SPECIAL COMMISSION.

HC Deb 01 June 1882 vol 269 cc1791-930

Clause 1 (Special Commission Court).

MR. PARNELL

said, that in the absence of the hon. Member for Dun- garvan (Mr. O'Donnell), he would move the Amendment which stood in his name—namely, in page 1, line 12, after "Lieutenant," insert— And Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant conjointly, on sworn information to be communicated to Parliament without delay. He wished to point out to the Committee that it was most desirable, while they had every confidence in the Lord Lieutenant personally, that his extreme responsibility under this Bill should be shared by the Chief Secretary. The Lord Lieutenant was not, so to speak, responsible to Parliament. Certainly he was not responsible to the House of Commons. He was not in his place in the House of Commons from day to day, in the same way that the Chief Secretary was; and, as far as he (Mr. Parnell) could see, it was not possible for the Lord Lieutenant to attend in his place in the other House, so that, practically speaking, the action of the Lord Lieutenant would not be subjected to Parliamentary control, in the ordinary sense of having questions directly addressed to him. Under those circumstances, he (Mr. Parnell) felt he was entitled to ask that this very grave responsibility should be shared by the Chief Secretary, and that the right hon. Gentleman who filled the present post and who was in his place in the House of Commons from day to day should be taken into the counsel of the Lord Lieutenant when these Commissions were issued. He (Mr. Parnell), therefore, begged to move the Amendment which stood in the name of the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell).

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 12, after the word "Lieutenant," to insert the words "and Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant conjointly, on sworn information to be communicated to Parliament without delay."—(Mr. Parnell.)

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

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, that the Lord Lieutenant was intrusted with the power of issuing Commissions for the appointment of Special Commissioners as the Representative of the Crown, and nobody could be joined with him. In England it was the duty of the Crown to order such Commissions to be issued, and it was now proposed in Ireland that the Lord Lieutenant should order the Commissions to be issued, as the direct Representative of the Sovereign. In regard to what the hon. Member said as to the responsibility of the Lord Lieutenant, that responsibility would certainly not be increased by adding to him an officer who was really subordinate to him, but who, in the House of Commons, was the organ and Representative of the policy of the Irish Government. He wished to point out to the hon. Member and to the Committee that, not merely was the Chief Secretary responsible for every act done by the Lord Lieutenant in this matter, but that the whole Government was responsible. Every Member of the Government was equally responsible with the Lord Lieutenant himself. When it was suggested that the Judges should be joined to the Lord Lieutenant in the exercise of the powers conferred by this clause, he had pointed out that their responsibility would be much less than that of the Lord Lieutenant, and the same observation applied to the present proposal. Nor was this principle confined to Irish questions. Take what had already occurred that afternoon in reference to the affairs of Egypt. The Government, as a whole, were responsible for the Foreign Policy of the country, and it was not a matter of the slightest consequence that the Foreign Secretary was not a Member of the House of Commons. If anything went wrong in connection with the Foreign Policy of the country the House of Commons would hold the Government responsible and would have no hesitation in censuring them. The responsibility of the Government was precisely the same in reference to Irish affairs. The Prime Minister and all the Members of the Cabinet were responsible for the action of the Lord Lieutenant, and if the Honse of Commons were dissatisfied with the policy of the Lord Lieutenant, they had the right to declare their views by Resolution. The most complete Parliamentary responsibility existed at the present moment, and it would not be increased by adding the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant in reference to the issue of these Commissions. The responsibility was, in reality, vested in the Ministers of the Crown, of whom the Lord Lieutenant was only one.

MR. HEALY

remarked that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary had only dealt with one of the points raised by the Amendment. The Amendment proposed to associate with the Lord Lieutenant— The Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant conjointly, on sworn information to be communicated to Parliament without delay. The right hon. and learned Gentleman objected to the Chief Secretary being associated with the Lord Lieutenant, conjointly, in the issue of the Commission, on the ground that instead of increasing it would diminish the responsibility of the Lord Lieutenant. There was no wish to impair the authority of the Lord Lieutenant; but he thought it was most desirable that the Committee should have some knowledge of the reasons under which the Lord Lieutenant acted. It was also desirable the Lord Lieutenant should only act upon sworn information. That was the second point raised by the Amendment, and the third was that the sworn information upon which the Lord Lieutenant acted should be submitted to Parliament. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had only taken one of these points; but it was of the utmost importance, if the Lord Lieutenant was to act alone, that he should only act upon distinct and sworn information. He presumed there would be no objection on the part of the Government to accept that part of the Amendment. Then came the question of submitting the sworn information to Parliament. Last year the Irish Members had a severe struggle with the Government as to the rules of the prisons, and the necessity of communicating to Parliament the number of the prisoners arrested and the charges made against them; and by bringing pressure to bear upon the Government, after a refusal on their part at first, they induced the Government to give way and concede the point. Whatever force there might be in the view expressed by the Home Secretary that the association of the Chief Secretary with the Lord Lieutenant would impair the Viceroy's authority, no such consequence could result from requiring the Lord Lieutenant to act only on sworn information, and to communicate such information to Parliament. It would even be of advantage to the Lord Lieutenant if, in addition to acting upon sworn information, he could show that the sworn information was sufficiently strong to justify him in acting upon it. Sworn information would be less likely to lead to careless information. He trusted that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would reconsider his refusal to accept the Amendment as a whole.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he had dwelt upon the only point which had been pressed by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). It was sufficient at present, he thought, to point out that if he had been prepared to accept the Amendment, this was not the proper place to insert it. The first part of the clause down to the end of line 16 simply authorized the Lord Lieutenant to direct a Commission to be issued for the appointment of Special Commissioners, and the question whether the Special Commission was to be called upon to act in any particular district did not arise until the Committee reached lines 24 and 25. It would not be brought into action until it appeared to the Lord Lieutenant that, in the case of any person committed for trial for any of the said offences, a just and impartial trial could be had. According to the ordinary course of law, the Lord Lieutenant might by warrant assign to any such Court of Special Commissioners the duty of sitting at the place named in the warrant, &c. The operative part of the clause, therefore, only commenced with line 24; and, therefore, any Amendment of the kind now proposed would be introduced more fitly when that part of the clause was reached.

MR. JOSEPH COWEN

said, it had already been suggested that the responsibility intrusted to the Lord Lieutenant by the clause should be shared either by the Judges or by the Privy Council; but the Home Secretary refused to accept either of those proposals, and it was now proposed by the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) that the responsibility should be shared by the Chief Secretary. He thought hon. Members who supported the Amendment would be quite content if the Government would consent to share the responsibility with someone. The object of the Amendment was to provide that any person who had to complain of the action of this exceptional measure in the House of Commons should have someone with whom to lodge his complaints—someone who should be respon- sible for the operation of the Act—and it was a matter of indifference whether the person who was made responsible conjointly with the Lord Lieutenant was the Home Secretary or the Chief Secretary, so long as it was someone who would be directly responsible in the House of Commons. As the clause stood now, it was the Lord Lieutenant alone; and the Lord Lieutenant was, to a large extent, a myth as far as the House of Commons was concerned. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary would suggest some other Minister being a Member of that House, he did not think the hon. Member for the City of Cork would feel inclined to insist upon his Amendment. All they wanted was that there should be someone to whom these exceptional powers were intrusted to whom they could make a direct appeal.

MR. MARUM

said, he could not see what objection could be entertained to associating the Lord Lieutenant with the Privy Council, or some of the Judges of the High Court of Judicature. It was not at all reasonable that they should require the Lord Lieutenant to act upon his own responsibility without consulting with anybody; and the only object his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had in view in wishing to associate the Chief Secretary with the Lord Lieutenant was to save the Lord Lieutenant from the responsibility of acting upon his own sole authority. This part of the clause related to the issue of the Commission in the first instance, and he certainly thought it was a matter for serious consideration whether the Government ought not to associate with the Lord Lieutenant some responsible person—either the Privy Council, or a Judge, or some person of that kind. The objection raised to the clause as it stood was not a mere technical objection, but a very substantial one.

MR. HEALY

said, the Home Secretary had stated that this part of the clause simply meant that the Lord Lieutenant might appoint a Special Commission, and that the Amendment would not come in until the second part of the clause was reached.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, that, of course, under this part of the clause a Commission would be issued for the appointment of a Court of Special Commissioners; but the Commissioners would do nothing until line 25 was reached, by which the particular form of trial was sanctioned. Or, in other words, although three Judges might be appointed to act as a Commission, with certain forms, the Commission itself could no nothing in the particular district in which the crime took place until the Lord Lieutenant had arrived at the opinion that an ordinary jury trial was inadequate. It was only when the Lord Lieutenant decided that the ordinary law was insufficient to meet the justice of the case that the Commission would act. It would not be at all necessary to assign to the Special Commission any of the ordinary jury cases in which no failure of justice was anticipated. The Commission would exist; but the particular circumstances which would entitle it to act would not arise until the Committee came to lines 24 and 25. Without those words it would be, in point of fact, an inoperative Commission, and it could only be made operative by some such provision as that contained in lines 24 and 25.

MR. HEALY

must say, with all respect for the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that there were operative words in the clause before lines 24 and 25 were reached. Line 15 spoke of persons "charged with any of the following offences;" and the first part of the clause gave power to the Lord Lieutenant to commit any such persons—for instance, a band of "Moonlighters"—for trial in the manner provided by the Act—namely, by the Special Commission. By the first four lines of the clause the Lord Lieutenant obtained power to appoint the Commission, and to send persons charged with particular offences for trial by the Special Commission, without the intervention of a jury. He wished to know from the Irish Law Officers of the Crown whether it was the fact that the Lord Lieutenant at the present moment had no power to issue a Special Commission with a jury? If not, by the adoption of the first four lines of the clause, the Lord Lieutenant would have the power of issuing Special Commissions with juries, quite independent of the latter part of the clause. There was an Amendment on the Paper already which proposed, in line 15, to leave out the words "charged with," and substitute the words "committed for trial for." The effect of that Amendment would be to provide that the only persons who could be tried by the Special Commission were persons who must have been regularly put upon their trial.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

intimated that he intended, at the proper time, to accept an Amendment to that effect.

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

said, the Lord Lieutenant was empowered at the present moment to issue a Special Commission to any part of Ireland for the purpose of trying criminal offences; but such Commissions were of a very different character from those which the Lord Lieutenant would be authorized to appoint under this Bill. The first part of the section under discussion created a Court of Commission and mentioned the jurisdiction of the Court; and when business arose it would, under the warrant of the Lord Lieutenant, be sent to the Court, which would only have jurisdiction to entertain the cases which might be sent up to it. But the Court constituted under the clause must try without a jury, and the Lord Lieutenant was not empowered under the clause to direct it to try any case with a jury. There were ordinary Commissions of Assize twice a-year, and it was within the power of the Lord Lieutenant to issue Special Commissions of a similar character for the trial of ordinary offences with a jury, at any place he might direct, and at any time. But with regard to the limited class of offences specified in the present Bill, there was only a limited jurisdiction given to the Lord Lieutenant to send to the Special Commission Court under this Bill those cases only which came under the description contained in the clause, and all such cases must be tried by the Special Commission without a jury. When they came to the Amendment of the hon. Member for the City of Waterford (Mr. Leamy), the Government intended to accept the hon. Member's proposal, in line 15, to leave out "charged with," and insert instead "committed for trial for."

MR. PARNELL

remarked, that the first two lines of the clause placed the power of issuing Commissions in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant solely; and all he asked the Government was that they should allow the very important responsibility imposed by the clause to be shared by some other person, who should be a Member of the House of Commons. He could well understand that a great deal of the popular estimation in which the Commission was held would depend very much upon its composition; and he did not think, therefore, that it was too much to ask the Government to agree that this very important responsibility should be shared by a Commoner. He had no wish in the slightest degree to detract from Lord Spencer's capability and fairness of mind; but he submitted that a power of this kind, which left one man, and that man not a Member of the House of Commons, with the power of selecting juries of Judges for the trial of persons for offences in reference to which death sentences were involved, it was not an unfair request to make to the Government that the responsibility should be shared by the Chief Secretary. Of course, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary would say that the Lord Lieutenant was responsible to Parliament. Undoubtedly, he was responsible to Parliament, but in such a way as to render his responsibility useless, so far as any power existed in the House of Commons of checking any cases which might occur under the Bill. He hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman would reconsider his decision, and would not refuse the request which had been made to him.

MR. T. D. SULLIVAN

said, it was all very well in that House to talk of the responsibility of the Lord Lieutenant; but to Irish Members, and to the Irish people, those words were simply a phrase without any meaning whatsoever. The Lord Lieutenant, in this, as in other cases, had to act upon the information of various persons. He had to see with the eyes and hear with the ears of other people, and it was not an unreasonable request that the Committee should ask the Lord Lieutenant to enable the House of Commons to pass judgment upon the information on which His Excellency was acting. The Government attempted to put them off with the story that the Lord Lieutenant was responsible. They took that assertion at its true value; they knew from long experience that it was of no value at all.

MR. T. C. THOMPSON

said, the object of the clause was to make as public as possible the causes for which the Special Commission was to be issued. But the Lord Lieutenant being a Member of the Cabinet, a Member of the other House, and intrusted with the Executive duties of the Government in Ireland, there would be great difficulty in getting from him the causes which had led to the issue of a Special Commission. The Chief Secretary was in a very different position. He was always present in that House; he was not a Member of the Cabinet, and it would be possible to appeal to him and to receive an immediate answer. If his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) pressed the Amendment, he (Mr. Thompson) should certainly vote with him.

MR. GRAY

remarked, that the objection which had been raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary struck him as being rather a technical one. If a Special Commission, were issued in England it would be issued in the name of the Crown, and in Ireland it would be issued in the name of Her Majesty's Representative. If the Amendment were put in the precise words in which it stood, the responsibility would be shared by the Chief Secretary; but if it were modified, so as to say that the Lord Lieutenant was acting with, or by the advice of, the Chief Secretary, the purely technical point on which the objection of the right hon. and learned Gentleman was based would be avoided, and the responsibility would still be shared by a Member of Her Majesty's Government, who would be able to answer, in his place in the House of Commons, which was the real point aimed at in the Amendment. It was certainly desirable that there should be some person in that House who would be responsible for the issue of any Commission, and be able to explain the reasons why it had been issued. He hoped the Government would give way, and that they would consent to share the responsibility in some way.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

remarked, that the technical portion of the objection might easily be got over; but the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) raised by his Amendment an objection to the principle of the clause. The principle of the clause was that the Lord Lieutenant should be responsible for the issue of all Special Commissions; but the principle of the Amendment was that the Chief Secretary, or some other person, should divide the responsibility with the Lord Lieutenant. It was the principle of the Amendment which he found himself impossible to accept. He certainly thought that, in a matter of this extraordinary and difficult character, a double responsibility, above all things, should be avoided. There must be one person, who should be solely responsible in cases of this kind. Suppose two persons were made responsible, and a difference of opinion arose between them, who was to prevail? Take a case in which the Lord Lieutenant was of opinion that a Special Commission should issue, and the Chief Secretary thought that it should not. In such a case, who was to prevail? [Mr. HEALY: The law.] In a difference of that nature it was totally impossible that both could prevail; and, therefore, the principle of a divided responsibility could not be entertained at all. The hon. Member said it would be impossible to call anyone to account for what was done unless the responsibility were shared with a Member of the Government, who had a seat in the House of Commons. It occurred to him (Sir William Harcourt) that the Chief Secretary was, and always had been, sufficiently called to account in that House for all the actions of the Executive Government in Ireland. The Chief Secretary was subordinate to the Lord Lieutenant; but hon. Members experienced no difficulty in asking him to defend, and in calling him to account for, the acts of the Irish Executive, and acts over which it was impossible that at present he could exercise any vetoing power. He was, nevertheless, freely called to account, and hon. Members would continue to call him to account, for the manner in which the powers conferred by the present Bill were exercised. The fact that the Lord Lieutenant did not possess a seat in the House of Commons had nothing whatever to do with the matter. It afforded no more ground for objection than the fact that the Foreign Secretary had no seat in the House of Commons. Nobody ever thought of raising an objection that the House of Commons had no control over the Foreign Affairs of the country, because the Foreign Secretary did not possess a seat in that House. If the House disproved of the Foreign Policy of the Foreign Secretary, they at once proposed a Vote of Censure upon the Government of which the Foreign Secretary was a Member; and the Government, who were responsible for every act of the Foreign Minister, were just as much responsible for every act of the Lord Lieutenant. Of course, the Chief Secretary would always be able in the House of Commons to answer any Question as to what might be done, and to give any justification which the Lord Lieutenant desired to give for his acts. In the last resort, the responsibility for the acts of the Lord Lieutenant was the undivided responsibility of the Ministers of the Crown.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary was this—that it possibly might occur that the Lord Lieutenant would be in favour of the issue of a Special Commission, whereas the Chief Secretary might not be in favour of it. If that was the case, and there was likely to be any difference of opinion as to the propriety of exercising the exceptional powers conferred by the Bill, the Government could scarcely desire that the Lord Lieutenant should put them in force. It was not too much to ask, when such great and extraordinary powers were to be conferred, that the two Gentlemen who, whether technically or not, were practically responsible for the Government of Ireland—namely, the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary, should be at least united in thinking that a Special Commission ought to issue in any particular case.

MR. W. M. TORRENS

said, he thought that any exceptional powers of this nature had always been exercised in Ireland under the direction of the Lord Lieutenant in Council. The Privy Council in Ireland was a National Institution possessing legal knowledge. It was a Consultative Council comprising Lords Lieutenants of counties and many other eminent persons intimately acquainted with the habits, occupation, and feelings of the community; and capable therefore of giving the prompt and practical advice which new occasions might require. In his view, it was not at all a test of the goodness or badness of the direction of this clause as to how it should be carried into execution. What was far more important in his mind, was that it should be wisely, and discreetly, and deliberately exercised by the person in chief authority, and it was usually the case that an Irish Viceroy had a Consultative Local Council. He had himself seen a man in that Office, who he had concurred with a multitude of people in thinking very unsuited for it; and if any future Viceroy were similarly unsuitable, there was all the more reason why he should have the benefit, before he committed any grave mistake even in the ordinary performance of his duty, of the consultative advice of those most acquainted with the local affairs of the country. What objection, then, could there be on the part of Her Majesty's Government to insert in the clause the words, "by and with the advice of the Privy Council of Ireland?" Perhaps some hon. Members might recollect what was once said by a great functionary in Ireland, in times that were not very dissimilar to those which existed at present. When the Viceroy asked in the Council what was the best thing to be done under the extraordinary circumstances which prevailed, and the newly-imported English Chancellor suggested that they should call out the posse comitatus, the Chief Baron, with a sardonic smile, observed—"When you have been a little longer in the country you will know that our great difficulty is to keep the posse comitatus at home." He (Mr. Torrens) thought they ought be prepared to cultivate and countenance whatever confidence still remained in that unhappy country; and, instead of carrying out these great and exceptional powers upon the mere ipse dixit of the Viceroy, they should provide that nothing should be done without the advice of men of reputation, rank, and property in Ireland. He was surprised to hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary say that an analogous case in England was the issue of a Special Commission by the Queen. The Queen was never supposed to do any act except through her Ministers. The Ministers acted responsibly to Parliament, and when any special act was done the House of Commons were made acquainted with the reasons why it was done. If any questionable act were committed in this country, the House of Commons looked to the Home Secretary for an explanation, held him accountable, and made his life miserable until he had afforded full satisfaction. They were now engaged in establishing a new Court in Ireland for the trial of offences, which was unprecedented in law, and unprecedented in the Constitution of the country; and in such a state of circumstances the consultative advice of the Council, by and with whose consent the Lord Lieutenant would act, would be of the greatest service to the administration of Ireland.

THE CHAIRMAN

wished to point out, before the discussion proceeded further, that the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Torrens) had been speaking to an Amendment which was not before the Committee. The Amendment was not that the Privy Council, but that the Chief Secretary should be conjoined with the Lord Lieutenant in issuing Special Commissions.

MR. MARUM

said, he wished to call attention to the 20th section of the Bill, which said that— The Lord Lieutenant, by and with the advice of the Privy Council in Ireland, may from time to time, when it appears to him necessary for the prevention of crime and outrage, by proclamation declare the provisions of this Act which relate to proclaimed districts or any of those provisions to be in force within any specified part of Ireland as from the date of the proclamation, or any later date specified in the proclamation; and the provisions of this Act which are mentioned in the proclamation shall after the said date be in force within such specified part of Ireland, and that part of Ireland shall be a proclaimed district within the meaning of the provisions so mentioned. The proclamation shall provide for the manner of the promulgation thereof. He quoted this section in order to show that any objection as to a possible collision between the Lord Lieutenant and any other person who might be associated with him, was just as likely to occur under the provisions of the 20th section, which associated the Lord Lieutenant with the Privy Council, as under any part of the Bill. He, certainly, did not see why the same kind of thing should not be done in reference to the origination of the Commission. The 20th section related to the proclamation of districts, which proclamation would bring into operation the other portion of the Act with regard to strangers and aliens being out of their homes within the Curfew hours. In that case, the sole power was not given to the Lord Lieu- tenant; but he was required to act by and with the advice of the Privy Council. The framers of the Act, therefore, plainly showed that it was inconsistent, but reasonable, that the Privy Council should be associated with the Lord Lieutenant in reference to the proclamation of districts; and he did not see on what principle they could allow the Privy Council to divide the authority of the Lord Lieutenant in one case, and deny it to them in reference to the constitution of the Court.

MR. HEALY

remarked, that the Home Secretary, when he last addressed the Committee, appeared to be dealing with one particular Lord Lieutenant and one particular Chief Secretary, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of the Chief Secretary as being subordinate to the Lord Lieutenant. That was not the actual fact. The Chief Secretary was not subordinate, and it must be borne in mind that in this Bill they were not dealing with the particular right hon. Gentleman who happened at present to hold the Office of Chief Secretary, or with His Excellency Lord Spencer, but with the Chief Secretary and Lord Lieutenant responsible now and to come. The present Lord Lieutenant might retain, and the present Chief Secretary might be promoted to a seat in the Cabinet, in which case he could not be at all described as subordinate to the Lord Lieutenant. They all knew that the Lord Lieutenant spent most of his time in Ireland. The person they had to deal with was the right hon. Gentleman who happened to sit on the Treasury Bench as Chief Secretary. He had no wish to be disrespectful to the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster); but it was well known that that right hon. Gentleman, when he held the Office of Chief Secretary, had a seat in the Cabinet, while Lord Cowper, who was the Lord Lieutenant, was not a Cabinet Minister. The consequence was that Lord Cowper was always described as a Deputy Lord Lieutenant, and a cypher. He wished to point out that a day might come when the Lord Lieutenant might resign, and the present holder of the Office of Chief Secretary might become a Cabinet Minister, which he thought would be a very desirable thing. Then they would be placed in this dilemma, that the Lord Lieutenant would have the sole and undivided responsibility, and a Cabinet Minister would be looked upon as being subordinate to him, although he (Mr. Healy) respectfully submitted that that never could be the case. The Chairman had ruled that it would be out of Order, in the discussion raised upon the present Amendment, to introduce the question of the Privy Council. He quite agreed that it would not be in Order to raise that question upon the present Amendment; but he thought they ought to be permitted to illustrate their argument by referring to it, in order to show the desirability of associating somebody with the Lord Lieutenant. If all reference to it were excluded from the present discussion, the only effect would be that when the present Amendment was disposed of, another Amendment would be moved, directly raising that point. He trusted he would be permitted to say that the reason why the Privy Council were introduced in the 20th clause, and not in the 1st, was that the Privy Council consisted almost entirely of Judges; and they had already strongly protested against the provisions of the Bill referring to the constitution of the Court and abolishing trial by jury. Therefore, it was not proposed to associate the Judges with the Lord Lieutenant in regard to the constitution of the Court; but he hoped the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Torrens) would insist upon his views being embodied in the Bill.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) had referred to the use of the word "subordinate" as applied to the Chief Secretary. It was certainly not a proper phrase to use. A better phrase would be that the Chief Secretary was the Parliamentary Representative of the Lord Lieutenant. That was a much more correct phrase than any which contained the word "subordinate." He would not enter into the other comments of the hon. Member, especially in regard to the proposal of his hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Torrens) as to the association of the Privy Council with the Lord Lieutenant in the proclamation of districts. All he could say was that if the argument addressed to the Committee was well founded, the introduction of the Privy Council into the matter would totally defeat the object of the clause.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, that in the previous discussion the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary spoke of the Chief Secretary as the subordinate of the Lord Lieutenant. The right hon. and learned Gentleman now said that the Chief Secretary was the Parliamentary Representative of the Lord Lieutenant, and it was because the right hon. Gentleman was the Parliamentary Representative of the Lord Lieutenant that the Irish Members wanted to have him present in the House of Commons to defend the policy for which he himself was responsible. As the matter stood at present, they had a man initiating a policy without being subject to any discussion of that policy in the House of Commons. If the Chief Secretary were associated with the Lord Lieutenant he would have to defend the policy of the Executive Government in Ireland, and the House of Commons would be afforded a proper opportunity of discussing it.

MR. FIRTH

pointed out that the important part of the clause was contained in the end of it, which provided that the Lord Lieutenant might by warrant assign to the Special Commission Court the duty of sitting, hearing, and determining, according to law, a charge made against any person committed for trial and named in the warrant. The mere issue of the writ for the appointment of the Special Commission was a formal matter; but when they came to the second part of the clause, which declared that whenever it appeared to the Lord Lieutenant that in the case of a person committed for trial for any of the offences enumerated, a just and impartial trial could not be had according to the ordinary course of law, a Special Court was to be appointed, then the clause became much more important; and when they reached that part of the Bill he proposed to move an Amendment.

MR. LEAMY

observed that, in a time of great excitement in Ireland, if the Government were of opinion that treasonable practices were being resorted to, and they were anxious to put them down, the Lord Lieutenant might appoint a Commission of Judges favourable to the views of the Government, and whose opinions would be well known to be in opposition to the agitation that was taking place. If the writ was merely issued to the Court, and the election of Judges was left to the Court itself, there would be far less objection than to the proposal now made to give the entire power and responsibility to the Lord Lieutenant.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, he thought the discussion was rather one of words than of substance. It was clear that the Chief Secretary for Ireland, whoever he was, could not hold Office for a day without approving the policy which he had to carry out. He would be altogether wanting in self-respect if, not approving of an act of this kind, he still continued to hold Office. It might, therefore, be fairly considered that the Chief Secretary must necessarily be responsible for every act done by the Government.

MR. P. MARTIN

remarked that, if it were a mere matter of phrase, he did not see why the Government should not give way. One of the most devoted of their own supporters had suggested that it was a mere contest about words; and if that were really the case, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department was very ill-advised in persisting in his opposition to the Amendment. What did the Amendment amount to? It was simply that the Chief Secretary should be associated with the Lord Lieutenant and responsible to Parliament for the propriety of the creation, from time to time, of these Special Commissioners Courts. The Chief Secretary must necessarily be a Member of that House, and thus an additional control and safeguard would be conferred. What disadvantage was there in yielding to the Amendment? There was scarcely likely to be any disagreement between the Chief Secretary and the Lord Lieutenant. Did the Government distrust the Chief Secretary? Was the only person they could repose any confidence in in Ireland at present the Lord Lieutenant? Was the Bill based upon this, that the sole and arbitrary power of carrying out the provisions of the Act was to be vested in the Lord Lieutenant? They had already shown, by the way they had drawn the Bill, that they placed no confidence in the force of public opinion in Ireland or in their own judgment; and now they were showing that they had very little confidence indeed in their own Chief Secretary. He appealed to them not to prolong the discussion upon the Bill about a matter which was conceded by speakers in favour of the Government themselves to be a mere technical matter and one of form only.

MR. GIBSON

said, the Lord Lieutenant in Ireland was the head of the Irish Executive and a Member of the Cabinet. If he, in the discharge of his Executive duties as Lord Lieutenant, directed a Commission to issue, not only was the Chief Secretary bound to defend him, but every man on the Treasury Bench was equally bound to defend him. The effect of the Amendment would be to weaken the responsibility of the Lord Lieutenant, and not to increase it; and he thought the House would be in a better position to criticize the action of the Government under the Bill as it stood than it would be if the Amendment were adopted.

MR. HEALY

said, the argument of the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) was entirely based upon the fact that the Lord Lieutenant was Lord Spencer. [Mr. GIBSON: No.] The right hon. and learned Gentleman certainly said that the Lord Lieutenant was a Member of the Cabinet. But this Bill was to extend over a period of three years, and if Lord Spencer resigned, the next Lord Lieutenant might not be a Member of the Cabinet.

MR. GIBSON

The Lord Lieutenant is always at the head of the Irish Executive.

MR. HEALY

said, that was not the point raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman; but he had distinctly stated that the Lord Lieutenant was a Member of the Cabinet. No doubt that was so at present, but it might not be the case throughout the whole three years that it was proposed the Bill should last. The remarks of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and the observations of many Members who had supported the view of the Government, were based upon the fact that the Lord Lieutenant was the Right Hon. John Poyntz Spencer, and nobody else. If it was necessary that the Lord Lieutenant should be a Member of the Cabinet, then let the Government confine the clause to Lord Spencer.

LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE

said, it struck him that the discussion was really one on the difference "'twixt tweedledum and tweedledee." The object of the Amendment was one with which every man must naturally sympathize—namely, that there should be the utmost publicity in regard to the exercise of the important functions conferred by the Bill on the Lord Lieutenant. That was an object in which, speaking for himself, he should entirely concur; but what he asked himself was whether, supposing that the Amendment were carried, there would really be any difference in the law. He had listened attentively to the discussion, and having heard the views of the various high authorities who had addressed the Committee, he failed to see that by adopting the Amendment they would, in reality, be altering anything. An hon. Friend behind him took an independent line in regard to Irish questions, and drew a distinction between a Minister who was in the Cabinet and a Minister who was not. Now, that was a distinction which was not known to the Constitution. The House of Commons knew nothing whatever about a Cabinet, and when a Minister went down to the House to represent a particular Department, whether he was in the Cabinet or not, whether he was a Secretary of State or an Under Secretary of State, he was just as much responsible to Parliament in either position. But in this case there was a special reason for not adopting the Amendment. His right hon. Friend the Member for the Border Burghs (Mr. Trevelyan) was not the Chief Secretary for Ireland, but merely the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. He was the alter ego of the Lord Lieutenant, and to all intents and purposes he was the same person as the Lord Lieutenant. Were they then obtaining anything by pressing the Amendment upon the acceptance of the Government? It became a mere question of form, and there was no doubt whatever that upon the question of form the Government were perfectly in the right in rejecting the Amendment.

MR. CALLAN

said, he remembered the discussion that took place last Session on the proposal to associate the Privy Council with the Lord Lieutenant, and upon the necessity of having sworn information upon which to justify in Parliament the action of the Lord Lieutenant. He would refer the Committee to the celebrated letter of Lord Clarendon when the Habeas Corpus Act was suspended in 1848. In that letter, Lord Clarendon, stated that he never kept a man in confinement under that Act without having sworn information to justify him. The Act was administered stringently, but it left no bitter memories behind. Last year they allowed the Lord Lieutenant, on his own authority, to arrest a man on reasonable suspicion, and without a sworn information, and as long as they lived bitter memories of the administration and of the unfair operation of that Act would remain behind. How was it that the Act of 1881 had left so many and such bitter memories when the Act of 1848 had left no evil memories whatever? It was because in 1848 arbitrary power to act was not conferred upon the Lord Lieutenant; but he was unable to act except upon sworn information. He would venture to suggest, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, that they should leave out the first word "and," and insert By and with the advice of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant on sworn information, to be communicated to Parliament from time to time as the Act may direct. It was not, as the noble Lord opposite (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) asserted, a question "'twixt tweedledum and tweedledee," but a matter of safeguard. It should be remembered that they were doing away with the Constitution of Ireland; and if the Chief Secretary was the alter ego of the Lord Lieutenant, they were not asking for any extreme measure, but for a very mild amendment of the clause indeed. As to the proposal to leave the matter to the Privy Council, he thought it would be absurd to give to the Privy Council—which consisted mainly of Judges—the power of ordering a Special Commission to issue. In point of fact, as the trials went on, there would be no Privy Council and no Judge left who could be sent out upon a Commission. He intended to propose, in another part of the Bill, to take away from the Lord Lieutenant the power of selecting the Judges, and to give it to the three courageous Judges, the three Barons of the Exchequer, who had so energetically protested against the proposals of Her Majesty's Government.

MR. T. D. SULLIVAN

remarked, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) said he did not understand the fears which had been ex- pressed. But the Irish Members understood them very well, and they desired to place whatever check they possibly could upon the despotism of the Lord Lieutenant. The Lord Lieutenant would be able, if the Bill passed in its present shape, to send out, of his own sweet will, a Hanging Commission, which would sweep over the length and breadth of Ireland, or whatever part of Ireland he chose to select as the sphere of operations of the new tribunal. It was not unreasonable, therefore, to require that an individual, armed with such exceptional powers, should inform the House of Commons on what evidence or sworn information he was acting. The power was not only a new one, but a very serious and a very important one; and he thought they were raising an intelligible issue when they sought to impose this check upon the action of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 28; Noes 162: Majority 134.—(Div. List, No. 102.)

THE CHAIRMAN

The next Amendment is one which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), who proposes to limit the operation of the clause to certain "counties named in the Schedule." Now, there is no such Schedule proposed to be inserted. It is, therefore, incompetent for the hon. Member to move the Amendment, as it is incomplete, and it cannot be put. The next Amendment, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), is complete in itself, and can be proposed.

MR. HEALY

said, he wished to explain, upon the point of Order, that there were certain districts in Ireland, in the Province of Ulster, which were considered to be exceptionally free from, crimes of an agrarian character; and he had placed the Amendment on the Paper with the view of inducing the Government to state what limit they intended to place upon the area to which the Bill would apply. He presumed that there would be a Schedule.

THE CHAIRMAN

The question was considered last year, and an Amendment in the same sense was ruled to be incomplete.

MR. HEALY

said, he would not press the point; but in the absence of his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) he would move the next Amendment, which, stood in his hon. Friend's name. That Amendment was to insert after the word "may," in line 12, the words— By public proclamation, which shall specify the counties and districts in Ireland over which the Special Commission Court shall have jurisdiction. The object of his hon. Friend's Amendment was to provide that the Lord Lieutenant, on the passing of the Act, should issue a proclamation stating the particular counties and districts in Ireland to which the Act was to apply. For instance, it was desirable to know whether in Ulster, the town of Belfast, the counties of Antrim, Armagh, Down, Fermanagh, and Donegal, were to be included in the proclamation? He desired to have from the Government a statement as to the particular regions or areas over which they claimed that trial by jury had been a failure. It was too much the habit of the Government to make a general allegation. They had been in the habit of telling the House—and the statement was repeated in all the English newspapers—that there had been a failure of trial by jury; but the Government had never condescended to descend to particulars. He asked them now to tell the Committee where this failure of justice had taken place. He could understand that if it were simply a local disease the remedy also should be local; but the claim now made on behalf of the Government extended over the entire length and breadth of Ireland, and what he wanted to get at was, the precise area in which, in the opinion of the Government, there had been a failure of justice. He could understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary saying—"It is quite true that it is only in particular districts that this failure occurs; but it is possible that the disease may spread over the entire country." But, nevertheless, the Government were always alleging that there was at least one quarter of Ireland which was safe, and in which the people were loyal to the British Constitution. That portion of Ireland was Ulster, and he, therefore, respectfully asked the Government if they were going, by this Bill, to place the Province of Ulster under the ban of disloyalty, as being a district where trial by jury had been a failure? What would be the effect of refusing an Amendment of this character? He asked the Government to give the Committee some distinct statement as to where trial by jury in Ireland had failed. For his own part, he denied that trial by jury had failed, and he asserted that in the large majority of cases in which there had been an acquittal or a disagreement the evidence which had been brought before the jury had been insufficient to warrant the conviction of the accused persons. If there had been any failure at all, it had been entirely a failure of evidence, and a failure on the part of the Government to bring the real criminals to justice. There had been no failure of the jury to convict when the weight of evidence would have justified a conviction. The failure was altogether in the police system. Surely, the right hon. and learned Gentleman was acquainted with the centres and areas over which the Government claimed that trial by jury had been a failure. Let the right hon. and learned Gentleman inform the Committee what those areas were; the Committee would then be able to analyze his statement. But if he asserted that over the entire range of judicial proceedings in Ireland there had been a failure, that might be a very convenient course for him to take; but it was no answer to the assertion of the Irish Members that there had been such a failure at all. He trusted that the Government, by accepting the Amendment, would give some indication that they did not wish to apply the provisions of the Bill to the whole of Ireland, and he further trusted that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary would be able to make a statement that would be satisfactory to the Irish Members.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 12, after "may," insert "by public proclamation, which shall specify the counties and districts in Ireland over which the Special Commission Court shall have jurisdiction."—(Mr. Healy.)

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

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, it was certainly not the intention nor the expectation of Her Majesty's Govern- ment that the jurisdiction to be created by the Bill should apply to the whole of Ireland. Indeed, he hoped that it would not apply to the greater part or to any large portion of Ireland; but as to what part of Ireland it should or should not apply to, that was a matter which must vary from day to day. If the condition improved the area would get less; and if the condition got worse then the area would become greater. The very essence of that jurisdiction was that it should not be stereotyped by the Bill, or even by a proclamation. Nor would the issue of the proclamation define what the hon. Member desired; because, if the Government were compelled to define the limits of the operation of the Bill under the proclamation, they would not be safe unless they proclaimed almost the whole of Ireland, because it would not be desirable to extend the jurisdiction to a particular place after a crime had been committed there. Take the case of a murder like that which occurred the other day. Suppose the place were in a proclaimed district. Then, in order to bring it within the operation of this Bill, it would be necessary to make the proclamation pro ad hoc after the murder had been committed. He did not think that that would be at all desirable. They must proclaim not individual places alone, but the whole district. They could, as the Bill stood, limit the area to which it was applied actually to the places in which individual murders or crimes were committed; but if the Amendment were adopted, the Government would not be safe unless they proclaimed very large and extensive districts all over Ireland. But, in point of fact, what the hon. Gentleman desired would actually occur under the Bill. The Bill would only be applied to cases in which it was found necessary to apply it. If the Amendment were adopted, it would drive the Government, in order that they might meet contingencies that might arise in future, to proclaim much more extensive districts than those which under the Bill it would be found necessary to proclaim.

MR. WARTON

said, he rose to a point of Order. He apprehended that the Amendment could scarcely be put in its present form, because it spoke of a "Special Commission Court," whereas no such expression yet occurred in the Bill, and would not come in until they reached lines 27 and 28.

MR. HEALY

said, that, as regarded the point of Order, any difficulty of the kind referred to might easily be avoided by the insertion of further words.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, the Amendment was quite in Order. "Special Commission Court" was the short title of the clause itself, and though that does not form part of a Bill, the same expression was used in different parts of the Bill, and it was not out of Order to refer to it in that way.

MR. MARUM

said, the object of the Amendment was to limit the operation of the Commission. He admitted that there was a difficulty in dealing with that question at that stage of the Bill. A subsequent section, Clause 22, provided that— Subject to the provisions of this Act, and for the purpose of the trial of any person charged before them, a Special Commission Court shall have all the powers and jurisdiction of Her Majesty's High Court of Justice in Ireland. In the second place, it was to have— The same powers and jurisdiction as if it were a court of oyer and terminer; and, in the third place, the same powers as— A court of gaol delivery, trying with a jury an offender indicted before such court; and, lastly— All the powers of a petty jury at such court. It might be difficult, until that question came on for regular discussion, to adopt this Amendment; but he took it that the only object of the Amendment was to limit the operations of the Court to certain districts.

MR. GRAY

confessed that he did not attach any particular importance to this Amendment; but he did attach considerable importance to the declaration of opinion it had elicited from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary. The right hon. and learned Gentleman stated that he considered it most undesirable that a proclamation should issue in reference to a crime which had already been committed. If that was his deliberate opinion, he (Mr. Gray) was sure that when the question came on for debate he would recognize the undesirability of trying crimes already committed under a proclamation which had not yet been issued. It would, therefore, be necessary to restrict the proclamation to crimes committed after the passing of the Bill; because it would be impossible to draw a distinction between the two cases of trying a crime committed after the passing of the Bill and trying a crime committed prior to the issue of the proclamation. If it was undesirable in one case, it was much more undesirable to try a crime committed before there was any possibility of issuing a proclamation. He hoped, therefore, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not forget in the future discussion, of the Bill the clear opinion he had given utterance to on this particular occasion.

MR. CALLAN

said, he thought that it would be wise to accept the Amendment, if only to remove an impression which might be an erroneous one. While the Bill took power to select the Judges, there was an impression that this part of the measure might place in the hands of the Government the power of selecting prisoners. Take the case of the county of Louth. They could not go to the county of Louth, because there was a state of tranquillity in that county; and were they, then, to issue a Commission for the purpose of selecting prisoners from that county? The clause spoke of— The duty of sitting at the place named in the warrant, and of there, without a jury, hearing and determining, according to law, the charge made against the person so committed for trial and named in the warrant. The real objection of the Government to accept the Amendment would be that if they proclaimed any county in Ireland they might be obliged to try as prisoners all persons who might have committed any one of the six classes of offences specified in the clause. If they did not do that they would be able to point out or select or "spot" the men they wanted to have convicted. There were only certain persons that they wished to try and convict under this Bill. It was, therefore, desirable that districts in which these crimes did not occur should be protected, and that the Government should not take power not merely to select the Judges, but to select and "spot" the prisoners who were to be tried.

MR. HEALY

said, the statement which, had been made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary was a very important one. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that it was not for offences that had been committed that he refused to restrict the Bill, but for offences that might have to come. He wished to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to remember what would be the fate of all the districts in Ireland which were not proclaimed ad hoc. Would it not be an intimation to the jurymen of such districts that if they did not do their duty in what he considered to be a proper manner the Lord Lieutenant would issue a Commission. He (Mr. Healy) was rather alarmed at the prospect the right hon. and learned Gentleman held out to them. He presumed that it would be possible under the Bill for the Lord Lieutenant to issue a Special Commission for the county of Cork and to sweep into it every criminal from the Giant's Causeway down to Cape Clear. That was what the right hon. and learned Gentleman distinctly stated to be possible. The 22nd clause of the Bill stated that— Commissions under this Act constituting a Special Commission Court should be in the prescribed form and be issued in the prescribed manner. He should like to know what the Government view of that clause was? Did they intend that the Lord Lieutenant should proclaim certain districts immediately he had obtained that power? [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT: No.] The Government did not. A man had a natural right to trial by jury where an offence had been committed; but if this Bill passed in its present shape any man charged with an offence might be brought down to the county of Cork, hundreds of miles from the place where the crime was committed, simply that he might be tried by a Special Commission in order to suit the whim of the Executive. The Government might say that they did not intend anything of the kind; but he wanted to have an assurance that such a thing could not happen. Until he was himself put upon his trial for a Whiteboy offence such a thing had never been known as a bail case being brought before a Winter Assize. But the Government made an inroad upon the ordinary course of procedure and tried him before a Winter Assize for an offence for which he was bailed. There might be similar inroads upon the regularly understood practice under the provisions of this Bill. Persons they had never seen and never heard of—some little clique in Dublin—might obtain an order for a Special Commission to issue under this Bill for the simple purpose of trying offences which were alleged to have been committed a great distance away. They could not forget what had been done under the Act of last year. It was not ancient history. It was well known that the Government obtained the Act for the purpose of attacking certain persons—"village ruffians" they were called—but not being able to find persons who came within that category, they used the provisions of the Act for the purpose of attacking quite a different class of persons. The 22nd section of the Bill provided that— Commissions under this Act constituting a Special Commission Court shall be in the prescribed form and be issued in the prescribed manner. Would the issue of a warrant in a prescribed form and in a prescribed manner give information as to the area within which the operations of the Commission were to be confined? If the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary objected to the Amendment as a whole, would he accept the words "by public proclamation," leaving out all the rest? If the right hon. and learned Gentleman would do that it would modify the objection entertained to the clause as it now stood, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman might be able to widen the area later on for ad hoc purposes.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, the hon. Member had asked the Government to state exactly what they meant by this clause. He thought that was a very fair demand, and he would state exactly what it was intended to meet, and why he thought the Amendment would defeat the object the Government had in view. The object of the clause was to punish crime and to deter a person who was likely to commit a crime by the certainty that he would be punished. What was regarded as a very important matter now was that the murderer went from one county to another. He was very often transferred from one county to another in order to commit a murder or an outrage, and he had a good chance of escaping punishment if he could get a single indi- vidual upon the jury by whom he was tried who was inclined to let him off. That greatly encouraged murder, and in order to get rid of that encouragement it was absolutely necessary the Government should be able to show such an individual that they had the power of securing the execution of justice against him by the formation of a fair and impartial tribunal, without giving him the chance of having a sworn member of a secret society on the jury fully prepared to acquit him. That power was not to be exercised anywhere, but only where it was thought necessary to exercise it. If the Bill were made to apply to proclaimed districts only, the unproclaimed districts would be in more danger than those which were proclaimed, because the man who contemplated the perpetration of a crime would say—"Here is a district in which I can commit murder." [Mr. HEALY: Would he not require a victim?] Yes; he would require a victim; but he was sorry to be obliged to add that a victim was never wanted, even in one of the least disturbed districts, whether the victim happened to be a Chief Secretary or an Under Secretary. Nor was there any necessity that the victim should be a native Irishman, it was all the same to the intending murderer. The present Bill was directed not only against resident Irishmen, but against foreign assassins, and it was necessary that they should detect and punish the criminal wherever he was found. Any limitation in this respect would entirely defeat the object of the Bill. It must not be allowed that a member of one of the secret assassination societies which existed in Ireland and elsewhere should he able to commit a murder, and then take his chance of escaping punishment by having a confederate upon the jury. It was against occurrences of that kind that this Bill was directed; and he was quite sure the Committee would see that the moment they began to define the areas they would defeat the object of the Bill, and create the very danger they wished to avoid. There must be no district in Ireland in which an assassin connected with a secret society could consider himself safe in consequence of being able to have a confederate on the jury.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, the question raised by the Amendment was a very important one. Two views might be taken of the clause. On the one hand, the Government might say they would apply the clause to particular districts in which there were secret societies, and in which it was necessary to adopt a stringent course, because it was difficult to obtain a conviction where juries were terrorized over to such an extent that they were incapable of performing their duty; and, on the other hand, as the clause now proposed, particular cases in every part of the country might be withdrawn from jury-trial. He did not think that the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary altogether applied, because the objection raised was not with reference to the place where the murders were committed, but to the tribunal which it was proposed to establish for trying murder when it had been committed. If an assassin went down and committed a murder in a district where a jury refused to be terrorized over, his object would not be gained. It was only in those districts in which no dependence could be placed upon trial by jury that this Special Commission would be of any service. If the object was to pick out particular cases and submit them to a Special Commission, all he had to say was that such a mode of selection would be a very invidious practice. The wording of the clause was— Whenever it appears to the Lord Lieutenant that in the case of any person committed for trial for any of the said offences, a just and impartial trial cannot be had according to the ordinary course of law, the Lord Lieutenant may by warrant assign to any such Court of Special Commissioners the duty of sitting at the place named in the warrant, and of there, without a jury, hearing and determining, according to law, the charge made against the person so committed for trial and named in the warrant. But it would be a most invidious course to pick out and select the persons who were to be tried by the Commission. He might instance the case of the recent terrible murders in Dublin. He hoped it might yet be the case that the perpetrators of that crime would be apprehended and put upon their trial and brought to justice. But it would be a very invidious thing for Her Majesty's Government to say to the people of Dublin—"Your opinions are such that even in regard to such a terrible crime a fair and impartial trial cannot be had in Dublin, and, therefore, we will try the case before a Special Commission;" but, on the other hand, the proceeding would be by no means so invidious if it could be shown that the district was so ramified by secret societies, and that such terrorism had been brought to bear upon the people, that on that account the county and city of Dublin had already been proclaimed as a district in which a fair trial could not be had.

MR. LEAMY

remarked that his hon. Friend the Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) had asked the Home Secretary to accept a portion of the Amendment—the words "by public proclamation," rather than reject the whole of it. As the Bill at present stood hon. Members did not know whether, when it appeared to the Lord Lieutenant that a fair trial could not be had, he might not make out a warrant directed to these Judges, and the Judges might then hold their Court in private. Hon. Members who supported the Amendment were desirous that the Court should be held in public, and that every possible publicity should be given to the action of the Lord Lieutenant. At first sight he had been inclined to think that the Amendment was wholly unnecessary; but, on reconsideration, he was of opinion that it was desirable to have some assurance from the right hon. and learned Gentleman as to whether it was intended to make a public announcement of the intention to hold a Special Commission Court and of sending prisoners before it for trial.

MR. T. C. THOMPSON

said, he thought the words of the clause as they now stood were better than the words of the Amendment. By the Constitution of England every person charged with an offence was privileged to be tried in the county in which the offence was alleged to have been committed. There was nothing said in the clause as to where the Commission was to issue; but he assumed that the principles of the Constitution would be followed, and that the Lord Lieutenant would be limited in issuing a Commission for the trial of offences to the county in which they were committed. But if the words of the Amendment were followed the Lord Lieutenant would have power to extend the operations of the Commission over various counties; and, therefore, by accepting the Amendment they would be limiting the liberty of the subject to a greater extent than it was limited by the clause as it stood.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, that of course it was not intended that the Commission should be a secret tribunal, and there would be a proper announcement made of the appointment of a Commission. Hon. Members would see that the warrant must be a public warrant. He would, however, consider the matter, and he would make it plain that the tribunal which it was proposed to establish would not be a secret tribunal in any way. His objection to a proclamation was rather to the particular form of the proclamation laid down in the Amendment than to a proclamation itself.

MR. HEALY

said, that, under these circumstances, he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE CHAIRMAN

The next Amendment of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) proposes to limit the operation of this part of the Bill to the 31st of May, 1883. That is practically bringing under discussion the 30th clause of the Bill, which deals with the duration of the measure, and which provides that it shall continue in force until the expiration of three years after the passing of the Act. I am of opinion that any limitation as to time must be considered upon Clause 30. The Amendment, therefore, is out of Order, and cannot be considered here.

MR. HEALY

said, he wished to point out that the clause gave certain powers to the Judges, and other powers were also given to the stipendiary magistrates. What he asked now was that one power should be made to expire at one date and the other might be made to expire at another. It might be expedient to continue the power of the stipendiary magistrates in regard to strangers and aliens and newspapers for three years. What he contended, and what the object of his Amendment was, was that the abolition of trial by jury should not remain in force for a longer period than 12 months.

THE CHAIRMAN

I have already stated that the proper time for considering the limitation either of any part of the Act or of the whole Act will be upon Clause 30, and not in this place.

MR. LEAMY

asked whether, if the first part of the Bill were now passed just as it stood, the Committee would be giving to the Lord Lieutenant the power of issuing a Special Commission without any limitation whatever? If that were so, they would in all probability be told, when they came to discuss the question how long the Act was to remain in force, that it was too late to make any limitation as to the time.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, that any proposal to alter the Bill, either in whole or in part, could be made on the Report; but any question as to the limitation of its duration could properly be discussed under Clause 30. Under that clause it might be made to expire either at one time or another.

THE CHAIRMAN

The next Amendment is in the name of the hon. Member for the City of Waterford (Mr. Leamy).

MR. LEAMY

moved, in page 1, line 15, to leave out the words "charged with," in order to insert the words, "committed for trial for."

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 15, to leave out "charged with," and insert "committed for trial for."—(Mr. Leamy.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'charged with' stand part of the Clause."

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he did not object to the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. HEALY

moved, in page 1, line 16, after the word "offences," to insert "where such offences have been committed in Ireland." He did not think the Government intended to object to the Amendment; but if they did he was prepared to argue it.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 16, after "offences," insert "where such offences have been committed in Ireland."—(Mr. Healy.)

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

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, the Amendment moved by the hon. Member must be taken in conjunction with other Amendments, of which there were several on the Paper. The clause specified certain offences, such as murder, manslaughter, attempts to kill, aggravated crimes of violence against the person, arson, and attacks upon dwelling houses. These were all local offences, but treason or treason-felony was not a local offence. A person coming into the United Kingdom, in order to commit an act of treason, might be tried anywhere, instead of in a particular part of the country; and therefore the Amendment moved by the hon. Member hung upon the question whether treason and treason-felony were to be included among the offences dealt with by the Bill. He did not think it would be convenient to argue the point upon this part of the Bill; and as it really was incidental to the other question he had pointed out, it would be better to take the discussion upon the words "treason or treason-felony" themselves.

MR. GIBSON

said, there was one point he would throw out for the consideration of the Government. The Bill intended and desired to grasp, as far as might be, the operations of secret societies, which obviously worked through a medium that was very hard to be got at. Everyone knew how extremely difficult it was to get at this class of offence. It comprised the crime of conspiracy; and it might be a matter for consideration how the question ought to be dealt with. There might be conspiracy of a very criminal character, in order to effect some such deplorable outrage as that which had been lately committed in Dublin. If this Amendment were agreed to, some of the parties who were most criminal might be resident in other parts of Her Majesty's Dominions, and it would be difficult to get at them. The question, therefore, was one which, in his opinion, was not to be lightly disposed of. He had not himself fully thought out the question, and he had prepared no Amendment upon it; but he threw out the suggestion that it was a question worthy of consideration at a future stage of the Bill. Although, as he said, he did not himself intend to place any Amendment on the Paper, it was not a question that ought to be disposed of in a few light words, but it involved many considerations which would have to be carefully looked into.

MR. PARNELL

said, the object of his hon. Friend the Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) was not to interfere with the nature of the offences, or to limit their description in any way, but rather to prevent the Bill from giving the Irish Courts a jurisdiction more ex- tensive than that which they possessed at present. As the Home Secretary had pointed out, the Irish Courts at the present moment had jurisdiction to try the offences of treason and treason-felony, whether part of the offence might have bean committed outside the jurisdiction, or whether it had been wholly committed within the jurisdiction, of the Courts. The Amendment of his hon. Friend did not interfere with that; and although he (Mr. Parnell) would not say that the Amendment best expressed what he wanted to see carried out, yet it would be evident to anyone who had considered the Bill that it was necessary to guard against conferring any jurisdiction upon the Irish Courts other than that which they possessed at present. That was to say, that they should not have power given to them by the Bill to try any offence without a jury which they did not possess at present to try with a jury. He thought if the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary could see his way to state, if he approved of this view, that he would consider the matter, and endeavour to frame words in order to meet the object his hon. Friend the Member for Wexford had in view, the right hon. and learned Gentleman would get rid of a considerable amount of difficulty.

MR. HOPWOOD

said, he was not quite sure that he followed his right hon. and learned Friend in his assertion that the question of venue was immaterial, except as regarded treason or treason-felony, because his right hon. and learned Friend would remember that murder committed abroad might become cognizable here, and the offender be placed upon his trial. He only wished to point out that, as a matter of fact, that was an offence which might be committed abroad, and yet be punishable in this country.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, that, no doubt, the matter required consideration, and he should be prepared to consider it.

MR. MARUM

pointed out that the 3rd sub-section of the 22nd clause provided that— Any offence with which a person brought for trial before a Special Commission Court in pursuance of this Act is charged shall he deemed to have been committed within the jurisdiction of such court. The hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. C. Russell), seeing the import- ance of that provision, had an Amendment on the Notice Paper to add the words "provided the same has been committed in Ireland." He (Mr. Marum) had also an Amendment to a similar effect. It would, therefore, be seen that the question arose again on the 22nd clause, and it was regarded of so much importance that several hon. Members were prepared to propose that the jurisdiction of the Court should be confined to offences committed in Ireland.

MR. HEALY

asked if the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary would consent to the insertion of the words "where such offences are committed within the jurisdiction of the Irish Courts?" He thought that would get the Committee out of the present difficulty. He did not wish to enter into a point which would lead to a long discussion; but he should feel obliged to do so unless he had some understanding from the Government. Take the Law of Conspiracy, for instance. A man might be tried for being a member of the Land League. The Land League in Ireland was suppressed; but there were branches of the Land League in England, and a man might be taken over to Ireland from Nottingham and tried under the provisions of this Bill. It would certainly be a monstrous thing to take a man over from this country, where certainly there had been no failure on the part of a British jury to return a verdict against the weight of evidence, and try him in Dublin, or elsewhere, by a Special Commission without a jury. He hoped the Home Secretary would accept the suggestion made by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), and consent to insert the words "where such offences are committed within the jurisdiction of the Irish Courts."

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he thought, if the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) would look at the 2nd sub-section of Clause 22, he would see that the powers and jurisdiction of the Special Commission were defined to be— All the powers and jurisdiction of Her Majesty's High Court of Justice in Ireland, and all the same powers and jurisdiction as if it were a Court of oyer and terminer, and a Court of gaol delivery, trying with a jury an offender indicted before such Court, and shall have all the powers of a petty jury at such Court. It was quite plain, therefore, that the Court could have no powers except those which the Irish Judges at present possessed, except that of trying a case without a jury.

MR. HEALY

asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman to read Sub-section 3.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he was about to do so. That Sub-section provided that— Any offence with which a person brought for trial before a Special Commission Court in pursuance of this Act is charged shall be deemed to have been committed within the jurisdiction of such Court. [Mr. HEALY: Hear, hear!] Perhaps the hon. Member would allow him to go on. He thought that sub-section would require a further definition than it possessed at present, and he would undertake to extend the definition in the direction suggested by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). That was to say, that it should apply only to cases that were now within the jurisdiction of the Irish Courts. He did not wish at present to commit himself to any particular words; but his object would be to confine the powers of the Special Commission to the jurisdiction now exercised by similar Courts in Ireland. It was not intended to take persons from England to Ireland and try them for offences which had not been committed in Ireland.

MR. MARUM

said, he had an Amendment on the Paper, which he intended to move when Sub-section 3 of Clause 22 was reached.

MR. HEALY

intimated that he would withdraw his Amendment. He would, however, ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman when he expected to be able to place the Amendment he had promised on the Paper? The point was one of some difficulty, and it would be a matter of convenience to hon. Members that they should be able to see the promised alteration as soon as possible. The Government would recollect that last year they were constantly objecting to Amendments in the Land Bill being brought on without an opportunity having been afforded of seeing them on the Paper. He hoped the Government would not be guilty of the same inconvenient practice.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he would be able to place his Amend- ment on the Paper by Monday, at all events.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. HEALY

said, there was another matter which he thought it would not be necessary to argue at any length, because he believed the Government would be prepared to give way in reference to it. It was to insert, in line 16, after "offences," the words "committed since first May, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-two." He might mention a fact which occurred in connection with the Coercion Bill of last year. The Government brought up a clause in that Bill in the same form as the clause in the present Bill; but, after a discussion, they found themselves obliged to limit it in the way now suggested. As the Bill now stood, the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. P. J. Smyth), who sat and voted with the Government, might be indicted for treason committed in the year 1848. Sir Charles Gavan Duffy, at present one of Her Majesty's Ministers in Australia, was tried five times without a conviction; and under this Bill, he might now be put upon his trial for a sixth time. He admitted that the Government were not likely to take such a course; but some limitation was certainly desirable. He had suggested the 1st of May, 1882; and he hoped that any offender who had been guilty of any of the crimes dealt with by the Act, might be detected and punished. The Irish Members had no desire to screen any offender whom the Government might have in custody charged with the commission of actual crime; but they desired to see some limitation put upon the retrospective action of the clause. The right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland must have some good idea who the men were he was anxious to try under this Bill. There were a certain number of men in gaol at the present moment, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman would know whether the offences they had committed would bring them under the provisions of this new Coercion Act. By the Coercion Act of last year the offences for which arrests could be made were limited to offences committed subsequent to the 30th of September, 1880; and he thought, in regard to the present Bill, it was only reasonable that the Government should make up their mind and give the Committee some undertaking that they would fix a limit. He hoped the Government would see the absolute necessity of providing a limit.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 16, after "offences," insert "committed since first May, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-two."—(Mr. Healy.)

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

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he quite agreed with what the hon. Member had said—that it was not desirable to bring up the old cases of treasonable offences which had been alluded to. That would be altogether unreasonable and undesirable; but when they came to questions like those of murder, and outrages approaching to murder, really there should be no prescription for crimes like those. And what was more, it was impossible to define any limit of date. To say that the Bill should not deal with murders committed prior to 1880 would be to defeat the whole object and tenour of the measure. Reference had been made to the Bill of last year; but that was a measure of a different character altogether. It was a measure of a preventive character, authorizing the arrest of persons who were suspected of being guilty of criminal practices, of intimidation, and inciting to violence. It was necessary, in that case, to fix some limit upon the retrospective action of the Bill; but the object of this Bill was to supply a fair and impartial tribunal for the punishment of criminals, and for insuring that they should be brought to justice. There certainly was no reason for assigning any date, or any possibility of defending the assignment of any particular date, beyond which the Act should not be operative. It was said that a person would be brought under a jurisdiction to which he was not subject before the passing of the Act. That was not so. No man had a right to commit murder on the assumed impunity of being tried by an unfair and partial tribunal. The impunity of crime was not a vested right which any man could set up; and if a man had enjoyed it for a certain period—it might be for one year, or for three or four—in consequence of the uncertainty that an Irish jury would agree to convict him, he had no right to say—"I committed murder because I thought I should get off. It is pretty certain that a year ago no jury would have convicted me, and if I had ever thought that I should be punished for this murder, I should never have committed it." No man was entitled to set up a defence of that nature. Everyone had a right to assume that if he committed a crime he would be punished for it; and all this Bill did was to provide a certainty in the future that punishment would follow crime. He saw no reason why, as regarded the heinous offences of treason, murder, or of other aggravated crimes mentioned, the Bill should not be retrospective. This, however, was not really retrospective legislation. It was simply applying to crime, if proved, the punishment which crime ought to receive. The Bill simply constituted such a tribunal as would accomplish such a result, and no offender had a right to complain.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, he thought that in the remarks which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had made he had begged the whole question, because the question between the Irish Members and the right hon. and learned Gentleman was whether a tribunal without a jury was fairer than one with a jury. He (Mr. O'Connor) and his Friends said it was, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman had no right to take advantage of his own wrong. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had drawn a picture of murderers committing murder on the prospect of being acquitted by a corrupt jury. Now, he ventured to say that this was a foul calumny upon juries in Ireland, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman was unable to substantiate. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was unable to prove that any jury had refused to convict when honest, fair, and convincing evidence had been placed before them. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that no murderer had a right to look for impunity. Certainly not. But a murderer, however great a criminal he might be, had a right to look forward to a fair trial, protected by his peers. The Government were, by this Bill, taking away from him the safeguard which he now possessed. The Bill was introduced partly for the prevention of crime, and partly, he presumed, for the settlement of Ireland; but anybody who took anything like a statesmanlike view of the affairs of that country would rather be prepared to tolerate a certain amount of evil, lest, by interfering with small evils, larger evils would result. He (Mr. O'Connor) was of opinion that the Government would do much to disturb the tranquillity of Ireland if they raked up all the transactions which had taken place in bygone years. It might be that a few criminals would be punished; but Ireland would be disturbed, and its tranquillity would be disturbed, and that return of peace and order, which they all desired, would be prevented, if, the moment they secured the passing of this Bill, they went about the country bringing men before what might turn out to be a very partial Court of Justice, and trying them for offences which were now of very ancient date.

MR. MACFARLANE

said, he did not think it was the intention of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) to create a Statute of Limitations for murder, or any other atrocious crime, but that it was aimed at such cases as that of Sir Charles Gavan Duffy and others, who were tried for treason many years ago. He would suggest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary, that while he might consent to limit the period in relation to the first class of crimes defined by the clause—namely, treason and treason-felony—the other atrocious crimes mentioned were of a character that demanded no limitation to be made in their favour. He would, therefore, suggest that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should accept the Amendment as to the date, moved by the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), or any other limitation which would prevent the Bill from having a retrospective operation in regard to treason or treason-felony. The clause might still remain as it stood in reference to the other atrocious crimes, which he was sure no hon. Member desired to protect. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman would do that, he thought his hon. Friend the Member for Wexford would be prepared to accept such a limitation, as he could only desire to protect political offenders, and not criminals.

MR. PARNELL

said, he was not prepared to deal with the questions of treason and treason-felony in the manner proposed by the Bill. The point whether treason and treason-felony were to be included in the Bill was still to be discussed, and still to be decided by the Committee; and if they limited the date in regard to treason and treason-felony, they would be practically begging the question altogether, and deciding that treason and treason-felony were to be offences within the jurisdiction of this Special Commission. It seemed clear enough that the intention of the Home Secretary was to provide that there should be retrospective action as regarded graver crimes. That seemed, at first sight, fair enough; but they were able to point to the fact that there had been no failure of justice wherever a murderer had been detected and brought before a jury in Ireland during the last two years. They had challenged the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland to say whether, in his opinion, there had been any failure of justice in such cases, and whether any verdict had been given against the weight of evidence in a murder trial in Ireland. He had watched the cases which had been tried very carefully, and he must say it seemed to him to be the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, and the public opinion generally, that in murder cases, when brought to trial, the decisions which the juries arrived at were overwhelmingly in accordance with the evidence; that the persons acquitted were rightly acquitted, and that no other decision could have been come to on the evidence. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland were in his place, he would ask him if he did not coincide with, him (Mr. Parnell) in this view—whether, in any of the four murder trials which took place last year, the verdict of the jury did not appear to him to be in accordance with the weight of evidence; and whether he, as one of the Law Officers of the Crown, had any fault to find with the decisions arrived at? They had no wish to evade the punishment of murder; but they knew very well that wherever a power of this kind was given in Ireland, it simply led to the springing up of the common informer—of whom they had seen a few forerunners already. In all probability history would only be repeated in this case, and they would see innocent men brought before these tribunals and, perhaps, executed on false and perjured testimony. There was another point which might fairly be pressed upon the Government. They had had offences committed in Ireland during the last two years against the law by a certain number of desperate men; and what was more certain to make these men still more desperate, and induce them to commit still further acts against the law, than to tell them that they were to be brought before this exceptional tribunal, and that no sort of amnesty would be held out to them for anything they might have done in the past? The measure would only have the effect of making them believe that it was not merely justice, but harsh vengeance, which was to be exacted against them. There was nothing, therefore, more likely to make those men determined to destroy peace and tranquillity in Ireland than an inflexible resolution of this kind. He believed there was a feeling in Ireland at the present moment, which, if it were not checked by the introduction of this Coercion Bill, would have been quite sufficient of itself to have put down outrages without the assistance of any measure of this kind. By adopting a harsh and vindictive policy, the Government would simply render these men desperate and supply every inducement in their power to make them take measures to secure that there should not be peace and that return of quietude which all of them so much desired. He thought they were entitled, under these circumstances, and in view of the fact that juries had invariably, in Ireland, in trials for murder, and in the very grave penalties and punishment which were involved in cases of murder, given their verdicts in accordance with the weight of evidence, to ask that the Government should re-consider their position and withdraw the retrospective action of the Bill. Trials for murder had not failed in Ireland. Juries had been willing to convict whenever any substantial evidence was given; and until the Law Officers of the Crown were able to show that the verdicts in such cases had been given against the weight of evidence, he thought the Government were not entitled to ask for the very sweeping provisions contained in the present clause. Did anybody doubt for a single instant, that if the murderers of Lord Frederick Cavendish and Mr. Burke were fairly detected and brought before a jury for trial on reasonable evidence, there would be a failure to convict? He feared very much that the effect of the proceedings which would be taken under this clause would be Bill further to estrange the sympathies of the Irish people from the efforts which were being made for the vindication of the law in Ireland.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he would be quite disposed on the part of the Government to meet the views of the hon. Gentleman as regarded the operation of the Bill in respect to the offences of treason and treason-felony; that was to say, they would be prepared to consider whether they could so amend the Bill as to make the Bill prospective, and not retrospective, in regard to those offences. With reference to the question of murder, he confessed he could not take the view of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), when he indicated that unless they gave some sort of amnesty to the men who committed such crimes, they might drive them to commit greater offences. He did not believe in his heart that murderers were accessible to the principle on which amnesties were granted. All that had to be done was, first of all, to try to get evidence, and then to see that that evidence was committed to a fair and impartial tribunal which would do justice. The Government could not be deterred in their duty by any expectation that these originals would mend their ways. They were the enemies of the human race, and they must be treated as such. They were like pirates, and must be treated as hostes humani generis. He did not see how, in this Bill, they could do anything else than do that which was their object throughout—namely, procure a tribunal to which evidence would be offered in the expectation that it would be justly dealt with. Therefore, he did not see that they could make any limitation of time in this respect.

MR. JOSEPH COWEN

said, he thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman had misunderstood the character of the remarks of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork, who did not ask for any amnesty for murderers. He understood the hon. Gentleman to ask that the retrospective provisions of the Bill should not be adminis- tered in a cruel and harsh spirit, but that reasonable consideration should be allowed for the present "suspects" in Ireland and for public opinion in Ireland during the last two or three years. He did not think it was the wish of any man in that House that an amnesty should be granted to any murderer; but he was sure no one desired that a man should be tried by the new tribunal for a political offence committed 20 years ago. If evidence could be got against men who had committed such offences in years gone by, let them be tried in the ordinary way. What the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) wanted was that a man who committed a crime at some distant date should be tried by a jury in the ordinary manner, and, to that extent, he (Mr. Cowen) believed the limitation proposed was good. It had been hinted that the "suspects" now imprisoned in Ireland were to be brought to trial. He hoped that was not the case. If men who were arrested upon reasonable suspicion of being disturbers of the peace were to be brought to trial eight or ten months after the alleged offence was committed, he believed it would disturb the equanimity of many hon. Gentlemen who supported the Coercion Bill last year. It was certainly the prevailing wish that the "suspects" should be released, and that if they had committed other offences, they should be dealt with according to the ordinary forms.

MR. T. D. SULLIVAN

said, it seemed to him that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary proceeded upon two perfectly gratuitous assumptions. The first was that trial by jury in Ireland had been proved to be worthless. They had challenged such an assumption all along, and they had never been met on that challenge. No proof had been given to the Committee that trial by jury in Ireland had failed in any case in which sufficient evidence was brought before a jury; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman chose to represent to the Committee that trial by jury in Ireland was absolutely worthless. That was an assumption which he hoped the Committee was not going to take upon the mere word of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Where was the proof? After deprecating trial by jury as worthless, the next assumption of the right hon. and learned Gentle- man was, that the new tribunal was to be infallible. They challenged both assumptions of the Home Secretary. They maintained, in the first place, that trial by jury in Ireland had not been proved to be worthless or incapable of doing the duty assigned to it; and, in the next place, they denied the infallibility of the new tribunal. If the contention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman were correct, if trial by jury had been for a long time so worthless an institution that men committed murders in Ireland on the understanding and in the belief that they would never be convicted, why restore trial by jury at any future time? Why not make this new Coercion Act perpetual, if the new tribunal could do no wrong, and if trial by jury could do nothing right? It was sheer nonsense on the part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to tell the Committee that murderers in Ireland murdered their victims in the belief and on the understanding that juries would not convict them. Such an assertion was absolutely incredible, and, moreover, it was not true. Men who committed those evil deeds in Ireland took the risk of their actions; they calculated more upon the stupidity of the police and their own cleverness than upon the dishonesty of Irish juries. If there was no dishonesty amongst Irish juries, and it had ever been proved there was, why bring this serious accusation against them? The allegation made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman was monstrous; it was an insult to all jurors from one end of Ireland to the other, and it was utterly baseless. He denied the character that was so quietly assumed for the new tribunal. It was set up as infallible, and as a tribunal that would assuredly bring the criminal to justice. The tribunal of Judges, however, would find itself confronted by the same difficulties that Irish juries had had to contend with—they would want evidence. In the case of the horrible and lamentable murder that had just been referred to, what was wanted was evidence. The criminals were too clever for the police. The root of the evil lay in the lack of evidence, and did not lie at the door of Irish juries. The people of Ireland had no sympathy with crime, and no sympathy, least of all, with the atrocious crime of murder and assassination. Before any further accusations were made against Irish juries, he would ask the Law Officers of Ireland to give them the justification for such charges.

THE CHAIRMAN

Before the discussion continues further, I would remind the Committee that the question is not the abolition of trial by jury.

MR. PARNELL

said, he never conveyed in the slightest degree that there should be any amnesty for the perpetrators of the more serious offences mentioned in the sub-section of the clause; and he certainly thought the Home Secretary was not entitled to draw the deductions he appeared to have done. He never suggested there should be any amnesty for murders, for manslaughters, for attempts to kill, for aggravated assaults, or for arson; but what he said was that they were fairly entitled to ask that, inasmuch as trial by jury was to be abolished in respect to such serious offences, the clause should not be retrospective in its action. What he had wished to convey, and what he would respectfully press again on the Government was, that, as regarded the retrospective action, at all events, some distinction should be drawn between the more serious offences scheduled in the clause and the lighter ones. In subsection (f) an attack upon a dwelling-house was mentioned as one of the offences which were to be referred to the new tribunal. Now, an offence of that kind might be very serious or very light. Where an attack on a dwelling was collusive—as it frequently had been in the course of the Land movement—in many, in fact, in the majority of cases the attacks on houses had taken place at the request of the tenants themselves, in order that they might have some excuse for going to their landlords the next day and ask for an abatement—they might fairly draw some distinction between such attacks on houses and attacks on houses involving danger to life and property. He desired to ask whether the Government could not see their way to draw some distinction, as regarded the retrospective character of the Bill, between those two classes of offences—offences involving danger to life and property, or offences in which there was actual harm done to life, person, or property, and offences connected with the Land movement which, though legally and technically serious and grave, would not, under the English law, be punishable by more than three months' imprisonment?

MR. HEALY

said, everybody knew that there had been no sort of trial for treason or treason-felony for the last 10 years, and, therefore, during that time there could have been no failure of justice in respect of such offences. The Home Secretary said he was willing, so far as treason and treason-felony was concerned, to make the Bill not retrospective within a reasonable time. As there had been no trials for such offences within the last 10 years, what could the right hon. and learned Gentleman mean by a reasonable time? When they brought the fact under the notice of the Government, the answer they got was—"We will make the Bill prospective instead of retrospective." In view of that fact, he must admit that was a tremendous concession on the part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. They would thank the Government for nothing; they did not thank the right hon. and taught Gentleman one bit for the concession he had made. With all respect to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, he must say that his contention was absurd. He (Mr. Healy) and his hon. Friends had the best of the argument in many cases, yet were simply voted down by the big battalions opposite, who, he was surprised to find, were ever ready to support the Government, whether they were right or wrong. No Member of the Committee could show that the Government were right in their contention respecting the crimes of treason and treason-felony, yet, to the discredit of their independence and intellect, hon. Gentlemen were prepared to support the Ministry in seeking for this power simply because they asked for it. Every Member of the House of Commons was supposed to exercise an independent judgment; but where was the independent judgment of hon. Gentlemen when they allowed the Government to make a case for them? The Government admitted, by the kind of concession the Home Secretary had announced, that, so far as treason and treason-felony in the past was concerned, they were utterly wrong, and that they had no case. That being so, he could not understand how Englishmen—men of honor and of intelligence—were prepared to support them on the point now before the Committee. He asked the Government to give them answers that were tangible and practical. They had had no such answers up to the present. In his opinion, it was not sufficient for the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary to get up and give the Committee his own ipse dixit. If the Government expected to get the Bill through, they must meet the Irish Members by argument. Whenever the Irish Representatives had been confronted with good and valid arguments, they had invariably conceded the point. All he had now to say was that if the Government were only prepared to proceed on their own ipse dixit, that Assembly, instead of being a deliberative Assembly, as it was commonly understood to be, would be simply turned into a farcical Institution.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, the hon. Gentleman appeared to have entirely misunderstood him. What he had said was that the Government was disposed to meet the views of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) with respect to the offences of treason and treason-felony. He did not think there was anything unfair or unreasonable in the position the Government had taken up.

MR. HORACE DAVEY

said, it would case the minds of many hon. Gentlemen if the Government would state what their intentions were with regard to the principle embodied in the Amendment. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had said, quite truly, that the Amendment which was at present under discussion had a very considerable bearing upon the Amendment to leave out the words "treason and treason-felony." He had an Amendment on the Paper to leave out those words. It was obvious that if the Government were disposed to meet the wishes of what, he was sure, was a large section of the Committee on the question to leave out those words, it would case their minds very much in seeing a way in which they could vote on the present Amendment. If the words were to be retained, unquestionably some words must be inserted by which what had been called "State treason" should be excluded. If treason and treason-felony were not to be retained as offences to be tried by the new tribunal, of course they would vote against the Amendment; because he quite agreed that, with regard to crime, there was no Statute of Limitations, and that a criminal had no vested interest in a particular mode of trial. He should vote against the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), if the Government would give them some satisfactory indication of the line they were likely to take upon the more serious question to be raised subsequently.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, that the question of time could be more properly dealt with after they had got the words "treason and treason-felony" in the Bill. It would be like putting the cart before the horse to deal with the question of time first. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Horace Davey) said there was no statutory limitation with respect to crime; but, though he was a Queen's Counsel and a great lawyer, he did not appear to consider treason a crime at all. That the hon. and learned Gentleman should deal with treason as though it was not a crime was a thing he (Sir William Harcourt) could not understand. He had always regarded treason as one of the highest crimes, and he considered it ought to be dealt with as such. There were particular reasons why they might not desire to go back upon old classes of crime; but he could not consent to deal in the Bill with the subject upon the assumption which seemed to underlie his hon. and learned Friend's remarks—namely, that treason was not a crime, or a crime which ought to be placed in the same category as the other offences mentioned in the clause. That was all he could say at present. He wanted to keep the discussion in its proper groove, and, therefore, he would suggest that this Amendment as to time should not be pressed at present. The hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) would lose nothing by postponing his Amendment until the question of the offences to be included in the clause had been determined. Having decided the main question, they would then consider the question of time—whether or not the Bill should be prospective or retrospective.

MR. HEALY

said that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman was disposed to meet them in a conciliatory spirit, they would see what they would get by withdrawing the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. PARNELL

said, he would now move the Amendment which stood in the name of the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell). It was in page 1, line 16, after "offences," to insert "where such offences are agrarian offences." It was admitted by everybody that justice had only failed in Ireland in the case of agrarian offences. The Bill was admittedly brought in to deal with agrarian offences, and therefore there was no reason why the Bill should not be limited to such crimes. He could not see what possible objection the Government could urge against the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 16, after "offences," insert "where such, offences are agrarian offences."—(Mr. Parnell.)

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

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he certainly could not accept the Amendment. In the first place, how were they to prove that the offences were agrarian? And, in the second place, he was disposed to assert that many of the offences against which the Bill was directed, in so far as they were offences connected with secret societies, were not agrarian at all. They were perfectly aware of the existence of secret societies, both in Ireland and in America, which had no agrarian object in view at all; their object was the separation of the two countries of England and Ireland. Those secret societies were prepared to carry out their object by outrage, by murder, by arson, by all sorts of crimes. They were not connected with the Land movement at all, but simply used it as a subsidiary means of attaining their end. Their object was revolution; their object was treason; and they were ever ready to commit murder to suit their purposes. If he were asked his opinion as to the murders recently committed in the Phoenix Park, he should say that they were not agrarian, but that they were treasonable murders—murders which were intended as a blow at English government in Ireland. The most dangerous part of these secret societies was not agrarian at all; they were secret societies which had been formed for the sole purpose of attacking and overthrowing English government in Ireland. Therefore, to limit the offences to agrarian offences would be to defeat, he had no hesitation in saying, the main object of the Bill.

MR. LEAMY

said, the right hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to forget that, after all, trial by jury was something worth defending; he seemed to forget that trial by jury was the right of Irishmen, and that even in Ireland it was worth fighting for. They had heard Ministers on the Treasury Bench state in that House that the Irish nation was peculiarly free from any crime except agrarian offences. They had been told over and over again from the Treasury Bench that it was only in agrarian offences that juries had ever showed any sympathy with the prisoners. His ton. Friend the Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon), on the second reading of the Bill, challenged the Government to produce figures to show that this was not the fact. They were inundated with figures when the Coercion Bill of last year was under consideration, and they had challenged the Government to show by figures that juries had refused to convict in other than agrarian offences. They had not yet got those figures. Surely, if such figures could be produced, they would have been paraded before them over and over again. The Home Secretary had said it would be difficult to decide which were agrarian offences, and which were not; but, by the Bill, they proposed to punish innocent people by levying compensation in case of agrarian crime. The words of the Bill were— Where it appears that any one has been murdered, maimed, or otherwise injured in his person, and that such, murder, maiming, or injury is a crime of the character commonly known as agrarian, the Lord Lieutenant may," &c. How could the Lord Lieutenant, or the Commission which the Lord Lieutenant appointed to investigate into the murder of any person, decide the crime was of an agrarian character, if there was such an immense difficulty as the right hon. and learned Gentleman made out? Everybody knew that the Lord Lieutenant would have very little difficulty in deciding, when he was making out is warrant for the trial, whether the offence was agrarian or not. It seemed to be the intention of the Government that trial by jury was to go by the board altogether. He would tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that when once the Lord Lieutenant appointed this tribunal of three Judges, every man who was brought before those Judges, and every relative and sympathizer of the accused would believe the tribunal was appointed to convict the man, and not to try him. Cases had occurred in Ireland in which innocent men had been sent to the gallows; and if once the Judges sent an innocent man to the gallows, or into penal servitude, the English Government would look in vain to find in the Irish people any respect for their law. What was now asked was that only agrarian offences should be sent before the new tribunal. He was reading, the other day, in some paper an extract from a speech made last year by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright); the speech was made in answer to the remarks of some Conservative Member who had advocated increased coercion. The right hon. Gentleman said— We must either go forward, as we proposed to go forward, or we must go backward. … But I say you cannot go back. If you do not go forward, you must govern Ireland with Constabulary and a great Army quartered in that country; and you will be driven by-and-bye to suspend trial by jury, to put an end to the freedom of the Press, and to suppress the right of public meeting."—[3 Hansard, cclxi. 101.] And the right hon. Gentleman added, "I am against all that." It was only 12 months since that speech was delivered; and now, what was the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman when trial by jury was to be suspended, the freedom of the Press destroyed, and the right of public meeting suppressed? The Ministry was composed of men who had done great service to the country and to the liberties of the English people; and it might very naturally be supposed that if they did establish this new tribunal, they would have shown some sympathy for trial by jury. They did not do anything of the kind. He had hoped that the Amendment would have been accepted; but, he supposed, the only thing they must be prepared for was to see the Bill forced upon them in all its stringency.

MR. GIBSON

said, he had not the shadow of a doubt that every man brought before the new tribunal would be fairly and impartially tried. If the Amendment were adopted, it must be obvious to the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), who moved the Amendment, in the absence of the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell), that it would exclude many cases from the jurisdiction of the tribunal that the hon. Member himself would not desire to see excluded. It was conceded, nay, it was proclaimed, that there were in Ireland many secret societies, most desperate in their operations; secret societies composed of members whose personality was almost unknown. Everybody admitted that the persons who belonged to those societies were most desperate men; yet, if the Amendment were accepted, such men might not be reached by the Bill. It was alleged that the perpetrators of the Phœnix Park murders belonged to one of these desperate societies. Be it BO. There was nothing to indicate that the murders were of an agrarian character. Surely no one could desire that the men who committed that crime, or the men who might hereafter commit such crimes, should be saved by an Amendment which would confine the operations of the Bill to agrarian offences. He agreed with the Home Secretary that it would be a difficult matter in many cases to distinguish between agrarian and other offences. He would, however, go further, and say that, even assuming that it would be always possible to distinguish an agrarian offence from other offences, it would not be desirable to accept the Amendment, because it would exclude from the purview of the Bill many persons who, it was obvious, should be tried by the new tribunal.

MR. JOSEPH COWEN

fairly admitted the facts of his right hon. and taught Friend (Mr. Gibson); but by them he arrived at an exactly opposite conclusion. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had said that if the Amendment were accepted, men like those who had taken part in the recent terrible affair in Phœnix Park could not be tried by the new tribunal. The contention was that such men should be tried by jury; that they were not to be tried by jury was really a reflection upon the country. For such crimes as that they now deeply lamented, the ordinary law provided a remedy.

MR. GIBSON

That might be rendered useless by terrorism.

MR. JOSEPH COWEN

said that no proof of that existed. For years past there had scarcely been a case where a man connected with a treasonable society, and brought to trial in the usual way on reasonable evidence, had not been convicted. They were anxious that this slur should not be cast upon the Irish character, and those offences such, as that committed in Phœnix Park should be tried in the ordinary way. They were willing that agrarian crimes should be tried by the new tribunal, because it was admitted there was a distinct sympathy on the part of the people with agrarian offences. He hoped the Government would see their way to agree to the Amendment.

MR. HEALY

said, he was glad the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Cowen) had said a good word for Irish juries. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), in casting an inferential slur upon his country, took refuge in the word "terrorism" There was nothing which suited the English people better than the cry of terrorism. It was raised last year when the Coercion Bill was introduced; it was raised now. Did the right hon. and learned Gentleman remember that in the Fenian time—and Fenianism was the greatest organization Ireland had ever seen—scores upon scores of juries sent man after man to gaol and to penal servitude, without having a hair of their heads touched? Could anyone give him a single instance in which a jury had failed in its duty, or had been intimidated in the Fenian days? The Fenian conspiracy was much more powerful and potent than ever the present Agrarian movement had been, and yet it was never said there was such a thing as terrorism in the country. The word "terrorism" was a very convenient one for the Government, and nothing else. He must say that the position of the Irish Members in fighting this Bill was most unenviable. They knew that the Bill was only one of a series. The Bill of last year produced the one of this year—the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) had provoked the present Bill—and they dreaded what the present Bill would provoke. The Government would not get a single man who was tried by the new tribunal, or any of the accused man's neighbors and friends, to believe that he had been fairly convicted, if convicted he be. What would be the result? Why, that a vendetta would be established in Ireland; and, therefore, what would follow this Bill would be Martial Law. It was in Evitable that before three years was over a more terrible Bill would be introduced in regard to Ireland. In the matter of these miserable Bills, they went from bad to worse; when once they took a step in the fatal descent of coercion, down they must go. He would remind the Committee that, now the Government were removing some of the Irish Judges to England, and that an other had resigned, it was possible the Government was going to put their creature's in. the place of those Judges—

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is going altogether beyond the limits of the Amendment, which is simply whether the offences to be tried by the new tribunal shall be agrarian offences solely.

MR. HEALY

said, the question was whether agrarian offences should be tried by the tribunal of Judges or not, and he considered that his remarks bore upon that question. Knowing, however, that he would be speedily suspended if he did not bow to the ruling of the Chairman, he would say no more on the subject.

MR. HOPWOOD

said, he could not vote for the Amendment, though he regretted that the clause had found its way into the Bill.

MR. BIGGAR

said that, in the discussion upon the present Amendment, the question had been raised as to what class of men had been guilty of the Phoenix Park murders. Both the Home Secretary and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) assumed that the murders were committed by members of secret societies. He had. Recently had an opportunity of coming into contact with a great many people in Ireland, and he had found that a very general opinion in Ireland was that the murders in question were committed in the interest of the landlords. It was supposed that the perpetrators of the murders were "Emergency men" hired by the landlords to commit the crime, with the object of driving the Government—knowing, as they did, what a feeling the outrage would excite in England—to carry out a system of even more stringent coercion than had prevailed hitherto. He only gave this as an expression of general opinion in Ireland; but he thought that the persons who held such an opinion were quite as much justified in doing so as those who held the opinion that the murders were committed by any other class, either in or out of Ireland, the fact being that the public had not the slightest idea who the guilty parties were.

MR. GIBSON

asked if the hon. Member would venture, in the face of the Committee, to give that as his own opinion?

MR. BIGGAR

said, he had not expressed his own opinion at all. He might, however, say, that in the early part of the Land League agitation, the High Sheriff of County Down did hire, in Downpatrick and in Belfast, persons armed with revolvers to break up a Land League meeting and attack Michael Davit, John Dillon, and himself.

MR. P. MARTIN

said, he thought the Amendment ought to be conceded, and he would tell the Committee why. There was an attempt to cast a stigma on the Irish people through the medium of the juries. Unfortunately, it was the fact that justice had not always been assured in the case of agrarian offences; but in the case of other offences he did maintain that Irish juries had done their duty as faithfully and as honestly as English juries. He recollected the Prime Minister himself pointing this fact out during the passing of the Coercion Act which was now in force in Ireland. Under circumstances of this kind, therefore, why should they pass a general clause of this character, inflicting a stigma upon Ireland and Irish juries which was totally unnecessary and uncalled for by anything which had occurred? Why should they, by a clause of this kind, abrogate a Constitutional right unless the Government clearly showed that it was necessary they should do so? Except in regard to agrarian offences, he emphatically denied that trial by jury in Ireland bad failed. As reference had been made to the deplorable murders in Phoenix Park, he would say, from his knowledge of Irish juries that, let only the usual legal proof of guilt be adduced against the assassins, any Irish jury, no matter in what part of Ireland it was empanelled, would fearlessly and impartially discharge their duty.

MR. LEA

said, that, if he could believe that the Amendment had anything in common with the principle of the Bill, he should support it. As a matter of fact, he did not see that the Amendment was at all in keeping with the principle of the 1st clause. He was rather inclined to strike out altogether the principle of the clause establishing a Commission of Judges instead of trial by jury; and, in regard to what fell from the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), he was in favor of striking out the words "treason and treason-felony." He was confident there was a large number of hon. Members on the Ministerial side of the House who were strongly in favor of the omission of those words. He, however, did not consider that the insertion of words signifying that the new tribunal should adjudicate in agrarian offences only was consistent with the general principle of the clause. What would be the effect in the case of the murder of an unpopular magistrate? He believed that with regard to the murders in Phoenix Park, any Irish jury would convict upon reasonable evidence; but if an unpopular magistrate—say, Mr. Clifford Lloyd—were murdered, he doubted whether a jury would convict, even if plenty of evidence was brought forward. He maintained that the murder of Mr. Clifford Lloyd would not necessarily be an agrarian offence; and, therefore, he could not support the present Amendment.

MR. PARNELL

said, he thought it was sufficient to have brought the Amendment under the notice of the Committee, and, therefore, he would ask to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

COLONEL NOLAN

moved, in page 1, line 17, to leave out "treason or treason felony," and insert— Attempting to take the life, injuring or attempting to injure or imagining the death of the Sovereign or the Prince of Wales. He noticed there were many Amendments bearing upon the question of treason; and he proposed the insertion of the words he had cited, because he did not wish that the Government might excite the sympathy of hon. Members in regard to the protection of the Sove- reign. Remembering that attacks had been made, not in Ireland, but in England, against the life of the Sovereign, he was afraid the Government might point to such attacks to excite the sympathy of the Committee. In proposing to insert these words, he did not at all wish it to be supposed that Irish juries would not convict in case of an attack upon the life or person of Her Majesty. He believed they would; and his Amendment was simply meant as a sop to Cerberus. He believed that, originally, treason was confined to acts done in respect of the Sovereign. The Prime Minister had stated, within the last month, that the English Government were secure against any political disturbance in Ireland, and that it was against social, and not political changes, that the present Bill was leveled. It was absolutely necessary, the right hon. Gentleman said, that the Government should take precautions against open war in Ireland. There was a class of treason which he (Colonel Nolan) wished to specially exclude from the Bill, and that was the treason which was undefined. Certain hon. Members of the House of Cemmons had been accused of treason, but he did not suppose that up to the present moment they knew what it was that was charged against them; they, perhaps, expressed some opinion which was hostile to the Government of the day, and for that they were declared to be suspected of treason. In a letter which appeared in to-day's Times, Mr. Forward, the late Mayor of Liverpool, declared that everyone who advocated Home Rule committed treason; but 10 years ago, when the Home Rule agitation was commenced in the town of Liverpool, the present Attorney General for England stated that Home Rule was a perfectly Constitutional object when pursued by legal means. They, therefore, had men like the Mayor of Liverpool, on the one hand, declaring that the advocacy of Home Rule was treasonable; and, on the other hand, they had men like the Attorney General declaring the Home Rule agitation perfectly Constitutional if legally conducted. It had invariably happened that men in Ireland who had engaged in any great political movement had been accused of treason; in fact, it was positively dangerous for a man to entertain any extreme political views in Ireland. It was necessary they should have some safeguard against the danger, and the safeguard they required was the verdict of 12 of their countrymen. If the alleged treason was so elaborate that 12 men could not discern it, he would say there had been no treason at all. He believed it would be most injudicious to appoint a Commission of Judges to try a case of treason. Judges were appointed by the Sovereign; and it would, perhaps, be remembered that on one occasion a learned Judge said— On whose authority do I sit here? I can't even discuss a question which might possibly affect the Sovereign's position. He did not think they could make the Judges unbiased in a case of treason. It would always be in the power of the Government to remove any Judge from the Bench; and the Committee knew full well that all men were influenced by their masters. He did not believe they could get three impartial Judges in a case where politicians were to be tried; and, moreover, he did not think that, however willing Judges might be to crush a politician, they would not care to take the responsibility of hanging a man. The treason he was anxious to exclude from the Bill was undefined treason. A man might advocate Home Rule, and might attend a meeting at which something rash was said by one of the speakers; his attendance at the meeting might be construed into treason. A man might be employed at a newspaper office, and because something which was construed into treason might appear in the paper, he might be accused of treason too. In such cases, he (Colonel Nolan) would like to have not merely the decision of Judges, but the verdict of 12 men selected by the community. The Government would do well to accept his Amendment, for they would find many difficulties in their way removed.

MR. PARNELL

said, the question involved in the Amendment of his hon. and gallant Friend was one of the greatest importances. It was, however, also embodied in the various Amendments standing on the Paper in the names of several hon. Members; and, that being so, he thought it might in all probability be more satisfactorily presented to the Committee upon the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Christ-church (Mr. Horace Davey). Of course, it must be considered, further on, whether any words of the kind moved by the hon. and gallant Member opposite ought not to be inserted; but, in the meantime, he would suggest the withdrawal of the Amendment before the Committee. And he put it to his hon. and gallant Friend, whether, in view of the great importance of the question, and the fact that an English Member had so far interested himself as to put down an Amendment on the subject, it would not be a matter of courtesy to that Gentleman to leave the matter in his hands?

COLONEL NOLAN

said, at the suggestion of his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork, he should be happy, with the permission of the Committee, to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment by leave, withdrawn.

MR. HORACE DAVEY

said, he was one of those who had on a former occasion expressed the belief that the Government could not do otherwise than introduce a Bill of this character, In saying that, however, he had not pledged himself to all the details of the measure, and was, therefore, perfectly free with regard to the clause now before the Committee. So far as the principle contained in the clause, that for certain offences there should him a suspension of trial by jury, was concerned, he wished to say that he did not himself feel so strongly on that subject as did some of his hon. and hon. and learned Friends. Trial by jury was but the means to an end; and if they could not succeed in detecting and punishing crime by trial by jury, he, for one, was willing to sacrifice this means, and substitute another by which the object in view might be with more certainty attained. But, at the same time, it appeared to him that the inclusion of treason and treason-felony in the clause went beyond the scope of the Bill. Now, he did not intend to lay himself open to a charge, on the part of the right hon. and taught Gentleman the Home Secretary, of not recognizing that treason or treason-felony was a crime. No doubt, treason or treason-felony was a very grave crime; but he believed he should carry with him the assent of the Committee when he said that it was of a totally different character from crimes and. offences against person or property. Now, the Preamble of the Bill ran thus— Whereas by reason of the action of secret societies and combinations for illegal purposes in Ireland the operation of the ordinary law has become insufficient for the repression and prevention of crime, and it is expedient to make further provision for that purpose; be it therefore enacted," &c. That Preamble was based upon certain information and Returns laid before the House; and without entering at that moment upon a discussion as to whether these justified the Preamble of the Bill, he would assume that they did so. But he considered himself justified in saying that the information and the Returns referred to had no bearing whatever on the question of treason or treason-felony. The Committee had been informed by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, not more than five nights ago, that there had been no trial for treason or treason-felony in Ireland for upwards of 10 years; and, if that were so, it could not be on account of the failure of justice as regarded treason or treason-felony that the present Bill had been introduced. He was, therefore, entitled to say that there had been no failure of justice in Ireland as regarded treason or treason-felony during the last 10 years, and treason or treason-felony were not the grounds on which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary, when he introduced this measure to the House, laid stress. Of course, the Government were not bound by the Returns laid upon the Table of the House as grounds for introducing the Bill; and he believed he was within the recollection of hon. Members in saying that some of the crimes indicated by the right hon. and learned Gentleman as being aimed at by the measure were undetected murders, outrages on farmers, and other offences which were named in the later sub-sections of the clause. But the House heard nothing about treason or treason-felony. It would be sufficient for his purpose, in support of the Amendment he was about to move, merely to state these facts; because, when it was proposed to suspend or take away the right, which was the right of every subject of Her Majesty, of being tried by a jury of their countrymen, it was incumbent upon those who proposed to suspend or take away that right to show the reasons and grounds upon which the necessity of the proposal rested. And he would add that the right of all the subjects of Her Majesty to be tried by a jury of their countrymen on a charge of treason or treason-felony was not, as he conceived, to be taken away or suspended because of the failure of justice as regarded agrarian crimes and outrages, such as those which had shocked the people of that portion of the United Kingdom, at any rate, in the highest degree. But he wished to go further, and point out to the Committee that, although treason or treason-felony was, no doubt, a crime of a very serious character, and recognized as such by the Criminal Law, it was a crime of a distinct kind, and wholly distinct considerations applied to it. He had no intention of wearying the Committee with a definition of the different classes of treason, and even if he were competent he should not attempt such definition. Still, he believed he was right in saying that the Law of Treason in this country was only Judge-made law; that it had been built up on the Statute of Edward III.; and, moreover, that it was a matter of history that in the State Trials of this country juries had often stood up between the criminal and the law made or laid down from the Bench. He believed that the present was the first time in the history of the country that it had been proposed to the Parliament of the United Kingdom to abolish or suspend the right of trial by jury for treason; and notwithstanding the numerous Bills with regard to Ireland which had been brought into that House, called generally Coercion Bills, not one of them, he believed, provided that the right of trial by jury, in case of treason or treason-felony, should be suspended or taken away. That being so, he ventured to point out that by assenting to the clause as it stood they would be creating a very serious precedent. If the Government were to lay before them any grounds or reason for including treason or treason-felony, he would not only give these his consideration, but, in the event of their sufficiently being made out, he should be prepared to vote for the inclusion of treason or treason-felony in the Bill. But he objected to initiating a precedent of this kind, which, in his opinion, was unnecessary, without the strongest reason being given for inducing the House to adopt it. There was another consideration which must be borne in mind. This question must be looked at not only from the English, but also from the Irish point of view; and he regarded it as a consideration of very great moment that the House should endeavor, as far as it was possible to do so, to gain the confidence of the Irish people for the mode of trial proposed. Of course, they could not expect to be entirely successful in their attempt to do this; but, notwithstanding the opinion expressed by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway on the opposite side of the House that they would fail altogether in this respect, it was no less incumbent on them to try to gain the confidence of the people of Ireland, and he, for one, did not despair of the result. Still he was bound to point out that if there was one class of offence more than another with regard to the trial of which without a jury they were unlikely to gain the confidence of the Irish people, it was that included under the name of treason or treason-felony. Every consideration which had been urged by hon. Members opposite against the appointment of Special Commission Judges would apply with ten-fold force to offences against the State. It was only right to say that he entertained not the slightest doubt that the Irish Judges would do that which he knew would be done by the English Judges. That was to say, they would preserve absolute impartiality. Their judicial esprit de corps would entirely prevent the fear of their acting with partiality or harshness towards any criminals who might be brought before them. His own fear would tend in the opposite direction; and it would be that the Judges of the Special Commission Court would feel so acutely their responsibility in trying prisoners without a jury, that they would scan the evidence brought forward in such a manner as to cause them to acquit the accused in cases where a jury would not do so. He could not, of course, expect everyone to take the same view of this point as himself; but there could be no doubt that in respect of offences against the State, there was an obvious objection to their being tried by Judges appointed by, and who were in a sense officers of, the State; and he should not be surprised, nor could he very much blame public opinion in Ireland if it were to fail to have confidence in the impartiality of a trial of offences against the State by Judges alone, without a jury. He could not say that he should not himself feel some doubt of the kind; but, in saying that, he wished to make it perfectly clear that he was not for one moment casting any slur or any doubt whatsoever on the absolute integrity of the Irish Judges. Still, he could not say that such doubt felt by others under different circumstances might not be reasonably entertained, and, therefore, it seemed to him most important that they should do all they could to secure the confidence of public opinion in Ireland for the tribunal which it was proposed to establish. He could not help feeling a kind of sentimental interest in the Amendment he was about to lay before the Committee, when he recollected that he had the honor of belonging to a Profession the members of which had frequently obtained the acquittal of political prisoners by invoking the aid of the jury to override judicial interpretation of the law; and this was an additional reason for his regret that a suspension of trial by jury in such cases should now be proposed. No doubt, if a case could be made out for it he should be prepared to vote for that proposal; but, so far as his present information went, no case had been established, and he must, therefore, propose the omission of sub-section (a). He was not perfectly sure that this was the proper place in the Bill for exempting treason or treason-felony from the provision of not being tried by jury; but, at any rate, he was not wrong in saying that the Special Commission Court was only to be issued with a view to the suspension of trial by jury. Section 1 did not, in his opinion, very clearly express its object in this respect. Be that as it might, he saw no other place at which his Amendment could with more propriety be introduced; but if the sub-section in question technically related to an offence with respect to which a Special Commission might be issued, and not to that for which trial by jury might be suspended, then he asked Her Majesty's Government to point out to him where an Amendment could be better moved for securing the object he had in view. At any rate, he considered the present a fair place for raising a discussion on this important point, because, if treason or treason-felony were omitted from the list of offences with respect to which a Special Commission might be issued, it would by consequence be removed from amongst those not to be tried by jury. He could not help thinking that a large number of hon. Members who were supporters of the Government were desirous that treason or treasury-felony should be so removed, inasmuch as, for the reasons he had given, there was no ground for including it amongst the offences triable by Judges without a jury. He begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 17, to leave out the words "treason or treason felony."

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."—(Mr. Horace Davey.)

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he was afraid Her Majesty's Government could not look at this question in the same way as his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Christchurch. It was quite true, as his hon. and learned Friend had pointed out; that some distinguished men at the Bar had been the means of saving persons charged with treason; but that was equally true with regard to other crimes than treason. Lord Erskine once said to a person, who observed that his Lordship must often have won verdicts that he ought to have lost—"Yes; but then I have lost many verdicts which I ought to have won, and so, on the average, justice was done." The presumption was, therefore, that a fair average in the case of verdicts was arrived at. There was another argument of his hon. and learned Friend which had not convinced him. He referred to the statement that treason was a totally different crime from every other crime, and that the law relating to it was Judge-made law. But, after all, the Statute of Treason was well known; and, although the law might have interpreted the Statute of Edward III., he could tell his hon. and learned Friend of a crime which was a Judge-made crime, which rested on no Statute, and was created by Judge-made law and interpreted by it. That was the crime of murder; and, therefore, his hon. and learned Friend's argument was an à fortiori argument against including murder in the clause. The next statement was that he had no recollection that treason or treason-felony had been included in any of the exceptional legislative mea- sures which had been passed with reference to Ireland. But surely his hon. and learned Friend must have forgotten the Act for which he voted last year, which suspended the Habeas Corpus Act, and not only provided for no trial of the crime by jury, but dispensed with trial altogether. The Act of last year certainly included treason and treason-felony, and treated it not as a different class of crime, but as a crime similar to the others specified, and requiring the same remedy. He should, therefore, like to ask his hon. and learned Friend what reasons there were for including the crime of treason in the Bill of last year, supported, as he believed it was, by himself, which did not apply in the present instance? If the House, by an overwhelming majority, decided last year to apply exceptional legislation to the state of affairs existing in Ireland, they must have decided the question whether or not it was necessary to distinguish between treason and other crimes. The fact was, they decided the question in the negative, and enacted accordingly. He could not, therefore, at all agree with his hon. and learned Friend that there was something exceptional in the character of treason, as a crime, that should lead to its being dealt with differently from others; on the contrary, he thought that almost all persons were in favor of its being dealt with in a similar manner. With all respect for his hon. and learned Friend's opinion, that the present was a fair time for raising this question, he was bound to confess that he regarded it as a peculiarly unfortunate moment for anybody, especially for one who so deservedly occupied a high position, both in and out of that House, to point out that the crime of treason differed in its character from other crimes; that it was a crime which might be practiced with more impunity than others, and that the law should deal with it less severely. For his own part, he had never known a time when it was more necessary to impress upon the Irish people that the crime of treason was the crime which lay at the basis of disorganization in Ireland. This Bill was directed against secret societies. But the secret societies of the day were not mainly agrarian in their character; and the Land League certainly avowed itself as an open and not a secret society. He would not allude to the state- merits which had been made at various times with regard to the Land League; but would observe that it was not as a secret society that it was mainly attacked, but on account of its organizing resistance to the law. It was, however, said that the Land League fed and increased upon the pabulum grown by secret societies, which avowed that their object was solely treasonable. It was his duty to know as much as could be known of these secret societies and their objects, which were to attack the authority of the Crown, and the very existence of the Imperial Government. Now, the Bill being directed against these secret societies, it was a contradiction in terms to say that it ought not to include treason or treason-felony. The Bill was intended to prevent the carrying out of treasonable ends. Whatever were the various forms and names under which Feminism existed, it had for its object the overthrow of the English government in Ireland, by force—that was to say, by outrage, by murder, by arson, and by every method which its secret agents could employ for that purpose. That being so, if it was intended to reach these societies at all, treason must be included in the Bill, because, as had been shown without contradiction, their aim was the overthrow of British government in Ireland. They had treason for their object; they had murder for their means; and let no man for a moment believe that it was not so. In the pursuit of their object, these secret societies were ready to lay hold of the Land League, or anything else to serve their main purpose. If these societies existed for these objects, and pursued them by the means described, he could not but think that hon. Members, in refusing the powers of the clause with regard to treason and treason-felony, were not fully alive to the great mischief which undermined and destroyed the cause of law and order in Ireland. Again, if the Government, having put into the Bill the words relating to treason and treason-felony, were to take them out, would it not be an advertisement to the people of Ireland that treason was a crime which that House and Her Majesty's Government regarded with less disfavor than others, and to which they were willing to extend an immunity not given to other offences? Another argument of his hon. and learned Friend had struck him very much. He said, whatever might be the case from the English point of view, the Irish people, at any rate, would not regard treason with the same eyes as they turned towards other offences; and he said the Irish Judges would be unjustly suspected of dealing partially with treason, and that because the sympathies of the Irish people would be more against them on the crime of treason than in the case of any other offence. Now, that might be very true; but he (Sir William Harcourt) contended that the feeling of the Irish people would still more prevent conviction in the case of trial by jury. What, then, was the conclusion to which they were driven by his hon. and learned Friend? They were to strike out of the Bill the sub-section relating to the trial by Judges of treason and treason-felony, because of the sympathies of the Irish people, and allow the crime to be dealt with by a jury which, for the same reason, would be less likely to convict. If his hon. and learned Friend had been able to say that treason was an offence against which there was a strong feeling in Ireland; that it was one for which, on the necessary evidence being forthcoming, juries were certain to convict; and that it might, with confidence, be placed in the category of cases in which an impartial trial could be had, the Amendment before the Committee would have stood in a very different position. But would any man say that that was the case with reference to treason? Was it not more certain in the case of treason, than in the case of other offences, that there would be someone on the jury whose Fenian sympathies would render its successful prosecution an almost absolute impossibility? Her Majesty's Government had to form as well as they could, and upon their responsibility as a Government, their view of the existing state of things in Ireland. For his own part, if he could see that indictment for treason could be brought before a jury in Ireland with the smallest chance of success, he would assent to the proposal of his hon. and learned Friend. But, as an honest man, he could not say there was any such chance. If any man could say that a jury was more likely to convict for treason than for the other offences, then he had given a reason for omitting treason from this Bill; but if he could not honestly say that a man was more likely to be convicted by a jury for treason than for any other of the offences named, he could not reasonably ask Her Majesty's Government to strike out the sub-section in question. He had arrived at the conclusion, after very careful consideration that the secret societies in Ireland were aimed mainly at treason, or, rather, he might say, at treason only. It was well known that the Fenians in their various organizations cared not one straw for the question of Land Tenure, and that if this were settled, they would still aim at the treasonable object they had in view. If, in the present state of society in Ireland, the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend were adopted, the Committee would be saying, in effect, that they would give to treason, and to treason alone, an immunity which they did not extend to other classes of crime; and, therefore, so far as he was able to understand the present condition of Irish society, he could not recommend the Committee to accept the proposed Amendment.

MR. BRYCE

said, he had listened in vain, during the speech of the right hon. and taught Gentleman the Home Secretary, for any answer to the principal argument which had been advanced by his hon. and taught Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Horace Davey) in favor of the Amendment before the Committee. The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not seem to recollect that the chief point of his hon. and learned Friend was that there had been no trials for treason or treason-felony in Ireland during the last 10 years, and that, therefore, no case had been made out for including the crime in the special and exceptional provisions of this Bill; and, instead of dealing with facts, the right hon. Gentleman had been content to deal in speculation and surmise, and had failed to show that there was any presently pressing reason for including in Clause 1 of the Bill the crime of treason or treason-felony. The right hon. Gentleman gave it as his opinion that with a jury there would be little chance of a conviction for treason in Ireland, although he did not go so far as to say that no conviction would be obtained. Now, as far as the calendar of offences went, the crime in question would seem to have vanished from Ireland altogether, because, since the trials which occurred 10 years ago, there had been no other trials for treason. When such a Bill as this was brought forward, which proposed to enact things which, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright) a year ago looked upon as highly improbable, it ought surely to be based on a plain and crying necessity. Surely the Preamble of the Bill must be taken to apply to those crimes which, although the offenders had been discovered, had not been dealt with by obtaining a conviction. But in the case of a crime which had not been dealt with because it had not arisen, they were certainly entitled to say that it was not within the Preamble of the Bill. With the permission of the Committee, he wished to say a few words upon another aspect of the speech of the Home Secretary, who had not fairly represented the arguments of his hon. and taught Friend the Member for Christchurch. When the right hon. and learned Gentleman was challenged to indicate any precedent for such a clause as the present, he answered by saying that the Coercion Act of last year suspended the Habeas Corpus Act. Now, what his hon. and learned Friend asked for was some case in which a man had been tried for the crime of treason or treason-felony without a jury; and the reply given to him had reference to a measure which did not provide for trial or sentence at all, but merely allowed persons suspected of certain offences to be committed to prison for a short period. He (Mr. Bryce) said there was no parallel between the case referred to and the present case, because, under this Bill, a person might be sentenced to death. They all knew that the punishment of death might be inflicted for the crime of treason; and there could be no better illustration of the weakness of the Government position in this matter than the fact that the Home Secretary was compelled to take refuge for a precedent in a Bill altogether different from the present Bill, which enacted that persons, as a precautionary measure, might be imprisoned on suspicion, and without trial. Again, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary said that the effect of adopting the Amendment would be to show that the House of Commons and the Government regarded treason and treason-felony with less disfavor than other crimes; and he asked how the Government could defend themselves if they were to strike out the sub-section, after having once inserted it in the Bill? But he (Mr. Bryce) wished to point out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that neither the supporters of the Amendment, nor the Committee, as a whole, were concerned to defend the Government position; and if the country should blame the Government for want of forethought and discrimination in including crimes which ought not to have been in the clause at all, it was for them to explain their reasons, and to show that this crime stood on the same footing as the others, so that the country might see the reason which justified the House in dispensing with its being tried by jury. No such inference as the right hon. and learned Gentleman had indicated could be drawn from the fact of the Government accepting the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend, and he still hoped that they would be able to give way in this matter. Again, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had said much of secret societies in Ireland, and had used the rhetorical gifts which he possessed in so eminent degree in holding those societies up to the reprobation of the Committee. He (Mr. Bryce) would be the last man in that House to say anything in favor of secret societies, in Ireland especially, as they were only removed by about a month from one of the most horrible crimes that had been committed during the present century; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman had not attempted to argue that the murders of Lord Ardilaun's bailiffs, Lord Mount Morris, and Mrs. Smy the had anything to do with those treasonable secret societies in Ireland, which he was denouncing to the Committee. The crime which had disgraced Ireland for the last three years was probably largely due to secret societies, but not to such political societies as the Home Secretary referred to. He did not mean to say that even these political societies were not objects of so much suspicion that they should be put down in every way; but he said they had not been guilty of any large part of the mischief lately committed in Ireland, and, therefore, it was not against them alone that the Committee was called upon to legislate in this Bill. The right hon. and learned Gentleman also spoke strongly of the connection which existed between treason and murder; and he pointed out that the object of these societies was the overthrow of the Imperial Government in Ireland, and that the means employed were murder, attempts to kill, arson, and attacks upon, dwelling-houses. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman had looked to the later sub-sections of this clause, he would have seen that all these criminal means were offences which were provided against, and which it was proposed to exempt from trial by jury, and to hand over to a Commission of Judges; and he would have seen, therefore, that when any secret society pursued its objects, whether with a view to murder or to other forms of crime, such as attacks upon the person, or arson, that society came within the provisions of this clause, and it was not necessary to proceed against it under this 1st section, because it would be dealt with in the later sub-sections. Therefore, if treason and treason-felony were omitted, it would still be equally possible to proceed against any secret society which should endeavor to obtain and compass its ends by any of these criminal methods. He did not know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman would reply that the words of these later sub-sections were not sufficiently elastic; but, if he did, there was still a sufficient remedy. If a secret society endeavored to obtain its ends by murder or other crimes, and it was feared that it would not fall within the words of this section as it stood now, the. Easy remedy would be to introduce words which would cover conspiracy for such criminal purpose. That course, he believed, would secure the approval of the Committee, because it would be strictly within the scope of the Bill, and would draw the distinction which it was desirable to draw between political offences and what he might call ordinary crimes. He ventured to suggest that there would be no difficulty amongst those who felt an objection to the clause as it stood in assenting to words which would cover offences of that nature. He thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not quite appreciate the distinction which the hon. and learned Member for Christ-church (Mr. Horace Davey) had drawn between political offences, such as treason, and other crimes. The hon. and learned Member certainly had not used a single word which, could be taken as extenuating treason, or as implying that treason was a crime to be dealt with leniently. On the contrary, he admitted that it was one of the gravest offences that could be committed, and it ought to be dealt with with all severity. But he also drew a distinction—and that distinction he would press again on the Committee—between the moral feeling with which treason accompanied by crime was regarded and treason unaccompanied by crime. There was a time when Ireland was so grossly misgoverned that public-spirited Irishmen could hardly be anything else but conspirators; but that time had passed away. There were times when Ireland was as grossly misgoverned as Southern Italy had been within the last 30 years. They had sympathized with Italy, and in those times it would have been their duty to sympathize with Ireland; but those times had now passed away, and Ireland enjoyed every Constitutional advantage which England enjoyed, and, therefore, all justification for agitation by unconstitutional means had been entirely withdrawn, and he should be the last person to uphold the conduct of a man who would employ any unconstitutional means to effect political objects in Ireland. But they now had to deal with a state of feeling which came down from those times, which surrounded persons who entered into treasonable practices with a certain amount of sympathy and admiration, and which most unhappily went so far as to extend some sympathy even to those who conducted political agitation by means of private crime and outrage. Their object ought to be to destroy that sympathy, and to draw a very sharp line between private crimes, such as murder and violence against the person, and purely political offences such as treason. It had been too much the habit of Englishmen, in dealing with Ireland, to treat those kinds of crime as being of the same character. Everyone must recognize that a person who was guilty of murder, or who conspired to commit murder or acts of violence against individuals, was morally deserving of reprobation and horror, which was not necessarily felt for a person who conspired in any other way; and that was the point of his hon. and learned Friend's argument, when he said that it was an unfortunate proceeding to endea- vour to maintain the association which existed in the minds of the Irish people between murder and treason by dealing with them on the same lines. He ventured to think that there was another part of the hon. and learned Member's argument which was not appreciated by the Home Secretary. The hon. and learned Member pointed out that treason was an offence which was at one time a very serious matter in England, where it was necessary for those who valued political freedom to trust to juries in regard to offences of a political character. Those difficulties had long passed away in England, but they could not be sure that they might not come back again; and he thought it was unfortunate, except in cases of great necessity, to set a precedent for depriving persons accused of treason of the right of trial by jury, because there might be times in England when that right would be very valuable; and it would be very unfortunate that any Government should be able to appeal to a precedent of similar legislation for Ireland. It was a further advantage to have trial by jury in regard to offences of this kind, because, when a Judge tried such cases with the assistance of a jury, he was obliged, in his charge to the jury, to lay down definitely and specifically the nature of the crime. He was obliged to give his view of the law in a form which could be afterwards challenged; but when a Judge tried facts as well as law, he was apt to mix up the facts and the law together, and to give a less precise and clear definition of the law and of the facts to which the law was afterwards to be applied. Therefore, he held that the Law of Treason would be much more safely maintained if they continued the system of trial by jury, instead of adopting trial by Judges. He was most anxious that those who objected to this clause should not be supposed to extenuate treason or to seek to diminish the power of the Executive to deal with treason. They wished to put every legitimate power in the hands of the Executive, and did not extend any sympathy to that offence; but to put it in the same line as other crimes would have the effect of extending to those crimes a great deal of the sympathy that Irish people had, unfortunately, given to acts of treason. He did not mean to say that the insertion of treason in this clause might not have been justified by extreme necessity. Secret treasonable societies might become very dangerous, and it might be so difficult to get convictions from juries that it would be necessary to deal with them by this new mechanism, and in that case he should be willing to arm the Government with these extraordinary powers; but nothing less than a necessity of that kind could justify this proposal, and no cause approaching to such necessity had been shown by the Government.

MR. GREGORY

said, the Committee were now dealing with a measure consequent upon the failure in Ireland of the system of trial by jury, and the necessity of the Bill now before the Committee had been practically admitted. The hon. and learned Member (Mr. Bryce) had not attempted to deny that necessity, and was prepared to support the Bill. But the question now being considered was whether the operation of the Bill was to be extended to the highest crime known to the law; and the hon. and learned Member had based his contention against that upon the strong sympathy which existed, in the minds of the Irish people with treason. If the reason for this Bill was the sympathy of the Irish jurymen with agrarian outrage, did not that apply much more strongly to the question now under consideration when the hon. and learned Member stated that Irishmen sympathized with treason? If they were not to expect convictions for agrarian outrages, how could they, with that feeling operating in the minds of the Irish people, expect convictions upon crimes to which this clause applied? If any crime was to be included in this Bill; if they were to make provision for the trial of any crime whatever by this special tribunal, the crime of treason-felony was one which should especially be provided for. The hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Bryce) had stated that when a Judge tried a case of treason or treason-felony with a jury, he was bound to lay down and define the crime distinctly and clearly to the jury. That might be so; but would not the same influence operate—in the case of such a tribunal as this Bill proposed to constitute—in the minds of three Judges? These Judges, it must be remembered, would be subject to appeal, and if they did not decide according to the law, and did not bear the law in their minds in their decisions, they would be liable to the supervision of the Court of Appeal; and Judges, having that responsibility and that appeal before them, would be particularly careful to have regard to the law under which they made their decisions. It appeared to him that, even on the showing of the hon. Member, this was peculiarly one of the cases which should come under this Bill; and that the Bill would be most imperfect if it did not deal with treason and treason-felony.

MR. NORWOOD

said, he had listened to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Christchurch (Mr. Horace Davey) with all the attention due to so distinguished a Lawyer; but the hon. and learned Member had entirely failed to convince him of the justice or the necessity of the Amendment which he proposed. The hon. and learned Member seemed either to have entirely ignored or scarcely considered one of the principal objects the Government had in view—namely, to strike at the secret societies and the American filli-busterers, who were, no doubt, at the bottom of these outrages in Ireland. Of all the crimes which were to be dealt with by this provision, the crime which the hon. and learned Member proposed to omit was the one at which the Bill was specially designed to strike. What was the object of these secret societies? Unquestionably, to destroy the authority of the Queen. How was treason carried out? When it obtained a certain amount of strength it was carried out by force of arms. He was very much surprised to hear from the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Horace Davey) that the Law of Treason was Judge-made law. He did not know very much about the law himself; but in the Statute 11 & 12 Vict. c. 12, he found treason-felony clearly described. [An hon. MEMBER: Treason, not treason-felony.] He certainly understood the hon. and learned Member to state that treason and treason-felony were not on the Statutes; but the section of the Statute he had mentioned laid down most carefully what constituted treason and treason-felony, and described as an attempt to compass, by conspiracy or other means, acts which would derogate from the dignity or authority of the Crown. Treason-felony was, in fact, any step which would invalidate the power of Her Majesty in her own Dominions. The arguments of the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) and other hon. Members, during the discussion, had tended to minimize the guilt attached to political crimes; but he could draw no such distinction between moral and political crimes. Political crimes were generally compassed by the very worst means, and eventuated in outrages of the most serious character.

MR. BRYCE

, interrupting, said, he had drawn the sharpest distinction between political crime, unaccompanied by murder, and political crime which was so accompanied; and he had said that while both offences required severe punishment, there was a difference in the feeling with which people regarded, and must necessarily regard, the two kinds of offence respectively.

MR. NORWOOD

said, he accepted the explanation of the hon. Member, but they were now acting under very special circumstances. What was the cause of this legislation? Was it not that a state of things existed in the unhappy Sister Country which compelled the Government to resort to special and temporary measures? He could not understand the hon. and learned Member sheltering himself behind these nicely-drawn sophistries. They were all very well for the debating-room, but totally inappropriate under these circumstances; and, in his opinion, it was the duty of the Government to stand by their guns on this occasion. The Committee had a very special and difficult task before them; and it was their duty to be stern in their determination to put down the disturbances which were occurring in Ireland. He believed that if this step had been taken two years ago much outrage and murder might have been stopped; and he hoped the Government would not listen to the representations of hon. and learned Members below the Gangway. If this Bill was justified at all, the Government must be strong and determined to obtain powers to meet all the difficulties of the case; and the Bill should be passed by the Committee with determination, and carried out by the Government with the firm intention of stamping out outrage and crime.

MR. JOSEPH COWEN

expressed his surprise at the statement of the Home Secretary in answer to the hon. and learned Member for Christchurch (Mr. Horace Davey). The right hon. and learned Gentleman had gone upon the assumption that persons accused of treason or treason-felony had not been convicted by jurors; but the whole facts went to prove the contrary. The Home Secretary must be imperfectly informed upon the history of Ireland if he entertained that opinion. During the last 15 or 16 years there had been a strong political conspiracy, known as the Fenian Brotherhood, which was probably the most formidable political organization which had existed in Ireland since the Rebellion of 1798; 400 or 500 people were tried for complicity in that insurrection, and he believed that in no single instance had it been impossible to get a man tried legitimately and fairly. Some of these persons were sentenced to death, and some to penal servitude; and there was not a single person seriously accused of complicity in the Fenian organization against whom a verdict of "Guilty" was not passed. The contention of the hon. and learned Member for Christchurch was that that was really the state of feeling in Ireland. The ordinary law should be allowed to operate, and men charged with treasonable practices ought to be tried in the ordinary way, and not by the exceptional method now proposed. Under the old plan verdicts had been obtained against persons accused of such crimes, and there was no reason for this exceptional system being adopted. He admitted that in some cases verdicts could not be obtained in regard to agrarian offences, because the people were in general sympathy with the offenders; but that difficulty did not apply to treason, and he cited the Fenian insurrection in justification of that statement. After the Rebellion in Ireland in 1848, Mr. John Mitchel and Mr. Smith O'Brien and his Colleagues were tried and found guilty under the old system; and if the law was good in those instances, during a violent political convulsion, it would be sufficiently strong now if there was sufficient evidence upon which to convict men. He supposed the Committee did not wish to convict men without sufficient evidence, and, judging from past experience, there was no justification for altering the law. That was the whole contention of the hon. and learned Member for Christchurch, who desired to strike out treason and treason-felony, because there was no evidence that men accused of such crimes would not have a fair trial and get a just verdict. The hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood) had protested against the Committee speaking tenderly of political offences; but he thought the hon. Member would admit, on consideration, that in all civilized countries political offences had always been dealt with more leniently than offences against the person, committed for private objects, or because of some vindictive feeling. A man who engaged in a political movement did so because he believed it to be in the interests of the State, and all law-givers had recognized that distinction. The whole Constitution of England rested upon treason. The men now ruling in France, with whom the Prime Minister had just stated the Government were in intimate alliance, were all traitors in the estimation of another section of the people. He did not say that the same circumstances existed in. Ireland, because the Irish people had civil powers and political rights; but the great objection to including treason and treason-felony in this Bill was that, whether they liked it or not, it was the fact in Ireland that there was a feeling of considerable distrust of the Irish Judges on political grounds. On other grounds, their fairness and impartiality were not questioned, but on political grounds they were distrusted. That distrust might be unjust, but that feeling did exist in Ireland; and people distrusted the Judges on political grounds, because in most cases the Judges had been politicians, and probably acted upon those Party feelings through which they had risen to eminence. There lay the great objection to Judges—the strong powerful objection to Irish Judges, who had obtained their positions in consequence of Party services—being called upon to adjudicate without juries in cases where their Party predilections ran counter to popular feeling. The Home Secretary had spoken strongly about secret societies, and said this Bill was to put them down, and he wished them to believe that secret societies were exclusively of a political character. That statement was entirely contrary to the facts. The most dangerous form of secret societies in Ireland was the agrarian societies—the Ribbonmen, and the illegal organizations which existed in special districts for special objects—and it was contrary to the facts to say that secret societies were entirely political. There was already a prejudice against the Judges on political grounds, and that feeling would be intensified if this most obnoxious duty was conferred upon them. It was a duty which they did not wish to discharge, because they knew their shaky influence would be further diminished. There had been numerous instances in which great political convulsions had arisen, in which one Party having gained the ascendant had sent Hanging Commissions through the country. There was one memorable instance.—the Insurrection in the West of England, when Judge Jeffreys was sent down to try political offenders, and what was the result? The reputation of the English Bench for centuries afterwards was discredited. Another instance could be cited from the history of France within the last few years. All politicians had been astonished at the strong feeling there was against the magistrates and Judges under the Empire on account of political partnership. M. Thiers and others had stated that the strongest feeling had existed against the Judges; and there was the testimony of distinguished statesmen in France that nothing had done more to break down the political machinery in France than the fact that the Judges had been unscrupulous politicians. He believed that the proposal of the Government, with respect to men whom they regarded as their political foes, would do more to sow the seeds of future disturbance in Ireland than any other measure that could be devised.

MR. WILLIS

said, he never heard the historical references of the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) without thinking how little useful and how misleading they were. They were living a long way from the time of Judge Jeffreys; and in Ireland they had a body of Judges whose learning, impartiality, and wisdom were equal to the Judges who presided in the Courts of England. And he could only suppose that the references made by the hon. Member were designed to prevent this Bill having a fair operation in Ireland; and he was surprised to hear that hon. Member make statements and prophecies which were adapted to secure their own fulfilment. He very much wished that the hon. Member, and other hon. Members, would assist the Government in obtaining obedience to the law. He was not likely to favour coercive measures; but if there was any reason to introduce this Bill at all, it was the necessity for dealing with men who were sent out to commit crimes like that in the Phœnix Park; and he could not understand the hon. and learned Member for Christchurch (Mr. Horace Davey) agreeing to allow Judges to try murder, and yet wishing to leave jurors to determine the nature and character of conspiracies from which these crimes sprang. He understood the hon. and learned Member to say that there was little treason in Ireland, and that the Bill would have little operation; but, under Clause 11, searches were to be made for arms, ammunition, papers, documents, and instruments, and he believed a great many associations would be discovered which were treasonable in their designs and purposes; and did any hon. Member think it would be right to leave the Judges to try the men who committed murders, but to leave the jurors, in the present state of feeling in Ireland, to determine the nice points involved in the consideration of what was graver than a murder—namely, the concoction of arrangements for effecting those murders? Treason was one of the gravest offences a man could commit; and instead of its being undefined, there was no offence under our law which was so clearly defined as that of high treason. It was true that there had been two interpretations put by the Judges upon the Statute of Edward III., which the words did not justify; but those interpretations had received the sanction of Parliament, and had been embodied in Acts of Parliament, and there was no reason, therefore, why the Government should, on the ground of the indefinite nature of the offence, separate high treason from other offences. He would rather leave Irish jurors to try the Phœnix Park murderers, than to try cases of treason, such as he believed existed in Ireland, designed with the object of intimidating both Houses of Parliament, and compelling them to change their counsels. He thought that offence should be dealt with by Judges who would act fairly and impartially, and in a manner that could not be paralleled in any other country.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

regarded the Amendment which was now being considered as really the turning-point of the Bill, for the action of the Ministry in reference to this Amendment would show the sincerity or insincerity of the views with which this Bill had been brought forward. This Bill had been brought forward on the ground that it was intended to put down crime; and when the promoters of this Bill had brought it before the House, they led the House clearly to believe that the crime they wanted to put down was agrarian crime, and not political crime. The hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Willis) had asked the Committee to place faith in the impartiality of the Irish Judges. The hon. and learned Member might as well ask them to have faith in the independence of lawyers in want of promotion. He did not want to embarrass this discussion by remarks upon the Irish Judges of an uncomplimentary character; but there was no candid man who knew anything about the affairs of Ireland who would not say that the Party to which he had the honour to belong and the Irish Judges were political opponents. His Party wished to challenge the state of political affairs in Ireland; they wished to change the status quo in Ireland and the system of government; and the Government had admitted that object to be within the domain of practical politics. But the Irish Judges were men whose whole interest, prejudices, and passions were calculated to perpetuate the status quo which that Party wished to change. The Judges were their political opponents, and were quite as much politicians as they were. Hon. Members, seduced by the rhetoric of the Home Secretary, had gone upon the wrong scent on this question. The hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Willis) had asked, were not the men who incited to murder as bad as the men who committed the murder? Certainly they were; but did not murder include conspiracy to murder, and could not men who conspired to murder be tried under the Murder Clause of this Bill, instead of under a Treason-Felony Clause? What was the meaning of this clause? What had been the events of the last six or 12 months in Ireland? They had lived and learned in that time. The Prime Minister had, according to a statement by an hon. Member of that House, "bargained with treason, and trafficked with violence." If the Prime Minister had bargained with treason, he was guilty of treason-felony and treasonable practices. What would be the fate of the right hon. Gentleman if he were to be tried by the hon. Member who had made that statement? The position of the Irish Members was this. They did not want every word and every action from a man in Ireland to be subject to a special political tribunal. They did not defend murders. If the murderers could be caught and convicted upon fair evidence, and not by bribery, let the supreme sentence of the law be passed upon them. But the single words and acts of every man in Ireland ought not to be placed at the absolute mercy of a political tribunal. What would be the consequence of this provision? Four of his Friends had been put into prison for alleged treasonable practices; there never had been, and there never could be, a single word of evidence brought forward to prove that his hon. Friends were, either by commission or omission, by word, or act, or thought, guilty of treasonable practices. The right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (the Attorney General for Ireland) had stated that those hon. Members were "steeped to the lips in treason." Irish Members could afford to smile at that dictum of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, so long as he remained Attorney General for Ireland; but suppose he should be one of the Judges appointed under this Act, that dictum, which only incited a smile now in that House, would be a dictum to consign to penal servitude any gentleman who did not happen to agree with him as to what was politically right or wrong in Ireland. If his hon. Friends were steeped to the lips in treason, the Prime Minister had no right to have negotiations with them. If the hon. Members were steeped to the lips in treason, the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Schreiber), who had been addressing his enthusiastic supporters on the previous day, would have been right in saying that the Prime Minister was bargaining with treason. A few nights ago the late Home Secretary (Sir R. Assheton Cross) had denounced as traitors everybody who had had any reserve in supporting this Bill. That would include nearly every Radical Member opposite; so that if the late Home Secretary happened to be made an Irish Judge, and if the hon. and learned Member for Christchurch (Mr. Horace Davey) were brought before him, and it could be proved that he proposed an Amendment like this, or some- thing of a similar character in Ireland, he should be sorry to lay any insurance on the life or liberty of the hon. and learned Member. There was no form of political action in times of political anxiety which could not be brought before the Judges under the large and vague terms, treason and treason-felony. It was a matter of some surprise that, in the face of the large array of names on the back of this Bill, the conduct of the Bill was entirely abandoned to the Home Secretary; and he thought it augured ill for liberty, justice, and statesman-like qualities if the Bill was left solely to the charge of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He did not want to say anything personally offensive of the Home Secretary; but he must express his opinion that the whole political thought, and intention, and bent of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's mind would fit him far better to be the Home Secretary of an ultra-Conservative Administration rather than of a Liberal Government. In all the debates in that House, when great principles of Liberalism on the one side, and Conservatism on the other, had been at stake, especially with regard to Ireland, the right hon. and learned Gentleman, acting, no doubt, in accordance with his own genuine convictions, had taken the Conservative as opposed to the Liberal view of the question. He wished to know whether the Prime Minister did or did not desire Ireland to be tranquillized? If he wished Ireland to be tranquillized, then he must deal with this question in a spirit of justice and reason; but he would not be dealing with Ireland in that spirit if he put the Constitutional agitator, and not the murderer or assassin, at the mercy of a special tribunal. This clause was directed against the Constitutional agitator. What was the Constitutional agitator? Murderers, assassins, and treasonable conspirators had many dangers to face, and the men who entered into conspiracies were firm and determined, and willing to take the risks of their enterprize; but the whole history of mankind, especially contemporaneous history, taught this great lesson, that the strongest despotism was not omnipotent against the assassin or conspirator? How was it that men had not been tried for treason in Ireland during the last 10 or 15 years? Why had not treason taken the form of open revolt during that time? Because the action of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had given the Irish people some confidence in the services to be rendered by Constitutional agitation on the floor of that House. This clause would drive every Constitutional agitator to secret conspiracy; and he trembled to think what would be the result in Ireland if the people were to be once again deprived of their Constitutional Leaders—once again to lose faith in justice being obtained from that House—and he laid upon the Head of the Government the responsibility for any such evil consequences if they persisted in the disastrous policy which was contained in this Bill.

MR. GIBSON

said, he could not but think there were many hon. Members who supported the Amendment now before the Committee, who had not had before their minds either the state of Ireland or the Law of Treason. The hon. Member who had just spoken had said this Amendment was the turning-point of the Bill. He himself did not exactly say that; but, unquestionably, if those who supported the Amendment could induce the Government to adopt it, that would certainly indicate a considerable weakness in the original structure of the Bill, and an absence of determination to stand by it in Committee. In that sense the Amendment would indicate the turning-point of the Bill; but he did not think, in any other sense, the Amendment could be so described. Although it was a matter of considerable importance, it might be looked at temperately and quietly, on the admitted facts of the case. It must be assumed, for the purpose of this contention, that there was no objection to any of the rest of the framework of this clause; and those who challenged the presence of treason or treason-felony in the category of crimes, had no objection to the rest of the measure. Would anybody stand up and argue that he objected to a judicial tribunal trying murders and similar offences? Would it not be startling to admit that the Executive should be given a power, in regard to all the other offences named in this clause, to arrive at the conclusion that a just and impartial trial could not be had under the ordinary law, and yet they should not have the power to say, if they were so satisfied that a just, and fair, and impartial trial could not be had according to the ordinary course of the law in the case of treason or treason-felony? Of course, it would be possible legally to do so; but those who argued such a proposition should support it by showing that although an exceptional state of facts should prevail in reference to other crimes, yet they were so absent from these crimes, that it would be unfair to intrust the highest Executive official necessary in Ireland with any discretion in reference to them. He was afraid he could not arrive at that conclusion, because no one who had any acquaintance with Ireland could deny the painful fact that there was a great deal of disloyalty in many parts of Ireland. That was a painful and a sad fact; but it was the fact, and being the fact, it was a great deal better to admit it and state it, and attempt to deal with it temperately and reasonably in an Act of Parliament, than to pretend to ignore it. The Committee should bear in mind what it was that was covered by these words which it was sought to omit. He was afraid the Committee had not had that present in their minds during this discussion. One would think that the definition of treason and treason-felony was applied to prevent legitimate Constitutional agitation; but it was nothing of the kind. If the word "sedition," or any kindred distinction was found in the Bill, he could understand the argument now advanced; but there was nothing of that kind. The offences which it was proposed to exclude were treason and treason-felony, and the main argument of the hon. and learned Member for Christchurch (Mr. Horace Davey) was of a technical character; but he did not think that hon. and learned Gentleman had spoken with any marked enthusiasm upon his Amendment, but had rested it mainly upon technical grounds, which supplied also a sort of refuge for the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) in the statement that for the last 10 or 15 years there had been no trials for treason in Ireland, and, therefore, the machinery had not broken down. Was that argument accepted by the hon. and learned Member himself? He credited the hon. and learned Member with entire sincerity; but if he did accept that argument, then he thought the hon. and learned Member had not considered the matter with any great care. It was impossible to ignore the present state of feeling among too many classes in Ireland, or what had been the fate of many prosecutions which were not for treason or treason-felony, but for murder. He would take the latest case of anything like a State Trial in Ireland. That was a case tried in Dublin 18 months ago. It was not a case of treason-felony; but certainly the traversers in that trial could not regard themselves as being charged with loyalty. That being so, the jury having received the charge absolutely clear—not from an isolated Judge sitting to try a criminal on Circuit, but a Judge sitting and speaking with the full authority of the Court of Queen's Bench, and giving a charge which, in a civil case, would have been regarded by the jury as a direction—the jury in that case failed to give more than a disagreement, which indicated that there was, at all events, a very great difficulty in getting jurors to return verdicts in accordance with what the prosecutors were entitled to expect. That was a matter which, he thought, should be borne in mind. Everyone in Ireland recognized the state of feeling in that country, and the difficulties that had to be overcome. What did the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets say? That since 1798, and the unfortunate Revolution in that year, there had been a good deal of sympathy with disloyalty in Ireland, and that even at the present time public opinion surrounded those charged with disloyalty with both sympathy and admiration. That being the state of facts admitted by the hon. and learned Member, how could it be urged that it would be safe to trust juries who might have among them men who regarded, or surrounded with sympathy, or with admiration, those who were charged with treason or treason-felony? How could it be said that a case for suspending the ordinary mode of trial had not been made out? Offences of treason and treason-felony were not what they had been assumed to be—namely, offences like sedition. It had been assumed in nearly all the arguments in support of this Amendment, that they were very much the same thing, and that treason-felony consisted in mere words, or the ordinary right of Constitutional agita- tion. But that was not so. Supposing this Amendment were carried, a class of offences that no one could put aside as not trenching in the slighest degree upon legitimate political discussion and agitation, would be excluded from the Bill. Everyone who read the Amendment withdrawn by the hon. and gallant Member for County Galway (Colonel Nolan) would see some of the definitions of treason that would be at once excluded if the present Amendment were were accepted. The proposal which the hon. and gallant Member had withdrawn was to leave out "treason or treason felony," and to insert— Attempting to take the life, injuring, or attempting to injure or imagining the death of the Sovereign or the Prince of Wales. The offence pointed at in that Amendment was about as grave and serious an offence as could be conceived, yet that only affected part of the Law of Treason. There were many other offences of a very grave character which could not be confounded with anything like attempting to take the life or injuring the Sovereign or the Prince of Wales. The Home Secretary had said that the passing of the Amendment under discussion would be like a proclamation to Ireland that treason was no crime. That was the way it would be read, and the way he (Mr. Gibson) had no doubt it would be used in Ireland. No one who had watched the course of the agitation now going on in all its force in Ireland could doubt that if this Amendment were adopted, it would be sounded widely through the Press—certainly in America—and on many a platform in Ireland, that it had had to be admitted in the Imperial Parliament of England that treason, which had been defined clearly enough, was not regarded as an offence to be punished or to be dealt with in order to prevent criminals having impunity. Or it might be put otherwise by those who would not put it in such a strong way—although it would be foolish and rash, after the experience they had had, to imagine that anything would not be put in the strongest way—it might be put that treason was so slight and trivial an offence that it was not necessary to deal with it in the House at all. He was as anxious as anyone could be to see Ireland governed according to the ordinary law—to see its government freed from everything savouring of exceptional law; but he never would, under any circumstances, either in or out of the House, for the sake of gaining an ignominious popularity, say that he thought Ireland could be governed by certain laws or without certain laws, when, his own conscientious conviction could not follow that statement.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER

said, the right hon. and learned Gentleman who had just addressed the Committee had commenced by giving them a brief history of the trial of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) and other hon. Gentlemen who were Members of that House; and he (Mr. O'Connor Power) wished the Committee to note the kind of argument which was presented as a reason for accepting the clause in its present shape. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had said "the hon. Members were tried, not for treason, not for treason-felony, but for something verging on treason, and they were acquitted." ["No, no!"] Well, "the jury disagreed," which was said to be tantamount to an acquittal, "therefore, there was a failure of conviction that one naturally expected, and we will put such provision in this Bill that there shall be no failure of conviction in the future." Mark the force of the argument. Because there was a failure of conviction of an offence that was neither treason nor treason-felony, therefore we will abolish trial by jury for treason and treason-felony. That was the argument pure and simple, and he (Mr. O'Connor Power) contended it was so absurd that it would be mere waste of time to combat it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had warned them to be careful of the consequences of their action in Ireland. He (Mr. O'Connor Power) was glad to find that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had some respect for Irish public opinion. He was glad to find that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was disposed to shape his votes and action in that House with some regard to Irish public opinion. He (Mr. O'Connor Power) had a great deal of regard for the manner in which this Bill was likely to be received by the Irish people; and he said that if they needlessly, and without showing any sufficient cause, abolished trial by jury in cases of offences of treason and treason-felony, the Irish people would read the measure as an attack upon their poli- tical liberty, and they would say that the title at the head of it—"Prevention of Crime"—was a sham, a misleading definition. It was as likely that they would take that view, if this sub-section were maintained in the clause, as that they would take the view so—what should, he say—so ingeniously put forward by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary—namely, that they would no longer think treason or treason-felony a crime. He should like to ask the Committee one plain question which, he thought, went to the root of this discussion. Why were they asked at all to pass a Bill of this extraordinary character? What was the answer to that? It was because the ordinary law had broken down. In every case, therefore, where the ordinary law had broken down the Home Secretary was right in calling on them to sustain him. But he was calling on them to sustain him where, admittedly, the ordinary law had not broken down. He (Mr. O'Connor Power) wanted to know where was the logic, where was the consistency, where was the common sense of that proposition? The Irish Members had distinctly challenged the Government to point to a single case in the history of trials for treason and treason-felony in Ireland where a jury had, on the weight of evidence, failed to convict, and there had not been a single instance quoted. He asked, therefore, on what basis of argument did the case of the Government rest? It rested on no basis of argument—on not one solitary fact. It rested, he supposed, upon their apprehensions with regard to the future of Ireland. It was evident that they had no faith in that other half—that better half—that better and greater half of their policy, the remedial legislation, if they were so afraid for the next three years of the effect of the present system of government in Ireland, that they must arm themselves with powers which no previous Government ever sought from that House when dealing with Irish disaffection. ["No, no!"] Really, the hon. Member who expressed dissent did not seem to be alive to the enormity of the proposal contained in this clause. He repeated, that the Government had come down and asked for powers in dealing with Irish disaffection that no Government had ever asked for before. And when they asked the Government to tell them where and when the ordinary law had broken down, a red-herring was drawn across their path, and a reckless reference was made to subjects which were not germane to the question before the Committee. It was said that in some respects the ordinary law had broken down. But it had not broken down in cases of treason and treason-felony, and, therefore, the Government were without an atom of justification in calling upon the Committee to include this sub-section in the Bill. They had been reminded that treason was a crime. Unquestionably, it was a crime; but not all the eloquence, not all the argumentative power of the Home Secretary would be able to put the crime of treason or treason-felony in the category of other crimes. It never had been, and it never could be, put in that category. Everyone who had read the Constitutional history of England knew very well that it was impossible to speak of the crime of treason as they would speak of other grave offences. Treason and treason-felony were admittedly grave offences; but Gentlemen who were elevated to the position of statesmen were not only called on to take a lawyer's view of those crimes, but they were required to take a statesmen's view of them; and the true statesman's view of the crimes of treason and treason-felony in any civilized country was that they were to be punished, and punished in such a way as to deter political organizations, or too ambitious individuals, from seeking to change the law or government of the country by violent means. But statesmen were always fettered and guided by considerations of public policy and of expediency. They sentenced a man guilty of treason to be hanged by the neck, but before the time fixed for the execution came he was respited, and at the end of three years, as in the case of William Smith O'Brien, he was released from prison and sent home to his friends. Why did they do that? It was not because they had not their opinion of the enormity of the offence, but because, as statesmen, they were bound to respect the patriotic aspirations—mistaken they might be—and political sentiments of people who differed from them in opinion. He thought it would not be contested by anyone that no enactment of that House could be effectual in maintaining law and order in Ireland, and effectual in punishing crime in that country, which was not calculated to win the people to the side of law and order, and to win their support to the Government. He maintained that if they passed an enactment of this kind, destroying the right of trial by jury in respect of offences which were of a political character, they at once started out with a declared distrust of the very people whom it should be their object to win to the side of the Government. This provision was unnecessary. It was absolutely uncalled for. No references to the Phoenix Park murders and the disciples of O'Donovan Rossa should justify it, for the reason that by all the other powers of the Bill they would be fully armed to deal with these offences. They were going to apply the Alien Act to aliens in Ireland, and there was scarcely a part of the measure in which the Government were not asking the Committee to give them extraordinary powers. They had nothing to justify them in abolishing trial by jury in cases of treason and treason-felony; and he assured them their fears and apprehensions were groundless, just as groundless as the arguments they based on considerations which were not founded upon fact. He trusted, therefore, that the hon. and learned Gentleman who had moved this Amendment would, at all events, take care that hon. Gentlemen were afforded an opportunity of protesting in the most emphatic manner—namely, by a division—against this provision. The Irish Members had again and again challenged the Government to meet them on one point, and he was sure, after the many protests that had come from both sides of the Committee, Her Majesty's Government would not ignore it. The point was the one to which he had already referred. Had the ordinary law broken down in Ireland as regards treason and treason-felony? If not, he maintained that they were degrading that ordinary law and giving the Irish people a contempt for it, when they needlesly set it aside to establish a stringent measure of this description.

MR. CARTWRIGHT

said, the hon. and learned Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) had thrown down a very clear and distinct challenge to the Government as to whether the ordinary law had broken down or not. He (Mr. Cartwright) ventured to say that anyone who had paid any attention to the course of legal procedure in Ireland must have seen and have known that many a time verdicts had not been according to evidence, although the juries had had clear evidence before them.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER

I referred to cases of treason and treason-felony.

MR. CARTWRIGHT

said, he should come to that point directly. A speaker (Mr. Willis) who had almost immediately preceded the hon. and learned Member for Mayo had attacked the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) in regard to what be had called that hon. Member's historical fallacies. One of these historical fallacies was his reference to Judge Jeffreys. Let them leave Judge Jeffreys entirely outside the question—let them come to the mode and manner in which justice had been administered in Ireland within their own memories. Reference had also been made to the Fenian organization; and it had been pointed out by the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) that convictions had been obtained against Fenians in Ireland, although theirs was the most powerful organization that ever existed in Ireland.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

I never made any such statement.

MR. CARTWRIGHT

said, the hon. Member had said that verdicts were brought in according to the weight of evidence.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

begged the hon. Member's pardon. He had never made either of the two assertions attributed to him, nor had he heard anyone else make them.

MR. CARTWRIGHT

said, that, at any rate, the assertions had been made by an hon. Member opposite. He apologized for having attributed them to the hon. Member for Galway. It was the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) who had made them. What had been kept out of the view of the Committee was this, that at the time when verdicts were obtained against the Fenians the juries were of an entirely different order and character to those now empanneled to try cases in Ireland. The raison d'etre of this Bill was that they had to deal with juries very different from those who had brought in these verdicts. This was a point which had not been kept before the Committee, and he, therefore, wished to impress it strongly upon the attention of the Committee. It was a point of considerable importance. But there was another point of importance. Reference had been made to the fact that, under the Bill, Judges in Ireland would have to deal both as Judge and jury with cases brought before them. But what were these Judges? How could hon. Members accuse them of partiality, and say that they would be in favour of bringing in verdicts against persons accused before them? There was evidence before the Commitee, and it was a matter of public notoriety, that these Judges had themselves, on technical grounds, taken exception to the duties imposed on them by the Bill. Yet, although they knew that these men, according to the technicalities of their legal minds, were anything but biassed in favour of the Bill, Irish Members took exception to them, and said they would not be impartial Judges. It seemed to him that not only were all the arguments brought against this sub-section of the clause unfair, but were entirely outside the four corners of the case.

MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY

said, the hon. Member who had last spoken hardly, he thought, understood the position taken up by the Irish Members on this particular clause. The hon. Member had given some arguments, which seemingly very much appealed to his own conviction, to show that Irish juries had not given satisfactory verdicts in recent cases in Ireland; but what the Irish Members were contending for had reference to one particular case alone—namely, treason or treason-felony. They contended that there was not the slightest reason to assert that the law had ever failed in Ireland in regard to verdicts of juries in cases of treason and treason-felony. Hon. Gentlemen opposite could have no recent evidence on this point, because trials for treason and treason-felony, happily, had been very few in Ireland of late years. He believed that not for something like 10 or 12 years had any case of the kind arisen in that country. But when such cases had arisen, and there had been reasonable evidence against the accused, convictions had been obtained with almost unvarying certainty. The Committee were, of course, perfectly well aware that convictions for treason and treason-felony in times when these offences were rife in Ireland were almost invariably certain. From the days of Mitchel to those of O'Donovan Rossa, convictions for treason and treason-felony were always secured where there was any reasonable evidence whatever to bring forward as to the justice of the accusations. What the Irish Members maintained was this, that the law had never been discredited in regard to offences of this kind. But what did they find the argument on the other side? They found the common assumption was that everyone who was charged with an offence at the instance of any official of Dublin Castle must needs be guilty of that offence, and that where there was no verdict of "Guilty" returned, the jury had not found a proper verdict, and the law was left in discredit. The case of his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had been referred to that evening. The hon. Member had been tried on a charge of constructive conspiracy—that was to say, it had been attempted to make him responsible for various ejaculations shouted out at meetings he had never attended by persons he had never seen. He (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) ventured to assert that if his hon. Friend had been tried by a Middlesex jury which had not been packed by police officials and informers, that jury would never have convicted him of the charge brought against him. The jury who had tried his hon. Friend in Ireland had acted exactly as any other civilized jury would have done. The assumption was that any man accused of anything in Ireland by the Crown must naturally, or necessarily, be guilty. There had been a somewhat ominous expression let drop by the Home Secretary in one of his speeches that night. He had said—"We want to make the system of trial effective. The men who are to be brought before this tribunal are men who have no right or title to consideration at our hands." More than once the right hon. and learned Gentleman said—"We can have no consideration for persons of that class." Persons of what class? Why, persons brought before a jury. So that it was assumed, as a matter of course, that everyone charged in Ireland before a jury must be guilty of the charge, and that if they were not found guilty the fault must lie with the jury system. Now, assumptions of that kind were not likely to commend legislation like this to the attentive respect of the Irish people. No matter whether they did, or did not, owe consideration to men charged with crime, or even to men guilty of crime, they owed consideration to that Constitutional system which said a man should not be assumed to be guilty until he had been proved to be so, and that he should have every possible means of a fair and legitimate trial, such as commended itself to the sense of a civilized people. In the whole of the debates which had taken place on this and other clauses, this consideration seemed to have been entirely lost sight of. The Irish Members said, with regard to this charge of treason or treason-felony, that public opinion would support the ordinary process of law. It was but fair, they said, to leave out of the category of special offences calling for a special tribunal those charges for which the ordinary law, thus far, had been proved quite sufficient. They had heard a great deal that night about the intensity of the guilt of treason and treason-felony. Now, he quite admitted that every man who ran the desperate risk of convulsing a whole State in the hope of carrying out some scheme of his own, or some scheme of someone else, no matter though he believed great public benefit would result from it, no matter how good his object, if he failed, was bound to pay the forfeit. If he disturbed society, and failed in the object for which he made that disturbance, there was proof that he had been rash and reckless in his calculations, and he was bound to suffer the penalty the law imposed. But public opinion, and history, and the national conscience never could consent to regard a man charged with treason or treason-felony in the same light as a man charged with murder or manslaughter, an attempt to kill, aggravated crime of violence against the person, arson, or an attack on a dwelling-house. Everyone knew it was but the chance of the hour that made a man either a successful patriot and hero, or a mere convict. Therefore, they were fairly entitled to claim that a charge which was made, and carried out to its fullest vindictive extreme, in England against men like Algernon Sydney and Lord Russell, and in his own country against Wolfe Tone and Fitzgerald, should not be regarded like merely criminal charges; and that if there was to be wrangling over new legislation as to trials, it should not be, except under the extremest necessity, with regard to trials for offences that had at all times been distinguished and separated from ordinary breaches of law, that had often been held up as honourable actions, and had often come within the merest chance of being successful efforts of patriotism.

MR. THOROLD ROGERS

said, that although he had no doubt about this particular part of the Bill, something had fallen from the right hon. And learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) which was calculated to raise the gravest doubt in his mind. He hoped he did not mis-represent the right hon. and learned Gentleman when he said that he had stated that in a certain trial that took place in Dublin some months ago the Judges—not one Judge, but two Judges—summed up distinctly in favour of a conviction. Not only that; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman went so far as to say that the Judges virtually directed the jury to convict, and that, in the teeth of that direction, the jury returned a verdict of "Not Guilty"—["No, no!"]—or could not agree. If it were the case that the Judges in Ireland—and he was not disparaging in the slightest degree their merits, not challenging in the least their integrity, because he was not disposed to believe, nor had he any reason to believe, that they carried their political sentiments on to the Bench—but if it were the case that the Judges in Ireland, in a matter so elastic, so much a matter of Judge-made law, as he emphatically believed treason and treason-felony to be, had not merely advised, but practically ordered the jury to convict, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman had said, then to commit to these Judges—[Cries of "No, no!" and an hon. MEMBER: He did not say that.] He simply repeated what he had heard the right hon. and learned Gentleman say. ["No, no!"] The right hon. and learned Gentleman had said that the Judges summed up in such a way—

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

With great respect, I would say—["Order!"]

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, he rose to a point of Order. Had the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland a right to rise up and correct a statement made by another right hon. and learned Gentleman?

THE CHAIRMAN

If the hon. Member (Mr. Thorold Rogers) wishes to maintain his position, he can do so; but I understand, by his sitting down, that he wishes to hear what the right hon. and learned Gentleman desires to say by way of correction.

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

here again rose.

MR. PARNELL

said, that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman was to be allowed to interpolate a speech with regard to what had been said by a third person in the middle of the speech of the hon. Member (Mr. Thorold Rogers), there were some other hon. Members who would desire the same privilege. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, who had been dumb the whole evening, would have an opportunity of addressing the Committee when the hon. Member who was now in possession of it had concluded.

THE CHAIRMAN

I would point out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that the course which is being followed is not a usual one.

MR. THOROLD ROGERS

said, he had not the least wish to misrepresent in the slightest degree what had been said by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin; but he wished to convey to the Committee the impression which had been made upon his own mind. He might, perhaps, be wrong as to the precise phrase the right hon. and learned Gentleman used as to the Judge's Charge to the jury; but he believed it was said that the Judge went so near ordering the jury to convict as to direct. ["No, no!"] Yes; that was exactly what he said. He (Mr. Thorold Rogers) contended that, if that were the case, and if, in a matter of Judge-made law, and speculative opinion as to the consequences which might ensue from the views any public person had expressed, either by voice or by writing, the Judges were able to declare to the juries that that which appeared to them to be their duty was not their duty, but that their duty was a totally different thing, Constitutional agitation in Ireland would be in great peril. Suppose it to be the case—and he conceived that it might happen—that crimes of similar magnitude to those which had happened in Ireland occurred in England, and suppose he were called on, as he should generally feel it his duty to do if called on, to give larger powers to the Executive, he should be reluctant to empower Judges who had not exactly browbeaten juries, but, at any rate, told them how they ought to give their verdicts, power themselves to give verdicts. He should not like to do this in the case of his own country, and he did not like to do it in the case of Ireland. Again, he could not help thinking that there were one or two phrases in the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary that evening which were open to review. It was not their duty to maintain the Government of England in Ireland, but to maintain there the Government of every civilized community—the Government of law and order. At any rate, that was the view he should have before him in giving any vote upon the general principle or the details of the Bill. As he understood it, certain hon. Members from Ireland objected to have to face the great issues which would be involved in the retention of this crime, treason or treason-felony, in the Bill. It was argued with force that it was useless to include this crime, for the reason that, if a man made a long speech, or was guilty of a line of conduct, in respect of which he could not be punished under any other of the subsections of this clause, such speech or such, conduct would be so harmless that they could afford to pass it by. No doubt, anyone who it was believed had committed murder or manslaughter, or who had attempted to kill, or who was guilty of aggravated crime of violence against the person, or of arson, whether by Common Law or Statute, or who it was believed had attacked a dwelling-house, would be a very dangerous person, and he (Mr. Thorold Rogers) would be glad to see such a man left to the sharpest remedies of the Bill. He could not help thinking that there was a very great danger on two points in connection with this particular part of the Bill. One was that they would give an impression, not, indeed, that treason was no crime, but that there was an attempt made to coerce the expression of political opinion through the mouths and at the hands of those who were naturally Conservative when sitting on the Bench, and who were naturally disposed to interpret the law of the enactment under which they sat with rigour. He need hardly tell the Members of that House that that had been constantly the effect with regard to the Law of Treason in past times, and, as they had heard from the late Attorney General for Ireland, in very modern times. Then, furthermore, he thought there was great danger that if they once sanctioned the principle that Judges, without juries, could arrive at conclusions as to what were likely to be the results of speculative opinion in Ireland, they would not, at any future time, be able to resist the introduction of a similar interpretation, to such political acts and such, political opinions on the part of the Judges of England and Scotland.

MR. GIBSON

said, he must ask the permission of the Committee to say a word by way of explanation. He understood that when he was out of the House the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had referred to what he (Mr. Gibson) had said. He might not have rightly apprehended the criticism of the hon. Gentleman; but he would repeat what he had said, and then the hon. Gentleman would know what he had had in his mind. He had been illustrating the difficulty of getting juries in cases that savoured at all of—he would not say treason or treason-felony—[An hon. MEMBER: Say it.]—he was repeating the words he had used—cases that savoured of offences against public order and the reign of law to return independent verdicts. He had referred to such cases as the State Trials in Dublin some 18 months ago, where there was little or no controversy as to the facts, and where the Judges gave their opinion in a way that, in a civil case, would be regarded as a direction—["Hear, hear!"]—yes; a direction as to the law of the case. Notwithstanding that, practically, there was no difference or controversy as to the salient facts of the case in these State Trials, there was a disagreement on the part of the jury.

MR. THOROLD ROGERS

said, he did not think he had at all mis-stated what the right hon. and learned Gentleman had said. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had referred to the direction of Judges as to the law of the case, and that was what he (Mr. Thorold Rogers) had said.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, he never heard lawyers explaining the Law of Treason without thanking Heaven that juries stood between the subjects of Her Majesty and the lawyers in the administration of justice. Had it not been for that, the liberties that they at present enjoyed in England would not have existed. The hon. and learned Gentleman who moved the Amendment (Mr. Horace Davey) had said that treason and treason-felony was Judge-made law, and was, therefore, as was usual in such cases, unjust. But he (Mr. Labouchere) did not require to go to the Judges. He would simply go to the Statutes; and he would not go back to the Edwards or the Henrys, but would refer to the very last Statute dealing with treason-felony, passed in the present reign. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) had told them his view of the law. He had understood him to say that it would be all very well to make objection if the word "sedition" instead of "treason" were introduced into the category of crimes punishable under the Bill; but that if "treason" and not "sedition" were adopted, no one could be prosecuted without committing some overt act. "No one could be prosecuted for Constitutional agitation," he thought were the words the right hon. and learned Gentleman had used. He thought he meant no one could be prosecuted for anything he merely said. He would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to listen to this, because he did not think the right hon. and learned Gentleman had refreshed his memory lately with the Statute passed in the present reign. The Statute said that amongst other things which made treason or treason-felony was "to intimidate or overawe both Houses, or either House of Parliament." He apprehended that a Judge could hold that it might be intimidating or overawing both Houses, or either House of Parliament, to hold a meeting in Trafalgar Square. But the Statute went a step further, and said that a person offending "by publishing, or printing, or writing, or any overt act or deed," should be guilty of felony. That was to say, that if anyone were to recommend a meeting in Ireland or England that might intimidate either House of Parliament, that person would be guilty, according to this Statute, of treason or treason-felony. Now, he asked whether anyone would dream of placing these powers in the hands, he did not say of an Irish Judge, but of any Judge? He maintained that it was absolutely necessary, when such Statutes were passed, that a jury should stand between the law and the person indicted, for the purpose of tempering the letter of the law with the spirit of justice. That was what had saved them in past reigns against these Statutes, these abominable Statutes—and it was not he alone who called them so, but he believed that Hallam and other text-writers had done the same. Though the Statute might be wide, the Judge always, in cases of treason, obeyed the letter of the law. He did not know why it was, in matters of personal crime, that they did not do so. Speaking from history—and the Home Secretary, who knew a great deal about history, and had written a great deal about it, would bear him out when he said it—it was a mistake ever to intrust the administration of the Law of Treason to a Judge without a jury. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary had given them his view of the criminality of treason. He had told them, so far as he (Mr. Labouchere) understood him, that there was no moral distinction between treason and murder. Surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not stand to that. Surely he was aware that, whereas the entire community were of opinion that murder was a moral crime, the entire community was not of opinion that treason was always a moral crime. Here was the basis of the mistake which had been made in the present Bill, of putting in the same category that which might or might not be a moral crime in the eyes of a few, or of many, and that which was admitted by all to be a moral crime. What did they want to do in Ireland? To enlist the people on the side of law. They wanted to make them consider that the violation of the law involved some moral obliquity. He did not say that there should not be Statutes against treason—every community was obliged to have them; but they ought to draw a distinction, as much as possible, between those crimes that were admittedly morally infamous and those that were not. If they did not do that, they would create in Ireland a feeling against the entire Bill. The Irish people would not distinguish. They would say—"You put in treason and murder; we will leave you to fight it out with the murderers, and the persons who are guilty of treason." If this sub-section were left out of the clause, as hon. Gentlemen from Ireland had told the Government—and there was no reason to doubt that these Gentlemen did not represent the feeling of Ireland—they themselves, and their people, would unite with them in putting down these outrages against which the Bill was aimed. There was one reason in favour of the Amendment, which was of a Parliamentary character, which he wished to urge before sitting down. It was this. Up to the present time the discussion on the Bill had been temperate; the Government were most anxious to pass the measure; the present Amendment was one of the first important Amendments that had come on. Hon. Members on the Conservative Benches urged the Government not to give way, and some hon. Members on that (the Ministerial) side did the same. ["Hear, hear!"] The hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. R. N. Fowler) said "Hear, hear!" That hon. Member evidently urged the Government not to give way. All the Irish Members—["No!"]—well, nearly all the Irish Members who really represented public opinion in Ireland, urged them to give way, as also did many English Members who had spoken from that (the Radical) side of the House; and if they (the Government) really wished to pass the Bill, and to pass it in reasonable time, and without angry feeling, it would be advisable for them to give way at once. They must remember that during the past 10 years they had never had one trial for treason-felony in Ireland, and the probability was that this sub-section would not have to be put into operation. It was not an important one to the Government; therefore he trusted the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department and his Colleagues would consider whether some sort of concession could not be made.

MR. GOSCHEN

said, he would endeavour, in the few observations he was about to make, to observe the same temperate tone as that observed by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), and nearly all the hon. Members who had taken part in the debate. If treason and treason-felony were not put on the same footing as the other crimes mentioned in the Bill, it might have an effect, to a certain extent, on the minds of the Irish people in the view they took of the more severe crimes, as had been mentioned by the hon. Member for Northampton; but, on the other hand, in separating the crimes in this way, would they not make the people of Ireland take a lighter view of the crime of treason than was desirable at this time? He should like to recall the weighty words that had fallen from the Home Secretary on that point earlier in the evening. The Government, on their responsibility, considered it necessary that these words should be introduced; and he (Mr. Goschen) would ask, as the Home Secretary asked earlier in the evening—"What will be the effect on the people of Ireland if this is omitted from the Bill, especially after the debate that has taken place?" One of the arguments which had been used was that the Irish Judges could not be trusted to administer this Act impartially as regarded political offences. Were they, then, to teach the Irish people, by accepting this Amendment, that the House of Commons held the view which was urged by hon. Gentlemen opposite about the Irish Judges? He would remind the Committee of the important part which that argument had played. It had been said that the Irish Judges could not be trusted to administer the Act so far as political offences were concerned. Well, he did not suppose that Her Majesty's Government would wish to inaugurate this Act by assenting, even indirectly, to such an argument as that. There was a difference, he thought, between many hon. Members in that House with regard to the situation in Ireland as connected with agrarian offences. It had been urged, over and over again, that it was the Agrarian Question with which they really had to deal, and that, therefore, that part of the measure which did not touch agrarian offences might be safely omitted; and he thought it was the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Cowen) who had called attention to this point. He had said—"The secret societies of Ireland are agrarian—they are Ribbonmen, and they deal with agrarian ques- tions generally." But surely they might take it for granted, he hoped, that if it were not agrarian secret societies that organized the terrible murders in Phœnix Park, those murders were at least due to some secret society of a political and treasonable character. Unfortunately, they had not only to deal with the Agrarian Question, but they knew that there was a moving power in the Irish-Americans, to which attention had been called, over and over again, and by none more so than by hon. Members sitting opposite—the Leaders of the Irish Party. He thought they might say, so far as they could judge, both by speeches which had been made at American meetings and from their newspapers, that there were far more than agrarian questions at stake in their policy and in their aims. [An hon. MEMBER: Home Rule.] Yes, Home Rule; but Home Rule, accompanied by recommendations so treasonable in their character, that he wondered how loyal Irishmen, who had visited the other side of the Atlantic, could stand and listen to them. It was with the aims of the organizations in America that they had to deal, as well as with agrarian questions. It would, indeed, be fortunate for them if they could think that they were only dealing with Irish fellow-subjects, and that they had not to take into consideration the revolutionary and treasonable objects of these societies. But they would be minimizing the dangers which they had to encounter if they were to think that there was only one legitimate agrarian and political agitation in Ireland. There were these other powers at work in Ireland. The Government had asked them in this Bill to assist them in dealing with secret societies; and he must say he thought a heavy responsibility would rest on those who, after the appeal made to them by the Home Secretary, who pointed out the effect the refusal of the sub-section would have on Ireland, persisted in their objection to this portion of the Bill. He could only say they were bound to face, not only the agrarian, but other political offences; and, whatever view they might take of treason, they could not lightly deal with it, or give either this country or Ireland the idea that they were excluding it from the list of those crimes with, which the Bill had to deal.

MR. HOPWOOD

said, he did not think this section of the Bill ought to pass, at least in its present shape. The Government had had overtures made to them which, if they had been listened to, might have had the very best effect on Ireland; and they were about to return to those who had made the overtures the answer that they would try political offences in Ireland by an unheard-of tribunal. An hon. and learned Friend behind him (Mr. Horace Davey) had said there was no precedent for this form of tribunal. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary had taken his hon. and learned Friend up rather sharply, and said—"You say there is not a precedent—why, there was one last year, when you conceded to us a larger power of dealing with those suspected of treason than we seek here, inasmuch as we do propose now to put them on trial." The right hon. and learned Gentleman had considerable readiness; but he must take care that he did not pinch his friends as well as his foes. When he reminded his Friends of their allegiance last year, and said that was a reason why this year they should go farther, the reminder was, to say the least of it, unfortunate. He would answer the right hon. and learned Gentleman that they were told last year that only for a few short months would men be confined in gaol on suspicion. They might describe how they had been coaxed into giving the Government extraordinary powers, or they might, with the penitent, say—"We now feel we were wrong in giving them at all." The precedent was no precedent. The question they had to consider to-day was whether to the Judges of Ireland should be given power of life and death over their fellow men; and whether, among the numerous offences to be tried by this tribunal, that of treason should be one of them. Now, his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) had said he did not think a man would rise in that House and say he would not allow a murder to be tried by the Judges. He (Mr. Hopwood) confessed he was one of those men—too old-fashioned, it might be; too Conservative, perhaps, for the right hon. and learned Gentleman—who had felt very glad when he had stood up for a client—it might be a prisoner at the Bar—to know that there was a jury between the accused and the Judge. His argument was that cases of treason and treason-felony should not be intrusted to three legal gentlemen for trial; and he hoped to make good that argument. His right hon. and learned Friend said—"Why, there is a great deal of treason in Ireland." Well, if there was, it might show itself in murder; and, if so, it could be dealt with in the next sub-section to that under discussion. It might show itself in "manslaughter" or "attempts to kill." It might appear in "aggravated crimes of violence against the person;" in "arson, whether by Common Law or by Statute;" or it might show itself in an "attack on dwelling-house"—in either of which cases it could be dealt with under those paragraphs in the clause. The most violent forms of treason or treason-felony were thus provided for. Persons believed to be guilty of treason taking those forms they could try to their hearts' content by the chosen tribunal; but when they came to simply "treason or treason-felony," they had a totally different crime to judge of. Of course, for his argument, he assumed it to be divested of all violence. A Judge, in dealing with the actions of a person accused of treason or treason-felony, could attribute motives and give a wrong bias to actions, according to the inclination of his own mind. And why was it? They had the answer palpably amongst them; the wide diversity of political feeling. What was a "Conservative?" What was a "Radical?" What was a "Liberal?" It was interpreted by one Judge in one way and by another Judge in another way. They were not without instances in this country of juries disagreeing. A few years ago there was a disturbance in the North of England. Politics ran extremely high in the place, and the Constitutionalists found vent for their feelings by throwing paving-stones through the windows of their opponents' meeting place. The result was that a poor man met his death, and there was a trial for manslaughter. Several men were brought to trial; the evidence was pretty clear; the Judge summed up in favour of a conviction. But one juror stood out against the other 11, with the result that when he went home he was received in triumph by the Party to whom he belonged. That hap- pened in England; and yet it was not proposed to abolish trial by jury in this country. A few years ago there was a matter in Jamaica upon which political opinion was divided. Conservatives thought the action of the Government was quite right, while Liberals thought it was extremely wrong and cruel, and altogether to be deprecated. It came in succession before two Judges in England—in the first instance, before the Chief Justice, who delivered a Charge which remained a monument to his learning on the subject, and which was radiant with brilliant expression of the feelings of a man who could appreciate true liberty. consistently with the defence of the law. But another Judge subsequently, reviewing the same facts to another Grand Jury, could only speak of the unhappy man whose fate was the subject of inquiry as "a pestilent agitator." Nothing could more forcibly illustrate the difference of views of two Judges upon matters of this kind; and yet it was proposed to try men in Ireland by Judges, two of whom, perhaps, were of one sort and one of another sort. They knew that treason possessed all the elements of expansion in definition and in proof; and, therefore, he submitted it was not an offence which ought to be included amongst the crimes to be investigated by Judges. It was argued that if they excluded treason and treason-felony from the purview of the tribunal of Judges, it would be an advertisement to the people of Ireland that this particular offence was no offence at all. He would rather say that if the Government consented to omit treason from the provisions of the Bill, it would show that there was, on their part, a tenderness towards the future existence of the men who were to be brought before the Judges. By accepting the Amendment the Government would show a knowledge of the world; for, argue as they pleased, no one would pretend to say that treason, in the abstract, had ever excited the moral or the mental repugnance that the other crimes mentioned in the clause had excited. He trusted the Government would accept the Amendment; and, in conclusion, he might say he was surprised that hon. Gentlemen opposite should attribute motives to hon. Members on this side of the House, who supported the Government. There was an hon. Member who sat opposite—he did not know whether the hon. Gentleman was in the House at the present moment; he referred to the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor)—who had taunted his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Willis) with being a "political lawyer," and yet to himself motives might be attributed. It was possible that the hon. Gentleman had himself benefited by his service to his country; it was possible he might have gone abroad with some benefit and advantage. He made no such assertion himself; but it might be said, and, no doubt, it would be quite as vulgar as the imputation he had made, and probably just as true.

MR. FIRTH

said, he thought it would be well, in discussing this subject, to leave out of view altogether the effect that would occur in Ireland, arising from the omission of the proposed words. Some hon. Members thought that the effect would be to lead the Irish people to suppose that treason was not a crime. Other hon. Members, no doubt quite as truly, thought that the effect would be to convey to the mind of the Irish nation that the English Parliament were confident that Irish juries would, upon this matter, continue to discharge their duties faithfully. One conclusion was as likely to be true as the other, and he thought it would be more advantageous for the Committee to decide the question upon its merits rather than upon its effect upon the Irish people. The matter was one of great gravity, and one of considerable difficulty. The old Statute of Edward III. contained the words that— The accused shall be, on sufficient proof, attainted of some overt act by men of his own condition. That had been the law from the time of Edward III. to the present day, and unless the very strongest proof was given that in some part of the United Kingdom that law had been ineffectual in its working it ought not to be set aside. The onus of that proof rested, no doubt, upon the Government. He listened to the eloquent and instructive speech of the Home Secretary with great care; but he confessed it did not seem to him that it completely discharged the onus resting on the Government. The first thing the Government should have done was to show that trial by jury had been attempted in the case of treasonable offences, but had failed. It was quite true something of the kind might be said as to trials for offences analogous; but for the particular offence of treason no trials had been attempted for many years past. For all the other offences specified in the clause trials had been made, and with respect to them, no doubt, some evidence could be given. Not so with respect to treason or treason-felony. High treason, as defined in the Statute, could be effectually met by the existing law; and as to treason-felony, the offence, as had been pointed out by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), was very vague in its character. He (Mr. Firth) thought they might draw the inference that it would be extremely unsafe to commit to a body of Judges the judgment upon, and punishment of, an offence which was of so vague a character as treason-felony. An elastic offence was a very dangerous thing to put in the hands of a body of Judges, no matter how well chosen; and, in saying that, he would yield to no man in that House as to the esteem and regard he had for the Judicial Bench, both in England and in Ireland. They could not forget that there had been times, they could not deny the possibility of times coming again, when men on the Judicial Bench might be influenced by other than judicial considerations. He admitted that when the Home Secretary, in answering the hon. and learned Member for Christchurch (Mr. Horace Davey), quoted the Coercion Act of last year, the hon. and learned Gentleman was put in a difficulty. It was quite true that the House of Commons did, last year, consent to pass a measure under which the Administration had power to arrest and imprison men at its will; and the hon. and learned Member for Christchurch got what he deserved when he was told by the Home Secretary that he supported the Act of last year. There were some of them who had not that responsibility to take upon themselves; and he confessed he was not sorry he took, with regard to the Coercion Act now in force, a course different to that adopted by his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Horace Davey). It did seem to him that it would be a very serious thing, unless the onus devolving upon the Government was completely discharged, to refuse the Amendment. He could not see that any serious ill would result from leaving the two offences in question out of the Act. Nearly all the branches of treason and treason-felony could be dealt with under the existing law, and when no trials had taken place for these offences during the past 10 years, he thought it would require very strong evidence indeed—at least, he trusted it would—to induce the Committee to go back from the good and wholesome principle, found to be so true, and just, and necessary 500 years ago, and continued from century to century, through our Constitutional life, until the present day. He trusted the Committee would require very strong evidence of its necessity before they consented to the suspension, in the case of Ireland, of trial by jury for treason and treason-felony.

MR. BUXTON

said, he did not wish to stand long between the Committee and the division; but he desired to express his intention of supporting the Government on the present occasion. He heartily regretted the necessity for the Bill; Liberals, Radicals, Whigs, Conservatives, Irishmen and Englishmen, must all unite in deploring the necessity for the Bill; but that there was such a necessity had been amply proved. He was convinced that a Government which contained such men as the Prime Minister, the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain), and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright) would never propose to Parliament a Bill containing more restrictions of Constitutional liberties than were absolutely necessary; and as the Bill had been proposed and advanced by those right hon. Gentlemen, he, for one, should most heartily support it. The immediate question before them was whether or not treason and treason-felony should be considered crimes under the Bill. Her Majesty's Government, acting on their own responsibility, had placed the offence in the Bill, and they had placed it in a very remarkable position in the Bill. Amongst the crimes which were detailed in the clause he found the first one was "treason or treason-felony;" it had been placed before the crimes of murder, aggravated assaults, or arson. He could have wished that the crime of treason or treason-felony had been considered one of a more serious character than it had been during the last two or three years, not only by Her Majesty's Government, not only by the country at large, but by the Irish Members themselves. They were told earlier in the evening that the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) could never be accused of the crime of treason. The crime of treason had been defined very accurately in an Act which had already been referred to—the 11 & 12 Vict. He would invite hon. Members to refer to that Act, and then to consider whether some of the speeches of the hon. Member for the City of Cork had not very nearly approached the crime as it was in the Act defined. He would venture to read two quotations from the speeches of the hon. Member. In a speech delivered at Waterford on the 6th of December, 1880—

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

asked if the hon. Gentleman was in Order in making a quotation to sustain the imputation?

THE CHAIRMAN

called upon the hon. Member to proceed.

MR. BUXTON

said, the hon. Member for the City of Cork, in the speech delivered at Waterford on the 6th of December, 1880, referred to that House and said— They cannot suspend the Habeas Corpus Act without an Act of Parliament, and they cannot pass Coercion without an Act of Parliament; and so long as we are able to stand in Parliament I will undertake to say they will pass neither the one or the other … and I am sure that these forces are amply sufficient for the task which we all have before us, the task of breaking the neck of English misgovernment in Ireland, and chasing from the country the usurpation which has long hung round our necks. He would read one more quotation. It was from a speech delivered by the hon. Member at Cincinnati on the 23rd of February, 1881. When the hon. Member for the City of Cork had the Atlantic between England and himself he said— Let us not forget that this is the ultimate goal at which all we Irishmen aim—none of us, whether we are in America or in Ireland, or wherever we may be, will be satisfied until we have destroyed the last link which keeps Ireland bound to England.

MR. PARNELL

May I ask where the speech was delivered, and from what report the hon. Gentleman is quoting?

MR. BUXTON

The speech was delivered in Cincinnati in the month of February, 1881.

MR. PARNELL

From what newspaper is the hon. Member quoting?

MR. BUXTON

I cannot inform the hon. Member?

MR. PARNELL

Will the hon. Member be kind enough to say what is his authority for the quotation?

MR. BUXTON

said, he had not made the quotation from any newspaper; but from a report of the speech in a book called The Truth about the Land League. If the hon. Gentleman would tell him he did not make such remarks he would be perfectly satisfied. He could not help thinking there was at least a tendency in those quotations towards some such crime as was defined in the 11 & 12 Vict. They might in future see a recurrence of such speeches, and it was necessary they should have the means of putting a stop to them. In the belief that they would have such means by the Bill, he should give his hearty support to the Government.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

said, he thought some distinction should be drawn between the offence of treason or treason-felony and the other offences mentioned in the clause. They were proposing to try offences against the Sovereign by the salaried officers of the State. Nothing could be in principle more objectionable; nothing could be more foreign or more opposed to the whole current of legal dicta and to all notion of Constitutional rights in this country or in Ireland. He hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman in charge of the Bill would yield to what must be the opinion of the legal Members of the Party the right hon. and learned Gentleman belonged to. He would offer no objection to crimes of murder, manslaughter, aggravated assaults, and the like, being referred to the new tribunal; but that treason and treason-felony should be referred to a tribunal composed solely of salaried officers of the Crown was so objectionable that he trusted, even at the eleventh hour, the right hon. and learned Gentleman would agree to their being struck out of the clause.

MR. HENEAGE

said, he could not give a silent vote on this question. He was perfectly ready to support the Government in whatever measures they considered necessary to strike terror into the criminals, and to give safety and protection to the law-abiding people of Ireland; but he thought that to overload a Bill of this kind and magnitude with crimes of such a questionable nature as treason and treason-felony—["Oh!"] It was very easy to use the monosyllable "Oh, oh!" but there was nothing in it. He would explain what he meant by the phrase, "such a questionable nature." He meant that no three or four persons ever could agree upon treason-felony. There were certain crimes specified in the Bill about which there could be no question. If treason was to be included in the category of crimes to be tried by the Commission of three Judges, let it be brought in as "a conspiracy to commit any of the aforesaid offences." They would then know what treason-felony was; but to put treason-felony in the Bill, without its being properly defined, was, to his mind, a great mistake. They had been told that if they omitted treason-felony from the Bill it would have a very bad effect in Ireland. He did not believe it would have any such effect. Treason-felony was of such consequence to England, as well as to Ireland, that it ought to be dealt with by itself, or else left out of the Bill entirely. He would go a step further, and he would ask the Government whether a month ago they thought it necessary to bring in a Bill about treason-felony? When they were asked to pass the clause as it now stood, they should have some reason given why the Government did not think it necessary to produce a Bill for the Prevention of Crime a month ago. He quite admitted they were right in. introducing the Bill, and he was quite ready to support them now they had brought it in. He could not, however, understand why they should include the offences "treason and treason-felony." There was another reason for the omission of treason and treason-felony, and that was that the Lords' Committee, which went fully into the question, never suggested for a moment that treason-felony should be taken out of the category of crimes to be tried by a jury. As had been already pointed out, there had been no failure of justice with regard to treason and treason-felony; and, therefore, it was quite enough to deal with such offences in the manner prescribed when they found the juries in Ireland were not prepared to convict. He hoped that a better moral sense would come over Ireland, and that, when the people found they were protected against the criminal who had struck terror into them, they would be ready to convict for such crimes as murder, and manslaughter, and aggravated assaults. He regretted that the Government should have put their foot down, and said they would not concede the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Christchurch (Mr. Horace Davey). It was a very bad omen for the Bill that so many of their supporters should have to divide against the Government in this matter. With regard to the Bill, as a whole, he was prepared to support the Government; but with respect to the present Amendment he could not support them. He would appeal to the Government whether they could not give way upon this question, and bring in a sub-section in the following terms:—"Conspiracy to commit any of the aforesaid offences." Surely, that would be treasonable enough. He did hope the Government would not weaken itself, which he was afraid it would do, by allowing many of its supporters to divide against them in this matter.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

rose for the purpose of expressing the sincere hope that the Government would not give way on this question. As had been properly stated, this was really no attack upon political liberties whatever. The Bill was brought forward for the repression of crime, and he was perfectly astonished to hear the hon. Member (Mr. Heneage) say he was quite willing to do anything to suppress crime, but he wished to take treason or treason-felony out of the category of crime. ["No!"] Well, the hon. Member suggested that instead of the words "treason or treason-felony," they should insert the miserable words "conspiracy to commit any of the other offences." He (Sir R. Assheton Cross) was not now going to discuss whether the proposed tribunal was a proper one or not. They admitted the necessity of some such tribunal, and it was now only a question what crime should come before that tribunal. What were the crimes besides treason or treason-felony mentioned in the clause? They were murder, manslaughter, attempts to kill, aggravated assaults against the person, arson, and attacks on dwelling-houses. No one who read that list, who had studied the condition of Ireland, who had read the Charges of the Judges, could have the smallest doubt whatever that those crimes were committed owing to the disloyalty which, to a great extent, existed amongst the people of Ireland. For what reason had treason and treason-felony been placed at the head of the list of crimes specified in the clause, if it was now to be taken out? It was quite impossible for the Government, after having given these crimes the first place in the clause, to strike out the sub-section relating to them. With regard to the chance of conviction by Irish juries, it was only necessary to refer to the Charges of two of the Judges at the Winter Assizes. In those Charges hon. Members who desired it would find abundant evidence as to non-conviction by juries, and they need not confine their inquiry to the sayings of the Judges only, because the most conclusive evidence on this point was to be found in the facts on which the Charges were founded. Those facts must prove to the most biassed mind the impossibility of getting conviction for crime at the hands of juries in Ireland.

MR. PARNELL

The facts referred to are not connected with cases of treason or treason-felony.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, the real question was this—What was the object of these crimes committed in Ireland? Although it might be true that there had been no indictments for treason or treason-felony, yet there was not the least doubt that the crimes of daily occurrence in Ireland were committed by persons actuated by the spirit of disloyalty to which he had alluded. For these reasons he was glad that the Government were determined to stand by the clause in its present form; and, certainly, if they were allowed to withdraw the sub-section relating to treason and treason-felony, after having put it forward, it would be evidence of great weakness on their part, and on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite.

MR. INDERWICK

said, he had so constantly voted with hon. Members who surrounded him, and so generally agreed with them upon public questions, that he desired to say a few words as to the reasons which compelled him to disagree with the Amendment now before the Committee. A great many excellent speeches had been delivered in the course of the evening on both sides of the House, which undoubtedly showed there was a feeling that it was undesirable that trial by jury should be done away with in Ireland; and if the House had not already concluded that this view was one that, at the present time, could not be entertained, the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Christchurch might have been adopted. But they had got beyond that position, and the House had said plainly that, under certain circumstances, trial by jury could and must be dispensed with; and the reason why the House had agreed to the tribunal, as constituted by the Bill before the Committee, was that there were certain occasions when juries in Ireland, in consequence of the views which they entertained with regard to the relations between England and Ireland, and the English Government in Ireland, were not to be trusted to try cases in which their passions were supposed to be engaged. Upon the question before the Committee he found himself unable to draw a distinction between the trial by juries of cases of murder, manslaughter, attempts to kill, violence to the person, arson, and firing into dwelling-houses, and the trial by juries of cases of treason or treason-felony. Now, they were told—and he quite believed the statement—that a great part of the mischief done in Ireland was caused by what was called the Fenian Brotherhood. No one, either in or out of the House, could doubt for one moment that this was an association addicted to treasonable practices. The Bill provided— And whenever it appears to the Lord Lieutenant that in the case of any person committed for trial for any of the said offences a just and impartial trial cannot be had according to the ordinary course of law, the Lord Lieutenant may by warrant assign to any such Court of Special Commissioners the duty of sitting at the place named in the warrant, and of there, without a jury, hearing and determining, according to law, the charge made against the person so committed for trial and named in the warrant, and of doing therein what to justice appertains. But with regard to one of the offences with which a person might be charged—namely, that of high treason or treason-felony—the hon. and learned Member for Christchurch asked the Committee to say that, although, unhappily, a jury in Ireland could not be trusted to try a man for murder, attempted murder, or firing into dwelling-houses, yet it might be trusted to try the same man on a charge of treason. To that proposition he could not assent for one moment. He entirely agreed with what had been very frequently pointed out in the course of the discussions upon the Bill, that you could not look at treason in the same way as you could on many of the offences specified in the clause, because there was no doubt that a man who, in the eyes of some, was a traitor to his Sovereign and country, might be considered by others perfectly guiltless. It naturally followed that to obtain a conviction of that man, even upon the clearest evidence, was much more difficult than to obtain the conviction of a man who was charged with one of those offences which carried with it its own condemnation. Hon. Members who supported the Amendment asked for an instance within certain limits of a trial for high treason taking place in Ireland which had not succeeded. But he had understood one hon. Member opposite to say that for the last 10 years, at all events, there had been no trial in Ireland for high treason. That in itself was an answer to the objection. But that was not the crucial test of the Bill. The Committee had to ask themselves this question—"If we cannot trust a jury to try a case of murder or attack on a dwelling-house, because the feelings of the jury are in favour of the criminal as against the man attacked, how, in the name of common sense, can we trust that jury to try the same man on a charge of treason, which was said to be regarded less unfavourably than other offences?" It appeared to him an impossibility, in the face of that, to strike out the words relating to treason and treason-felony. No one regretted more than he to be obliged to vote for this Bill; but, having come to the conclusion that it was necessary in the present state of affairs in Ireland, he thought it only right and merciful to that country that the powers of the Bill, which were directed against those crimes which disturbed order and the administration of the law, should not be weakened. There was, in his view, one thing to be done—namely, to detect and to punish crime, and the more speedily and effectively this was accomplished the better it would be for this country and for Ireland. He should, therefore, vote in favour of the clause as it stood.

LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE

said, he could not help thinking that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) had unintentionally entirely misrepresented the speech of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage). That hon. Member said, in the first place, that it was difficult for him to give a silent vote on the present occasion; and for the same reason he (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) respectfully asked the attention of the Committee to the few observations which he felt it his duty to make even at that late hour. The right hon. Gentleman the late Home Secretary (Sir R. Assheton Cross) said that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby had satisfied himself by proposing the miserable expedient of reviving the Law of Conspiracy. Now, he should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman, having been Home Secretary, and having passed the well-known Act dealing with the relations of employers and workmen, was too familiar with the scope and wide reach of the Law of Conspiracy to speak of it under any circumstances as a miserable expedient. Having had the honour of occupying a humble post in the Department of which the right hon. Gentleman was at one time the Head, and that at the time when the question of the Law of Conspiracy was under consideration there, he could say that the impression left upon his mind at the time was that no branch of the English law was so wide-reaching and effective as the Law of Conspiracy. The arguments of his hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby could not, therefore, in his opinion, be dismissed as they had been by the right hon. Gentleman the late Home Secretary, nor could they be dismissed by the observations of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), who went out of his way to accuse any person who supported this Amendment of wishing to gain a miserable popularity. Without fear of contradiction, he said that if there was one Member of the House who was not open to that charge, it was his hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby, who had gained a considerable amount of unpopularity by the votes he had given; and if, on this occasion, he found himself going in a rather more liberal direction than the Government, he was, at least, entitled to the same credit for sincerity as when he had not differed from them. Having said that, he wished also to protest against the doctrine laid down by the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood), when he censured the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) for saying there was a clear line of demarcation between political and other crimes. Why, that was admitted by every man sitting on that side of the House.

MR. NORWOOD

I said I protested against attempts to minimize the guilt of political offences.

LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE

said, the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets had denied that he had attempted anything of the kind; he said although, of course, treason and treason-felony were just as much crimes as the other acts specified in the Bill, nevertheless political crime, which was not what in Ireland would be called dirty crime, was not open to as much moral condemnation as crimes of violence. The question which the Committee had to decide was whether treason and treason-felony necessarily came within the scope of this Bill; and, looking at that question from what he trusted he should not offend anybody by calling the Whig point of view, he said emphatically that they ought not, even in appearance, to extend the Bill one inch further than they were convinced was necessary by the proved facts of the case. He was one of those who believed, in the first place, that Her Majesty's Government made a great mistake two years ago in not prolonging the Peace Preservation Act; and, in the second place, he believed they were again mistaken in not proposing a measure against crime in Ireland, earlier in the present Session. If, then, the Government had, in his judgment, now gone beyond the necessities of the case, he saw no reason why he should not exert the same independence as on a former occasion when the policy of the Government went in a different direction. He agreed as to the absolute necessity for some measure of the kind now before them; but the true justification of that Bill was to be found within the four corners of the Report of the Committee of the House of Lords of last year, and in the Evidence given before that Committee, and Her Majesty's Government would search in vain in that Report and Evidence for anything to justify the suspension of trial by jury except in the case of agrarian offences. He would not weary the Committee at that hour with quotations; but if hon. Members would look at the statement of Mr. Justice O'Hagan, they would find reasons given for suspending trial by jury, but in reference to agrarian offences alone. What were the reasons given by right hon. Gentlemen opposite for going beyond the Report of the Committee of the House of Lords? The Committee had been asked what would be thought in Ireland and America if the Government were to yield upon this question of treason and treason-felony? But there were no limits to the area over which they might travel when once it was begun to ask questions of that kind. They were concerned only in doing that which they believed was right; and his answer was that if Her Majesty's Government thought it right to yield this point they would not be doing anything that would injure their reputation or impair the efficiency of this Bill. On the contrary, there was sometimes strength to be derived from making concessions; and he believed that neither the progress nor the efficiency of the measure would suffer by the Government conceding the point at issue. Again, the Committee had to ask themselves whether there was any proof that in regard to treason or treason-felony trial by jury in Ireland had broken down, as it undoubtedly had, with regard to murder and the other offences named in the succeeding lines of the Bill. On that point he had heard no answer to the able speech of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Horace Davey), and the question could only be answered in the negative. He should, therefore, support the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend; but if, in the course of next winter, it was found that juries in Ireland had refused to convict upon evidence in the case of prosecutions for treason, he should then be ready to vote for an extension of the Act. He would not, however, go one inch beyond the necessities of the case. He was willing to support Her Majesty's Government through all the rest of the Bill; and he repeated his belief that even now they might, with strength and dignity, make the concession asked of them.

MR. HEALY

said, it was extraordinary that, while it was so often asked what would be thought in Ireland if the Government gave way on this question, hon. Members who supported the Bill never asked what would be thought in Ireland if the Government did not give way. He had been greatly amused by the concluding words of the hon. and learned Member for Rye (Mr. Inderwick), who said that, in mercy to the Irish people, this sub-section should be kept in the Bill—the mercy of the hon. and learned Gentleman reminding him of the pity of the Walrus for the Oyster, as described in Alice in Wonderland. The hon. and learned Gentleman also remarked that persons accused of treason were generally, or sometimes, estimable men; and, therefore, on that ground, it was more difficult to get a conviction. But would any Member of the House furnish a single instance in proof of this statement of the hon. and learned Member for Rye? Take the last trial for treason in Ireland—the case of Captain Mackay. Judge O'Hagan, who presided, actually shed tears at the trial; and the jury, and everyone present, were full of sympathy for a gentleman who now occupied a responsible position under the United States Government; but there was no hesitation on the part of any of the jury to convict. Now, that was the case 10 years ago, and it could not be alleged that 10 years had entirely changed the character of the Irish people. Therefore, he said, if there were convictions for treason and treason-felony 10 years ago in Ireland, there would be convictions hereafter. With regard to the observations which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) had addressed to the Committee, he suggested that speeches of the kind should be reserved for sympathetic Conservative gatherings. Those gatherings did not know much about Ireland, and were probably ignorant that not only had there not been any trial for treason in Ireland during the last 10 years, but that, during this time, no person had been charged with treason before the magistrates. What, then, became of the contention of the right hon. Gentleman that because the sub-section was in the Bill it must remain there? Then there was the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen), who said if the sub-section were struck out it would convey to the people of Ireland that treason was a lighter crime than the others named in the Bill. But, if that were so, he asked why forgery, bigamy, and rape were not also included in the Bill? Were these crimes less deserving of censure and condemnation than those to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred? The Government wished to bring the sympathies of the Irish people into conformity with their Acts of Parliament by the force of their majority; but he would tell them that, if those Acts could not be recommended to the Irish people by argument, they might as well not be passed at all. He asked the Government to consider what would be the result of placing treason in this category. For his own part, he believed the result would be that men guilty of murder, and the other crimes named, would say to themselves—"These are not 'dirty' crimes. It is as honourable to be tried for them as for treason, because the Government have treated them in the same way." He thought the Government would do well to look at the question from this point of view. The right hon. Member for Ripon went on to say they had Irish-Americans to deal with, and he reminded the Committee that it would have been a fortunate thing for the country if they had only to deal with their Irish fellow-subjects. It was a pity that was not thought of 30 years ago. Even now Irishmen were leaving for America at the rate of 5,000 a-week; and this Bill, which was to expel aliens from Ireland, would send more people to act as the drill-sergeants and pickets of disaffection in that country. He did not wish to dwell on the sympathy and support which Irish movements might derive from America; but he said if the American people had never existed the battle would be fought without the aid they had rendered. He asked the Government to consider whether they were proceeding in a manner that was likely to enlist the sympathies of the people of Ireland. For his own part, he believed that, by insisting on the clause as it stood, they were stimulating the extreme Party in Ireland; while, at the same time, they rendered the action of more moderate men simply impossible. In a recent debate in that House he was met from the opposite Benches with shouts of dissent when he said that there were hundreds and thousands of people in Ireland more irreconcilable than he was. Would any hon. Member be inclined to cry "No" to that statement, which he now repeated? It was into the hands of those people that the Government were playing. He said that he and his hon. Friends were placed between the upper and nether millstone—between the Government and the liberties of their country, which they were called upon to defend. Since they had taken that step they could not recede; and the Government, by their action, were driving men who were fighting Constitutionally and openly into the committal of terrible murders, such as that in Phoenix Park. He hoped the Government would yield, in some way, upon this point. He did not know how the Act was to be used, and nobody knew anything about the Statutes upon treason. The Attorney General for Ireland had stated that his hon. Friends were steeped to the lips in treason; and, therefore, the Government ought to prosecute him. Was open and avowed speaking on platforms, or writing in the newspapers, to be made treason? Until some definite statement from the Government was made upon that point, he hoped every opposition would be offered to this clause.

MR. MARUM

pointed out that the main question before the Committee was whether one offence was to be picked out from all others as essentially a matter not for a jury, and whether ground could be shown for leaving some offences to a jury, and not others. He did not propose to make a speech, but he would read a definition given by an authority on Constitutional Law—by a great authority—namely, Mr. Justice Black-stone. That Judge, after remarking that— The antiquity and results of this trial for the settling of civil power has before been explained at large, said— And it will hold much stronger in criminal cases, since in times of difficulty and danger more has to be apprehended from the violence and partiality of Judges appointed by the Crown in suits between the Government and the subject, than in suits between one Government and another, to settle the metes and boundaries of private property. Our law has, therefore, wisely placed this strong and twofold barrier of a pre- sentment and a trial by jury between the liberties of the people and the Prerogative of the Crown. It was necessary for preserving the balance of our Constitution to vest the Executive power of the laws in the Prince, and yet this power might be dangerous and destructive to that very Constitution if exerted without check or control by Justices of Oyer and Terminer occasionally named by the Crown, who might then, as in France or Turkey, imprison, dispatch, or exile any man that was obnoxious to the Government by instant declaration that such is their will and pleasure. The rest of the extract he had intended to read was to the same effect, and went upon the ground that between the Crown and the public there ought to be the interposition of a jury, and that cases of treason-felony might be excepted, and other offences, as more affecting the public, might be left to the exceptional jurisdiction of the Judges.

MR. T. D. SULLIVAN

said, that the Home Secretary, in making his case for this Bill, dwelt very much on the revival of secret societies in Ireland. The Committee would remember that when the Coercion Act was being passed last year very little was said about secret societies, because it did not serve the purpose of the Government to dwell on that subject. Now, however, a great deal was heard about secret societies, and it was because of the alleged existence and wide development of secret societies in Ireland that this clause with reference to treason and treason-felony was introduced into the Bill. If secret societies had recently extended their operations in Ireland, and if they had largely grown and developed in that country, it was reasonable to ask how that came to pass, and how long that state of things had existed? Secret societies must have attained this great development during the existence of the present Coercion Act. If there had been in Ireland a great extension of secret societies, he believed that was a natural and necessary consequence of the present Coercion Act; and for the same reason and in like manner the Coercion Act now before the Committee would cause a still further extension and development of secret societies in Ireland. The House and the country had been warned of that, and he had no doubt that before any very long time had passed the truth of these warnings would be made manifest. But he would ask the Committee how much weight was to be given to the statements of the Home Secretary with regard to Irish affairs at all? To the best of his judgment, the statements of the right hon. and learned Gentleman as to the present state of the country and its past history had been altogether misleading. He had told the Committee that night that secret societies were almost altogether political, and that they caused the committal of political murders and crimes of various kinds. That statement showed how much the Home Secretary knew about the facts of the case. For many generations the greater number of secret societies in Ireland had been, not political, but agrarian. They had sprung from agrarian and other oppression by Irish landlords, from evictions and rack-renting. What was the Ribbon Society? It was a society for the protection of oppressed and evicted tenants. The Whiteboys' Society was also an organization to resist agrarian oppression. The contention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman that secret societies in Ireland had been mainly political in their objects, and that the crimes resulting from them had been political, was altogether aside the facts of the case, and was unjustified by the history of the country. That must be the opinion of every man who had made any study at all of Irish affairs. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had referred to the Fenian Society, and had charged that society with murders and other crimes. Here, again, the right hon. and learned Gentleman entirely misrepresented the facts of the case. The Fenian Organization might be, perhaps, held accountable for the murder of certain informers and traitors, as they were considered; but he was not aware of any murders by them of political opponents outside the ranks of their society, and it was not fair with regard to Fenians, or any other political body, to make charges of this odious nature against them, when such charges were not borne out by the facts of the case. With regard to the trial of charges of treason or treason-felony before the new tribunal, notwithstanding all that was said, it ought to be apparent to every hon. Member in that House that there was a plain and definite reason why such offences should not be brought under the purview of this Bill. In cases of ordinary crimes, such as murder, arson, and firing at the person, it might be fairly contended that three Irish Judges would give any man a fair trial; but the case was utterly different in regard to political offences. There was not a man in Ireland who would have confidence in the Irish Judges as a tribunal without a jury to try political cases. Judges were men of strong political feeling; politics had been their trade; by politics they had obtained their position on the Judicial Bench. Again and again they had given evidence that their political feeling was very strong; and it was quite a common experience at the opening of Assizes in Ireland for the Judges to seize every opportunity of making political speeches. They had made political speeches from the judgment seat in Ireland to influence legislation in the House, and political opinion in England and Ireland. They were politicians, and would remain politicians to the day of their death; and it was exceedingly unfair and unjust that they should be put to try political cases. If that course was adopted, no confidence would be placed by the Irish people in the trials, and no respect would be shown for the decisions of the Judges. It had been truly said that the charge of treason or treason-felony was very wide and elastic. Its scope was enormous. In ordinary times the charge might not be much extended; but in times of excitement it would be extended to take in anything an Irishman might say or do. There had been evidence of that already. An hon. Member had been described in that House by one of the Law Officers of the Crown as being steeped to the lips in treason. How was that charge made out? There had been no evidence of it. The only circumstance that would give colour to that charge was the political speeches made in public by the hon. Member. If he was steeped in treason, so were they all who sat on the same Benches. There was not a man in Ireland who had taken an active part in politics for the last 20 years who could not be convicted under this Bill by the aid of the Irish Judges on a charge of having been steeped in treason, and be held deserving of penal servitude or the gallows. The Home Secretary would seem to imply, by the speech he had made, that if these offences were not included in the Bill there would be no law for dealing with them. That was the plain meaning of his language. He asked what would be done if these offences were left out of the Bill; and thereby he implied that there was no ordinary law for them. But there was the ordinary law of the land for dealing with such offences, and it had never been proved that the ordinary law had failed in regard to such cases. There was no evidence whatever that the law had failed in regard to treason or treason-felony; but it seemed to him that the House was getting so familiarized with the passing of Coercion Bills that there was nothing they would not consent to. Session after Session, for the last 50 years—indeed, since the Union—Coercion Bills had followed each other; and the House was becoming demoralized by the demands made upon them for the suppression of liberty in Ireland. It used at one time to be said that war was the national industry of Prussia; and it might, in like manner, be said that Coercion Bills for Ireland were the staple manufacture of the English House of Commons. As the Irish people had faced every other Coercion Bill, so they hoped to be able to face this one; and it was not Irish patriotism that would suffer from it; but it was the English law, and the reputation of the British Government, and the reputation of the House of Commons that would suffer in the end.

MR. O'DONNELL

said, he was certainly surprised to hear the Home Secretary state that the omission of this crime from the Bill would affect the public estimate of this particular crime. He could assure the Home Secretary that the opinion of the masses of the Irish people with regard to the moral obligation under which they were with respect to the British Government in Ireland would not be in the slightest degree affected by all the coercive powers at the disposal of Her Majesty's Administrators. The ex-Home Secretary (Sir R. Assheton Cross) wanted to know what possible assault upon political liberty was contained in a provision of this kind, by which accusations of treason and treason-felony were to be tried by three Judges? Did the right hon. Gentleman seriously mean to say that there was no assault upon political liberty when three Government nominees were to be empowered to sentence men to death, without further trial than their own investigation, upon accusations of crimes which were specially crimes against the Government? The very purpose and reason why such care had been ex- pended upon persons accused of treason, so that they should be tried by juries—by men of their own condition—was that treason, being in a special sense directed against the Sovereign, the mere nominees of the Sovereign should not have the entire trial of such offences. Again and again it was assumed by hon. Members that trial by jury was admitted to have broken down in Ireland; but he emphatically, and entirely, and absolutely, denied that. In many cases there had been disagreements by juries, and acquittals; but the Committee had not before it the evidence upon which those juries had disagreed, or acquitted accused persons. There was not a man in the House competent to speak of a single case in which, while the evidence justified a conviction, the jury had acquitted the accused; or who could mention a case in which a jury had returned a verdict against the evidence. The Committee was asked to abolish trial by jury on the unsupported evidence given before the House of Lords' Committee. That Committee was a packed Committee, got together for the specific purpose of discrediting trial by jury in Ireland, and the Committee called just the sort of witnesses who would give the kind of evidence they required. It would have been just as easy to collect hundreds of witnesses who would have borne testimony to the general fairness and efficiency of trial by jury in Ireland. The Irish Members totally repudiated the evidence and conclusions of the Lords' Committee upon this matter. It was clearly a matter of abolishing the last vestiges of justice in Ireland, and some hon. Members were clearly disposed to despatch that system without delay. In considering this proposal, the Committee was bound to consider the main ground upon which the Government affected to make the proposal—namely, that they wanted to place the public opinion of Ireland on the side of law and order, and to stimulate the desire of the people to give evidence for the conviction of offenders. In what possible manner could a provision of this kind—by which any man accused of treason or treason-felony might be sentenced to death or penal servitude by a tribunal of Government nominees—operate to induce Irish witnesses, who otherwise would not give evidence, to come and give evidence before such a tribunal? If there was one provision more than another which was calculated to lock up in every Irish breast every secret which might otherwise be disclosed, it was a proposal of this kind; and he had no hesitation in saying that if he were absolutely aware of an act of treason committed by a man accused before three Judges without a jury, he would consider himself the most infamous of men if he volunteered to give evidence before such a tribunal. He believed that would be the universal feeling of the Irish people, and that instead of the few convictions which the Executive had obtained under this new régime, they would obtain no convictions whatever—at least, in the most serious class of cases. As against ordinary politicians, Irish Judges would be very ready to spell out crime and treason, just as hon. Members behind the Government were ready to spell out crime and treason from the more or less ill-reported speeches of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). But in the case of the real criminals—the desperate persons against whom this Bill was ostensibly directed—he did not believe the Irish Judges would incur the odium or danger, without a jury, of sentencing to death formidable assassins who were also the accomplices of formidable assassins who were still at large. He did not believe that as against the really dangerous classes the Irish Judges would do their duty; and, furthermore, if the Government took the trouble to consult Irish opinion, they would learn that among the reasons why the police in Ireland were so slack and so unsuccessful in the discovery of dangerous and formidable assassins was that they found it much safer and much cheaper to accuse and hurry into death men who were not desperate men, but were men of moderate politics. The police did not like to handle the desperate characters. He found that the Party with which he had the honour to act had resolved to move Amendments upon this Bill, and he should follow the fashion and put down Amendments. He had an Amendment down practically the same as that now under discussion; but he entirely recognized the wisdom of the Leader of the Irish Party in giving precedence to the hon. and learned English Member (Mr. Horace Davey), who had this Amendment to move. He did not, however, believe that any Amendment of any consequence would be accepted by the Government; and, for his own part, he was perfectly satisfied to let the Bill go through in all its revolting and unmitigated brutality. He knew very well that behind this Bill there were higher considerations than that of justice. There were censors sitting behind the Government of whom the Government were afraid. This was called a Bill for the suppression of crime; but it was really a peace-at-any-price Bill, and the slightest Amendment would not be accepted. It was not inside this House, but outside, that the evils of the Bill would have to be dealt with. It was the Irish people who might be trusted to render the Bill innocuous.

MR. PARNELL

said, he was unwilling to ask the Government to give further time for the consideration of this Amendment, for he knew there were many hon. Members who had remained in order to vote for the Amendment, and possibly it might not be convenient for them to come down again to-morrow for a division. But he was so much impressed with the importance of the question, whether this sub-section was to stand in the Bill or not, that he felt bound to ask the Government to take further time, if only to the extent of one night, for the consideration of this matter. He did not suppose that anything he could urge to-morrow would be of much importance, and it would be useless for him to suppose that he could urge anything to change the fixed determination of the Government; but speaking with considerable knowledge of the state of affairs in Ireland, and with a full sense of the gravity of the position, he was bound to say that, so far as he could see, the retention of this sub-section in the Bill would make political or Constitutional action of any kind in Ireland impossible. He had been obliged to risk a good deal for the sake of carrying out what he believed to be the desire of the vast and overwhelming majority of the people. Peace and order ought to be restored in Ireland; but the Constitutional liberties of the people ought to be preserved. During the past six months he had gained considerable insight as to the opinion of Irishmen at home—a much greater insight than he had ever had before, and he believed it was the duty of any poli- tical Leader to march abreast of his people and those he had to lead, and not in advance of them; and he was convinced that if the Prime Minister had continued to pursue the true policy of conciliation which he had adopted, he would have found himself supported and assisted by the vast majority of the Irish people. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman to allow one more night. He would urge him, before he burnt his boats and broke down his bridges, to give them one night for the further consideration of this matter. He (Mr. Parnell) begged to move that the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Parnell.)

MR. GLADSTONE

It is not my desire, at this early period of the proceedings, to embark upon a war of divisions on the subject of reporting Progress; at the same time, I very much regret the demand which has been made by the hon. Member, though I make no accusations against the spirit in which it has been put forward, or the purposes for which it has been made. There are two questions to be considered, and the first is, whether the adjournment of this matter until to-morrow is requested for the purpose of producing an effect on the intentions of the Government, or whether it is requested because it is considered that the subject has not been sufficiently exhausted in this debate. I must own I think it cannot be on the latter of these grounds. I do not say this debate has been too long; but it has been a very full debate, extremely well conducted. A very large number of persons—an unusually large number—have taken part in it, and I must say I do not think that any amount of ingenuity can widen the circle of topics introduced into it, or can, at this stage, suggest a new argument. I say this after having listened with care to the earlier and later speeches of the debate. Then, Sir, on the part of the Government, I am bound to say it is not possible that, under the circumstances, there should be any change which would alter the position of the Government between to-night and to-morrow. I think the hon. Gentleman will himself see that that is the case. For example, does the hon. Gentleman think it possible for the Irish Government to change its opinion upon the debate in the interval between to-night and to-morrow afternoon? He must see quite plainly that it could not be so; and I think he will feel with me that, as I have said, a contest in this matter might tend unnecessarily to prolongation, or to the introduction into the debate of a spirit which has hitherto not been noticeable in it, and that we shall all, including the hon. Gentleman himself, stand better, and be better, consulting the interests of the progress of Public Business, if he will consent to state to us the arguments—which, I have no doubt, he will state with great force—which he thinks are to be advanced against this proposal.

MR. MAGNIAC

said, that, considering the magnitude of the subject under discussion, he might safely join in the appeal made by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Parnell). The Committee must be aware that many hon. Members sitting on that (the Ministerial) side of the House had felt, throughout the discussions on this Bill, in a position of very painful responsibility. The House had been described as composed of Members, some of whom had no knowledge and interest in Ireland, and some of whom had both a knowledge and interest in Ireland. He, for one, had a deep interest in the Irish people, and some little knowledge of them, and he ventured to think that the Committee would excuse him for taking the line he did—a line which he had adopted with a sense of deep responsibility. The particular offence they were dealing with was not a definable offence; it was defined by no Statute. Treason was not, and never would be, defined, and questions touching it which went before juries would always be matters of opinion. If this Bill were being passed for England, hon. Members, he thought, would be very reluctant to pass it in its present shape, and very strong reasons would be required to induce them to agree to the sub-section under discussion. He did not think sufficient reason had been shown why they should abolish trial by jury in cases of treason; therefore, he trusted the Government would favourably consider the appeal made by the hon. Gentleman opposite the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell).

MR. JOSEPH COWEN

said, he had no wish whatever to prolong the discussion; but the suggestion he would make was this—that if the Prime Minister could give them an assurance that this Amendment would be taken into consideration, with a view to some concession being made on Report, probably the delay occasioned by a Motion for reporting Progress would be obviated.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 28; Noes 201: Majority 173.—(Div. List, No. 103.)

Original Question again proposed.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Justin M'Carthy.)

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he did not, as he had stated, intend to enter into a prolonged contest on the subject; but when he was last on his legs he had omitted to make one observation that he might have made, and which the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), if he had been in his place, might have considered worth his attention. The hon. Gentleman had asked for further time to discuss this Amendment, and he (the Prime Minister) so far agreed with him, in view of the enormous importance the hon. Member seemed to attach to it, that he thought it perfectly fair that the hon. Gentleman, if he were dissatisfied with the decision of the Committee tonight, should take another opportunity of discussing it. He could raise the question again on Report. It was for the hon. Member to consider whether he would avail himself of that power or not; but now he (the Prime Minister) hoped that hon. Members would allow the Committee to proceed.

MR. PARNELL

said, he was sure he had no more desire than had the right hon. Gentleman to enter into any contest with regard to Motions to report Progress or for adjournment. In moving to report Progress he had been simply animated by the enormous importance of the question. The right hon. Gentleman must not imagine that time would be lost if he (Mr. Parnell) and his Friends had an opportunity of consulting together. They had not anticipated that the Government would have insisted on going on any further with the Committee to-night, especially when no Member of the Government had attempted to justify the inclusion of the sub-section in the Bill, by showing that there had been a break-down in the jury system in any trial for treason or treason-felony during the whole of the history of Ireland. Since the Union the Crown had always been able to obtain convictions for treason or treason-felony; and his hon. Friends and himself felt that their position under the operation of the clause would be such that, if they attended open-air meetings, no matter how innocent their reasons or intentions, they would be liable to charges of treason or treason-felony to be tried by Judges turned into jurors—by men who had always been ranged against them in political strife. Someone had said that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister himself might be charged with treason by some hon. Members on that (the Conservative) side of the House; and the question had been asked, under those circumstances, what would be the right hon. Gentleman's position if he went over to Ireland? No doubt, his position would be perfectly safe; because the public opinion of Great Britain, or a section of it—be it the majority or the minority—would from time to time prevent any abuse of the law against him. But that would not be so with the Irish Members. They in Ireland had no public opinion to depend on, except the public opinion of the people of Ireland, and they knew that such public opinion would be powerless to protect them. They knew how easy it was for any skilful politician to enlist the weight of public opinion in England against any Irish politician. They felt, then, very strongly indeed that this was not a power which ought in any way to be given to the Crown, this power of being both Judge and jury in political cases, least of all should it be given in a country like Ireland, which was so exceptionally situated as to the means it had for making its public opinion felt. The right hon. Gentleman had said—"Postpone what you have to say until the Report;" but experience had shown him that unless they could make some considerable impression on the Government in Committee in regard to a question of this kind, there was very little use in hoping for further action on the Report. In the absence of any hope held out to them by the right hon. Gentleman that the ears and the minds of the Government were still open to their arguments, they could not, he feared, put off the consideration of this matter until the Report, when they would have no hope of discussion ending in any beneficial result.

Question put, and negatived.

Original Question again proposed.

MR. HEALY

said, he was glad his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork had taken the step he had, because he considered it would be his duty, before they assembled in the House again, to consult his Colleagues as to the future action to be taken by those who had had the conduct of the agitation in Ireland during the past few years if the Amendment were not accepted. Hon. Members on that (the Opposition) side, who spoke with a sense of responsibility, especially on the matter of the future conduct of agitation in Ireland, should consult together and say whether they should any longer keep up any pretext of open agitation, or whether they should tell the Irish people that all free speech was at an end because their leaders would always be speaking at the mercy of an Executive Government. He would ask the Government what responsible man, or men, of independent thought, would make speeches in Ireland when they knew that they were at the mercy of some miserable Crown prosecutor in the pay of the Government. He thought the agitation now in Ireland had reached its crisis. He trusted his hon. Friend would press the Government still further to give way, and with that view he would move that the Chairman do report Progress.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Mealy.)

MR. GLADSTONE

said, the Government did not propose to offer further opposition to the proposal.

Motion agreed to.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

said, he wished to call attention to the difference between the tone adopted by the Government in yielding to the Motion to report Progress on this occasion, and the tone they assumed on a recent occasion, when the Leader of the Opposition, and a minority of 150 Members, desired the adjournment of the second reading of the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Bill. The Government had taken the whole time of the House for the consideration of this Bill; and hon. Members might assume that the Government had made up their minds that the Bill, as it stood, was essential for the administration of affairs in Ireland. Of course, Amendments might be proposed and debated; but the House had a right to expect that the Government, having taken all the time of the House, would show some determination in prosecuting the measure to which they attached such importance.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

complained of the attempt on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to introduce an element which had been conspicuously absent during the evening. The House had been engaged for more than eight hours in the discussion of the Bill; they had been discussing what everybody admitted was a very important clause; and surely 1 o'clock in the morning was not too early to consent to the Motion to report Progress. He did not think the Government could be fairly charged with any want of seriousness in prosecuting the Bill.

MR. GORST

observed, that that was not the charge preferred against the Government. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Sclater-Booth) very properly called attention to the difference between the tone in which the adjournment was assented to, and the tone which was used towards the whole of the Opposition, on an occasion when the Leader of the Opposition desired further debate upon a measure of first-rate importance. He joined with the Home Secretary in deprecating the observations of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sclater-Booth), because such observations were quite useless. It was part of the Government policy to show consideration to those who resolutely and determinedly opposed them; and when his right hon. Friend had steeped himself in treason to the lips he would, no doubt, receive some consideration from the Government.

MR. O'DONNELL

protested against the comparison that had been drawn by the Front Opposition Bench. He protested altogether against the pretence to put on the same footing the claim of the Representatives of a nation, threat- ened with total deprivation of its liberties, and the claim of an English Opposition Party, seeking Office above all things, to a further opportunity of spinning out a discussion on a Bill which their Party intended, as soon as they obtained coercion for Ireland, to throw out, either in this or the other House. They might listen with some impatience to the observations of the Irish Members when they knew that the Bill was sure to pass, and that they had the power, which they intended to use, of throwing out the Bill of a remedial character.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.