gentleman says that he acted on the suggestion of the Irish Government. Well, however that may be, we look upon this change as a concession calculated to weaken the whole Bill. We cannot altogether dissociate the conduct of the Government on this matter from its conduct on other occasions, when there have been questions of taking

  1805
  sufficient powers for the maintenance of order. We cannot dissociate it, for example, from the refusal of the Government to renew the Peace Preservation Act. We cannot help seeing there is a great and natural desire on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to mitigate, as far as possible, this part of the Bill, and to sweep away the opposition which conies from a certain quarter of this House, and to which he pays a great deal of attention. We claim for ourselves the right to discuss more fully the propriety of the Government in making this modification. We understand why this right of search was asked for, and I how it would tend to prevent crime; but now comes the right hon. Gentleman, who says—"You must look on this right of search with reference especially to secret societies." That is pretty obvious to us all; we can see how very much crime in Ireland is the action of secret societies, and how necessary it is that the Government of the day should have every means of meeting and checking those secret societies. I say that if the right of search is to be confined by such a restriction as this, it will make this part of the Bill utterly useless. Secret societies are composed of men of the greatest ability and acuteness, and they will be able to see how they can carry on their business so as to avoid inconvenient surprises. Nothing would be easier than for the members of a secret society to take care that when its meeting was being held whatever they desired to conceal might be left in another house in the neighbourhood. Are the Government, when they had got information which might lead them to discover some nefarious conspiracy, and prevent deeds of the most fearful character, to be withheld because the meeting was not going on actually at No. 10, but at No. 12, or that the meeting had been held half-an-hour ago? It seems to me that this Proviso is one which very generally destroys the effect of this clause; it takes the edge off the weapon. I cannot go so far as to say that it renders it worthless; but, undoubtedly, it renders it very nearly worthless. It is urged that there would be abuse; but it lies with the Government to exercise this power of search in such a manner that it should not lead to the evils which the Prime Minister points at. You are passing a Bill now which will last for Borne years. You cannot supplement its
  1806
  defects if you allow them to pass now. Therefore, the House has a right to insist upon the Government, since they have asked for these powers, exercising them. I will only add that I think the hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Cartwright) has done good service in this matter, and has shown a courage not too often found among the ranks of the Party opposite.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he wished to explain to the House his reason for the vote he was about to give. While he was not surprised that hon. Members on both sides of the House should find fault with the change proposed, he did not feel so strongly about it as some. He had not so much confidence as was felt by some hon. Gentlemen in the success of search under any circumstances, as he thought arms would be secreted in places where they were not at all likely to be discovered; but, undoubtedly, there was a good deal in the argument that if they were likely to be found at all, they were more likely to be found by night than in the daytime. It seemed a pity that the Government had not earlier made up their minds whether this power was absolutely necessary or not for the maintenance of the peace of the country. The reason why he should support the Government was that he did not consider the proposal to be a concession to the representation in that House; but he understood the change to arise solely from the well-matured thought of the Irish Government, and especially of his noble Friend the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. He had watched the noble Earl's action with the greatest possible attention, and he did not think there could be two opinions as to his determination to use every power he possibly could to restore law and order in Ireland, and to put down crime. If the Lord Lieutenant had come to the conclusion—as he understood he had—that he would rather be without this power than with it, he did not think Parliament should force it upon him. It should be remarked that the exercise of the power of search excited the strongest possible opposition in Ireland, and there had been an advantageous change in the law passed last year, which was worth consideration. When it was his business to superintend the working of that Act, it was a great misfortune that, under the Peace Preservation Act which was last passed, special warrants were re-

  1807
  quired to search any particular house. At present an Inspector or a Sub-Inspector had the power to search when and where he thought it desirable to do so. But it was a strong power to give to officials; and he could understand the Lord Lieutenant fearing that the exercise of it, even with the best discretion men could exercise, might lead to such a strong feeling that it was better not to retain the power unless it were absolutely necessary. The Government at first brought forward a proposal that they thought absolutely necessary; it would have aroused opposition in Ireland, and would have given rise to complaints; and now the Head of the Executive in Ireland, who was making most determined efforts day and night to put down disorder, was of opinion that he would do better without this power than with it. Under these circumstances, he did not see how they could force it upon him. But the right hon. Baronet (Sir Stafford Northcote) was mistaken in what he supposed would be one result if the alteration were made. He had forgotten the words "in pursuance of this section," and that there would be left the powers of the ordinary law to make search in cases of treason and other crimes and the fear of murder.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, that the Prime Minister seemed to be agitated by the statement that it ought to be their object to make the law feared in Ireland. Well, the Criminal Law existed to be feared; and the only people who were coerced by law at all were those who were coerced by the fear of it, and not by the love of it. If we legislated on any other theory we should not make the law either feared or loved. Under the present Government, as it seemed to him, Parliament was expected to legislate with a pistol at its head. The votes were to be determined, not by the merits of the case, but by intrinsic considerations. Thus, the Arrears Bill was to be passed because, having been introduced, it was dangerous to reject it; and now the Coercion Bill was to be altered, or the Government would resign.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I did not say that.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, that if words had any meaning, that was the threat held out by the Prime Minister to his own supporters if the Government were beaten. He said that if they so far went against the Government as to
  1808
  vote against this Proviso, he would reconsider the position.
  MR. GLADSTONE: What I said was, that I should consider myself perfectly at liberty to examine and consider my own personal position.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: His personal position as Prime Minister of this country. That meant that he would be at liberty to resign; and if that was not the interpretation to be put on his words, he hoped some of his Colleagues would rise and explain what the interpretation was. The Prime Minister said that agrarian crimes were diminishing, but the crimes of secret societies were increasing. The Government seemed to suppose that by leaving the words "secret societies" in the Proviso, they would effectually deal with secret societies. They seemed to think that a secret society was only formidable when it was in session, and that unless it was actually assembled in a house the police ought not to enter it. Was it supposed that the evil work of a secret society was wholly or principally carried out when it was actually meeting for debate? We knew that there existed the instruments by which its commands were carried out; it was these we wanted to get at; but these we could not get at if we restricted the right of search to the exceptional occasions when it was meeting for the transaction of business. Therefore, the Proviso now proposed would really prevent the police employing the principal means by which secret societies could be reached. Consequently, it appeared to him perfectly plain that the Government, by introducing this limitation, were not carrying out the object they professed to have in view; but practically, in order to carry out pledges given to the Committee in a rash moment, they would allow not only agrarian outrages, but also secret societies to escape. He hoped, therefore, hon. Members opposite would not take seriously the threat which the Prime Minister had held out, but would vote for the Bill as, he presumed with good reason, it was originally introduced.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, that, like hon. Members opposite, he was somewhat anxious to be able to comprehend the full meaning of the words of the Prime Minister as to the position of the Government if the Amendment were negatived. He was bound to say that those words were very ominous. His

  1809
  right hon. Friend had re-stated the exact words he used; but the statement was open to several interpretations. What he (Mr. Goschen) was somewhat concerned to know was this: Did the Amendment stand upon a totally different footing from other Amendments proposed during the progress of the Bill? Were they less free than they had been upon any other Amendment to give such a vote as appeared to them to be right, according to the arguments they had heard? Did the Government attach more importance to this than to those which had preceded? Unless he heard more upon that matter he should consider that every Member was as free to give a vote upon this Amendment, according to the arguments and to the best of his judgment, as upon any other question. He hoped, therefore, before the debate closed, some other Member of the Government would explain the meaning of the right hon. Gentleman's words. The Prime Minister had used very high language upon this Amendment; and it must be remembered that this was not a Motion directed against the Bill, but against a change in the Bill proposed by the Government; and, therefore, no one could be accused of any disloyalty for prefering the clause as originally drafted to the form it would have as it was now to be amended. It was said that the change now proposed was a concession hastily made to Irish Members opposite; but this could hardly be the case, as they had the assurance of the Government that the change was now proposed by Earl Spencer himself, and certainly, therefore, those on the Ministerial side of the House could not consider it as a concession made in the heat of debate. The question, then, was this: The Government, having at first determined that the power of search during the night was necessary, had since changed their minds; on which side, therefore, ought the House to give their votes? They must bear in mind that they were dealing with a Bill which was to last for three years, and that there could have been no material change in the situation in Ireland since it was introduced; at least, there had not been such a change for the better as to convince them that a power once thought necessary could be dispensed with. Assume that outrages had diminished, had there been any increase in the discoveries of the authors of the outrages? This clause was aimed,
  1810
  not only at the prevention and diminution of outrages, but at the discovery of crime, and of agrarian as well as political crime. Had there been an increase in the power of discovery; were more offenders brought to justice; were more witnesses coming forward? When murders had occurred during the last fortnight, and the population had not come forward to assist the police, was this a moment to make a change in the Bill which would be deemed a weakening of the chances of discovery? If we authorized search by day, on what ground should we not have it by night, if we really wished to get at secret documents and the paraphernalia of crime in the case of agrarian and political outrages? How were they to know that the political societies did not also work in the case of the agrarian outrages, and bring distress in that way upon the country? Reluctant as he was to vote in a contrary direction to the Government, he did not feel convinced by the arguments he had heard upon the subject. If the power proposed to be given was not necessary at the present moment, then let the Lord Lieutenant refrain from exercising it. What the House wanted to feel sure of was that they were doing, once for all, all that was necessary, and giving the maximum power to the Government, and for that reason they ought not to hesitate about voting that additional power to the Government, even if it were not demanded by them. He regretted that at an earlier portion of this debate there seemed to be a little heat between the two sides of the House. The right hon. Member for Kent (Sir William Hart Dyke) had spoken with considerable warmth in attacking Her Majesty's Government; but could they not close the debate without making it a question of Party between the two sides of the House? Her Majesty's Government had certainly received much support from hon. Members opposite, although the idea had been received with scorn by some hon. Members. No one could remember the action of the right hon. and learned Members for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket and Mr. Gibson) without feeling that, in no case, had they endeavoured to embarrass the action of the Government, and they scarcely attempted to oppose the measure, except in cases of what they deemed absolute necessity. It would, therefore, be a matter for regret if in this, the

  1811
  last debate upon the Bill, the Irish Party having left the House, there should be a continuance of anything like a Party discussion between the two sides of the House. He trusted the matter would be decided on its merits, and that everyone would vote upon it in that sense.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he entirely agreed with the remarks of his right hon. Friend the Member for Ripon, and thought it extremely desirable that the present debate should not assume a Party character, more particularly in the absence of those Members who were more closely connected with Ireland, and whose interests were more nearly affected by the present Bill. That was an additional reason, if reason were wanted, for treating the matter with extreme caution. He entirely recognized the fairness with which the Bill had been dealt with in all its stages by hon. Members opposite; but, at the same time, he thought his right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone) was entitled to decline the view of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir William. Hart Dyke), that there was any sort of compact which entitled any Gentleman in the House to speak of being thrown over if one thing was done or another thing was done. It was not a question of obligation of one side of the House to the other. It was a question of the merits of the proposition itself, whatever it might be; and he trusted it would be regarded from that point of view alone. The history of the Amendment was simply this—that here was a power which the Irish Government thought they could safely dispense with. If that were so, the question arose, Would it be wise on the part of the Administration to demand, powers larger than those they considered necessary—powers which, of course, must, from the necessity of the case, press somewhat hardly upon the people against whom they were demanded? If the Irish Government, with their experience of the condition of the country, were willing to dispense with further powers, would it be wise on the part of the House to compel that Government to accept powers which they thought unnecessary? It was quite certain that this Bill would be regarded by many persons in Ireland with dislike. What would their feelings be if, in the absence of hon. Members from Ireland, the House of Commons
  1812
  insisted on inserting a clause which the Irish Government thought unnecessary? That was the situation in which the House would place itself in rejecting this Amendment, and he asked them most seriously to consider the consequences of such an act as that on the effect of this Bill and the administration of its provisions. After a long and protracted contest, they had come to the conclusion of this Bill. He hoped the effects of the measure might be to restore that peace and tranquillity to Ireland which it so sadly needed, and that at this the very last stage of the Bill, the House of Commons would not enter upon a course which might possibly have the effect of weakening its effect and embarrassing those who had to administer it.
  MR. GIBSONsaid, he had listened most carefully to the arguments used in the course of the debate, and, as far as he was concerned, he had not the slightest desire that the Bill should be made in the slightest degree more stringent than the necessities of the case demanded, or that any concession should be withheld which could be reasonably and fairly made; but he could not for a moment recognize that every Member of the House was not now entirely and absolutely free to exercise impartial judgment on the proposal before the House. He did not know why the Prime Minister spoke—he did not say with warmth, but with some little feeling on this subject, and used those enigmatical words as to reconsidering his personal position in the event of the rejection of the Amendment, to which he (Mr. Gibson) did not wish to give any particular meaning. He did not see exactly why the right hon. Gentleman used them, because the right hon. Gentleman suggested that he was not responsible for this concession at all, but that Earl Spencer was the person upon whom the responsibility rested. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman, as Prime Minister of the country, was responsible for his own words and his own conclusions, and if he was not the original initiator of the proposal—[Mr. GLADSTONE: Which was agreed to.] He assumed that if it had not been agreed to it would not have been brought forward. But he did not see why there was anything very special in this Amendment or proposal which should in the slightest degree entitle the right hon.

  1813
  Gentleman to use any particular form of words which would not apply to any other proposal, and he considered himself entirely free to consider the proposal on its absolute merits. He did not feel in any degree pressed by the suggestion of the Home Secretary that they ought not to reject the Amendment on account of the absence of hon. Members representing some Irish constituencies. They were absent because they did not choose to be present. The door of the House was perfectly wide open to them if they chose to enter, and some of them had exhibited a certain amount of individual curiosity in the proceedings of the House. But he would point out that this Bill was not introduced hurriedly or suddenly, but after great deliberation on the part of the Government, and the House was expressly told that it was not suggested by the deplorable occurrence which preceded it. It was introduced in a powerful speech, by the Home Secretary—indeed, no clause was more carefully presented to the House than the one permitting night search. It was further pressed upon the attention of the House upon the second reading of the Bill, and again upon the Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair; it went to the House and to the country as one of the best-considered proposals of the Government, and one which they desired to see passed into law. The Government, knowing the state of affairs in Ireland, proposed the clause, and the House, having a knowledge of those deplorable facts, a knowledge which was shared by the whole Empire, acquiesced in that decision. The Bill having been drafted with care, the House was now asked by the Government to act on the spur of the moment, and to accept this vital change in it. He was of opinion that the proposed change would be a mistake. He had considerable means of knowledge in reference to this matter, and he had a great interest in keeping himself well informed with regard to it; and, as far as he was able to judge, there was absolute unanimity of public opinion in Ireland—that was to say, among the law-abiding classes, who were not ashamed or afraid to say they were in favour of the law—in favour of the clause originally introduced by the Government, which, although a grave and serious clause, requiring caution, discretion, and forbearance in its administration, contained a necessary
  1814
  power to be intrusted to the Executive in Ireland. Every person who by word or letter had communicated with him, earnestly intimated an opinion, in which he concurred, that the Amendment now proposed would, to a very substantial extent, weaken the efficacy of the clause at the point where it was most desirable it should be strong. It was obvious that the power was perfectly safeguarded by providing that the Lord Lieutenant alone should sign warrants, and that these should be directed only to high officers of the Constabulary, who held a rank equivalent to that of commissioned officers in the Army, which would enable them to search for evidence of crime. That was the original proposal of the Government, made some six or seven weeks ago, when the state of Ireland was less grave and serious than it was at the present time. The Proviso now sought to be introduced would have the effect of emasculating the clause. The idea of telling secret societies, which worked by stealth, and with every element of clandestinity, whose period of action was the night, that the houses of their members should then be safe, was a proposition about as startling to common sense as could be conceived; and if all the Lord Lieutenants that had ever presided in Ireland were sitting on the opposite Bench, he should strictly scrutinize their reasons for making it. What were the secret societies, and what were their modes of action by which they were deluging Ireland with innocent blood? Did they work in the day time in the face of the police, or did they select dark places and dark nights for their operations? And yet this Proviso would enable the police to search their houses in the day time, when they did not work, and would protect their houses in the night time, when they did work. Why did not the Government take this power, and, if they thought fit, dispense with it in administration? He did not pretend to state what were the reasons which had induced the Irish Government to consent to this Proviso. Neither the Home Secretary nor the Chief Secretary had given any reasons in its favour, except that the Irish Executive were willing to dispense with the power which the clause conferred upon them. When these extraordinary powers were asked for, the Government gave excellent reasons why

  1815
  they should be conferred upon them; but they had given no reasons whatever why they should now be withdrawn from them. If it were necessary that the Government should introduce this clause two months ago, what had occurred since to render it unnecessary now? Could anyone believe for a moment that the state of Ireland was less grave and serious now than it was then, or that crime was committed now with less impunity than it was then? On this point he took his stand on the charges of Her Majesty's Judges in Ireland at the last Assizes. Statements had appeared in the public newspapers that it was the intention of the Government to hunt down the perpetrators of these secret crimes with bloodhounds.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that those statements should have been contradicted. They were not true.
  MR. GIBSONsaid, he was glad to hear that statement from the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Still, the fact that the suggestion had obtained currency was a proof of the condition in which Ireland was placed. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had endeavoured to show that the number of agrarian crimes in Ireland was less this week than it was last. He did not care for figures in such a case as this. It might be that in this week, as compared with last, there were 5 or 10 or 15 or 30 fewer agrarian crimes; but could anyone say the crimes in Ireland were not increasing in intensity, in brutality, and in savagery? When they had these circumstances in connection with the fact pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen), that notwithstanding the number and the brutal and savage character of those crimes, no one was made amenable to justice and submitted to the ordinary tribunals to answer them, was that a time to select to weaken the proposals deliberately submitted to Parliament to grapple with this class of crime? The crimes now committed were marked by a more hideous secrecy, by a more appalling connivance, and by a more wretched sympathy. Let them look at the character of the murder which took place in Dublin the other day. They should bear in mind what was admitted in this House two days ago—namely, that under the Protection Act now in existence in one night in the town of
  1816
  Loughrea the Government found themselves bound to arrest 23 men, and that was an instance that did not encourage one to accept such an Amendment as this. He would ask hon. Members to look at the Amendment of the Chief Secretary. It said that the Chief Inspector of the Constabulary, armed with the Lord Lieutenant's warrant, was not to enter at night to search for documents and arms, &c, even if he knew those articles were there, unless he also suspected that a meeting of a secret society was then being held. He impressed upon the House the necessity of considering the effect of that Amendment. The highest officer of Constabulary could not enter unless he reasonably suspected that a secret association was located there, even if he had the knowledge that the articles he desired to search for were within the house. Was not that a nonsensical Proviso to put into a Bill for the prevention of crime? How could such a proposal be defended? The result would be that the Bill would be, not for the prevention, but for the protection of crime. Could any other meaning be suggested on the clause now presented to the House other than that which he said was the true one? As he had said before, if every Lord Lieutenant, who ever had the honour and responsibility to preside in Ireland, said he was willing to dispense with the powers he had previously demanded, he (Mr. Gibson) would decline to bow his understanding to a suggestion which his reason said was absurd.
  MR. WHITBREADsaid, he could not help thinking that all this warmth would not have been displayed unless there was a suspicion that this was a concession, but a concession to whom? [Mr. WARTON: To Parnell.] No; it was really a concession to the calmer and more mature judgment of the Lord Lieutenant. What was the use of putting a weapon into the hands of the Government, and telling them, as the right hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) said, that they need not use it? The power of entering a dwelling-house at any time on a suspicion that a treasonable meeting was being held existed, and it was right that it should exist. If the police had not power to enter at any time the meeting might be dissolved and the evidence made away with, but arms could not be destroyed,

  1817
  and the police could have no great difficulty in seizing them, even though they were not entitled to make searches at night. The Irish Government had come to the conclusion that the operation of this clause as it stood would probably be adverse to the interest of the country; that it would give rise to irritation, and do more harm than good. The information of the right hon. Gentleman who had just addressed the House was, no doubt, very valuable; but he relied more on the opinions of the responsible officers who administered the government of Ireland. The Liberal Party had been willing to arm the Government with all the powers they asked for to enable them to deal with this grave state of affairs in Ireland. He had supported them even in renewing the Alien Act, because they declared it to be necessary; but he remembered that he sat in that House as a Representative of Liberal principles, which forbade him from urging on the Government to take more extraordinary power than they themselves deemed requisite for the occasion. It was upon that broad ground he declined to be a party to forcing into their hands a weapon which they thought they could do without, and he could not but think it would be a sign of demoralization on the part of the Liberal Party if they insisted on the Government taking unconstitutional powers beyond what they themselves had asked for.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he wished to put clearly before the House the origin of this question. It would be in the recollection of hon. Members, when the Bill was introduced, that the Prime Minisier stated that the measure was one which all along had been in contemplation and had been considered and prepared. The Lord Lieutenant, who was a Member of the Cabinet, knew that that was the case. If, therefore, the Lord Lieutenant had the great objection to the clause which it was alleged he had, why had not an Amendment to it been moved during the 16 or 17 days spent in Committee before that clause was reached? When the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary was ably, carefully, and manfully conducting that Bill through Committee, the Prime Minister came down, he supposed, after some secret communication with the Lord Lieutenant—["Order!"]
  MR. GLADSTONE: I rise to Order, Sir. I must say it is intolerable that a Member of this House should charge me with the basest conduct in holding secret communication with the Lord Lieutenant without the knowledge of my Colleagues.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he seemed to be singularly unfortunate in his remarks. But surely the Prime Minister was perfectly at liberty to communicate with the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he thought fit. If the right hon. Gentleman could communicate, directly or indirectly, with the prisoners in Kilmainham Gaol—
  MR. GLADSTONE: I rise to Order, Sir. I do not believe it is in Order to make such charges which constitute an imputation on personal honour. If I understand the hon. Baronet rightly, he says that I communicated with Mr. Parnell in Kilmainham Gaol apart from my Colleagues. [Cries of "No, no!"]
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTreplied, that he had said nothing of the kind. What he had said and adhered to was that there were communications of which the right hon. Gentleman was cognizant, because he had told the House that he had reason to know that certain things would take place. Thus, an arrangement or an agreement or something of that sort had taken place between the Government and Gentlemen who had been described as steeped to the lips in treason. It was a curious effect of those circumstances that the right hon. Gentleman should come down one night and take a particular Amendment out of the hands of the Home Secretary, who had charge of the Bill. The Amendment of the Government would absolutely prevent the police, who might follow a particular man into a house, well knowing that he was an assassin, from arresting him because there might be only one man in the house, so that the right of search for secret societies could not be exercised. The effect of the Amendment would be more mischievous than could well be imagined. How, under such a law, could that notorious murderer Ryan Buck, who had been concerned in 19 murders and principal in 13, have been arrested in 1847? Although the right hon. Gentleman had said that agrarian crime was dimishing, he believed it was more rife now than ever it had been; and yet that was the time chosen by the right

  1819
  hon. Gentleman for diminishing the powers for the repression of crime which existed in the Bill as first introduced into that House.
  MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, in the numerous divisions that had taken place on this Bill he had never once voted with the Government; but he meant to vote with them on this occasion. Ministers would not think him a very general supporter of their policy, and he certainly was a very strong opponent of coercion. But he thought the House was doing the Prime Minister an injustice. Many of the Members now present were not in their places when the concession was made. There were not 40—indeed, there were not 30—Members in the House at the time. He remembered the circumstances well, as he had taken an active part in the discussion of the clause. And what were the facts? The clause as it stood empowered the police to enter any house they liked—peaceably if the inmates chose, but forcibly if the police felt so disposed—and to search for arms, ammunition, documents, or suspected persons. It was shown during the discussion that this arbitrary power had under former Acts often been used vindictively, and that constables who possessed any ill-feeling towards the peasantry could so use their authority as to cause the poor people annoyance and subject them to persecution. They entered houses at all hours of the night, disturbed the inmates, cut open their beds, pulled down their mantel-pieces, and tore up the boards. They not only did great damage, but they resorted to practices that were sometimes cruel and often indecent. He remembered saying at the time of the discussion that there was no clause in the Bill which the Irish cottiers resented more than this; that it occasioned a maximum of irritation, and only rendered a minimum of service. Observations of this kind were repeated from the Opposition Benches. Numerous instances of cruelty were quoted to justify the denunciations of the clause. The Government refused at first to make any concession; but at the Evening Sitting the Prime Minister came down to the House, when a few Members were there, and intimated that the case against the hardship of the clause had been made out. The Government had been in communication with Earl Spencer during the progress of the Bill. The Viceroy, he added,
  1820
  had seen all the Amendments moved to it, and was familiar with its progress. After consultation with him, the Ministry had decided to make the alteration demanded—namely, that the right of domiciliary visits should be limited. The police were to be allowed to enter any house when they had reason to suspect that illegal meetings were being held or that conspiracies were being hatched. To effect entrance for that purpose no restriction was fixed. But the police were not to be allowed to enter houses after certain hours for arms alone. This was the concession granted. These were the conditions under which it was granted. The House had been told that if the clause passed as it stood a policeman would not be permitted to enter a house in search of the apparatus of conspiracy, as they called it, after a given hour at night or before a given hour in the morning, and that any arms which might be there could be spirited away during the interval. But they had an easy remedy for this. If the police believed there were arms or illegal instruments in any house, all they had to do was to watch it for a few hours and prevent the people carrying out the weapons. It was imagining a case that would really never occur. He thought the Opposition were hard upon the Government on this point. They were accusing Ministers of having made concessions. But what was the fact? The Bill before them was the most drastic and arbitrary that Parliament had ever passed. It struck at principles and privileges that were dear to every Englishman, and that were their boast and birthright. It destroyed trial by jury, the liberty of the Press, the right of public meeting, and the right of asylum. It covered several foolscap pages, and comprised upwards of 30 clauses; and yet, in a Bill of that extent and of such a serious nature, the alterations had been of the most insignificant character. The Opposition were rather exacting in raising a cry against the Government for this very small concession—a concession not made to popular Irish feeling, but to justice and decency.
  MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, that the clause as it first stood was in the Act of 1833 under Lord Grey, and also in that of 1835. It was not true, therefore, to say that the power was a new one. It was absurd to say that a policeman could

  1821
  go on a winter afternoon—perhaps a considerable distance—and watch outside for the man whom he had followed until 8 o'clock in the morning. Escape would be easy in such circumstances, and it would be easy also in the meantime for the criminal to destroy all the indicia of crime. The House of Commons was bound to use its common sense in conjunction with the opinion and wish of the Lord Lieutenant in this matter.
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELLsaid, he wished to enter his protest against one observation of his hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread). He could not admit that it was a sign of political demoralization for individual Members of the Liberal Party to act on their own deliberately-formed judgment. Rather should he regard it as a sign of political demoralization if they were deterred from acting in conformity with that judgment, even by the ominous words with which the Prime Minister concluded his observations. It was to him a matter of most serious regret, even of pain, to have to differ from the Prime Minister, and he had many times deferred to his right hon. Friend's judgment. But with respect to that Amendment, he could not but express regret that the Government had not taken the larger powers for which they had originally asked. It was one of the strongest possible proofs of confidence in the Government that he and those Liberals who agreed with him were willing to intrust larger powers to the Government than were asked of them. It had been said that the House was bound to accept this alteration, because it had been agreed upon by the Viceroy and the Chief Secretary. He desired to give all honour to their judgment; but the Bill, as originally framed, was presumably brought forward with their consent. If they held at one time that the right of search at night was necessary, but had since changed their opinion, then every two months might bring about other see-saw changes, and three months hence the Irish Executive might desire to possess the powers with which they now proposed, to dispense. The right to search at night was the very kernel of the Bill, as it gave the power of discovering evidence—namely, the weapons used in assassination and documents relating to the perpetration of crime. It appeared to him that night was the very time that
  1822
  would be chosen by murderers to arrange their weapons, or to conceal the documents that might be brought in evidence against them. Yet the Government said that at night time they would not interfere with the arrangements of the assassins. They would give them a close time for the propogation of future and the concealment of past murders, unless there was reason to suppose that an illegal meeting was being held. It appeared to him that a consultation of two or three desperate criminals, who were concocting a crime, could not be defined as a meeting of an illegal association; and yet it was a gathering which it was the first interest of justice to interfere with and to crush. In the earlier proceedings on this Bill touching pictures were drawn of the inconvenience which might arise and the irritation which might be caused by this provision. He ventured to say that of all policies there was no policy more futile than that of trying to conciliate by a single concession on a point of detail a mass of men who were resolutely opposed to the whole Government policy. On a previous occasion the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) spoke of a rural policeman turning over all the little properties of an innocent young man. Well, the policeman was ad hoc the representative of law and justice, while the young man was presumably an accomplice in murder, and the "little properties" to be turned over were the instruments and evidences of his crime. They had heard too much of the violation of the sanctity of the Irish peasant's home. How far had that sanctity been respected by "Captain Moonlight" and his agents? In Kerry, Limerick, and Clare, between October and March last, 12 crimes of violence and murder were perpetrated in men's own homes and by their own firesides, by far the greater proportion of which were committed by night. To confine the power of search to broad daylight was as unreasonable as the proposal that the police should always arrive in uniform, preceded by a band and banners, or the suggestion that every intended search of a private house should be notified beforehand to Parliament. After what had been said by the Prime Minister, he could not hope that Her Majesty's Government would change their attitude. He realized the binding effect of the right hon. Gentleman's en-

  1823
  gagement, and was persuaded that it was entered into in good faith and with the best intentions. But it could not be held to bind Members of the Liberal Party, who, after due deliberation, had arrived at the opposite conclusion. He should support his hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire—first, because he believed the change was undesirable in itself and highly inopportune in the present circumstances; secondly, because at the best it could only be nugatory, and because it might possibly be dangerous; and, lastly, because the alteration was virtually—though not in design and intention—a concession to that organization which had exercised an odious tyranny over the most defenceless sections of the Irish people, which had done its utmost to outvote and defeat the Liberal Government, and which had repeatedly insulted and defied the House of Commons.
  MR. BRANDsaid, his hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. G. Russell) had expressed the pain which he felt at finding it necessary to oppose the Government, and yet he put these words into the mouths of Her Majesty's Ministers—"We will have a close time for the preparation for future murders." He could not help thinking that his hon. Friend would have given more practical effect to his sense of pain by being a little more moderate in his language. He (Mr. Brand) had come down to the House for the purpose of supporting the hon. Member for Oxfordshire in his opposition to this Proviso; but he confessed that after hearing the Prime Minister's speech he had altered his intentions. He thought it unreasonable to force on the Government a power in restraint of liberty, when the Lord Lieutenant and the Cabinet had declared that they did not wish to have that power. This was the reason why he had changed his opinion, and why he should support the Government on the present occasion. At the same time, he wished the right hon. Gentleman would enlighten his supporters by telling them exactly the intention and meaning of the ominous remark he made in his speech. In his private opinion, it would be better if the clause remained as it was, because, after all, the Government and the Lord Lieutenant need not exercise this power unless they found it to be necessary; but if the Amendment were accepted, it
  1824
  would really prevent him exercising the limited powers which were given to him. At the same time, he recognized the fact, that if the Government said that the powers on restraint of liberty were not required, it would be an unreasonable thing for a supporter of the Government to oppose them on the matter.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, that allusion had been made all through the debate to the arrangement made by the Government in compliance with the feelings of Irish Members. He, in common with other hon. Members from Ireland on that side of the House, had endeavoured to impress on the Government the necessity for the alteration, for they believed that thereby they would derive the greatest amount of benefit with the least possible friction. Of all the powers that were contained in the various Coercion Acts, the one which gave the greatest irritation was this system of domiciliary night search. He was very much surprised that hon. Gentlemen opposite objected to the course taken by the Government, for in 1875, when the Conservative Party were in Office, they introduced into a Bill of this kind a clause containing the power of domiciliary night search. But, ultimately, they found it was not necessary, and it was withdrawn by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gloucester (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), who was then the Chief Secretary for Ireland. If they were right then, with what face could they come forward and take up two hours in a bitter debate against the conduct of the Government, when in 1875 they pursued exactly the same course? Whilst they were considering the effect of this clause, he thought that they ought to consider also what would be the effect of it upon the law-abiding men in Ireland, and upon those who, with much difficulty, attempted, in the present excited state of that country, to maintain the banner of law and order. They had a large batch of men in Ireland, constituting the Executive, who were to carry out the provisions of this Bill in the teeth of the statement generally made from both sides of the House, that they ought not to carry out the smallest provision that was not actually necessary; and yet they actually wanted to force upon the Executive and upon the Government who had the administration of this Bill powers which they said were

  1825
  unnecessary for the repression of crime in Ireland. He, for one, much as he was disgusted by the outrages and gross misconduct that were unfortunately occurring in his country, would not submit or admit by his vote that such a course of proceeding was right or necessary. He agreed entirely with the remarks of the hon. Member for Bedford, and said, further, that it ill became any man calling himself a Liberal to force such repressive measures upon a Government that did not require them.
  MR. LAMBTONsaid, the concluding words of the last speaker constituted an extraordinary proposition to be advanced by a Liberal politician, particularly after the haughty words of the Prime Minister. The section of the Liberal Party to which he and his family belonged had always held that the Government were the servants, and not the masters, of the country; and, as representing a constituency in this country, he felt it to be his duty to represent to the House and to the Government—whether they liked it or not—what he considered to be the proper course for the Government to pursue. If the majority of the House considered that it ought to confer powers in excess of those asked for by the Government, it was the duty of the majority to say so by its vote; and if the Government would not carry out the wish of the majority, it would be easy to obtain another Government that would. There was one thing which he thought every Liberal in the House ought to be ashamed to support, and that was the despotic authority which seemed to be exercised by the Government, and which was indicated by the remarks which they had heard from the Prime Minister that afternoon. The Beaconsfield Government was described as a despotism; but the remarks of the Prime Minister seemed to indicate that the Liberal Government had become one. He should exercise his right and vote against the Government, and he hoped that the whole House would vote without any consideration as to the particular Government in power, but for what was best for the government and the security of Ireland.
  MR. ACLANDsaid, that, as he had not spoken in the House before, he wished to be allowed to say that he had been greatly impressed by the statement made on behalf of the Government, that they had changed their minds in conse-
  1826
  quence of representations made by the Lord Lieutenant after consultation with the best authorities in the disturbed districts. When such a statement was deliberately made on the responsibility of the Government, he felt bound to support them, and he should do so in the exercise of an independent judgment, and not on account of other language used by the Prime Minister. He was rather ashamed of the contention that the change ought not to be made because it was a concession. He should be glad to do anything in the way of giving relief from the intense repression of the measure, and he should gladly and cordially vote with the Government.
  MR. JOHN BRIGHT: When I entered the House the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) was speaking, and after listening to his speech and to the one delivered by the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex, who sits behind him (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), I came to the conclusion that there was something that excited hon. Members opposite to a very unusual degree. From what I have heard since I came into the House I conclude that what has excited them so much is not the condition of Ireland, but the condition of this House. Now, I think I know something about this question, so far as the Government are concerned in it, and I do not know that I should say more than I am permitted to say, when I state that when this Bill was first of all considered by a Committee of the Cabinet, the determination was not to insert a clause permitting the night search which is now so much insisted on by hon. Gentlemen. There was a difference of opinion, and I dare say on a good many points of an elaborate and difficult Bill like this there would be in any Cabinet or Committee some differences of opinion. But on that occasion the present Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, who was on that Committee, held the same opinion that he has now recently expressed, and I am able to give what appears to me a very sufficient reason for that opinion, and it is the reason that has from the first influenced my view of the question. I heard from many Irish Members, and I judged also from my consideration of the question, that there was scarcely anything in a measure of this kind that was likely to be more irritating and injurious in cer-

  1827
  tain events than the proposition that constables should enter the houses, sometimes of perfectly innocent and quiet people, during the night time, to the disturbance of their rest and of their families. The House will remember this—that there are two sides to every question of repression. There were two sides to the question of the Bill of last year, and although it may be said to have been of great importance that the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary were able to shut up in prison 500, or 600, or 700 men—[An hon. MEMBER: Nine hundred.]—altogether it may have been 900—on suspicion of offences against the Act; still, whatever good that did, we must all admit that a great deal of evil was inseparable from it, because it produced, and must necessarily produce, in thousands of families—because if there were 900 men in prison there must have been some thousands of families more or less connected with them—it must have produced irritation, and, perhaps, even an increased hostility to the Government and to the law. Well, those matters have to be weighed. You have the necessity on one side and the supposed advantage, and you have the injury and the disadvantage on the other. Well, I apply that argument to this case. It was considered deliberately and at great length what should be done with regard to this clause; and though there was some excited state of feeling, as everybody knows, at onetime, after this matter was first considered, the clause, as it appears in the Bill, was finally argeed to. But there remained all the arguments against it which were used, which impressed the Committee, which brought the Committee to a different conclusion, the arguments which Lord Spencer then admitted to be weighty, and to which he now gives the greatest weight. There cannot be the least doubt, in my mind, that the advantages, whatever they may be, such as the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) attempted to picture, and such as the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. G. Russell) described, and I think they have put them much higher than they really ought to be put; still, there is the disadvantage, that throughout the whole of Ireland, where this Bill may be put in force, men will feel—and, what is more, women will feel—that their houses may be entered at
  1828
  night time on the pretence, on the suspicion, on the barest suspicion, that there are to be found there inculpating letters or correspondence, or any of these things which are called the apparatus of murder. What you really want, and what this Bill is intended far more than anything else to give, is the power of access to the secret societies, which are at present the dominating influence for mischief in Ireland—and the clause, as proposed to be amended, would give the authorities power wherever they have an opinion—an honest belief from any circumstances—from lights in the windows at a late time at night, when most people are in bed, or from information received—to enter the house, and, if necessary, to arrest those persons concerned in that midnight and illegal meeting. Now, I shall ask the House to consider one other point. I know I am venturing very much in saying what I am about to say; but a large number of Irish Members who have been throughout opponents of this Bill, or of certain portions of it, happen to be, from circumstances which are unfortunate to them and unfortunate to us, now absent from the House. ["Oh, oh!"] Yes; I say from circumstances unfortunate to them and unfortunate to us. We are not in any degree responsible for their absence. That I admit. But it is reasonable to suppose that when the Government had consented to make the slight concession which is intended by this Amendment they gave full confidence to the Government, and they are not here to insist upon that which the Government had offered to them. I only present that to the House as a matter not entirely without consequence, and I think that throughout the whole of Ireland it will be found that if the House of Commons is determined to make the law severe beyond what the Government have proposed, the effect on Irish opinion will be, on the whole, unfortunate and injurious. I have nothing more to say than this—that I hold the opinion now that I held on the first consideration of this clause, that the irritation you are about to promote is one that will have no compensation in the advantages you get from the increased severity of the clause; and therefore I, on the part of myself strongly, and on the part of my Colleagues, would advise the House to be contented with that amount of severity and that amount of extra power

  1829
  which the Cabinet in this country and the Executive Government in Ireland believe to be effectual for the purposes of this Bill.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Sir, after the remarkable speech which we have heard from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. John Bright), I think there are two or three things which ought to be said. I have always supposed that there was one thing pretty well established, and that was that Cabinet secrets should not be disclosed except upon the resignation of a Minister and with the authority of the Queen. But I am not disposed to blame the right hon. Gentleman for transgressing this rule on the present occasion; for now we know—what we have long suspected—that there have been in Her Majesty's Cabinet two parties; one party determined to do all that might be necessary to maintain law and order in Ireland, and the other party trying at every step to trip them up and interfere with them.
  MR. JOHN BRIGHT: The right hon. Gentleman has made that observation as an answer—as an answer which he thinks necessary—to what I have said; but I beg to tell him that there is not the slightest foundation for the statement.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: There is this foundation—the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, that there were differences of opinion in the Cabinet upon this vital question, whether this clause should be made effective in its working or not; and what I should like to know, if we may have a few more disclosures, is this—which side the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister took in the conflict? I say, Sir, that if this clause is to be made effective in its work it must remain in its present form. I attach as much importance as any hon. Member in this House to the feeling that may be caused in Ireland by clauses of this description. I know there is a strong and very natural feeling against giving this kind of power to Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors of making domiciliary visitation. When I was Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant in 1874–5, the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Patrick O'Brien) is quite right in saying that I mitigated the existing law in this respect. Why did I do so? I did so because, as everybody knows, the state of Ireland then warranted that mitigation. Ireland now is,
  1830
  as I ventured to say last night, honeycombed with secret societies; and I trust that this House, if they are to enact legislation of this nature at all, will at least take care that in enacting it they make it effective, and that they do not create irritation without carrying out the objects they have in view. In my opinion, the better mind of the Government in this matter is that which was expressed in the determination at which they originally arrived; and therefore I trust that this mind will be carried out, and that the clause, as it now stands in the Bill, will be supported by the judgment of the House.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 194; Noes 207: Majority 13.

  AYES.

  Acland, C. T. D.

  Cotes, C. C.

  Acland, Sir T. D.

  Courtauld, G.

  Agnew, W.

  Courtney, L. H.

  Ainsworth, D.

  Cowen, J.

  Allman, R. L.

  Craig, W. Y.

  Anderson, G.

  Cropper, J.

  Armitstead, G.

  Cross, J. K.

  Arnold, A.

  Crum, A.

  Asher, A.

  Cunliffe, Sir R. A.

  Ashley, hon. E. M.

  Currie, Sir D.

  Balfour, J. B.

  Davey, H.

  Barnes, A.

  Davies, W.

  Barran, J.

  Dilke, Sir C. W.

  Bass, Sir A.

  Dillwyn, L. L.

  Bass, H.

  Dodson, rt. hon. J. G.

  Baxter, rt. hon. W. E.

  Duff, R. W.

  Bolton, J. C.

  Edwards, H.

  Brand, H. R.

  Egerton, Adm. hon. F.

  Brassey, Sir T.

  Errington, G.

  Brett, R. B.

  Farquharson, Dr. R.

  Briggs, W. E.

  Fawcett, rt. hon. H.

  Bright, rt. hon. J.

  Findlater, W.

  Bright, J. (Manchester)

  Firth, J. F. B.

  Brinton, J.

  Foljambe, C. G. S.

  Broadhurst, H.

  Forster, Sir C.

  Brooks, M.

  Forster, rt. hon. W. E.

  Brown, A. H.

  Fowler, H. H.

  Bruce, rt. hon. Lord C.

  Fry, T.

  Bruce, hon. R. P.

  Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

  Buchanan, T. R.

  Gladstone, H. J.

  Burt, T.

  Gladstone, W. H.

  Buszard, M. C.

  Glyn, hon. S. C.

  Cameron, C.

  Gourley, E. T.

  Campbell, Lord C.

  Grafton, F. W.

  Campbell, Sir G.

  Grant, A.

  Campbell, R. F. F.

  Grant, D.

  Campbell-Bannerman, H.

  Harcourt, rt. hon. Sir W. G. V. V.

  Carbutt, E. H.

  Hardcastle, J. A.

  Carington, hon. R.

  Hartington, Marq. of

  Causton, R. K.

  Hayter, Sir A. D.

  Chamberlain, rt. hn. J.

  Henderson, F.

  Cheetham, J. F.

  Herschell, Sir F.

  Childers, right hon. H. C. E.

  Hibbert, J. T.

  Hill, T. R.

  Collings, J.

  Holden, I.

  1831

  Holland, S.

  Palmer, J. H.

  Hollond, J. R.

  Parker, C. S.

  Holms, J.

  Pease, A.

  Hopwood, C. H.

  Pease, Sir J. W.

  Howard, E. S.

  Peddie, J. D.

  Howard, G. J.

  Playfair, rt. hon. L.

  Illingworth, A.

  Porter, A. M.

  James, C.

  Potter, T. B.

  James, Sir H.

  Powell, W. R. H.

  Jardine, R.

  Pulley, J.

  Jenkins, D. J.

  Ramsay, J.

  Jenkins, Sir J. J.

  Rathbone, W.

  Johnson, W. M.

  Richard, H.

  Kinnear, J.

  Richardson, T.

  Labouchere, H.

  Roberts, J.

  Laing, S.

  Rogers, J. E. T.

  Lawrence, W.

  Rothschild, Sir N. M. de

  Lawson, Sir W.

  Rylands, P.

  Lea, T.

  St. Aubyn, Sir J.

  Leake, R.

  Samuelson, B.

  Leatham, E. A.

  Samuelson, H.

  Leatham, W. H.

  Seely, C. (Lincoln)

  Lee, H.

  Seely, C. (Nottingham)

  Lefevre, right hon. G. J. S.

  Shield, H.

  Simon, Serjeant J.

  Lubbock, Sir J.

  Slagg, J.

  M'Arthur, A.

  Stanley, hon. E. L.

  M'Clure, Sir T.

  Stevenson, J. C.

  M'Coan, J. C.

  Stewart, J.

  Macfarlane, D. H.

  Storey, S.

  M'Intyre, Æneas J.

  Summers, W.

  M'Kenna, Sir J. N.

  Talbot, C. R. M.

  Mackie, R. B.

  Taylor, P. A.

  Mackintosh, C. F.

  Tennant, C.

  M'Laren, C. B. B.

  Thomasson, J. P.

  M'Minnies, J. G.

  Thompson, T. C.

  Magniac, C.

  Torrens, W. T. M'C.

  Mappin, F. T.

  Trevelyan, rt. hn. G. O.

  Marjoribanks, E.

  Vivian, A. P.

  Mason, H.

  Webster, J.

  Matheson, Sir A.

  Wedderburn, Sir D.

  Meldon, C. H.

  Whitbread, S.

  Milbank, Sir F. A.

  Williams, S. C. E.

  Monk, C. J.

  Williamson, S.

  Morgan, rt. hn. G. O.

  Wills, W. H.

  Morley, A.

  Willyams, E. W. B.

  Mundella, rt. hn. A. J.

  Wilson, C. H.

  Noel, E.

  Wilson, I.

  O'Brien, Sir P.

  Wilson, Sir M.

  O'Donoghue, The

  Wodehouse, E. R.

  O'Gorman Mahon, Col. The

  Woodall, W.

  O'Shaughnessy, R.

  TELLERS.

  Otway, Sir A.

  Grosvenor, Lord R.

  Paget, T. T.

  Kensington, Lord

  Palmer, C. M.

  NOES.

  Allsopp, C.

  Birkbeck, E.

  Amherst, W. A. T.

  Blackburne, Col. J. I.

  Ashmead-Bartlett, E.

  Boord, T. W.

  Aylmer, J. E. F.

  Bourke, rt. hon. R.

  Bailey, Sir J. R.

  Broadley, W. H. H.

  Balfour, A. J.

  Brodrick, hon. W. St. J. F.

  Baring, T. C.

  Barttelot, Sir W. B.

  Brooke, Lord

  Bateson, Sir T.

  Brooks, W. C.

  Beach, rt. hon. Sir M. H.

  Bruce, Sir H. H.

  Beach, W. W. B.

  Bruce, hon. T.

  Beaumont, W. B.

  Brymer, W. E.

  Bentinck, rt. hon. G. C.

  Bulwer, J. R.

  Biddulph, M.

  Burghley, Lord

  1832

  Burnaby, General E. S.

  Herbert, hon. S.

  Burrell, Sir W. W.

  Hicks, E.

  Buxton, F. W.

  Hildyard, T. B. T.

  Buxton, Sir R. J.

  Hill, Lord A. W.

  Cameron, D.

  Hill, A. S.

  Campbell, J. A.

  Hinchingbrook, Visc.

  Carden, Sir R. W.

  Holland, Sir H. T.

  Cecil, Lord E. H. B. G.

  Home, Lt.-Col. D. M.

  Christie, W. L.

  Hope, rt. hn. A. J. B. B.

  Clive, Col. hon. G. W.

  Hubbard, rt. hon. J. G.

  Coddington, W.

  Kennard, Col. E. H.

  Collins, T.

  Kennaway, Sir J. H.

  Coope, O. E.

  Knight, F. W.

  Corbett, J.

  Knightley, Sir R.

  Corry, J. P.

  Knowles, T.

  Cotton, W. J. R.

  Lacon, Sir E. H. K.

  Creyke, R.

  Lambton, hon. F. W.

  Crichton, Viscount

  Lawrence, Sir T.

  Cross, rt. hon. Sir R. A.

  Lechmere, Sir E. A. H.

  Cubitt, rt. hon. G.

  Legh, W. J.

  Dalrymple, C.

  Leigh, hon. G. H. C.

  Davenport, H. T.

  Leigh, R.

  Davenport, W. B.

  Leighton, S.

  Dawnay, hon. G. C.

  Levett, T. J.

  De Worms, Baron H.

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Digby, Col. hon. E.

  Lindsay, Sir R. L.

  Dixon-Hartland, F. D.

  Long, W. H.

  Donaldson-Hudson, C.

  Lowther, hon. W.

  Dundas, hon. J. C.

  Macartney, J. W. E.

  Dyke, rt. hn. Sir W. H.

  M'Garel-Hogg, Sir J.

  Eaton, H. W.

  Mac Iver, D.

  Ecroyd, W. F.

  Macnaghten, E.

  Egerton, hon. W.

  Makins, Colonel W. T.

  Elliot, Sir G.

  Master, T. W. C.

  Elliot, G. W.

  Miles, Sir P. J. W.

  Emlyn, Viscount

  Miles, C. W.

  Ewart, W.

  Mills, Sir C. H.

  Ewing, A. O.

  Monckton, F.

  Fairbairn, Sir A.

  Morgan, hon. F.

  Feilden, Major-General R. J.

  Moss, R.

  Mowbray, rt. hon. Sir J. R.

  Fellowes, W. H.

  Fenwick-Bisset, M.

  Mulholland, J.

  Ffolkes, Sir W. H. B.

  Muntz, P. H.

  Filmer, Sir E.

  Murray, C. J.

  Finch, G. H.

  Newdegate, C. N.

  Fitzmaurice, Lord E.

  Newport, Viscount

  Fitzpatrick, hn. B. E. B.

  Nicholson, W. N.

  Fitzwilliam, hon. H. W.

  Noel, rt. hon. G. J.

  Fitzwilliam, hon. W. J.

  North, Colonel J. S.

  Flower, C.

  Northcote, H. S.

  Floyer, J.

  Northcote, rt. hn. Sir S. H.

  Foljambe, F. J. S.

  Folkestone, Viscount

  Onslow, D.

  Forester, C. T. W.

  Patrick, R. W. Cochran

  Foster, W. H.

  Fowler, R. N.

  Peek, Sir H. W.

  Fremantle, hon. T. F.

  Peel, A. W.

  Galway, Viscount

  Pell, A.

  Gibson, rt. hon. E.

  Pender, J.

  Giffard, Sir H. S.

  Percy, Earl

  Goldney, Sir G.

  Percy, Lord A.

  Grantham, W.

  Phipps, C. N. P.

  Greene, E.

  Plunket, rt. hon. D. R.

  Greer, T.

  Portman, hn. W. H. B.

  Hamilton, Lord C. J.

  Price, Captain G. E.

  Hamilton, I. T.

  Raikes, rt. hon. H. C.

  Hamilton, right hon. Lord G.

  Ramsden, Sir J.

  Rankin, J.

  Harvey, Sir R. B.

  Rendlesham, Lord

  Hay, rt. hon. Admiral Sir J. C. D.

  Repton, G. W.

  Ridley, Sir M. W.

  Heneage, E.

  Ross, A. H.

  1833

  Ross, C. C.

  Tottenham, A. L.

  Round, J.

  Tyler, Sir H. W.

  Roundell, C. S.

  Wallace, Sir R.

  St. Aubyn, W. M.

  Walpole, rt. hon. S.

  Schreiber, C.

  Walrond, Col. W. H.

  Sclater-Booth, rt. hn. G.

  Warburton, P. E.

  Scott, Lord H.

  Warton, C. N.

  Scott, M. D.

  Watkin, Sir E. W.

  Selwin-Ibbetson, Sir H. J.

  Watney, J.

  Whitley, E.

  Severne, J. E.

  Wilmot, Sir H.

  Smith, A.

  Wilmot, Sir J. E.

  Smith, rt. hon. W. H.

  Winn, R.

  Stanhope, hon. E.

  Wolff, Sir H. D.

  Stanley, rt. hn. Col. F.

  Wortley, C. B. Stuart-

  Stanley, E. J.

  Wroughton, P.

  Sykes, C.

  Wyndham, hon. P.

  Talbot, J. G.

  Yorke, J. R.

  Taylor, rt. hn. Col. T. E.

  Thomson, H.

  TELLERS.

  Thornhill, T.

  Cartwright, W. C.

  Tollemache, H. J.

  Russell, G. W. E.

  Tollemache, hon. W. F.

  MR. GLADSTONE: Under any ordinary circumstances, Sir, I should, after a division such as that which has just taken place, have requested the House to postpone further proceeding with this Bill; but under the remarkable circumstances of Ireland, and in view of the peculiar character of this Bill, I do not think it right on this occasion to take that course. We shall, therefore, without prejudice to anything that has been said during the debate, ask the House to go on to-night with the consideration of the Bill at 9 o'clock.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I suppose that the Arrears Bill will not be taken to-night. [An hon. MEMBER: Why not?]
  MR. GLADSTONE: We should have been very glad to reserve any chance of bringing forward that Bill to-night under normal circumstances; but, apart from what has now happened, it is strictly, I think, in the power of hon. Members opposite, if they are so disposed, to require that the Arrears Bill shall not be taken until the commencement of the Sitting on Monday.
  And it being ten minutes before Seven o'clock, Further Proceeding on Consideration stood adjourned till this day.
  The House suspended its Sitting at Seven of the clock.
  The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.
  MR. LABOUCHERE MR. LABOUCHERE moved, in page 8, line 4, at end of clause, to add—
  1834
  "The police conducting the search shall be bound to replace, in the same order as they found them, any articles that may be disturbed, or to make good anything damaged or destroyed in the course of their search."
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, he thought the Amendment might be accepted in this form—
  "The police conducting a search shall be bound to make good any damage needlessly caused in the course of their search."
  MR. ONSLOWasked who would decide whether the damage had been caused needlessly or not?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that the question of the needlessness of the damage must be left to a jury in each case.
  MR. GIBSONthought that, if the matter was to be entertained, it ought to be left to the Lord Lieutenant or some special tribunal. As it was better to settle all difficulty connected with the administration of this clause now, perhaps the Government would submit some words.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he could not see his way out of the difficulty. It would, of course, be just that no man's property should be unnecessarily damaged, and a provision of this sort would tend rather to strengthen the clause than weaken its effect. However, he thought that the giving of power to the Lord Lieutenant to compensate for damage would involve the re-committal of the Bill, which would be most undesirable. He appealed to the Speaker on the subject.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the Amendment appeared to him to involve a possible tax upon the police rates of Ireland, the whole of which were voted by the House; and, therefore, the Amendment could not now be put.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 15 (Application of Alien Act to aliens).
  MR. TREVELYAN MR. TREVELYAN moved, at the end of the clause, to insert the words—
  "Provided as follows:—

  (1.) For the purposes of construction the Act mentioned in this section shall be deemed to have been passed at the date of the passing of this Act, and expres-

  1835
  sions in the said Act referring to its commencement or passing shall be construed accordingly, but section seven of the said Act, providing for its duration, shall be of no effect;

  (2.) An alien convicted of a misdemeanour under section two of the said Act shall be treated as a misdemeanant of the first class or division;

  (3.) The place in which any examination of witnesses, or hearing of a case before the Lords of the Privy Council, in pursuance of section three of the said Act, is held, shall be an open court;

  (4.) The said Act shall extend to the Isle of Man in like manner as if that isle were declared by the said Act to form part of Great Britain."

  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. LABOUCHERE MR. LABOUCHERE moved to leave out "misdemeanant of the first class," in order to insert "untried prisoner," on the ground that it was not reasonable that an alien taken up under the Act should be subjected to any punishment, but only kept in safe custody. He did not feel strongly on the subject, and only proposed the Amendment because he believed it was in accordance with the wishes of the absent Irish Members. His object was to have the aliens treated as well as possible.
  Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment,
  In line 7, to leave out the words "a misdemeanant of the first class or division," in order to insert the words "an untried prisoner."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  MR. TREVELYANpointed out that an alien under the second provision was not an untried prisoner. He was glad the hon. Member had not strong views on the subject, and hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.
  MR. MAC IVERremarked that the Amendment raised the question whether the punishment was to be real or not. The conduct of the aliens might lead to crime and outrage.
  MR. TREVELYANdid not think there could be any doubt of the reality of the punishments under the Act, as they ranged from capital punishment, through penal servitude for life, down to imprisonment with hard labour.
  MR. GRANTHAMasked why the Channel Islands were not included as well as the Isle of Man?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the situation of these islands did not make it necessary to include them, as it did in the case of the Isle of Man, which lay exactly on the way from England to Ireland.
  Amendment to proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he begged to move a further Amendment, that the Act should only apply to aliens who have not been residing within the Realm for two years next before the passing of this Act. He reminded the Government that a promise was given to consider the matter.
  Amendment proposed to said proposed Amendment,
  To insert, at end of sub-section (4), the words "but the said Act shall only apply to aliens who have not been residing within this realm for two years next before the passing of this Act."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, it was true he had promised to consider this matter, and also to consult the Irish Government. This had been done, and the Irish Government were of opinion that it would be unsafe to reduce the period to two years. The foreign operations which necessitated this provision began in 1879, so that the period mentioned in the clause would cover it.
  MR. JOSEPH COWENbegged to remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the Fenian organization commenced not two years ago, but some 16 or 17 years ago.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Words inserted.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD moved an Amendment providing that the powers given by the Alien Act shall be exercised in accordance with the Preamble of the present Bill. He was informed by several eminent lawyers that the Preamble had no governing or controlling power over this clause of the Act, and unless it had, the Government might be drawn into very serious complications with foreign countries by the expulsion of refugees from these shores. He would remind the House that on a previous

  1837
  occasion the Alien Act had been made use of for the purpose of expelling refugees, such as Lady Edward Fitzgerald, the wife of an Irish patriot rebel, who, however, was expelled not on account of her relation to her husband, but because she was known to sympathize with the revolutionary movement in France.
  Amendment proposed,
  At end of the foregoing Amendment, to insert the words "Provided that the powers of 'The Alien Act, 1848,' shall be exercised only in accordance with the preamble of this Act."—(Mr. Arthur Arnold.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he could not accept the Amendment, and believed it would not have the effect desired by his hon. Friend. It would restrict the operation of the Alien Act to matters arising solely in Ireland, and that was what the House determined should not be done. One of the avowed objects of the conspiracy was to overthrow the Government of this country; therefore, it would not be desirable to introduce such a provision as this.
  MR. WARTONsaid, with reference to a remark of the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold), he (Mr. Warton) would show his Christian for giveness by advising the hon. Member that the next time—
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Member's advice is not relevant to the Bill.
  MR. HOPWOODsaid, he thought something like the Amendment was necessary to relieve them from the disgrace of being without a complete answer to anyone who, in the name of a foreign tyrannous Government, demanded the expulsion of some refugee from Ireland. That complete answer existed at present—namely, that there was no English law by which aliens could be expelled.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, he did not think it would conduce to the peace or tranquillity of any Government who used the Alien Act for the purpose of expelling from our shores any alien who was inconvenient to a foreign Government. The Act was for the purpose of expelling from our shores those who were inconvenient to England; and as to the contention that we should lose the proud position of being an asylum, it should be
  1838
  remembered that we were an asylum for political refugees, but not an asylum in the sense that Rome was, to receive all the robbers and murderers that might be sent here. They had got beyond that stage, he was glad to say, of national development.
  MR. JOSEPH COWENasked if the power would enable the Government to expel a man whom a foreign Government considered to be dangerous to the peace and tranquillity of such foreign Government?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the only power given under the Bill was that of expelling those who were considered dangerous to the peace and tranquillity of this Realm.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 16 (Power of justices to summon witnesses).
  On the Motion of Mr. TREVELYAN, Amendment made in page 9, line 15, by leaving out "the," and inserting "a."
  MR. LABOUCHERE MR. LABOUCHERE moved to insert in line 22, after "recognizance," the words "not exceeding fifty pounds," his object being to apply the same principle that was allowed to persons suspected of crimes mentioned in a former clause, to witnesses who had been committed to prison for fear that they would run away, or other reasons.
  Amendment proposed, in page 9, line 22, after the word "recognizance," to insert the words "not exceeding fifty pounds."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that this matter of witnesses stood on a very different footing. Nothing would be more important than to take care of witnesses in serious cases. To a man to whom it might be inconvenient to attend upon the trial, or who might think it desirable to be out of the way, a recognizance of £50 would be totally insufficient. They had many examples of this.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. TREVELYAN MR. TREVELYAN moved to add at the end of the clause the following sub-sections:—

  1839
  "(2.) An offence for the purposes of this section means any felony or misdemeanour, and also any offence against this Act, with the exception of the offences specified in sections ten and eleven of this Act.
  (3.) A person summoned to appear under this section shall not be excused from answering any question on the ground that the answer thereto may criminate, or tend to criminate, himself, but any statement made by any person in answer to any question put to him on any examination under this section shall not, except in case of an indictment or other criminal proceeding for perjury, be admissible in evidence against him in any proceeding civil or criminal.
  (4.) A magistrate who conducts the examination, under this section, of a person concerning any offence, shall not, if such offence is punishable on summary conviction, take part in the hearing and determination of a charge for that offence, and shall not, if such offence is an indictable offence, take part in the committing for trial of such person for such offence."
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 17 (Power of apprehending absconding witnesses).
  MR. TREVELYAN MR. TREVELYAN moved, in page 9, line 36, to leave out from the beginning of the line to "Provided," in line 37, and insert "unless in the meantime he produces sufficient sureties."
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Words inserted.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  (Clause 18 (Additional constabulary force).
  MR. LABOUCHERE MR. LABOUCHERE moved, in page 10, line 16, to insert, after "Lieutenant," "such account shall thereafter be presented to Parliament."
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, that the account would be published in The Dublin Gazette, and the Amendment was, therefore, unnecessary.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. TREVELYAN MR. TREVELYAN moved, in page 10, line 21, at the end, to insert as a new paragraph—
  "Provided, That if the district is in a county where the number of constabulary is, after allowing for vacancies arising from death, absence on leave, absence from illness, or other like cause, deficient as compared with the quota
  1840
  for that county, and additional constabulary are employed, under this section, in the county, a charge under this section shall not be made in respect of such number of the additional constabulary as is equal to the number required for the time being to make up the said deficiency."
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 19 (Power of Lord Lieutenant as to compensation to be paid in certain cases of murder or maiming).
  MR. GIBSON MR. GIBSON moved, in page 10, line 28, to leave out the word "otherwise." The aim of his Amendment was to give wider powers of awarding compensation than were given in the section. As the section stood, the Lord Lieutenant was empowered to award compensation in cases of murder, maiming, and personal injury. But it did not touch "Boycotting," which was a system of criminal terrorism to ruin a man materially, and sometimes even physically. In the cases of murder and maiming it was often a difficult question to ascertain the degree of complicity on the part of the neighbourhood. But there was no question of the kind in "Boycotting," which was essentially a combination of a man's neighbours against him. He often received letters containing descriptions of the diabolical character of the system. He had recently received one letter which gave a case where a man had been driven to madness by the system, and was confined in a lunatic asylum. In another case the Land League would not permit a farm to be occupied, although the previous tenant had voluntarily given up possession. The Attorney General for Ireland had said that the Amendment was obviated by the Grand Jury Acts. But those Acts only applied to certain specified cases, and were hampered by many restrictions. Besides, the associated cesspayers who sat at Baronial Presentment Sessions might be taken out of the very class who practised the system which he was desirous to see put down. It was said that it would be difficult to assess the compensation in cases of "Boycotting." No doubt, in many cases, it was so. But there were other cases where the question was as demonstratable as a proposition of Euclid, and there could be no difficulty when a man could prove that he had been utterly ruined. It was absolutely necessary, if "Boycotting" was

  1841
  really to be grappled with, and to be confronted by the Executive, to say—"We will take powers that will enable us both to punish criminally those who 'Boycott,' and which will enable us to rehabilitate out of some pocket to some extent, according to the discretion of the Lord Lieutenant, the pecuniary position of the man who has been ruined by the direct action of his immediate neighbours."
  Amendment proposed, in page 10, line 28, to leave out the word "otherwise."—(Mr. Gibson.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'otherwise' stand part of the Bill."
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he could assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that it was not by undervaluing in any respect the crime of "Boycotting" that the Government had approached this question. Nothing that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had said, or that could be said, was too strong to reprobate that cowardly and wicked practice. But if these clauses were to be used at all the House must take care not to overweight them. There was an old saying that half was better than the whole, and they might go too far in this matter. The burdens on a district might be made so onerous that it would be impossible for any Government to put them into operation. These two clauses would impose charges which, unfortunately, in the present state of Ireland, would be very heavy for extra Constabulary and for compensation in cases of murder, maiming, and other injuries.
  MR. GIBSONsaid, that all the charges would not fall on the same localities at the same time.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that might be so. But there was to be a retrospective action of two years with reference to these injuries and maimings, and the clauses might be made so onerous and so oppressive that no Government would be able to work them. In addition to the charges he had named it was proposed to open the vast question of injuries to property and to occupation. Everyone must perceive that the Amendment, especially if it had reference to the last two years, might lead to exaggerated and even fraudulent claims being preferred. If they were to
  1842
  go back two years in order to examine how far a man had been injured in his occupation, all sorts of demands might be made with which it would be impossible to deal.
  MR. GIBSONsaid, he was willing to make the Amendment prospective only, if that would remove the right hon. and learned Gentleman's objection.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that would only partially remove it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had frankly admitted that these questions were of a very difficult and complex character; but he had a still stronger objection to the proposal than that. It was the same objection which he urged when the right hon. and learned Gentleman placed an Amendment almost identical with the present on the Paper. The right hon. and learned Gentleman would admit, he believed, that that objection had great force. If this heavy additional burden were imposed, the Government would not carry with them the same weight of public opinion with reference to property that they would do with reference to life and limb. This, to his mind, speaking from a political point of view, was a statesmanlike consideration which was very well deserving of weight. This was one of the clauses which would be extremely operative; but it was, no doubt, a clause the burden and pinch of which would be severely felt; and, therefore, it was necessary that they should carry with them in the operation of the clause as large a support from public opinion in Ireland as they could possibly get. In his judgment, if, in addition to the security and compensation which they proposed to give to life and limb by the clause as it stood, they were to expand it so as to include the various claims as to property and occupation, they would weaken the support of public opinion which for the graver offences it would be likely to command. These were the reasons why the Government adhered to the clause as originally framed, and for these reasons he could not accept the Amendment.
  MR. BULWERsaid, that the Home Secretary objected to the Amendment, not on principle, but solely on political grounds. In his opinion, this would be a less unjust, if not a less onerous charge on a district than the compensation in respect of murders, maiming, and other injuries. The persons committing those

  1843
  offences might be strangers to a district, and the public opinion to which the Home Secretary appealed might reasonably think it hard that a district should be fined for acts which the inhabitants of it could not prevent; whereas "Boycotting" was an offence which the inhabitants of any district could prevent, inasmuch as a man could not be "Boycotted" except by the concurrence of a considerable number of his neighbours. The claims that might be preferred could be as easily settled as claims made against Railway Companies for compensation.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that, as the proposed Amendment would extend the compensation from personal injury to damaged property, it would involve an increased charge upon the taxpayers, which must first be proposed in Committee, for which it would be necessary to re-commit the Bill.
  MR. GIBSONsaid, he would consider whether he could adopt any other course, and, for the present, must necessarily withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On the Motion of Mr. TREVELYAN, Amendments made, in page 10, line 31, by leaving out "a claim," and inserting "an application;" in page 10, line 32, after "may," by inserting "if he thinks fit after giving public notice in the district in the prescribed manner; "in page 10, line 34, by leaving out "claim," and inserting "application;" in page 10, line 35, by leaving out from "parties," to "whom," in line 36; in page 10, line 88, after "thereon," by inserting "the parties shall be heard personally or by counsel, and the evidence taken on oath in open court;" in page 11, line 2, after such," by inserting "public;" in page 11, line 5, after "be," by inserting "in the prescribed form and shall be;" in page 11, line 12, by leaving out "claim," and inserting "application;" in page 11, line 16, after "order," by inserting—
  "And shall be paid to the personal representative of the person murdered, or to the person maimed or injured, or if he is dead to his personal representative;"
  and in page 11, line 17, by leaving out "claims," and inserting "applications."
  MR. LABOUCHERE MR. LABOUCHERE moved, in page 11, line 18, to leave out "or one of the next of kin."
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, it was one thing to claim and another to obtain, and the claimant would have to prove that he was entitled to receive.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. LABOUCHERE MR. LABOUCHERE moved, in page 11, at the end of the clause, to insert the words—
  "Copy of the said warrant, order, and report shall be laid before Parliament within one month after it is issued or made, if Parliament be sitting, and, if not, within one month of the next meeting of Parliament, and the evidence taken under this section shall be open to the public for inspection in the prescribed manner."
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, he thought it would be most inconvenient to have these Reports, which were in the highest degree confidential, laid before Parliament.
  Question put, and negatived.
  On the Motion of Mr. TREVELYAN, Amendments made, in page 11, at end, by adding, as new sub-sections—
  "(6.) This section shall not apply to any cases of murder, maiming, or injury which have occurred before the first day of June, one thousand eight hundred and eighty.
  "(7.) Where the act causing the murder, maiming, or injury has occurred since the passing of this Act, an application for compensation under this section shall not be entertained unless it is made within three months after the occurrence of the act causing the murder, maiming, or injury.
  "(8.) Where the act causing the murder, maiming, or injury has occurred before the passing of this Act an application for compensation under this section shall not be entertained unless it is made within three months after the passing of this Act."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 20 (Description of district and provision as to raising charge).
  On the Motion of Mr. TREVELYAN, Amendments made, in page 12, line 1, before "such," by inserting "portion of;" in page 12, line 2, after "warrant," by inserting "for collection;" and in page 12, line 8, at end of clause, by inserting—
  "Every warrant imposing a charge upon a district in respect of such additional constabu-

  1845
  lary or such compensation as aforesaid, shall specify the time during which it is to remain in force, and shall he in the prescribed form and shall he published in the prescribed manner, and a copy of every such warrant shall he laid before Parliament within one month after the date of the warrant, if Parliament is then sitting, and, if not, within one month after the next meeting of Parliament, together with a statement showing the following particulars, in cases where such particulars do not appear in the warrant; that is to say, the valuation of the district proposed to be charged; the number of instalments by and the time within which the charge is to he raised; the poundage rate necessary for raising the same; and the grounds upon which the district has been charged."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 22 (Summary procedure for offences under Act).
  On the Motion of Mr. TREVELYAN, Amendment made, in page 12, line 28, after "procedure," by inserting "including the enforcing of the attendance of witnesses for the defence."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 24 (Supplemental provisions as to proclamations and orders).
  On the Motion of Mr. TREVELYAN, Amendments made in page 14, line 13, after "Lieutenant," by inserting "but;" in page 14, line 14, after "council," by inserting "where a proclamation or order has been made by and with such advice;" and in page 14, line 34, after "promulgated," by inserting "and in the case of an order that it has been duly made."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 28 (Rules of procedure in Schedule).
  On the Motion of Mr. TREVELYAN, Amendment made, in page 18, line 30, before "Schedule," by inserting "First."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 29 (Allowances to Judges, witnesses, and others).
  On the Motion of Mr. TREVELYAN, Amendment made, in page 18, line 35, after "judges," by inserting "and."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 30 (Rules of procedure and matters to be prescribed).
  On the Motion of Mr. TREVELYAN, Amendment made, in page 19, line 30,
  1846
  after "shall," by inserting "be judicially noticed and."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 35 (General definitions).
  On the Motion of Mr. TREVELYAN, Amendment made, in page 21, line 15, after "Ireland," by inserting "other than the judicial commissioner of the Irish Land Commission."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  On the Motion of Mr. TREVELYAN, Amendments made in Schedule 1, page 22, line 4, after "sentenced," by inserting "by the Special Commission Court;" in page 22, line 27, by leaving out "convicted or;" in page 22, line 33, by leaving out "evidence," and inserting "witness;" and in page 23, at end, by inserting the following Schedule as Third Schedule:—
  Third Schedule.
  Alien Act.
  Copy of Act referred to.
  Anno Undecimo
  Victoriæ Reginæ.
  Cap. xx.
  An Act to authorise for One Year, and to the End of the then next Session of Parliament, the Removal of Aliens from the Realm. [9th June 1848.]
  (Power to Secretary of State or Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to order Aliens to depart this Realm.—If Aliens wilfully refuse to obey such Order, they may he committed to Gaol until taken in charge for the purpose of being sent out of the Realm.)
  Whereas it is expedient, for the due Security of the Peace and Tranquillity of this Realm, that Provision should he made, for a Time to be limited, respecting Aliens arriving or resident in this Kingdom: Be it enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the Authority of the same, That when and so often as One of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State in that Part of the United Kingdom called Great Britain, or the Lord Lieutenant or other Chief Governor or Governors in that Part of the United Kingdom called Ireland, shall have Reason to believe, from Information given to him or them respectively, in Writing, by any Person subscribing his or her Name and Address thereto, that for the Preservation of the Peace and Tranquillity of any Part of this Realm it is expedient to remove therefrom any Alien or Aliens who may be in any Part of this Realm, or who may hereafter arrive therein, it shall be lawful for such Secretary of State in that Part of the United Kingdom called Great Britain, and for such Lord Lieutenant or other Chief Governor or Governors in that Part of the United Kingdom called Ireland, by Order under

  1847
  his or their Hand or Hands respectively, to be published in the London or Dublin Gazette, as the Case may be, to direct that any such Alien or Aliens who may be within Great Britain or Ireland respectively, or who may hereafter arrive therein, shall depart this Realm, within a Time limited in such Order; and if any such Alien shall knowingly and wilfully refuse or neglect to pay due Obedience to such Order, or shall be found in this Realm or any part thereof, contrary to such Order, after such Publication thereof as aforesaid, and after the Expiration of the Time limited in such Order, it shall be lawful for any of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State, or for the Lord Lieutenant or other Chief Governor or Governors of Ireland, or his or their Chief Secretary, or for any Justice of the Peace, or for the Mayor or Chief Magistrate of any City or Place, to cause every such Alien to be arrested, and to be committed to the Common Gaol of the County or Place where he or she shall be so arrested, there to remain, without Bail or Mainprize, until he or she shall be taken in charge for the Purpose of being sent out of the Realm, under the Authority hereinafter given.
  (Penalty on Aliens disobeying such Order.)
  II. And be it enacted, That every such Alien so knowingly and wilfully refusing or neglecting to pay due Obedience to any such Order as aforesaid shall be guilty of a Misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall, at the Discretion of the Court, be adjudged to suffer Imprisonment for any Time not exceeding One Month for the First Offence, and not exceeding Twelve Months for the Second and any subsequent Offence.
  (Aliens on neglecting to obey Order may be given in charge by Warrant of Secretary of State or Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, to be conveyed out of the Kingdom.—Where any Alien shall allege any Excuse for not complying with Order, Privy Council to judge of the Sufficiency of the same.—Privy Council shall cause a Summary of Matters alleged against Alien to be delivered to him, &c.)
  III. And be it enacted, That it shall be lawful for any One of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State, or the Lord Lieutenant or Chief Governor or Governors of Ireland, in any Case in which any Alien shall be found in this Realm after the Expiration of the Time limited in such Order, and whether he or she shall or shall not have been arrested or committed for Refusal or Neglect to obey such Order, or convicted of such Refusal or Neglect, and either before or after such Alien shall have suffered the Punishment inflicted for the same, by Warrant under his Hand and Seal, to give such Alien in charge to One of Her Majesty's Messengers, or to any other Person or Persons to whom he shall think proper to direct such Warrant, in order to such Alien being conveyed out of the Kingdom; and such Alien shall be so conveyed according: Provided always, that where such Alien (not having been convicted as aforesaid) shall allege any Excuse for not complying with such Order, or any Reason why the same should not be enforced, or why further time should be allowed him or her for complying therewith, it shall be lawful for the Lords of Her Majesty's Privy Council in Great Britain
  1848
  or in Ireland, as the Case may be, to judge of the Sufficiency of such Excuse or Reason, and to allow or disallow the same either absolutely or on such Condition as they shall think fit; and where such Alien shall be in Custody under such Warrant of any of Her Majesty's Secretaries of State or of the Lord Lieutenant or other Chief Governor or Governors of Ireland as aforesaid, the Messenger or other Person in whose Custody he or she shall be, forthwith upon its being signified to him that such Excuse or Reason is alleged by such Alien, shall make known the same to such Secretary of State, or to the Lord Lieutenant or other Chief Governor or Governors of Ireland, as the Case may be, who, upon receiving such Notification, or in any Case in which he or they shall be informed that any such Excuse or Reason is alleged by or on behalf of any Alien to quit the Realm, shall forthwith suspend the Execution of such Warrant until the Matter can be inquired into and determined by the said Lords of Her Majesty's Privy Council; and such Alien, if in Custody under any such Warrant, shall remain in such Custody, or if not in Custody may be given in charge by any such Warrant as aforesaid, and shall remain in Custody until the Determination thereon shall be made known, unless in the meantime such Secretary of State, or the Lord Lieutenant or other Chief Governor or Governors of Ireland shall consent to or the said Lords shall make Order for the Release of such Alien, either with or without Security: Provided always, that the Lords of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council shall cause to be delivered to such Alien, in Writing, a general Summary of the Matters alleged against him or her, and shall allow him or her reasonable time to prepare his or her Defence; and that it shall be lawful for him or her to summon and examine upon Oath Witnesses before the said Lords of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, and to be heard before them, by himself or herself, or his or her Counsel, in support of the Excuse or Reason by him or her alleged.
  (Judges may admit Aliens to Bail in all Cases, if they see sufficient Cause.)
  IV. Provided always, and be it enacted, That in every case in which Power is given by this Act to commit any Alien to Gaol without Bail or Mainprize it shall and may be lawful for any Justices of Her Majesty's Courts of Record at Westminster or in Dublin, or for any of the Barons in Great Britain or Ireland, being of the degree of the Coif, or for the Lord Justice Clerk or any of the Commissioners of Justiciary in Scotland, if upon Application made he shall see sufficient Cause, to admit such person to Bail, he or she giving sufficient Security for his or her Appearance to answer the Matters alleged against him or her.
  (Where Alien shall not have been sent out of the Realm within One Month after Commitment, Judges, &c. empowered, where application has been made, to continue in, or discharge such Alien out of, Custody.)
  V. Provided nevertheless, and be it enacted, That where any Alien who shall have been committed under this Act to remain until he or she shall be taken in charge for the purpose of being sent out of the Realm, shall not be sent out of the Realm within One Calendar Month

  1849
  after such Commitment, it shall in every such Case be lawful for any of the Justices of Her Majesty's Courts of Record at Westminster or in Dublin, or for any of the Barons in Great Britain or Ireland, being of the Degree of the Coif, or for the Lord Justice Clerk or any of the Commissioners of Justiciary in Scotland, or for any Two of Her Majesty's Justices of the Peace in any part of the United Kingdom, upon Application made to him or them by or on the Behalf of the person so committed, and upon Proof made to him or them that reasonable Notice of the intention to make such Application had been given to some or one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State in Great Britain, or to the Lord Lieutenant or Chief Governor or Governors of Ireland, or his or their Chief Secretary, according to his or their Discretion, to order the Person so committed to be continued in or discharged out of Custody.
  (Act not to extend to Ambassadors, &c. or Aliens who have resided in the Kingdom for Three Years.)
  VI. Provided always, and be it enacted, That nothing in this Act contained shall affect any Foreign Ambassador or other Public Minister duly authorised, nor any Person belonging to the diplomatic or domestic Establishment of any such Foreign Ambassador or Public Minister, registered as such according to Law, or being actually attendant upon such Ambassador or Minister, nor any Alien under the age of Fourteen Years, or who shall have been residing within this Realm for Three Years next before the passing of this Act.
  (Duration of Act.)
  VII. And be it enacted, That this Act shall continue in force for One Year from the passing thereof, and until the End of the then next Session of Parliament.
  (Act may be repealed, &c.)
  VIII. And be it enacted, That this Act may be repealed or amended in the present Session of Parliament.
  MR. TREVELYANbegged to move the third reading of the Bill.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. Trevelyan.)
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he thought it desirable that certain points should be cleared up, because accusations had been made against those hon. Members who had considered it their duty to oppose the Bill. They had had a great many Coercion Bills. The last Coercion Bill was, as confessed by all on the Treasury Bench, an absolute failure. The first step in the history of this Bill was when communications took place between the Members in Kilmainham and the Government. The result was that, provided a Bill to deal with arrears was brought in and some modification
  1850
  in the Land Act were made, those hon. Members would take an active part in putting down outrages, and would afford the Liberal Party the benefit of their support. About that time the regrettable murder of the Chief Secretary for Ireland and the Under Secretary took place, and this Bill was then drafted. They had been told that it was handed over to a Committee, and it would appear that the friends of Ireland and the friends of sound Liberalism were outvoted on that Committee. The result was that the Bill did not represent the opinions of the Prime Minister or of his Liberal Colleagues, but the opinions forced upon them by the Committee of the Cabinet consisting of what were called Whigs. The Bill was to put down outrages and "Boycotting," and to put an end to what he would call fair and legitimate political agitation in Ireland. It was placed in the hands of the Home Secretary, who had boasted that he was a Whig of the Whigs. The right hon. and learned Gentleman declined to make any reasonable concessions, not only to Irish, but to sound Liberal Members. Only one concession of any importance was made—namely, that a search for arms should not take place at night. The Prime Minister gave Notice that that part of the clause would be eliminated on Report. The proposal was made, but the views of the Home Secretary had triumphed by the united votes of the Conservative Party and the Whigs. During the progress of the Bill, accusations had been made that it had been obstructed. He must point out that the Bill was a revolutionary measure, for it suspended the liberties of Ireland for three years. He believed that it was the duty of every sound Liberal in the House to render a Coercion Bill as difficult a task as possible on the part of the Government, for then they would have fewer of them. What had happened upon Report? The Bill was so loosely drawn up that it would have been almost unworkable but for the Irish Members. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had put down 60 Amendments on Report, almost all of which were put down in consequence of the observations and demands made by Irish Members. It was by no means easy to obtain the consent of the Government to make these alterations on Report, and the Irish Members might

  1851
  point to those 60 Amendments as the result of their exhaustive discussions. He might call the Prime Minister himself as a witness against the charge of Obstruction, for when the Bill had been in Committee some weeks, he said that, although, the discussion had been exhaustive, yet there had been no Obstruction in the objectionable sense of the term. One whole evening was spent in the discussion of an Amendment to make the Alien Clause applicable to England. At the end of the evening the Prime Minister said that he was glad the discussion had taken place, for it put him in possession of the views of the House on the subject. If a whole evening was legitimately occupied in discussing the application of a clause to England, the time occupied in the discussion of each clause relating to Ireland was not too long. The Home Secretary had charged those who opposed the Bill with aiding and abetting in outrages. That charge was exceedingly unfair. Hon. Members seemed absolutely ignorant of the state of things in Ireland; they seemed to think that Home Rulers, Ribbonmen, and Fenians were all animated by the same motives, and were jointly and severally responsible for all outrages by whomsoever committed. When the Land League was established, there were a large number of secret societies. The main object of the Land League was to put an end to those secret societies by open agitation. ["Oh, oh!"] That was the main object of the Land League. ["Oh, oh!" and "No, no!"] But what he wanted to point out was this—that from the moment the Land League was established it was the bitter enemy of secret societies. ["Oh, oh!"] The Gentlemen who said "Oh!" must excuse him for saying they knew nothing about the facts. Were those Gentlemen aware that, before the Land League was established, very large amounts of money were obtained by secret societies, and that as soon as the Land League was established that money was diverted from secret societies, and went into the coffers of the Land League? Did hon. Members think that that would encourage a good feeling between secret societies and the Land League? He asserted as a fact that the Land League had always been bitterly hostile to secret societies. That was the position of affairs when the right hon. Gentleman brought
  1852
  in the present Bill. He thought it was an exceedingly useless one. The police had been very badly managed in Ireland. They knew that when the very dreadful murders were committed in Dublin no police were at hand, and that the head of the police had gone to a neighbouring village to enjoy himself. This Bill was brought in not merely to put down outrages, but also to strike a blow at political associations and public meetings; and he believed they would find that when it became law outrages would increase instead of diminishing. On that ground, hon. Members opposed the Bill. It was most unfair for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say that those who opposed it encouraged outrages in Ireland. The Home Rule Members having withdrawn from the House, as was natural after the way in which they had been treated, the Government were left face to face with their natural opponents, the Conservatives; and they and the Whigs, without a moment's hesitation, coalesced in order to put the Government in a minority. The result of that was that if the Bill were passed it would have in it a clause which the Prime Minister himself had already said would do the greatest harm. What, then, was the course the Government ought to pursue? If they would allow him, he would tell them. They ought either to withdraw their Bill or join in voting against it. Let them bring in a Bill of a very few clauses aimed against outrages and against "Boycotting," and he thought he might assure them that Irish Members would not oppose it. If the Government did that, he believed they would put an end, to a great extent, to the ill-feeling that existed between England and Ireland, and would remove a most regrettable hostility between the Irish Radicals and the English Radicals.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, his hon. Friend, as he always did, had made a most entertaining speech. He had sometimes wondered what were the principles which the hon. Member thought he (Sir William Harcourt) held, and what were the system and the political principles which governed the actions of the hon. Gentleman. He thought that the hon. Gentleman in his heart confined himself to one single object, and that was to extract from every possible situation the greatest

  1853
  amount of mischief of which it was susceptible. If he succeeded in doing that, his hon. Friend seemed to think he had passed a well-spent day and a still better spent night. His hon. Friend had a very bad opinion of him. [Mr. LABOUCHERE: No, no.] The hon. Member thought, in calling him an old Whig, he had passed upon him a sentence of condemnation. For himself, he liked old names, and he had always admired the late Lord Beaconsfield, who, instead of calling himself a Constitutionalist, or a Conservative, or what not, stuck by the old name of Tory. He thought the old names of Whigs and Tories just as good names as any that had been invented since; and, therefore, he was not at all unwilling to be described by one of the two names which the great political Parties had borne for the last two centuries. But the hon. Member had gone into the realms of imagination—he was always well informed here and elsewhere as to the secrets of society. That was a description of secret society which the Bill did not profess to deal with, though he understood that sometimes "Boycotting" was practised there also. But the hon. Member had talked very freely and confidently of Cabinet secrets. As to Cabinets, he had nothing to do with them. When a Minister stood at that Table and brought in a Bill he represented the whole Government, and he declined altogether to go into detail in matters of great difficulty and requiring great consideration. Everybody knew that when a body of men acting together exchanged opinions discussion would naturally take place which would lead to a conclusion, and when that conclusion was arrived at the whole Government was responsible for that decision. He had endeavoured most imperfectly to discharge the, at times, somewhat difficult task of conducting the Bill through the House; but he would never have stood at that box for one minute unless he had thought he had the hearty co-operation of every one of his Colleagues, and, therefore, the statement of the hon. Member as to the divisions in the Cabinet was entirely devoid of foundation, and he emphatically repudiated it. It was urged that he ought to have conducted the Bill in a totally different manner from what he had done, and that great and serious concessions should have been
  1854
  made to the Irish Members. But what was the hon. Member's idea of the position of a Government with reference to the conduct of a Government measure of that magnitude? The Government, after deliberation, made up their minds in a time of great difficulty and danger, and placed before the House the result of their deliberations. The discussion in the House might make them alter in some respects the decision arrived at, new views might be presented to them, and it would be mere folly and obstinacy to oppose the suggested changes. At the same time, it would have been unworthy of them or of any Government to have made great concessions. To come forward with a decision of that kind, intending to throw overboard some of its most important provisions, would be a policy which no Government would or ought to adopt. They could not suppose Her Majesty's Government were not conscious of the gravity and severity of the measure. Nothing would justify them in proposing it unless they were convinced of its necessity; and, therefore, to stuff it with clauses intended only to be discarded was a course of action of which the Government could not for one moment approve. The hon. Member had chosen to broach again the story of Kilmainham, and had said that the prisoners were released upon some compact for assistance to the Liberal Party and so forth. He could only repeat that the story was absolutely and entirely devoid of foundation, and he was astonished that the hon. Member, who wished himself to be considered the sponsor and godfather of the Irish Members, should not have had his mind disabused of that error. The hon. Member had said it was a bad Bill and a loosely drawn Bill. Although the Government were responsible for the principles of the measure, he thought he ought to defend that very able and careful body of public servants the draftsmen; and he did not think any Bill would be found more ably or more carefully drawn. The hon. Member had also taxed him with stating that Gentlemen who had opposed the Bill advocated outrage. He had never made any such charge as that for any mere opposition. He perfectly recognized that it was only right that the Representatives from Ireland should be opposed to it; but what he alluded to and what he regretted was an absence

  1855
  in those remarks of anything in the shape of deep condemnation of the outrages that had taken place, which might have gone to Ireland with some authority, and had some weight there. It was very greatly to be deplored that in the course of those long and protracted debates they heard rather the language of palliation, and it was to that fact his remarks were directed. His hon. Friend said that the Bill was useless, and that they would do much better without coercion at all. They had heard it said from below the Gangway opposite that if they had remedial measures only, and no coercion, Ireland would have been tranquil, and everything gone on as was to be desired. He must remind his hon. Friend and the House that that experiment had been tried. Under this Government, for the first time for a generation, the experiment was tried of allowing Coercion Acts to lapse. During the year 1880, for a twelvemonth, Ireland was without a Coercion Bill, and what was the result? He said this year, as he said last year, when he was in charge of the Arms Bill, that that experiment had failed. He would any now, as he said then, that he was not ashamed that it was tried. But when they were told in 1882 that if they had no Coercion Bills they would have no crimes, he appealed to the experience of that 12 months during which there was no Coercion Bill. There were men who might have set an example, and shown that Ireland without Coercion Bills would be free from crime; and these were Gentlemen who were not present on those seats to-night. But their teaching was of a different order; and when coercion had been taken off Ireland, a teaching went forth from that quarter which revived outrage in a worse form than, he believed, had ever before been known in Ireland. They were told that they ought not to have Bills of this kind; but Police Bills. He would like to see the Police Bill drawn by his hon. Friend and those who usually sat on the opposite Benches. They were told to give strength to the police; but what did they hear from the mouths of those Gentlemen but denunciations of the police at every point, opposition to every clause which proposed to give the police authority and strength, and then his hon. Friend turned round and said—"Oh, if you had brought forward a
  1856
  strong Police Bill, you would have got no opposition." Why, it was the Police Clauses of this Bill which had met with the most strenuous opposition of his hon. Friend and his allies. The hon. Gentleman said that if this had been a Bill against outrages and crimes his hon. Friends would not have opposed it. But what suggestion had they ever made in the course of those protracted debates with a view to the suppression of outrage and crime? He knew it was said, under the shadow of that terrible calamity, that they would do so; but in 24 hours all those professions had vanished away. He had not heard from the beginning to the end of the debates on this Bill any suggestion whatever from those Gentlemen of any kind of legislation which would have had the effect of putting an end to outrage. This Bill was in many respects a sad Bill. There was nothing that could justify it except its absolute necessity; and when it was sought to cast upon the Government, and upon the people of England, and upon that House of Commons, responsibility for the shame which must necessarily attach to legislation of this description, he would say it was not upon them that that responsibility rested. The responsibility for that shame rested upon those who by their teachings and their evil example had created in Ireland a state of society for which such a remedy as that was indispensable.
  COLONEL MAKINSsaid, the hon. Member for Northampton had three objects in view in the speech he had made. The first was to discharge a duty, holding, as he did, a brief from the Irish Party, who were absent from the House, to whitewash the Obstructives. Having discharged that duty, he had no doubt the hon. Member would, sooner or later, receive his reward. His second object was to glorify the Radical Party and prove how objectionable all measures of coercion must be to them. But the hon. Member should remember that in this case coercion was directed against crime and outrage. His third object was to fling a parting kick at the Government in their sorest and tenderest part. The hon. Member having done that, and brought the concentrated intelligence of Northampton to bear on the subject, he trusted that they might now be allowed to pass the third reading or go to a division.
  MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, that the House would, no doubt, be glad to have reached the last stage of this detestable and hateful measure—for detestable it must be regarded by supporters as well as opponents. He could only say, so far as he and those who had been associated with him in resisting it were concerned, that they hailed the final stage with a sense of relief common to the House generally. They had endeavoured to defeat it, but they had been beaten. They had endeavoured to amend it, but they had been, beaten. They had endeavoured to delay it, and they had been successful. He said they had endeavoured to delay it intentionally, their object being to familiarize the people of this country with the measure. Coercion Bills in the past had been got through Parliament in a few hours—at most, in a few days. The body of the people were unacquainted with the immense powers conferred by them upon the Irish Executive; but by the resistance that had been made to this Bill and to that of last year, they had brought before the people of the country a knowledge of the mode by which Ireland was governed which they did not previously possess. In that sense, therefore, their opposition had been successful; and no Coercion Bill would ever again pass that Legislature with the alacrity that formerly attended them. The Home Secretary had remarked, in reply to his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, upon the length of time that had been occupied on this Bill. The Government had delivered many jeremiads upon that theme during the discussions; but if the Home Secretary had given force to a suggestion which he (Mr. Joseph Cowen) made on the night the Bill was introduced, the time occupied would not have been so great. He was not speaking from his own standpoint, but from the standpoint of the Government. He proposed to the Government that, instead of having a cumbrous and complicated measure such as the one before them, which traversed some of the dearest and most cherished of English political privileges, all they need to have was a Bill of one clause, which could have been got into a single sheet of foolscap paper. The object of the Government was to establish a dictatorship. That could have been done in the way described; and as for the difficulty of getting a
  1858
  measure so condensed passed, the supporters of the Ministry would have voted for it just as they voted for the Bill then under consideration. The Government had but to say they wanted it, and what the Government said their adherents would have sworn by. Therefore, such a Bill as he had described could have been drafted in a day. That would have greatly facilitated the progress of Government Business—if that was the object they had in view. Lord Spencer had under this Bill absolute power. No despot in Europe enjoyed greater power. He could control every man in Ireland in all relations in life, both personally and politically. He could interfere with them as men and as citizens. There was nothing that the Lord Lieutenant could not do under this Bill that any Act of Parliament could enable him to do. He had not only one Coercion Act—he had three Coercion Acts. He had the Coercion Act of last year, and the Arms Act, as well as the present. Count Cavour once declared that any ignoramus could govern under a state of siege; but Lord Spencer had a treble state of siege, and if he could not secure peace and order by the exercise of such powers, it was impossible to frame a measure to accomplish that purpose. The Bill was supposed to be for the detection and punishment of crime. But what was the crime they wished to detect and punish? Ordinary crime did not exist. The crime they wished to reach was of a peculiar character. It was political and social, and arose from political disaffection and social distress. The only way by which such crime could be prevented was by removing the distress and curing the disaffection. As for the detection of crime, that could only be accomplished by a vigorous Executive and a vigilant police. Was there a man in that House who believed—did even the Home Secretary believe—that the desperate and daring men who galloped into Phœnix Park and committed the heinous crime there two months ago could be deterred by a Bill of that kind? The men who could do such deeds would no more be bound by the clauses of Coercive Acts than a cat would be by pudding. The societies that existed in Ireland were just a counterpart of such societies as existed in other countries in times of disturbance and disorganization. They resembled

  1859
  the carbonaire of Italy and the Vehmgericht tribunals of Germany. These associations never had greater power than when the laws of Italy and Germany were most stringent. No power could restrain them; but when the grievances of which the people of Italy and Germany complained were removed, then the associations vanished into thin air. And it would be the same in Ireland. When the people of that country ceased to have good grounds of complaint, there would be no secret societies and no illegal organization. But although this Bill would not put down illegal associations, it would affect the dissemination of political opinion and stop legitimate political agitation. It was well to allow the smoke of political discontent to escape, because the rulers could then determine by it the drift of political opinion. But the Government seemed not to hold by that accepted axiom, but strove to prevent its escape; and it might condense into a condition dangerous to the State and injurious to the people. The Government of England was a Government of law, and it was contrary to every principle of law to invest with discretionary power any man or any body of men over the lives, the liberties, and the properties of the people under the plea that the power would not be abused. But that was what they were going to do in Ireland. They were going to invest with this absolute power one man, and that man the Lord Lieutenant. He would conclude his observations by quoting from a memorable speech from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster against the Coercion Bill of 1866. The right hon. Gentleman, on that occasion, used these notable words—
  "All history teaches us that it is not in human nature that men should be content under any system of legislation and of institutions such as exists in Ireland. You may pass this (Coercion) Bill; you may put the Home Secretary's 500 men into gaol—you may do all this, and suppress the conspiracy, and put down the insurrection; but the moment it is suppressed, there will still remain the germs of this malady, and from those germs will grow up as heretofore another crop of insurrection and another harvest of misfortunes. And it may be that those who sit here eighteen years after this moment will find another Ministry and another Secretary of State to propose to you another administration of the same ever-failing and ever-poisonous medicine."—[3 Hansard, clxxxi. 693.]
  1860
  When the right hon. Gentleman used these words he was sitting in that part of the House where he (Mr. Joseph Cowen) was then standing. He was now a Member of the Government, and it was a remarkable fact that every prediction he indulged in 16 years ago had come to pass. A new Coercion Bill was being adopted, and he, instead of being an opponent, was a supporter of it. He undertook to predict that, as the Coercion Bill of 1866 had failed, so the Coercion Bill of this year would equally fail. It was odious in principle; it would be inoperative and injurious in action.
  MR. BRODRICKwished to say a word or two on the Bill, not thinking it fit that it should receive its final benediction from the hon. Member for Newcastle. The observations of the hon. Member were wanting in practical application. Although the hon. Member professed to speak as the Representative of a large constituency, his views were opposed to those of the vast body of English people. The hon. Member talked of tyrants and despots, but he never said a word about the murder of landlords. He (Mr. Brodrick) would only add that he hoped the Government would not forget that the House expected them to lose no time in putting into execution the exceptional powers with which they were about to be intrusted.
  MR. FIRTHsaid, that, while he approved of some of the provisions of the Bill, he objected strongly to others. In his opinion, the way to improve Ireland was to bring the people to respect the law as intended for the general good. He should, however, vote for the third reading.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, that the reason he protested against the Bill was that he was anxious to see crime put down in Ireland; but he feared that the Bill would lead to the creation of more distress, and consequently of crime. He regarded the Bill as a violation of Constitutional principles. Evils of bad landlordism was the real cause of the present condition of Ireland.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, the key to the present condition of Ireland was to be found in the speeches of the President of the Board of Trade, in which he said that the agitation of the Land League was positively praiseworthy, and that agitation had not been stifled lest the Government should be

  1861
  unable to pass their Land Bill. The Bill was painful, but necessary; it was the severest commentary that could be passed on two years of Liberal government in Ireland. The Government were warned of what would happen; but they neglected the warning, and allowed lawlessness and disloyalty to terrorize the land. They introduced a Coercion Bill, and attempted to bribe agitation with the Land Act of last Session. That had been a conspicuous failure. They were now going to bribe the revolution again with an Arrears Bill. So long as they adopted that course they would fail. After two years of almost absolute power they had reduced Ireland to a condition which, in the words of the Prime Minister himself, was a shame and a disgrace to the country. Their government had been marked anarchy, not only in Ireland, but in South Africa.
  MR. STOREYsaid, he thought the view of Members who objected to this Coercion Bill should be heard briefly on the last occasion when it was brought before the House. The present aspect of the House was extremely painful. They were about to pass an Act to extinguish the liberties of the Irish people, and where were the Representatives from Ireland? He did not allude to Members below the Gangway merely, but he had been looking carefully round the House that evening, and there were so few Irish—Conservative or Liberal—Members present, that the position of the House was painful and humiliating. He shared in the regret expressed by the Home Secretary at the absence of hon. Members below the Gangway; but he wished to impress upon the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary that it was not only to-night, but all through the Bill, that he had not had the support of even his own Friends from Ireland. He did not think the House realized, and he was sure the country had not realized, how many of the Members from Ireland were really opposed to this Bill, and it was because he felt and knew that the majority of Irish Members were opposed to the Bill—["No, no!"]—that he resisted it. What would have been thought if the House had been to-night dealing with Scotland as they were dealing with Ireland? He admitted that in this century it was not reasonable to instance Scotland as an argument; but
  1862
  hon. Members from Scotland must remember that 100 years ago the condition of things in Scotland was exactly like that of Ireland now. Suppose the House had been dealing with Scotland, and the majority of the Scotch Members had been against the Bill, with what conscience or propriety could the House have passed such a Bill for Scotland? His statement that the majority of the Irish Members were opposed to this Bill had been challenged; but he repeated the statement, and asserted that the House had no business to pass such a measure as this when the majority of the Irish Members were opposed to it. A greater man than any in that House had said, when he was Home Secretary, that Great Britain had no right to govern Ireland if Ireland did not wish to be so governed. No Government had a right to hold sovereignty against the will of the people. It was Charles James Fox who said that on the 8th April, 1782—and even the old Whig of 1882 could not deny the value of such testimony. The Representatives of the Irish people were against this Bill, for out of 103 Members from Ireland only 24 and two Home Rulers were in its favour. On the second reading of the Bill, under the shadow of that terrible event in the Phœnix Park which English Radicals deplored and condemned as much as any man, the right hon. and learned Gentleman could only get 11 Liberal Members from Ireland to support the Bill. On the 1st clause he could only get three, on the 2nd clause there was no division, on the 3rd clause he got five, on the 4th clause he got eight, on the 5th he got two, on the 6th he got two, on the 7th he got two, on the 8th he got five, on the 9th he got three, on the 10th he got three, on the 11th he got seven, on the 12th he got two, on the 13th he got four, on the 14th he got seven, on the 15th he got four, on the 16th he got four, on the 17th he got four, on the 18th he got six, on the 21st he got five, and on the 30th he got four. The average was four, and of those four two were Members of the Government; so that, for this Bill, which the Home Secretary said was necessary for Ireland, out of all the Irish Members, including the Members of the Government, only an average of two could be got to support it; and, what was more, some of the clauses of the Bill had been pushed forward against the strong advice of Members of the Liberal Party from

  1863
  Ireland on the Government side, and a number of the clauses had been put into the Bill when there was not a single man from Ireland in favour of them. Whatever other Members might do, he, for one, would never consent to this Bill. His vote was as free as anyone else's, and he should give it where he pleased, which was as much as some other Members did who interrupted him. He would never consent either for Ireland or Scotland or Wales or England to give a vote for a measure when the great majority of the Representatives of the country condemned the measure. He believed the Bill to be wrong in principle, and that it would fail in practice, and he was extremely sorry that once again a Liberal Ministry was passing a coercion measure for Ireland. He believed the Bill would have evil effects, and he regretted it for the sate of the Irish Members on the opposite side of the House, and for English Liberals, and infinitely more for the sake of the Radicals throughout the country, whom he disassociated along with the Home Secretary from Whigism and Toryism. He admitted that Whig and Tory were good old names, and if he were on the other side of the House he would be called a Tory. If he were one of the Whig Party he would be called a Whig, and not a Liberal; but he was a Radical, and he was sorry to see the Radicals voting with a Whig Ministry for such a measure as this. The one man in this country whom he blamed more than any other for this measure, and for the present position in which Liberalism was placed, was not the Home Secretary nor the Prime Minister, but one who sat in the Ministry, and all whose principles had been falsified and cast to the winds. He blamed the right hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright). He, more than anyone else, was answerable, for if he had been firm he believed there would never have been this Coercion Bill; and he preferred the teachings of the right hon. Gentleman many years ago to his practices now. He hoped the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) would divide, so that hon. Members might express their protest against a measure which they believed was sure to fail.
  MR. MARJORIBANKSsaid, the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) had made sundry reflections on the Scotch Members of the House, If
  1864
  Scotland were in the same condition as Ireland now was, Scotch Members would vote for the same Bill for Scotland as for Ireland. The hon. Member had referred to the number of Irish Members found to support this Bill. How many Irish Members were found to vote against it? Not in one single division had a fourth of the Irish Members voted against it, and he believed that the abstentions referred to were alone a sufficient proof of the awful state of terrorism in Ireland at the present time. The country was at present in the face of a big revolution. In former days men dared to stand up for their opinions. But now there were three different organizations against any form of government. The first, the people who acted by murders or outrages—foreign agitators, "Moonlighters," and Fenians; then the Land Leaguers, by "Boycotting" and manifesto; and then hon. Members from Ireland who sat opposite, who tried to act by destroying the honour and dignity of that House by attempting to stop all its Business. For these reasons he should support the Bill, as he believed every Member would who desired to maintain the honour and dignity of that House.
  MR. JERNINGHAMsaid, that the Bill appeared to him admirably adapted to insure respect for the law in Ireland. The hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) had stated his belief that secret societies in Ireland would increase after the passing of this measure; but in that respect he entirely differed from the hon. Member, because he believed that a bold and steady application of the Bill would put an end to them once for all. He had steadily supported the Government throughout the progress of this measure, and he had done so throughout, because he regarded that support as a protest on the part of the Catholics of England against the outrages committed in Ireland. He believed those outrages emanated solely from foreign agitators, and that the natives of Ireland had little to do with them. He appealed strongly to the Government that, having these extraordinary powers in hand, they should apply them without mercy to the rooting out of these secret societies, which were gnawing at the core of Irish society. If the Government did that, he was satisfied that they would receive the thanks of the people of Ireland.
  CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, he was obliged to confess that he had not the slightest confidence in the present Government, so far as the management of affairs in Ireland was concerned; on the contrary, he believed that the troubles now existing there were mainly due to the policy which they had pursued. He had voted with the Government throughout the passage of this Bill, because they had stated that without it they could not govern Ireland, and he preferred the plan which they offered to no Government at all.
  MR. WARTONsaid, he was one of the very few Members of the Conservative Party who remained in the House until 8 o'clock last Saturday evening. He had watched the conduct of the Government during the three or four days' protracted opposition to the 14th clause. A promise had been made by Gentlemen on that side of the House below the Gangway that, after the statement of the Prime Minister, no further opposition would be offered. Notwithstanding this, however, Obstruction again prevailed shortly afterwards. The next day the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) recalled the words of the Prime Minister, and was immediately contradicted by the Home Secretary.
  Question put, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  Mr. SPEAKERstated he thought the Ayes had it, and, his decision being challenged, he directed the Noes to stand up in their places, and Five Members only having stood up, Mr. Speaker declared the Ayes had it.
  Bill passed.
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER stated that the House having now passed the Prevention of Crime (Ireland) Bill it becomes my duty to declare, in pursuance of the Resolution of Monday last, that the state of Public Business is no longer urgent.
  MR. HEALYasked, whether it was not usual to put from the Chair the Question, "That this Bill do now pass?"
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that was unnecessary, no division having been taken on the third reading.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he understood that it was the intention of the Government to proceed with the Arrears of Rent Bill on Monday.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Yes, Sir; that is so.

MOTION.

  PARLIAMENT—PRIVILEGE—SUSPENSION OF IRISH MEMBERS (SATURDAY, JULY 1).—RESOLUTION.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he would not detain the House for any length of time in supporting the Motion he had placed on the Paper, to which, however, he trusted the House would unanimously agree. It would be in the recollection of hon. Members that a week ago there had been a very prolonged Sitting, in the course of which several hon. Members were suspended from the service of the House. Now, he should be the very last person at any time to call in question, or to differ from, any decision of Mr. Speaker, or of the Chairman of Committees, with reference to the Business of the House. Upon the occasion he had referred to, the Chairman of Committees was at one period taking the rest which he undoubtedly required, and on his resuming the Chair it was found necessary—and he did not for one moment dispute that necessity—to suspend 16 Members from the service of the House for wilful and persistent Obstruction. But neither at the time that proposal was made by the Chairman of Committees, nor when the suspension was moved by the Secretary of State for War, were reasons given for the collective suspension of those hon. Members. The names were proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, and during the time that the proposal was under the consideration of the Committee he (Sir John Hay) thought it his duty to proceed to the Chairman of Committees and state to him certain facts within his (Sir John Hay's) knowledge, and which were not within the Chairman's knowledge. It so happened that during the prolonged Sitting he had been in his place, he might almost say continuously, and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Marum) spoke to him (Sir John Hay) early in the evening with reference to his withdrawal from the House as he (Mr. Marum) was leaving it. A Motion had been made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman in charge of the Bill, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and that Amendment was opposed by two hon. Gentlemen, the hon. Member for Roscommon (Dr. Com-

  1867
  mins) and the hon. Member for the County of Limerick (Mr. Synan). A few words were addressed to the Committee on the Amendment by the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Marum), but those words were in favour of the Amendment of the Home Secretary. The hon. and learned Member then left the House, and in passing him (Sir John Hay) said he did not intend to take any further part in the debate. The hon. and learned Gentleman returned to the House about 9 o'clock in the morning and became a victim to suspension. It did seem to him rather hard that the hon. and learned Member, who had not addressed the Committee for some hours, and then only in a short speech, and in favour of an Amendment proposed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman in charge of the Bill, should be included in the number of those who were suspended. He went to his right hon. Friend the Chairman of Committees at the time the Division Bell was ringing and mentioned it to him; but the right hon. Gentleman very properly said that with the Business then before the Committee he could not attend to the matter. He objected to the suspension of the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Marum), and he said to the Chairman—"I trust you will mention my objection to the Speaker when he takes the Chair." He also said to the Chairman—"I am anxious to support the ruling of the Chairman, and therefore I will vote on this occasion; but I will make the objection when Mr. Speaker takes the Chair." He therefore voted for the suspension of the 16 Members; but trusted that afterwards the name of the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny might be erased from the list of suspended Members. The right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees said it was not solely for the Obstruction of that particular night that the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny was suspended; but it was for previous and constant Obstruction of the Business of the Committee. He (Sir John Hay), therefore, thought it right to make some examination of the matter. He found that the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny was a magistrate in two Irish counties, one of which he represented in that House, and in which he had property. He also ascertained that three of the Amendments which the hon. Member proposed in the Bill
  1868
  were Amendments which were accepted by the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. It therefore seemed to him (Sir John Hay) that it could hardly be said that the opposition offered by the hon. and learned Gentleman was not legitimate opposition. It seemed to him that the Bill was one in which the hon. and learned Gentleman might fairly take the deepest interest, and in the course of his inquiry he ascertained that the hon. and learned Member had always addressed the Committee in the most respectful manner; and, although he might have spoken at a time when the Home Secretary might have wished the Business could proceed quicker, the action, of the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny could not fairly be said to be obstructive. That being so, so soon as the Speaker took the Chair after the 16 Members had been Named, he (Sir John Hay) proceeded to the Chair and mentioned, respectfully he trusted, that which had come under his own observation. He mentioned to the Speaker that the Chairman of Committees had not been present throughout the night, and that he had been. The Speaker said it was not possible for him to make the change which he (Sir John Hay) desired to be made, and therefore he voted against the Motion, in order that he might record his protest against one or two names being included in the list. Certainly, against the inclusion of the name of the hon. Member for Kilkenny he was bound to protest, and he felt it was his duty to record his vote in the hope of obviating this particular suspension. The stigma which rested upon an hon. Gentleman for suspension from that House was very considerable. It might be said that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kilkenny was only suspended for one day, and that he was now able to take part in the debates in that House, and vote as any other hon. Member. He would point out that if the Resolution of Saturday, the 1st of July, were rescinded in respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman a fresh start would be given to the hon. and learned Gentleman, and he would not be so near that condition of things which was still more disgraceful to those who suffered from it. If, as there was, a doubt as to the fairness of the suspension of the hon. and learned Gentleman, he appealed to the House whether the

  1869
  proposition which he now made would not be a kind and courteous offer to an Irish Member, and would not show that it was not because the hon. and learned Gentleman was an Irish Member that he had been suspended? He trusted that the fairness which always prevailed in an Assembly like the House of Commons would concede what he now asked. He trusted the Chairman of Committees would see the matter in the light in which he (Sir John Hay) ventured to put it before the House. He would move the Resolution which stood in his name.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That so much of the Resolution of this House as referred to the suspension of Mr. Marum from the service of the House on Saturday 1st July, be rescinded."—(Sir John Hay.)
  MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, that, like his right hon. and gallant Friend (Sir John Hay), with whom he was sorry to differ, he was in the House on the occasion referred to, having been present since 11 o'clock on the previous night. He wished to point out that it was the duty of the House to support the decision of its Speaker, and the decision of the Gentleman who presided over the deliberations of the House in Committee. It was even more important to support the decision of the Chairman of Committees than the decision of the Speaker. The Speaker of the House filled a very high and. honourable position by the sanction of the Sovereign. The Chairman of Committees was, to a certain extent, in a different position. In Committee of the House the Chairman presided over their deliberations; but when the House resumed, he subsided into the position of an ordinary Member; he was, therefore, not placed in a precisely similar position to the Speaker. He (Mr. R. N. Fowler), therefore, felt it was most important that whatever decision the Chairman of Committees arrived at it should be supported in the same way in which the decision of the Speaker was respected by the House. The right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees, in the exercise of his discretion, arrived at a certain decision on Saturday morning, the 1st instant, and it was right that the House should respect that decision. No doubt, some hon. Gentlemen might feel injustice was done to some hon. Members in being included in the list of sus-
  1870
  pended Members. He believed, for instance, that the Motion of his right hon. and gallant Friend (Sir John Hay) originally included the name of the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Marum) and the name of the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan). The latter name, however, had been omitted from the Motion, on what ground he (Mr. R. N. Fowler) did not know, for he believed that his right hon. and gallant Friend was originally under the belief that the hon. Member for Louth, like the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny, had taken no part in the proceedings of the night. But the decision of the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees had reference not merely to the Obstruction of that particular night, but to the course of regular Obstruction which had been observed by the hon. Members Named during the Committee on the Prevention of Crime Bill. In the proposition his right hon. and gallant Friend now made he was perfectly consistent, because, although he voted for the Resolution originally in Committee in the House, he voted in the minority as a protest against the inclusion of certain names in the list of suspended Members. He (Mr. R. N. Fowler), having on both occasions voted in the majority, did not see why he should stultify himself by supporting the proposition of his right hon. and gallant Friend. It seemed to him important that they should support the decision of the Chairman, and on that ground he should vote against the Motion.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the House ought to consider very carefully how they were going to deal with this Motion. He knew it was the favourite doctrine of Gentlemen on the opposite Benches that the proper manner of dealing with Obstruction was to deal with individuals. He never concurred in that view, mainly for this reason, that he foresaw that that form of proceeding would lead to exactly such Motions as the present, which were calculated to absolutely defeat the efforts against Obstruction. Whenever a Member was suspended, he would invariably, by subsequent Motions, challenge the decision of the House and create a protracted debate. Now, he need not say it was quite impossible that his right hon. Friend the Chairman of Committees should get up and contend with the right

  1871
  hon. and gallant Member (Sir John Hay) as to whether the Chairman was right or wrong in the action he took on the 1st of July; it would be absolutely improper for a Gentleman occupying the position of Chairman of Committees to do that. It could not be expected that the Chairman of Ways and Means should say a single word on this occasion. ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Gentlemen might cry "Oh, oh!" but they might just as well have the Speaker down from the Chair and challenge every decision he arrived at on points of Order. There were, no doubt, some Gentlemen who were disposed to do that; but he could not agree with them. It would be most indecent and improper that the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees should plead to a Motion of this description, and he hoped his right hon. Friend would do nothing of the kind. If they were to entertain Motions of this kind, they must give up for ever afterwards the right of the Speaker or the Chairman to act against individuals. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman who had moved this Motion had said that as there was a doubt as to the fairness and justice of the suspension of the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Marum), that hon. and learned Gentleman ought to receive the benefit of the doubt. If such an argument were admitted it would be possible for every exercise of jurisdiction in that House to be followed by Motions of this description. No doubt, there were Members of the House who had the same opinion as to the suspension of each of the 16 Members as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had with regard to the suspension of the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny. The operation of the principle of individual action would lead to ten times more Obstruction than the Obstruction which it was intended to put down; a more self-stultifying proceeding it was utterly impossible to imagine. It would be a very invidious task on his part to enter upon a controversy as to the conduct of individual Members, especially on account of the part they happened to play during the progress of the Prevention of Crime Bill through the House. There was one phrase which fell from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir John Hay) which rather surprised him. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said the hon. Member for Kilkenny appealed to
  1872
  the House to reverse its decision. He (Sir William Harcourt) was very much surprised to hear that the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny had made any such an appeal.
  SIR JOHN HAY: He did so in respectful terms.
  MR. HEALY: Before he had been suspended.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman authorized to say that by the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny?
  SIR JOHN HAY: No; I have had no communication with the hon. and learned Gentleman.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he rather suspected the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny would consider the right hon. and learned Gentleman had been performing an act of cruel kindness if he separated him from the other Irish Members who were suspended. They had had to-night a very frank statement from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle (Mr. Joseph Cowen), who had said that the object of himself and the Irish Members had been, first, to defeat the Bill if they could—no doubt a very legitimate object—secondly, to amend it, which was also a perfectly fair and reasonable object; but thirdly, if they could not defeat or amend the Bill, to delay it.
  MR. CALLAN: Why was he not suspended?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that was what the hon. Member for Newcastle had said was the object of himself and those with whom he had acted. When the hon. Member made this statement, those Gentlemen in whose behalf he was speaking were not present; nevertheless, he was, no doubt, accurately expressing their views.
  MR. CALLAN: Why was he not suspended?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I suppose he was a little more discreet than some other hon. Members.
  MR. CALLAN: No; it was because he is an Englishman.
  MR. HEALY: Yes; because he is an Englishman.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he did not wish to say anything personally invidious or offensive to anyone; but it was, no doubt, clear that the Committee had been bound ultimately to take some measures to defend itself from a policy which had for its object to

  1873
  defeat the Bill, to amend it, or, failing this, to indefinitely delay it. It had been laid down by the Chairman that the suspension was not in consequence of any action of the moment; and he (Sir William Harcourt), who had been present during the debates on the Prevention of Crime Bill more, perhaps, than any other Member, could say that the right hon. Gentleman's decision was not a wrong one. It was absolutely necessary that some such action as that which had been taken by the Chairman should be adopted if they were ever to make progress with a Bill which a section of hon. Members had made up their minds to delay, being unable to defeat it. It was for the House to say whether or not such a power as had been exercised by the Chairman should vest in the person who presided over the House of Commons—whether it were Mr. Speaker or the Chairman of Ways and Means. If there was to be no such power, the House would be absolutely powerless. They had seen what had happened in the case of a Bill which the great majority of the House considered of urgent necessity and essential in the best interests of the State. They had seen how helpless the House was under the present Forms of Procedure to get through Bills of first importance and of great public interest, and they had seen how necessary it was to alter those Forms, unless the House meant to allow all Public Business helplessly to drift. Hon. Gentlemen opposite were not in favour of the clôture; but unless some such measure as that were adopted the House of Commons must remain helpless, and in a position to command neither respect from its Members nor from the constituencies outside. He hoped they would not go on further with the discussion, but would be satisfied with simply supporting the authority of the Chair.
  MR. GORSTsaid, it seemed to him that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary was thoroughly ashamed of the speech he had just had to deliver. The greater part of it had had nothing whatever to do with the Motion of the right hon. and gallant Member (Sir John Hay), and it was lucky for the Home Secretary that they were no longer under the Rules of Urgency, because, if they had been, he (Mr. Gorst) was by no means sure that it would not have been Mr. Speaker's
  1874
  duty to have stopped the right hon. and learned Gentleman. It had struck him (Mr. Gorst) that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had been speaking against time—that he had prolonged his speech owing to the extreme thinness of the Benches behind him; but, whether that were so or not, one thing which must have struck everyone who had listened to this short debate was this—that those who had opposed the Motion of his right hon. and gallant Friend had most carefully avoided saying one word as to the justice of the suspension of the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Marum). The worthy Alderman (Mr. R. N. Fowler) considered it his duty to support Mr. Speaker and the Chairman of Ways and Means in their decisions, whether those decisions were right or wrong. But if the hon. Member had himself been one of those who had been suspended from the service of the House, no doubt his feelings would have been altered, and he would have been of opinion, when injustice was done to himself, that that injustice should not have been done. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said there should be no review of these proceedings, because, if they reviewed them in one case, they should review them in all. The best answer to that was that during the past two years there had been scores of hon. Members suspended, and this was only the second case in which the House had been asked to review its decision. There was one case last year in which an appeal to the House to review its decision was made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt) himself—the House would recollect that the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) was suspended in consequence of a misapprehension by the Chairman of Committees as to the action that the hon. Member had been taking in Committee, and the person who came forward to ask the House to review its decision was the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself. Though they were accustomed to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's effrontery, he (Mr. Gorst) had been astonished that he should have got up in the House and coolly object to the very course that he himself had taken last year. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman had been right in asking the House to review its decision when a mistake had been made in the case of the

  1875
  hon. Member for Dungarvan, how could the right hon. and learned Gentleman have had the face to find fault with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Wigton Burghs (Sir John Hay) in asking the House to review its decision when a mistake had been made in the case of the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny? He (Mr. Gorst) stated, without fear of contradiction, that the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny had been included, by mistake, in the list of hon. Members who had obstructed; and in spite of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lyon Playfair) had been advised not to speak on this occasion, he (Mr. Gorst) would challenge him to get up and say that it was not by mistake that the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny had been included on the list. The case stood thus—they had, on the one hand, the testimony of the right hon. and gallant Baronet, who was in the House the whole night of the suspension, and who was no particular friend of the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny. He told them, on his own authority, what was the conduct of the hon. and learned Member on the occasion in question. What had they on the other hand? Why, simply evasion on the part of the Home Secretary, and reticence on the part of the Chairman of Ways and Means; or rather silence, for he would not come forward and speak. Under such circumstances, it appeared to him (Mr. Gorst) that it would be only an act of common justice if the House were to adopt the Motion of his right hon. and gallant Friend, that so much of the Resolution of the House as referred to the suspension of Mr. Marum from the service of the House should be rescinded. He had great hopes that the House would do that, because, in the first place, he saw that the Home Secretary, having delivered himself, had left the House; and, in the second place, because, in his speech, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had not threatened his own personal resignation in case the recommendation he made to the House was not adopted. The fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had abstained from such threat might be taken by hon. Members on the Ministerial side of the House as an indication that they might vote according to their con-
  1876
  sciences—that they were not under the lash of the Treasury Whips, but might act as men who wished fair play. Under these circumstances, he had not much doubt as to what the judgment of the House would be.
  MR. R. POWERsaid, it appeared to him that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary had acted a wise part in not remaining in the House during this debate. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, seemingly, had remembered the lines that—
  "He who fights and runs away,
  May live to fight another day;"
  and he (Mr. R. Power) congratulated the Leader of Her Majesty's Government upon also being absent on this occasion. The Home Secretary, before taking his departure, however, had given very good advice to the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees, telling him to remain silent. If that advice were not followed, how would the Chairman of Committees be able to meet this statement—namely, that hon. Members were suspended who had not taken nearly so active a part in the exhaustive discussion of the Coercion Bill as some hon. Members who were not suspended? Those to whom he alluded as having taken an active part in the discussion, without being suspended, were English Members. He alluded to the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Joseph Cowen), to the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere, and to the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey). He was quite prepared to prove that these hon. Gentlemen, who were not suspended, had made more speeches and recorded more votes than some of the hon. Members who were suspended. He could not see why the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Wigton Burghs (Sir John Hay) had selected the hon. Member for Kilkenny as the object of his Motion, for hon. Gentlemen had been suspended who had not made as many speeches as the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny, who had not given as many votes, and who had not in any way obstructed the progress of the Prevention of Crime Bill. The difficulty about the matter was this—and he would take his own case—that he found that hon. Gentlemen who had made a far greater number of speeches, and recorded a far greater number of votes, were not

  1877
  suspended at the time he was suspended. He should like to ask the Home Secretary to explain why that was? They found that the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees had come down and suspended men who were not in the House at all—men who were, and had been for some hours, in bed. He had suspended Gentlemen who had only spoken once in the debate, and who had only recorded 10 votes during the whole of the discussions on the Bill. It came to this—that he (Mr. R. Power) found he was suspended for actually doing nothing at all. He had given—he was sorry to say—very few votes on the Bill, and had spoken very seldom upon it up to a certain period. After that period, however, he did something—according to English ideas he obstructed the Bill, yet he was not suspended for it. The result of it all was this—the Government turned the Irish Members out of the House, the Irish Members resolved thereafter to take no part in the discussion of the Bill, and through the loss of their votes on an important principle the Government sustained a serious defeat.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he was not present when the suspensions took place; but he would point out that those suspensions were not merely on the authority of the Chairman of Ways and Means, but by the vote of the House, and on his suggestion. He (Mr. Newdegate) could not believe that that suggestion was made but on grounds that were adequate, although, as the hon. Member (Mr. R. Power) had said, some of those who were suspended might have been less active in persistent Obstruction than others. Above all things, he (Mr. Newdegate) feared the consequences of invalidating the authority of the House. He considered that a most unfortunate precedent was set by the blundering of the House with reference to what had been done in the case of Wilkes. That was the first great precedent upon which some hon. Members were now asking the House to act. Every Parliamentary authority condemned this precedent to which he referred. The Parliamentary authorities said that what had been done in that case had been done for purely Party motives. There was no earthly doubt that the House was right in proceeding against Wilkes, and that their action at that time tended
  1878
  largely to the prevention of the extension of the French Revolution in this country, and secured our peace and safety. Perhaps the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) was not acquainted with the precedent with which he was dealing, and, therefore, did not understand his citation. If the hon. Member was acquainted with the precedent, he was probably aware that it was considered a most unfortunate one, and that until the proposal before the House was made, it had never been attempted to be followed by the House of Commons. If they were to be suspenders of hon. Members by a vote of the House, and were, within a week, to condemn the action they had taken in so suspending, where, he would ask, would be the authority of the House? Besides, he was not at all clear that there had been a mistake in this case. If there had been, it was too late to correct it—they could not place the hon. Member for Kilkenny in the position of having voted on the questions which had come before the House during the time of his suspension. The House ought to be warned by the evil estimation in which its action in having expunged its proceedings in the case of Wilkes had been held.
  MR. STOREYsaid, that if the House had made a mistake, they ought to acknowledge it, and put the matter right. He was in the North of England at the time the occurrence took place; but he read all about it in the newspapers. When he read about the suspensions he was amazed, particularly in regard to the hon. Gentleman who was mentioned in the present Motion. He (Mr. Storey) knew—and he spoke with no small amount of knowledge on this point—that the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny never had obstructed, had never practised, encouraged, nor advised it. On the contrary, the hon. and learned Member had never done anything more than seek honestly and fairly to amend the provisions of the Bill. He (Mr. Storey) felt bound, moreover, when the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) spoke about invalidating the authority of the House, to say that by no process could they more discredit themselves or their Chairman of Committees than by insisting on an error when an error had been committed. He was amazed that when

  1879
  the Chairman was dealing with this matter he did not deal with some Members on this side. If any Member deserved to be suspended, the hon. Member for Northampton did; so did he himself. They and the hon. Member for Newcastle, and the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. T. C. Thompson), did all they could—not in malice, but all in honour—to prevent this Bill from passing. They had endeavoured to have every line and every word of it fully and completely examined, and had protested against it all through; and he must say that some of the Irish Members, having perfect right and justice on their side, would do well when they returned to Ireland to say that there had been hon. Members for English constituencies who voted against this Bill as they had, but had not fallen under this consure. He did not want to go into history; but if he did so he could cite against some of the right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench acts as obstructive, as persistent, as determined as, and much more plainly expressed than, any acts of hon. Members opposite. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade on one occasion declared that he had obstructed a measure, and meant to obstruct it; and he (Mr. Storey) thought it would invalidate the authority of the Chair when Irish Members were able to say, and with justice, that one measure was dealt out to Irish Members and another to English Members, although the latter might just as much deserve censure, if any censure was deserved at all. He denied that any censure was deserved, and he felt that great injustice had been perpetrated against the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Marum), and that the House ought to relieve that Gentleman from the most unpleasant consequences of his being suspended.
  MR. WARTONsaid, he wished on this occasion to act in accordance with his usual principle, and to support the authority of the Chair. It was an unseemly proceeding for the House to be discussing the action of the Chair. It was very well for the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) to say that hon. Members had in past times obstructed Business; but that was in times of unscientific Obstruction; now they had scientific Obstruction; and he should certainly vote against the Motion.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 29; Noes 61: Majority 32.—(Div. List, No. 243.)

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Resolution [July 6] reported, and agreed to.
  Instruction to the Committee on the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill, That they have power to make provision therein pursuant to the said Resolution.

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March 1883, the sum of £5,703,891 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
  Resolution to be reported upon Monday next;
  Committee to sit again upon Monday next.
  House adjourned at half after One o'clock till Monday next.